Brussels, 16/12/2015 (Agence Europe) - Historic but with room for improvement. It was in such terms that many MEPs, in Strasbourg on Tuesday 15 December, welcomed the Paris agreement.
They were also queuing up to congratulate the French, who chaired COP 21, European Climate Action Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete and President in office of the Environment Council Carole Dieschbourg for working so skilfully to bring a significant breakthrough, described as an unprecedented first step in the global fight against climate change (see EUROPE 11453 and 11452).
While all acknowledged that the Paris agreement was not perfect, the huge majority of MEPs stressed that it was universal and legally binding. They said they were encouraged by this major step forward in the transition towards cleaner energy, separating growth and fossil energies and the advent of a carbon-free economy in the future. All were very aware that this is only a first step as a corpus of 195 countries and that the effectiveness of the agreement will depend on how it is implemented. That the agreement did not encompass international maritime transport and international civil aviation was a matter of great regret for many.
Some MEPs from the GUE/NGL, EFDD and ENF Groups were highly critical of the agreement, which they described as “smoke and mirrors”, unable, they said to meet the challenge of global warming because of its lack of ambition. From among Polish MEPs came the worry that the EU could turn out to be the fall guy should major emitters, like the United States, not honour their commitments, national contributions (INDCs) not being legally binding.
Commissioner Canete, in presenting the content of the Paris agreement for MEPs, hailed this “first universal, ambitious, balanced and legally binding agreement” which puts us on the way towards average global warming of well below 2 degrees, while pursuing efforts to achieve 1.5 degrees. It is an agreement which, he argued, “proves that multilateralism works” and makes it possible to move from action by a small number of countries to action by all.
At the start of 2016, the Commission will monitor how the Paris agreement is being applied. It will follow up on how the integrated climate-energy framework of action 2021-2030 is to be implemented, bringing forward proposals on effort-sharing in non-ETS sectors, forestry and decarbonising transport, Canete said. Internationally, advantage must be taken of the impetus created by continuing to cooperate on implementation of INDCs and improving monitoring and reporting so that further progress can be made at COP 22 in Marrakesh, he added.
Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy), who led the Parliamentary delegation in Paris, said that this was a historic turning point for humanity because “every country has acknowledged that climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution and that everyone will have to make sacrifices”.
Matthias Groote (S&D, Germany) said that the fact that international aviation and maritime transport completely avoided their responsibilities was a big blot on the agreement. To achieve a 1.5 degree increase in the temperature of the planet by the end of the century, everyone will have to do their bit, and he noted that the world of finance and insurance companies had pledged no longer to invest in fossil fuels. MEPs from the S&D Group issued a call to arms for everyone and for the EU to set itself “more ambitious targets”.
Ian Duncan (ECR, UK) made the point that there is “many a slip between cup and lip”. He argued that it had to be made clear what is meant by the objective of remaining well below 2 degrees. Would it be necessary to revisit the climate-energy package? What impact would there be on the reform of the ETS? Is 1.5 degrees an aspiration or an objective? In posing these questions, he called for impact studies.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE, Netherlands) said that, with the long-awaited Paris agreement, “an irreversible step has been taken towards a low-carbon economy but only zero carbon solutions will bring success”. If he has a criticism to make of the EU, it is that it “endangered the outcome because it was overly hesitant about committing financially”. He argued for the EU to have a financial mechanism that would mean it was no longer dependent on the moods of finance ministers.
Anne-Marie Mineur (GUE/NGL, Netherlands), while happy with the agreement, regretted nonetheless that “multinationals will once again be able to enjoy juicy Christmas bonuses thanks to the profits they will make from the non-inclusion of aviation in the agreement”. It brings shame on the industrial world, she opined. The Paris agreement must only be a starting point, she argued; it is now time to turn away from fossils fuels. She said it was “deplorable” that the EU did not intend to raise its 2020 objectives or increase its energy efficiency and renewables targets for 2030, as the Parliament has been urging (see EUROPE 11454).
The Greens/EFA were on the same page. Yannick Jadot described the Paris agreement as “excellent news” but, in addition to not including international maritime transport and aviation, among its failures, he highlighted the omission of decarbonisation and carbon pricing from the agreement, “under pressure from the oil-producing countries”. The five-yearly review is, however, “a useful instrument that tells of a new governance of climate policies since local and regional authorities and civil society will be players in these policies. It is up to us to raise the level of ambition”, he said. In his view, reducing emissions by 30% by 2020 should be the EU target and the energy efficiency and renewables objectives should be reviewed. He called for progress to be made on the financial transactions tax, some of the revenue from which could be used to finance efforts to combat climate change.
According to Claude Turmes (Greens/EFA, Luxembourg), the 1.5 degree rise in temperature should quickly be seen as the target. “All the models produced by the Commission are obsolete. A 40% reduction, 27% energy efficiency, 27% renewable energy - it's not enough”, he opined.
Marco Affronte (EFDD, Italy) said that, while this is a historic agreement, “it is vague on the date at which emissions will reach their peak”, there is no mention of decarbonisation in the text and there is reliance on a little known technology to compensate for anthropogenic emissions.
Jerzy Buzek (EPP, Poland) suggested that only the EU and a few others were prepared to act. “Ratification failed with the Kyoto Protocol. Will it work this time?” he asked. In his view, Europe finds itself “very isolated”. Jadwiga Wisniewska (ECR, Poland) welcomed a “pragmatic” agreement: the role of forests in carbon capture is well known and the word “decarbonisation” is not to be seen in the agreement, so each country's freedom to determine its own energy mix has thus been recognised.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who chaired COP 21, will attend the January 2016 plenary session of the European Parliament to present the agreement obtained in Paris for MEPs. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)