Apparently, EU lawmakers are exploring four potential loopholes to weaken the target under the guise of “greater flexibility”. Under consideration are suggestions that include postponing climate action until the latter half of the 2030’s, allowing for more flexibility between EU sectors, or relying on international offsets and additional carbon removals to somehow fill the gap caused by EU inaction.
With the growing momentum for the adoption of a global carbon levy on international shipping this year, the European Union’s proposal must go stronger on justice and equity.
Not only does the Climate Law not mention the different roles of biogenic sequestration by natural sinks and permanent removals, but it also fails to determine how much or which type of removals should be used to reach the net-zero target by 2050, or how much residual emissions will be allowed at that point.
The EU needs a clear and comprehensive strategy that is mindful of the risks, challenges and opportunities of supporting the development and scale-up of a sufficient supply of permanent removals.
This week, the rapporteur of the European Parliament’s Environment committee (Ian Duncan) published his draft report on the EU’s carbon market reform, kicking off the legislative debate. Disappointingly, the proposal fails to address the most pressing issues that need fixing in order to make the EU ETS fit-for-purpose and in line with the Paris climate agreement.
This policy brief interprets the findings of a new study by CE Delft that shows how energy-intensive companies in 19 European countries have massively profited from their pollution because they are deemed to be at risk of “carbon leakage”. “Carbon leakage” refers to a hypothetical situation where companies transfer production to countries with weaker climate policies in order to lower their costs. Under the current EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) rules, industrial companies that are believed to be at risk of “carbon leakage” are awarded free pollution permits.
Paris, 12 December 2015 – Today, at the UN climate talks in Paris a global deal where all countries have agreed to take action on climate change was adopted. Carbon Market Watch comments on the long-term goal, the ambition ratcheting mechanism, provisions for the use of markets, the establishment of a new mechanism, human rights provisions, bunker emissions, pre-2020 action and the impact of the Paris treaty on EU’s climate policies.
The concept of “carbon leakage” is a major area of discussion in the legislative proposal to revise the EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) for the post-2020 period. The Commission’s proposal continues the trend of awarding free allowances, effectively representing a financial subsidy of €160 billion, to heavy emitters without providing evidence for the need of such beneficial treatment. A new Carbon Market Watch policy brief “Carbon leakage myth buster” shows how certain manufacturing companies have profited from selling the free EU ETS allowances they were given and recommends how to avoid such windfall profits in the future.
After the victory for Poland’s Law and Justice Party in the country’s recent elections, the position the country takes on the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is likely to be one of even more defiant opposition. However, the EU ETS generates significant financial revenues for Poland. The billions of euros that the country is set to receive from the EU ETS can help the transition to a just climate friendly society in Poland, whose unprofitable coal mining sector represents an increasing burden on its finances.
Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.
