Connie Hedegaard, former European Commissioner for Climate Action in the Barroso II Commission (2010-2014), recently decided to join the board of the NGO ‘Environmental Defense Fund’ and chairs the ‘Round Table on Sustainable Development’ of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). In this context, the former Danish Minister for Climate and Energy (2007-2009), as well as President of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, told EUROPE how she sees the development of the European Union’s climate and energy policy. [Interview by Damien Genicot].
Agence Europe – While the EU could soon adopt a net reduction target of its greenhouse gas emissions of at least 55% by 2030, China, South Korea and Japan recently announced that they are aiming for carbon neutrality by 2060 or 2050. How do you perceive the evolution of climate ambition in the EU and the rest of the world?
Connie Hedegaard – I think things are starting to move in the right direction. We should not underestimate how ambitious a reduction of at least 55% in Europe is, since we only have 9 years left to reach this target.
As far as China is concerned, I found that Xi Jinping’s deliberate choice to make this announcement at the opening of the UN General Assembly was a very interesting signal, because China was not really forced to announce such a target. Many countries had, of course, urged China to move in this direction, but nothing has yet been announced by Washington or by other major economies, except the EU.
However, it is not enough to set targets. The important thing is to achieve them.
You just said that it is an ambitious target, but the European Parliament is calling for a 60% target and some even support a target of 65% or 70%?
I understand that some have argued that it should be higher than 55%, because they know that some Member States would like a less ambitious target and will try to reduce it, so it is sort of the normal game of negotiations.
However, from my point of view, what is even more important right now is to find out the means to achieve the targets.
If I had one wish, it would be that we rebalance the discussions to focus more on the ‘how’ rather than the ‘how much’, because we tend to spend a lot of time setting the objective and waiting too long to achieve it.
The most important thing is to start now to implement the necessary measures (in agriculture, transport, energy, and so forth) and, in 2 or 3 years’ time, we can discuss raising the target beyond 55%.
Speaking of the “how”, what do you think is the main missing element in the current EU climate policy?
I have to say that what the Heads of State decided in July with the Recovery Plan is really interesting, especially the fact that a very important part of the funds will be dedicated to the green transition and that the rest of the funds must not harm the climate.
It is now extremely important that the European Union remain firm and rejects the national recovery plans that do not respect these guidelines approved in July. The Commission and the Parliament must be strong enough to enforce these intentions.
Another important thing will be to have a higher price for carbon.
I also believe that Europe can also be much better at pooling our public and private resources when it comes to innovations such as hydrogen or batteries. In these areas, we need to act jointly.
When you were European Commissioner for Climate Action, you worked in particular on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). 6 years later, do you think the ETS has achieved its objective?
Despite the reforms of the ETS, I still think we need a higher price for carbon. I think this should be a logical consequence of setting more ambitious climate targets. Of course, some will say that this is complicated by the Covid-19 crisis. That’s true, but announcing now that a higher carbon price will be phased in in 2, 3 or 4 years’ time already gives a signal to companies that they need to start innovating and changing the way they do things.
A frequent criticism of the ETS is that there are too many free allowances. What do you think about this?
I agree. There have been a lot of exemptions and free quotas. I think it is important to strengthen the ETS so that the carbon price goes up.
I also believe that Europe should really work with some of the other economies in the world that are trying to put a price on carbon. China, for example, has a number of pilot projects and it looks like they are moving to the next stage.
A carbon adjustment mechanism at the EU’s external borders (CBAM) could replace the system of free allowances. Given your experience as a former Commissioner, do you think that the idea of a CBAM could become a reality fairly quickly despite all the difficulties it raises?
It is really tricky. If the EU’s competitors do not set a carbon price for their producers, then we should have a carbon border adjustment mechanism in our toolbox.
But the EU has to be careful about timing, as things are moving forward, especially in China. I know that in the US [editor’s note: this interview was conducted before the final result of the US elections], some politicians, even in the Republican Party, have been developing some kind of white papers on the subject.
If we want this mechanism to be a success, I really recommend that Europe reach out urgently to the United States, China, India and other big partners and say, “We have a common problem that we have to solve together. Some of us are more ambitious than others and want to go faster, which could harm our economies”.
It is absolutely essential to have a dialogue on the carbon border adjustment mechanism with the world’s major economies.
Presenting the CBAM as an EU-only project, without dialogue with other countries, risks having negative consequences on international trade, as well as on international climate negotiations.
I think that it could be good if the OECD [editor’s note: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] played a role.
Turning to energy, the European Commission and the majority of MEPs see gas as a transitional energy to help Member States that are heavily dependent on coal to reduce their emissions before switching to renewables. As a former European Commissioner, but also the former Danish Climate and Energy Minister, do you share this view?
I think that if a country like Poland phases out of coal faster than it has planned so far (2049), then it will need gas to some extent as a transitional technology.
But I also believe that there are some forces right now that are advocating in favour of too much gas (because it seems the easy way to phase out of coal and oil), which could prevent us from achieving climate neutrality by 2050.
I believe that gas will have a role to play for some time to come, but we must be very careful not to overestimate its importance.
What could the Commission do to ensure that we do not end up with stranded gas assets?
The Commission should continue its work on taxonomy and on investment policy, making it very clear that we should change the stream of investment, because it is one of the most powerful tools we have.
I think it is also very important to continue to have ambitious targets for renewables, but also for energy efficiency, because the more energy efficient we are, the less we need to expand our energy system with whatever should replace coal and oil.
In my opinion, there is a tendency not to focus sufficiently on energy efficiency which is a low-hanging fruit, and that is why I am convinced that the objectives for energy efficiency and renewable energies are essential, as are investment policy and taxonomy.