Strasbourg, 04/02/2009 (Agence Europe) - With the adoption on Wednesday 4 February of the final report by the temporary committee on climate change, the European Parliament made several recommendations with a view to a future integrated EU policy in this respect. The own-initiative report by Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP-ED, Germany), which comes in a context of long-term prospects, brings together the conclusions reached by the ad hoc committee formed by the EP in April 2007. Adopted by a large majority (570 for, 78 against and 24 abstentions), the text is based on the Community objective to limit the average temperature rise to below 2°C. MEPs wonder, however, whether such a level of ambition is alone sufficient given the risk that “climate change is both more rapid and more serious in terms of its adverse effects than was previously thought”. With a view to the end of negotiations on a new international agreement on climate, which should be concluded in Copenhagen in December 2009, MEPs thus point out how important it is for the EU and other industrialised countries to fix, together, a medium term objective of greenhouse gas emission reduction by way of 25-40% by 2020, as well as a long-term target for reduction of at least 80% by 2050 (compared to the 1990 level). It is at the present time that measures must be taken in the run up to these dates.
MEPs take the view that it is important “not to capitulate in face of the complexity of the problem but to show a visionary desire to make a difference”. Political and educational measures on the basis of a long term perspective are essential and the citizens need to be engaged in the process of tackling climate change. The report recommends a broad range of measures around 22 themes. These include: - the creation of solar energy partnerships with third countries in the Mediterranean region, as building blocks of European external energy policy; - the establishment of a long term target for the European building sector aimed at net zero-energy performance in new residential buildings by 2015 and in new commercial and public buildings by 2020; - the creation by the EU of a European renewable energy community; - member state and EU institution support for research and development in respect of technologies such as hydrogen, electric, fuel cells, hybrids or advanced biofuels; - definition by the Commission of reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector; - the setting in place of a European Climate Fund and/or corresponding funds in the member states; - the creation of an EU-wide “supergrid” accessible to all forms of electricity providers; - incentives for citizens to reduce emissions in an affordable way, e.g. by diffusing information on the carbon content of products and services; - and the possibility of providing free energy audits. The report goes on to state that, in the next EU financial framework, the highest priority should be given to climate change and measures to combat it.
Essential effort to be made for global consensus
“We are well aware that, with bans, sanctions and renunciation, we shall have few results. We must above all promote a change in mindset, innovation and motivation”, the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, said during the debate. Speaking on behalf of the EU Presidency, the Czech minister for the environment, Martin Busek, spoke of the “glimmer of hope” coming from the United States with the commitment announced by the new administration in favour of combating climate change. “Somewhere in Copenhagen, there is a door with 200 locks. If we find all the keys, we shall reach an agreement. The first has been broken open - that of Europe. The second is the American key”, he said. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas welcomed the fact that the EP shares the Commission's analysis and ambition. The economic crisis “complicates matters” but it must not become a “pretext” for postponing sanctions, he said. On the subject of aid to be given to developing countries, the commissioner considers that “€100-150 billion” will be needed so that they can contribute to global efforts. “Without aid, developing countries will not be able to lower their emissions and there will be no Copenhagen agreement”, he warned.
Speaking on behalf of the EPP-EDD, Romana Jordan Cizelj of Romania placed emphasis on the need to reflect on the contribution to be made in fighting climate change by other sectors of activity such as livestock farming and communication technologies. Dorette Corbey (PES, NL) called for solidarity with those affected by job losses in the high energy-consuming sectors. One speaks little of agriculture, she said, asking whether it too should be concerned by these targets. British Liberal Chris Davies pointed a finger of blame at the rapid growth in world population (over 200,000 people born each week). Speaking of the limited nature of resources, he called for the broadest possible diffusion of birth control.
Liam Aylward (UEN, Ireland) called for a reduction in red tape to allow SMEs to invest in green technologies. Rebecca Harms (Greens/EFA, Germany) asked how far the political consensus was going. "Are we really able to change our way of practising the economy? This decision has not yet been made", she said, quoting the example of national economic relaunch plans which contain no element of sustainability. Jens Holm (GUE/NGL, Sweden) welcomed references to stock farming, a sector which he believes is responsible for "18%" of greenhouse gas emissions. "No part of the world should escape these efforts", said Johannes Blokland (IN/DEM, Netherlands).
Most MEPs feel that measures to fight climate change are vital for sustainable upturn in economy
The ad hoc committee has done its job well, but this work must be continued, and a number of MEPs pleaded for the attempt to go beyond the specialisation within the various committees to be concretised by the creation of a permanent committee during the next term of office. This is a step that a number of national parliaments have already taken, said the Italian Guido Sacconi (PES), who chaired the temporary committee. His fellow Italian Vittorio Prodi (ALDE) criticised Europe's policy for being a bit too Eurocentric: we are faced with a change of civilisation, and the way we react must involve all countries, he said. Another Italian, Roberto Musacchio (GUE/NGL), said that it would be wrong to change the balance of the resolution with ideological amendments on the subject of nuclear energy, but called on the Parliament to accept his amendment, which draws attention to the relationship between climate change and water, with particular reference to the forthcoming conference of the World Water Forum, to be held shortly in Istanbul. The proposals of the Forum should have been granted greater attention by the report, said the Swedish MEP Lena Ek (ALDE), who would also have liked to see more robust proposals regarding health and relaunching the employment market.
The proposals on climate change will compromise Europe's capacity to be competitive, said Poland's Bogdan Pek (UEN): no, quite the contrary, replied British Socialist Linda McAvan, our countries will not survive unless they adopt this package. However, she acknowledged that the citizens must be won over, and this will only be possible by linking efforts to fight climate change with the relaunch of the economy and employment. President Obama has made this link, and so should the EU. This change in the American administration is a great opportunity, acknowledged British Conservative John Bowis: "instead of exchanging words, we can finally exchange ideas".
In order to ensure the success of the package, economic development must be boosted, said the Polish member Jerzy Buzek (EPP-ED), who welcomed the decision of Commissioner Dimas on investments favouring technology which consumes less energy. However, the Commission believes that no less than 165 billion a year will be needed to achieve the objectives of the fight against climate change, said the French Socialist Catherine Guy-Quint, even though the current budget is a long way from being up to this challenge. There is, therefore, a "major funding problem". Yes, we need a budget in line with our ambitions, said her fellow French MEP Françoise Grossetête (EPP-ED), but everything pleads in favour of the achievement of the "third industrial revolution" represented by sustainable growth. Energy efficiency should, she continued, already be part of every business plan. The fight against climate change is vital to relaunch the economy, agreed Romanian Socialist Silvia-Adriana Ticau, who also pleaded in favour of ecological tourism and reforestation. It is a "new culture of transport" that is required, said the Hungarian Etelka Barsi-Pataky (EPP-ED). A number of MEPs drew attention to the specific case of agriculture; among these the Greek Socialist Katerina Batzeli and Agnes Schierhuber (EPP-ED), who challenged the view that agriculture is a contributor to climate change: it has often played a pioneering role and it has often been the victim of climate change, the Austrian MEP stated.
In the view of some of the MEPs, the proposals currently on the table do not go far enough. The Irish member Avril Doyle (EPP-ED) said that the objective should be "at least" 30% by 2020, and "at least" 80% by 2050. British Green Caroline Lucas would also have preferred to see greater ambition, as would the Swede Anders Wijkman, who supported his argument with the results of scientific reports stating that climate change is taking place even faster and is even more serious than previously thought. Other voices were raised in opposition: other, less negative, scenarios should also be taken into account, said Germany's Markus Pieper (EPP-ED), who feels that the ad hoc committee has adopted an excessively "politically correct" attitude. Adam Gierek (EPP-ED, Poland) agrees with this view and feels that the approach of the ad hoc committee is too unilateral and focused too much on reducing greenhouse gases. (A.B./M.B./L.G./transl.fl)