Live Debates

7 February 2012 – European Parliament, Brussels

The EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS), which was launched in 2005, is central to the European Union’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It provides a marketplace for buying and selling emissions trading rights. By setting a price for CO2 emissions, the scheme is intended to establish the most cost-effective way of lowering emissions and encouraging investment in low carbon technologies.

This year airlines will be required to take part in the scheme and pay for emissions rights for the first time. The decision, which applies to all airlines whose planes land and take off in the EU, has been attacked by airlines based outside the EU. A group of US airlines launched a legal challenge to having to pay for emissions rights in the European Court of Justice last year. In December the ECJ backed the EU’s right to include all airlines in the scheme. Authorities in the US and China have threatened to take retaliatory action if the EU goes ahead with forcing airlines to pay.

The ETS will enter its third stage from January 2013 with a further reduction in the total amount of allowances. Seven years since the ETS started operating, there are questions about whether the scheme is being as effective as it should in contributing towards reducing CO2 emissions. The economic downturn in the EU has reduced industrial activity which has, in turn, lowered the price of carbon to under €10 a tonne, a level which experts believe is too low to incentivise the necessary investment in low carbon technologies.

Some industry groups and environmental campaigners are calling for a revision of the ETS so it plays its intended part in combating climate change. In December, MEPs on the European Parliament’s environment committee voted on draft legislation on energy efficiency to take 1.4 billion emissions trading rights out of the system in 2013-2020. This would raise the carbon price by reducing the supply of emissions certificates. Energy-intensive industries, on the other hand, oppose tightening the scheme.

The aim of this event is to examine how the ETS is working and whether it needs a major overhaul. It will discuss the impact of including additional sectors such as airlines and shipping in the scheme on efforts to cut CO2 emissions and assess the possible political consequences. The event will also look at the importance of the ETS in maintaining the EU’s global leadership role in combating climate change.

---

Related Content:

Video: The European ETS: 2020 & beyond

Discussion: Is Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme effective?

Topic: Emissions trading

Related Content:

None...

Background

European Union leaders have set themselves the goal of achieving a low-carbon economy by 2050. A major element of that goal is the de-carbonisation of Europe’s energy sector.

The European Commission’s energy department will present, later this year, an energy roadmap that will outline details of how to meet the challenges of energy supply and security and a move towards a low-carbon economy.

Policymakers are confronted with recent developments and changes in the global energy markets. The conflict in Libya has reduced supplies from this significant supplier country. The catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan has prompted a rethinking of attitudes towards nuclear energy – for example, the German government has decided to phase out the use of nuclear power by 2022.

A clear strategy to help meet energy demand and tackle CO2 emissions is therefore needed. It will have to combine effective policies to support the integration of the energy market with energy efficiency measures in sectors like transport and power generation, in a context of rising global energy demand and where full-scale deployment of low-carbon solutions – like renewable energies or carbon capture and storage (CCS) – are still years away.

To this aim, the European Commission recently presented a proposal for a new energy efficiency directive, which would require EU member states to establish energy saving schemes. It raises important policy choices for the EU which, coupled with the energy roadmap, can help make significant progress towards the goal of moving to a low-carbon economy.

Can the EU succeed in transforming its energy sector? Can it deliver without achieving rapid progress on energy efficiency? Will the new directive provide the right instruments? What policies can the roadmap suggest to cut emissions and improve efficiency in the transport and power generation sectors? Which technologies can best support this transition?

Related Content:

None...

Background
High oil prices and technological advances have turned oil sands into a commercially-viable source of fuel. A number of energy companies have invested heavily in expanding oil production from oil sands in Canada, which is home to close to half the world’s oil sands reserves. The European Union imports very little oil derived from Canada’s oil sands, but fuel from oil sands has recently become a point of contention.

The European Union’s fuel quality directive, which was agreed in 2009, requires oil companies operating in Europe to cut the greenhouse-gas emissions of their products by 6% between 2010 and 2020. The EU was supposed to adopt emission footprint values for all types of fossil fuels by 1 January 2011. But this technical decision has been postponed repeatedly.
The European Commission is considering whether to assign a higher emission footprint value to oil sands because of the energy-intensive techniques used in the extraction process.

Environment groups are opposed to production of oil from oil sands on the grounds that extraction takes place in untouched forest areas and can produce considerable amounts of toxic waste. They also argue that putting oil sands on an equal footing with conventional oil would send out a wrong signal about the EU’s commitment to de-carbonising its economy, and would encourage the exploitation of oil sands in other parts of the world, which are less democratic and regulated, instead of encouraging the world towards the use of cleaner energy sources.

The Canadian government and European energy companies investing in oil sands point out that CO2 emissions from oil-sands production have been reduced by nearly 40% since the 1990s. They argue that the carbon intensity of oil sands, taken along the entire production chain, is within the same range or lower than other crude oils and that technological innovation can deliver further reductions.

As worldwide oil-sands reserves are equivalent to more than twice the current reserves of conventional oil, the stakes are high. EU member states appear undecided. The European Commission is still pondering its final decision, and independent studies diverge on the actual carbon footprint of oil sands.

Is it justified for the EU to adopt specific measures on the oil sands? How should other high carbon crudes be treated? What is the actual carbon footprint of oil sands? How does this compare to other fossil fuels? Can technology help to mitigate it? What about other environmental impacts of oil sands development? How compatible is it with EU climate change policy? Would an EU decision to penalise oil sands affect the world’s use of fossil fuels?

—————————————————————————-

Timing

18.00-18.30 Welcome of participants and registration

18.30-18.35 Introduction of participants by Simon Taylor, news editor, European Voice

18.35-19.05 Panel discussion

- Satu Hassi MEP, co-ordinator for the greens in the environment committee, European Parliament

- Jeanette Patell, second secretary, economic and trade policy, Mission of Canada to the European Union

- Samantha Gross, director, integrated research, IHS CERA

- Nuša Urbančič, policy officer, fuels and electrification, Transport & Environment

- Pierre Noël, senior research associate, Cambridge University

19.05-19.55 Debate (audience participation strongly encouraged)

19.55-20.00 Conclusions by John Abbott, senior vice-president heavy oil, Shell

20.00 Networking reception

—————————————————————————-

Location

Museum of Natural Sciences
Rue Vautier 29
B-1000 Brussels

Related Content:

None...

Background

The European Commission published its new transport white paper, a strategic document that sets the tone of EU transport policy for the next decade. The main stated objective of the white paper is to make transport more sustainable, from an economic, social and environmental point of view.

Over the past decade, the environmental dimension of transport policy has grown in importance, as climate change mitigation has risen to the forefront of EU priorities.

Transport accounts for 27% of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, a share that is set to grow. If current trends are left unchecked, growth in transport emissions could even offset reductions achieved in other sectors. If the EU is to de-carbonise its economy by 2050, this issue will have to be addressed.

Commissioner Kallas recently stated that the Commission would probably aim at a reduction of GHG emissions from 50% to 70% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels, by halving Europe’s transport sector’s reliance on oil. Linked objectives include a pledge to fully de-carbonise urban mobility, a shift of most long-distance inland freight to rail and inland waterways, and a shift of most medium-distance passenger transport to these same modes.

To achieve this, the Commission is betting heavily on technologies, with the hope that a shift to greener and smarter transport will help to establish a competitive low-carbon economy, deliver green jobs and change users’ habits.

Beyond research and development, the deployment of new technologies will depend on political will and financial resources. With investment in transport infrastructures at an all-time low, and in a context of shrinking public resources, how can this be achieved? Is the private sector ready to step in? Are national governments ready to commit? Will citizens follow?

Comment:Visions convened a high level panel of experts to debate the future of European tranport.

Related Content:

None...

On 17 November 2010, Comment:Visions convened experts and policy-makers to debate the place of biofuels in Europe’s future transport policy at the European Parliament.

The issue

As the European Commission is in the process of finalising its new transport white paper, a strategic document that will set the tone of EU transport policy for a decade, controversy about the sustainability of biofuels remains.

One of the goals of future EU policy will be to decarbonise the transport sector by 2050. Whereas electricity is seen to be the future of urban and short distance mobility, liquid fuels are likely to remain an essential part of rural and long-distance mobility. Biofuels have long been perceived to have an important role to play in the transition towards low-carbon transport. However, doubts have been cast about the carbon footprint of biofuels, in particular when it comes to conventional biofuels made from corn, wheat, sugar and palm oil. The potential impact of biofuels on food security is a further point of debate.

The uncertainty about the contribution of biofuels to reducing CO2 emissions was reflected in the agreement on the directive on the promotion of renewable energy. EU leaders originally intended to include a target of 10% of biofuels in transport by 2020. However the final text only mentioned 10% of ‘energy from renewable sources’ in transport.

One of the main elements of the Directive was the inclusion of mandatory sustainability criteria for biofuels in order to protect forests, wetlands and other areas of high conservation value. It allows for a voluntary certification scheme for biofuels, which would also apply to imports.

The directive also foresees that the Commission should review the impact of indirect land use change – that is, the notion that biofuels production can displace existing agricultural activities, creating indirect emissions elsewhere. The Commission is required to report the European Parliament and Council by the end of 2010, reviewing the impact of indirect land use change effects on greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels and addressing ways to minimise that impact.

The question of indirect land use change (iLUC) remains a divisive issue, over which Commission departments have not been able to agree. There is evidence that iLUC risks can be mitigated by introducing better agricultural practices. Others actors are calling for iLUC penalty factors to be added to the greenhouse gas calculations for biofuel feedstocks to reflect iLUC risk. The Commission launched a public consultation in July 2010, to get external feedback on the studies it has carried out or commissioned thus far.

What will be the place of biofuels in the future energy mix of Europe’s transport sector? Can a transition to low-carbon transport happen without biofuels? What can be done to prevent or mitigate the negative impacts of indirect land use change?

Related Content:

None...

Technological advances are making it possible to derive energy from greener sources. But wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels, biomass plants or carbon capture and storage (CCS) are not free of controversy.

There are still concerns about each technology, which have in various parts of Europe stoked resistance to pilot and full-scale deployment projects. Wind farms are criticised for being noisy eyesores. Biofuels are accused threatening biodiversity and negatively affects food production and prices. Opponents of CCS projects say the technology is still risky. There have been ‘not-in-my-backyard’ reactions to solar projects, with complaints that solar parks affect land prices. Yet, at the same time, opinion polls show that the general public remains very supportive of renewable energies.

This puts politicians and decision-makers in a difficult position. Unless the public accepts these new technologies, the EU will not reach its targets to decrease emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels by 2020, increase the share of renewables in its energy mix to 20% and de-carbonise its energy sector by 2050. Equally, Europe’s competitiveness will be affected unless employment and competitiveness opportunities must be met.

The EU and its member states have already developed tools that allow for public involvement in decision-making on infrastructure projects, through their environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment legislations. But public consultation is not made mandatory, and public consultation does not automatically lead to support either.

Should the EU develop a specific strategy to win public support of new technological infrastructure projects? Is it up to member states or regions to persuade local populations?

Is public awareness sufficient? How can the EU bridge the gap between theory and practice?

This debate took place during the Committee of the Regions’ annual Open Days that bring together representatives from Europe’s regions and cities.

——

Timing

14.00-14.30 Welcome of participants and registration

14.30-14.35 Introduction of participants by European Voice senior editorial staff

14.35-14.45 Presentation by Ron van Erck, policy officer, DG energy, European Commission, of preliminary findings of European Commission (DG energy) study on public attitudes to low-carbon energy technologies

14.45-15.15 Panel discussion

• Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for climate action (until 15.30)
• Edit Herczog MEP, member of the industry, research and energy committee, European Parliament
• Annabelle Jacquet, deputy head of cabinet of Jean-Marc Nollet, vice-president, minister in charge of energy and sustainable development, Wallonia Region
• Vicente J. Cortes, director, oxycombustion and CO2 capture programme, CIUDEN foundation
• Nick Pidgeon, professor of applied psychology, Cardiff University
• Andrea Athanas, senior programme officer, energy, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

15.15-16.25 Debate (audience participation strongly encouraged)

16.25-16.30 Conclusions by Hans van der Loo, vice-president European Union liaison, Shell

16.30 Networking reception

Related Content:

None...

Recent developments in the gas sector in the US have the potential to change radically the energy situation in Europe. New technology has made unconventional gas resources available at competitive cost.

In North America, this sudden expansion of available gas has contributed to keeping gas prices low, despite ever rising demand. It has also helped the US to pursue its strategic objective of reducing its dependence on gas imports. Furthermore, the boom in unconventional gas in the US has changed the dynamics of markets for liquefied natural gas (LNG), with some supplies originally intended for the US being diverted to other markets including some in Europe.

As some European regions, particularly in Northern Europe, have similar geological structures to ones where unconventional gas has been found in North America, there are hopes that unconventional gas could offer the European Union a huge increase in domestic supplies. Energy companies have been rushing to explore the possibilities in these regions, leading to talk of a new ‘gas rush’.

For countries such as Poland, which are heavily dependent on Russian gas imports and rely on coal for most of their domestic energy production, unconventional gas could open a new chapter in energy policy. It would make domestic energy supply more secure, and reduce CO2 emissions since burning gas emits significantly less CO2 than burning coal.

A boom in unconventional gas would also have considerable implications for the EU’s energy policy. Abundant gas supplies – through increased domestic production or cheaper LNG imports – would make it easier to reach CO2 reduction targets and to electrify transport. It could also lower incentives to invest in some costly infrastructure projects, and make some technologies less attractive.

Sceptics warn of exaggerated enthusiasm, stressing that in a more densely populated continent than the US, public acceptance of projects that are likely to have heavy environmental consequences cannot be taken for granted. Unconventional gas extracted from European territory is not expected to come to market for at least a decade.

This event looked at the potential of unconventional gas to transform the European energy supply situation. It addressed the technological and economic challenges unconventional gas faces as well as the questions of public acceptance.

Feedback Form: Fill out the event feedback form here

Related Content:

Programme: The road to global energy security

Presentation: Unconventional Gas by Alan Riley

Feedback Form: Fill out the event feedback form here