EU Commission fails on climate change

The European Commission today presented its package of legislative proposals on climate and energy - including emissions trading, renewables and 'effort sharing'. I have to say I was deeply disappointed with the result.

Photo: View from Whiteshill down towards Painswick Valley earlier this week when I was delivering leaflets to the ward

Here is what Green MEP for the South East and Climate Committee Co-ordinator Caroline Lucas said: "It is a serious source of regret that the EU Commission has based its climate package on a mere 20% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020. Member States have committed to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction (which is in line with the reduction scientists agree is the minimum necessary) assuming an international agreement is reached. By setting the bar lower from the outset, the EU is negatively prejudging the outcome of international climate negotiations and sending the wrong signal to the rest of world. Basing the overall emissions cap under the Emissions Trading Scheme on a 20% reduction assumption is the most glaring example of this pessimism. However, it has a knock-on effect across the board, with the UK reduction target of 16% (from 2005 emissions) for non-ETS sectors falling far below what is required to tackle climate change.

"The Commission's pessimism also prevailed in the treatment of energy-intensive sectors under the next round of the Emissions Trading Scheme. There should be no unfair environmental dumping against EU energy-intensive sectors. In exempting these sectors from auctioning until 2020, the Commission is starting from the negative assumption that no other countries will introduce binding measures to reduce emissions from these sectors. This could be circumvented by the use of a climate levy. "

The proposal to include the purchasing of credits from the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation or other external projects for meeting even this -20% is flawed and inconsistent. Until there is an international post-2012 climate agreement there is no certainty regarding these credits and there would be no legal base for them. In any event, the use of credits should be limited and industries should not be allowed to buy their way out of reductions."

On the proposed legislation for renewable energy Dr Lucas added: "While the overall thrust of the proposed legislation on how the EU should meet its 20% renewable energy target by 2020 is positive, the proposed target for renewables in the UK, at 15%, falls far short of the enormous potential we have. Instead of regarding an expansion in renewable energy as some kind of punitive means of achieving climate goals, the government should acknowledge it as a key means of reducing our dependence on foreign energy and creating jobs in Europe. Crucially, the target is based on final consumption, so energy saving and energy efficiency are central to meeting the target."

Dr Lucas also criticised the specific EU target for agro-fuels, saying: "Despite the cacophony of warnings against an expansion in the use of agro-fuels, the Commission is continuing to bury its head in the sand. Even the Commission's own experts have cautioned that a serious expansion in the use of this generation of 'biofuels' will wreak serious social and environmental damage without delivering any real emissions reductions. The only way to avoid this damage is to scrap the 10% binding target agreed last year and we strongly urge Member States to do so.

"The proposed sustainability criteria are completely inadequate, as well as being enormously difficult to enforce, and it is completely unacceptable that Member States should be prevented from introducing stricter criteria. Moreover, in the short term, the Commission is also refusing to even try to ensure that all biofuel production results in net greenhouse gas savings. Rather than playing with fire, the EU should simply scrap the mandatory 10% target for biofuels."