Wednesday

22nd Nov 2017

Opinion

Proof of climate plan in the implementation pudding

  • Few of the leaders who may sign up to these proposals will be in government in 2020 (Photo: EUobserver)

There is much that is momentous in the European Commission's climate and energy proposals announced on 23 January, even if a lot seems to rely more on hope than clear planning. What will the rest of the world make of this bold leap forward?

The key aim is that by 2020, Europe should have reduced its carbon emissions by 20 per cent, improved its energy efficiency by 20 per cent and be obtaining 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources compared with a baseline of 2005. In addition, 10 per cent of road fuel should by that date derive from biological rather than from fossil sources.

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now for a 30 day free trial.

  1. €150 per year
  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.

These of course are the headline targets beloved these days by governments of all complexions. Setting targets has become a unfortunate proxy for delivery, especially when responsibility for their achievement can safely be left to others; easier still when, as in this case, the target is not based on an action plan whose feasibility has been demonstrated. Without such plans, we should not be surprised if they are not attained.

It is relatively easy to set an arbitrary target - even a ‘binding' target - to achieve something in twelve years time. It is rather harder to set a target for the next three years, or one year, and to obtain agreement to penalties that will be levied if that interim target is breached.

Few of the leaders who may sign up to these proposals will be in government in 2020.

The danger with targets

So what is likely to happen, is that we shall make some stumbling and not very effectual progress. When it becomes clear that we will not achieve the targets we set ourselves without considerable sleight of hand, we just conjure up some new and even more ambitious targets that will swallow up our non-achievement thus far and conveniently relieve us of the need to account for progress with the present ones.

This, after all is what we are doing now with the modest Kyoto targets from which Europe as a whole is still a long way short of achievement without resorting to those ‘special mechanisms' which have always appeared slightly dodgy. This is the danger with targets.

Nevertheless, Kyoto served to bring most of the rest of the world onto the climate action train, and these bold proposals may similarly continue to impress, even though without more detailed implementation planning, they still seem like style over substance. I can't even see how they all could be achieved together. This is not a question of cost or political will, but of simple mathematics.

If energy efficiency improves by 20 per cent, then emissions will fall by 20 per cent all other things being equal. If now 20 per cent of this energy comes from non-carbon sources then emissions will fall still further. Achieving the targets for energy efficiency and renewables will thus lead to emission reductions of some 30 per cent.

Of course if energy demand rises, then the drop in emissions will be less. But I have never understood how it is possible, across an economy, to measure energy efficiency independently of energy use. Yes, this light bulb may consume less electricity than that one, but what also matters is the time for which it is turned on. The off switch requires no investment, whereas replacing a boiler or ordering expensive insulation does.

Total energy use therefore also needs a target. Reminding consumers of their energy consumption - the heating of buildings is the greatest single contributor to carbon emissions - could help here. Control energy demand, and energy efficiency will look after itself. If we are serious about global warming we should be prepared occasionally to be chilly.

Omitting nuclear from the target energy mix

Another major weakness is the Commission's reluctance to focus on 'low-carbon' energy soures and thus to omit nuclear from the target energy mix. If we are serious about fighting climate change and reducing carbon emissions then we cannot afford one hand tied behind our backs.

Of course, nuclear energy is associated with difficulties and problems. As are nuclear weapons. But just as most Europeans have managed to justify nuclear armed alliances as a means of defending their freedoms, so they need to reconcile themselves to nuclear energy as a means of defending the world against climate change.

In the context of 'binding' targets, nuclear energy offers the prospect of a clear and implementable plan towards a low carbon economy. Much space heating, now fuelled by gas or oil, could be converted to nuclear electricity. Much road fuel, could, in a few years, be substituted by non-polluting electrically produced hydrogen.

Moreover, if heavy power users such as the aluminium smelters, are not to be driven out of Europe by costly traded emission credits, they will need to have available large amounts of reliable low-carbon power. Where is this to come from if not from nuclear?

When Mr Barroso announced these proposals in the European Parliament - and surely the nod in this democratic direction must be counted one of their more commendable features - he put the annual cost at about three tankfuls of petrol - around EUR 150 per year for each European citizen.

That seems quite modest. Others suspect that it will cost considerably more. It is hard to see how anyone can know for certain and in any case, what we actually pay for our energy will be determined by much more than these Commission proposals.

Nevertheless there will be a cost, and for Europe as a whole this will be massive, maybe €1000 billion by 2020. Furthermore, these changes are likely to affect, in one way or another, the lifestyle of everyone in the European Union. Of course they represent an opportunity as well as a cost: the opportunity to lead the world into reversing climate change, perhaps and the opportunity to exploit world markets in green technology.

For these reasons, the climate and energy plans need to be considered every bit as seriously as the Constitutional Treaty for their impact is likely to be considerably more momentous. A lot of work needs to go into the implementation plans in the next year or so.

The rest of the world will be watching.

The author is editor of EuropaWorld

The EU's half-hearted Ostpolitik

If, as the EU claims, the Eastern Partnership summit is not a format for conflict resolution, where else will the security issues that hold the region back be resolved?

EU must confront Poland and Hungary

Curtailing NGOs and threatening judicial independence are the hallmarks of developing-world dictators and authoritarian strongmen, not a free and pluralistic European Union.

Mind the gap: inequality in our cities

Minimum wages, 'living' wages and a universal basic income are all part of the ongoing mix to find ways to reduce social inequality across the EU.

The anti-glyphosate lobby strikes again

Opponents of glyphosate too often rely on one - contested - piece of research, or smear their opponents as stooges for the chemicals industry.

EU's eastern partnership needs revival

A week before a summit with EU eastern neighbours, Sweden and Poland's foreign ministers propose "a way ahead" for the relationship that is more focused on people's needs.

EU must confront Poland and Hungary

Curtailing NGOs and threatening judicial independence are the hallmarks of developing-world dictators and authoritarian strongmen, not a free and pluralistic European Union.

Mind the gap: inequality in our cities

Minimum wages, 'living' wages and a universal basic income are all part of the ongoing mix to find ways to reduce social inequality across the EU.

News in Brief

  1. December euro summit still on, Tusk confirms
  2. EU calls for end to Kenya election crisis
  3. Report: Israeli PM invited to meet EU ministers
  4. French banks close Le Pen accounts
  5. Commission relaxes rules on labelling free range eggs
  6. Commission issues €34m fine over car equipment cartel
  7. Estonian presidency 'delighted' with emissions trading vote
  8. Mladic found guilty of genocide and war crimes

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Idealist Quarterly"Dear Politics, Time to Meet Creativity!" Afterwork Discussion & Networking
  2. Mission of China to the EUAmbassador Zhang Ming Received by Tusk; Bright Future for EU-China Relations
  3. EU2017EEEstonia, With the ECHAlliance, Introduces the Digital Health Society Declaration
  4. ILGA EuropeFreedom of Movement For All Families? Same Sex Couple Ask EU Court for Recognition
  5. European Jewish CongressEJC to French President Macron: We Oppose All Contact With Far-Right & Far-Left
  6. EPSUWith EU Pillar of Social Rights in Place, Time Is Ticking for Commission to Deliver
  7. ILGA EuropeBan on LGBTI Events in Ankara Must Be Overturned
  8. Bio-Based IndustriesBio-Based Industries: European Growth is in Our Nature!
  9. Dialogue PlatformErdogan's Most Vulnerable Victims: Women and Children
  10. UNICEFEuropean Parliament Marks World Children's Day by Launching Dialogue With Children
  11. European Jewish CongressAntisemitism in Europe Today: Is It Still a Threat to Free and Open Society?
  12. Counter BalanceNew Report: Juncker Plan Backs Billions in Fossil Fuels and Carbon-Heavy Infrastructure

Latest News

  1. Mali blames West for chaos in Libya
  2. Orban stokes up his voters with anti-Soros 'consultation'
  3. Commission warns Italy over high debt level
  4. Mladic found guilty for Bosnia genocide and war crimes
  5. Uber may face fines in EU for keeping data breach secret
  6. EU counter-propaganda 'harms' relations, Russia says
  7. The EU's half-hearted Ostpolitik
  8. Glyphosate: 1.3 million EU citizens call for ban

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic countries prioritise fossil fuel subsidy reform
  2. Mission of China to the EUNew era for China brings new opportunities to all
  3. ACCASmall and Medium Sized Practices Must 'Offer the Whole Package'
  4. UNICEFAhead of the African Union - EU Summit, Survey Highlights Impact of Conflict on Education
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council Calls for Closer Co-Operation on Foreign Policy
  6. Swedish EnterprisesTrilogue Negotiations - Striking the Balance Between Transparency and Efficiency
  7. Access EuropeProspects for US-EU Relations Under the Trump Administration - 28 November 2017
  8. Nordic Council of MinistersSustainable Growth the Nordic Way: Climate Solutions for a Sustainable Future
  9. EU2017EEHow Data Fuels Estonia's Economy
  10. Mission of China to the EUChina and EU Step Up Water Management Cooperation
  11. CECEMachinery Industry Calls for Joint EU Approach to Develop Digital Construction Sector
  12. EnelNo ETS Deal Means It Can Still Be Strengthened