Virtue of existing. The momentary interruption of the Russian gas supply through Belarus came at the right time, when the European Commission was putting the final touches to its document on the EU's energy policy. The Russian incident brought it home to political decision-makers and the general public that Europe is fragile and that there is a need to act so that its energy dependence does not exceed (or no longer exceeds) acceptable limits.
The Commission's “energy package”, however, must be assessed from a more general point of view. First of all it has the virtue of existing. The very fact that Europe is the first entity of global scale to propose a global programme to meet the energy and environmental challenge is encouraging. Everything points to there being a growing international awareness of the great risk that climate change entails for nature and for mankind, as well as the imperative need to radically revise ways to meet energy requirements. Being at the forefront of this dual undertaking is in line with Europe's traditions and responsibilities, and can entail advantages which are difficult to assess but which are no doubt considerable, not only at the technological and economic levels but also when it comes to safeguarding our continent's natural environment. Major enterprises and the business world know which way the wind is blowing: banks and large companies are investing more and more and making announcements in Green Business - for example, the joint initiative by fifteen large groups (including energy producers and oil companies) in favour of a low-carbon company, as presented in our bulletin No 9342.
The political significance of the European Commission's initiative is just as considerable. Several observers say the next president of the United States will be elected on his/her environmental platform. Everything points to European public opinion also attributing growing importance to such aspects, and this will have considerable influence on the behaviour of political forces.
It should also be emphasised that Europe does not pose as a giver of lessons. According to the Commission, the EU should sign up to a number of commitments at unilateral level, without waiting for international negotiations aimed at defining the “post Kyoto” regime.
Preparing for future battles. The sometimes very strong protest and objection made of the Commission's choices on one aspect or another must be taken into consideration and carefully evaluated, but they must not make us forget earlier considerations. I wish to point out two such elements:
a) The differences, expressed in sometimes rather emotional reactions, had been discussed earlier within the Commission. Different opinions on nuclear energy, or percentages to be adopted for the different objectives (level of renewable energies, CO2 emission reductions, etc.) had already been thrashed out at the Berlaymont, as the resulting Commission texts testify. Although it is only logical for readers to be more affected by criticism (especially when such criticism is expressed in no uncertain terms), one must not forget that, on the whole, the Commission package has been generally welcomed not only by most EP parliamentary groups but also by economic circles.
b) Commission compromises are not definitive. They open the debate between the Member States (within the Council and Summit) and within the European Parliament. Everyone defends his or her own convictions. In March this year, the Heads of State and Government will approve a comprehensive plan of action, taking on board or amending guidelines and commitments that the Commission puts forward. The proposals for operational measures will follow, with a view to being negotiated according to Community procedures, with the full participation of the European Parliament. Between now and then, everyone's arguments may be put forward - which no doubt goes to explain why some stances are expressed so aggressively: - in preparation for battles to come. Readers of Agence EUROPE already have a complete overview not only of the Commission's package but of the very many reactions to this package thanks to the summaries by Emmanuel Hagry and Aminata Niang in our bulletin last week, as well as the interview with Commissioner Piebalgs in yesterday's edition.
I plan to come back to a number of aspects of the Commission's package, the elements of which are linked: energy supply for Europe and the evolution of the global climate that determines EU foreign policy (the case of Russia is obvious, but there are others), its industrial future, the way of life of its population, as well as the safeguard of its traditions, its natural environment and its landscapes. (F.R.)
Plenary session of the EP