MEPs held a plenary session on the ‘climate law’ on Tuesday 6 October, just a few hours before a voting session that will determine the European Parliament’s position on this issue. Unsurprisingly, the future objective of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 was at the heart of MP interventions.
“ In order to be in line with science and gives Europe the best possibles possibilities to reach our climate neutrality objective (by 2050)and respect the Paris Agreement, we need to have a higher target for 2030”, said Ms Guteland (S&D, Sweden), Parliament’s rapporteur on the climate law; she also noted that her amended draft report suggested a 60% reduction (see EUROPE 12557/1).
She went on to criticise the European Commission’s proposal for a net reduction (including carbon sinks) in EU emissions of at least 55%, on the grounds that this ”signifies a real reduction of between 51% and 53%” (see EUROPE 12562/1 and EUROPE 12569/9).
This is a criticism also shared by Silvia Modig (GUE/NGL, Finland), who said that the European Commission’s stated ambition “falls far short of the scientific recommendations”.
Agreeing with them, Michael Bloss (Greens/EFA, Germany) called on his colleagues to “listen to the science ” and “give hope for future generations”, noting that his group were advocating an increase in the target to 65%, as originally proposed by Ms Guteland.
As for the EPP, Peter Liese (Germany) welcomed the European Commission’s proposal.
In his opinion, the 60% target in Ms Guteland’s amended draft report is merely a political “tactic” to aid inter-institutional negotiations ("trilogues") where the target will be cobbled together in order to find a compromise with Member States.
Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, France), however, thinks this is an incomprehensible argument and is of the opinion that the European Parliament should “be political and use tactics”, “if we really want to have a 55% reduction as the final end point of the negotiation with Member States”.
He then called on his colleagues to vote in favour of a 60% reduction, a target which he said was both ambitious and likely to receive the vote of a majority of MEPs.
Poland’s Anna Zalewska (ECR), urged Parliament and the European Commission to “build on the facts”, and not forget to take into account the short-term consequences of raising the target to 55% or 60%, especially in respect of energy prices.
Reacting to these interventions, the Commission’s Executive Vice-President responsible for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, admitted that a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 will be “incredibly difficult to achieve”.
However, the impact study (see EUROPE 12562/1) also showed that it is “feasible”, he then added.
He also defended the European Commission’s approach to natural carbon sinks (forests, etc.) on the grounds that these sinks have tended to decline in recent years, instead turning them into net emitters of CO2 and endangering biodiversity, and pollinators in particular.
“In that context, I believe it is wise to include carbon sink in our target and to make sure we increase the health of our natural environment”, he told MEPs.
An uncertain vote
At the time of going to press, the results of the votes on the amendments to Ms Guteland’s ‘climate law’ draft report were not yet known.
It is certain, however, that the proposals for a 70% reduction (GUE/NGL) and a 65% reduction (Greens/EFA) will be rejected, as well as the ID Group’s amendment to reject the ‘climate law’.
According to our information, the Greens/EFA, GUE/NGL and a large majority of the S&D and Renew Europe groups will vote in favour of a 60% reduction. Since the EPP, ID and ECR groups are opposed to this, the vote could come down to just ten votes.
If this proposal is rejected, a majority of MEPs would then have to vote in favour of a reduction of at least 55%. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)