Fossil fuel footprint of multinational corporations in the energy plan

Finally, here is the long-awaited National Plan for Integrated Energy and Climate (PNIEC) for 2023. A substantial document that requires close scrutiny, but reveals on the first cursory read the fossil footprints of multinational corporations. Yes, because the carbon removal targets requested by Europe are being achieved thanks to a significant contribution from Underground Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS, Carbon Capture and Storage) technology. That is, instead of not being emitted using renewables, fossil fuels continue to be partially burned and the resulting carbon dioxide is buried, thus not going into the atmosphere.

to note it The scientific community has strong concerns about the safety and reliability of this technological solution, which is also unsustainable in its essence, as it is centered on the principle of extraction, production and disposal and is the root cause of the environmental crisis. Then there are the huge costs that could not be repaid if there were no public contributions. Oil and gas companies are pushing this technology so much because if stressed they can continue to extract, sell and benefit from their products, in addition to paying landfill fees for the resulting waste, CO2. In fact, they have the technological ability to extract carbon dioxide from combustion fumes, liquefy it and pump it underground. Double the profit, say goodbye to the transition to renewable sources. Indeed, a triple or quadruple gain, because if – as they intend – carbon dioxide is pumped into a depleted hydrocarbon tank, all that oil or gas that’s left and that didn’t come out on its own gets compressed, and that’s the “juice” you’re selling. It is sold and then of course used, which creates more carbon dioxide and partially nullifies the previous burial. But comfort is not just there.

places where Carbon dioxide today cannot be buried everywhere. It is therefore necessary to extract carbon dioxide from the place of production and transport it in special pipes that must be built and also, if the cemetery (burial place) is outside, use special vessels. Great job, lots of things to build that cost a lot, with the goal of getting the community to pay. Eni’s intention to use depleted sediments from the Adriatic Sea to pump CO2 into it was already known, according to its strategic plan, but PNIEC outlines a much larger project. He unveiled a plan aimed at making Italy not only a center for methane, extracted in Africa and the Middle East for transportation to various European countries (as announced by the government), but also a center for carbon dioxide. There is talk of inflows of CO2 from other countries in the Mediterranean region, within the Callisto project which, literally: «engages Italy along the entire supply chain, providing a significant commitment to the development of the infrastructure for the capture, transport and storage of CO2 in Italy. In this project, Italy is the recipient country of CO2 emissions from other countries, becoming the focus of the supply chain through geological storage site in the Adriatic Sea.” Really cool idea: Italy’s CO2 waste fund in the Mediterranean. In short, we shouldn’t Only strengthening the gas transport network as a European hub by counting on the failure of the European Green Deal (in fact by provoking it), but we must also build a new network for transporting carbon dioxide.. All against the goal of ending fossilization forever.

Not to mention, the inevitable losses of methane at extraction and along the grid are a huge contributor to global warming, and if the gas continues to flow in to be burned and then bury the carbon dioxide, the losses will remain.

But not only there This is at PNIEC. On the other hand, if it appears to meet the targets set by Europe for the share of renewable electricity to be produced, it lacks a reduction in CO2 emissions, which is why it plans to resort to CO2 capture and storage: rather than reducing it. them underground. In fact, the reduction of emissions envisaged for the non-energy industry is minimal, because the implementation of a circular economy is not taken into account, whereby products must be designed and manufactured in such a way as to ensure at a minimum that they are durable, repairable, reusable, renewable and ultimately recyclable. Ultimate. On the other hand, the PNIEC interprets the circular economy as simple recycling, and indicates that, while the implementation of a “real” circular economy implies a reduction in production in favor of maintenance and, if less is produced, less carbon dioxide without harming economic activities and employment. And you can do without CCS.

reduce production of consumer goods, i.e. reducing consumerism, among other things, leads to less movement of goods, with a consequent positive effect on transport emissions. This sector also sees the footprint of fossil multinationals, because biofuels are promoted, which the scientific literature (and the European Commission) unhesitatingly denounces due to its significant environmental and social impact.