Activities of Anna ROSBACH related to 2013/2079(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on implementation report 2013: developing and applying carbon capture and storage technology in Europe PDF (207 KB) DOC (97 KB)
Amendments (17)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to the Council decision concerning the approval on behalf of the European Community, of the Amendments of Annex II and Annex III to the Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) in relation to the storage of carbon dioxide streams in geological formations 2009/0071(CNS)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a provenmising technology that potentially can significantly reduce CO2 emissions from industrial sources and fossil fuel power plants but requires private sector investment and industrial-scale demonstration to promote innovation and secure cost reductions;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the general public should always receive a full and clear picture of CCS advantages and possible threats before any projects are developed at commercial scale;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that CCS deployment is needed forhas the potential to allow the EU to meet its 2050 low- carbon aspirations at least cost; affirms the urgent need to develop a range of full- chain low-cost CCS flagship projects; appreciates that instruments in addition to the EU ETS are needed to drive forward their development;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Believes that although CCS might offer part of the solution to reaching the goals for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, it would be even better if the Member States could reach these goals without the use of CCS;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that CCS development cannot take place without support from Member States and private sector investment; regrets that application of the technology has been encouraged by so few, but underlines that it is up to the individual Member States if they want to allow or encourage CCS;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that Member States, in case they decide to make use of CCS technology, have the a key role in providing a transparent revenue stream, such as feed-in tariffs, to support the construction and operation of flagship projects while enabling operators to secure a return on their investment, and in introducing regulatory requirements such as environmental safety standards and guarantees that first-mover CCS power plants provide baseload electricity generation;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to propose creating an EU Industrial Innovation Fund from the sale of 600m allowances from the EU ETS to support the development of CCS flagship projects, other innovative low-carbon technologies, and measures to reduce CO2 emissions from energy- intensive industries, but underlines that it is important that the creation of such a fund does not lead to an increase in the overall EU budget;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that longer-term CCS support should be derived principally from the production and import of the fossil fuels responsible for the release of CO2; calls on the Commission to propose the introduction from 2020 of a system requiring the purchase of either CCS certificates proving the storage of CO2 in proportion to that embedded within their products, or another form, excluding the purchase of emissions quotas, of compensating for the CO2 emissions;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Acknowledges that significant financial savings can be made by prioritising CCS clusters of industrial installations served by shared pipelines; suggests that plant operators cannot be expected to take into account the future requirements of other installations, so trunk pipelines that may eventually carry CO2 from numerous sources should often be developed through public-private sector partnerships; emphasises that Member States have a direct role to play in ensuring the provision of CCS transport and determining the availability of storage infrastructure, if they decide to allow or encourage the use of CCS technology;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes claims that a North Sea hub could provide storage for 100m tonnes of CO2 pa by 2030 and 500m tonnes pa by 2050; supports the use of EU funds to establish a common definition of a storage site's character, identify the geological potential of storage locations across Europe, develop pilot projects and prepare sites for commercial-scale storage in the Member States that decide to allow CCS on their territory;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recognises the concern of potential CCS developers that the requirements of the CCS Directive appear one-sided, may require private companies to accept excessive liability for CO2 storage despite their work being approved by a Member State's competent authority, and could pose a significant deterrent to investment, also recognises however the sovereign right of the individual Member States to decide to discontinue the use of CCS if they should wish to do so;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Fully accepts that any accidental release of CO2 from a storage site must be prevented, but believes thate Commission must look into whether the individual Member States mustshould share the liability once they have authorised a storage site and approved the conditions for its use; insists that the details of such liability should be a matter for negotiation between potential operators and the competent authorityies of the individual Member States;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Suggests that the CCS Directive requirement that in the event of CO2 leakage operators must surrender allowances does not take into account the costly remedial efforts required; fears that this obligation puts a further obstacle in the way of CCS development; calls on the Commission to propose a revisionreview if this is a real problem or not in its assessment of the CCS Directive;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Insists that it is no longer acceptable to invest in power plants or industrial installations likely to emit large quantities of CO2 without regard to how this will be reduced in the future;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to proposesuggest that it can be a condition, in the Member States that have decided to make use of CCS technology, of construction that adequate preparation for CCS implementation is made for all new fossil fuel power plants and high-emission industrial installations above an agreed size, except in the case of electricity demand peak shavers or when a Member State has complied with a legislative requirement to publish a roadmap indicating how it will meet its 2050 CO2 reduction goals without the use of CCS;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the various initiatives to make use of CO2 in ways that reduce overall emissions into the atmosphere; calls in particular for the Commission urgently to assess the potential for the use of CO2 to enhance oil and gas recovery within the EU and underlines the need to focus on the long term security of the projects;