Paquet clima energia: les expectatives frustrades
Conjuntament amb la Directiva sobre el Temps de Treball (65h), votem avui un altre paquet de Directives especialment importants en el marc de la qüestió de Clima i Energia (el conegut Paquet Clima Energia). Consta de sis peces prou importants totes elles per separat, però crucials en conjunt: Directiva sobre el Sistema de Comerç d’Emissions, la Decisió sobre Esforç Compartit, Directiva sobre Renovables (la que més alegries ens ha donat a la família verda), Reglament sobre emissions de CO2 pels cotxes, i Directiva sobre captura i emmagatzemament de carbó. Adjunto a continuació la valoració que en fem des del grup per a cadascun d’aquests temes (en verd els aspectes positius, en vermell els negatius). Podeu trobar més informació també a la Campanya dels Verds STOP CLIMATE CHANGE:
EU climate package at a glance
EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME DIRECTIVE
Legislation setting out a cap and trade system for EU emissions reductions from the power sector and heavy industry sectors (responsible for around 45% of total EU emissions) to run from 2013 to 2020.
(+) Sets a binding EU emissions reduction target of at least 20% by 2020 based on 1990 levels (21% based on 2005 levels). The legislation also restates the EU commitment to increase this to a reduction of 30% as part of its implementation of an international climate agreement (although this would be subject to a new legislative procedure). Importantly, emissions permits under the scheme will be allocated in a harmonised manner at EU level. (segueix…)
(+) Establishes the principle of full auctioning of emissions permits under the ETS, albeit with considerable exemptions. The power sector will be subject to the full auctioning of emissions permits from 2013 on, with exemptions for the power sector in eastern and central European countries for which full auctioning will only take effect in 2020. (+)
*Full auctioning of permits is important to ensure that the system creates a true market in which the true cost of GHG emissions is reflected in the price of permits, thus incentivising investment in cleaner technologies. The failure to do so in the first phases of the ETS is blamed for creating windfall profits for utilities firms.
(-) The legislation will include serious exemptions from the full auctioning of emissions permits for non-power sector industries covered. The Commission proposed that firms exposed to ‘carbon leakage’ (i.e. exposed to competition, whereby increased domestic costs – such as through the ETS – might lead to the relocation of production to 3rd countries with less ambitious environmental legislation) could be given free allocation of permits. Under the ‘carbon leakage’ criteria set by the final text, sectors accounting for 96% of the emissions from outside the power sector would get free allocation. (-)
(-) There is only a voluntary earmarking of auction revenues for climate purposes. The provision of a guaranteed and predictable source of funding for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries is seen as crucial to securing an international climate deal. The EP wanted all auction revenues to be earmarked for climate purposes – with 50% in developing countries. The final agreement leaves it open to member states to decide but suggests the voluntary earmarking of 50% of the revenues. (-)
(-) 50% of the required emissions reductions can be outsourced through the purchase of external offsets (or CDM/JI equivalents). This means that, rather than actually making actual emissions reductions, firms can buy ‘credits’ in emissions-reduction projects in third countries to offset their committed emissions reductions. (-)
EFFORT SHARING DECISION
Legislation setting out the nature of emissions reductions from sectors not covered by the ETS (e.g. transport, agriculture, domestic heating).
(+) Sets a binding EU emissions reduction target of at least 20% by 2020 based on 1990 levels (10% compared to 2005), with a binding ‘linear pathway’ of annual reductions towards the overall target. The legislation also restates the EU commitment to increase this to a reduction of 30% as part of its implementation of an international climate agreement (although this would be subject to a new legislative procedure). It also states that, by 2016, proposals should be made to continue the trajectory for reducing emissions beyond 2020 with a view to an 80% reduction by 2050. (+)
(+) Sets out specific compliance mechanisms. To ensure more effective compliance than through the cumbersome and lengthy standard infringement procedures, any emissions reductions not achieved would have to be replaced the following year, with an abatement factor (multiplier) of 1.08. This ensures the environmental integrity of the delayed reductions. (+)
(-) Over 80% of the required emissions reductions can be outsourced through the purchase of external offsets (or CDM/JI equivalents). This means that, rather than actually making actual emissions reductions, member states can buy ‘credits’ in emissions-reduction projects in third countries to offset their committed emissions reductions. (+)
RENEWABLES DIRECTIVE
Legislation setting out rules governing the EU target for renewables in energy.
(+) Sets a binding target for the renewable energy share of at least 20% by 2020. While the overwhelming part of the national targets should be reached domestically, member states can however count also on investments in renewable energy production in third countries. However, this is limited to actual cross-border trading in electricity, ensuring it is not a virtual market. (+)
(+) Obliges member states to report on the measures they will take, ensuring greater transparency and improved monitoring. In June 2010, member states will have to submit a standard Renewable Action Plan. If they miss their interim or 2020 targets, they will have to revise these action plans. The Commission can also issue recommendations on unsatisfactory action plans. This will help ensure that member states meet their targets on time. (+)
(+) Renewable energy should get priority access to the grid. The Parliament managed to obtain easier access for renewables to the electricity grids and gas pipelines (biogas and bio-methane were not included in the original Commission text). (+)
(-) Sets a binding target for renewables in transport of 10% by 2020. The Greens were unable to convince majorities in Council and the EP to scrap the target. However, the safeguards from the negative impact of biofuels have been strengthened. Notably through the fact that the 10% target will also include electric or hydrogen cars and trains powered by renewables. Importantly, the so-called ‘sustainability criteria’ with which fuels will have to comply will also take into account the indirect impacts caused by the diversion of farmland to produce agrofuels. We have also secured a review on this section of the directive in 2014, so we will contine to work to scrap the target. (-)
CAR CO2 EMISSIONS REGULATION
Legislation to set out binding CO2 emissions limits for new cars produced in the EU.
(-) Binding CO2 emissions limit for average EU cars drastically delayed. While a binding emissions limit has been set, it will be phased-in. This would mean that the average EU CO2 emissions limit (of 130 g/km) would only apply to the fleet in 2015 but, combined with derogations from compliance fines and other loopholes, it will really mean that the 130 g/km limit will only be truly applicable and enforceable to the entire EU fleet in 2019. (-)
* The overall average EU CO2 emissions limit for 2012 would be only 162 g/km when all loopholes are taken into account. This is higher than the current average emissions of the EU fleet – which stands at around 158 g/km! For reference, in 1998 car makers committed to a voluntary limit of 120 g/km to be achieved in 2012. (-)
(-) Financial penalties to ensure compliance also delayed. The full penalties for enforcing the 130 g/km limit will only take effect in 2019. While, ultimately these penalties should rise to €95 per gram over limit per car produced, car manufacturers will be subject to much lower fines for the first three grams by which they overshoot their limits until 2019. (-)
(-) A medium term emissions limit for 2020 has been made unviable. As noted above, the 130 g/km target will only be truly applicable and enforceable to the entire EU fleet in 2019. So, while the legislation sets out an emissions limit for 2020 (of 95 g/km), it is hard to foresee how car manufacturers would meet this target if they only have to fully comply with the 130 g/km target the previous year. The fact that the 2020 limit is subject to a review in 2014 means it would likely be revised. (-)
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE DIRECTIVE
Legislation setting out the legal framework for CCS, detailing administrative processes for dealing with requests for exploration and storage and the procedures to follow after the closure/sealing of storage sites.
(+) Sets out a legal framework for this new and potentially risky technology. However, the framework is much weaker than the EP wanted. (+)
(-) Fails to exclude the enhanced recovery of hydrocarbons (like oil and gas). By nature, this process produces extra fossil fuels (negating any potential benefit) and does not aim to permanently conserve CO2. (-)
(-) Fails to set an emissions performance standard for new power plants. This would mean that coal power plants can continue to be built regardless of their CO2 emissions output efficiency. It only requires new power plants to be built ‘capture ready’ without defining what that entails. (-)
(-) Fails to set specific quantitative criteria on the ‘purity’ of the CO2 gas stream. The EP had wanted to ensure that only gas containing 95% CO2 could be considered for storage. The final compromise merely states that the gas should be overwhelmingly comprised of CO2. (-)
(-) Fails to provide for the long-term liability of storage site operators or on the liability involved in the transport of CO2. (-)
RMOF 15 December 2008
Font foto: desconeguda
PRESS RELEASE –Strasbourg
EU Climate package vote
Boxed-in European parliament endorses climate package of legislation
The European Parliament today voted to adopt the climate package of legislation (1), based on the compromise first reading positions agreed last weekend. Following the vote, Finnish Green MEP and vice-chair of the EP environment committee Satu Hassi stated:
“The climate package as it stands after today’s vote fails to meet what the European Parliament wanted and clearly falls far short of the advice of the scientific consensus on the necessary measures need to tackle climate change. By disregarding the standard legislative decision-making process, the French presidency submitted the package to a free-for-all under which the national governments tore strips out of the legislative proposals.
“It is important to recognise however that this climate package represents merely the opening position from the EU in the advance of an international climate agreement: a kind of ‘worst case scenario’. In the event of an international climate deal, which we are both hoping for and assuming, the EU will have to seriously scale up its effort.
“This will start by upgrading the EU emissions reduction effort to at least 30% to bring it in line with the scientific advice of the UN IPCC, which has been endorsed by the EU. However, clearly some of the glaring inconsistencies in the EU emissions reduction legislation will have to be addressed.”
UK Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas, who was involved in negotiating the legislation on a post-2012 emissions trading scheme, added:
“As Greens, we were ultimately unable to vote for the proposal on the effort sharing of emissions from non-ETS sectors, despite Green MEP Satu Hassi’s phenomenal effort in negotiations as EP rapporteur. The insistence by member states on a provision to permit the outsourcing of over 80% of the emissions reductions through external offsetting (buying ‘credits’ in emissions reduction projects in developing countries to avoid making domestic reductions) seriously undermined this legislation. The Greens could not accept this neocolonial approach to climate policy, which would allow rich European countries to continue their own unsustainable development model at the expense poorer developing countries .
“The proposals on a post-2012 emissions trading scheme also fall far short of what we hoped for. However, this legislation does provide for full auctioning of energy sector emissions in the 15 countries that are longer established as EU members. It is a building block for the real EU climate policy post-Copenhagen. For this reason, the Greens voted reluctantly in favour of the emissions trading scheme.
“This is the opening salvo for EU climate policy. We will now need to focus our efforts on removing the main flaws following the successful conclusion of an international climate agreement. Notably, by stepping up the EU emissions reduction effort and ensuring that this is delivered in the EU and not offset in developing countries, as well as ensuring that the ETS can provide a realistic carbon price through the full auctioning of emissions permits.”
(1) Legislation for a post-2012 emissions trading scheme (ETS); the effort sharing of emissions reductions from non-ETS sectors; renewable energy; fuel quality; CO2 emissions limits for cars; and a framework for carbon capture and storage.
COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE – Strasbourg, le 17 décembre 2008
Vote Rapport “Energies renouvelables“
Turmes: “La révolution de l’énergie verte est en marche”
Le Parlement européen vient de voter, 635 voix pour, 25 contre, le rapport de Claude Turmes sur la Directive “Energies renouvelables”. S’exprimant à l’issue du vote sur son rapport, Claude Turmes, eurodéputé luxembourgeois et vice président du Groupe des Verts/ALE a estimé que:
“Le vote d’aujourd’hui n’est pas une simple déclaration d’intentions, il a force de loi et obligera les Etats membres à utiliser 20% d’énergies renouvelables d’ici 2020, et 20% constitue un minimum; je suis certain qu’en 2020, nous ferons mieux que 20% car les coûts pour la technologie auront diminuer et que le système économique sera construit autour des énergies renouvelables.
Si vous prenez le cas de l’électricité, l’on passera de 15% aujourd’hui à 35% en 2020. Et il se pourrait bien que nous passions à 50% entre 2025 et 2030, qui pourrait nous en empêcher?
A partir de demain, cette directive déclenchera une véritable révolution de l’énergie verte et il faudra que celle-ci soit accompagnée, dès l’année prochaine, de deux mesures complémentaires. L’une concernant l’augmentation des investissements de la BEI dans ce secteur et l’autre concernant un plan d’action sur les énergies renouvelables de la Commission européenne. Cette dernière présentera son plan d’action l’année prochaine et je souhaite qu’elle développe la coopération régionale: coopération mer du Nord – mer Baltique, coopération régionale autour du plan solaire lancé par la France et, aussi, coopération régionale sur la biomasse. Pourquoi ne pas instaurer un centre d’excellence en Pologne pour accélérer l’utilisation de la biomasse dans tout l’Est de l’Europe, en combinaison avec les réseaux de chaleur?
Nous devons maintenant nous concentrer sur l’efficacité énergétique. Les 20 % d’efficacité énergétique n’ont pas été assez évoqués ces derniers mois. L’efficacité énergétique, bâtiments, logistique des transports, électronique, moteurs électriques, tout ces aspects doivent maintenant, en 2009 et 2010, se trouver au centre de notre attention. Et il faudra que la Suède, l’Espagne et la Belgique, qui assureront la présidence de l’Union, en collaboration avec le Parlement et la Commission, fassent de l’efficacité énergétique l’autre “success story” de l’Union européenne pour que l’on soit sur la bonne voie”.
In an incredibly undemocratic move, the President of EP decided to overrule the voting lists and put the compromises to a single vote in the plenary. I heard that this move was initiated by ALDE….
Turmes: Renewables (co-decision, first reading agreement)
Final Vote on the compromise: 635/25/25
Davies (ALDE): CCS (co-decision, first reading agreement)
Final vote the compromise: 623/68/22 with our group voting against.
In an incredibly undemocratic move, the President of EP decided to overrule the voting lists and put the compromises to a single vote in the plenary.
Doyle: ETS (co-decision, first reading agreement)
The motion to move the report back to committee was rejected by 180/514/xx. The compromise was adopted with large majority.
Hassi: Effort sharing (co-decision, first reading agreement)
As the President did not mention in the start of the voting on Effort Sharing that he would not follow the list, but would put the compromise to a single vote, our group voted in favour in the first vote.
In the final vote the compromise was adopted by 555/93/60 with our group voting against.
Davies: Car co2 (co-decision, first reading agreement)
In the final vote the compromise was adopted by 559/98/60 with our group voting against.
Corbey: Fuel Quality Directive (co-decision, first reading agreement)
In the final vote the compromise was adopted by 670/2/25.