Greening the `European Green Deal´ - Ambitious or Out of Touch?

Until 2030 the EU shall emit 55 % less Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), compared to 1990 levels. This is the aim of a new communication reflecting Ursula von der Leyen`s State of the Union-Speech but also plans by `Green New Deal´-Commissioner Frans Timmermans to sharpen the `European Green Deal´ of the European Commission. But given considerable issues with details of the plan, question marks are looming. This blog entry is taking a critical look at the new, ambitious plans of the European Commission and analyzes the underlying document that has been launched yesterday.

Announcements by the European Union concerning climate action were never short of bold claims and big plans. For the last 15 years a lot of climate goals, emission reduction targets etc. have been published. Most of the time they were underpinned by clear and detailed roadmaps that laid out in great detail how to achieve them. This week the European Commission decided in the midst of the Covid-19 crisis to propose an amendment of its GHG-reduction goals for 2030. 

The most prominent change is the increase of the GHG-emission target from 40% reduction compared to 1990 levels to 55% reduction compared to 1990 levels. Technically this shall be included in an amendment to the proposed Climate Law. This change shall facilitate two long-term obligations: achieving a climate-neutral Europe by 2050 and improving Europe`s contribution to the Paris Agreement. In that respect, the Commission invited the European Parliament and the Council to confirm the 55% by 2030-aim to be the EU`s new Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement.

The step is underpinned by an action plan that was prepared for months under the responsibility of Commissioner Frans Timmermans earlier this year. Until June 2021 the new target shall be implemented into EU legislation via the following: revising and expanding the EU Emissions Trading System; adapting the Effort Sharing Regulation and the framework for land use emissions; reinforcing energy efficiency and renewable energy policies; and strengthening CO2 standards for road vehicles.

So, where exactly shall the additional emission reductions come from? Details were published yesterday in a 26-page long Communication (European Commission Communication `Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition Investing in a climate-neutral future for the benefit of our people´ (Communication) COM (2020) 562 final).

Spending money will be a key component. At least 30 % of the EU´s multiannual budget shall be dedicated to `climate relevant spending´ (p.4), meaning that spending will have to effectively contribute to the green and the digital transitions or to addressing the challenges resulting from them.

According to the Communication, buildings and power generation can make the largest and most cost-efficient emissions reductions, in the order of 60% and more compared to 2015, to reach the 55% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target (p.8). With a view to power generation and consumption substantial steps are proposed. The building and transport sectors shall be integrated into the European Emission Trading Scheme (p.14 and 9). 

With a particular view to the transport sector, the Commission assesses that `the transport sector had the lowest share of renewable energy in 2015, with only 6%. By 2030, this has to increase to around 24% through further development and deployment of electric vehicles, advanced biofuels and other renewable and low carbon fuels as part of a holistic and integrated approach´ (p.8).

An interesting aspect here is that the EU wishes to include ships and airplanes largely under the EU-ETS, despite acknowledging some technical challenges with this. The Communication states: ` For both sectors, in accordance with its international commitment to economy-wide action under the Paris Agreement, the EU should continue to regulate at least intra-EU aviation emissions in the EU ETS and include at least intra-EU maritime transport in the EU ETS24 . For aviation, the Commission will propose to reduce the free allocation of allowances, increasing the effectiveness of the carbon price signal in this sector, while taking into account other policy measures such as energy taxation and the ReFuelEU initiatives´(p.16).

In the fossil fuel dominated heating and cooling sector, the Commission intends to assess the nature and the level of the existing, indicative heating and cooling target, including the target for district heating and cooling (p.19).

Improving energy efficiency legislation is a further cornerstone. The forthcoming Sustainable Product Legislative initiative of the EU will look into widening the Ecodesign approach to other product categories (p.20).

But all of this taken together only results in around 45% emission reductions compared to 1990 levels, as the Commission itself admits in its Communication (p.13). A further 2% shall be achieved via changes in land use, such as improved and enforced forest protection and more sustainable forest management as well as sustainable re- and afforestation and improved soil management including through the restoration of wetlands, peatlands and degraded land. Moreover, via a shift towards growing woody biomass on cropland in a sustainable manner, including as a feedstock for advanced biogas and biofuels (p.12).

The criticism here is two fold. First, even if it works this would bring total emission reductions up to 47% (p. 13), which is still not 55% reduction, as announced. Second, in the old aim of 40% emission reductions by 2030 land use was not part of the calculation. The question is, hence, whether this is an additional effort or simply an arithmetic trick.

The European Commission partly admits these points (p.13) and, in particular concerning the gap between the 47% and 55% emission reduction targets, has a rather surprising solution to offer. It argues: `However, (...) this would not be sufficient to achieve a 55% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. To achieve this, both the climate legislation as well as the energy policies need to be reviewed to deliver this ambition increase´ (p.13). 

In other words: we do not know where the additional 8% emission reductions are supposed to come from exactly, but we will find something somewhere in our laws, when searching further. Nonetheless, we are already including them into our calculations. This is a remarkable approach that is bound to shatter trust in the respectability of the plan. Not even all promised emission reductions are accounted for in the current Communication. The European Union as a whole will have to do better than that to convicne citizens and the industries and to create a momentum. It is to be hoped that the legislative process that is starting now and includes both the European Parliament and the European Council, will result in a more solid piece of work.