EUobserver.com

The EU could subsidise coal and other fossil-fuel-burning energy companies to support the rapid development of a controversial technology that involves the storage of carbon deep underground or under the sea bed, according to proposals currently under consideration.

However, the proposals have been made at precisely the same moment that the bulk of the international environmental movement chose to come out with extensive criticisms of the technology, known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS.

UK Liberal MEP Chris Davies, the lawmaker responsible for steering legislation on CCS through the European Parliament, wants to see a short-term 'double credit' special arrangement introduced into the third phase of the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS).

This would enable power plant operators to not only benefit from the ETS by not having to buy allowances, having not produced any CO2, but they would in addition be given an extra credit note for every tonne, which could then be sold on the carbon market.

The MEP stressed to the parliament's environment committee on Monday (5 May) that the arrangement would be only temporary.

Mr Davies will also propose three amendments to the draft legislation on the geological storage of carbon.

The first would require that any new fossil-fuel plants be 'CCS-ready', with the geological storage sites and means of transport of the carbon identified.

The second would demand that no new fossil fuel plant be authorised after 2015 unless its CO2 emissions are captured and stored.

And the third amendment would see the retrofitting of all fossil fuel plants with CCS technology by 2025.

Mr Davies told reporters on Tuesday that he has support in the environment committee from the Socialists, while the centre-right EPP, "taking the coal industry perspective" favours instead making coal-burning more efficient. The Greens support his three main amendments but strongly oppose the idea of double credits.

He hopes to achieve a first reading agreement on the legislation, a directive that offers a legal framework governing CCS, by December. The directive is part of the EU's broad package of climate and energy strategies.

At the council level, he warned that Italy and particularly Greece have been the strongest opponents of CCS, the latter largely due to earthquake concerns.

CCS too little too late, say green groups
On the same day that Mr Davies presented his proposals to the parliament's environment committee, some 121 environmental groups from around the world, including 49 based in Europe, led by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, issued their first major analysis of the technology.

Their report suggests that the earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at commercial scale is 2030 – too late to meet the demand that greenhouse gas emissions start to fall after 2015.

The technology itself uses between 10 and 40 percent of the energy produced by a power station, which is a huge waste, they say. "An energy penalty of just 20 percent would require the construction of an extra power station for every four built," reads the report, meaning more coal must be mined, transported and burnt.

Additionally, CCS power plants need 90 percent more freshwater than existing plants, worsening water shortages.

Dutch Green MEP Kathalijne Buitenweg, believes that while "CCS is indeed possible and the EU should establish certain standards and conditions, it's not the solution that Chris Davies thinks it is."

"And to be propose that we subsidise coal companies, that we reward polluters? This is utterly unbelievable," she told the EUobserver. "Every euro spent on coal is a euro not spent on renewables. They pollute. Let them pay to solve the problem."

The environmental movement is also split on the subject.

Greenpeace's and Friends of the Earth's sometime ally, WWF, and a Norwegian NGO, Bellona, that has specialised in CCS expertise, say they are frustrated with what they call the "ignorance" and "lack of realism" of other groups on the issue. But even internally, they point out, the groups are divided – the Norwegian chapter of Friends of the Earth refused to sign on to the document.

"Carbon capture and storage is not an ideal solution, but it buys us time," said Stephan Singer, a climate campaigner with WWF in Brussels, according to Reuters. "We believe it is part of the solution - an emergency exit."

Bellona meanwhile, issued a statement countering the Greenpeace report.

"CCS technology is currently available, and CO2 storage in geological formations has already been tested for decades and proven to be safe," said the group. "In a large-scale project similar to the storage that would occur from large combustion plants, 10 million tonnes of CO2 have been stored underground since 1996 from the Sleipner platform on the Norwegian shelf. No leakage has occurred."

Mr Davies, for his part, called the Greenpeace report "appalling and astoundingly ill-informed about the technology. It's just dangerous."

Mahi Sideridou, Greenpeace Europe's climate campaigner, responded to the criticism, saying: "The report is based on peer-reviewed science. All we ask is that [Mr Davies] read the report first and take these concerns into account in the drafting or amending of legislation."

EU parliament wades into carbon capture battlefield