Brussels, 01/11/2014 (Agence Europe) - A climate and energy agreement was reached, and finishing with an agreement of all 28 member states is a good way to finish said outgoing European Council President Herman Van Rompuy in closing his final debate at the European Parliament in Brussels on Tuesday 4 November (see EUROPE 11185). The open Conference of the Presidents of the political groups at the European Parliament, which he attended, along with Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, allowed one final exchange on the integrated climate and energy policy framework for the period from 2020 to 2030 and provided Parliament President Martin Schulz with the opportunity to thank Van Rompuy for the work he had done.
“You have assumed one of the most difficult tasks within the EU: bringing all the positions together. Displaying humour, staying calm so as to reach agreement. Thank you for the cooperation between our two institutions”, said Schulz. Van Rompuy expressed pleasure that the Council had met the October deadline and reached a “very ambitious” agreement which will provide the various economic players with “a sure framework for investment, research and development” and leave a more sustainable planet for our children. “The IPCC, in its latest very detailed report (Ed: of 2 November) underlines how essential it is to reduce emissions. That is why we want an emissions reduction of at least 40% by 2030 compared with 1990. This decision sends a message of ambition, of commitment. Some would have liked more. Do not underestimate the intrinsic importance of an agreement more than a year before the Paris conference.” This decision will be “a reference for the international negotiations”, he stated, recalling that Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, immediately hailed it.
Juncker said he had charged the vice-president of the energy union with coordinating all that derives from the European Council. “I will ask Maros Sefcovic to keep you informed of Commission plans. I have asked Miguel Arias Canete, the climate and energy commissioner, to make sure that, at the Paris conference in December 2015, the EU is able to present a coherent and strong position”, he told MEPs.
Manfred Weber (Germany), leader of the EPP Group said: “The EU has set very ambitious targets. I hope this signal will be heard globally”, and he hoped for a binding agreement in Paris. “A 40% emissions reduction is huge. We mustn't downplay it. Since 1990, we have made as many energy savings are we are looking to make in the next ten years” he stated. He stressed that the EPP liked realism because “climate and energy policies are linked to the price of energy”.
On behalf of the S&D Group, Gianni Pittella (Italy) suggested that the agreement reached was “the bare minimum” and that failure in Paris was not an option. “Binding targets are crucial, otherwise it will be impossible to keep global warming to less than two degrees Celsius and there will again be war for water, a reduction in natural resources, numbers of people forced to leave their homelands, and many will end up in poverty”, he warned. Syed Kamall (UK), the leader of the ECR Group, welcomed the emissions reduction target of at least 40% and was equally pleased that this target had not been set in national targets, something that, in his opinion, could have threatened competitiveness. “We need a binding agreement in Paris. A non-binding agreement would be meaningless, just as it would be meaningless if we were to show ambition and the others failed to follow”, he said. Guy Verhofstadt (Belgium) speaking for ALDE, regretted that there had been “few articles in the press on climate change. There was more talk of Cameron, whose strategy is to create a crisis at each European summit, or even each week. A very bad strategy”.
Patrick Le Hyaric (France), the leader of GUE, said that the 5th IPCC report had “sounded the alarm”. It was a worrying report on the serious and irreversible impact of climate change “that we cannot ignore”. The results of the European Council must, then, be “only a starting point”. He said that competition in certain sectors, such as transport (road transport to the detriment of rail, for example), “heightened productivity in agriculture and the short-termism of productivity are harmful to climate”. There has to be a different way of thinking about things, not promoting shale gas and tar sands, backing a major infrastructure plan, helping developing countries and moving closer to a 70% emissions reduction target by 2050 “to keep warming below the fateful two degrees”. On behalf of the Greens/EFA, Philippe Lamberts (Belgium) said that a reduction target of at least 40% was well below what had to be done and that the targets for renewables and energy efficiency would not be reached because they had not been made binding. “It's an economic and strategic error.” He was unhappy, too, that the Council had given itself the right to return to this matter in all its unanimously agreed detail. “This is not the procedure laid down in the treaties. It's an institutional power grab”, he said. Mario Borghezio (non-attached, Italy) expressed the view that “we cannot continue with a wrong policy of state aid” for alternative energies, such as photovoltaic, for example. “What is needed are tax exemptions and incentives for safe renewable energies” (our translation throughout). (AN)