MEPs have criticised a document which shows the UK is trying to introduce climate change policy loopholes into the EU’s energy efficiency directive.
The specific climate change policy loopholes the UK is seeking to implement in revisions to the energy efficiency directive were outlined in a letter to the European Council on 4 May, which was leaked to the Guardian.
In its current form, the legislation commits EU member states to cut their emissions by 20% between 2014 and 2020 by taking a series of actions, in light of the bloc’s wider commitment to fighting global warming in the Paris Climate Agreement. Member states also commit to a binding 1.5% energy saving per year during this period.
What did the UK want to change?
In particular, the UK government had requested a retroactive extension of the period of application of the legislation to 2010, to include what it referred to as ‘early actions’ that the country took to comply with the efficiency directive.
Then, any energy savings made in this period in excess of the 1.5% target established by the European Commission should count towards the fulfilment of energy savings obligations in the period from 2021 to 2030, the UK’s letter said.
What are the concerns with this amendment?
The EU has stated its target of 40% cut in emissions by 2030, meaning that energy targets from 2021 could be more ambitious than current targets. However, if the UK’s amendment was applied, it could result in a lower overall cut in emissions and cause the EU to miss its 40% target, MEPs have warned.
Benedek Jávor MEP, vice chair of the European Parliament’s environment committee, explained to the Guardian: “The UK’s proposal to widen ‘flexibilities’ is completely mad and undermines the principle of additionality, as well as the overall ambition of the energy efficiency directive. This approach would risk failure in our efforts to reach even moderately ambitious overall targets, while the higher – and beneficial targets – that we need to strive for could become lost altogether.”
On this I am fully in agreement with UK.
I am more and more convinced that the proposed policy, in my opinion based on manipulated and even fake “scientific” information, especially about the contribution of fossil fuel, is basically a giant business opportunity for a number of supporters, at the cost of the Communities.
It is very unfortunate that the only strong-enough opposer is Mr. Trump, who is supported by good reasons, but is personally untenable.