Wir brauchen keine neuen Häfen für Flüssigerdgas (LNG) in Norddeutschland!

Drei Standorte waren in den vergangenen Jahren im Gespräch, um dort neue Hafenanlagen zum Umschlag von LNG aus den USA zu errichten: Brunsbüttel, Wilhelmshaven und Stade. Der Betreiber Uniper hat seine Interessen am Standort Wilhelmshaven mittlerweile wegen fehlender Ren dite-Erwartungen aufgegeben. Auch für Brunsbüttel stehen die Chancen schlecht, die erforderlichen Genehmigungen zu erhalten – wenn man der DHU (Deutsche Umwelthilfe) Glauben schenkt. Bleibt noch Stade. Für den Ausbau in Stade hat die Hanseatic Energy Hub GmbH jetzt nach möglichen Interessen von Nutzern und Kunden gefragt. Damit möchte man herausfinden, wie die Chancen für einen wirtschaftlichen Betrieb der Anlagen stehen.

Einen „Letter of Disinterest“ haben 32 Verbände und Initiativen an den Betreiber gerichtet. Sie weisen darauf hin, dass die Nutzung von fossilen Brennstoffen ein Auslaufmodell ist und die massiven Investititonen in LNG-Häfen Investititonen in die Vergangenheit sind – und mithin unwirtschaftlich. Sie würden neue Abhängigkeiten schaffen, und LNG aus den USA ist ein Fracking-Produkt und schadet dem Weltklima erheblich.

Auch die BI „Kein Fracking in der Heide“ hat den Letter of Disinterest gezeichnet. Wir dokumentieren ihn hier und veröffentlichen den englischsprachigen Originaltext.

Link zum Brief als pdf-Datei:

2021-02-01 Mitzeichnung Letter_of_Disinterest_LNG_Stade

Text-Version des Schreibens:

Per email: sales@hanseastic-energy-hub.de

Hanseatic Energy Hub GmbH Am Sandtorkai 48

20457 Hamburg

 

CC: Investor Partners Group partnersgroup@partnersgroup.com

CC: Lower Saxony’s Environmental and Energy Minister olaf.lies@mu.niedersachsen.de

CC: Lower Saxony’s Economy Minister bernd.althusmann@mw.niedersachsen.de

Cc: LNG Agency Lower Saxony info@mariko-leer.de

Open Season offering capacity for LNG Stade terminal Letter of Disinterest

1 February 202

Dear Madam / Sir,

we, the undersigned organisations and groups, express herewith our profound disinterest to book regasification capacities at the LNG terminal Stade, Germany, and explain our position as follows:

1.       Negative climate impacts of fossil gas and LNG in particular

Gas is just another fossil fuel that we need to phase out within the next 10 to 30 years if we want to avoid overshooting significant climate tipping-points. The scientific evidence shows that fossil gas is a significant driver of global warming and climate change – not just due to the CO2 emissions produced during combustion, but also because of the methane leaks that occur during extraction and transport Therefore, fossil gas has no significant advantage compared to other fossil fuels.[i]

This is most definitely true for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) of which production consumes a considerable amount of energy[ii] (up to 25 percent of the actual energy value of the fossil gas can be lost during the liquefaction process).[iii] LNG transported to Europe (for example from the USA) would have a climate-footprint that is greater than that of coal.[iv]

But even if we leave the existing significant methane emissions aside, we know that global – economically recoverable – fossil fuels extraction projects (currently producing and under- construction), would take the world far beyond safe climate limits, which are already becoming less attainable by the day. Further development and trade of gas reserves is inconsistent with the implementation of the vital climate targets and thus threatens the survival of our civilisation as we know it.[v]

With regard to the European perspective, we have scientific data backing that – from 2035 onwards – the consumption of fossil fuels including fossil gas in the EU will be incompatible with the climate protection obligations under the Paris Agreement[vi] and the climate protection goals of the European Union.[vii] Gas demand is falling and needs to continue to do so in the coming years.[viii] New fossil infrastructure would only provide yet another justification as to why more fossil fuel usage is needed.

2.       Fossil lock-in and stranded assets

New gas infrastructure has a significant economic lifespan (usually between 30 and 50 years) that goes beyond the point when we would need to fully decarbonize. The construction of any new fossil fuel infrastructure, therefore, contributes to increasing the risk of missing the EU 2050 climate objective and Paris Agreement targets by creating a “lock in” effect to high levels of gas consumption. They undermine the competitiveness of the much-needed renewable energy rollout by shifting investments into unsustainable projects and by lowering the price of fossil energy via an oversupply.

Ongoing use of fossil fuels like gas without the consideration of climate goals will have devastating economic impacts on both sides of the Atlantic. For example, the 2018 COACCH (Co-Designing the Assessment of Climate Change Costs) study outlines the hundreds of billions of Euros per year that represent the economic costs of climate change in Europe in different scenarios for different sectors. Their review indicates that the costs of inaction will be potentially large in Europe.[ix] The potential, short-term economic boost that LNG-terminals and other fossil fuel projects promise is tiny in comparison to the damages these endeavors will cause in the mid and long-term – we must not fall into this trap if we are to preserve a prospering planet for generations to come.

Economic impacts will also arise because of stranded fossil fuel assets. A 2018 study, commissioned by the EU COM, on “The role of Trans-European gas infrastructure in the light of the 2050 decarbonisation targets”[x] concludes that “the utilisation level of LNG terminals and import pipelines would significantly decrease, and some assets might need to be decommissioned or used for other purposes”.

Another study, published in January 2020, states that investments in new gas infrastructure are “unnecessary to safeguard the security of supply in the EU28 and therefore risk to become stranded assets.” The study includes an analysis of the stranded asset risk of the proposed LNG terminals at Wilhelmshaven and Brunsbüttel[xi]. Stade is not even being mentioned in the report. As you might know, your competitor Uniper for the LNG Wilhelmshaven terminal had to recently announce a re- evaluation of its plans “because of market players‘ reluctance to make binding bookings for import capacities”.[xii]

There is substantial risk to the economies of fossil fuel exporting as well as importing nations from continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure. A study published in Nature Climate Change found that between one and four trillion dollars in fossil fuel assets globally are at risk from “an already ongoing technological trajectory, irrespective of whether or not new climate policies are adopted”.[xiii]

Climate concerns, non-existent social licenses and pandemic delays are already jeopardizing LNG projects worldwide, as highlighted in July 2020 by researchers at Global Energy Monitor.[xiv] There is widespread opposition of NGOs and grassroots groups against all proposed LNG terminals in Germany (including Stade).[xv] On top of that, a recent published legal opinion reveals that the Stade terminal is not eligible for approval.[xvi]

We therefore urge you to drop the project and invest instead in really climate friendly alternatives to the dying fossil fuel-based business-as-usual model. Whether you view it from a climate or an economic perspective – projects that bet on an increased consumption of fossil fuels are doomed to fail. For the sake of your business and for the sake of our climate, this is not the way forward.

Yours sincerely

Signatory/Organization/Group
Andy Gheorghiu Consulting, Campaigner & Consultant for climate/environmental protection & energy policy

Email: andy.gheorghiu@mail.de
Constantin Zerger, Head of Energy and Climate Protection

Environmental Action Germany Email: zerger@duh.de
Colin Roche, Programme Coordinator, Cimate Justice and Energy, Friends of the Earth Europe. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/
Scott Coombs, Secretary, Love Leitrim Secloveleitrim@gmail.com
John McElligott

Safety Before LNG

Island View, Convent Street, Listowel, County Kerry, Ireland https://twitter.com/SafetyBeforeLng www.SafetyBeforeLNG.ie
Olaf Bandt, Chairman, Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND)

olaf.bandt@bund.net
Jim Emberger, Spokesperson

New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance New Brunswick, Canada

 NBASGA

 

shaleinfo.nb@gmail.com www.noshalegasnb.ca
Wibke Langhorst

Aktionsbündnis No Moor Fracking Wagenfeld, Germany

info@no-moor-fracking.de
Ralf Hübner

Vorsitzender der ARGE Umweltschutz Haseldorfer Marsch, Hetlingen e.V. ralf.huebner@arge-umweltschutz.de
Sigrun Franzen

Pressesprecherin Berliner Wassertisch webmaster@berliner-wassertisch.info
350.org

Katja George, Germany Organizer katja.george@350.org

  

 
Abgefrackt Bündnis Weidener Becken gegen Fracking H.Lindner-Hausner www.abgefrackt.de

 

Energy Watch Group

Felix De Caluwe, Policy Officer de.caluwe@energywatchgroup.org
Prof. Dr. Andreas König für den Vorsitz der Wittorfer für Umwelt und Gesundheit (WUG) e.V.

wug-wittorf.de/
Pascal Bergeron, porte-parole Environnement Vert Plus, https://environnementvertplus.org/
Ken Summers, Spokesperson, Nova Scotia Fracking Resource and Action Coalition (NOFRAC)

kenpat@ns.sympatico.ca 1 902 957 2317
Renate Maass, Kein Fracking in der Heide, Spokesperson, www.kein-fracking-in-der- heide.de
Jana Bosse, Campaignerin BürgerBegehren Klimaschutz Haus der Demokratie Greifswalder Str.4

10405 Berlin

Tel: (030) 92250919

http://www.buerger-begehren-klimaschutz.de/
Harald Ruecker, Spokesperson BI lebenswertes Korbach

https://www.lebenswertes-korbach.org

 

ClientEarth – Anwälte der Erde e.V., Albrechtstr. 22, 10117 Berlin; Prof. Dr.

Hermann Ott, (Vorsitzender des Vorstands) Email: HOtt@clientearth.org
Micheal Sawyer, Executive Director

Citizens’ Oil & Gas Council Calgary, Alberta, Canada Tel: 250-877-8678

Email: sawyer@hayduke.ca
 

Volker H.A. Fritz für:

Arbeitskreis Fracking Braunschweiger Land fritzrserv1@fritzvpack.de
Christfried Lenz für

BI “Saubere Umwelt & Energie Altmark”
Animals Are Sentient Beings, Inc. Sarah Stewart, President
Frack Free United, UK Steve Mason, Director
Gemeinnütziger Umweltschutzverein pro grün

e.V. Paderborn

Fritz Buhr, Ehrenvorsitzender E-Mail: fritz.buhr@t-online.de
NaLaKiZu Bürgerstark

Laubegg 3

D-88317 Aichstetten NaLaKiZu@buergerstark.de

  
Bürgerinitiative gegen CO2-Endlager e.V. https://www.keinco2endlager.de/

Dr. Reinhard Knof, Vorsitzender
IG Fracking-freies Artland e.V. 49610 Quakenbrück

Dr. Maria Entrup-Henemann fracking-freies-artland@t-online.de
Hamburger Energietisch e. V. https://www.hamburger-energietisch.de Bernd Liefke, Vorsitzender info@hamburger-energietisch.de

 

Block Baltic Pipe, Denmark nobalticpipe@protonmail.com http://www.balticpipe.net/en/ Charlotte Valløe
Ende Gelände! www.ende-gelaende.de info@ende-gelaende.de

 

[i] http://www.howarthlab.org/

[ii] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/547/1/012012/pdf

[iii] https://www.fluessiggas1.de/lng-gas-entstehung-und-einsatz-von-fluessigerdgas/ [iv]

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_climate_action/submissions

/2019/2019-10-10_opening-statement-robert-w-howarth-ph-d-cornell-university_en.pdf

  • Oil Change International. „Debunked: The G20 Clean Gas Myth“. 11 June 2018. Available at:

http://priceofoil.org/2018/06/11/debunked-g20-clean-gas-myth/

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Pflichtfelder sind mit * markiert.