Too much or too little? Reaction to EU carbon and energy plans

(, 9 Mar 2011) Europe’s main business groups have warned against increasing the EU’s 2020 target for cutting carbon emissions, as proposed by the European Commission on Tuesday. However, NGOs and green businesses slammed the EU executive for not going further still.

A new 25% emissions reduction target was the headline element of the commission’s low-carbon roadmap . An accompanying energy efficiency plan set out proposals for reducing energy waste, which should help achieve the extra reduction in emissions.

In its first reaction to the papers, BusinessEurope said it was “essential not to disrupt the EU climate and energy policy framework already in place for 2020". However, the employers’ association did concede that the low-carbon roadmap at least provided extra certainty over long-term EU climate policy.

Business Europe also criticised the commission’s proposal to set aside some allowances from phase three of the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) to raise carbon prices. Analysts at Deutsche Bank estimated that if 500-800 million allowances were withdrawn, as mooted earlier by the commission, this could raise the EU carbon price by €6 per tonne.

Power sector association Eurelectric warned higher ambition levels could force a rush to “short-term solutions”, which it said could “risk locking in unabated high-carbon or uneconomic technologies for a lengthy period”. It will be 2025 before the power sector can deliver really big emission cuts, the association cautioned.

However, environmental NGOs , two European political parties, and the renewable energy and rail industries all expressed disappointment at the 2020 target. They are still pushing for a 30% reduction and, in the case of Greens/EFA , a cut of at least 90% by 2050. The current EU objective for 2050 is 80-95%, but the roadmap only aims for 80%.

The refusal to go beyond a 25% cut in 2020 shows the commission “is effectively abandoning its pledge to limit global warming to 2°C", said Friends of the Earth . It was also unimpressed by the commission’s voluntary approach to national energy efficiency targets.

The commission’s own analysis shows a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved by 2020 through the ETS and renewables targets alone, the European Renewable Energy Council noted. A 30% target would provide a strong carbon signal for investment, and the commission should also consider extending binding renewables targets out to 2030.

The European Parliament’s ALDE group called for further investment in clean technologies. The EU’s investment is meagre compared with China and India, which invest 48% and 35% of their GDP in low-carbon technologies and infrastructure, it said.

Green group EEB was particularly critical of the energy efficiency plan, which it said lacked direction and firm actions. “The Commission leadership needs to think long and hard about the implications of further wasted energy and wasted money,” it said. “Waiting until 2013 to review the need for stronger measures only leaves us stuck with the same dirty old technologies.”

The treatment of the ecodesign directive is a case in point, according to the Coolproducts campaign, of which EEB is part. The energy efficiency plan acknowledges the importance of ecodesign standards for products, but in reality the standard setting process has stalled . “Piling up studies and good intentions without taking decisions on implementation measures is wasting the whole potential of this directive,” it said.

Engineering association Orgalime is happier with the plan. Manufacturers are developing more efficient products but there have to be measures to create a market for them, said director general Adrian Harris. Setting a deadline for member states to implement voluntary measures should give extra impetus.

Read more:

eceee on the Energy Efficiency Plan 2011: “New concrete measures needed to meet the 2020 savings target”