The European Parliament failed to get the votes needed to raise Europe’s carbon emissions reduction target from 20 percent to 30 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.
With Poland – Europe’s biggest coal user- taking over the EU presidency for the next six months and opposed to the increase in carbon emissions cuts, it is unlikely the 30 percent target will happen before the end of the year and in time for Conference of Parties 17 (COP17) in Durban, South Africa.
Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics recently wrote about the repercussions of a failed vote in the Financial Times:
“Without a strong vote in favor, and then support at the council, the risk is that we could go into the UN conference in Durban in December with the EU looking divided and equivocal instead of united and strong on emissions reductions. The decision that the European Parliament and other policymakers face is whether the EU should join the front runners in the low-carbon race, or lag behind.”
It may be a setback in national and regional policy goals, but the vote to reject the 30 percent target doesn’t change much in the EU’s relationship with other countries in international climate policy.
Despite the UK cutting 14 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions, surpassing its 10 percent emissions reduction target, the vote is a blow to the government’s national green agenda since the Green Deal calls for a 30 percent carbon reduction target.
Still, a 20 percent EU carbon emissions reduction target is significant since the EU accounts for roughly 12 percent of the world’s GHGs and 10 percent per capita.
Also, Europe has one of the only and the largest Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in the world, despite the recent slump, trading only $1.5 billion in credits in 2010.
In terms of negotiating power at COP17 in Durban, the EU is still poised as one of the most ambitious carbon reduction schemes globally, and the failure to reach 30 percent doesn’t change its negotiating position.
The EU is often seen as relatively weak in international climate negotiations because its targets are aimed too high to carry any weight at the negotiating table. Its generous commitments have not really helped Europe to become a leader at the last several COPs, so there is no reason to believe a positive vote would greatly change circumstances. Also, a final agreement on targets in Durban is unlikely, placing even less importance on raising targets to increase influence in COP17.
Developing countries are indeed still looking to the EU to show leadership in the future of the Kyoto Protocol, with or without the increased target.
