Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on climate change - the EU approach for Kyoto'
Date: 1997-10-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: UN convention, climate change, environmental protection, greenhouse gas, pollution control measures

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/85

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on climate change — the EU approach for Kyoto’

(98/C 19/23)

On 6 October 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 Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Pellarini as rapporteur-general.
At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997), the Committee adopted the
following opinion by 79 votes to 25, with 19 abstentions.

1. Foreword

The 1992 earth summit in Rio succeeded in raising
1.1.
world public awareness and secured commitments for
safeguarding the future of the planet. The third confer-
ence of the parties to the framework convention on
climate change, which is being held in Kyoto in Decem-
ber, should now mark the legislative and practical
enshrinement of the commitments entered into by the
parties.

The Rio convention on climate change, which
1.1.1.
entered into force on 21 March 1994, marked the start of
international cooperation on sustainable development.
The convention aimed at the ‘stabilization of green-
house-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic inter-
ference with the climate system’ (1). However,
the
progress which has been made towards this objective
has been largely due to other factors (economic recession
and the ensuing reduction in energy consumption, use
of nuclear power, conversion of power stations to
natural gas, closure of coal mines, etc.) rather than to
the pursuit of a coherent conversion policy.

Significant reductions are being achieved in
1.1.2.
CFC, thanks to the pilot role played by the EU and the
binding commitments made in the Montreal protocol.
However, the picture as regards CO2 emissions is quite
different. Despite the improvement in energy efficiency,
total energy consumption and hence also emissions of
this very important greenhouse gas have continued to
rise, particularly in the transport sector, and emissions
have not been stabilized at their 1990 levels.

1.2.
In the light of the generally unsatisfactory results,
the first conference in Berlin in March 1995 gave a
mandate to the developed countries (listed in Annex 1
to the convention) to adopt quantified commitments for
the limitation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
for after the year 2000 and to bind these commitments

in a protocol or other legal instrument. This mandate
excludes new commitments for countries not listed in
Annex 1, pointing out that most emissions originate in
the developed countries (led by the United States) and
that per capita emissions in the developing countries are
still relatively low.

report

The Berlin mandate was underscored in early
1.3.
1996 by the second assessment
from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The report states that the ‘balance of evidence suggests
that there is a discernible anthropogenic influence on
the global climate’ (2). The precautionary principle
which underpinned the first expert report and the Rio
convention is thus even more justified, making resolute,
concerted action to prevent future damage all the more
urgent.

1.4. However, in the run-up to the Kyoto conference
which is to put the Berlin mandate into practice, the EU
is the only party to have taken practical steps to
demonstrate the feasibility of a reduction target of 15 %
by the year 2010, with an intermediate target of 7,5 %
for the year 2005, for a basket of three greenhouse gases
(CO2, CH4 and N2O), substantiating its negotiating
position with a detailed working paper on the economic
and technological aspects of the proposed measures.
Whilst not yet reaching a definitive position, countries
such as Japan, the United States and Australia oppose
the EU position in principle, and are tending towards
much less ambitious reduction targets, if not a non-
binding stabilization. A group of 77 countries, which
includes China and has appointed Tanzania as its
spokesman, has however supported the reduction targets
proposed by the EU and has added a target of 35 % for
the year 2020. The group has also asked that a fund be
set up to finance the reduction efforts of the developing
countries, using resources provided by the Annex I
countries (developed countries) which fail to meet the
stipulated commitments.

(1) Article 2 of the Rio Convention.

(2) IPCC Second Assessment Report.

C 19/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

1.5.
The EU’s commitments are conditional on the
decisions taken in Kyoto, thus ruling out the possibility
of a unilateral initiative. This might weaken its position
in the negotiations and, if they fail, could mean that no
action is taken at all. There is a danger that, just as
political decisions in the EU in recent years have failed
to live up to statements of principle about ‘sustainable
development’, the measures to counteract climate change
will continue to be postponed in the name of competi-
tiveness and globalization.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Commission communication responds to
the mandate given by the Council of Ministers in March
and June 1997. The effort to substantiate the EU’s
negotiating position by demonstrating the feasibility of
ecologically compatible development is to be welcomed.
The communication has already achieved one positive
result: other key players, such as the United States and
Japan, have been obliged to adopt an official position
on the issue, thus paving the way for more specific and
binding discussions in Kyoto.

2.1.1.
At the same time, the Committee notes that
the failure to envisage any unilateral commitment on
the part of the EU introduces an element of political
weakness which only the Council meeting of 16 October
could have remedied. Furthermore, the hypotheses put
forward follow two lines of reasoning — ecological and
economic — that do not always intermesh. This is the
result of the hesitancy surrounding the decision to
pursue the sustainable development enshrined in the
Amsterdam Treaty, which remains logically flawed.

2.1.2.
The Council confirmed its desire to see ‘an
effective Protocol containing legally-binding targets’ (1)
adopted at Kyoto, and regretted the ‘absence of concrete
negotiating proposals from important industrialized
countries, or their inadequacy’, but was very vague
about the possibility of formulating and implementing
the Community policies and measures needed to achieve
such objectives.

2.2.
Scientists’ concerns are underpinned by a host of
incontrovertible scientific data. If these concerns — and
especially the second IPCC assessment report — are
taken seriously, the precautionary principle brings a
need for urgent, decisive action, as the costs of future
damage could be incalculable.

The Commission states that economic calcu-
2.2.1.
lations of the costs of conversion act as a deterrent

to robust measures, because decisions are based on
short-term competitiveness in a global market. However,
this overlooks the vast amount of documentation on the
economic advantages of many of the reduction measures,
which can help and support the Commission’s proposals,
as well as the data showing that the longer conversion
measures are put off, the more they will cost.

Globalization must not be seen solely in terms
2.3.
of financial markets and competitiveness; it also means
globalizing risks and responsibilities for the future of
the planet. The challenge posed by climate change is
undoubtedly a global one, and it brings a need to
redefine international cooperation, which cannot be
dictated by financial markets and lobbies.

2.3.1.
In this context, greater attention should be
paid to statistics on greenhouse gas emissions by
the three main sectors, namely industry, energy and
transport. These unequivocally indicate a significant
drop in the levels generated by industry and energy
production, and a steady and appreciable rise in CO2
emissions in the transport sector.

2.4. With this in mind, and assuming that the Kyoto
conference results in a concrete commitment, the distri-
bution of the burden must be carefully calibrated and
should fall mainly on the industrialized countries, as
they are responsible for the bulk of emissions and are
technologically equipped to tackle the challenge and
disseminate technological advances. Europe can give a
lead here, given its experience of a shared economic and
political venture that has included a commitment to
sustainable development.

2.5.
As well as discussing the measures already taken
at European level, and the proposals on which the
Committee is issuing opinions at the present plenary
session (Schmitz opinion on the taxation of energy
products and Boisseree opinion on the energy dimension
of climate change), the Commission also suggests a
number of decisions which could be taken up by the
other industrialized countries as a common platform.

(1) Conclusions of the Environment Council of 16 October.

2.6.
This platform can help to make the Kyoto
conference a success, and to counter the scaled-down
decisions for which support seems to be emerging in the
United States and Japan. Only by assuming a practical,

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/87

coherent commitment can the developed countries open
the way to greater involvement of the developing
countries, whose energy consumption is bound to
increase. The United States wishes to make the Kyoto
negotiations conditional on agreements on emission
trading and joint implementation between the developed
and developing countries; but these steps represent a
further stage which can only be reached if the developed
countries work in concert to reduce their emissions.

3. Conclusions

The Committee welcomes the Commission com-
3.1.
munication in the firm belief that the EU’s negotiating
position can help to make the Kyoto conference a
success. However, it reserves the right to return to this
subject after the conference in order to evaluate the
concrete measures proposed, and their distribution
within the EU.

Brussels, 29 October 1997.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

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

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

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.

The communication reflects the position which
1.1.1.
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.

The aim of the communication is to highlight
1.1.2.
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 em-
bracing 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
in
emissions which have a bearing on the climate,
particular by energy-saving measures and by advocating
a switch to other forms of fuel.

Following decisions taken by the Council of
1.1.3.
Ministers in March and May 1997, the negotiating