Europe inches closer to strong energy efficiency target

Members of the European Parliament’s industry and energy committee have voted by a narrow margin for a legally binding 40 per cent energy efficiency goal and a 35 per cent renewable energy target for 2030.

{Note: a version of this article appeared one week ago on The Fifth Estate]

The energy efficiency vote was won by only one vote (33 in favour and 32 against). German conservative Markus Pieper (above) sided with the ECR Group, a 74-strong Eurosceptic alliance of European conservatives and reformists, and the far-right Europe of Nations and Freedom group, which includes France’s National Front and the coal-favouring Visegrad Group.

Pieper’s compatriot, Socialists and Democrats Group member Martina Werner, siding with the committee’s rapporteur Adam Gierek, hailed the vote as “a great political victory after a fierce battle between the political groups”.

“We had to face serious attempts to water down the Energy Efficiency Directive. Even the Commission acknowledged that their amendments, for example on the annual savings rate, would amount to 0 per cent, for the period 2021-2030. This is not acceptable.”

With the European Council having already agreed on its approach on the Energy Efficiency Directive, the three European institutions must now agree on one joint position under the Bulgarian presidency next January, after the adopted report has been passed by a full plenary session.

Renewable energy sails through

By contrast, the Renewable Energy Directive vote was backed by 43 in favour and only 14 against. However, this motion already contained compromises. Although Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) wanted to increase the Commission’s 27 per cent target to 35 per cent, many, including the Greens, believe that 35 per cent is “the strict minimum” needed to let the EU meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement.

WWF Europe renewable energy expert Alex Mason slammed the proposal as “toothless” and claimed that the inclusion of a 10 per cent “flexibility margin” sent a signal to investors that “the EU is scaling back on renewable energy”.

Adair Turner, chair of the Energy Transitions Commission (ETC), a coalition of leading organisations from the worlds of business, energy and finance, said the ETC had come to the conclusion that a 100 per cent renewable energy system was now clearly within reach – probably sooner than we think.

“We are pretty confident that in 10 or 15 years you would be able to do a near total renewable system – 85 or 90 per cent – based on intermittent renewables. We said 2035 but this is probably ludicrously conservative.”

Energy efficiency remains controversial

But opponents of the target vowed to fight on to prevent it from becoming law. Opposition to the target is based on the belief that energy efficiency is not cost-effective.

Van Bossuyt, chair of the European Parliament’s internal market committee and member of the ECR Group, after the vote said: “We all want to see an ambitious strategy for improving efficiency, but there is no point introducing targets and policies if countries and companies are unable to implement them.

“A policy that is affordable and works in one country may be completely inappropriate and expensive in another. Governments and local authorities need to step up efforts to renovate their building stocks but this is expensive and places huge pressure on budgets that are already stretched.”

But this belief is not shared by industry. Philippe Dumas, secretary general of geothermal heating association EGEC, said: “The vote … puts the heating and cooling sector on track to be freed from fossil fuels. Decarbonising the heating and cooling sector can only be done by exploiting synergies between energy efficiency and renewable policies in terms of actions, technologies and ambitious policies.”

French energy group Engie’s CEO, Isabelle Kocher, said she supported the 40 per cent target: “We are very supportive of setting energy efficiency targets that are both very high and which are binding.”

So did members of the European Alliance to Save Energy, who include Veolia, Siemens, Philips Lighting and Danfoss, who had said that any target below 40 per cent energy savings “would set policy goals below the business-as-usual energy efficiency improvement trajectory and will have no impact on the ground”.

And the CEO of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, Stephanie Pfeifer, said the 40 per cent target would “send a clear and positive signal to investors swiftly enough to ensure a smooth transition to a low carbon economy”.

The Coalition for Energy Savings welcomed the energy efficiency vote. Its secretary general Stefan Scheuer said: “Energy efficiency policies have been the bedrock of the EU’s common energy policy, and a major tool to address environmental, competitiveness, social and geopolitical challenges.

“MEPs across the political spectrum who acknowledge these benefits should overcome their divisions and agree on a solid common energy efficiency policy post 2020 in view of the negotiations with the Council.”

He said the EU could achieve this energy efficiency target cost-effectively, according to research findings presented in the impact assessment for the Energy Efficiency Directive revision proposal.

The need for investment

Seventy-five per cent of the EU’s building stock is inefficient and buildings account for 40 per cent of the EU’s primary energy demand. Even if the target becomes law, a major obstacle to increasing the rate of renovation is access to finance, an issue for both businesses and households.

The Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group (established by the European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative) says that to reach the EU 2030 energy and climate targets about €379 billion (AU$591.7b) is needed each year between 2021 and 2030.

Where could such a massive amount come from? Part of the answer might be from energy companies themselves, who stand to save hundreds of billions of dollars from the easing of network constraints and of the need for new infrastructure that is being caused by the ongoing digitalisation of the energy sector.

Those savings are highlighted in a recent report from the International Energy Agency, which puts the savings to be achieved from a more connected, intelligent, efficient and reliable energy system at around US$80 billion (AU$105b) – approximately five per cent of total annual generation costs worldwide.

Furthermore, it says that as much as US$270 billion (AU$355b) in necessary infrastructure costs could be saved by realising up to 185GW of worldwide flexibility via smart demand response.

These savings could usefully be translated into investments in energy efficiency programs, which would achieve a return on investment over similar long time frames.

Another, admittedly much smaller, type of solution is to be found in places like Bucharest, where EU investment programs have contributed to the renovation of around 1200 flats. The Dutch approach of “Energiesprong” undertakes housing retrofits and installing photovoltaic panels and boilers in order to create Net Zero Energy houses, focusing on the social housing sector. In the Netherlands there have so far been about 1800 refurbishments with a further 15,000 in the pipeline.

If the European Union does finally succeed in setting the 40 per cent energy efficiency goal in law next year, that will only be the beginning. It will be up to the market to step up to the challenge of meeting the requirements.

David Thorpe is author of Passive Solar Architecture Pocket Reference and Solar Energy Pocket Reference.

It's Europe that has made our land more green and pleasant

Do you think that the UK's membership of the European Union is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? If a referendum were held on the UK's membership, how do you think you would vote?

These are the questions that David Cameron is addressing in his speech on Europe, and that are asked in public polling surveys on this most touchy of subjects.

According to one recent survey, which asked just these questions, over 56% would "probably or definitely" answer that they would vote to leave, and 45% think that Britain's membership is a Bad Thing. Only 28% believe it is Good for the country.

But the answer you get depends on the question you ask.

Suppose a pollster asked you this question:

Are you grateful that we have clean beaches?

Or how about:

Is legislation to keep our water and air clean from industrial pollution a good thing?

What about:

Do you think it is a good idea to set targets for manufacturers to make their products consume less energy?

I am willing to bet that well over three quarters of the population would answer yes to all of these questions.

Then the polling company might ask the question:

Are you aware that all of the above are controlled by laws emanating from Europe that have been accepted by the British government?

I am willing to bet that well over three quarters of the population would answer no to that question.

In this debate on Europe we hear a lot from the business lobby about red tape from Europe holding back growth.

As if, were we tomorrow to cast off from the continental landmass, like a hot air balloon we would rise majestically into a sky of profit having jettisoned the ballast of legal compliance.

It is never mentioned exactly which laws are supposed to be jettisoned.

Even the coalition government's own campaign to cut red tape, in which the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs has played an enthusiastic role, has actually found little besides ancient and redundant legislation that it can bury without affecting health and ecosystems in a way that would cause public outrage.

It is precisely our membership of the European Union that has forced business and agriculture in this country to take care of our environment and protect our health, to safeguard species and habitats from the otherwise careless activities associated with the production of goods and wealth, energy and employment.

These are successes that figure high on people's list of priorities. Breaches of, say, pollution laws, occurring on their doorsteps trigger howls of anguish and outrage.

The Bathing Water Directive protects our beaches. Directives like the Groundwater, Habitats, Industrial Emissions, Landfill, Nitrates and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive protect us, our children, families and neighbourhoods from dangerous pollution.

Do UKIP and Eurosceptic MPs in all parties wish to abolish all of these as they abandon Europe?

Do they, perhaps, want to make Britain the continent's 'dirty old man'?

Let me ask you: are these protections, instead, not something to celebrate?

We can legitimately ask that, if our national government had not been not forced by Brussels to incorporate these laws into national legislation, whether it would have done so, and indeed whether they would be enforced, and by whom?

Think of how many times Britain has been taken to court for breaches of environmental laws, for example in the case of dirty beaches.

It is because of Europe that raw sewage is no longer poured straight into the sea and our rivers and waterways.

Even now, London is under threat of prosecution from Europe for breaches of air pollution legislation.

These foreigners should not be sticking their noses into our business, you say? Who else is going to protect our environment?

If you want us to leave Europe then you have to be clear on this.

That 'the environment', meaning weather, sea currents, migrating birds and so on, does not respect international boundaries is precisely the reason why we need a continent-wide protection regime.

And it is because it has set, and is due to meet as a bloc, its targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for growth in renewable energy, and for increases in the energy efficiency of products made within its boundaries, in its fight against the worst ravages of climate change, that Europe can speak with a louder and more authoritative voice at global climate change talks.

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and the Landfill Directive encourage recycling. The ambition of the Water Framework Directive is to protect our waterways.

I am sorry, but unless you can convince me that, outside of Europe, we would introduce protection at least as good as these for the environment, and, even more importantly, enforce all of these, I will vote overwhelmingly for us to stay within the European Union.

I'm all for simplifying red tape. But let's hear it for European green tape. Without it, our environment would be even more despoiled than it is already.

Perhaps only self-interest can save us from catastrophic climate change

The failure of international negotiations on climate change has left the field open for those countries and even companies which take action now to dominate the emerging economic markets in the future.

Next December, UN negotiators will meet in Durban, South Africa, for the next attempt at the top level to secure international agreement on limiting climate change.

On the basis of current legislation and action, the world as a whole is now headed towards unavoidable global warming of between 2.6 and 4°C Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This is well ahead of the maximum permissible amount of between 2 and 1.5°.

It will result in large tracts of the planet becoming uninhabitable.

To keep warming limited to the 1.5° target, global total emissions need to drop below 44 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per year (CO2e/yr) by 2020. Currently, there is a gap of 12 billion tonnes of CO2e/yr.

At the climate change conference in Cancun at the end of 2010, countries discussed a wide range of options. If they implemented the most stringent reductions they proposed then, together with the most stringent accounting, the remaining “reduction gap" would shrink to 8 billion tonnes of CO2e/yr.

Failure to secure binding, legal agreements at the last two sessions in Copenhagen and Cancun has resulted in many countries instituting their own domestic climate change legislation.

A new survey of such legislation, as enacted in 16 countries, shows the extent to which this is happening.

It concludes that, although current legislation does not add up to what is required to avoid dangerous climate change, much greater attention should be paid to national level policy and legislative development, as building blocks towards a global deal.

The countries who have steamed ahead include large developing ones such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. Together, they amount to a formidable economic growth engine and are demonstrating their determination to forge ahead and dominate future markets in low carbon technologies and energy efficiency.

The report's author is GLOBE, (‘Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment’), founded in 1989, based at the London School of Economics, which is trying to create a critical mass of legislators that can agree common legislative responses to the major global environmental challenges.

Its president, John Gummer (a former Conservative environment minister), said: “The study illustrates that the shape of the debate on climate change is shifting from being about sharing a global burden – with governments naturally trying to minimise their share – to a realisation that acting on climate change is in the national interest.”

National interest is surely a much more powerful motivator than external pressure. For example, the Chinese and Brazilian governments see it in their national interest to create conditions for their countries to be world leaders in renewable energy.

International agreement will only reflect domestic political conditions, not the other way round. This is why the American government finds it so hard to commit to international climate change agreements - its long history of world dominance based on oil still provides its political direction with huge momentum.

On the other hand, Brazil, which has been a pioneer in bioethanol from sugar cane since the 1970s is now exporting its expertise and products.

The legislators who craft these laws meet periodically - the last time was barely a month and a half ago, in Brazil. There will be another, much more significant, meeting just ahead of the United Nations Rio +20 Summit on 4th - 6th June 2012.

This Earth Summit, otherwise known as the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, will assess progress, and absolutely must recharge international and national political commitment to sustainable development in the face of many new and emerging challenges.

The climate legislation being enacted in many countries is also putting in place the legal and policy frameworks to monitor, report, verify and manage carbon. Monitoring was a key stumbling block in previous negotiations. For example, it was the subject of a huge disagreement between the United States and China which stalled the 2009 negotiations.

National experience in instituting monitoring and verification systems could help inform and support an international MRV mechanism to prevent this being a barrier again in Durban.

As of April 2011, the UK had the most climate change related laws, with 22, and South Africa had the fewest with just 3. However, this is a poor indicator of effectiveness since some laws are comprehensive and others narrow in scope. But Britain is the only one to have a climate change act with binding reduction levels.

In addition, there is much legislation in preparation: the Chinese government is drafting a comprehensive climate change law to support the goals in its new 12th Five Year Plan; Mexico’s General Law on Adaptation and Mitigation and General Law on Climate Change are being debated; and the South African government is expected to publish a White Paper ahead of hosting the UN climate change negotiations in Durban in December.

Finally, much is happening at a regional level - California has amongst the most ambitious renewable energy targets in the world, and Wales almost uniquely has sustainable development enshrined in its constitution. Such regions are positioning themselves to be better protected in the emerging low carbon economy.

Clearly, a greater sense of urgency is required and the negotiations at Durban must be a success if disaster is not to be avoided.

But if it is not altruism that will save us. Human beings are not renowned for their altruism in the face of vague and distant threats.

It is instead in countries' selfish national interests that they pioneer and implement radical climate change legislation. As the UK is now a global leader in this respect (despite its limitations and domestic criticism of it), it has much to teach the world and much to be proud of.

As UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said on Tuesday, ″The race is on, and the pioneers are the most likely winners.″

Perhaps no amount of legislation can save us from catastrophic change. Perhaps the logic of capitalism - seeking permanent growth and ever-expanding markets - is incompatible with sustainability and living on a finite planet.

I guess we'll find out some day.

The government puts all of the UK's environmental legislation under threat

Environmental groups are horrified by the coalition government's inclusion of every single one of the UK's 278 environmental laws in a list of legislation that it is offering for the axe, under its new, populist "Red Tape Challenge".

The list includes the Climate Change Act, laws protecting air and water quality, rights of way, national parks, animal safety and promoting energy efficiency, rules against flytipping, litter and environmental pollution.

The above website states that "Good regulation... protects consumers, employees and the environment, it helps build a more fair society and can even save lives."

It goes on then to add "But over the years, regulations – and the inspections and bureaucracy that go with them – have piled up and up. This has hurt business, doing real damage to our economy. And it’s done harm to our society too".

The crowdsourcing exercise is designed purely to make businesses think that the Governmnet is on their side. In reality, much of this legislation cannot be repealed - especially those of European origin like the EcoDesign Directive or the Waste Directive - without encountering severe penalties. The rationale for including them is to look at instances of ‘gold-plating’ – where the UK has gone beyond the minimum required by the EU legislation.

But even Lord Davidson himself stated in his report on the topic of gold-plating two years ago: “it is sometimes beneficial for the UK economy to set or maintain regulatory standards which exceed the minimum requirements of European legislation. The EU may not always set the most appropriate level of regulation. The decision to introduce or maintain higher standards or stricter regulatory regimes than is required by EU directives could bring benefits as well as costs”.

The Climate Change Act is a flagship piece of recent legislation - the first in the world to commit a government to emission reduction, and something which business has been calling for to provide the certainty necessary to inspire investment.

Last month, a campaign was launched by climate change sceptics to repeal the law - but it is not coming from business and is not popular - the only news on its website has been Tweeted just four times.

So why is the act also included? Margaret Ounsley, Head of Public Affairs at WWF-UK said: "Allowing precious and hard-won environmental laws to be repealed in this manner would be ridiculous. Frankly we credit the Government with more sense than to tear up incredibly important legislation such as the Climate Change Act in an attempt to appear consultative or dynamic."

And John Sauven, director of Greenpeace, added: "We don't yet know if this is cock-up or conspiracy. If it's a cock-up, David Cameron needs to come out and say the Climate Change Act, central to the push for a clean technology revolution, is safe from the axe. But if ministers are serious about scrapping it and other vital environmental regulations then we'll be looking at something akin to the worst excesses of the Bush-Cheney White House. When did clean air and green jobs become a burden?"

Adrian Wilkes, Executive Chairman, The Environmental Industries Commission, said, "BIS’ latest deregulatory threat is dangerously misguided and poses a potentially major threat to the UK’s environmental industry – bizarrely at a time when the Chancellor is promoting green job creation in his Plan for Growth".

The Red Tape Challenge website says that ministers and government officials will use the feedback they get "to help them cut the right regulations in the right way".

Every few weeks the laws relevant to different topics are up for feedback. Environmental laws affect multiple and various categories such as transport, waterways, energy, manufacturing and quarrying.

The Government has already axed the Eco-Driver Training bill, which would have trained drivers of large goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles to drive more cost-effectively, that was consulted upon by the previous administration.

An end to 'gold-plating'

The Department for Business, Industry and Skills (BIS) has also already begun (last December) an initiative to end the practice of going beyond the requirements of European Directives so that they "are not unfairly restricting British companies".

This initiative, however, is far from new - it was begun under the previous administration, in a review by Lord Neil Davidson QC who published his final report on 28 November 2006.

BIS has now adopted Guiding Principles for EU legislation to tackle what it calls 'regulatory creep'.

In the past, in the environmental arena, this exercise has been largely about avoiding duplication. For example, in the Waste Framework Directive it's possible for there to be exemptions made from the standard requirement to obtain a waste permit. Defra is consulting with the Environment Agency to update guidance on waste to make more effective use of the permit exemption provision. Inert waste was being controlled twice and this has been amended. The Environmental Permit Programme (EPP) has merged and streamlined the regulatory regimes for Waste Management Licensing (WML) and Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC), which means that a site now only needs to have a single environmental permit for these activities.

Sometimes, however, it is necessary to increase environmental protection.

Business leaders in Scotland agreed with Davidson's view that sometimes gold-plating is necessary. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce response said: "the gold plating of EU directives will not necessarily lead to increased business compliance costs; there is a need to simplify and streamline the nature of regulation; ensure implementation in the clearest and most efficient way".

Friends of the Earth has argued that the charge of gold-plating Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) was misplaced and believes the term itself is "unhelpful and inaccurate".

CIWEM (the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management) goes further, calling it "a pejorative term" which "implies that any environmental regulation that goes beyond the absolute minimum is an unnecessary burden and to be accepted only under extreme circumstances".

Instead CIWEM believes that the UK should be seeking to have "the best environmental regulation in Europe rather than the weakest, where this can be achieved at reasonable cost and particularly in cases where there is clear benefit-cost advantage."

The new red tape challenge exercise seems to be designed as an exercise in pandering to prejudices - it is hopefully not serious, since in practice not a huge amount can be changed.

Nevertheless it is clearly important for every business in the green sectors to tell the government that they need the laws to protect them as well as us and our environment.

What lunacy, and what a waste of time from the so-called "greenest government ever".