Brussels, 02/10/2009 (Agence Europe) - The Copenhagen Conference (COP 15, 7-18 December), which is to conclude a global climate agreement on post-2012, mobilised the Parliamentary committee on the environment chaired by Jo Leinen (S&D, Germany), on Wednesday 30 September in Brussels. The MEPs met to approve the terms of an oral question to the European Commission and the Council on the strategy to be pursued by the Commission in view of Copenhagen, and to prepare the ground for the proposed resolution to accompany this question. The cut-off date for amendments was set at 1 October. The Parliamentary committee will take position on the draft text in two weeks' time, with the resolution to be put to the vote at the November plenary.
In its outlines, the text on the table recommends: - observing the CO2 emissions reduction commitments taken by the industrialised countries in line with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for 2020 and 2050; - sufficient funding for the fight against global warming (and not less than 30 billion euros a year by 2020 as Europe's contribution to the mitigation and attenuation policies of the developing nations); - creating a world carbon market; - effective measures to fight changes to land use, deforestation and the degradation of forests (tropical deforestation must end by no later than 2020) and a global forest carbon mechanism; - the inclusion of international aviation and maritime transport in the Copenhagen agreement; - an important role for the EU delegation in these negotiations. These fundamental demands were the subject of a lively debate.
Debate over upper part of range in reductions by industrialised countries
Although all members of the committee hope that the EU Member States will all sing from the same hymn sheet in order to continue to play a leading role in the negotiations and to be able to ask much of their partners, the debate revealed differences of opinion on the level of ambition the EU should target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the group of industrialised countries in the medium term. The Christian Democrats are opposed to any reference in the text to "the upper part" of the scale recommended by the IPCC (between 25% and 40%). "In our group, many of us do not accept that. Let's respect the commitment of the Energy/Climate package adopted nine months ago", said Françoise Grossetête (EPP, France), referring to the range of 20%-30% (20% in the event of unilateral commitment on the part of the EU, 30% in the other industrialised nations took similar commitments). "These commitments have been quoted. If we are talking about reduction objectives of 80% by 2050, then why not put the question to the European Commission for the 2020 objective?", retorted Jo Leinen, pointing out that a resolution of the Parliament from 11 March this year, written by Satu Hassi (Green, Finland), included these figures. "The scale of 25%-40% was adopted in Bali, but the upper part of this range was not the subject of an agreement of the Parliament", said Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP, Germany), returning to the attack. Jolanta Emilia Hibner (EPP, Poland) called for realism, reminding the audience how hard it had been to get Poland to accept just 20%. Peter Liese (EPP, Germany) invited "colleagues who are having doubts" to attend a meeting scheduled for 11 November between MEPs and the deputy president of the IPCC. Matthias Groote (S&D, Germany), for his part, said that Copenhagen was a test bed, meaning that it was worth being ambitious. Carl Schlyter (Green, Sweden) stressed that "in order to remain credible in Copenhagen, particularly in the eyes of the Chinese, we must respect our previous obligations". He therefore pleaded for the reduction in emissions of 40% to be carried out nationally.
After the split voting requested by the EPP group, those in favour of more ambition won the day. The text of the oral question was therefore adopted without modification (23 votes in favour, 6 against). It will be put as follows: what is the strategy of the Commission to ensure that all countries reach an ambitious agreement? What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that this agreement lays down binding objectives regarding emissions, which will lead to reductions of the global emissions of the industrialised countries in the upper range of around 35% to 40% targeted for 2010 compared to 1990? What amounts of money does the Commission intend to earmark for the funding of mitigation and attenuation actions and to reduce deforestation in the developing countries in order to lead to a global agreement and face up to its responsibilities to the developing world?
The debate will provide a springboard to return to the resolution at the Parliamentary committee's vote, as the draft refers to "the upper part" of the scale.
In the view on Satu Hassi, the draft resolution is an excellent starting point. "I hope that we will be following in the steps of the previous Parliament, which tried to guide us towards an ambitious environmental policy", she told her colleagues. "Let us start by sweeping our own doorstep!", exclaimed Cristina Guterres Cortines (EPP, Spain), spoke out against the degradation of European soil and the fact that the EU had paid for olive groves to be pulled up in the southern countries, in the name of the CAP. "We will not achieve anything if the United States and China, the two largest polluters, cannot be convinced", said Zoltan Balczo (independent, Hungary). In the view of Karl-Heinz Florenz, what matters most is to "bring influence to bear on the other parts of the world- particularly the Americans". President Buzek will have to pull out all the stops in order to be granted a meeting with President Obama before Copenhagen, to discuss a global system of trading in emissions quotas, he added. Jo Leinen announced on that in late October, a delegation from the committee on the environment would be travelling to Washington. "I hope that we will have the opportunity to meet the right people", he said, referring to the risk that the national battle over the American health care system may put the fight against global warming into second place. (A.N./trans.fl)