For Ursula von der Leyen, this debate has warmed up at the worst possible minute — the president of the European Commission is under force from 2 sides. Left parties are accusing her of moving distant from climate targets — at the request of right-wing Members The European Parliament will vote on distrust. This is related to the “Pfizergate” issue — the controversy of ordering vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The force on the left side is tied Climate mark for 2040presented by the European Commission on Wednesday. By then, it assumes that CO2 emissions on the European continent are expected to be 90% lower than in 1990. Almost all parties in the European Parliament support this. However, the opinions on how to accomplish this are very divided. The storm raises 1 peculiar issue. It assumes that from 2036 countries will be able to acquisition 3% of CO2 reductions, provided they invest in green targets on another continent.
The Commission does not want to reduce emissions (estimated by 145 million tonnes) by implementing green solutions in cars, factories or power plants.
Instead, national governments will be able to reduce their targets by investing in distant parts of the world. Spending money planting fresh forests in South America or distributing low-smoking kitchen ovens in Africa, they will be able to improve their carbon footprint.
— Ultimately, for our planet, it doesn't substance where we reduce emissions. Why should we not support projects in another regions?" said Wopke Hoekstra, EU Climate Commissioner. He stated that this solution would firstly aid the European economy by providing greater freedom for sectors that are hard to decarbonise, specified as steel and aviation. Secondly, “friends in the global South” are very curious in European investment. Hoekstra called it a “fantastic” solution.
For the Greens in the European Parliament, CO2 certificates are taboo and for social democrats are at least problematic. However, its supporters consider it a compromise between climate protection and economical growth. In their opinion, it will aid Europe accomplish its objectives, while at the same time supporting poorer countries.
An thought akin to an airline practice
The 3% clause shows how much the EU has changed in fresh years. In 2019, erstwhile Ursula von der Leyen took the position of president of the European Commission, inspired by Greta Thunberg and the Youth Climate Strike, she placed environmental protection above all else. Its Green Deal – the plan to transform Europe into the world's first carbon-neutral continent – corresponded to the spirit of time. Today, at the time of the increasing economical tensions with the United States and China, the economy comes first.
“There is no air layer over Europe that we could decarbonise and thus solve the problem,” said Peter Liese, CDU MEP. “There is 1 global climate, and if investment in 3rd countries is cheaper, we should be open to it,” he added.
Further string of article under video material
The thought of buying up 3% of CO2 emissions is simply a novelty in European climate policy. It resembles the practice utilized by airlines to offset emissions – passengers can pay respective euros more, which are then spent on planting mangroves in Indonesia or building solar power plants in India. This cannot reduce the level of CO2 generated by the travelling aircraft, but can contribute to global climate protection.
Some politicians in Brussels are not convinced of this logic. — The inclusion of global climate credits creates hard to estimation risk. In future, the funds needed to invest in the transformation of the European economy and society would be invested outside the EU," said Tiemo Woelken, SPD MEP Tiemo Wölken. In his opinion, the European Commission's proposal allows "to take shortcuts to make the balance sheet look good". Green Bloss organization politician even mentioned "accounting tricks" and "falsifying labels".
Indeed, fraud cannot be ruled out erstwhile applying this practice. Experts fear, for example, that projects will be double cleared: in the country where they are located, and in the EU associate State that buys certificates. It is not yet known whether the 3% clause will be introduced due to the fact that it must be approved by national governments and MEPs.
It's only the beginning
Some countries believe that this mechanics is not sufficient. During dinner at the EU summit last week, French president Emmanuel Macron proposed that the full climate mark be moved immediately. It is feared that reducing CO2 emissions by 90% by 2040 could be besides much for the European economy. The governments of Poland and Italy share a akin view.
All this means that a dispute over certificates can only be the beginning. any in Brussels believe that EU countries can completely reject the Commission bill. “The debate concerns whether there will be a mark for 2040 at all,” says Mr Liese.
Many business representatives, like Macron, find the proposals besides ambitious. “In principle, it is to be welcomed that, in line with the European Commission’s plans, emissions reductions in 3rd countries can be taken into account in the future,” said Hildegard Müller, president of the Automotive manufacture Association. In his opinion, however, it must not be forgotten that the mark for 2040 is besides ambitious.
