Yesterday, the European Commission recommended a 90% cut on 1990 levels by 2040 to complement the existing targets to reduce net emissions 55% by 2030 and 100% by 2050.

This is the lower end of the 90-95% range called for by the EU’s scientific climate advisers. But it was the most ambitious of the three targets the Commission was considering. The others were 80% and 85-90%.

After the EU elections in June, the next Commission will decide whether to accept this recommendation and work with member states and the EU parliament to turn it into law.

While Europe’s green backlash grows, Poland tells different story

The recommendation drew a mixed reaction from campaigners. Jeroen Gerlag from Climate Group Europe said the EU had “boldly signalled its climate leadership” but Friends of the Earth’s Colin Roche said it “fails its historic responsiblity to tackle the climate crisis”.

While most major nations set goals to reduce emissions by 2030 and target dates to reach net zero, the European Union is the first to float a 2040 emissions reduction target.

Farm emissions

The Commission backed away from spelling out how agriculture should contribute to the headline goal. A previous draft recommendation, seen by Euractiv and others, said that farming was “one of the core areas to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions” and “it should be possible” for farming to cut its emissions by at least 20% by 2040 compared to 2015.

This did not make it into the final document. Neither did a reference to applying carbon pricing to farming or to “healthier diets based on diversified protein intake”, a reference to eating less meat.

Marco Contiero, Greenpeace’s EU agriculture policy director accused the Commission of “ignoring scientific advice on helping farmers move away from overproduction of meat and dairy, [which] makes climate change worse”. Agriculture accounts for around 10% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Rich nations miss loss and damage fund deadline

This backtracking follows farmers’ protests across Europe against plans to protect nature and reduce emissions, with anger at several national governments’ plans to reduce taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels used in farming.

At a press conference yesterday, the EU’s lead climate diplomat Wopke Hoekstra was asked if backing down to protesting farmers gave them too much power. He replied that “we need to make sure that there is broad enough support to continue on this journey together”.

In 2022, farmers protests in Australia and New Zealand led to measures to tackle farming’s emissions being watered down and the farming lobby in Brazil has pushed against measures to stop the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

The post EU floats 90% emissions target but drops green farming measures appeared first on Climate Home News.

Timmermans has led the climate policy of the EU’s executive arm, the European Commission, since December 2019. He led the EU’s delegation to three Cop climate talks but he will not do so at Cop28 in December.

His successor currently unknown but may be just a stop-gap until the next set of commissioners come into power next year, around June. One commissioner from each country is nominated by each of the EU’s member states.

Under Timmermans leadership, the EU pushed internationally for measures to cut methane emissions at Cop26, ended its long-standing opposition to a loss and damage fund at Cop27 and is pushing for a commitment to phase out fossil fuels and ramp up renewables at Cop28.

Domestically, during Timmermans tenure the EU set to target net zero by 2050 and to reduce emissions 55% by 2030 on 1990 levels through a package of measures known as “fit for 55”. But the bloc was widely criticised for endorsing gas as a transition fuel last year.

Alessia Virone, Clean Air Task Force’s European government affairs director, told Climate Home Timmermans would be missed.

“He was the driving force for the green deal,” she said, “now we will have to see who will ensure the remaining green deal legislations are going across the finishing line”.

The 62-year old speaks English, German, French, Italian and Russian in addition to his native Dutch. He is known for speaking frankly and emotionally at international climate talks. At Cop27, he threatened to walk away from talks unless he won concessions before failing to follow throw on that threat, saying that to do so would hurt vulnerable countries.

At a summit to discuss adaptation finance last September, he told African leaders that many European citizens would not be persuaded by the “moral point that those suffering the most consequences are not responsible for creating the crisis” because “what is closer to your own worries is always bigger on your agenda than someone else’s worries”.

Dutch opening

Before joining the European Commission in 2014, Timmermans was the Dutch foreign minister. He represented the centre-left Labour Party in a coalition government led by Mark Rutte.

Earlier this month, Rutte’s latest coalition government collapsed after failing to reach an agreement on restricting immigration, triggering a vote on Nov. 22.

Timmermans formally announced his candidacy to lead the ticket for Labour and Green Left parties, which are joining forces in a bid to stem a decline in support for left-leaning parties.

“This morning I told the Labour and Green Left parties that I would love to be a candidate to lead them in the next elections,” Timmermans said on national Dutch television.

An EU commission spokesperson declined to comment on his possible departure, first reported by Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant.

He was expected to leave his EU post before the autumn to join campaigning in the Netherlands.

This article was updated to include Alessia Virone’s comment on 20 July

The post Frans Timmermans steps down from EU’s climate leadership appeared first on Climate Home News.

The commitment would mean stopping coal power and eliminating emissions from the oil and gas sector, but with only a minimal role for carbon capture, he added.

The EU unveiled its common goals ahead of the climate summit in Dubai this week, at a meeting of the bloc’s environment and energy ministers in Spain.

Speaking at the gathering, attended by Cop28 chief Sultan Al Jaber, Timmermans said the EU wants governments to sign up to a pledge with three main elements: tripling renewables rollout by 2030, better energy efficiency, and an accelerated phase-out of fossil fuels with a “residual” role for carbon abating technologies.

Divisions over carbon capture

The last point refers to the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS), an umbrella term for a range of processes that aim to trap CO2 emissions caused by burning fossil fuels.

CCS is at the centre of a deeply-divided debate. Oil and gas-producing countries and the industry argue it is necessary to extract climate-damaging gases while the world keeps powering activities with fossil fuels.

Campaigners and a host of progressive nations claim it is a loophole for the fossil fuel industry that will prolong the climate crisis.

What does “unabated” fossil fuels mean?

The Cop28 hosts, the United Arab Emirates, are a big proponent of CCS. In May Al Jaber angered many climate politics watchers when he called for a phase-out of “fossil fuel emissions”, saying that oil and gas will continue to play a role in the foreseeable future.

The Cop28 chief has since softened his stance slightly, calling for an accelerated energy transition that “phases down the use of fossil fuels”.

‘Residual’ role

The EU’s position outlined by Timmermans shows a similar focus on eliminating ’emissions’ but signposts clearer limits to the use of CCS.

“It is important to have a precise understanding of the role of ‘abated fossils’ in a net-zero economy,” the EU climate chief said. “These need to be residual and only in hard-to-abate sectors. And the sector carries the burden of proof in demonstrating this is achievable and proposing credible investment strategies in carbon-abating technologies”.

Agreeing on a definition for ‘unabated’ and on a role for CCS is likely to be one of the defining battles at the climate summit in Dubai.

IEA celebrates energy transition minerals investment, as fears of shortage lessen

Lisa Fischer from the think tank E3G said Timmermans “rightly shifts the focus on the need to define ‘abated fossil fuels’ to avoid countries hiding behind a so far little progressed pipedream of carbon capture”. But she also added that the focus should be on “phasing down fossil fuel use, with some clear pre-2050 milestones”.

According to forecasts by the International Energy Agency (IEA), coal, oil and gas must drop respectively by 90%, 80% and 70% between 2021 and 2050, in order to reach net zero by mid-century.

Tripling renewables

The EU’s other big pledge ahead of Cop28 is on tripling the annual rate of deployment of renewable energy between now and 2030.

Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson said the proposal is for a “voluntary, non-binding pledge” for other countries to sign up to.

The target is based on an IEA assessment. The organization said that the world currently has about 3,300 GW of renewable energy capacity. In order to be in with a shot of limiting global warming to 1.5C, about 1,000 GW should be added every year to 2030, roughly tripling the total amount to 10,350 GW.

The renewables pledge is expected to cause less friction in Dubai. Sultan Al Jaber is strongly backing the proposal, which has already attracted support from the US, Chile, Colombia and representatives of small island states.

The post EU to push for fossil fuel phaseout ‘well ahead of 2050’ at Cop28 appeared first on Climate Home News.

The 1998 Energy Charter Treaty, which has around 50 signatories including European Union countries, was designed to protect companies in the energy industry by allowing them to sue governments on policies affecting their investments.

But in recent years it has been used to challenge policies that require fossil fuel plants to shut – raising concerns that it is an obstacle to addressing climate change.

France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain have already announced plans to quit the treaty, increasing pressure on Brussels to coordinate an EU-wide withdrawal.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

In a document shared with EU countries and seen by Reuters, the European Commission said the “most adequate” option would be for the EU and its 27 member states to leave.

“A withdrawal of the EU and Euratom from the Energy Charter Treaty appears to be unavoidable,” the document said.

A spokesperson for the European Commission confirmed it would recommend an EU exit and present the suggestion to diplomats from member countries in a meeting on Tuesday.

Remaining part of this treaty would “clearly undermine” the EU’s climate targets, the Commission said.

Leavings not easy

The treaty’s 20-year sunset clause means that fossil fuel companies from other ECT states will still be allowed to use the ECT to sue EU countries until at least 2043.

Italy left the treaty in 2016. But last year, a British oil and gas company used it to force the Italian government to pay €190m ($204m) over their decision to ban oil drilling near Italy’s shoreline.

The EU governments who are pushing to leave hope to enforce a joint agreement stopping fossil fuel companies based in the EU from suing EU states.

Denmark to put CO2 in seabed in step towards carbon negativity

But they would need to agree such a deal with other willing treaty members to avoid future lawsuits such as from Japan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

The European Commission’s said that non-EU ECT members have shown no interest in ending protections for their fossil fuel investments in the EU.

“For the time being, no non-EU Contracting Party has indicated they would be open to such a solution,” said its paper.

Reform attempts

The European Commisison has spent the last few years pushing to modernise the ECT by phasing out investment protection for fossil fuels.

Last June, their negotiators overcame resistance from Japan and Central Asian states to reach consensus on allowing ECT members to decide what investments they protect.

The EU and UK announced they would end protection for new fossil fuel investments and to phase out protection for existing fossil fuel investments in ten years time.

France seeks EU loophole for French Guiana to power space sector with biofuels

This was a slower phase-out than climate campaigners and some EU governments hoped for but was the most that other EU states would sign up for.

At the end of last year, several big European countries said they would quit the treaty despite the reforms. The reforms were never ratified.

Given the number of countries quitting individually, renegotiating the treaty does not seem feasible, the European Commission said.

Fifteen members needed

An EU exit would require support from at least 15 EU countries and the European Parliament, which has already backed a resolution calling for the idea.

The reforms’ failure means that fossil fuel investments in the UK and from UK companies will continue to be protected indefinitely unless the UK leaves the treaty.

A spokesperson for the UK government told Climate Home: “The UK is closely monitoring the situation surrounding the Energy Charter Treaty’s modernisation process, including the positions taken by other Contracting Parties.”

They added: “We have been a strong advocate for updating the Treaty to ensure it’s aligned with modern energy priorities, modern international treaty practice, and international commitments on climate change.”

This article was updated on 9 February to include the UK government’s response

The post Europe proposes mass exit from energy treaty appeared first on Climate Home News.

Under a “flexibility mechanism” approved by members of the energy investment treaty, the EU and UK will end protection for new fossil fuel investments from August 2023. However, most existing fossil fuel investments will continue to be protected for 10 years from the date the modernised treaty is officially ratified.

The ECT, which has members spanning Europe and Asia, has been used by fossil fuel companies to sue governments over climate policies which hurt their profits. For example, German energy company Uniper is suing the Dutch government over its coal phase-out plans.

In 2020, a study found that ECT member countries faced up to €1.3 trillion ($1.4trn) by 2050 of compensation claims by fossil fuel investors.

The EU initiated “modernisation” talks to try and end these lawsuits but its attempts to remove fossil fuels from the treaty’s protection clause were thwarted by some Asian nations led by Japan.

At an ad-hoc conference, which was disrupted by protesters yesterday, members to the treaty reached a compromise which gives them some flexibility to choose what energy investment they want to continue to protect.

STOP PROTECTING FOSSIL FUELS! Extinction Rebellion & @wemoveEU have blocked the entrances to the toxic fossil fuel treaty (the ECT) building with a climate crime scene.
4 years of talks on the ECT must end today with the only viable conclusion: end the ECT now! #NoECT #ExitECT pic.twitter.com/iGFaA9Tx9L

— Extinction Rebellion Belgium (@XR_Belgium) June 23, 2022

Members like Japan, a staunch defender of the ECT, is likely to keep protecting fossil fuel investments in the country indefinitely. But the EU and the UK have said they will use the flexibility mechanism to limit them.

When the EU and UK end protections for fossil fuel investments for fossil fuel investors from ECT states like Japan then those states are likely to reciprocate, meaning European and British fossil fuel investments will no longer be protected in countries like Japan.

In Europe, environmental campaigners, who have repeatedly called on the EU to leave the treaty, reacted angrily, calling on ECT members to stage an on-mass exit from the treaty despite the reforms.

Former ECT employee turned anti-ECT campaigner Yamina Saheb told Climate Home the agreement was “a disaster from a climate change perspective”. Friends of the Earth’s Paul De Klerck said it would “lock the EU in fossil fuel investment protection” for a decade.

“This means countries will continue to spend taxpayers’ money in compensating fossil fuel companies rather than fighting climate change and moving to a renewable energy system,” added Cornelia Maarfield, trade and investment policy expert at Climate Action Network Europe. “This disastrous agreement must not be ratified,” she said.

Japanese and Korean industry push gas on Vietnam amid campaigner crackdown

The ten year protection for existing coal, oil and gas investments was a compromise reached between EU member states, which diverged on the best way forward, according to sources familiar with the negotiations. France, Spain and Luxembourg wanted to end the protection of fossil fuel investments that allows countries to be sued for damages by polluting companies. But several Eastern European states resisted change.

Under the agreement reached, some gas-fired power plants will continue to receive investor protection beyond the 10-year deadline and until the end of 2040. That applies to gas power plants whose emissions are under a certain level and which replace more polluting infrastructure.

The flexibility mechanism would have allowed the UK to end all fossil fuel protection immediately. But it hasn’t done so. Asked why, an energy ministry spokesperson declined to comment.

In a statement published Friday, the UK said protection for existing coal investments in the country will end in October 2024. But, in line with the EU, it will wait 10 years to end protection for oil and gas investments. It will continue to protect abated gas, which uses carbon capture technology, beyond those 10 years.

“Our success in negotiating a modernised treaty will boost our move to cheaper and cleaner energy by providing greater confidence to the private sector investors and risk takers we need for this transition,” said UK energy secretary Greg Hands.

Colombia’s new president Gustavo Petro pledges to keep fossil fuels in the ground

Campaigners’ call to leave the treaty found some sympathy in EU member states. A Spanish government representative told an EU council meeting in April that Spain “did not see how the ECT could be adapted to the Paris Agreement” and deputy prime-minister Teresa Ribera recently told Politico: “It is time that the EU and its member states initiate a coordinated withdrawal from the ECT”.

But the treaty’s ‘sunset clause’ makes leaving difficult as its rules continue to apply for 20 years after a member decides to leave. Campaigners say the impact of this sunset clause can be greatly reduced if members withdraw on mass and refuse to implement the treaty against each other during that time.

But as well as protecting fossil fuels, the treaty protects renewable investments. Under its rules, renewable companies have claimed compensation for anti-renewable measures. The modernisation talks have led to the addition of protection for carbon capture and storage technology, hydrogen, , ammonia, biomass and biogas.

This article was updated to include the UK government’s decision not to comment.

The post EU and UK will end investment protection for fossil fuels in 10 years appeared first on Climate Home News.

On billboards and newspapers across Poland, the TGPE trade association attacked climate policies using a figure widely criticised by experts as misleading.

The message reads: “The European Union’s climate tax is as much as 60% of energy production costs. EU climate politics = expensive energy/high prices”.

It has been amplified by the nationalist government and many of its anti-EU supporters, provoking a rebuttal from the European Commission.

In an article for Euractiv, prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki wrote: “The [ETS] price increase is out of control and hitting the household budgets of EU citizens.”

The Polish parliament called for the EU to suspend and reform the ETS.

Conservative journalist Tomasz Sommer tweeted: “Green anti-Polish lobbying has led to the energy poverty of many Poles. Why did no one stop these people?”

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Energy analysts accused government of misleading the public and energy companies of trying to pass the buck for rising energy prices.

While the price of a carbon allowance for polluting power generators on the EU ETS tripled in 2021, think-tank Forum Energii said that cost makes up 23% not 60% of a household bill. It would be less if the country had moved faster from coal to renewables.

Robert Tomaszewski, energy analyst at Polityka Insight, said: “The utilities, I think they just want to move the blame from them and from the government and push it to the European Union.”

Energy prices have shot up in Poland and across Europe, causing widespread hardship. “I’m turning off lights after my children and thinking about changing bulbs,” said Tomaszewski.

“We all feel there is an energy crisis which has been building up for several months. It’s difficult not to see it and difficult not to be a part of it,” said Warsaw-based energy analyst Zofia Wetmanska.

Polish electricity day-ahead daily prices (Zlotys/Mwh)(Photo: Energy Instrat)

Wetmanska said the 60% figure was not incorrect as that is the cost faced by coal generators but was “very misleading” to imply it was the main driver of high prices. She said: “It is placed out of context and the end user cannot be expected to understand all the technicalities.”

European Commission vice-president and climate lead Frans Timmermans wrote an article for Polish website Onet which opened (in Polish): “Let’s be clear: EU policy is NOT responsible for 60% of your energy bill. Some people use such a number, distorting the meaning of the discussion.”

The price of an EU carbon permit in euros (Photo: Trading Economics)

The emissions trading scheme was set up in 2005. While Poland has developed a renewable energy sector, led by wind, it still relied on coal for 71% of electricity in 2021 – the most of any EU country.

As coal is the most polluting fuel, Poland’s energy consumers have to proportionally pay the most to the ETS.

“It’s lack of preparedness”, said Wetmanska. “All the predictions said that these prices will increase and yet the government did nothing to decarbonise the sector.”

Poland remains dependent on coal (light blue) (Photo: IEA/Screenshot)

The Law and Justice party won elections in 2015 promising to defend the coal mining region of Silesia.

In government, Tomaszewski said, governing politicians watered down this coal commitment “when they met reality” but have restricted the growth of the onshore wind industry.

Revenue from the sale of pollution permits goes to the Polish government. As Timmermans pointed out in his article for Onet, the Polish government made 28bn zlotys ($7bn) from the ETS in 2021.

“Using only half of this amount, the Polish government could grant, last year, almost 8,000 zlotys ($2,000) to every Polish family that cannot make ends meet,” the Dutchman said.

The government has spent money reducing bills through its “anti inflation shield” policies but it has not linked this to the ETS funds which go into its general budget.

Tomaszewski warned that, in Poland and elsewhere, if energy transition costs ordinary people money then “populist politicans will be able to weaponize this in a way that can transform the policy of the European Union”.

He added that the EU’s goal to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030 could lead to a further war of words between Warsaw and Brussels. “This is the real risk we are facing,” he said.

The post ‘Misleading’ Polish billboards blame EU climate policy for electricity costs appeared first on Climate Home News.

The deadline for EU member states to provide feedback to Brussels on a proposal to award gas and nuclear a green investment label expired on Friday (21 January).

In a letter sent to Brussels on the same day, Berlin reiterated its opposition to nuclear and made new detailed requirements on gas.

“As the federal government, we have once again clearly expressed our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy. It is risky and expensive,” Vice-Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck said in a joint statement with Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, both senior members of the Greens party.

But the letter also makes new requests to ease restrictions on fossil gas, calling on the European Commission to delete requirements aimed at promoting a shift to low-carbon gases such as biomethane or hydrogen in the transition to green energy.

Fossil gas used as “a fuel in ultra-modern and efficient gas-fired power plants forms a bridge for a limited transition period” to enable Germany’s “rapid phase-out of coal and thus achieve CO2 savings in the short term,” the letter reads.

Saudi energy minister touts pink hydrogen made by “emancipated young ladies”

And to achieve this transition, Berlin says it needs more time to switch to low-carbon and renewable gases than suggested in the Commission’s draft taxonomy proposal, circulated on 31 December.

“The intermediate targets called for in the fuel switch, with blending rates of decarbonised gases of 30% by 2026 and 55% by 2030, are not realistically achievable,” Berlin warns in the letter.

With clean hydrogen still in the the development phase, Habeck fears that promoting the green fuel in electricity generation will deprive German industry from a much-needed low-carbon energy source.

This is why Germany is asking Brussels to remove all intermediate targets for hydrogen, saying the fuel switch should “be enabled in a flexible manner after 2036.” And in any case, fuel-switching goals should be treated as guidelines rather than hard targets, “based on an assessment with a view to the available fuels,” the letter argues.

The letter also supports the “extension of district heating networks” to decarbonise Europe’s heating system. “Therefore, the replacement rule for district heating should be eliminated or at least an appropriate capacity increase should be provided, as a comparison to existing plants is not adequate,” the letter notes.

Egypt names foreign minister Sameh Shoukry to lead Cop27 climate talks

Most district heating systems currently run on coal or gas – both fossil fuels which need to be phased out in order to support the EU’s goal of becoming climate neutral by 2050.

In its draft taxonomy text, the European Commission also promoted fuel-switching, by awarding a green investment label only to gas plants that replace more polluting coal power stations. To qualify for the green label, Brussels also requested that new installations must achieve a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to their predecessor.

But Germany says the requirement is too strict. “The commitment to a 55% greenhouse gas reduction is unrealistic here,” notes the letter by Habeck, which calls upon the Commission to “establish realistic values” instead.

The German letter also says a green label should be awarded to state-of-the-art gas power plants when they come in replacement of an old one, a proposal which is likely to infuriate green campaigners who have already criticised Germany’s push for gas.

This article was produced by Euractiv and republished under a content sharing agreement.

The post Germany backs gas as “transition” fuel in EU green finance guidelines appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: European Parliament/Flickr

By Megan Darby

European leaders have directed officials to come up with an energy efficiency target for 2030, prompted by ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

The conflict over one of Europe’s key gas supply routes has given fresh impetus to the drive to cut energy consumption and dependence on imported fuels.

The European Commission is considering an energy saving target of between 27% and 35% by 2030, with the final proposals due out later this month. There are reportedly internal divisions over the level of ambition to recommend.

The leaders of European member states stressed the importance of energy efficiency at a European Council meeting last Friday.

A note on the conclusions of the talks stated: “Geopolitical events, the worldwide energy competition and the impact of climate change are triggering a rethink of our energy and climate strategy. We must avoid Europe relying to such a high extent on fuel and gas imports.

“To ensure our energy future is under full control, we want to build an Energy Union aiming at affordable, secure and sustainable energy. Energy efficiency is essential, since the cheapest and cleanest energy is that which is not consumed.”

Internal divisions

Despite the endorsement from national leaders, some parties are reluctant to commit to an ambitious target as this could undermine the role of carbon pricing.

Sources close to the matter say climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard is pushing to cut energy consumption by 30% to 35% compared to business as usual projections.

These two options are included in a draft proposal seen by RTCC, although commission president Jose Manuel Barroso is arguing for a 27% target.

According to the draft proposal, the 30% option would maintain the momentum from this decade’s drive for a 20% energy efficiency saving.

ANALYSIS: Why the EU’s climate targets matter beyond Brussels

The bloc is presently on track to deliver 18% to 19% by 2020, but officials say in the draft document: “After years of hesitation, Europe’s energy efficiency policy is starting to deliver.”

An alternative wording recommended increasing the rate of effort, “taking into account the increased importance of energy efficiency in the context of the European Energy Security Strategy, and the important role that energy efficiency can play in promoting growth and jobs”. That line was dropped from a later draft.

The 27% figure, meanwhile, is closer to the indicative level in the 2030 climate and energy framework documents published in January.

That package targeted a 40% cut in greenhouse gas emissions and a 27% share of renewables in the energy mix. It did not specify an energy efficiency target but suggested that the most cost-efficient level of savings was 25%.

Carbon price trade-off

One reason given for aiming lower on energy efficiency is that a high target would undermine the carbon price set by the emissions trading system (ETS).

There are separate measures under development to make the ETS more effective. A proposed market stability reserve would withhold pollution permits from the market at times of surplus, boosting the price.

The carbon market was intended to reduce emissions as efficiently as possible. Yet the price of allowances is chronically low, at around €5, making it a weak signal for low carbon investment. Advocates of the ETS blame the industry-specific renewables and energy efficiency targets for undermining the market.

Brook Riley, director of EU climate policy for Friends of the Earth, acknowledged the trade-off, but said energy savings and renewables should not be sacrificed to focus on the ETS.

“Why not do the smart thing and go for a higher greenhouse gas target which would require all the policy options to pull their weight?” he said.

The post Brussels divided on 2030 energy saving target appeared first on Climate Home News.

Source: Flickr / motiqua

By Sophie Yeo

The European Union has said that climate proposals to be adopted in a legally binding deal in 2015 must be set out by UN Parties by the end of next year.

Meeting this week in Luxembourg, the EU ministers focused on the need to ramp up momentum at the upcoming climate conference in Warsaw.

In separate meetings to establish a common EU position to put on the table at UN talks this November, the Environment Council and the Council for Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecofin) reached conclusions on how to approach negotiations on pre- and post-2020 ambition on emissions reductions and climate finance.

Valentinas Mazuronis, the Lithuanian Minister of Environment, who will lead the EU delegation in Warsaw, stressed that the coming conference was an important step, with time running short until the final 2015 deadline.

“Warsaw this year and Lima next year will be the last stages before reaching the so long-awaited global climate change agreement in Paris in 2015. It is crucial that we start laying the basis for success in Paris already now,” he said in a statement.

Key milestone

The final document released by the Environment Council states that the EU is determined to work towards a balanced package of decisions in Warsaw.

This would include both enhancing previous decisions, increasing pre-2020 ambition, and laying the foundations for the legally binding agreement they hope will be signed off in Paris in 2015.

The EU minsters say they will push 2014 as the point at which countries must be prepared to offer proposed commitments to be adopted in the 2015 agreement.

If the UN adopts their proposed timetable, the EU hopes it will set the stage for a draft negotiating text to be ready for the following year’s climate talks in Lima.

Ulriikka Aarnio, Policy Officer at CAN Europe, told RTCC: “Warsaw is just a milestone on the pathway to Paris, so unfortunately there’s not going to be much new political action on increasing targets.”

But she adds that Warsaw is still a key part of the process: “This meeting is important because the EU says we need to make sure the countries will start working in 2014 on what they are going to commit to.”

Pre-2020 ambition

The EU’s final negotiating position on pre-2020 ambition also indicates an attempt to build momentum.

In the document, it says: “enhancing global pre-2020 mitigation ambition will contribute to an ambitious 2015 international agreement”.

It adds that the EU remains willing to move to a 30% emissions reduction rate by 2020, rather than the 20% that it is already well on track to achieve, on the condition that their commitment is equalled by other developing countries.

In one of the more last minute and controversial additions to the document, the EU emphasised that ministers must engage on this issue at the Warsaw Conference.

“There was a group of countries that wanted to know how the EU wanted to increase its current inadequate targets, but that was also something that Poland and France didn’t really want to do,” said Aarnio.

But she adds: “There is now the conclusion that they acknowledge the inadequacy of the targets and the need to revise it. In paragraph 12, they added a sentence that emphasises the need for ministerial engagement on this in Warsaw, so as to create a bit more high level momentum to put pressure on increasing the near term targets, not only long term targets.”

And while others want the EU to set out ambitious decarbonisation goals for 2030, E3G senior policy advisor Liz Gallagher, who was also at the meeting, says this is unrealistic.

“We were never going to have a 2030 package outlined for Warsaw. I don’t think that’s necessarily needed,” she told RTCC.

“I think an ambitious 2030 package is needed for the Ban Ki-moon summit [in 2014] and that’s the most important thing.”

Finance targets

Some have expressed disappointment that the EU did not push more to improve their own climate finance targets, particularly in the decisions taken in the Ecofin Council meeting.

In a statement, Lies Craeynest, Oxfam’s EU climate change expert, said: “Only a handful of the 28 European governments have put concrete figures on the table.

“To start building the progressive coalitions needed to clinch a global climate deal in 2015, all EU countries should now come forward and say how much money they intend to stump up to help poor countries adapt to a changing climate and develop in a low carbon way in 2015 and 2015.

“This should include initial pledges to the UN-backed Green Climate Fund.”

Gallagher says that there were a number of positive aspects to the final financial position adopted by the EU, including the focus on International Financial Institutions (IFIs), along with a general acknowledgement that private funds should not replace public funds when gathering together the US$ 100 billion that has so far been committed.

The final document acknowledges that climate change will amplify the challenges faced in developing countries of addressing poverty and promoting economic growth, and therefore encourages IFIs to make sure that climate change is a factor in their own objectives.

Gallagher said: “They are trying to get the IFIs to engage more on climate risks, on the impact, and really mainstream the discussions on climate change, which would be important.”

The EU also affirms that private finance should not be seen as a substitute for public finance, which will remain key to climate adaptation and mitigation funding.

“It send a nice clear signal in advance of Warsaw that they haven’t forgotten about public finance, they do know that they’ve committed to do stuff, and I think it’s trying to appease some of the concerns about the push from the US for the $100 billion to mostly be private finance,” says Gallagher.

“It’s a mark in the sand that says they realise public finance is as important as private finance.”

The post EU sets 2014 deadline for global climate pledges appeared first on Climate Home News.

Chinese companies participating in the price-undertaking will be exempt from the anti-dumping duties. (Source: Suntech)

By Nilima Choudhury

The European Union and China have reached an amicable solution to curb exports of solar products from China into Europe through a minimum price agreement. 

The terms of the agreement reverses the decision made in June which saw provisional duties levied against Chinese manufacturers accused of dumping their products on the European market. Instead it sets a minimum price on exports, “after an arduous and painstaking negotiation” according to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce.

EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said: “We are confident that this price undertaking will stabilise the European solar panel market and will remove the injury that the dumping practices have caused to the European industry.

“We have found an amicable solution that will result in a new equilibrium on the European solar panel market at a sustainable price level.”

The new prices are expected to last until the end of 2015.

Those exporting Chinese companies participating in the price-undertaking will be exempt from the anti-dumping duties.

At a press conference this morning, de Gucht said: “Certain Chinese companies have signed a voluntary agreement that they will not dump and will accept a minimum price for modules.

“Those that have not signed will be obligated to pay the 46.7% duty that was decided before from 6 August which accounts for 30% of Chinese suppliers.”

The Ministry of Commerce said in a statement that the Chinese solar industry now needs to place more emphasis on research and development of new technologies and market diversification.

“China PV industry has been working to maintain a fair international trade environment and oppose trade protectionism and advocated to resolve trade disputes through negotiation.”

Official details of the agreement will be released following their adoption by the European Commission.

The Chinese investigation into imports of polysilicon, the main component in manufacturing solar panels, is still ongoing, de Gucht confirmed at a press conference this morning.

He said the Chinese government is expected to impose provisional measures by the end of February 2014. The European Commission expects China to offer a two-month negotiation period just as the Commission offered to China.

EU ProSun, the group of European manufacturers that launched the original complaint against Chinese solar companies have taken their outrage against the Commission’s decision to the European Court of Justice claiming it as “illegal”.

Reaction:

EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht – “The Commission has received signed commitments from a large number of Chinese solar panel exporters. Today I have tabled a draft decision to accept these. I hope the European Commission will adopt my proposal on 2 August.

“Solar panel deployment is important for Europe’s ambition to reduce CO2 emissions. Exactly because of the ambitious climate policy in Europe over the previous years, European demand was world leading and exceeded the capacity of European supply.

Finlay Colville, vice president at market research company Solarbuzz – “It is debatable who is going to police the pricing and cap figures. It is one thing to set up but another to administer it. It seems the whole thing could become unmanageable given the pace of the solar industry. It may take months to add up the numbers afterwards by which time demand has already happened.

“It’s a blow for the European solar manufacturers. They were hoping for duties to have a price advantage in Europe.”

Thorsten Preugschas, CEO of Soventix GmbH and Chairman of the Alliance for Affordable Solar Energy, the lobby group against duties – “Price increase would accelerate what we have seen in past months, the reduction of a significant number of jobs throughout the solar value chain.”

Denis Gieselaar, CEO of Oskomera Solar Power Solution and Board member of AFASE – “We don’t want price increase as this will contract demand in Europe. An agreement based on unreasonable minimum prices would be a complete lose-lose situation, including for European manufacturers, at a time when Europe is so desperately looking to stimulate green jobs creation”.

UK Solar Trade Association chief executive Paul Barwell – “Thank God we’ve moved a long way from the original proposals, which were truly appalling and without justification.

“In the short term, the proposals could do real damage to the UK downstream solar industry and to national deployment levels. They leave the UK non-domestic solar industry in a very difficult position, when in fact the UK is one of the major EU growth markets, and ought to remain so.”

STA PV specialist and government advisor Ray Noble – “We urge the UK government to amend this proposal by calling for a shorter duration for this deal, fluctuating or lower minimum prices, and allowing for volume growth and cost reductions. Otherwise the UK policy framework will be increasingly out of kilter with real world costs.

“It would make little sense from a public value-for-money perspective for the UK government to allow the solar industry to grind to a halt because of Brussels meddling.”

The post EU and China reach “amicable” solution to solar trade dispute appeared first on Climate Home News.

A new lobby group has called for regional, national and European-wide legislators to achieve a 100% renewable energy target within the next four decades.

The Global Alliance for 100% Renewable Energy, founded by World Future Council (WFC) and research institute Fraunhofer ISE among others, has criticised European governments of being the main hurdle in successfully combating climate change.

Six years ago the EU agreed to cut its emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020 and raise its renewable energy levels by the same amount. France and Germany have signalled they are willing to look at new clean energy targets for 2030, but the UK has argued it is up to individual countries to decide.

The Alliance stated at its inauguration today that renewable energy is the key to Europe’s future economic and industrial development.

Speaking to RTCC, Anna Leidreiter, Policy Officer of Climate and Energy at WFC said: “The challenge has never been technical but actually the political will to implement enabling policy frameworks.

“Britain is a good (even though in a negative way) example how crucial political will is. The government’s current position on shale gas and nuclear power is another diversion from what should be a complete decarbonisation and sustainability commitment,” said Leidreiter.

The British government is spending too much time on shale gas and nuclear power rather than committing to sustainability. (Source: UK Parliament)

She notes that European countries already rely heavily on renewables proving that this ambitious goal is already becoming a reality. WFC states the success story of those regions results from high citizen participation.

“Two countries that are already powered by 100% renewable energy are Norway and Iceland,” said Leidreiter.

“Other European countries also rely heavily on renewables. Denmark uses renewable sources for 45% of its energy: wind (30%) and biomass (15%). Besides that Denmark is the only European country with a 100% RE target for electricity, heating/cooling sector and transportation by 2050.

“Scotland has a 100% RE target in power sector by 2020 and Upper Austria in power and heat sectors by 2030. Spain already provided its 47 million people with 31% renewable electricity in 2011. Italy, with 60 million inhabitants, now sources 17% of its electricity renewably. Germany is on 19% and in the electricity sector even at 25%.”

EU renewables reign

A report from energy consultancy firm PA concurs with the WFC.

European countries may have been the safest havens for renewable investments in the past but PA says they are now: “losing momentum as a result of policy responses to the financial and debt crisis. Policymakers have significantly scaled back on expensive feed-in-tariff programmes in many countries, notably Spain, Germany and Austria.”

According to PA, China is the leader of the pack when it comes to getting a good internal rate of return for renewable energy investments thanks to government support.

The report does recognise clear positives about Europe’s approach to renewables: “Sweden, Denmark and the UK have achieved a high position in our ranking through a combination of good-quality renewable resources plus the effective use of market mechanisms in the form of renewable energy credits.”

“Global investors and international funds are showing significant interest in UK energy infrastructure assets, largely due to the planned closure of existing thermal and nuclear generation and the policy support for new low-carbon plants offered by the Energy Bill,” said PA energy expert Mark Livingstone.

For Europe to compete against high-rollers like China, Leidreiter states European governments need to encourage certainty in the market by creating a level playing field for renewable energy and conventional energy to attract investment.

“Governments throughout Europe act in the interest of the conventional energy sector. A strong political commitment is necessary and setting a 100% renewable energy target is the first step,” said Leidreiter.

The post EU leaders urged to adopt 100% renewable energy target appeared first on Climate Home News.

The European Union appears unlikely to adopt tougher targets for carbon emissions this year after an official at the UN climate talks in Bangkok was quoted as saying further cuts were ‘wishful thinking’.

The EU’s current ambitions for 2020 involve reducing emissions by 20% on 1990 levels, improving energy efficiency by 20% and increasing the share of renewables in the bloc’s energy mix by 20%.

In recent months there have been moves for the EU to increase those 2020 targets to 25% or 30%, but a report from the PushEurope campaign group reveals that at an informal session of the UN talks currently taking place in Bangkok an EU official said: “25% is not reality, it is wishful thinking.”

PushEurope also claims the EU official confirmed discussions on the 2020 targets had been closed, so they could focus on emissions reductions for 2030 – meaning that it will not consider further progress on emissions reductions for another decade.

The UN talks were “unlikely to see changes in pledges this year or in other parts of the world”, the official was reported as saying.

The European Commission’s own analysis showed that an increase in emission cuts to 25% could be easily met and would be more economical, but it has met with fierce resistance from some quarters – notably Poland and energy commissioner Gunther Oettinger.

Ironically the EU’s 2050 low-carbon roadmap, published in 2011, clearly states that achieving 25% reductions would be fairly straightforward.

“If the EU delivers on its current policies, including its commitment to reach 20% renewables, and achieve 20% energy efficiency by 2020, this would enable the EU to outperform the current 20% emission reduction target and achieve a 25% reduction by 2020,” it says.

If this is now an official EU policy it will come as a blow to climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, who has been a vocal supporter of adopting a more ambitious goal.

#Bangkok talks: EU will try to speed up progress, hopefully others will too #UNFCCC #climatechange

— Connie Hedegaard (@CHedegaardEU) August 29, 2012

The 30% emissions reductions target is a proposal supported by a number of leading EU states, notably the UK.

In April Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker told the BBC: “We are going to comfortably exceed our 2020 emissions target as things stand, which is 20%. We think we are in a good position to raise that level of ambition to 30%.

“We want to do that in conjunction with the rest of Europe. We are working not just on the environmental case but the economic case, looking at the huge growth in low-carbon and clean technology not just in Europe but around the world.

“We need to be a cleaner economy.”

EU member states are responsible for approximately 11% of global emissions, so in one sense an argument over 20% or 25% could be seen as splitting hairs.

But where the EU leads others follow, particularly on key issues such as the Kyoto Protocol, emissions trading and efficiency standards, which is why the bloc’s policy pronouncements are so important.

Related stories:

Bangkok 2012 – Loose ends and few surprises at first day of UN climate change talks

Vulnerable small island states call for Bangkok climate talks to “close the gaps”

UNFCCC parties hope Bangkok’s summer sun can thaw deep divisions sown in Bonn

The post Bangkok 2012 – EU signals it will not adopt 30% emissions target appeared first on Climate Home News.

John Ashton is the British Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change, articulating UK  policy on this issue around the world.

Ashton has been travelling the world discussing climate change with world leaders like Bolivia's Evo Morales

He will play a key role in UK delegation at COP17, advising ministers and participating in negotiations.

As such his views on the forthcoming summit in Durban are critical, not only from a UK but also from an EU perspective, since Britain works closely with its European partners at international climate change negotiations.

Ashton laid his cards on the table last week. In a strident article for the Guardian newspaper he hit back at critics of the international process, and warned there was no ‘Plan B’ for the climate if agreement over a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol was not reached.

Speaking to RTCC five days before the start of COP17, Ashton explains why he still has faith in the much maligned treaty, and argues that despite the current Eurozone crisis, it is vital the EU shows leadership in Durban.

The interview also touches on the financing mechanisms that could be delivered at COP17, the role of South Africa in the negotiations, and whether the UK is still a relevant player at global climate talks.

RTCC: In last week’s Guardian you wrote a strong article stating that there is ‘No Plan B’ for the climate, and that Kyoto is the deal on the table…broadly speaking many Guardian readers will agree with those sentiments – so who in particular were you aiming the article at?

John Ashton: I wasn’t aiming it at a particular person, but what I’ve noticed is that over the last 2 or 3 years, even before Copenhagen, you do bump into a view that says ‘this attempt to build a legally bound approach to climate change will fail’ – people are never going to have enough political will to sign up to that, and so we should do something different.

I think that that argument needs to be contested – as I don’t think it will lead us towards an effective response to climate change. I think the problem is that in a sense climate change is in a sense unlike any other issue that human beings have ever had to deal with, in that we don’t control the timetable.

You can almost hear the ticking of a clock in the background, which is the way natural systems are responding to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases that we are putting in the atmosphere, and as you’re going up that curve you’re leaving behind every minute of every day the climates that you could have had…had you been able to stabilise at that level. So we have to accept the consequences of that.

That means in a sense it’s not just what we need to do that matters – it’s how quickly we need to do it, and because the ‘it’ is largely to do with private capital allocation decisions – that will determine whether we can keep climate change to within 2 degrees or whether we want to explore what it might be like to live in a 4 degree world or beyond world…

The question for governments is not: ‘do we as governments believe that we mean what we say when we make promises to each other’? Governments by and large usually are sincere when they make promises to each other…but it’s whether the outside world and particularly people in boardrooms making private capital decisions – whether they believe it – and funnily enough they are often more cynical of government’s ability to keep their promises and in the end, even legally binding promises don’t give you a guarantee that they will be kept.

But I think there is a sense that they are more likely to be kept, and that governments will try harder to meet a commitment they have made in an internationally binding way than otherwise…so the vast majority of countries thought – given that in a sense we’re aiming for the impossible, it seemed a good idea to put the other side of that case, which is that there are moments in history where the challenge isn’t to do as much as you can within the limits, but to expand the limits…and that tends to happen at decisive moments on big issues, and this is a decisive moment on a big issue.

RTCC: Although sometimes when you shoot for the stars – and we’ve seen this with many football clubs who pump in money and then don’t quite make it – you end up flat on your face. Is there not an argument that if perhaps all states aimed for a lower target that everyone can agree on then perhaps that’s a better basis for moving forward?

John Ashton: Well….first point – obvious point – you get climate that goes with the level of ambition you set. What we know is that even a 2 degree rise is taking a big risk with our future security, prosperity, prospects for living in a decent world if you like. But if you set a level of ambition that doesn’t give you a chance of staying within 2 degrees you can’t complain if you end up dealing with those consequences – it’s not under our control.

We can analyse it, we do have a pretty good picture of it, but we can’t tell nature to slow down while we get our act together…but there is a tension – and in a sense there are two different narratives that you need to bring together in this negotiation.

You have a narrative of urgency – if you can’t convey this then you’re lost….and a lot of the voices in this conversation are not really communicating this urgency – so how do you push that up a bit. But at the same time you have another narrative – everything we know about diplomacy reinforces it, which is what I call ‘Rome wasn’t built in a day’.

A friend of mine – Tom Burke – talks about how we treat every single annual UN climate conference as the cup final, so it’s either ultimate victory or desperate despair, and actually that’s not how diplomacy works. All of the big pieces of diplomatic architecture that we have succeeded in constructing take time – and not surprisingly, because you’re getting a lot of mis-aligned people and interests and constituencies together….so somehow, as we do this year by year, month by month, we have to find a way to reconcile those two stories.

I think there is a reconciliation, but to find it we must look forward, think of a situation where you are steadily building more confidence in the outcome you are trying to achieve, recognising that you can’t achieve it in a big bang – in a sense that was one of the lessons of Copenhagen…that was an attempt to do it in a big bang, and looking back now not surprisingly it failed, we hadn’t built the political foundation strong enough for it to stand on at that point.

The more we can build confidence the more people will start to act as if we have achieved our objective…so they will start to discount it in a market sense, and that’s what you need….because then you’re bringing the future into the present.

It’s tricky – we’ve never done it before on this kind of scale – this is a deep restructuring of the global economy – how we produce and consume electricity, how we achieve mobility, how we use land…you couldn’t have more fundamental cross sections through the global economy – it’s an economic and political challenge, because there are some people with an interest in going faster, and some people with an interest in the status quo.

On top of that you’re trying to do all of this in a situation of crisis, particularly in Europe with the sovereign debt Eurozone problem…it’s like playing billiards on the deck of ship that is sailing through a force 12 hurricane. But at the same time I think we will only succeed with the climate project if we see how that fits into the wider crisis…what I find on my travels is that more and more people are coming to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with the business as usual growth model, where growth, jobs and competitiveness come from.

2008 showed a flaw was that it attached too little importance to resilience, and exposed itself too much to risk. We need a growth model that is more resilient….also looking back to 2008 – remember we had oil at $147 a barrel and food at unprecedented prices – not unrelated to the oil spike but also related to climatic extremes.

Part of that is connected to the rising demand that has come along with the success of globalisation in creating structural upward pressure on prices of basic commodities, which is putting us into intensified competition for energy and other commodities…and so another thing you need to do with the business as usual model is to make it much more resource efficient than it is…it’s very resource intensive – and then the carbon piece fits into that – because actually low carbon and resource efficiency go together quite well.

So when you look at it from that point of view you’re seeing that there is quite a heavy weight on the climate negotiations to act as a global driver towards that fundamental change. That’s why you do need this ‘Rome wasn’t built in a day’ steadiness of hand, as well as the urgency.

RTCC: And in saying that – from a UK point of view – it has traditionally been a leader in pushing negotiations forward…but many now suggest this is beyond Britain…and you should let other states with bigger emissions deal with the problem….as FCO Special Representative how would you counter that argument?

John Ashton: Well – I think it’s interesting when you look at the opinion polling from the UK and around Europe over the years, what you see is a generational signal. The under 30s are asking for more ambition on climate change than the over 50s, and it’s not surprising because the under 30s will pick up the tab, for whatever climate costs are passed on by the over 50s.

I’ve always thought that generational politics is more important than it was often understood to be. If you want to have healthy politics in any society you have to attend to differences in expectations and demands across generations. I would find it hard to justify to younger people who were engaging me why I thought it was remotely acceptable that they should have to spend some of their lives dealing with more than 4 degrees of climate change….given what we know…there are some things we don’t know – but we know enough to realise that’s a pretty scary place to be.

On the question of Britain’s influence – what I would say is, I think we do have a strong political foundation for being a voice of high ambition for climate change – it’s no secret that there is a degree of political consensus across all political parties in this country. The main political parties want to see a high level of ambition rather than a low level of ambition.

That’s not in my view because of a desire to dictate to the rest of the world, or a desire to be somehow more altruistic than anyone else. It’s because of a hard-edged understanding that a world that is failing to deal with climate change is a world where British people will not have decent prospects of security and prosperity.

What do taxpayers in the end pay for in return for government? They expect government to maintain the conditions for security and prosperity. So that’s why having reached that conclusion, I don’t think there’s a debate to be had – I think we then just say, how can we act as effectively as possible as a force for effective high ambition on climate change.

And to the extent that I have been part of that in recent years, what I observe is that a lot more people want to listen to us around the world than some of the more cynical commentators in this country might allow – and that does give us influence. Not in the sense of dictating – I don’t think you can do this by having one country impose its will on another….the choices that we make about the big things all come out of our domestic politics, what do we think if we’re Chinese, Norwegian or Argentinian – where I was at the end of last week – what do we think are the essential pre-conditions for security and prosperity?

But I think we can have a diplomacy which is trying to build a degree of alignment across different societies, about the importance of climate change in that picture, and also about how you can build an effective response which is not an excessive cost or burden on anyone.

Nobody is going to say, if in order to deal with climate change I need to take a massive hit on jobs and growth, nobody’s going to say I’ll deal with climate change as opposed to jobs and growth…so you have to show that the two can be aligned, which is not impossible. There are enormous opportunities to build a low carbon growth story around the world, there are some costs but we know they are absorbable costs, but there are also enormous benefits in terms of less exposure to volatile oil prices for example.

I think if we had found it was a waste of time we would have stopped pouring more effort into it, but it’s not – and it feels like we’re getting a return on the investment we’re making

RTCC: Away from the UK – you mentioned in your article in the Guardian the importance that the Kyoto Protocol holds for the EU….the Union’s ‘greatest ever diplomatic achievement…’ How united do you feel the EU is ahead of Durban?

John Ashton: I think Kyoto is enormously important…it’s hard to find any other diplomatic accomplishment to which the EU has committed so much. It’s only partial, needs development and it has flaws that need to be attended to – but nevertheless it embodies the idea that you can build a legally binding response to climate change.

I think that a lot of the critics of Kyoto are well wide of the mark…you often hear the argument that Kyoto only accounts for a small proportion of global emissions, well that’s true in terms of the arithmetic tonnes of carbon coverage that you get from the aggregate of all the commitments under Kyoto.

Nevertheless Kyoto has driven much of what has happened in the EU, and the EU really is on the pathway to become one of the world’s first genuinely low-carbon economies – and that’s a dynamic process still in its early days.

I’m struck by how much momentum the EU has been able to build despite the enormous distractions and the crises we have been beset by since 2008 and Lehman brothers….as with everything in the EU it’s a complex picture and you see different views from different countries.

But take Germany – the largest economy in the EU, look at the progress they have made on efficiency and renewables – and the understanding that is crystallising in Germany is that this is not fundamentally a threat to most major economic interests. Yes you have to address the legitimate concerns of some of the high-carbon intensive industries around Europe, but we’ve learnt a little on the way how to do that as well.

The EU clearly has a lot on its plate, but I think if it stands back and says what have we achieved and what can we achieve, I think the climate and carbon story is quite an important part of that discussion….and I also think that EU member states acting individually would be a lot less than the sum of their parts, in trying to shape the global response.

Whereas the EU acting coherently, not necessarily in a unanimous, ‘speak your weight machine’ kind of way – not because of what it’s asking of other countries but from what they see the EU doing itself. That’s enormously powerful…there’s no way of replicating that without the EU – we’d have to reinvent the EU in order to exert that imprint on the global economy – we’re the world’s largest single market.

The decisions we take about our technology standards – and what are the technology standards for a low carbon world – are widely copied because a lot of other people feel the EU already has good institutions for setting technology standards, why should we reinvent the wheel. That gives the EU weight in the global economy beyond its direct imprint.

RTCC: Finance mechanisms and funding will clearly be a big issue in Durban along with discussions about Kyoto…what funding can the UK and EU offer after 2012…?

John Ashton: Well…one thing we need to get much better at is turning this from a technical conversation among experts from the climate negotiations and reaching out so that a wider range of interests can connect and understand. You need that in order to maintain the legitimacy of the framework. What we’re trying to build is on such a scale we need to invest a lot in maintaining legitimacy, but you also need it in order to make it effective.

We talk about climate finance, but if you look closely there are a number of different strands:

The financing arrangements associated with helping the poorest and most vulnerable countries, which have contributed least to the fact there is a problem in the first place, but are also least equipped to deal with its consequences. It would be a moral dereliction if those countries which are richer and had contributed more were simply to turn their backs on it, and the UK has not. Out of – I think it’s the £2.9 Billion we have allocated post Copenhagen, we’ve said we’re aiming to spend 50% of that on adaptation…

Then you have the forest issues – reversing deforestation because of the consequences associated with that – that requires a tailor-made approach to financing which is different from adaptation, and then you have the mitigation…the financing that will accelerate the low-carbon transition. Each of those are different, the sources of funds and the balance between public and private, and I’m rather critical of climate finance negotiators for not having done more to communicate what this is about.

If we do it in our own little bubble, the bubble will burst at some point, because not enough of our stakeholders will have understood it. I think it’s early days…we need to be focused on the short-term and longer-term – what we said on the long-term in Cancun was that this is trying to mobilise additional financial flows of up to 100 Billion dollars a year – that’s by 2020 – it’s a major challenge.

Again, there’s a tension between it’s urgent, and Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it’s particularly difficult to untangle the knots that beset that debate at a time when finance ministers in Europe and each way are focused on financial and monetary stability, and also how are we going to generate the growth that will liberate the resources that we can use to invest in this. It will require patience but it is important to keep the promises we have made so far and again I think Durban is a step on the way. We agreed in Cancun to set up a Green Climate Fund – we now need to put some flesh on those bones at Durban…that’s a very important piece of the overall architecture, including short-term credibility.

RTCC: How significant is it that this conference is in Africa…?

John Ashton: I think it is significant that it is in Africa – although as soon as people start talking about a region as a homogenous group of identical countries it’s worth adding that that’s never the case. A few weeks ago I was in Ethiopia and then in Angola. There are some similarities but also some fundamental differences between those two countries, and both are very different from South Africa, and so on. So you have to make the effort to understand the texture, diversity and richness across regions.

But I do think there is a disproportionate group of countries in Africa that are on the front line of climate change, and if having the conference in Africa helps to focus the world on their predicament and to sharpen our response to that predicament then I think that would be a worthwhile thing to have done. But at the same time – these are not one-way things – I came away from Angola and Ethiopia thinking we have much to learn.

Both have so many problems and levels of poverty that are just impossible to compare with the UK, but take Ethiopia – it has existed for thousands of years on the climatic margin…and what that means is you can have much more valuable conversations about the value of resilience in a country like Ethiopia than in modern and industrialised countries where decision-makers live in cities, separated from the natural world around.

We will only have a productive engagement with Africa if we open our minds to the fact we have a lot to learn, give and share….and that’s a better kind of relationship.

RTCC: And what role would you like to see from the South African Presidency of COP17…?

John Ashton: Well – this is not an easy responsibility to discharge, it was a big step – it always is. I think they should expect as much help as like-minded parties can possibly give them…in trying to bring everyone onto common ground – they have an able set of ministers and officials who are in charge there. I think we need to help them and give them help and political space to arrive at a useful outcome…

RTCC: And what outcome would that be…?

John Ashton: We must avoid a collapse in confidence – as I mentioned in my Guardian article – in the idea of a legally binding response to climate change. It’s evolving over time and more countries are coming in as they become more prosperous to the realm of legally binding commitments, including carbon commitments. You could get a complete and definitive failure in confidence in any one of these meetings.

In a sense breakdown is always possible – and actually having had that once in Copenhagen it would potentially be terminal to have it again, so that really has to be avoided. On the other hand, a once and for all breakthrough, because this isn’t a cup final, is not available.

What’s available is a useful step towards a higher level of confidence. What is that like? There are lots of ingredients – progress on Green Climate Fund and other Cancun issues – but the heart of it is a question over the legal nature of the regime we are trying to build, and I think that really has two parts.

It has a 2^nd Kyoto commitment period but it also has a ‘commitment to commit’ from those countries who are not taking on Kyoto commitments…in the form of some kind if initiating of a negotiation of about what happens at the end of the Kyoto 2^nd commitment period – how will we broaden this regime.

We know now that already it needs to be broader, you can’t deliver 2 degrees simply on the basis of the commitments made by the Kyoto parties with binding emission caps. Albeit we have to do it in an equitable way, and respect the principle which has always been part of this negotiation known as ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’.

Check our policy site for latest developments ahead of COP17.

The post RTCC Q&A: UK Special Representative for Climate Change John Ashton appeared first on Climate Home News.