Giving the Green light

pete quentin, 22 December 2008

Last week’s EU Summit (10-11th Dec 2008) was hailed a victory by those lobbying the EU to stick by its Green credentials.
In the run up to the summit, there were tell-tale reports of squabbling between Member States about the EU’s 20-20-20 targets on energy use, which were agreed in March 2007. For example, it was reported that Italy and Poland were seeking concessions from the targets, because of concern about the potential burden on their states’ economies. However the French Presidency, which currently holds the rotating EU Presidency, was determined to establish measures to implement the targets before the (decidedly more EU-sceptic) Czech Republic assumes the EU Presidency in January 2009…

At the summit, Member States’ leaders agreed to binding targets for 20% less carbon emissions, 20% renewable energy consumption, and a non-binding target for 20% less energy use all in comparison with levels in 1990. MEPs will be asked to rubberstamp the agreed targets later this week in parliament’s last plenary session of the year.
However, whilst the EU’s “Headline catching” green targets are bringing attention to the EU’s campaign for greener industry and manufacutring, little care and attention is being paid to the details of how Member States will enact these policies and meet these targets. There is no sense in enforcing too strict targets which could cripple manufacturing and hit the poorest hardest.
For example an article in today’s Times cites Steve Holliday, chief executive of National Grid, who asserts that meeting the EU’s targets might well mean that ‘Britain could face regular blackouts within seven years’. He argues that the targets will limit Britain’s ‘generating capacity’ for energy resources because whilst the 20% target for less energy use is non-binding, for a State which hugely reduced renewable energy capabilities, such as Britain, the two binding targets (20% less carbon emission and 20% renewable energy consumption) will effectively cap Britain’s energy consumption on their own. Britain’s own energy resources, including its coal reserves, cannot be used to eleviate the shortage in energy supplies because their use would compromise meeting the EU’s binding targets.
At an Open Europe event in November (‘EU Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package – Are we about to be locked into the wrong policy?) Andrew Bainbridge, the head of Britain’s Major Energy Users Council said “It is not feasible to diversify away from fossil fuel dependence to reduce carbon emissions so quickly, in pursuit of arbitrary, politically determined targets of questionable practicality.” He underlines the ‘acute shortage because a string of ageing nuclear and coal-fired plants [are] due to be retired from service’.
While Ofgem, regulator for the energy industry, said last week that it will concentrate on encouraging renewable energy schemes in Britain, many people are looking to the French state-controlled energy company, EDF, to alleviate Britain’s energy production strife. EDF’s plan is to replace Britain’s ageing nuclear and coal-fired plants. The proposed £12.4 billion takeover of Britain’s nuclear industry by EDF will be discussed in the EU later this week. EDF’s plan is to build new, reliable nuclear reactors. However, critics warn that the takeover of British Energy could actually discourage competition in Britain, rendering supply more uncertain and unreliable.
For some time, the EU has targeted Climate Change in its attempt to assert its status as a world leader. However, the EU’s current attempt is to force Member States to reform their energy sectors through centralised targets and punishments rather than by researching howe to reform the varied energy sector and then implementing realistic targets based on their achievability. EU decisions about energy targets and alternative energy sources must acknowledge the impact that such targets will have on Members States’ economies and citizens; matching environmental and economic sustainability.