Strasbourg, 14/03/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday, in an interview with EUROPE during the European Parliament plenary session, Claude Turmes (Greens, Luxembourg), a member of the energy committee (ITRE) spoke about the European Council's adoption on 9 March of the Community's Triennial Action Plan (2007-09) for energy and climate change (EUROPE 9384).
AGENCE EUROPE: As a member of the Greens, how do you see the agreement on energy and climate change, reached last week at the European Council?
Claude Turmes: The best thing we can say is that there was a certain awareness gained, but behind the political posturing the instruments are not there, and some of the Council's declarations are even contradictory.
AGENCE EUROPE: Is the Union's unilateral commitment for a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 enough to convince its partners to do the same?
Claude Turmes: This target is the biggest disappointment of the summit. Firstly, it is not enough according to what the scientists say, because if we want to stabilise rises in temperature to below 2 degrees, we need to be aiming at reductions of 30%. I also doubt that China and India, whose carbon emissions rates per inhabitant are lower, will agree to shift as long a Europe does not aim at a firm 30% target. Finally, the 20% target is defended by energy-intensive industries and BusinessEurope, which is very influential among European leaders. But we always forget that in a global context, these industries only represent 3-5% of added value created in the Union. The problem of these industries can be resolved by way of a tax at the Union's borders against products responsible for causing dumping in the energy arena, which according to a European legal recommendation, would comply with WTO rules,.
AGENCE EUROPE: How would you judge the role of the German presidency in this agreement?
Claude Turmes: It has played a positive role on renewables but on the internal market, it has been in the grip of the German energy companies E.ON and RWE. This complicity has enabled France to obtain a decision to delay the separation of production and network activities (unbundling). The question therefore has to be asked about whether the German government represents German consumers or shareholders from two or three major national energy companies.
AGENCE EUROPE: In what way do you see this agreement as a defeat for the French government, which had envisaged a broader target on low carbon fuels?
Claude Turmes: The French proposal would have been extremely counter-productive: a country can have 30-40% in low carbon fuels but if it produces a lot of electricity from coal or if it does not control consumption in the transport sector, it would never be able to attain the emissions reduction targets. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was very clear when she put renewables below nuclear power in the hierarchy. In another context, Chirac's defeat could have a healthy impact in France for drawing up an accurate balance sheet of an entirely nuclear industrial policy: in fact, over the last five years, the French nuclear company, Areva, sold an EPR reactor with a 1600 megawatt (MW) capacity to Finland for a loss that could be in the range of €1bn, whilst Denmark, whose companies are world leaders in wind power, sold turbines that have a capacity of 20,000 MW to India, China and the USA.
AGENCE EUROPE: How do you see the Commission's work developing on cost sharing between member states, so that the Union can reach its target on renewables?
Claude Turmes: Some member states and lobbies are saying that legislation will be introduced on a legal basis for the energy mix and not the environment, which will require a vote at unanimity at the Council, without consultation by the European Parliament. Neither the Parliament, nor the Commission will accept this, co-decision is indispensable. The Parliament has been the driving force in the promotion of renewables and it would be lunacy to prevent it taking part in this process. I can recall that with the adoption of the Eluned Morgan report in December, the Parliament clearly came out against re-nationalisation of policies: setting up 27 national renewable energy markets would be nonsense. It is therefore necessary to bolster the Community legislative framework, the directives on green electricity and biofuels and get rid of the legislative loophole in the hot and cool production sector based on renewable energy. If we want a 20% average in renewables, this means we have to obtain 35% energy from green electricity, 25% from hot and cool production and 8-10% from biofuels.
AGENCE EUROPE: On Tuesday morning the president of your group, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, strongly criticised a “pact that contains no sanctions”. Can you explain this point of view?
Claude Turmes: We believe that from an institutional point of view, there is a certain weakness when it comes to attaining the emissions reduction target. In the first place, as part of the Kyoto Protocol, member states that do not respect their commitments are not sanctioned. Secondly, it is absolutely crucial for votes on ecology taxes to be decided by qualified majority and not unanimity. Although Ms Merkel wants to make climate policy one of the key projects in a future Europe, it is absolutely essential to look at the institutional weak points. Finally, it has to be understood that pursuing a case at the Court of Justice is very slow while the greenhouse effect is of the utmost urgency to us. We've solved the question of monetary stability with a pact, we therefore have to agree on an identical instrument for climate change.
AGENCE EUROPE: In the internal market, is the text for the final conclusions of the European Council a step backwards with regard to the Commission's proposal on strengthening unbundling?
Claude Turmes: The compromise obtained is scandalously feeble because the internal energy market as it currently works is the biggest scam carried out on the European economy insofar as it takes billions of euros out of consumers pockets and puts them into the pockets of shareholders in a few of the companies. The internal market has lost all credibility: we hoped to replace the allowances made to the monopolies with a competitive system but in the end we now see that there is no competition on the market, but allowances for an oligopoly. Even if there is a perfect separation, the market will not work without the political courage to fight market domination. In France EDF controls 85% of the electricity market, E.ON controls 60% of gas in Germany. If gas is controlled, the electricity market is too.
AGENCE EUROPE: In the field of energy efficiency, what are the priority measures the Union has to implement for it to be able to make an 20% saving in energy by 2020?
Claude Turmes: This chapter should be the priority of priorities. It's barely believable that the Union is practically not planning any measures in the transport sector, which is 95% dependent on oil. Even if the peak in oil production is in around 15 years' time, it is irresponsible to be so lacking in ambition on minimum standards for energy performance in cars. The Eurovignette decision of 2006 needs revising and a tax on kerosene needs to be imposed in the aviation sector. In the electricity sector a programme needs implementing for reducing demand, based on minimum energy performance standards for energy consuming products. There is also an urgent need for a rethink on reducing VAT for these kinds of products. Co-generation should also be put back at the centre of the European strategy. It's the only way of preventing a return to conventional coal, as we are in a re-investment cycle in electricity, where clean technologies are going to come too late. Finally, 40% of energy in Europe is consumed in buildings. It will therefore be necessary to implement a building modernisation programme funded by the EIB, in combination with structural funds, which will create at least 500,000 jobs in the Union and which solve the problems of building insulation in Central and Eastern Europe.
AGENCE EUROPE: What measures should be taken at a Community level to ensure a real breakthrough in renewables?
Claude Turmes: A rethink at a Community level is required with regard to the guaranteed price system in Germany or the bonus system in Spain for electricity from renewables. The second condition, is the question of network separation and infrastructure neutrality. If we want to transform the North Sea into offshore wind and marine energy, we have to invest in cables, which is not in the interest of the major groups. If the 25% target is to be reached for the heating and cooling sector, we need a tough directive in this sector, together with concrete incentives for building heating and cooling distribution networks, because it is only by doing this that we will be able to see greater investment for geothermic, bio-mass and solar energy sources on a wider scale than for individual houses alone. In the context of biofuels, we have to count more on second generation biomass products. These products are expected to be used mainly in electricity and heat production because this use will generate four to five times more gains than biofuels in emission reductions.
AGENCE EUROPE: What are the chances of developing clean technologies that capture and store carbons?
Claude Turmes: This is the joker in the pack. Public money should not be invested in demonstration and marketing projects but should, above all, be used for finding geologically adapted sites. It really is up to the electricity sector to invest its windfall profits in clean technologies. The biggest problem will arise if the price on the carbons market is less than €30 or €35. Investors will invest in conventional coal rather than sequestrated coal. If the emissions quota exchange system is set at genuine market prices, there is a change that this will work.
AGENCE EUROPE: The “external relations” chapter in the European Council's action plan highlights enhanced energy partnerships and dialogue with third countries. Is this enough to enable the Union to speak with a single voice on the international scene?
Claude Turmes: The problem is that member states do not trust the Commission's ability to negotiate. The results of five years of dialogue with Russia are in fact, rather mediocre. The Commission requires a specialist staff. By working more on projects with the Council, the Commission could make a difference. Council texts are too oriented on supply and not enough on demand. 75% of Russian gas imported into the Union is consumed by buildings. The strategy for this sector therefore has to be more efficient for re-establishing the balance of forces. If a genuine energy policy were developed, Gazprom would have an altogether different attitude. It is important with China and India, for example, to discuss standards for cars and buildings, in an effort to reduce the impact on prices and pressure on the last gas and oil resources. It is not the party with the resources that is strongest but the entity that takes into account political concepts and technologies that allow for less dependency. (eh)