'Lame duck versus laggards' in battle for EU climate future

 
Wind farm in Germany The EU has stuck with a solid 40% target for emissions reduction by 2030

The actions of a lame duck, said one critic. "Burnt out", said another.

The EU commissioners, who leave office in November, were never going to please everyone with their new goals on climate and energy policy unveiled in Brussels this week.

Long seen as the global leader in prioritising and tackling climate change, the 2030 proposals are certainly a step change from the previous plan developed in 2007.

There was always something a bit superior and smug about that 20-20-20 by 20 idea, meaning that emissions had to be cut, renewables utilised and energy efficiency improved by 20% by 2020.

It was just a bit too clever for its own good.

The plan failed to bring the world to a global climate agreement in the EU's own backyard at Copenhagen in 2009 as the chill wind of economic recession gathered pace.

In fairness, the 20s project has had some significant success as well. Overall carbon emission reductions from the EU block are just above the 20% target with six years to go.

Renewables have also made significant inroads.

On a warm, breezy Sunday last June, wind and solar power supplied 60% of Germany's electricity needs.

But right next door to green, clean Germany you have fellow EU member Poland with around 90% of their power coming from coal.

Across the Union, governments were asking, how could the same rigid rules on renewables apply to both?

And then there was shale gas.

"When gas prices in the European Union are three or four times as high as in the United States, then this is a competitive disadvantage we can't accept," Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger said at the launch of the new plan.

Poland coal While Germany has embarked on a green energy push, about 90% of Poland's power comes from coal

Confronted by economic woe and political opposition, and with elections due in May, the EU executive opted for a fudge.

"Ambitious but realistic," said Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso of the new plan.

"Weak, threadbare, useless," said green critics.

Under the new plan, there will no longer be binding renewables targets for individual countries.

There will be a big effort made to revitalise the EU emissions trading scheme. Much to the delight of the UK, there will be minimal rules on shale gas fracking.

But at the very least, the EU stuck with a solid 40% target for emissions reduction by 2030.

"A positive signal for a meaningful 2015 agreement," tweeted UN climate chief Christiana Figueres.

When you consider the global situation, that figure of 40% doesn't look too bad.

Last year, Japan rolled back on its carbon cutting commitments, as did Australia and Canada.

In the US, President Obama won't be able to get carbon cuts through Congress, he will have to rely solely on regulations to achieve reductions.

Meanwhile, India and China in 2012 produced a third of the world's emissions, and both countries agree that any curbs on their carbon must be in the distant future.

So in some respects, the EU's firm 2030 commitment is the only game in town.

But there are concerns among some commentators that even the hard won 40% figure might ultimately get watered down.

The new proposals have to be reviewed by the heads of government later this year and legislation may be delayed until sometime in 2015.

Some believe that if there is enough of a delay, Europe may not have completely signed off the 40% target by the time the Paris UN meeting happens in November next year.

There is a view that if Paris ends in a messy compromise, the 40% target might actually be diluted in the wake.

Much to the delight of countries like Poland.

"The laggards are now highlighting the importance of Paris because they know it will be weak too, and what they want is to create a mood after Paris to change course," said Dr Oliver Geden from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

The long war, it seems, is only beginning.

 
Matt McGrath Article written by Matt McGrath Matt McGrath Environment correspondent

Climate summit advances towards Paris deal

Despite the absence of India and Australia, a majority of prime ministers and presidents came to the climate summit in New York with pledges of action.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 111.

    #110 ukstudent
    Your post works, but up to a point as not one poster has denounced climate change as a theory, the disagreement concerns whether it is man made or otherwise. In your haste to accuse others of being ignoramuses, you seem to have overlooked this fundamental point.
    Thanks for the 3rd grade theory versus law lesson though.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 110.

    As usual the anti-science ignoramuses are spouting nonsense. I'd just like to point out that in science there is nothing higher than a theory; a theory is simply an explanation that works based on the facts available.

    Gravity is a theory, electromagnetism is a theory, germs are a theory etc. To denounce climate change as 'just a theory' is being incredibly selective towards the scientific method.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 109.

    That which we believe in the least, we argue the hardest.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 108.

    @106.correct kane & BLACK_PEARL. Ah the subtext that ignorance is bliss and the good Lord will provide. What would u have done with Copernicus? It was science against the Church, look who won.

    @107 - u've got a good point, globalization and cheap imports have exacerbated GHGs and climate change. Yet the powers that be @ Davos want to INCREASE global trade. I hope for the best, yet fear the worst

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 107.

    The EU are looking at reducing our outputs, China and India on the other hand are increasing theirs.If their increasing energy usage is because of EU demand then we should curtail that in favour of 'Greener Energy' goods sourced within the EU. I know we're not there yet, but it's plain to see that the Environment in China alone isn't conducive to this Toxic Expansion.Cheap tat does have a 'price'.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 106.

    BLACK_PEARL
    "Be happy in your belief."
    Amen to that.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 105.

    re. 102.squirrel:

    " unless the EU gets serious about taxing those imports from Countries that are the Main Culprits"

    Until the EU is capable of meeting the quotas and goals it commits itself to it should tread lightly on the idea of tarriffs for other countries which may set lower targets but actually meet them.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 104.

    @ 103.BLACK_PEARL - what no more pseudo science form you? I was looking forward to another good laugh. Show me the evidence that refutes that current climate change is not man made. I never denied that climate change has not happened b4. ALL of those changes are accounted for by things like solar radiation and other non-anthropogenic causes. This one is down to us. Your opinion is not fact.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 103.

    93.MyTuppenceWorth
    @92.BLACK_PEARL. These are papers from experienced scientists, experts in their field. I have presented evidence and asked you and the other deniers here to provide one single peer reviewed paper that contradicts the vast interdisciplinary evidence..... but you are very silent on that point.
    we're waiting
    ***
    Got nothing to prove been there already Be happy in your belief

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 102.

    We in the UK need to get serious about Tidal and Wave Power. We also need to put serious money into Nuclear - both Fission as well as into research into Fusion. The latter will eventually be the mainstay of Humanities Energy Needs later this Century. Also, unless the EU gets serious about taxing those imports from Countries that are the Main Culprits, then NOTHING will change globally. Simples.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 101.

    kane - the point u seem to desperately seem to avoid is that this current change in man-made. any previous change was slow and naturally occurring. if u like videos so much, take a little time and listen to this guy, he knows more than most about the trouble we're in.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 100.

    #99 MyTuppenceWorth
    "I never had any political ideas"
    We'll overlook that last comment.

    Here's the IPCC favoured hockey stick theory in it's true context
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 99.

    @95.correct kane SPACE TRAVEL! well if that is you evidence against global warming i just don't know what to say.

    and the topic is GLOBAL climate change. another straw man argument that its colder in one region, the WORLD is warming overall. i never had any political ideas - i just look at the facts. i don't care who is in power.

    and one BBC article is NOT a peer reviewed scientific article.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 98.

    #97 .Dan
    "If there are so many accounts, you should be able to link to one."
    Dan, my post #95 clearly states that I have already done that #35. I can't make it any more simple than that. Even good old wiki-ice bergs will go some way to illuminate the general public regards steady cooling of the earth. The only people who believe Global Warming work for govs.
    The truth is out there.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 97.

    correct kane

    If there are so many accounts, you should be able to link to one.

    Also, with science, you don't have to give a balanced view of both sides of a debate when one side (i.e. climate change denial) is nonsense. The same goes for other scientific theories like heliocentricity, gravity and evolution.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 96.

    87.MyTuppenceWorth
    "doubt a single Australian would agree, just had their hottest year! troll?"
    Accussing someone of trolling is ad-hominem argumentum and clear indication that all political ideas have vanished. Did you also just happen to present a one sided view of your scientific evidence.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25609411
    Very convenient.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 95.

    #93 MyTuppenceWorth
    "we're waiting"
    Why did you post #93? I presented you and others with a concise scientific account #35. Yet you have never touched upon #35 for all your worth. It is you that is completely in denial. There are umpteen accounts on the net for you to access. You just have to want to look.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25869272

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 94.

    @4. Sine Wave "Deniers of god want to avoid judgement for the sins comitted by man."

    Climate change is backed up by scientific research but it often sounds like a religion.

    I think everyone's concern is that we're doing the right thing. Reducing CO2 has many unknowns, while the effect of direct measures such as conservation are tried and tested. Too much emphasis on CO2 reduction IMO.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 93.

    @92.BLACK_PEARL. These are papers from experienced scientists, experts in their field. I have presented evidence and asked you and the other deniers here to provide one single peer reviewed paper that contradicts the vast interdisciplinary evidence..... but you are very silent on that point.

    we're waiting.......

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 92.

    87.MyTuppenceWorth
    Ha
    Skeptical Science says it all
    Nothing like a true believer... enjoy

 

Page 1 of 6

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.