Tag: eu

Before today’s presentations of the pledges get underway, ECO decided to offer some of its own “clarifications” about the EU mitigation pledge. And it’s mostly good news.
 The emissions cuts made by the EU in 2009 were already 17.3 % below 1990 levels, so the 20% target by 2020 is almost already met. ECO isn’t the first to point out that less effort is required of the EU than some may think.  The European Commission’s 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap published in March 2011, notes that implementing the EU’s existing renewable energy and energy efficiency targets would lead to 25 % domestic emissions cuts in the EU. So there’s really no excuse for the EU not to commit to do more – moving to at least the 30% target they have long promised, and beyond to the 40% target that science demands. And there are many reasons why they should.
First, the Commission’s 2050 Roadmap showed how hitting only the 20% target by 2020 would put the EU off-course to achieve the 2050 target of 80-95% that they know is needed. Failing to try a bit harder now will mean much more work in the long-run.
Second, moving to 30% would bring the EU Emissions Trading Scheme back to life. ECO has long complained of the problems of over-allocation of emissions allowances in the period 2008-12, which does nothing but offer staggering windfall profits to the dirtiest industries in Europe.
Decreasing the number of allowances by increasing the target would turn a policy by which the polluter gets paid, into one that incentivizes clean, green fighting industries of the future in Europe. The business voices that want to realize that vision in Europe have had enough of the uncertainty of a conditional target. Planning big investments requires predictability. Europe needs both.
Third, those investments will bring new jobs to Europe. The European Commission shows how “action geared towards reaching the climate and energy targets of the Europe 2020 strategy has some of the greatest potential for future jobs.” Many will fall in the construction industry – a sector particularly hard hit in the European economic downturn.
ECO hopes this helps to provide all the clarity the EU needs to finally move to its higher target. A report commissioned for the German Environment Ministry sums it up nicely. A 30% target would help boost European investments from 18% to 22% of GDP, lead to a GDP increase of up to €620bn, create up to 6 million additional jobs, and help European industry to maintain and enhance its competitiveness. Europe, ECO thinks the case for 30% is clear as day.

Developed country leadership on moving to a zero carbon economy is in short supply. The positions adopted by many Annex I parties give the impression that they are dragging their heels rather than picking up their pace and embracing a greener future.
So the call by the UK’s powerful Committee on Climate Change for the UK to cut its emissions by 60% by 2030 on 1990 levels – and with the use of offsets “only at the margin” – is indeed a ray of sunshine.
The Committee is a statutory body under the UK’s groundbreaking Climate Change Act to advise on targets and monitor progress towards them. The Act sets a legally binding target to cut emissions by at least 80% by 2050, spanned by binding five-year carbon budgets.
A reduction of 60% by 2030 (and at least 50% by 2025), the Committee says, is achievable and affordable, with costs to the UK economy of less than 1% of GDP. In fact, the UK stands to benefit from a major drive on energy efficiency and developing new green industries based firmly on renewable energy sources.
There are also some strong pointers on EU ambition for 2020 and beyond. The Committee wants the EU to move to its long-promised 30% target as soon as possible. But in the meantime, the UK should move ahead unilaterally, at least for those sectors not covered by the EU emissions trading scheme.
The EU is also considering targets for 2030 as part of a ‘road map’ exercise due to report in the spring of 2011. The Committee also sets the bar here, calling for the EU to set a goal of around 55% below 1990 levels by 2030.
Here in Cancun, Parties are considering text which would require developed countries to implement Zero Carbon Action Plans – clear long-term frameworks to guide the transition to a green economy and avoid lock-in to high-carbon infrastructure.
Another key benefit will be to build trust that at least some Annex I Parties are taking concrete steps to deliver on their short and long-term targets. On this showing, the UK Climate Change Act is proving to be a pretty good model to follow.
Of course, the UK government now needs to act on the Committee’s advice. When he came to power in May, Prime Minister David Cameron pledged that his government will be the ‘greenest ever’.
What better way to prove it than by deciding a strong, early acceptance of the Committee’s recommendations? After all, in the runup to the election he committed to implementing them.  
With new, strong policies to meet these targets, the UK would fully embark on the path to a green economy and reduce reliance on fossil fuel imports. This will also give a clear and powerful signal to other developed nations that a zero carbon economy is nothing to be afraid of, and every bit an enormous 
opportunity for the future.
 

Over in snowy Brussels, the European Commission has set an agenda for 2011 in which the year 2050 looms large.  During the course of next year the Commission plans to publish a Roadmap towards a low carbon economy for the EU by 2050, including milestones for the structural and technological changes needed by 2030.  This feeds into a vision of an overall ‘resource-efficient’ economy, and will be followed by another Roadmap of 
possible development paths for the EU energy system to 2050.
An early prelude to this work is the European Climate Foundation’s Roadmap 2050 report which was presented in a side event yesterday.  This major project, conducted and backed by numerous experts and stakeholders, analyses four scenarios for achieving at least an 80% decarbonisation of the EU economy by 2050.  It puts a strong focus on energy efficiency and demand reduction, and priority is given to decarbonisation of the power sector, electrification of transport and heat and an integrated European approach to grid interconnection.  
The four scenarios cover renewable energy levels ranging from 40% to 100%, with the remainder addressed by nuclear and CCS (you can guess which scenario ECO prefers).  All four scenarios are found to be technologically feasible, secure, affordable, and even cheaper than business as usual, assuming a modest carbon price.  
But the most important finding is that none of the scenarios will be realised automatically.  A great deal of policy intervention will be needed in accordance with a structured, long-term plan.  If we rely solely on the price of carbon, market mechanisms and near-term emissions targets, the risk of lock-in to a high intensity carbon system is high.  At the same time, the upfront investment costs for major new grid, power generation and demand management infrastructure are substantial and planning ahead is a necessity.
What the EU needs – and indeed every country – is a Low or Zero Carbon Action Plan (alternatively known as a Low Emission Development Strategy or a Low Carbon and Climate Resilient Development Strategy).  
The UK’s Climate Change Act, with its legally binding national targets for 2020 and 2050, has precipitated just such a conclusion from the Independent Committee on Climate Change.  By looking out to 2050, the Committee came to the sharp realisation that the country’s power sector needs to be decarbonised by 2030.  Clearly the only way this can happen is by means of major policy intervention over and above what the carbon market will deliver, starting now.  
There is hope that focusing on 2050 will deliver an EU-wide strategy, complete with milestones and measures.  And there should be immediate recognition that a target of 20% emission reductions by 2020 is far from the least cost pathway.  
It is time to accept the necessity of long-term strategies to bring us safely to 2050.  That needs to be firmly embodied in an international agreement.  Not only would zero carbon plans for developed countries avoid nasty surprises down the line, they will provide tangible benefits in terms of innovation, job creation and quality of life.  And they would greatly improve MRV and trust in developed country actions matching intentions – something currently very hard to find.