Download Robert Donkers - Sustainable Energy Institute

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Next Steps Post-Kyoto: U.S. Options
The EU Experience
Sustainable Energy Institute
Washington D.C, March 30, 2005
Robert Donkers, Environment Counselor at the
Delegation of the European Commission to the US
European Commission
European Framework:
European Climate Change Programme (ECCP)


Involves key stakeholders
Objective: Cost effective ways to meet EU -8% Kyoto
objective


Total reduction potential of 578 - 696 Mt CO2eq./year =
twice Kyoto ‘-8%’ identified (including strong support for
emissions trading)
EU measures for 276 -316 Mt CO2eq./year currently “in
implementation”
… but need for monitoring of effectiveness and review
European Commission
EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions and
projections 1990 – 2010
EU-15 GHG emissions and projections
1990 GHG Emissions = 100
108
106
Business as usual
104
102
with existing
policies
100
98
with additional
policies
Kyoto target path
96
94
92
90
1990
Kyoto mechanisms
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
European Commission
How are Member States doing?
1,9
EU-15
Latvia
Lithuania
-58,3
-55,4
-50,4
Estonia
-29,0
Poland
Hungary

Slovakia
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Germany
Sweden
-27,4
-23,4
-20,9
-7,4
-6,3
-6,1
France
-1,9
1,7
Luxembourg
3,5
Slovenia
4,2
Netherlands
Belgium
6,6
Finland
6,8
Greece
11,5
Denmark
11,8
Italy

12,9
Austria
16,3
Ireland
21,1
Portugal
24,8
Spain
- 70
30,4
- 60
- 50
- 40
- 30
- 20
- 10
0
+ 10
+ 20
+ 30
+ 40
Percentage points below (-) or above (+) linear target path
European Commission
EU emissions trading scheme 1
(EU ETS)






New market based instrument: CO2 emissions covered by
allowances
First “trial period” 2005 – 2007, limited to CO2 emissions from
large, energy intensive users (12,000 installations)
Each Member States allocated allowances to companies –
Commission to approve each NAP
Companies can trade surplus allowances or buy extra allowances
on the market
Companies may use credits from GHG emission reduction
projects (CDM and JI) undertaken in developing and developed
countries
Sanctions for non-respect (€40 per tonne)
Market price for CO2 – companies decide on the most costEuropean Commission
effective emission reduction strategies
EU emissions trading scheme 2
(EU ETS)
Experience to date:



January 2005: 2.5 m tonnes CO2 traded at average Euro 6-7
February 2005: 4 m tonnes CO2 traded at average Euro 7
March 2005: still running, but on Tuesday March 22 alone 2 m
tonnes CO2 traded at Euro 16.45 !!!
Careful Conclusion:
‘Appetite’ is increasing and the market is becoming of age
European Commission
What else is needed to implement EU
climate change policy?
Extend emissions trading to other
installations and GHG gases
 Bring in transport (in particular aviation)
 Investment in R&D and new technologies
 Changes in behaviour (energy saving etc)
 Urgent & significant increase of renewable
energy

European Commission
March 2005 Communication of the European Commission




Depending on the risks we are willing to accept, global emissions will
have to peak between 2015 and 2025
(Re) engage our partners: build a broad coalition among developed and
developing countries
 EU leadership
 Advantages of participation
 Disadvantages of non-participation
Build on Kyoto framework
Is there a one size fits all?
A mix of mitigation and adaptation policies
A mix of targets, timetables, technologies, and policies
“Action on climate change post-2102”
European Commission
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/future_action.htm)
European Council, March 22-23, 2005:



Explore possibilities for a Post-2012 arrangement in UN
context with widest possible cooperation by all countries on
the basis of common but differentiated responsibilities and
respective capabilities
Develop medium and long term EU strategy consistent with
20 C objective above pre-industrial levels as the maximum
“safe” level to stabilize GHG concentrations
Global reductions required with 15-30% reduction by 2020
for developed countries and further reductions beyond 2020
(60-80% by 2050) compared to 1990 levels
European Commission
Member State’s aspirations for future
emission reductions in the EU
Netherlands :
 Germany :
 Sweden:
 UK:
 France:

- 30% by 2020
- 40% by 2020
- 60% by 2050
- 60% by 2050
- 75% by 2050
European Commission
U.S. Options: Climate change has major
economic
and political impacts








New technology and innovation (energy, transport): jobs
Agriculture (crop yields, increased water stress, extreme
weather events)
Marine ecosystems and fisheries
Public health
Foreign and security policy and development
Immigration
Land use and infrastructure
Economic losses (destruction of property, insurance etc)
European Commission
U.S. Options for measures
No EU believe in technology fix

US Administration refuses to tackle the problem NOW, despite
Swiss Re, Arctic Council and other reports

Elements of US-EU co-operation:
 R&D
 Earth Observation
 International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy
 Very important activities at State level
Short term US measures needed: no regret policy + energy
security + use of existing technologies
 Energy efficiency
 Energy conservation
 Renewables incl. wind power (EU +Dutch Embassy cases)

European Commission
KEY EU MESSAGES FOR OUR
PARTNERS

Developing countries have the right to
develop, but in order to stabilize GHG
concentration ALL countries have to take
action towards sustainable emission paths

Developed countries are responsible for
the vast majority of historical emissions
and therefore have to drastically CUT
their emissions
European Commission