Soaring energy prices and a geopolitical crisis over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are looming over the EU’s attempts to agree on a raft of tougher climate change laws, raising concerns that some could be delayed or scaled back.
In the weeks after the European Commission unveiled the world’s biggest package of green policies in July last year, wildfires ripped through the Mediterranean and floods ravaged western Europe. From Greece to Germany, governments called for urgent action to address climate change.
Seven months later, as EU policymakers are negotiating how to turn those proposals into binding laws, the political context is starkly different.
Europeans’ energy bills are soaring. Gas prices on Thursday closed 300 percent higher than in July, pushed upward as the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, Europe’s top gas supplier, sharpened concerns of energy supply shocks. EU carbon prices are near record levels. Eurozone inflation is at an all-time high.
Brussels has billed Europe’s green transition as its escape route from reliance on Russian energy and the 300 billion euros (US$335,76 billion) EU countries spend on oil and gas imports each year.
It would require huge investments up front, but ultimately bring down costs and give European industry an edge in global green technologies.
However, immediate concerns about cost are dominating negotiations on the climate proposals among EU countries and the European Parliament. A majority from both must approve the laws.
While soaring gas prices are the main driver of recent increases in energy bills, a growing number of states — especially from the bloc’s poorer east — warn of public pushback if ambitious green goals hike costs.
“We used to be a fairly sizable group of countries arguing for more ambition. We’re not a huge number left,” one EU diplomat said.
CARBON MARKETS
The EU proposals are designed to deliver the bloc’s target to cut emissions 55 percent by 2030, from 1990 levels, putting the world’s third-biggest economy on a path that, if followed globally, could avoid the worst effects of global warming.
They include a 2035 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles, taxes on polluting jet fuel and carbon border tariffs on imports of high-carbon goods.
A proposed emissions trading system (ETS) is particularly contentious. It would introduce carbon costs for transport and buildings — costs that fuel suppliers could pass on to consumers through higher bills.
“What is the cost and who will pay? We are warning that if we don’t discuss this we will lose popular support for the whole project,” a senior diplomat from one EU country said.
The European Commission proposed using revenues from the new market to shield low-income households from the costs.
Critics still say there could be a political backlash.
The ETS proposal was so contentious that it could “freeze the whole package” of climate laws, said Pascal Canfin, chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment.
Groups representing more than 200 of the EU assembly’s 705 lawmakers this month proposed amendments to scrap the new ETS, documents seen by Reuters showed.
Soaring energy costs are also looming over reforms of the EU’s existing carbon market, which forces power plants and industry to buy permits when they emit carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide permit prices soared 150 percent last year and are now trading at about 90 euros per tonne — a near-record level that analysts say could incentivize key green industrial technologies such as carbon dioxide capture facilities.
However, as carbon dioxide costs have increased, so too have calls for intervention to dampen price spikes.
The European Parliament’s lead negotiator last month proposed rules making it easier for policymakers to release more permits into the ETS if prices rise rapidly.
Countries including Poland, Romania and Spain back the idea, although others warn against undermining the price signal for low-carbon investments.
“Any intervention on pricing is undesirable,” one EU diplomat said.
BALANCING ACT
The European Parliament and EU countries plan to confirm their positions on the biggest proposals, including the carbon market, by July.
The European Commission has urged negotiators to strike deals before a UN climate summit in November, to improve the EU’s diplomatic hand to convince other countries to improve their plans.
EU officials expect some talks to spill into next year. Contentious proposals could be escalated to EU leaders, raising the bar for approval as they take decisions unanimously.
The challenge is to ensure that the final package still delivers the EU’s legally binding emissions targets.
“Everybody’s saying the targets are too high and too binding. The problem is that if you add all of those concerns, you are going to miss your 2030 target,” said Lucie Mattera, head of think tank E3G’s Brussels office.
European Parliament member Bas Eickhout, of the European Green Party, said that he was optimistic some plans could be made more ambitious, such as proposals to expand renewable energy and tighten carbon dioxide limits for vehicles.
“The member states on each file are becoming a bit more careful,” Eickhout said. “Well, they promised the 55 percent, so they will have to deliver.”
Additional reporting by John Chalmers
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS