January 10th 2017 Dear Vice President Šefčovič, Commissions Bulc and Arias Cañete International efforts to reduce maritime and aviation emissions fall far short of what is needed to meet Europe’s 2030 and Paris commitments. It is therefore imperative that Europe reduce emissions from the maritime and aviation sectors to sufficiently contribute to the objectives of …
A global climate deal was adopted last December in Paris, in which all countries agreed to take action on climate change. The Paris agreement is unique as it represents a historically significant milestone that aims to pursue efforts to limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
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 briefing “Carbon leakage myth buster” brings the ongoing discussions on carbon leakage back to the facts.
The current EU ETS rules have granted preferential treatment to industrial companies deemed at risk of “carbon leakage” in the form of awarding free pollution permits. The ongoing legislative process to revise the EU ETS rules for the post-2020 period provides an important opportunity to revisit the rules under which industrial sectors may be deemed at risk of carbon leakage.
Dear Commissioner Arias Cañete,
The European Commission has consulted stakeholders about the role the EU’s land and forests should play in its 2030 Climate and Energy Framework. With this letter, the undersigned organisations are registering their views and state that Option 1 (LULUCF pillar), is their preferred option since it is the only one that could uphold the environmental and social integrity of the EU’s target. They call on the EU to have a clear position ahead of Paris on the need for two distinct global goals, one for LULUCF and another for other emissions, including non CO2 emissions from agriculture.
At the European Summit in October 2014, Heads of State agreed that, by 2030, the EU will domestically reduce its emissions by at least 40 per cent compared to 1990. In the run up to the United Nations climate summit in Paris, the EU should continue to show leadership to tackle climate change by upholding the environmental integrity of the ‘at least 40 per cent’ target. We believe that unless the following points are addressed, the EU is at risk not only of backsliding on its ambition and harming its credibility in this crucial year for climate, but it could entail damaging impacts on biodiversity and local communities.