bet · GT01MJU14 · 2006-06-01 00:00:00 — Our emissions would grow from now on - since 1990 - into the future. This is luckily not the case. The black line in the middle shows our recent emissions in the last 10-12 years since 1990. The red line to the right shows the projection, what will happen with our emissions if we would just have those measures in place that are there now, that are implemented as far as we have the overview given by the member states. The green dotted line in the right lower corner shows our Kyoto target. 8 per cent in the commitment period, on average. This distance shows clearly that with the existing measures we are not going to make it. needs to happen. Only if we would add additional measures, so far identified but not yet implemented, and if we would add the effect from using the Kyoto mechanism, the so called Clean Development Mechanism, joint implementation and also international emission trading, we would with these joint efforts reach our Kyoto target. The lesson from this, which we have repeated several times in our recent monitoring reports, is that all member states need to do more, and we in have to take more action on climate change. In this regard you are very timely with this hearing. We need more policies in all member states to bring down our emissions, in particular because Kyoto is only the first very tiny step. Much more needs to be done beyond Kyoto, beyond 2012. For this phase we need to start to think about what measures we can identify. Look at the different member states. Compare the projections with measures and with additional measures from the 25 member states. is currently, according to the projections given, doing fairly okay. You seem to be on track. You see in the middle. But many member states are not yet on track. Without additional efforts Europe will not meet its joint Kyoto target - that is for sure. We need to do more. If you compare the per capita emissions the situation is very different in the various member states. You see yourself on the very left . If you compare this with what happens internationally per capita emissions are still much higher than the average of the world, which is around four tenths per capita. Also there you see that much more needs to be done, in particular when we talk about emission reductions needed in the context beyond 2012, beyond Kyoto. But also in not everything is so fine. I think this has been mentioned already this morning. In this slide you see the emission efficiency of the car fleet in the different member states. Here is at the top. But you are leading in a field where you shouldn't lead. You have the most inefficient car fleet. Perhaps this is a scenario which this hearing and policy makers could look at. What have we been doing? We wanted to complement the member states' actions on climate change and devise also on level policies to help achieve the common target. We have this minus 8 per cent Kyoto objective. We needed complementary action on level. We wanted to do this with involvement of stakeholders to reach a consensus between experts on the most cost-effective measures. Of course, climate is not an isolated policy area. It is an integrated policy area. Those are the basic pinciples for Climate Change Programme. You see here a scheme on what we have been working. On the left hand side the principles under which we have been working for Climate Change Programme, the ECCP. We want to be transparent, integrate our policies and have many experts involved. Of course, we want to be cost-effective across all sectors. We also want to look at co-benefits for the reduction potential we have identified. A long list of working groups has been set up with member states, experts from the industry, experts from NGO's and experts from the field of science. Of course, the Commission has been involved with all its services. These working groups have, across all these sectors listed in the middle, looked at most cost-effective measures and have made proposals in working group reports. These have then been integrated in a common report. On that basis the Commission has then sent out a communication where the most promising measures have been listed and implemented in the meantime, or they are already in the phase of implementation. than 40 measures have been identified. This is only a short list. There is of course the emission trading, the linking with the CDM. We have a directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources. There is a directive on the promotion of combined heat and power, on the energy performance of , on the promotion of transport and biofuels used in transport. A very efficient measure is the landfill directive. We have also on scale the voluntary agreement with car manufacturers to bring down the emissions from new cars to 120 grammes per kilometer. There is also the energy labelling directive. This has just been to highlight some of the more important and prominent measures. They are already in the state of implementation. State of implementation means the following. When we have agreed on them in , or when the Commission has agreed on them, and then in addition also the Council and the Parliament have agreed on them, the member states still need to implement them. There is still a lot of work to be done, in particular on a member state level. I have given some brochures and a complete list of these measures to your chairperson so that the whole committee can have a look at the complete list. It is important to say that those measures to a large extent already are adopted at level. The potential that was identified in these measures was by far enough to reach the Kyoto target. You see the numbers on the slide. The implementation needs some time, it takes a while until those measures really start to deliver what they are supposed to do, that is reducing emissions. To agree on how those measures are implemented is of course important. It can be done strictly or it can be done in a flexible . Targets set can be a bit more loose. Normally we devise the policy by giving a certain framework, a certain of manoeuvrability that has to be filled out on a member state level. There the real decision is taken to what extent measures will deliver emission reductions. Of course, this needs some time. Some recent activities on scale. Our colleagues from DG Agcriculture and DG TREN have published the so called Biomass Action Plan. The Commission sets out measures to increase the use of biomass from wood, wastes and acrigultural crops. They want to reduce the barriers and create market-based incentives for the use of biomass. The objective is to double the use of biomass production. Recently also a new strategy has been published on the use of biofuels as part of the overall Biomass Action Plan. Of course, biofuels need to be promoted, to make them competitive with other fuels and to ensure their production and use are globally useful for the environment. This is of course dependent on the right sort of biofuels. You need to look at the most emission effective and cost-effective sort of biofuels. I think this has also been mentioned already today. Only last week a green paper was published by DG TREN which the committee might be interested in. The Commission has pushed for a strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy. This is going to be an issue of debate in the coming months. It is a clear message that our current energy use globally in economic terms, in energy terms and also in climate terms is not sustainable. We need to change our energy policy internally and also internationally. The green paper lists a couple of areas where we need to take action, in particular also in relation to energy efficiency and renewable energy. Some further measures are still in the co-decision process, in the discussion between the Council and the Parliament. There is the proposal for the energy services directive, and a directive to phase out or control fluorinated gases, which are also efficient greenhouse gases. There is also some further work needed in the framework of the directive for eco-efficiency of energy using products. A number of daughter directives are needed, focused on the different types of installations. In particular the transport sector is, of course, as many of you know, the most problematic. The emissions are still growing in this sector, even with more efficient cars, the increase in demand and increase in activity. For us, currently, the most dominant question is whether the member states really are doing their part. To what extent are all those policies and measures implemented? What is happening on a member state level? Therefore we launched in October the second phase of Climate Change Programme at a kick-off conference. There is one working group in this new phase of Climate Change Programme, which is called Review of Implementation. This is, in fact, a group of several sub-groups, listed here on this slide, on energy supply, demand, transport, agriculture, forestry and non-CO2 gases. We are looking at the sectors and at the list of measures and comparing the estimates that were produced in the first phase with the current state of implementation; and we are trying to find out whether those estimates still are valid, whether we need to revise them and whether we still are on track. You may remember a number given, that is we would have enough potential identified to reach the Kyoto target. But to which extent this is really happening we need to have a closer look at this. There will be a policy paper very soon, before the summer. All this is, of course, also relevant for the new phase of the emission trading. This year the new allocation plans need to be decided. There are further working groups in this new phase of Climate Change Programme. One is on carbon dioxide capture and geological storage. When you burn fossil fuels you can capture the CO2 and store it in safe places in geological layers. We want to look at the technical issues related and obstacles there. There are also many legal questions. There are permanence questions and liability questions that need to be sorted out. We are aiming to sum this discussion up in a communication later this year. There is a working group on . The Commission has already published a communication saying that is a sector that should be included also in the emission trading - but how? Only CO2 or also other emissions? Other questions concern how to account for and where to set borders. Should small also be included? Which types of flights? All these questions need to be sorted out and are currently under discussion. This will lead to a legislative proposal later this year. There is another working group on CO2 and cars or light duty vehicles. The question about what the most cost-efficient options to reduce CO2 from cars are is being discussed in this group. Who should do all this? Is it a question of the fuels, is it a question of eco driving, or should we have different cars, and how could this be combined? These are questions discussed in this group. There will be a proposal for a new strategy based on the outcome of this group. And then there is the issue of adaptation. That is a very new area on level. To a certain extent we will not be able to avoid climate change, even if we are very successful in achieving our targets and even if we are very successful in achieving the policy target of limiting the temperature increase on average to two degrees. Even then there will be impacts of climate change, and we need to adapt. Examples are the tourism sector, the agricultural sector and the insurance sector. Are the stable enough when there are more storms? Water supply: there be enough in the south when the south of Europe is getting drier? Our flood prevention systems: Are river banks stable enough when there are more water and heavy rain events? All these are questions that we need to look at. In each of these sectors we will have specific meetings where we will be looking into the impact side and what needs to be done. This is of course very much also a question about who should be doing something. What is dimension in this area? The impacts will be on the local level, on the regional level and on the state level, and what is dimension in helping this? We are inclined to think that we need a kind of European impact programme like some member states have published already. Another very important activity, which I would like to mention, is what is currently happening under the ETS - the main development and Scheme. It started only last year with the first phase 2005-2007 and covers nearly 12 000 installations. We are currently preparing for the second trading phase. The allocation should be decided this year for the phase 2008-2012. The Commission has just published a guidance document, showing that we need more stringent total allocation of allowances, and that we need more simplicity and more transparency for the allocation of the second phase. Another activity that is currently carried out is also the review of this, and these both things should not be mixed. We have already learnt a lot, and we are still learning from this very new measure of emission trading. We are currently summarizing the feedback that we are getting from those who are dealing with this on a company level and also from the member states. There will be a review on this new measure. As I said: For the national allocation plans that have to be decided for the second phase, we would like to see simpler allocation plans that boost the understanding of authorities and stakeholders, and we would invite member states to reduce unnecessary administrative rules that have been implemented in the first phase. We have also given some guidance on how to set up the allocation plans of proposed standardized tables to increase the transparency of this. The review will be about improving the functioning of the scheme. We will be looking at the practical implementation and the experiences that we had from the first phase, and we will try to streamline in the existing legal basis. Thus, we want more predictable allocation and stable baseline years. We are proposing a longer allocation period or that future allocation should be derived from past allocation. We would like to see a more harmonized approach to new entrants and also for accreditation and verification procedures, that are related to the monitoring of the emissions. We would also like to expand to other sectors, even beyond , as I mentioned. The review is not about the second trading period. The second trading period and the allocation plans need to be decided on the existing legal basis. These will be decided this year, and the directive can not be amended before the start of the second period. Of course, companies need some regulatory stability. The review is also not about whether or not the ETS should be continued post-2012. There is no end date in the directive. We will have emission trading after 2012. The question is which target we will have, but the trading directive will be there. This is one of our key measures, and many agree that this is a major achievement - that carbon has a price in Europe. Of course we will not have a change for the sake of change, so a certain degree of stability is also needed for the security of those who make investment decisions. As a last topic I would like to touch on that we should also keep in mind that we are doing this exercise on domestic policies in the framework of a global problem. This is just comparing our current share of global emissions and the share of our visions projected for the year 2050. Even if we would be able to stabilize our emissions together with all other industrialized countries, which are marked with yellow colour in the slide I am showing you, then the rest of the world would still increase the emissions, and we would not solve the climate problem. Thus, climate policies need to be studied at home. We need to do more in order to be credible, but more also needs to be done internationally. This is the message I would like to give. We are just coming out of . We are now in the phase where we start the international debate on post-2012. There are five priorities that we would like to guide our international debate. We will build on the Kyoto mechanisms, we need to strive for broadening of participation, as I just mentioned, we need to include more sectors and all gases, we need more technologies but in particular we need to deploy those technologies that we have already, and we need to adapt. Ordföranden: you , who is a policy officer, working for Commission. Now it is time for questions, and so far I have four MPs on my list. (): I would like to ask you to look a more beyond 2012. What is you opinion: What level of commitment is possible to gain from both Europe and from the other developed countries in reducing greenhouse gases after 2012? We can have wishes about where we want to go, but we can also have some kind of realistic aim for the discussion. How do you feel about this, or do you have an opinion about where the realistic targets will lie for the next ten year period or so? : Well, nobody knows what will be the outcome of the international debate. We now have the chance to start this debate. It was the major achievement of the last climate conference in . We did not have the first meeting with those countries, but we have agreed to talk now. Thus, it is a bit premature to discuss this as an expectation. But we have some policy guidance, which is good, I think. We have for a long time had this two degrees target, which gives clear guidance about from which level of temperature change you need to really do something, or you will have to expect really serious impacts, a level that you should avoid to go beyond. From this, you can then deduct what level of emission reductions that is needed to get there. We have currently a window of opportunity for a couple of years. If we do take action now, then this is still in reach. But as you have seen from recent Council conclusions, a target of minus 15 per cent to minus 30 per cent by 2020 would keep this overall temperature target in reach. This gives you some indication of the level of ambition that is needed. But this is of course needed from all industrialized countries. Europe can not solve the problem alone, and this has been the subject of an international debate. : I would like to ask you a bit more about these adaptation issues that you stressed. As I showed in my presentation, climate change is probably going to hit southern Europe much more severely than northern Europe. What are the adaptation measures that are taken in southern Europe, and how is the public awareness about these problems in other parts of Europe? , : I would like to thank you for an interesting presentation. I was really interested in the last slide you showed us, showing the rest of the world's emissions in 2050 not being able to stabilize the emissions as much as we hope to do within the EU. I also wonder: From that, what is the strategy within the Climate Change Programme to sell our solutions, to export the developed technologies and export the knowledge and technologies that we develop in Europe? I know that the is now developing in the new Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme. One out of three areas is going to be Intelligent Energy-Europe, and that was mentioned in your presentation. I wonder what the connections are between that and your programme, and also the so called Action Plan, which also relates to exporting our solutions within Europe. Ordföranden: can you give us a short answer to this, ? : I can try, because particularly on the Technology Action Plan, I can not say a lot. A key is that those technologies that we have already available are being implemented also in countries like and . Therefore this initiative that was taken under the previous Presidency, to go for the first carbon capture storage plant in , is, I think, one of the good examples. Of course it is only a very tiny example, and, if you ask me personally, big money should be invested into this. We should have more of this kind of co-operation where we really see the best technology implemented and devised also in those countries that are just boosting with their economies and increasing their emission so much. On adaptation, to cut it short: No! The awareness is not enough. That is why we are doing this. But it is also not enough in many northern European countries. There are very few who really have a comprehensive national adaptation programme cutting across all sectors. Talk to people from the agriculture, the tourism or the sector whether they have considered this. Talk to architects about whether climate change is an issue for them concerning standards: Is there something already implemented? You will see this reaction. I think that we need to bring this message across. All sectors need to think about how this world will look like with a different climate. (): At first I would like to thank Mr. for coming to the Swedish Parliament and for taking part in our national discussion. It is very fruitful to get that kind of information directly from the Commission. I have a question about a subject you have touched. It is about the emission trading system, which I think has been very successful overall the first year. But still there are some quite big problems with the system from what it looks like right now. Firstly, there are the administrative problems in some of the member states when they release their allowances, which have affected the market in a bad way. The prices of the allowances are much higher than we predicted, which also has effects on the price of electricity. In my perspective the biggest problem is that some member states have been very generous when they have released trading allowances in their national allocation plans, and some member states, like , have been much tougher on their enterprise. From the outside, as I see it, the Commission has not been very in this. My question is: we see the Commission being more in questioning national allocation plans and how different member states work with the system, and can we in the near future, which I hope, see a fully centralized allocation from ? : A good proposal! I wonder whether this, to have a centralized allocation, would get a majority, but we will be looking into this. As regards the activity of the Commission: Well, it was the first touch on a very new measure, and first of all we needed to get it going. Now it is there, and we are learning from it. We are getting a lot of feedback that many are not really happy with the allocation, and that is why we published this guidance document. I would recommend you to have a look at it. There we already give clear hints that we need to be stricter in many places, and in particular the interpretation of for example certain types of combustion plans, whether they are in or out of the scheme, need to be harmonized. It cannot be that only ten kilometers apart, only because there is a border, one installation is included and the competitor is not. This thus has an effect on the market, and we will look at these issues, and we will avoid those market distortions. Ordföranden: you. We have two more questions before we switch over to the next person in the programme. (): I would also like to thank you for a very interesting presentation, giving us the view of the Commission. It was very interesting to listen to you when you spoke about what you would like to do for the energy sector and what you would like to discuss. I would like you to give us some more information about what is happening in the transportation sector. I think that there are big problems in that sector. There is a big increase in transportation by air, by road, by tracks and so on.