Brussels, 27/05/2010 (Agence Europe) - Designed to encourage “enlightened” debate within the Environment Council of 11 June, and the European Council of 17-18 June, the Commission communication on the economic impact and options for increasing from a 20% target to a 30% objective in European emissions reductions by 2020, and on the assessment on the situation of European industrial sectors exposed to carbon leakage (see EUROPE 10146) has provoked a somewhat positive reaction. The reason for this is simple: it can mean all things to all men.
Those who subscribe to the highest possible level of ambition welcome the fact that the Commission has justified the upper end of the scale (30%). Those who are worried about too many constraints being imposed are pleased that the Commission is proposing not to implement the shift up from 20% to 30%, leaving it for European leaders to make the decision based on how international negotiations develop. Between these two extremes, which are happy for different reasons, green NGOs and associations call on the European Commission to bring pressure to bear on member states to be as ambitious as possible.
The Greens/EFA Group in the Parliament immediately hailed “a welcome and timely contribution to the debate on strengthening the EU's emissions reduction target” and were delighted that the Commission “has put forward a clear and reasoned argument for stepping up to a 30% reduction target” by 2020 at a time when France and Germany are less ambitious than ever. To justify their opinion, they refer back to the Competiveness Council on Wednesday 26 May, where the two countries emphasised that the European commitment was subject to conditions (Ed.: something that has been a feature of the EU's commitment since 2007 and which was put to the secretariat of the UN Convention on Climate Change under the Copenhagen Accord). Satu Hassi (Green, Finland) said that the Commission communication presented “a clear and reasoned argument” which highlighted “the clear economic benefits (the shift to 30%) will bring”.
The Greens/EFA Group sees the increase in the European target as a first and absolutely vital step if the EU is to recover legitimate credibility and leadership in negotiations, and welcomes that the Commission has cut short the alarmist rhetoric of European industrialists and repeated by European leaders. Jannick Jadot (Greens/France) spoke of “a courageous stance adopted by the Commission” which has come at just the right time in the European and international climate debate. The failures of Copenhagen and the economic crisis are being used as a pretext by some member states, principally France and Germany, under pressure from a number of industrialists, for defending the status quo, or even lowering European targets. He added that “Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy must repudiate the ill-informed comments of their respective industry ministers”.
EUROFER, the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries, said it was relieved that the Commission had not proposed a unilateral move from a 20% to a 30% reduction. Director General Gordon Moffat said that “Realism regains some ground in Brussels” as it would have been “absurd to take the economic downturn as a justification for more ambitious climate change targets”. It was, he said, “already a major achievement that the steel industry was able to keep employment almost stable during the crises while steel production fell by 35% in 2009”.
EWEA, the European Wind Energy Association, pointed out that a 30% reduction in emissions would allow the EU to maintain its place among the leading group in the race towards green energy. It, therefore, “urges the Council and European Parliament to agree 30% domestic greenhouse gas reductions, in order to maintain Europe's technological and industrial leadership in renewable energy technologies”.
Friends of the Earth (FoE) welcomed the Commission communication and, in particular, the fact that it recognised the need to reduce emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020 to give the world a reasonable chance of stabilising global temperatures at safe levels. FoE felt, however, that the time had come for the EU to increase its reductions target to 40% by 2020 and to set annual reduction targets, backed by tough infringement proceedings. The Commission should bring pressure on member states.
In the opinion of David Heller of FoE, “Connie Hedegaard has taken a cautious first step” and “EU governments must stand up to vested interests and make a clear call for an increase in EU targets. In particular, cuts must be made domestically, rather than through offsetting schemes”.
Greenpeace said that the very fact the 20% target would cost €22 billion less than originally forecast (in 2008) and would provide employment and economic development, as the Commission noted, was proof that industry was scaremongering. (A.N./transl.rt)