Brussels, 11/01/2007 (Agence Europe) - It is a bit of an understatement to say that the environmental NGOs are disappointed by the Energy for Europe package presented on 10 January by the Commission (EUROPE 9341). Their fears, expressed on the eve of the Commission's adoption of the proposals (EUROPE 9340), have been borne out.
Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE) describe the package as, “good news for the dirty energy industry, bad news for people and the planet”. The NGO criticises the Commission for ignoring its own scientific and economic analyses and sticking to the status quo on energy policy instead of giving a boost to radical change in favour of renewable energies and energy efficiency. FoE deplores the fact that the programme aims to improve the way the markets operate in the EU but leaves billions of Euros in subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power intact and fails to tackle the considerable external costs society pays for energy.
Jan Kowalzig, the NGO's expert on climate issues declared, “The EU Energy Package should create a vision for sustainable energy in Europe, based on renewable energies and highly efficient production and consumption of energy. Instead, the European Commission plans for energy policy in Europe to remain dominated by dirty fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear energy”.
On the subject of renewable energies, FoE regrets that the Commission had only set out, “a weak overall target of meeting 20% …by 2020, lower than what is easily possible”. The NGO says that this is without counting the fact that this objective is not even broken down into specific sectoral objectives, “thus missing an opportunity to trigger simultaneous development in all areas. The European Commission itself acknowledges that a lack of sector-specific targets for electricity or for heating and cooling will weaken security of businesses when planning investments in these sectors”.
The FoE considers that the EU proposed objective for a unilateral reduction of 20% of greenhouse gases by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, “would not be enough to guarantee the EU's own objective to keep global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius”. Jan Kowalzig says that this “would indicate to the rest of the world that the EU is barely serious about tackling the climate crisis…If EU governments confirm a target below 30% at the upcoming EU Summit, it will be a punch in the face for everyone already suffering from floods or droughts”.
FoE is also disappointed by the “old-fashioned approach” of the Commission on security of energy supply, which consists of ensuring, “long-term imports of oil and gas into the EU”. FoE says that this approach should start by reducing the waste of energy in the greedy transport (70% of oil imported) and buildings sectors (50% of gas imported). The NGO is also critical of nuclear power, which the Commission believes is a solution in the EU's fight against climate change, but does not offer, “a solution to its unsolved problems” of this energy source.
For the same reasons, the WWF states that the Commission's proposals for a “new energy revolution” are still a distant dream.
The NGO says that it is counting on the German Presidency of the Council and all countries, like Germany, to support the objective of the 30% reduction by 2020 (notably the United Kingdom, Sweden and France), “to fight for EU global leadership on climate change and strengthen the proposal at the European Council in March”.
According to the WWF, if the European Commission is to achieve the “new industrial revolution” its wants so badly, it must find new ways of producing energy, rethink how transport is organised, and guarantee that new, efficient products are promoted for lighting up our homes and workplaces.
The NGO asserts that the energy package is well short of “this vision” for providing numerous opportunities; reducing our dependency on volatile energy imports; creating new efficient energy technologies; and opening up the new green markets to products and services in Europe. Stephan Singer, the Head of the Climate Change Unit at the WWF says that there is still, “Too much emphasis on oil and gas supply pipelines and other technical solutions, and too little about the real possibilities to diversify energy sources giving priority to renewable energies and more efficiency”. The European Environment Bureau (EEB) is on the same wavelength but welcomes one point: the objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% as proposed for developed countries by 2020. The NGO says that the EU should set out this objective for itself. (an)