Tuesday

26th Sep 2017

Opinion

Commission in do-nothing mode on climate change policy

  • Rather than issuing a 'what-do-you-think' document the commission ought to be saying what it thinks (Photo: europarl.europa.eu)

“Commission moves forward on climate and energy towards 2030” reads the headline of the press release accompanying a recent ‘green paper’ on the same issue.

Regrettably, the headline is more ambitious than the text of the paper.

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now and get 40% off for an annual subscription. Sale ends soon.

  1. €90 per year. Use discount code EUOBS40%
  2. or €15 per month
  3. Cancel anytime

EUobserver is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that publishes daily news reports, analysis, and investigations from Brussels and the EU member states. We are an indispensable news source for anyone who wants to know what is going on in the EU.

We are mainly funded by advertising and subscription revenues. As advertising revenues are falling fast, we depend on subscription revenues to support our journalism.

For group, corporate or student subscriptions, please contact us. See also our full Terms of Use.

If you already have an account click here to login.

The Commission is right in stating that “early agreement on the 2030 framework is important” in order to ensure the right infrastructure investment in the near future, to provide an incentive for innovation, and to decide the EU ambition level in the international climate negotiation of a post 2020 regime, to be finalized in 2015.

Unfortunately, rather than providing a stance on this, the document offers a number of general reflections and reports on the outcome of the different, already much debated, “roadmaps” on climate and energy policy.

There is no mentioning of the fact that any cost-effective trajectory from where we are today towards 2030 would imply more effort now than currently agreed in the 2020 policy.

The document reports, correctly, that emissions in 2011 were 16 percent below 1990 levels. But it fails to mention that this - taking Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) credits into account - is already an over-fulfillment of the 2020 target (this has been the case since 2009!).

The best way to get to a +/- 40% reduction in 2030 as suggested in the climate roadmap cannot be to do “nothing” (except keep present emission levels constant) over the next seven years and then aim for a 25 percent reduction in the subsequent 10 years.

In fact the situation is even worse. The Emissions Trading System (ETS) – allowing companies to trade pollution credits – has been capsized.

The unused emission allowances from the 2008-12 period, carried over into the 2013-20 trading period, plus the allowances to be auctioned in the coming years means that 2020 emissions from ETS-covered installations can easily exceed what would be consistent with the overall 20 percent reduction target by 2020.

The commission’s persistent hesitation in taking proper corrective action on the ETS is a major climate policy - and credibility - problem.

The document is also disappointingly silent on the more recent debate on the role of biomass in climate mitigation.

The scientific committee of the European Environment Agency in 2011 pointed out that the automatic consideration of biomass as carbon neutral is unjustified and may lead to major climate-unfriendly policy developments, particularly the substitution of natural gas with wood pellets.

Recent past history shows the commission is slow to act on new evidence - almost five years in the case of liquid biofuels.

There is no need to wait another three or four years before agreeing a more correct CO2 assessment of different types of solid biomass.

Less questioning and more action

But the most serious objection to the green paper is not on substance but on format.

A ‘green paper’ is appropriate when opening a new policy area or extending an existing one into uncharted waters. This is not the case for climate or energy policy.

Rather than issuing a what-do-you-think document, the commission ought to be telling us what the commission thinks.

There is no shortage of material on which a commission opinion, or even proposal, could have been based.

Moreover, it is not as if the answers of the important stakeholders are not already clear. I am far from being the only one able to anticipate the opinions of the electricity sector, the chemical industry, the renewable energy sector and the oil industry.

The commission’s reluctance to make policy proposals has serious implications. It paralyses the EU decision-making process. The elimination of SO2 from power plants, urban waste water treatment, or catalytic converters on cars would never have happened if the commission’s approach at the time had been: “What do you think?".

It appears obvious that the Commission is unable to agree on an ambitious climate policy. But even an unambitious policy proposal is better than a questionnaire.

The defensive commission position is particularly unfortunate given the current institutional timetable. Following the responses to the questions in the green paper, the commission is expected to table “proposals” by the end of the year.

But to what avail?

The European Parliament will go into election mode next year long before any legislative proposal could be dealt with. And the next parliament can, at best, only be expected to pronounce itself in the second half of 2015.

Can we afford to energy and climate policy remaining in limbo for the next three years?

The EU has been seen as the major player pushing for an ambitious global agreement on climate change. If it is to maintain this image in the negotiations towards 2015, it will be in spite of, rather than because of, present commission policy.

The writer is a former director in the European Commission and head of the European Commission’s negotiations on the UN Climate Convention and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EU2017EEEU Finance Ministers Agreed to Develop New Digital Taxation Rules
  2. Mission of China to the EUGermany Stands Ready to Deepen Cooperation With China
  3. World VisionFirst Ever Young People Consultation to Discuss the Much Needed Peace in Europe
  4. European Jewish CongressGermany First Country to Adopt Working Definition of Antisemitism
  5. EU2017EEFour Tax Initiatives to Modernise the EU's Tax System
  6. Dialogue PlatformResponsibility in Practice: Gulen & Islamic Thought
  7. Counter BalanceHuman Rights Concerns Over EIB Loan to the Trans Anatolian Pipeline Project
  8. Mission of China to the EUChina Leads the Global Clean Energy Transition
  9. CES - Silicones EuropeFrom Baking Moulds to Oven Mitts, Silicones Are a Key Ingredient in Kitchens
  10. Martens CentreFor a New Europeanism: How to Put the Motto "Unity in Diversity" Into Practice
  11. Access MBAGet Ahead With an MBA Degree. Top MBA Event in Brussels
  12. Idealist QuarterlyIdealist Quarterly Event: Building Fearless Democracies With Gerald Hensel

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Mission of China to the EUPresident Xi Urges Bigger Global Role for Emerging Economies
  2. EU2017EEAre We Socially Insured in the Future of Work?
  3. European Jewish CongressFrench Authorities to Root Out "Societal Antisemitism" After Jewish Family Assaulted
  4. European Federation of Local Energy CompaniesClean Energy for All? On 10.10 Top-Level Speakers Present the Clean Energy Package
  5. UNICEFUp to Three Quarters of Children Face Abuse & Exploitation on Mediterranean Migration Routes
  6. Swedish EnterprisesEurope Under Challenge; Recipe for a Competitive EU
  7. European Public Health AllianceCall to International Action to Break Deadlock on Chronic Diseases Crisis
  8. CES - Silicones EuropePropelling the construction revolution with silicones
  9. EU2017EEEU 2018 Budget: A Case of Three Paradoxes
  10. ACCAUS 'Dash for Gas' Could Disrupt Global Gas Markets
  11. Swedish Enterprises“No Time to Lose” Film & Debate on How Business & Politics Can Fight Climate Change
  12. European Free AllianceSave The Date!! 26.09 - Coppieters Awards To... Carme Forcadell