Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'The energy dimension of climate change (Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions)` (98/C 19/24)

On 20 May 1997, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 September 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Boisserée.

At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 98 votes to 10, with 11 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The European Commission has circulated its Communication on the energy dimension of climate change to the Economic and Social Committee, the Council, the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions. The communication is a follow-on from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, to which the European Community and the Member States are signatories. The third conference of the parties to this convention is to be held in Kyoto in December 1997.

1.1.1. The communication reflects the position which the Council of the European Union prepared for the conference on 3 March 1997. The aim is to step up the commitment of the industrialized countries to ensure the gradual reduction of emissions of CO2 and other 'greenhouse` gases, especially methane and nitrous oxide.

These emissions are considered to be at the root of threatened climate change.

1.1.2. The aim of the communication is to highlight the challenge facing European energy policy as a result of climate problems. It seeks to identify a number of fields in which energy-policy measures and options can help reduce emissions affecting the climate. A further communication is set to follow later in the year embracing all areas concerned with problems of climate, i.e. not only energy, but in particular transport, industry and agriculture.

An action plan to implement the objectives set in Kyoto is to be drawn up in the aftermath of the Japanese conference. This action plan is designed to reduce emissions which have a bearing on the climate, in particular by energy-saving measures and by advocating a switch to other forms of fuel.

1.1.3. Following decisions taken by the Council of Ministers in March and May 1997, the negotiating objective to be pursued by the EU at the Kyoto conference is to reduce, by the year 2010, climate-related emissions originating in the Member States of the OECD and the newly industrializing countries by 15 % compared with 1990 levels. The European Council confirmed this in Amsterdam on 16/17 June 1997.

The Commission has taken account of current figures forecasting a probable rise of some 8 % in CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2020 (based on the assumption of 'business as usual`); this takes the aggregate reduction objective for the Kyoto negotiations to more than twenty percentage points.

In June 1997, the Council of Ministers also set a short-term reduction objective of 7,5 % by 2005.

1.2. To achieve these objectives, the Commission feels that Member States must make a determined effort in their environmental, economic and energy policies. The Commission urges those to whom the communication is addressed to send out a clear political signal confirming their resolve to back this position.

1.3. The Commission's reflections are based on assumptions, or scenarios, derived from the demographic trends and economic growth rates of the past few decades. They are based on the reduction potential calculated both by the Commission itself and by experts in the field.

1.3.1. Taking the 1992 UN summit in Rio de Janeiro as a point of reference removes the need to justify again the forecasts on which the programme is based. The prognosis is thus that human activities are the root cause of threatened global-impact climate change (rising sea levels, affecting, in the first instance, coastal areas). This prognosis is substantiated by the 1995/96 report of the UNEP- and WMO-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

1.3.2. The Commission communication focuses on the extent to which emission reduction objectives can be achieved by innovative technical and administrative means, and in particular:

- reduced energy consumption, especially by enhancing efficiency in energy conversion and use (for example through combined heat and power generation) and by applying a similar strategy to other gases affecting the climate;

- changes in people's consumption patterns and industry's consumption priorities by encouraging the internalization of external costs (including those related to climate change), for example by applying economic instruments, such as taxes and charges, in environment policy;

- improved energy management at local and regional level;

- increased use of primary energy sources, for which CO2 emissions range from limited (e.g. natural gas) to zero (nuclear fuel, renewables).

To implement these measures, the Commission proposes greater integration of climate policy into other policy areas and the promotion of research and development.

2. Opinion on the Commission's climate strategy

2.1. The Economic and Social Committee has repeatedly looked at strategies to reduce CO2 emissions and other 'greenhouse gases` (). The Committee's opinion on the Commission communication on an overall view of energy policy and actions () for example takes up the call for sustainable development in the energy sector.

2.2. In line with these opinions, the Committee broadly endorses the Commission communication but has a number of criticisms to make:

2.2.1. Delay in submitting proposals for the implementation of strategic objectives may be a source of problems:

2.2.1.1. Strategic objectives should be developed only where they can be translated into practice and where there is the will to implement them. It is of little value, and hardly motivating, to agree objectives at a strategy conference only to see them become bogged down in the implementation phase; this has unfortunately occurred on more than one occasion in relation to climate policy. Justification for these reservations is all the stronger given that the economic and social impact of the strategy is not to be made clear until the publication of the action plan.

2.2.1.2. In particular the Committee is concerned that information about the overall costs of the Commission's plans in the energy field is still not available. It is concerned as well that information has not yet been forthcoming about the energy taxes the Commission will be proposing and, in particular, that there is still no assessment of the foreseen consequences for employment that will be entailed. On this latter point the Commission is reminded that consideration of employment issues has now to be an integral part of policy analysis and planning.

2.2.1.3. Moreover, the ESC believes the relationship between strategy and action plan is such that the considerations outlined in this communication do not limit the measures to be proposed in the action programme.

2.2.2. By its very nature, climate policy is global policy.

2.2.2.1. Agreement between the main operators on the world stage, particularly the EU and the USA, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, is an important component of any global strategy. The Committee regrets the USA's recent reluctance to assist in an initiative aimed first at defining, then at meeting, climate objectives.

2.2.2.2. To make an agreed position more likely, the Committee feels it would be appropriate for the EU to enter into negotiations with the USA - and Japan, as conference host - at an early stage in the run up to the Kyoto conference. This should not, however, prevent the EU from taking a clear, forward-looking stance at Kyoto. Experience has shown many times that such an approach promotes consensus.

2.2.3. The Economic and Social Committee feels that the Council and the Commission have presented their objectives quite conclusively; the Committee's task, therefore, is not to re-examine the premises on which climate policy is based.

2.2.3.1. However, the ESC believes that the scientific basis for the forecasts used by the Commission to draw up its climate policy objectives and to assess the scale of the problem is somewhat narrow and should be extended. This is true in particular of the following:

- the relationship between economic growth and energy consumption, as regards both expected growth levels and the link between energy consumption and growth;

- the impact of the expected technological innovations over the period in question, e.g. in relation to efficiency of energy conversion and consumption;

- influences on energy demand by factors outside policy control;

- objectives for climate-relevant gases other than CO2.

2.2.4. Irrespective of climate stabilization, the economic and technological opportunities offered by developments of the kind depicted in the Commission's communication are very great. The climate convention can thus help promote the development of energy-saving technologies, build up new energy sources, improve energy efficiency and, overall, conserve scarce resources. The Commission should say more about these issues.

3. Opinion on the implementation of a climate strategy

3.1. Climate policy cannot be implemented unless its objectives are integrated into other policy areas.

3.1.1. This also applies to the common agricultural policy and structural policy. The Economic and Social Committee endorses the Commission's proposal to use the Structural Funds to step up greenhouse gas emission reduction measures, in line with the action plan.

3.1.2. More emphasis should be placed on the role of transport policy, particularly since CO2 emissions from this sector are on the increase.

3.2. The ESC feels a climate strategy can be implemented only if ordinary people and the economic and social players involved recognize the purpose of measures designed to change standards and patterns of use. Procedures should accordingly be introduced to develop consultation and participation.

3.2.1. In presenting the action plan, particularly one aimed at energy saving and switching, the scientific findings on anthropogenic climate change should again be given a comprehensive airing. This is all the more important in the wake of doubts that have been raised in some quarters recently as to the accuracy of climate forecasts.

3.2.2. Measures aimed at winning public acceptance should explicitly weigh up the risks of doing nothing against the cost of climate policy measures. A clear indication should be given, for example, of the potentially major threat which climate change poses, particular to coastal areas.

3.3. The energy sector has a crucial role in implementing a climate strategy.

3.3.1. The Commission draws attention to the SAVE programme to promote energy saving and the Altener programme for the development and use of alternative (renewable) energy resources. These considerations could be expanded in an action plan to include arrangements of the kind already introduced by regulatory means in some Member States, such as the non-fossil fuel obligation for individual regions, or the obligation to buy electricity generated from renewables.

3.3.2. Forecasts of the market share of renewable energy in the shorter or longer term and of future cost trends for energy generated using different technologies are somewhat speculative. To be realistic, an action plan must, in the first instance, proceed on the basis of current knowledge and likely technological developments.

3.3.2.1. The ESC therefore believes that, if there is to be any significant reduction in CO2 emissions in the foreseeable future, it will also be impossible to do without nuclear energy at the present time (). The availability of fossil fuels with specifically limited CO2 emissions such as natural gas, or which are linked to the extraction of other energy sources is limited. It is right to promote the expansion of renewables, and their market share is set to rise. Even so, for the time being, it is inconceivable that these energy sources will replace fossil fuels to any great extent in the foreseeable future.

3.3.3. The use of nuclear energy requires, however, that problems of operating safety and waste disposal be solved. These problems also undermine public acceptance of nuclear energy. It is likely, however, that operating safety and waste disposal problems will be solved before overcoming problems associated with the early replacement of CO2-emitting energy generation by equivalent generation from renewable sources.

3.3.4. That said, the Economic and Social Committee believes that an energy action plan must still keep every option open for low or zero-CO2 energy generation.

3.3.5. The action plan will have to pay particular attention to problems impeding the achievement of climate-policy objectives in states likely to be applying for membership of the European Union. The objective of reducing energy consumption is likely to be achieved in particular by improving the efficiency of energy conversion and energy use; these are areas where there is a tremendous amount of catching up to be done in the majority of applicant countries.

3.4. The Commission takes the view that implementation should rely heavily on environmental agreements between industry and the Member States. In this connection, the ESC would draw attention to its opinion on the subject (), outlining the scope, practicalities and limits of environmental agreements. In a 1996 publication (IEA/OECD) the OECD listed voluntary industrial commitments in a number of Member States to reducing CO2 emissions in individual sectors ().

4. The role of the Economic and Social Committee

The Economic and Social Committee would like to collaborate in drawing up the action plan to implement climate policy agreements in the EU. To promote the practical application of the action plan, the Committee is also ready to provide information to, and help motivate the public and the economic and social operators.

Brussels, 29 October 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() Opinion on a specific research and technological development programme in the field of the environment (OJ C 332, 31. 12. 1990); Opinion on environment policy and the single European market (OJ C 332, 31. 12. 1990); Opinion on the conclusion of the Framework Convention on climate change (OJ C 201, 26. 7. 1993); Opinion on economic growth and the environment: some implications for economic policy making (OJ C 155, 21. 6. 1995).

() COM(97) 167 final.

() Opinion on the nuclear industry in the European Union (OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 88).

() OJ C 287, 22. 9. 1997, p. 1.

() Quoted from EU magazine No 6/1996, p. 29.