Jo Leinen: No doubt Copenhagen was a deep disappointment for at least the Europeans. I don’t know for the rest of the world but for us in the Parliament in the EU, it was a disappointment and we could say, compared to our expectations, it was a failure. We have no binding global deal. We have no real commitments. We have a piece of paper called Copenhagen Accord, which was even not accepted by the conference but was noticed that it exists, and the weak basis of this document could be seen in the next days. There was a date given, 31st January, for the 192 members of the UN Convention to give their targets for CO2 reductions and the General Secretary, Yvo de Boer, had already to tell us that it was not meant so seriously, the 31st January but one could do it later. And looking at different cultures in the world what means later, it could be very late or never. So we will see by next week what will be done.

Now, I think the EU has to do three things. First: to gain leadership again. Second: to get credibility with our promises. Third: to win partners for the next Cop 16 in Mexico. I think business-as-usual is not enough. So to gain leadership again, we have to create a new dynamic and, in my opinion, we should go for 30% reduction and not stick to the 20%. If there would have been an agreement in Copenhagen, we committed ourselves to go for 30%, so why are we not doing what we would have done? I think we had trust in ourselves that 30% is possible.

Tim King: That seems a good queue to turn to Jos Delbeke

Jos Delbeke: I would fully subscribe to what Jo Leinen has been saying. The most important element of the Copenhagen Accord that we could give life immediately is on finance, because there we can demonstrate our credibility of action and if we can bring the fast start finance to where actions may be undertaken in the field, that may give us a boost in credibility and, indeed, that’s what we will need.

I would also subscribe that the EU will have to go to 30%. We said we would do that and we will have to do that. The question is how and the question is when? And I think the question of how and when will have to be linked to the leverage that is moved for the EU, and that will be an important move. Doing 30% is a completely different kettle of fish compared to doing 20%. So it will bring an effort for all Europeans and the European economy, but we can do this effort at the moment where we can exercise leverage on others to do the right thing and to move up their ambition level to bring us in the neighbourhood of the two centigrade maximum climate change.

Tim King: Thank you for that. Nick Campbell, you’re chairing the Climate Change Working Group for Business Europe, the European Confederation of Employers’ Organisations.

What’s the view in your working group and what was your take on Copenhagen?

Nick Campbell: You asked me the question about the Cefic position, clearly, the non-result from Copenhagen means that our strategy as the EU, leading from the front with significant emission reductions, has unfortunately not actually succeeded in influencing the other countries to sign on to comparable targets. And really at present, changing that target from 20% to 30%, in my view, would have very little or no effect on the other countries and, in fact, my concern would be it could potentially damage our competitiveness, just at the time that we’re actually trying to recover from the major economic crisis, and we wouldn’t actually regain the leadership at this current stage.

I could talk for hours on what happened in Copenhagen but I’m certainly going to spare you that this evening, fortunately. What I want to address is, if we’re serious about tackling climate change, and certainly European industry and I think that Europe is serious, what constructive approaches can we as Europe take, both to manage our own emissions now and in the future? And I’ll start with the easiest one, and probably the most effective one at the present time, and that’s energy efficiency. The IEA tell us that energy use can be cut by more than a fifth by 2020 – eight billions tons of greenhouse gases – through cost effective investments. If we as the EU can actually show the rest of the world the tools that we’ve adopted, can actually show them the tools that we plan to adopt and what we can achieve, surely this is actually leading by example for Europe? Whether this should be through targets or incentives, much depends on the specific sectors that you’re addressing, but certainly it’s going to be a balance of policies and measures to drive the energy efficiency area.

The second area is changing the energy infrastructure. We’ve got an ageing infrastructure in Europe itself. We need to change that. We need to change it in a way that will reduce the impact on long term emissions. Again, we need to move towards carbon neutrality, as certainly groups such as [30:54 ??]lectric are pushing for.

The EU has to encourage investment in technologies that are going to contribute to growth in production and jobs in Europe. A revised EU strategy on climate change needs to focus on providing opportunities for European business to be world class leaders in environmentally sound technologies; technologies that are actually developed in Europe and marketed globally. For example, developing breakthrough technologies and markets for carbon intensive processes and products that can be applied worldwide, leading to global emission reductions. This will actually need a significant increase of financial support in research and development, pilot projects within the European Union. But looking outside industry, we need to look at the private consumers. We actually need to see how we can incentivise them to take up energy efficiency measures, energy efficiency solutions using what we’ve already got in advanced technologies. We need to ensure that we have better framework conditions in the market, fiscal incentives, regulatory approaches to bring these forward.

Three simple messages. Firstly: let’s meet the commitments that we have actually made internationally under the Copenhagen Accord. It might not actually be legally binding. We know there’s a lot of issues revolve round it. Let’s meet the commitments we’ve made. Let’s demonstrate we can do that. Let’s also, and coming back to our other two speakers, provide the resources quickly that we’ve actually promised under the Copenhagen Accord, irrespective of the arguments that it’s going to generate in the meetings over the next year through to Mexico.

Tim King: I think it’s about time we heard from Matthias but thank you to Jos.

Matthias Duwe: I’m from Climate Action Network Europe and I now have the opportunity of being able to pick the best bits I think from my previous speakers and I’ll try to do that. Needless to say that Copenhagen from our perspective was a lost opportunity of historic proportions. I think the real tragedy in the end – apart from the way that things played out and everything that was lost – is the enhanced risk of dangerous impacts from climate change that we might be seeing as a result of it.

The question there is: where next on the international level? We think that very clearly, the UN process has to be the process with which we try to go forward, going with other multilateral options that have been in the play already. As you all know, the Major Economies Forum and the G-20 dealt with climate change last year - they didn’t provide the extra bit that was necessary. So relying on those processes with fewer countries around the table might seem easier from a decision making process, but will also risk losing out on voices that are important where this subject is concerned.

irrespective and regardless of progress at the international level, the EU needs to do its own homework and needs to clean up its act on improving the EU climate policy. And that has to start – or not necessarily start but has to strongly, of course, include a revision of the target. 20% is very clearly not enough when it comes to two degrees. It also does not, as we know from the last set of data, actually mean that there’s any additional domestic emission reduction effort required in the EU.

And we are, indeed, I think losing out on the economic potential and innovation potential that is in stronger carbon price signals. There are several studies that have shown what Europe might be missing out on; the studies that show how there is an actual economic benefit from going to 30%. There are also considerations that need to be taken into account, such as the savings for the economy as a whole and for the citizens and state budgets as well, when it comes to savings, co-benefits of taking action on climate change, such as improvements in everybody’s health in Europe, that could result in billions of Euros in cost savings.

And what needs to happen of course is that EU policy, the legislative instruments, need to be strengthened to achieve those tougher reductions. And the ETS implementations, where benchmarks are going to be discussed very soon or under discussion already. There’s a clear example of where the EU can restore credibility by showing a level of ambition. It can also show and demonstrate that it recognises the innovation potential that is there, and recognises that we already have technology that will take us to lower emission levels, also in Europe and including in the manufacturing sector.

There are improvements on the energy efficiency side I think that are clearly on the agenda for EU climate policy. We need a mandatory target and we need to strengthen the instruments that we have to cut energy. The transport sector I think is a big one. I think it already is on the agenda of the incoming Commissioner to deal with climate action policy now in Europe, and I think that is another important tool.

Tim King: Rosario Bento-Pais, it would be nice if you could tell me about all the legislative proposals that you’re drafting for a new Climate Action Commissioner to present on that glorious day when there is a new European Commission in place.

Rosario Bento-Pais: I couldn’t agree more with those who said that we need to assess now what happened in Copenhagen. Let’s not talk about the past. We need to talk about it to assess what happened, but let’s look forward and let’s look exactly on how can we do it and tackle it for the future, either in the UNFCCC negotiations and that is our main objective, but also see exactly be realistic. Be idealistic and realistic. If it doesn’t work there, what could be other options? If climate change is our objective, if the two degrees is our objective, so we need to think very strategically and assess what happened there.

But the UN system needs to continue because it’s the only place where you have a global deal and you can have a global deal. But definitely the strategic thinking is what we are now doing and, of course, we are coming only from one month and it’s what we are putting now into place.

And I also agree that a lot of progress, and my last comment on this was then in Copenhagen, if we look in fact for what it is under the negotiating tracks, there were a lot. You have everything on adaptation technology, on capacity building, under the Copenhagen Accord on MRV, also on finance, the fast start financing, the global finance is all there. So there is a lot of elements that we can work with and we can see exactly where are the gaps and try to negotiate them up until Mexico, and that’s what we are concentrating on now.

Jo Leinen: In fact, I think we have to review our strategy for Mexico. Be flexible where necessary. Of course, our first aim is to have one single agreement of 192 countries, but if that is not achievable, we have to have new options, as you say, with the mandate given in the Copenhagen Accord that the two track approach continues, the Kyoto Track and the Convention Track, and looking how we can achieve the goals by this method.

The second what I heard here as well is not to press too hard on many governments and many states that are, let’s say, not as far as we are; and there is the second flexibility that may be necessary with the year 2020. I felt in Copenhagen that besides climate issues, there has been another big issue of climate justice. And from the Chinese, the Indians, the others, you could hear, an American is emitting twenty tons per head a year, a European something like ten tons, a Chinese five to six tons, an Indian one to two ton, and an African less than one ton. And in the long run, and let’s say creating trust, you will not succeed with these inegalities. I’m sure that in the long run by 2050, we have to admit that we are all equal and we know the figure what it is – it’s 1.123 tons per head.

So somehow we have to rebuild the trust factor between north and south, that we are not a two class or a multi-class mankind but at the end, we are equal on what our emissions rights are. And maybe we have focused very much on 2020, which is for some very short. That we have to focus on the longer term and there, I’m more optimistic because everything that we heard, new technologies, new competition on world markets by major actors will enable us to have a low carbon, if not a carbon mostly free economy.