Fd
F. de Rooij
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
1 records found
1
Equal Harm, Unequal Rules
A Functional-Equivalence Assessment of EU Crude Oil Supply Chains under RED III
This thesis applies RED III-equivalent non-GHG ecological sustainability criteria to EU crude oil supply chains as a structured thought experiment. The Renewable Energy Directive III (RED III) imposes strict ecological no-go zones and governance requirements on biomass, while crude oil, despite causing comparable or greater ecological harm, faces no equivalent regulation. This research addresses that asymmetry through five sub-questions, moving from criteria mapping through compliance assessment, typological extension, and scenario analysis to policy implications.
Four representative supply chains (Alberta, Canada; Ekofisk, Norway; Niger Delta, Nigeria; and Ghawar, Saudi Arabia) are assessed against fifteen operationalised indicators derived from Articles 29(2)–(7) and 30 of RED III. These results are extended typologically to the fourteen largest EU import source countries using WWF biome classification and the 2017 Natural Resource Governance Index. This extension assigns compliance by biome similarity rather than site-specific assessment, and 22.7% of imports remain unassessed.
Under the strict primary scenario, only 17.6% of current EU crude oil imports qualify as compliant, and the share never exceeds 23.2% under any scenario. Governance failure, not ecological harm, is the primary driver of exclusion, accounting for 25.4% of imports against 8.0% on ecological grounds. Norway and the United Kingdom are the only confirmed compliant sources. Under no IEA demand scenario does compliant supply approach projected demand within the transition period.
The research concludes that the asymmetry between biomass and crude oil lacks an ecological justification: excluding crude oil from an equivalent framework is a political choice rather than an ecological one, and a form of environmental injustice. Because the compliance risk lies in governance rather than spatial overlap, and a hard threshold would exclude most imports at once, any equivalent framework would need to be governance-first, verification-based, and phased. ...
Four representative supply chains (Alberta, Canada; Ekofisk, Norway; Niger Delta, Nigeria; and Ghawar, Saudi Arabia) are assessed against fifteen operationalised indicators derived from Articles 29(2)–(7) and 30 of RED III. These results are extended typologically to the fourteen largest EU import source countries using WWF biome classification and the 2017 Natural Resource Governance Index. This extension assigns compliance by biome similarity rather than site-specific assessment, and 22.7% of imports remain unassessed.
Under the strict primary scenario, only 17.6% of current EU crude oil imports qualify as compliant, and the share never exceeds 23.2% under any scenario. Governance failure, not ecological harm, is the primary driver of exclusion, accounting for 25.4% of imports against 8.0% on ecological grounds. Norway and the United Kingdom are the only confirmed compliant sources. Under no IEA demand scenario does compliant supply approach projected demand within the transition period.
The research concludes that the asymmetry between biomass and crude oil lacks an ecological justification: excluding crude oil from an equivalent framework is a political choice rather than an ecological one, and a form of environmental injustice. Because the compliance risk lies in governance rather than spatial overlap, and a hard threshold would exclude most imports at once, any equivalent framework would need to be governance-first, verification-based, and phased. ...
This thesis applies RED III-equivalent non-GHG ecological sustainability criteria to EU crude oil supply chains as a structured thought experiment. The Renewable Energy Directive III (RED III) imposes strict ecological no-go zones and governance requirements on biomass, while crude oil, despite causing comparable or greater ecological harm, faces no equivalent regulation. This research addresses that asymmetry through five sub-questions, moving from criteria mapping through compliance assessment, typological extension, and scenario analysis to policy implications.
Four representative supply chains (Alberta, Canada; Ekofisk, Norway; Niger Delta, Nigeria; and Ghawar, Saudi Arabia) are assessed against fifteen operationalised indicators derived from Articles 29(2)–(7) and 30 of RED III. These results are extended typologically to the fourteen largest EU import source countries using WWF biome classification and the 2017 Natural Resource Governance Index. This extension assigns compliance by biome similarity rather than site-specific assessment, and 22.7% of imports remain unassessed.
Under the strict primary scenario, only 17.6% of current EU crude oil imports qualify as compliant, and the share never exceeds 23.2% under any scenario. Governance failure, not ecological harm, is the primary driver of exclusion, accounting for 25.4% of imports against 8.0% on ecological grounds. Norway and the United Kingdom are the only confirmed compliant sources. Under no IEA demand scenario does compliant supply approach projected demand within the transition period.
The research concludes that the asymmetry between biomass and crude oil lacks an ecological justification: excluding crude oil from an equivalent framework is a political choice rather than an ecological one, and a form of environmental injustice. Because the compliance risk lies in governance rather than spatial overlap, and a hard threshold would exclude most imports at once, any equivalent framework would need to be governance-first, verification-based, and phased.
Four representative supply chains (Alberta, Canada; Ekofisk, Norway; Niger Delta, Nigeria; and Ghawar, Saudi Arabia) are assessed against fifteen operationalised indicators derived from Articles 29(2)–(7) and 30 of RED III. These results are extended typologically to the fourteen largest EU import source countries using WWF biome classification and the 2017 Natural Resource Governance Index. This extension assigns compliance by biome similarity rather than site-specific assessment, and 22.7% of imports remain unassessed.
Under the strict primary scenario, only 17.6% of current EU crude oil imports qualify as compliant, and the share never exceeds 23.2% under any scenario. Governance failure, not ecological harm, is the primary driver of exclusion, accounting for 25.4% of imports against 8.0% on ecological grounds. Norway and the United Kingdom are the only confirmed compliant sources. Under no IEA demand scenario does compliant supply approach projected demand within the transition period.
The research concludes that the asymmetry between biomass and crude oil lacks an ecological justification: excluding crude oil from an equivalent framework is a political choice rather than an ecological one, and a form of environmental injustice. Because the compliance risk lies in governance rather than spatial overlap, and a hard threshold would exclude most imports at once, any equivalent framework would need to be governance-first, verification-based, and phased.