Today the European Parliament voted on the historic climate package, which sets out concrete steps to combat climate change. The European Commission announced proposals in January dealing with ways of reducing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. The timetable was unusually speeded up so that European legislation on climate change would be in place before international negotiations in Copenhagen. The positive results we gained in the Environment Committee were disappointingly and frustratingly watered down during negotiations with European Government Ministers.
Each piece of legislation was adopted with a majority. I voted against the Emissions Performance Standards for New Cars Regulation, Effort Sharing to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Decision and Carbon Capture and Storage; I voted in favour of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowance Trading Scheme and the Renewable Energy Directive.
Emissions Performance Standards for New Cars Regulation
This regulation sets limits on CO2 emissions from new cars. This was in response to a failure by car makers to keep to a commitment they made in 1998 to reduce the average CO2 emissions of new cars in the EU to 120 g/km by 2012. The Environment Committee endorsed an average fleet limit of 130g/km by 2012.
However, throughout negotiations the Council rejected this target, favouring instead to phase down the emissions limit gradually. So now only 65% of fleet will have to meet the 130g/km target by 2012, 75% by 2013, 80% in 2014 and 100% in 2015, delaying the reductions that are necessary now.
Non-compliance is to be punished with financial penalties. But the Council watered down the penalties recommended by the Environment Committee, which would have provided a real incentive for manufacturers to modify their fleet. Instead, the concept of flexibility was introduced, so manufacturers who just miss the target pay reduced fines. This means that in some cases, it is cheaper for the manufacturers to pay the fines than modify their cars.
A further incentive for manufacturers to continue improving the emissions level of their cars was the Environment Committee's introduction of a required average of 95g/km emissions per fleet by 2020. This target is now merely an aspiration, and is not binding.
The legislation is full of loopholes for car manufacturers. The 130g/km target will not be met until 2019, and a review might even revise this. The result of all this is that the emissions limit would only be 162 g/km by 2012 - which incredibly is higher than the current European average of 158 g/km. That is why I voted against this report.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowance Trading Scheme
This Directive reforms the Emissions Trading Scheme which was originally set up in 2005. The ETS sets a cap on carbon emissions for the energy sector and other energy-intensive sectors, and creates 'allowances' which can be traded between participating companies.
Crucially, in this Directive, the EU has committed to increasing its current 20% greenhouse gas reduction target to 30%, subject to an international agreement.
A real problem with the first phase of ETS was the windfall profits arising from the free allowances granted. The Environment Committee supported full auctioning of permits from 2013, rather than free permits. However, due to opposition from some coal-reliant Member States, like Poland and Germany, auctioning will be phased in until 100% is achieved in 2020. Council negotiations have also resulted in other sectors being given until 2027 before full auctioning comes into play.
50% of the revenue from auctioning will be earmarked for climate protection.
Even though the report is not as strong as I had hoped for, it is still a significant improvement on the current situation, which could not have been allowed to continue as it stands now. The existence of an ETS is key to getting a global agreement on a cap and trade system in Copenhagen in 2009.
Other positive elements in the report include the fact that permits will now be allocated at EU level, not by Member States who traditionally over-allocate permits. There is a new process for ensuring the quality of Clean Development Mechanism projects. I am also happy that the aviation industry only received a 1.5% auctioning allocation, when it was expecting ten times that amount.
Effort Sharing to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Decision
This report deals with emission reduction targets not covered by the emissions trading scheme i.e. in the transport sector, domestic heating and agriculture.
I could not vote in favour of this report as the Council negotiations went completely against the Environment Committee's decision by effectively allowing 80% of emissions reduction effort to come from external offsetting (i.e. by purchasing credits resulting from projects in third countries), completely undermining the report. The committee had voted for a figure of 20% to be set. This sends a very negative signal to all other parties involved in international negotiations.
Additionally, there is derogation for extra carry forward for the first two years due to exceptional meteorological conditions.
Renewable Energy Directive
This directive sets a binding target for the use of renewable energy. By 2020, 20% of energy use in the EU must come from renewable sources. The report includes various incentives for Member States to reach this target.
In addition, provisions obliging member states to report on the measures they will take have been strengthened. By June 2010, Member States will have to submit a standardised Renewable Action Plan. The European Commission can then issue recommendations on the action plans that are unsatisfactory.
To ensure that no national support system for promoting renewable energy is undermined, Member States can count investments in other countries towards their own target. Renewable energy will have priority access to electricity grids and gas pipelines.
These positive factors meant that it was important to support this Directive, even though the target of 10% for biofuel use in energy for the transport sector remains. While I have consistently opposed the inclusion of a biofuel target, the European Parliament succeeded in changing the terms of this target sufficiently so that I felt I could support the Directive as a whole. The target now includes electric or hydrogen vehicles and trains that are powered through renewable electricity. Along with including waste products and non-feed biofuel in the target, this has meant a reduction in the proportion of first generation biofuel included. A review of the implications of this target will also be held in 2014, so that the EU can monitor the situation. The Parliament also succeeded in improving the 'sustainability criteria' that will limit the environmental damage caused by the use of biofuel, notably to include the indirect impact caused by the diversion of the use of land to produce biofuels.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
This Directive creates a legal framework for the capture, transport and storage of carbon dioxide from power plants. Even though I was my group's spokesperson on this Directive, I felt I had to vote against it as it simply gives the green light to build more fossil fuel power stations, which I am strongly against.
While I support Carbon Capture and Storage development, it is still an unproven technology that is only one option for the future. While more research into this technology is undertaken, other forms of sustainable energy must be promoted. The promise of this new technology cannot be used as an excuse to build more fossil fuel power stations. This is why the Environment Committee voted for an Emission Performance Standard of 500g CO2/MWh for any new build fossil fuel plants. As this provision was deleted during negotiations, there is no limit on the emissions coming from these power plants in the legislation as it stands. The commitment to make new plants "CCS ready" means nothing more than having open space available at the site.
Diwedd/Ends
