This article is
dedicated to 1) the achievements and progress of the European Union (EU) on
greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and clean energy; 2) ongoing EU deliberations
on 2030 emissions, renewables and energy efficiency targets; and 3) what this
means for Canada.
Specifically, the EU
being the global leaders on a migration to a green economy, with its Emissions
Trading System (cap and trade scheme) having been launched as far back as 2005,
Canada has much to learn from the current and future EU debates on 2030 targets. These EU discussions are particularly pertinent
for Canada in light of a need to review Canadian fast forward green economy catch-up
options following the next federal election in 2015.
2020 Targets and Progress on the Migration to a
Green Economy
To begin, the foundations for the discussions
on 2030 targets are the binding EU 2020 targets. These targets entail:
· - a 20%
reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels;
· - raising
the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewables to 20%; and
· - a 20%
improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.
Under this system,
each country has its own binding national targets based on its relative
capacities to contribute to EU-wide goals.
In the case of
Germany, for example, it had already reduced its emissions by 25% in 2012,
thereby exceeding its Kyoto 2012 target of a 21%, all while being one of the
world's strongest economies. These facts
are contrary to what Stephen Harper would have us believe to the effect that
the economic development and sustainable development are opposing forces for
which there can be no reconciliation.
Indeed, measured in
terms of economic impacts, the EU progress to-date is staggering, especially
with respect to job creation. There are presently
3.5M people employed in the EU green sectors and the sector's job growth, for
the 1999 to 2008 period, was 180,000 new jobs/year. Even during the worst of the EU economic
crisis, most of these jobs were retained and many more were created.
The EU renewable energy
related jobs comes in at 1.2M in 2012 and the projection for 2020 is 2.7M.
With the right policies, this could reach 4M jobs by 2030.
The European Commission's White Paper
Against this backdrop,
to initiate EU discussions on 2030 targets and build on the momentum of the
2020 goals, the very conservative and corporate friendly European Commission
took up the task of producing a White Paper for release on January 22, 2014.
In the months
preceding the publication of the White Paper, a major debate arose among EU
member nations as to whether 1) there should be 2030 binding triple targets,
EU-wide and nation-specific, and in keeping with the precedent set with the 2020
triple goals or 2) simply have a stand-alone binding GHG reduction target to
eventually be accompanied by state-specific GHG targets. In its White Paper of January 22nd, the
European Commission came down in favour of the second option.
The White Paper called
for a 40% GHG reduction target with binding requirements for EU member states and
an "at least" 27% renewables goal that would be binding on the EU
but not binding on the Member States individually.
Under the European
Commission's formula, not only would an EU-wide binding renewable energy target
be difficult to enforce in the absence of a binding renewables target for each nation,
but also the 27% renewables target would reduce by one third the momentum set
by the 2020 goals. That is, modeling of
the 40% GHG reduction target suggests that the 27% renewables portion of the
EU-wide energy supply would be achieved anyway without the Commission's
renewables target.
Debates within the EU: 8 Countries Favour
Nation-specific Binding Clean Energy Goals While the UK and Poland Resist
The aforementioned
Commission's position went against the recommendations submitted in letter
dated January 2014, from the energy ministers of Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Portugal, written to commissioners Connie
Hedegaard, the commissioner for climate action, and Gunther Oettinger, the
commissioner for energy, in support of a binding clean energy goals for every
EU nation. The letter stated that such an
approach is essential to providing the renewable sector with the certainty it
needs for long term cost-effective investments.
Sigmar Gabriel, the German Minister of Economics and Energy, indicated
that the extraordinary progress achieved to-date, and as alluded to above,
would have not been possible without the combination of nation-specific binding
GHG and renewable energy targets.
Particularly on the
minds of those supporting binding renewables target is the fact that the EU is
the part of the world which is most dependent on imported fossil fuels. In 2012, EU spent $740B on importing these
fuels. Accordingly, the International
Energy Agency has described the path to reducing this dependency as being that
of greater reliance on domestically produced clean energy and greater energy
efficiency.
In this confrontation
of positions, it is the UK, in particular, that has been very vocal in opposing
a renwables target because it wants to have the flexibility to include nuclear;
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS);
and fracking technologies in its energy strategy. Consequently, the UK has been advocating a
50% GHG target without renewables targets.
Fittingly, Oliver
Krischer, German MP from the opposition Green Party, said proposals to scrap
binding renewable energy and energy efficiency targets for 2030 are intended to
initiate a renaissance of nuclear power and push through fracking and CCS activities
through the back door.
Another big obstacle to
a renewables binding target at national levels, is Poland for which coal
represents 90% of electrical its power generation.
The European Parliament Votes in Favour of
Triple and Binding 2030 Targets
Consistent with the
aforementioned debates within the EU, on February 4, 2014 Members of the European Parliament in a plenary non-binding
vote, voted 347 to 308 in favour three
binding targets on national levels, a 40% reduction in GHGs; a 30% target
pertaining of energy to come from renewables; and a 40% improvement in energy
efficiency. This MEP February 2014 vote
is consistent with the recommendations of the European Parliament's Environment
and Industry Committees on a three-targets binding approach.
According to the
European Wind Energy Association, the 30% binding renewables targets for EU
member states could provide 570,000 new jobs and save $818B in imports of
fossil fuels, all while lowering energy costs for energy-intensive industries.
Next Steps
The MEP vote
notwithstanding, it is just one step in a very lengthy process leading up to
final legislation in 2017. Moreover,
the vote in the European Parliament does not require that member states to
approve national binding targets.
On February 19, 2014,
there will be a Franco-German summit on energy cooperation. On March 4, 2014 the EU energy ministers will
meet. This will be followed by a
European Council meeting of heads of state on March 8-9, 2014.
Further down the road,
European Commission commissioners will be replaced in 2014 and firm legislative
proposals are not expected before 2015, after the European parliamentary
elections. Subsequently, it may take
about two years before the final policies become EU law.
Adding to the cocktail
of views that will contribute to the above-described debates are the positions
of clean tech sector stakeholders adamantly in favour of national binding
renewables targets.
Taken together, the EU
discussions on the pros and cons of different 2030 options could prove to be enlightening
for Canadians reviewing options to catch up to the Europeans, who are already
way ahead of Canada on the migration to a green economy. As well, their successes and failures to-date
in advancing their respective countries offer models for consideration for
Canada. Accordingly, as a contributor
to The Common Sense Canadian, I will continue to provide articles on new EU
green economy developments.
Lastly, it is worth
noting that the February meeting of the European Parliament included a vote in
favour of extending the EU Fuel Quality Directive beyond 2020, thus banning tar
sands imports to the EU indefinitely, likely to the great displeasure of
Stephen Harper with respect to his free trade objectives with Europe.
Had the uninquisitive journalist asked about the climate implications of all this gas, Mestrallet would doubtless have responded that burning gas creates fewer emissions than burning coal, which would have been true. But he would have omitted the worries about fugitive emissions of gas all the way from the well head to the home that cancel out the advantage of gas over coal. Big Energy bosses usually do. He would have dodged the issue of all the investment flowing to gas depressing the development of renewables. Big Energy bosses are good at that too.