Blog
21.November 2008 - 00:00
Follow me, I’m right behind you(The Parliament Magazine)
Parliament Magazine editorial board member Eija-Riitta Korhola questions the EU Climate Policy and calls for completion of the democratic process.
I have just returned from Japan where I was the guest of their Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Brussels and Tokyo are less than 10,000km apart, but our climate policies are light-years apart. I left with no doubt that Japan, the acknowledged masters in eco-efficiency, will never adopt the EU policies which the Commission insists are leading the world. It’s a case of “Follow me, I’m right behind you.” EU policy is based on the ever-weakening Kyoto Protocol. The Japanese proposal, outlined at the Hokkaido G-8, in July, recognises that emissions will never be effectively reduced by the bureaucratic top-down approach adopted by the Kyoto protocol. The Hokkaido model is the politics of possibility, leading a profound shift to an approach emphasising radical improvements in energy intensity. Moreover, China, India and even the Obama camp are indicating no interest in auctioning carbon permits, as we become more and more isolated.
With this growing international opinion, it amazes me that the Commission and the EP Environment Committee rapporteur warn us not to modify the ETS auctioning system in the name of attracting global support. But auctioning is the most likely element to impede that support. So, in its first reading on the subject, the Environment Committee has failed to modify this fatal flaw and now the process to consider and amend this proposal has been interrupted due to the Commission’s aim to achieve something in the current mandate. We now step away from democracy in the Institutional trialogue where the EP is represented by a disputed position from the Environment Committee that promotes the Commission’s auctioning system that will cripple our industries. I seriously question if this would be the EP position if taken properly to a plenary vote.
The Commission proposal would distort energy markets, cost jobs as businesses relocate out of the EU and have no net effect on reducing rising carbon emissions. What needs to be done is to benchmark best practices for industry. This approach is consistent with achieving the emission reduction targets and the Japanese sectoral approach. Market forces are the principal drivers towards maximum efficiency which means minimum carbon and energy intensity. To get this into the EP report we must have a plenary vote with adequate time and information to ensure, unlike the Committee vote, that all MEPs understand what they are voting for.
Parliament Magazine editorial board member Eija-Riitta Korhola questions the EU Climate Policy and calls for completion of the democratic process.
I have just returned from Japan where I was the guest of their Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Brussels and Tokyo are less than 10,000km apart, but our climate policies are light-years apart. I left with no doubt that Japan, the acknowledged masters in eco-efficiency, will never adopt the EU policies which the Commission insists are leading the world. It’s a case of “Follow me, I’m right behind you.” EU policy is based on the ever-weakening Kyoto Protocol. The Japanese proposal, outlined at the Hokkaido G-8, in July, recognises that emissions will never be effectively reduced by the bureaucratic top-down approach adopted by the Kyoto protocol. The Hokkaido model is the politics of possibility, leading a profound shift to an approach emphasising radical improvements in energy intensity. Moreover, China, India and even the Obama camp are indicating no interest in auctioning carbon permits, as we become more and more isolated.
With this growing international opinion, it amazes me that the Commission and the EP Environment Committee rapporteur warn us not to modify the ETS auctioning system in the name of attracting global support. But auctioning is the most likely element to impede that support. So, in its first reading on the subject, the Environment Committee has failed to modify this fatal flaw and now the process to consider and amend this proposal has been interrupted due to the Commission’s aim to achieve something in the current mandate. We now step away from democracy in the Institutional trialogue where the EP is represented by a disputed position from the Environment Committee that promotes the Commission’s auctioning system that will cripple our industries. I seriously question if this would be the EP position if taken properly to a plenary vote.
The Commission proposal would distort energy markets, cost jobs as businesses relocate out of the EU and have no net effect on reducing rising carbon emissions. What needs to be done is to benchmark best practices for industry. This approach is consistent with achieving the emission reduction targets and the Japanese sectoral approach. Market forces are the principal drivers towards maximum efficiency which means minimum carbon and energy intensity. To get this into the EP report we must have a plenary vote with adequate time and information to ensure, unlike the Committee vote, that all MEPs understand what they are voting for.