MEPs on the cross-party Industry and Energy Committee backed a report on 11 September that called for the following to be included in the proposed directive:

 

 

The report also calls for energy efficiency in transport to improve by at least 20% by 2020 compared to 2005.

 

The committee also tightened up the proposed environmental sustainability criteria for biofuels and introduced social criteria, such as respect for the land rights of local communities.

 

One man who has been occupied with these issues is parliament's rapporteur for the proposed directive - Luxembourg Green MEP Claude Turmes. Appointed by the industry, research and energy committee his job has been to report back to MEPs on the committee as they try to finalise their position.

 

The proposals cover electricity, heating, cooling and biofuels. Launched in January this year it proposes national action plans for countries, enabling people to see how much progress a country is making. Also envisaged are rules relating to so called "guarantees of origin". In layman's terms this is meant to ensure that renewable energy is in fact from a renewable source. The Commission has also set out safeguards on the sustainability of biofuels.

 

 

Speaking to us earlier in the year Claude Turmes has doubts about the workability of the "guarantees of origin" as proposed by the Commission. He feels they are based on "weak legal grounds" and "may put at peril current systems of national support schemes for renewable energy". He is more positive however about the national targets the Commission saying that "we looked into the figures and find they are very good".

 

The sea, wind and thermal energy trapped in the earth are likely to be the main facets of Europe's renewable future. The use of biofuel and biomass could also play a part. At present 8.5% of the European Union's energy is produced from renewable means. However, this figure disguises large national disparities in usage. For example in Sweden they get 39% of their energy from renewable sources whereas Malta has no renewable energy.

 

 

Clearly there is a lot of work still to be done if the 20% target is to be achieved. It has been estimated that reaching the target could save 600 to 900 million tonnes of CO2 a year.

 

There are strong economic as well as ecological reasons to strive for that target. The Commission estimates that if the figure is reached up to 1 million people across Europe could be employed in the renewable energy sector. That would represent a substantial increase over the 350,000 currently working in the sector.

 

 

Claude Turmes is not a fan of the inclusion of biofuels. EU leaders meeting in March last year pledged to have 10% of the Union's transport running on biofuels by 2020. Speaking in Strasbourg in the January plenary Mr Turmes said the Commission "did not have the courage to drop the biofuels target". He hoped that MEPs would find the courage to remove it. Turmes also cites scientific evidence to show that "annual crops like sugar beet and wheat have a very bad CO2 balance".

 

Turning to biomass, Mr Turmes is more positive. "The biomass we have in Europe would be put to much better use in combined heat and power systems" (for example in power stations that burn biomass instead of coal). On the energy savings of biomass he is clear: "I can save three to four times as much CO2 when using biomass (as compared to biofuels)  instead of coal for electricity and heat generation".

 

Claude Turmes is a leading figure in Luxembourg's environmental movement. He was elected to the European Parliament in 1999 for the Green party, 'Déi Gréng' which in turn allowed him to participate in discussions "where European environment and energy policy is formulated". He is the current vice President of the Green/EFA group of MEPs and is their coordinator for energy policy. 

 

 

You may have heard about "Carbon Capture and Storage" - it's a way of keeping CO2 from entering the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. This January a proposed Europe-wide directive was proposed, which would regulate the emerging practice. British Liberal Chris Davies has prepared a report calling for it to be mandatory.

 

On 7 October MEPs on the Environment Committee adopted the Davies report on Carbon Capture and Storage.

 

It stipulates that:

 

 

At present 24% of the European Union's CO2 emissions come from the burning of coal. This is why Chris Davies sees it as a crucial area to cut emissions using CO2 capture and storage.

 

Speaking to us earlier in the year he pointed out that the International Energy Agency predicts a 70% increase in coal burning between now and 2030. Mr Davies warns that "as long as we are building traditional coal-fired power stations we are never going to get to grips with global warming".

 

The UN's Climate Change panel is optimistic about the benefits the process can bring. They estimate that in the next century it could conceivably account for 15-55% of the CO2 cuts required to avert the worst causes of global warming.

 

 

Although the process is at an early stage it is scientifically possible with Canada, Algeria and Norway already carrying out trials. Essentially there are three methods of carbon capture and storage (CCS). With pre-combustion the fuel is gasified before use and separated into CO2 and hydrogen. With post-combustion, the CO2 is filtered out of the smoke. Finally, there is the Oxyfuel technique where fossil fuels are burned in pure oxygen rather than normal air - with the resulting emissions having a high concentration of C02 which can be captured.

 

After the CO2 is captured it will have to be transported by ship or pipeline to its final destination. It can be stored in depleted oil and gas fields or in underground salt water streams. Another possibility is the world's oceans although this is little understood at present. Some of the dangers of storage are either seepage or that they could be a health threat to humans and animals if C02 escaped.

 

A problem acknowledged by Mr Davies is that power plants with CCS technology require between 10% and 40% more energy. Also, the cost of fitting the systems (he wants them in existing power plants by 2025), transport and preparing storage sites is likely to be substantial.

 

 

The proposal presented in January by the European Commission doesn't envisage making CCS compulsory. It aims to provide a framework to manage environmental risks and remove barriers in existing legislation. It sets out how appropriate storage sites should be assessed, designated and subsequently monitored as well as who would be responsible for what.

 

Ms Davies wants to kick-start CCS by giving captured and stored CO2 a "double credit" under the European Emissions Trading Scheme. This would mean that companies would be released from having to buy emission allowances and get extra credit that they could sell on emission markets.

 

Striking a realistic tone, Mr Davies said what he envisages "isn't a magic bullet, but it can help the world buy time to develop zero carbon technology for the long term".

 

 

There are a staggering 220 million cars on Europe's roads and that number is growing all the time. The CO2 they emit is 12% of the yearly total for the whole European Union.

 

On 25 September the Environment Committee also adopted a report on how to make cars cleaner.

 

The Committee backed the Commission's target of an average of 120g of CO2/km for the whole car industry by 2012.

 

MEPs rejected proposals for transitional measures for the car industry until 2015.

 

From 2012, car manufacturers exceeding the targets will have to pay fines - "excess emissions premiums" - for every excess gram of CO2. The Committee is in favour of the Commission proposal to gradually increase fines from 2015.

 

MEPs agreed to set a long-term target of average emissions of no more than 95g CO2 per km as from 1 January 2020, by means of improvement in vehicle motor technology.

 

Members also agreed to allow small independent manufacturers which produce less than 10,000 new registered cars per year to be released from their specific emissions targets.

 

Larger independent car manufacturers - producing 10,000 to 300,000 new registered cars per year - will have the chance to apply for an alternative target of reducing their average specific emissions by 25 per cent compared to 2006 levels.

 

 

In the mid-1990's voluntary targets on CO2 emissions from cars were set at 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012. Since then heavier and more powerful cars have made that target unrealistic. At present average levels are 160g of CO2 per kilometre. The Commission is proposing penalties of up to €95 per gram, per kilometre for manufacturers who don't meet the targets.

 

The European Parliament approved a target of 125g CO2/km by 2015 and a long-term target of 95g CO2/km by 2020 last October.

 

 

In response, the European Commission has proposed a binding target for Europe's car makers of 120g per CO2/km. This would mainly come through more efficient engines and improvements in tyres, air conditioning systems and more fuel-efficient driving. 

 

The target would be divided among carmakers based on the number of vehicles manufactured. A partial exemption is envisaged for manufacturers whose EU-sales are below 10,000 units.

 

Parliament's rapporteur on the proposals, Italian Socialist Guido Sacconi, wants to stick to the 95g/km by 2020 target, which is 40% below the current EU average.

 

Mr Sacconi made a plea to the car making industry "for a comparable effort with other production sectors" with regards to CO2 reduction. He stressed the importance of legal clarity "to offer enterprises a certainty needed for the definition of their investment programs". He wants a review of long-term targets in 2014.

 

 

With fuel prices going up, more efficient cars could save drivers money, according to Mr Sacconi. He sees saving CO2 and money as compatible for consumers. Research shows that tighter environmental targets could increase the price of cars by up to 6% but that this could be offset by the need to buy less fuel. 

 

Mr Sacconi is optimistic that design and development research into more efficient cars could create more jobs and improve the global market position of European carmakers.

 

 

What will be the future shape of the European Emission Trading System (ETS), a cornerstone of the EU’s efforts to curb greenhouse gases?

 

The Emission Trading System (ETS) is a "cap and trade system". At present "National Allocation Plans" prepared by each country define allocations - or "caps" - of how much CO2 each country and each industrial sector in the scheme may emit. If companies emit more they must purchase permits. If they emit less, they can sell or trade their unused allowances. An allowance for a ton of CO2 currently trades at €20.

The aim is to reduce greenhouse gases by 8 % by 2012 compared to 1990 levels and by at least 20% by 2020. These are based on commitments made at and after the Kyoto agreement. If further agreement is reached these cuts could be raised to 30%.

 

 

There are three phases envisaged for the ETS from 2005 to 2020. The sectors covered are power and heat generation, oil refineries, metals, pulp and paper and other energy intensive industries - for example cement production.

 

The Scheme has drawn criticism from several quarters - especially in the first phase. However, the importance of the Scheme has been defended by the rapporteur, Irish centre right (EPP-ED) MEP Avril Doyle. She told us that as it covers sectors which make up half of the CO2 emissions the Scheme is "the cornerstone of the EU strategy for fighting climate change".

 

 

The Commission proposals for the third phase of the ETS are planned to be adopted by the end of 2008: They include extending it to other industries such as chemical and aluminium production. They also include a single EU-wide cap for the Greenhouse gases - as opposed to national plans and allocations. It also wants future allocations to be by auctioning and for free allocation to be exceptional and to be decreased.

 

MEPs also want at least 50 % of ETS auction revenues to go into a dedicated international fund, investing in projects in developing countries with the rest for EU climate change protection measures.

 

Ms Doyle presented a draft report in the Environment Committee at the end of June. She praised the proposal as "balanced" and says that it would "significantly improve and strengthen" the ETS.  On 7 October MEPs on the Committee voted to back the rpeort which among other things includes:

 

Among the measures MEPs would like to see taken are;:

 

The ETS currently includes over 10,000 installations in the energy and industrial sectors, emitting almost 50% of the EU's CO2 - or 40% of greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The aviation sector (all flights arriving at and/or departing from EU) should become a part of the ETS CO2 trading on 1 January 2012.

 

Dublin born Avril Doyle is a vice-chair of the Fisheries Committee and a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. She was first elected to the European Parliament in 1999.
Jargon buster - become a climate change guru

 

Carbon leakage: the risk that high emitting industries are either delocalised to sites outside the EU or that competitors outside the EU take over the market share of European companies.

 

Clean Development Mechanism & Joint Implementation: Possibilities under the Kyoto protocol (for countries and companies) to receive emission credits by investing in climate friendly technologies in another country.

 

Windfall profits: In the first phase of ETS especially power companies made profits by selling allowances that they had received for free but did not need.  

 

Last year EU leaders agreed to cut CO2 emissions by a fifth by 2020 in a bid to tackle climate change. Emerging global agreements could up that figure to a 30% cut. Earlier this year the European Commission unveiled legislation that would allow these steps to be taken.

 

The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme is at the heart of these efforts although keys areas like transport and buildings are not covered. Deals based on solidarity between States will be how CO2 cuts are agreed for these areas.

 

Finnish Green MEP Satu Hassi is vice-chair of the Environment Committee and parliament's rapporteur for the "Effort Sharing Decision" to reduce Europe's greenhouse gas emissions. "Effort Sharing" covers areas not covered by the EU's emission trading scheme such as transport, buildings, services, agriculture and waste. Between 2013 and 2020 they will make up about half of all emissions.

 

Ms Hassi wants emissions in these sectors capped - and that includes transport by ship which is not covered by the Kyoto agreement. At their last plenary session in Strasbourg MEPs voted to include aircraft in the trading scheme in 2012.

 

On 7 October MEPs on the Environment Committee backed a report that set out the following.

 

MEPs backed binding national targets based on relative per capita GDP proposed by the Commission for 2013-2020 and suggests long-term targets (50% by 2035, 60%-80% percent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels)

 

Strict fines for missing national targets: - €100 per tonne of CO2 emitted is envisaged.

 

If a country fails to pay, its ETS allowances would be cut - excess emissions will be multiplied by a mandatory "additional climate abatement factor of 1.3".

 

EU members not using up their GHG emissions should be able to transfer, sell or lend part of their quota to another country.

 

"Offsetting": countries may use projects in third countries under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism to account only for up to 8 percent of their 2005 emissions over the 2013-2020 period

 

The EU's grant-based financial assistance for developing countries' adaptation climate change should increase from €5 billion in 2013 to at least €10 billion in 2020.

 

 

Speaking to us earlier in the year Ms Hassi said she believed that the proposals put forward by the Commission were not ambitious enough. She told us they "fall short of what is needed in order to keep global warming below the 2°C limit. Reductions of 30% compared with 1990 level would be in the range given by the UN's climate change panel. But the Commission proposes 30% reduction only as a part of an international agreement, and doing part of this via offsetting."  

 

She would like industrialised countries to aim for targets of 80% reductions by the middle of the century. This is higher than the 25%-40% cuts scientists believe are necessary to contain temperature rises at 2°C.

 

There is already discord among EU states as to the level that they should be starting at. At present 2005 is given as the reference year so countries would have to make cuts appropriate to their emissions based on 2005. However, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia all believe it does not reflect their efforts to restructure post-Communist economies based on heavy industries. They have put forward a target of an 18% cut in emissions.

 

Ms Hassi is against this suggestion: "The Hungarian proposal would allow most new EU member countries to increase their emissions quite markedly compared to 2005 levels, which to my mind makes no sense."

 

 

The "offsetting" of emissions by reducing them outside the EU is one way proposed by the European Commission. It wants 3% of emissions not covered by the trading scheme to be offset. Ms Hassi opposes the use of credits as it would not achieve the 24-40% cuts she believes are necessary.

 

She told us that: "only the total cumulative emissions matter. But it is wrong to believe that we can continue rising emissions at home just by offsetting our emissions with reduction elsewhere. Emissions need to be reduced and limited everywhere." One way she proposes is the development of high technology.

 

For countries outside the EU she believes that separate emissions reductions target should be agreed and that Europe should use its technological know-how to help. The UN's International Panel on Climate Change says that developing countries need to reduce their emissions by 15-30% compared to business as usual. According to Ms Hassi "this cannot happen without substantial help from our side".

 

The Commission has proposed that countries can reduce their emissions (those not included in the trading scheme) until 2020. Countries can either borrow or carry over their emissions limit to the next year depending on progress. In terms of compliance, Ms Hassi thinks the normal infringement procedure "is far too slow and cumbersome for this purpose". She proposes fines to those who contravene targets.

 

Elected in 2004 Satu Hassi is a former Finnish MP and Minister for Environment. Talking about her work as vice-chair of the Environment Committee she sees two challenges: "The first is industry lobbying trying to prevent, delay and water down all new measures in environment protection. The second is that for the public - business and finance ministries of governments included - it is difficult to fully understand that climate change is a major threat for the very existence of our societies and civilization."

 

 

 

The European Parliament has decided to set out bold new plans to cut the institution's substantial carbon footprint by 30% by 2020. The leaders of the main political groups in Parliament have committed themselves to a review of the institution's output of greenhouse gasses in a bid to meet the future target.

 

Around 2/3 of the Parliament's footprint comes from the use of electricity, gas and transport. Buildings and IT equipment make up 19% of the footprint according to an in-house study commissioned for the Parliament's key leadership body - the Bureau.

 

"We want to be an example"

 

The study highlights various emission reduction strategies including increasing energy efficiency, using renewable energy and offsetting emissions.

 

The main opportunities suggested would require action in the areas of energy use, IT, building infrastructure and transport.

 

The Chair of Parliament's new Environmental Policy Working Group, Green MEP Gérard Onesta believes big changes are imminent: "The present situation is not very good but when you travel a lot, you spend a lot of energy. We are at the very beginning of a green revolution. We want to be an example - it is not only about voting but applying."

 

 

Speaking at an Environmental Committee hearing on 6 November Liberal MEP Magor Imre Csibi supported Onesta's views saying: "Instead of wasting millions of sheets of paper for each committee meeting, we should have screens in the meeting rooms."

 

Socialist MEP Guido Sacconi also spoke at the same hearing. When referring to the Parliament's Hemicycle Chamber he said: "Look at all this heating and cooling and lighting in this room", implying more prudent energy usage could be observed.

 

He went on to suggest that a difference could be made "if we could offset at least for international flights...which many of us are already doing voluntarily."

 

Also speaking at the meeting was John Bowis of the centre right EPP-ED group who believes that revenue can be raised from charging for the privileged of parking as well as championing the benefits of natural light: "Using daylight also improves the air quality. That's a question of health as well" he said.

 

 

Two recent parliament offices that have opened in Brussels - the Willy Brandt and József Antall buildings - have been built with the environment in mind.

 

They have a basin with a capacity of 145,000 litres which catches rainwater for flushing toilets. They also have eight rotating solar panels to heat water and offices presence detectors which automatically switch off lights, heating and ventilation when an office is empty.

 

A proposed new building for the parliament in Luxembourg will benefit from green measures. According to Mr Onesta it will have "solar panels, thermo energy from the soil, biomass heating and a fleet of hybrid cars".

 

Since 2008 the EP has only been using "green electricity" in its three places of work and has already reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 17%.

 

The Parliament is also the only EU institution to hold an Environmental Management Scheme (EMAS) certification for its work in the promotion of efficient energy, water and paper usage.

 

Households use 25% of the EU's energy and this figure is rising. The home is one of the areas where we can all reduce energy use and therefore CO2 emissions. Basic steps like turning off the lights and turning down the thermostat can lead to huge savings. In July consumers across the EU got the right to choose their own gas or electricity suppliers. This move was backed by MEPs. As winter sets in and the first snows across Europe settle we look at energy in the home.

 

Energy use in buildings is steadily climbing up the political spectrum. Given that so much energy is used by homes and with simple steps like insulation, double glazing and efficient light bulbs leading to huge savings, it is not surprising MEPs have been urging action.

 

As long ago as 2002 Parliament backed a report on "Energy Efficiency of Buildings". Drafted by Spanish EPP-ED member Alejo Vidal-Quadras, one of its recommendations was that bills for heating and water consumption be in line with consumption. In other words people should be made more aware of how much energy they are using. In fact, the amount of energy used in everyday items can be substantial...

 

 

 

 

As a result of European directives, from 1 July 2007 the vast majority of EU citizens benefited from the opening of energy markets and the choice of electricity and gas supplier. The way proposed by the EU consists mainly in "unbundling" - the separation of supply and production activities from network operations.

 

Although consumers are not obliged to change their energy suppliers, such a change may ensure a better deal in terms of price and service. It is hoped that extra choice will lead to better competition between electricity and gas suppliers - encouraging better service.

 

It is too early for full statistics from specific countries about how many households have changed their supplier. However, there are indications that significant numbers of consumers have opted to switch suppliers.

 

 

In July this year Parliament backed the liberalisation measures as good for EU consumers. A further report by Mr Vidal-Quadras on the new measures, which was adopted in early July, concluded the following:

 

Speaking about his report and the new measures Mr Vidal-Quadras said "we are in a period where we need to optimise the use of energy and citizens need a radical change of attitude in their consuming habits, which requires that they know the real costs of energy". He went on to say that "this will only happen once the markets are really open to competition...when citizens will, in practice, be able to switch providers freely".

 

The Commission's forthcoming 3rd energy package aims to extend the liberalisation of gas and electricity and the right for consumers to choose their suppliers even further. It will tackle areas and involve countries where this right is not implemented. MEPs will debate the package later this year.