Baltic Sea oil spill may be inevitable

  • 2011-04-06
  • By Linas Jegelevicius

LACKING OPTIONS: Janez Potocnik says that the EU needs to strengthen the renewable energy sector.

KLAIPEDA - The Climate Change Conference in Budapest on March 23-24 highlighted an array of environmental issues, ranging from CO2 emission management to the pollution of the Baltic Sea, and impending environmental dangers due to likely nuclear power plant construction on the Lithuanian-Belarusian border and in the proximity of Lithuania’s western border, in Kaliningrad. The conference attracted many leading EU environment decision-makers, strategists and 60 journalists representing most EU countries.

“Regarding the Baltic Sea, the question should be asked not whether an ecological incident will ever happen [there], but rather when it will happen. Therefore, we all have to get ready for it. All Baltic States should prepare special plans aimed at dealing with seemingly inevitable ecological incidents in the Baltic Sea,” Magnus von Schenck, manager of the Swedish project “Baltic Master II,” emphasized in his address to the 60-journalist gathering. He stressed that the Baltic Sea has one of the world’s busiest cargo ship, including oil-transporting tanker, traffic. According to the World Nature Fund, crude oil and oil products export volumes have doubled over nearly 15 years in the Baltic Sea, reaching 160 million tons in 2011. “The Baltic Sea is particularly susceptible to ecological dangers, as it is a closed sea – its waters change slowly. Statistically, yearly we register 120-150 various accidents related to oil spills in the sea, resulting in spills of several hundreds tons of oil products, which makes the sea particularly vulnerable compared with other seas,” Schenck pointed out.

The Baltic Sea region encompasses nine countries and over 500 various size seaports. The conference participants, gripped by the Fukushima reactors’ meltdown, threatening Japan with a major ecological disaster, were Japan-conscious when grilling EU decision-makers and environmental strategists. To a question by a Lithuanian journalist on whether the European Commission may review its policies regarding use of nuclear energy in the EU countries, Artur Runge-Metzger, director for Climate Strategy and Negotiations at the European Commission, said that the Commission “respects self-determination of the member countries.” However, he admitted that the nuclear disaster could have an impact on the energy mix in the EU. “If, politically, the nuclear incident in Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant would lead to changes in the views of European governments, to keep building nuclear plants or not to build them, of course, that would have an impact on the energy mix of those countries,” he admitted.

Regarding the EU’s 20-20-20 plan, which by 2020 foresees reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20 percent below 1990 levels, as well as 20 percent of EU energy consumption to come from renewable resources and a 20 percent reduction in primary energy use compared with projected levels to be achieved by improving energy efficiency,  Runge-Metzger said that “energy efficiency is the weakest link.”
“On the policy side, we have adopted these three directions. Where we are lagging behind is on the energy efficiency side. We probably will only make half of that,” he said.

“We simply do not have a lot of options when it comes to nuclear energy, in only employing renewable energy sources,” EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik acknowledged at the conference. He was responding to a question if the effect of the Japanese disaster on the future of nuclear energy would alter the energy mix and Roadmap targets for moving to a low carbon economy by 2050. The so-called EU Energy Roadmap, adopted in the beginning of the year, is mostly a set of various documents foreseeing steps needed to reach the EU’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95 percent on 1990 levels by 2050. The Roadmap’s “major and sustained investment” is proposed for renewable energy, smart grids, carbon capture and storage (CCS), advanced industrial processes and electrification of transport over a 40-year period. The paper predicts that the implementation of the task may amount to some 270 billion euros annually, or an additional 1.5 percent of EU GDP per year.

“My personal preferable option would be the strengthening of alternative energy sectors and our commitment to renewables - to invest more into them, and try to find better technological solutions,” said Potocnik.
Asked whether the EU can somehow influence Belarus’ and Russia’s decisions to build nuclear plants in the close proximity of Lithuania, Potocnik said “EU countries are subjected to clear-cut rules regarding nuclear plant construction in the EU, however, non-EU countries have to perceive the importance of the issue as well.” Though declining to elaborate, the commissioner pointed out that, in Lithuania’s case, the world convention regarding environmental assessment of such nuclear projects should be applied also to Belarus, a non-EU country. “I am not sure how it works with the country, however, if it has signed the Convention, it has to abide by its rules,” Potocnik said.

Lithuania’s Ministry of Environment had previously sent a letter to Belarus’ high-ranking authorities claiming that their prepared environmental assessment of the to-be nuclear plant is inappropriate and, therefore, should be assessed critically.