Brussels, 25/07/2016 (Agence Europe) - Many climate and energy efficiency activists have been disappointed by the climate legislative package presented by the European Commission on 20 July (EUROPE 11598). Most of the criticism has been directed at the flexibilities in the sharing of effort among the member states on greenhouse gas emissions reduction in sectors not covered by the ETS (agriculture, waste, transport and buildings). Some view these “flexibilities” as being more akin to accounting tricks that will undermine the goals of the Paris Agreement, while others slam the Commission for under-estimating the potential of energy efficiency that could be used for truly effective measures.
In the view of Carbon Market Watch and Transport & Environment, the proposal tabled contains loopholes that put the EU's ability to meet its 2030 climate pledge “at serious risk”. The flexibilities which are supposed to make emission reductions more cost-efficient risk becoming loopholes that allow member states to claim climate action on paper but not in reality (EUROPE 11572). The proposal on the table would allow countries to use 100 million tonnes worth of surplus allowances from the EU's ETS and 280 million tonnes worth of credits from forestry to compensate for emissions in sectors like agriculture and transport. This, the NGOs argue, would lower the emissions reduction target for non-ETS sectors to 27% rather than 30%.
Furthermore, the NGOs say, the draft regulation rewards countries which will miss their 2020 targets because it sets the starting point on the basis of the average 2016-2018 emissions. Underlining that this proposal is the most important of all climate legislation since it covers 60% of EU greenhouse gas emissions, the NGOs jointly call on the European Parliament and the member states to strengthen it in line with the commitment made in Paris.
“This is the first test since the signing of the Paris Agreement and the EU cannot afford it to let it fail. The 2030 target for the non-traded sectors is only -30% which is not in line with the goal to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Worse, loopholes risk preventing the real-world delivery of this insufficient target by allowing countries to cheat their way out of their climate commitments”, commented Femke de Jong, EU policy director at Carbon Market Watch.
“There are plenty of solutions and technologies to meet the targets in a way that benefit not just the environment, but also jobs, the economy and Europe's energy security. The loopholes that EU governments have requested - and the Commission is giving them in this proposal - are not just unnecessary but actually damaging”, stated William Todts, climate director at T&E. The EU and the member states can tap into the numerous possibilities in these sectors for sustainable growth and deliver concrete benefits for citizens in the form of cleaner air, better jobs, warmer houses, and less energy poverty, the NGOs point out.
On the same line, the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament accuse the Commission of going back on the promises and commitments made by the EU on climate change. “The Commission is acting as if the COP21 Paris climate summit never happened. The proposed national effort sharing targets for emissions reductions to 2030 are clearly below the level they need to be at if the EU is to play its part in meeting the goal of limiting the increase in global temperatures to well below 2 degrees and to try and limit the increase to below 1.5 degrees. If the EU is serious about addressing the problem, it urgently needs to increase the ambition of (this) proposal”, said Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Netherlands). He claims that governments will be allowed to avoid permanent greenhouse gas reductions “through creative accounting of how greenhouse gases are stored by forests or the soil”. He says that, “scandalously”, member states could also use surplus allowances from the ETS to offset emissions reductions in sectors outside the ETS, instead of actually reducing their emissions. “Instead of abusing the surplus of permits that is undermining the ETS, the EU should simply cancel these permits and remove the 'hot air' from the malfunctioning system”, he argues in a press release.
Energy efficiency ignored? The Coalition for Energy Savings is critical that the Commission proposals “overlook the potential for cost-effective energy savings and ignore the European Parliament's request for a 40% energy efficiency target for 2030”.
Because the regulation is not based on a fair and robust assessment of the potential for energy savings, it misses out the significant economic benefits of combating climate change, the Coalition states. “Building national climate targets on the potential for efficiency would secure benefits to all member states, especially lower-income countries with significant investment gaps”, said Stefan Scheuer, secretary general of the Coalition. He argues that the Commission should “step up efforts to truly place energy efficiency first in its policy making, which will benefit citizens directly, through renovating inefficient buildings, replacing wasteful equipment and technologies, updating production facilities and building an efficient and clean mobility system”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)