MEPs debate EU emissions trading scheme

The revision of the EU’s emissions trading scheme must not jeopardise the opportunity to secure a global agreement on tackling climate change, parliament’s rapporteur Avril Doyle has warned.

Doyle, parliament’s rapporteur on the EU’s review of the emissions trading system (ETS), also said that she felt it was necessary for the EU to secure a comprehensive climate package to take to the UN summit in Copenhagen in 2009.

The Irish EPP deputy, speaking in the European parliament on Tuesday at a roundtable debate on the ETS review organised by Finnish MEP Eija-Riitta Korhola, said that while it was important to consider the many concerns of Europe’s energy industries, the top priority was securing a formal agreement on tackling climate change from the international community.

“Our number one rule has to be an international agreement in Copenhagen. We can’t have Europe battling against the rest of the world,” said Doyle, adding “There’s only so far we can go this side of Copenhagen”.

The parliament debate saw presentations from a variety of energy-intensive industry sectors, as well as environmental and energy related NGOs.

The discussion focused on the issue of CO2 permits allocations, with speakers from the energy-intensive industry groups backing free allocation citing concerns over issues such as cost and the prospect of so-called carbon leakage – the possible increase in CO2 emissions in one country or region as a result of an emissions reduction by a second country or region with a strict climate policy.

Peter Botschek, from the European chemical industry council (Cefic), said that without free permits, there was a danger that less investment in energy-intensive industries would take place.

“The last thing we want to see is the deterioration of trade flows because the EU has invented something that not everybody wants to adopt so soon,” said Botschek.

“Let’s think twice and let’s not incentivise relocation, thereby increasing carbon leakage worldwide,” he added.

The chair of the event, Eija-Riitta Korhola, writing earlier this week in the latest issue of the Parliament Magazine, also warned that the emissions trading scheme could push industry and jobs elsewhere.

“Energy-intensive industries exposed to global markets, which are usually employment intensive too, could find that they cannot be competitive, and so could be tempted to move out of the EU to where the so-called cost of carbon is free, and other environmental norms are lower.”

And the Finnish pro-nuclear energy deputy said that the review of the ETS had to take into account the variation in CO2 emissions from different industries.

“We must look closely at the levels of sector-specific emissions for a tonne of production and reward those who achieve the theoretical minimum. This would provide a genuine incentive for real emission reductions anywhere in the world”.

“An ETS linked up to this kind of BAT approach (best available techniques) would neither distort the markets nor give a competitive advantage to the polluter.

However, during the debate, Doyle argued that too strong a focus on industry rather than reducing emissions might jeopardise an agreement with international countries.

“We won’t get an international agreement if everyone comes to the table trying to protect a vital industry,” said Doyle.

• Previous article
• Next article