Brussels, 15/01/2010 (Agence Europe) - The failure of the Copenhagen climate conference (COP 15), which she chaired, has not shaken the faith of Commissioner-designate for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard in the virtues - for the future of generations to come and also for the economy and employment in Europe - of massive investment in green technologies, energy efficiency and renewable energy. The opposite is, in fact, the case. Her determination to implement the Copenhagen Accord, which is immediately operational, and to lead the way with an ambitious EU policy to take the United Nations-sponsored international climate negotiations to a successful conclusion remains intact. Her desire to have climate concerns integrated in all EU policies and to implement the energy-climate package within the agreed timescale, remains equally strong. These are the three priorities which she had already set out in her written replies to the Parliament before her hearing (see EUROPE 1048).
She is happy to agree, however, that the EU strategy has to be adjusted so as to be able to speak with a single voice, if Europe wants its message to be better heard internationally. Therein lay, she said, the main cause of the EU's being eclipsed in Copenhagen, for which it was so severely criticised.
The skills she can bring to bear after five years spent working for the climate and her clear vision of a solid climate policy that matched the scale of the medium- and long-term challenges and European ambitions - convinced MEPs that she, the former Danish minister for the environment, then for climate and energy, with all her experience in the dangerous waters of climate negotiations, was the right person to occupy the newly created post of European commissioner for climate action.
She said that she would like, in five years' time, the EU to have proved that, through investment, it was not a loser, but a winner. If she had said five years ago that climate would be at the top of the international agenda and that the United States and the main polluters would sit round a table and agree to a target of 2° Celsius, no one would have believed her, she went on. She was, of course, disappointed with the non-binding outcome in Copenhagen, but, she argued, much had changed, and the had EU played an important role in raising public awareness. If it hesitates to invest in green technologies and energy efficiency, Europe will lose out in growth, in prosperity and in employment, because China was moving very fast and the United States had understood, she said. Saving resources was just like saving money for the future. When today's children grow up, the world's population will be nine billion, she said in her preliminary statement.
Convinced that the region of the world that most effectively tackles climate change will be rewarded with strategic and economic gains, she said that, over and above job creation, the quality of the environment and the quality of life, it would also bring independence from fossil fuels and security of energy supply.
It was with conviction and without a single hesitation that she answered one after the other the, sometimes embarrassing and often highly technical, questions put by the environment, public health and food security committee, which is chaired by Jo Leinen (S&D, Germany), and the associated industry and transport committees. These last two key sectors are an indication of the cross-cutting nature of the portfolio sought by Hedegaard, where several areas of responsibility cross. “I will work closely with the commissioners for transport, research, agriculture, energy, industry, development and, of course, the environment,” she said, delighted that the Barroso II Commission had again accorded climate greater importance. Commissioner Dimas had, she said, given Europe a strong voice. In future there would be two: that of Commissioner Janez Potoènik and hers, she added.
European legislation on reducing CO2 emissions from cars and the inclusion of civil aviation in the Community emissions trading scheme (ETS) were praiseworthy, but Hedegaard felt that this was only a “step” and that much more had to be done. A full climate-transport package was needed, she argued. She also wants adaptation to climate change to be included in every policy and full adaptation strategies to be adopted by all member states.
On a global level, it wants global carbon trading to be set up by all OECD countries by 2015 and then extended to as many countries as possible.
Hedegaard said it was vital to learn from COP 15 that China, India, Japan and the United States were all able to speak with a single voice but the EU didn't. She said the EU countries spent so much time trying to reach agreement amongst themselves that when it comes to the talks proper, it is unable to negotiate.
She ended by focussing on the need to get the rest of the world on board because important outcomes were achieved in Copenhagen but plenty more needed to be done. She said the United Nations should not be abandoned but pressure should be kept up and public awareness raised. One of the best ways of doing this, she argued, is to set an example and show that it is possible to be both prosperous and tackle climate change at the same time. This comment was greeted by a round of applause.
Jo Leinen, chair of the European Parliament's committee, said the hearing had been interesting and had provided a full overview. He said that Hedegaard had demonstrated her enthusiasm but would need support because the job would not be easy. He said he had the impression that Hedegaard was capable of taking on the task and that given the figures to be provided to the United Nations for 31 January 2010 (the deadline for countries' carbon emission reduction targets), it was likely that the planet would be facing temperature rises of 3 to 4 degrees Celsius. He thanked her for her cooperation and commitment.
As soon as the hearing was over, the Greens said that the commissioner-designate had made a convincing case but success in her job was not up to her alone. Satu Hassi (a Green MEP from Finland) said that Connie Hedegaard had shown that she had the political will and the vision to be the first strong EU commissioner for the climate, but success would depend on the political support she would have from Barroso in incorporating climate policies into other policy areas, like transport and agriculture. Hassi added that over the next five years, Barroso had to show that he had created the job of climate commissioner to protect the climate rather than for public relations and to strike a pose.
In answer to Jolanda Hibner who blamed China and India for failure to reach a big agreement at Copenhagen and wanted to know whether the EU would continue as before or be more flexible, Connie Hedegaard warned against the danger of being over-negative about emerging economies because before COP15, Brazil and China had announced specific emission reduction targets. Not to mention the fact that the agreement includes commitments by the emerging economies to national strategies. The criticisms of Chris Davies (ALDE, UK) and Marie Ulvskog (S&D, Sweden) that the EU bore its share of responsibility for the failure were rejected as unfair by the Commissioner-delegate. She said it was going too far to blame the people who had done the most to win a breakthrough in the climate talks rather than blaming people who decided that a good outcome would not be reached. Describing Copenhagen as a 'fiasco,' Dan Jorgensen (S&D, Denmark) asked Hedegaard to admit to the Danish making fundamental errors in their chairing of the conference. Connie Hedegaard responded that some countries had had ulterior motives and vested interests, and the different strategies had made a good outcome unreachable. She said the Danes had been precursors but some countries had decided not to participate and the EU had pulled out the stops to get developing countries on board. The only major error, she said, had been that in a difficult situation, the EU had not been able to speak with a single voice. Should the EU raise its emissions reduction targets from 20% to 30% ? Not yet, said the Commissioner-designate because the EU did not agree among itself on this, but 30% was the target that Hedegaard herself would be aiming in a binding international agreement to be negotiated in Mexico in December 2010.
Responding to Gilles Pargneaux (S&D, France) on whether a special tax should be levied at borders to stop carbon being exported and to introduce trust, Connie Hedegaard said it would send the wrong signal at this point in the talks where Japan and the United States have now decided on a carbon trading system and other countries (like Australia and New Zeeland) were examining whether to follow suit. Hedegaard said an international agreement was needed in Mexico, which would be better than the lowest common denominator of a carbon tax.
Answering Britta Thomsen (S&D, Denmark), who was concerned about nuclear energy being defended by the Commissioner-designate for Research and the Commissioner-designate for Energy as ways of cutting carbon missions, Hedegaard said that while Denmark didn't want nuclear power, nuclear power stations already exist in the world and in the EU and would continue to exist for many years yet. Hedegaard said that if she were to become Climate Commissioner, she would keep a very close eye on nuclear energy because new types of power station had to be promoted but there should be fair division of research funding and far more renewable energy.
How can the climate change reduction policy be turned from a penalty policy into an opportunity policy?, asked Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP-ED, Germany). Hedegaard said that rules would continue but it was important to expand the climate change reduction policy and take early action (by energy saving as far as possible, for example, in reaction to high oil prices) so that penalties are simply not needed. Satu Hassi wanted to know how the Commissioner-designate viewed the performance criteria for new coal-fired power stations and a recent impact assessment on the issue, but was disappointed at the answer she received. Hedegaard said coal-fired power stations were part of the EU's carbon trading system and one would have to see how carbon capture and storage systems worked. She said she wanted to ensure that the life-time of some old coal power stations was not extended by a number of countries.
Connie Hedegaard added that road, sea and river transport, along with the Common Agricultural Policy, were good areas for EU action in combatting climate change. (A.N. trans fl)