Agreeing on 2030 climate and energy goals proving illusive within European Commission

Reuters news service provided an article in The Guardian about the controversy within the European Commission itself in agreeing on climate and energy goals for 2030. Undoubtedly, the EU wants to be a global leader but there is also the cold reality of trying to re-build momentum in the lagging economy.  Can the two be reconciled? 

 Separately, there is the issue whether there should also be new targets for renewable energy (which had a binding target for 2020) and energy efficiency (which had only an indicative target for 2020). There is no agreement in the Commission or the Council of Ministers.  Yet, this week the European Parliament’s Environment and Energy committees jointly voted for a draft report calling for a three target approach for the EU’s 2030 climate and energy framework.  This included, as the Coalition for Energy Savings was pleased to announce was an ambitious 40% energy efficiency target.

EU commissioners clash over 2030 climate goals

European Commissioners clashed on Friday over what the European Union’s climate and energy policy goals for 2030 should be, with time for agreement running short ahead of their planned publication this month, EU sources said.

The European Union has sought to lead the global fight against climate change, but the economic crisis has sapped the appetite of business and some member states for decisive action because of concerns over competitiveness and cost.

Any policy announcement on targets to succeed the 2020 EU goals on cutting emissions, improving energy efficiency and increasing renewable energy use, will require around two years of EU debate to become law.

But it will send a signal ahead of next year’s UN talks to reach an international deal on cutting emissions after 2020.

EU sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said 2030 carbon-cutting targets of 35% and 40% were under debate, together with a renewables goal of 24-27%.

“The Commissioners’ breakfast was inconclusive,” one EU source said. “The fight will be to get the 40%.”

“Depending on the decision on the greenhouse gas figure, the proposal for only an indicative target on renewables will be set at either 24% or 27%,” another source said.

Last year, EU sources said a 40% carbon-cutting goal and a 30% renewables level were under consideration.

The levels now under debate are still a rise from 2020 goals of a 20% carbon cut and a target to get 20% of energy from green sources, such as wind and solar.

But environmentalists say they amount to business as usual.

Official EU figures for 2012, the latest available, put the renewables level at 14.4% and a 20% carbon cut for 2020 versus 1990 has almost been met already.

“The Commission has lost its moral courage,” Brook Riley, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said.

He added that the Commission was capping renewable energy and efficiency and reneging on a pledge to limit global warming to 2C, the level scientists say prevents the worst consequences of extreme weather.

The divisions in the Commission reflect deep differences of opinion among the 28 EU member states.

Nations such as Britain want only a carbon goal, a view echoed by some in business and utilities such as E.ON .

Dominant EU state Germany, however, wants a renewables target to help achieve its “Energiewende”, or shift from nuclear to green power, and Denmark wants a repeat of the 2020 three-goal formula, also including an energy savings requirement.

A committee in the European Parliament on Thursday backed three new targets for 2030, but the vote was not binding.

Those opposing triple targets say it is too soon to agree a new efficiency goal after difficult debate in 2012 on a law to enforce energy saving through measures, such as insulation. They also argue the renewables target has resulted in expensive subsidies that have raised energy costs for consumers.

Increased energy efficiency could also be a problem for the struggling EU carbon market, which at less than five euros per tonne is doing nothing to halt a rise in the burning of cheap coal, the most carbon-intensive source of power.

Energy savings would reduce demand for carbon allowances when the market is already oversupplied because of a collapse in demand caused by economic recession.

This week, EU officials backed a plan to remove surplus allowances from the market, which the Commission, the EU executive, has said could hopefully lead to a final decision by March, ending years of uncertainty.