Many battles ahead despite ‘historic’ EU summit

EU leaders went into soundbite frenzy at last week’s summit on energy and climate change.

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed that the deal to tackle climate change was "historic". Blair added that the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions were "groundbreaking" while German Chancellor Angela Merkel chipped in that the deal would be good for the "whole of humanity". But even if the rhetorical flights of EU politicians were excessive, last week’s summit did represent a major achievement in tackling climate change and moving towards a common European energy policy even if many of the major battles lie ahead when the Commission presents its concrete proposals, probably after the summer break.

The agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 (or by 30% if other major emitters - notably the US, China and India - take their share of the burden) was not surprising, given the need to prepare a target for after 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol expires.

But Green Luxembourg MEP Claude Turmes criticised the summit’s lack of ambition, saying that "20% is not enough. Science says we need 30%". A higher figure was not politically achievable and the deal represents the limits of EU governments’ current appetite for action. Turmes had some praise for the summit, welcoming the fact that EU leaders were "taking climate change seriously".

The more impressive achievement was getting summit leaders to sign up to a 20% binding target for the share of renewable energy sources in overall energy consumption by 2020. Given that the average current performance in the EU is 6.38% with only Germany Denmark, Latvia above the 20% mark, this is an ambitious target.

Reluctant EU leaders were persuaded to sign up to a raft of measures to ensure flexibility. First the target will apply to the EU27 as whole rather than in each member state so that countries which exceed the target will compensate for less well performing countries. Second, when the Commission draws up national plans for each country, it will take into account "different national circumstances, starting points and potentials".

Officials from land-locked Luxembourg said the Grand Duchy would seek to develop joint wind power projects with Belgium, for instance, and wanted its own contribution to such schemes to be taken into account when the country’s share of renewables is being calculated.

Barroso said that he would draw up these plans "seeking the acceptance of each member state". But he insisted that the Commission would be ambitious when drafting the plans and would retain the right to bring countries before the European Court of Justice if they failed to meet their obligation. Nevertheless, the Commission’s proposals are likely to require unanimous agreement by member states and the precise legal powers that the Commission will have to enforce the renewables target and national plans are not clear.

These reassurances were essential to win the backing of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which were alarmed at the prospect of having their national energy policies set by the Commission.

Turmes said that "proof of the pudding" on the 20% renewables target would be the instruments put into place to realise them. He said that the 20% overall target would mean increasing the share of renewables for electricity generation to 35% and to 25% for heating and cooling. This would mean a lower market share for oil, coal and nuclear industries, which would oppose this, he predicted.

Countries which rely heavily on nuclear power argued for the summit conclusions to recognise "the contribution of nuclear energy in meeting the growing concerns about safety of energy supply and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction". The agreement did not take up French President Jacques Chirac’s preference for talking about an even more ambitious target of around 40% for "low carbon fuel sources", a barely disguised reference to nuclear power. EU leaders did not back a call by Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek to set up a nuclear energy forum. But they did agree to have a "discussion among all relevant stakeholders on the opportunities and risks of nuclear energy".

Turmes said that the outcome of the summit was a defeat for Chirac and what he called his attempt to "contaminate" the meeting with nuclear power. He said that the French were "stupid" to put so much emphasis on nuclear power with the problems of safe waste disposal. The Green MEP painted out that the French nuclear power company Aveva had only won a €3 billion-order to build a new nuclear power station in Finland while Denmark was exporting wind turbine and hydroelectric technology capable of generating 20,000 megawatts of electricity to India and China.

Across areas ranging from greenhouse gas reductions, the share of renewables and bringing greater competition into the EU’s energy market, the summit produced the most far-reaching result possible in the current political environment.

The test of what was agreed will come after the summer break when the Commission presents its legislative proposals for more effective unbundling of generating and transmission capacity by energy companies as well as the national action plans for energy efficiency and use of renewables. The French presidential election will be out of the way. Barroso’s favourite soundbite is that the "status quo is not an option". The autumn will prove whether he can change that status quo.

• Better regulation: Leaders agreed to set national targets for reducing red tape of "comparable ambition" to the planned 25% cut in the administrative burden of EU legislation.

• Proposals on increased efficiency requirements for office and street lighting will be adopted by 2008 and incandescent lamps and other forms of lighting in private households by 2009.

EU leaders went into soundbite frenzy at last week’s summit on energy and climate change.

• Primary Source