The EU, plagued by internal differences, is on the verge of losing its long-standing leadership in climate change policy, write Bill Hare and Andrzej Ancygier of climate science and policy institute Climate Analytics. If the European Commission is unable to forge a consensus on an ambitious climate policy, argue Hare and Ancygier, a smaller “coalition of the willing” should take up the climate banner. But there should be no free ride for laggards such as Poland.
The EU has long been in the forefront of the fight against climate change. It led the way in setting the 2oC global warming limit, with EU Environment Ministers agreeing this 20 years ago, in 1996. A year later the EU member states agreed to a more ambitious target than the rest of the industrialised world for the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period (2008-2012) – a reduction of emissions by 8% below 1990 levels in comparison to an average of 5% emissions reduction for industrialised countries.
When in 2001 George W. Bush announced that the US would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the EU pushed its implementation forward. The EU’s 2009 Energy and Climate Package implemented the 20-by-2020 targets adopted by the EU’s Heads of State: 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels, 20% of energy from renewables, and 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020.
The EU’s 2020 target was complemented by a conditional 30% goal “provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions“. In the difficult years that followed the collapse of the Copenhagen summit in December 2009, the EU maintained its faith in the need for climate action and held out for a fully multilateral approach to climate, despite increasing noise from some quarters in the EU to slow down action. It pushed forward with securing the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period for 2013-2020, with a 20% reduction goal for that period from 1990 levels.
Although the climate negotiations in the French capital turned out to be a success, the EU failed to rise to the occasion
In addition, the EU, as well as some of its member states, were leading by example by decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions and developing low-carbon technologies. As a result the EU created a low-carbon sector with over two million jobs in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energies, with a positive impact on economic growth.
Dark clouds
But in the meantime the EU was becoming increasingly divided over the further development of its climate policy. In 2012, Poland vetoed the EU’s Low Carbon Roadmap for 2050. In December 2014 the Heads of State still managed to agree to a new target for 2030 of “at least 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions”, despite the threat of a Polish veto.
The adoption of the 2030 target was celebrated as a “landmark deal”. Yet NGO’s and climate analysts were extremely disappointed by the outcome. They pointed out that between 1990 and 2014, the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 23%. Sticking to a 40% emissions reduction target for 2030 would mean that in the coming years emissions will have to decrease by slightly over 1% annually. At this speed, the EU will achieve emissions reduction of only around 60% mid-century, far less than the 80-95% emissions reduction target adopted by the Council in 2011. Limiting warming to 1.5°C would mean at least 90-95% reductions by 2050.
The difference between being a leader and a follower is the ability to come up with a vision that others can subscribe to
But there was still one hope: by adding “at least” the EU left the door open to an increase of the target after Paris. After the adoption of the EU mandate for the negotiations in Paris in September last year, Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete presented the EU as a “deal maker and not just deal taker”. This hope was dashed, however, after Paris. Although the climate negotiations in the French capital turned out to be a success and the Paris Agreement mentions a goal of “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”, the EU failed to rise to the occasion. In its Communication of March 2016 the European Commission stuck to its 40% target, ignoring the changed international reality and its own achievements over the recent years.
Unrealistic ideas
By not upgrading its emissions reduction goal, the EU is failing to lead – just at a time when others are ready to follow and decarbonisation technologies are rapidly becoming more affordable. This is not only bad for the climate, but also for the European economy.
The Paris Agreement will only speed up the innovation race in the area of low-carbon technologies, in which EU countries are increasingly losing their competitive advantage
So what can be done? In the past EU leadership in the fight against climate change has largely been the result of the cooperation between the European Parliament and the European Commission, supported by some member states. Importantly, it was not just talk but backed by real and substantive action. In many cases it took a while before ambitious targets were agreed upon by the Heads of State of EU member states in the European Council, but the proposals were there, waiting for the window of opportunity in the Council to open. That was the case, for example, with the adoption of the first renewable energy directive in 2001 and in March 2007, when the 20-20-20 by 2020 targets were unanimously agreed upon during the German EU presidency.
At this moment, however, the European Commission is not pushing the climate agenda, presumably because it already has to face many other divisive issues. It can be argued that, taking into consideration the challenges posed by the refugee crisis and the slow economic recovery, the Commission should tread carefully in coming up with “unrealistic” ideas. But the difference between being a leader and a follower is the ability to come up with a vision that others can subscribe to – if not immediately, then in the longer term. It is clear that in the current political circumstances a unanimous agreement of all EU member states to more ambitious energy and climate targets would be improbable. But such a proposal by the Commission could at least initiate a much needed discussion about the EU’s role in the climate negotiations.
If the European Commission fails to do so, then the only solution is for a group of member states to form a coalition of the ambitious to push the climate agenda forward. Such a coalition should adopt a more ambitious emissions reduction target and cooperate closely on the path to its implementation. The legal framework for such cooperation can be found in the Treaty of Lisbon which significantly expanded the possibilities offered by what is called Enhanced Cooperation. According to Article 20 of the Treaty, a form of Enhanced Cooperation can be created by at least nine EU member states “to further the objectives of the Union, protect its interests and reinforce its integration process.”
Without a strong domestic market in renewable energies, energy efficiency and e-mobility, the EU is also putting at risk its technological leadership in the development of low-carbon solutions
Such a coalition wouldn’t only be driven by the need to deal with climate change but also by economic factors. Whereas the transformation towards a low-carbon economy poses a challenge to established industries, it also opens doors to new opportunities. The Paris Agreement will only speed up the innovation race in the area of low-carbon technologies, in which EU countries are increasingly losing their competitive advantage. The EU, with its knowledge base and large domestic market, is well equipped to regain it, provided the political will is there.
At the same time, a coalition’s effort should not replace the EU’s existing climate mechanisms, such as the EU ETS (Emisson Trading System) and its renewable energy policy directives. Care should be taken that laggards would not get a competitive advantage for their established industries. For this reason, the EU ETS needs to be strengthened further, especially if climate policies adopted in the more ambitious member states will enlarge the current oversupply of emissions allowances. Indeed, having to bear the costs of climate policy while being excluded from the benefits of cooperation in the framework of a coalition of the ambitious, laggard member states could reconsider their stance towards a more ambitious climate policy.
Time is running out
Faced with the emerging evidence of global climate damage, it is hardly time for the EU to slow down its climate action. Should it take this path, it risks not only losing its reputation as the leader in fighting climate change. Without a strong domestic market in renewable energies, energy efficiency and e-mobility, the EU is also putting at risk its technological leadership in the development of low-carbon solutions.
For the sake of climate protection but also EU’s economy it should capitalise on the 25 years of leadership and action in this area before the advantages it has built up are lost. A coalition of the ambitious at the European level may be a game changer. If it worked in Paris, why should it fail in Brussels?
Editor’s Note
Bill Hare (bill.hare@climateanalytics.org Twitter: @BillHareClimate) is the co-founder of Climate Analytics, physicist and climate scientist with 25 years’ experience in science, impacts and policy responses to climate change. He has extensive experience as climate advisor to vulnerable countries in the international negotiations. He is affiliated with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
Andrzej Ancygier (andrzej.ancygier@climateanalytics.org Twitter @Ancygier) works as Climate Policy Analyst at Climate Analytics. He has been dealing with European energy and climate policy since 2009 with the main focus on the development of renewable sources of energy. He also teaches courses about European Environmental Policy and Environmental Social Movements at New York University in Berlin.
Climate Analytics is a non-profit climate science and policy institute based in Berlin, Germany with offices in New York, USA and Lomé, Togo. Areas of expertise include many core elements of the international effort to tackle climate change such as the legal design of the Paris Agreement, The Green Climate Fund, transformative approaches to adaptation and assessing whether emission pledges represent enough climate action to be in line with the Paris Agreement.
[adrotate group=”9″]
Joris van Dorp, MSc says
Germany is the cause of Polish poor co2 reduction performance.
Poland had a comprehensive plan to phase out coal by switching to nuclear power on a massive scale. But the German government worked hard to disrupt Poland’s plans. Poland is not rich enough to support a trillion euro subsidy program for solar and wind power like Germany has embarked on.
When rich countries like Germany coerce poor countries like Poland to eliminate their civilian nuclear power plans, meant to raise living standards and reduce co2 emissions and pollution, such poor countries remain stuck on cheap, dangerous fossil fuels.
Excerpt:
After Poland announced several possible locations for new reactors, including one less than 150 kilometers (93 miles) from the German border, German citizens flooded the Polish government with letters objecting to the plans. Environmental groups claim that a week ago Wednesday alone, the last day of the comment period, opponents of the plans submitted 50,000 objections.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government also submitted a statement, as did Anita Tack, a Left Party member and the environment minister of the state of Brandenburg, which is home to the majority of Germany’s shared border with Poland.
“It is incomprehensible to me that our Polish neighbors still want to stick to their plans after the Fukushima disaster,” Tack wrote in a letter to the Polish Economics Ministry last month. “Brandenburg has been against the use of nuclear power from the start,” Tack noted.
A spokeswoman for the ministry, Alrun Kaune-Nüsslein, told SPIEGEL ONLINE the letter had been written in order to send a political message and to raise awareness among citizens. “A change in the original plans can only be achieved through a change of opinion among Polish decision-makers.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/nuclear-nimbyism-germans-oppose-new-plants-next-door-a-808794.html
Mike Parr says
“Poland is not rich enough to support a trillion euro subsidy program for solar and wind power like Germany has embarked on”. The lowest cost form of new build in North Germany & Poland is…,on-shore wind much cheaper than hard coal and equal if not less than lignite. LCOEs currently around 5.5ecents/kWh – compared to 5.6 – 5.9 lignite (source: prognos). So, so much for “trillion euro subsidy”. I suggest you try sticking to facts & numbers not hysterical exaggeration. As for nuclear – it does not even get close to wind in terms of cost.
Andrzej Ancygier says
Dear Joris,
I disagree with your assumption that Germany is responsible for Poland’s CO2 emissions for a number of reasons: (i) Even if German government and German society doesn’t like the idea of having a nuclear power plant on the other side of the border, the Polish government couldn’t care less. Although recently Polish Minister of Economy said that the nuclear power plant would be built “in the next decades”, it will not, because investing in this technology, keeping in mind the numerous cheaper low carbon alternatives, is an economic nonsense. (ii) Polish energy policy is not designed in Warsaw but in the headquarters of the Worker Unions representing the coal miners. The agreement adopted this week between the Coal Company and the government just confirms this. (iii) The issue of climate change has for a long time been ridiculed in Poland and not take seriously. Even now the government is talking about the construction of at least three new coal-fired units – in addition to those already under construction.
I know it’s easy and catchy, but blaming Germans for all the evil in the world does not always hold true.
Joris van Dorp, MSc says
Germany and Austria have been putting pressure on EU member states to shut down their nuclear power plants and stop considering building new ones.
As such, these member states are contradicting the clear recommendations of the IPCC.
This is not about blaming one country or another country. This is about seeking to understand why IPCC recommendations concerning the resolution of the climate change issue are not being followed in Europe. One reason the IPCC recommendations are not being followed appears to be because of the German and Austrian decision to defy IPCC recommendations and insist that other EU member states join them.
Energy politics is a serious matter. Wars have been fought over energy, and continue to be fought over it. Climate change is aggravating the situation. Lack of climate leadership is a broad subject matter, but the decision by some member states to insist on destroying the nuclear option in Europe at this critical time deserves scrutiny, in my opinion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-nuclear-austria-idUSKCN0PG1BW20150706
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/20/belgium-rejects-german-call-for-nuclear-plants-closure
Andrzej Ancygier says
Joris,
As mentioned earlier – there is nothing that Germany and Austria could do to stop the construction of nuclear power plant in Poland. Just the opposite: keeping in mind the anti-German sentiment of the current Polish government it would like to built nuclear power plant EXACTLY because of German opposition to show it’s “independent”. I don’t think nuclear power plant will ever be built in Poland, but it’s definitely not because of German or Austrian opposition.
But your comment sounds as if nuclear energy was the ONLY way to limit emissions. Keeping in mind the high costs of nuclear in comparison to other ways of reducing emissions, I would argue, that nuclear program actually takes away limited resources from other options, such as renewables or energy efficiency and thus becomes an issue – in addition to other numerous issues that it brings with itself.
Joris van Dorp, MSc says
To reduce emissions, efficiency and renewables cannot do it alone. Efficiency and renewables are fuel saving technologies, not power generation technologies. For power generations, there is only fossil fuels or nuclear.
The idea that investing in nuclear somehow reduces investment in efficiency or renewables doesn’t make sense.
Andrzej Ancygier says
Dear Joris,
It’s rather new to me to find out that renewable sources of energy don’t actually produce energy…
Joris van Dorp, MSc says
The energy produced by renewables can only be used to save some of the fuel burned at the stable generators which keep the grid online 24/7. The value of renewable energy is defined by the value of the fuel they save. Besides saving fuel, renewables contribute nothing to the energy system.
This is why oil companies support renewable energy but not nuclear energy. Renewables could ultimately save up to 50% of fuel burned at power plants. Since energy consumption is likely to double this century, the demand for fuel will remain constant even if renewables expand as much as they can. So the fossil fuel companies anticipate solid demand for their product.
Not so if nuclear is expanded. Fossil fuel companies fear the nightmare of France, which eliminated fossil fuel burning within 20 years by choosing the nuclear option. In comparison: Germany chose renewables and it’s fossil fuel consumption has remained constant. This allows fossil fuel companies relief and trust in a lucrative future.
Andrzej Ancygier says
Dear Joris,
here comes the never ending discussion “..but the sun does not always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow..”. Well, those promoting energy transition know this. Really.
There are five main options to deal with the weather dependency of renewables: (i) demand management (mainly in the industries, which can move their power demand and make a lot of money on this), (ii) grid development (most of the time it is sunny and windy somewhere), (iii) storage (large scale and small scale – the latter is undergoing a revolution in Germany), (iv) flexible renewables such as hydro energy and bioenergy – Germany is doing extremely bad job in utilizinig the flexibility offered by biogas power plants, but they are working on it, and – yes – (v) flexible fossil fuels in the short term.
None of these options is perfect, but combined they offer a powerful mix to deal with the intermittency of renewables. But quite a few people, yourself included, insist on the fifth option only – reliance on fossil fuels.
What you probably mean is not oil, but natural gas, which is used to help with the changeability of renewables. But interestingly, the consumption of natural gas in Germany halved between 2010 and 2015 (https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm), despite (!) switching off almost 10 GW of nuclear. The reason for this is the increasing role of solar energy, which is generating power in the middle of the day – exactly when the gas fired power plants used to go online.
It is actually nuclear energy, that needs a back up due to its inflexibility and the threat of an emergency switch off – look at French energy imports from Germany in winter.
Mike Parr says
I agree with much of the article up to the 3rd from last para. ETS is a total failure – not just my view – that of Dong’s & stated publicly too boot. Sadly, like the zombie it is, it will stagger on – too many EC careers depend on its existence. Carbon taxes would be the way forward & border carbon taxes would sort out problems like Chinese steel in very short order – won’t happen – pity. That said, I notice that a couple of companies are now building RES projects with no subsidy & thus no government involvement. This is good. Gov’ focus should be on enabling such developments – consistent with citizen participation, easy financing and making sure that the DNOs and TSOs are not obstructive.
Andrzej Ancygier says
Dear Mike,
I agree that EU ETS was not a terrific success. But it was not a complete failure as well.
First of all based on my conversation with representatives of the steel and cement industries, there is some expectation that the price of carbon will increase in the longer term, so it is worthwhile to invest in energy efficiency.
Secondly, the insecurity of the price of carbon in the future makes the case of coal much more difficult. If you are planning to invest billions $$$ in a new plant that will be there until 2050-2060, you think twice when you look at the carbon having already an impact on the profitability of energy companies.
Finally, most of the success are built on failures. Paris Agreement was adopted because we have learnt from the drawbacks of the Kyoto Protocol and negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009. Without these failures, there would have been no success in Paris.
So yes, EU ETS is not a huge success but something to learn from and built upon – together with the people in the Commission who have a stake in it.