Brussels, 11/04/2016 (Agence Europe) - The European Bioeconomy Alliance (EUBA) opposes any review of the European carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) post-2020 that would go against the objective it pursues - to promote the sustainable production in the EU of renewable resources and their conversion into food. Fibre, materials and bioenergy using innovative, sustainable technology.
Convinced that reform of the ETS, as proposed by the European Commission in July 2015, goes in the right direction (see EUROPE 11516), EUBA warned on Tuesday 5 April against the more targeted approach mooted by the United Kingdom and France, which would classify industry in a number of categories according to the risk of carbon leakage - high risk, medium risk, low risk and no risk (see EUROPE 11516 and 11418).
In EUBA's view, allocating 100% free quotas to the most energy-guzzling industries, which use the most fossil fuels, would be to the detriment of industries contributing to the bioeconomy and therefore reducing the EU's dependence on fossil fuels, and would therefore be counterproductive and create an uneven playing field, undermining work to develop renewable materials of biological origin to replace those made from fossil fuels.
In the approach recommended by the UK and France, sectors developing the bioeconomy would receive between 0 and 80% free quotas, whereas the European Commission's proposal identifies a number of key sectors for implementing the EU's bioeconomy sector that are at risk of carbon leakage, such as starches, oils and proteins, pulp and paper and sugar.
'The objective of the ETS is to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of the European Commission's bioeconomy strategy, endorsed by both the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, is that fossil fuels should be replaced by sustainable renewable alternatives as part of the shift to a post-petroleum society,' says EUBA.
EUBA says these objectives are complementary and coherent and should remain in place. It congratulates the European Commission for its approach and invites it to resist any attempts by the member states to undermine this coherence.
CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council) also opposes the targeted approach recommended by France and the UK, but for different reasons from EUBA (see EUROPE 11516). (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)