There are still concerns about each technology, which have in various parts of Europe stoked resistance to pilot and full-scale deployment projects. Wind farms are criticised for being noisy eyesores. Biofuels are accused threatening biodiversity and negatively affects food production and prices. Opponents of CCS projects say the technology is still risky. There have been ‘not-in-my-backyard’ reactions to solar projects, with complaints that solar parks affect land prices. Yet, at the same time, opinion polls show that the general public remains very supportive of renewable energies.

This puts politicians and decision-makers in a difficult position. Unless the public accepts these new technologies, the EU will not reach its targets to decrease emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels by 2020, increase the share of renewables in its energy mix to 20% and de-carbonise its energy sector by 2050. Equally, Europe’s competitiveness will be affected unless employment and competitiveness opportunities must be met.

The EU and its member states have already developed tools that allow for public involvement in decision-making on infrastructure projects, through their environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment legislations. But public consultation is not made mandatory, and public consultation does not automatically lead to support either.

Should the EU develop a specific strategy to win public support of new technological infrastructure projects? Is it up to member states or regions to persuade local populations?

Is public awareness sufficient? How can the EU bridge the gap between theory and practice?

This debate takes places during the Committee of the Regions’ Open Days that brings together representatives from Europe’s Regions and Cities.

——

Provisional Timing

14.00-14.30 Welcome of participants and registration

14.30-14.35 Introduction of participants by European Voice senior editorial staff

14.35-14.45 Presentation by Ron van Erck, policy officer, DG energy, European Commission, of preliminary findings of European Commission (DG energy) study on public attitudes to low-carbon energy technologies

14.45-15.15 Panel discussion

• Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for climate action (until 15.30)
• Jean-Marc Nollet, vice-president, minister in charge of energy and sustainable development, Wallonia Region*
• Vicente J. Cortes, president, CIUDEN foundation
• Nick Pidgeon, professor of applied psychology, Cardiff University
• Andrea Athanas, senior programme officer, energy, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

15.15-16.25 Debate (audience participation strongly encouraged)

16.25-16.30 Conclusions by Graeme Sweeney, executive vice-president – Group CO2, Shell

16.30 Networking reception

——

To register for the Comment:Visions event, click here and select workshop number 05C05

In North America, this sudden expansion of available gas has contributed to keeping gas prices low, despite ever rising demand. It has also helped the US to pursue its strategic objective of reducing its dependence on gas imports. Furthermore, the boom in unconventional gas in the US has changed the dynamics of markets for liquefied natural gas (LNG), with some supplies originally intended for the US being diverted to other markets including some in Europe.

As some European regions, particularly in Northern Europe, have similar geological structures to ones where unconventional gas has been found in North America, there are hopes that unconventional gas could offer the European Union a huge increase in domestic supplies. Energy companies have been rushing to explore the possibilities in these regions, leading to talk of a new ‘gas rush’.

For countries such as Poland, which are heavily dependent on Russian gas imports and rely on coal for most of their domestic energy production, unconventional gas could open a new chapter in energy policy. It would make domestic energy supply more secure, and reduce CO2 emissions since burning gas emits significantly less CO2 than burning coal.

A boom in unconventional gas would also have considerable implications for the EU’s energy policy. Abundant gas supplies – through increased domestic production or cheaper LNG imports – would make it easier to reach CO2 reduction targets and to electrify transport. It could also lower incentives to invest in some costly infrastructure projects, and make some technologies less attractive.

Sceptics warn of exaggerated enthusiasm, stressing that in a more densely populated continent than the US, public acceptance of projects that are likely to have heavy environmental consequences cannot be taken for granted. Unconventional gas extracted from European territory is not expected to come to market for at least a decade.

This event looked at the potential of unconventional gas to transform the European energy supply situation. It addressed the technological and economic challenges unconventional gas faces as well as the questions of public acceptance.

Feedback Form: Fill out the event feedback form here

As the transport sector is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, the second biggest energy consumer and the only sector where emissions are still growing, achieving sustainable mobility will be an essential element of any effort to reach the EU’s climate goals.

“Europe 2020″, the EU’s blueprint for economic reform, will include a number of initiatives (both legislative and financial) to support investment in infrastructure and low-carbon technologies. The Commission is to present a package of measures on transport and climate.

Which path will Europe’s decision-makers choose? So far, the European Commission has refrained from giving preference to one particular technology. Concerning mobility, it prefers to concentrate more on enabling elements – research and infrastructures – than end-user technologies.

Following the event, we caught up with some of the attendees who had earlier posed questions from the floor.

The summit also revealed the limits of EU influence. The EU, which had been instrumental in getting the Kyoto protocol agreed, was unable to shape a deal in Copenhagen, outmanoeuvred by the US and China.

What lessons should the EU draw from Copenhagen? Can the EU still be a driving force in global climate politics? Should the EU continue to push for a global agreement, or should it consider other options, such as bilateral agreements?

These are just some of the questions that Comment:Visions invites you to debate with a panel of senior EU decision-makers and stakeholders.

In less than two years the political mood had changed from quiet confidence in biofuels to hesitancy studded with caveats and qualifications, reflecting growing concern over the environmental credentials of biofuels and their impact on food prices. Conservationists fear that mass production of energy crops could lead to damaging changes to land use resulting in higher carbon emissions and lost biodiversity. Last year’s dramatic rise in food prices also triggered doubts about the potential social costs of energy crops, from organisations such as the World Bank.

But some fear that the tide has turned too far against biofuels, arguing that they still hold out the promise of greener energy and reduced dependency on fossil fuels. Although biofuels are still at an early stage, a second, third or even fourth generation of biofuels might yet deliver undisputed environmental benefits, it is argued.

Against this controversy, this debate will look at the future of biofuels in Europe. How big will be their place in Europe’s energy mix? What benefits can they bring? How can they be produced in a sustainable way? Is the EU taking the right approach or being too cautious? How does the debate affect relations with biofuel-producing countries outside the EU?

Can Europe actually afford to do without supplies of Russian gas? Are there alternatives, and if so, what are they? What legal guarantees should the EU seek in international agreements? What infrastructure projects should the EU support? Should the EU ease foreign companies’ access to its energy market in order to build confidence with supplier countries? Is interdependence the solution to securing Europe’s energy future?

These are just some of the questions that the panel and a select audience of politicians, officials, businesspeople and experts will have an opportunity to discuss on 27 April in the European Parliament in Brussels.

A political consensus has emerged in favour of implementing CCS, but many questions remain about how to ensure that it delivers the expected benefits. Will the recently approved legislation provide sufficient incentives for businesses to invest in CCS? What other incentives exist? Is the market ready for CCS?

The conference ‘The new challenges of sustainable agriculture’ will address the most relevant questions for
farmers and policymakers:

• What place will energy crops have in Europe?
• Is environmental conditionality delivering the desired results?
• What contribution can agriculture make to combatting climate change?

• How likely are conflicts over natural resources – water, food and fuel – and what would be the implications for the EU?

• What consequences will climate change have for the EU’s relations with third countries?

• Are large-scale environmental catastrophes necessary before politicians can contemplate making unpopular policy responses?

• How might scenario-planning help governments, industry and individuals prepare?

The debate will be moderated by Jennifer Rankin, European Voice’s environment and energy reporter.

The discussion will focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and will address questions such as:

• Is CCS viable and when?
• Does CCS increase reliance on fossil fuels?
• Will CCS divert resources away from developing renewable sources of energy?
• Who is responsible if stored carbon dioxide leaks?