Greenpeace EU

New ETS plan puts burden on European taxpayers instead of polluting industry

mbreddy — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:38:00 +0200

Brussels – A new plan to patch up Europe’s ailing carbon market endorsed by the European Parliament’s environment committee today will fall short of restoring an effective system to encourage clean investments and lower carbon emissions, warned Greenpeace.

The proposal is designed to temporarily withhold carbon allowances from the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) in order to compensate for their oversupply – a process known as ‘backloading’. Because of the oversupply, the price of carbon allowances hit its lowest ever levels [1] and the ETS has not fulfilled its purpose of encouraging the use of more efficient and clean technologies. A first backloading proposal was narrowly rejected in a vote in the European Parliament in April and sent back to the committee for review.

The new proposal the committee endorsed today includes the early reintroduction of some of the allowances temporarily taken out of the market (by 2016 or 2017 instead of 2019, as originally planned), which would mean a quicker slide back to today’s oversupplied market. It would also change the way allowances are brought back into the market, diverting money collected from the sale of allowances to energy-intensive industry sectors (such as steel and cement) instead of European government budgets.

Greenpeace EU climate policy director Joris den Blanken said: “There has been so much backtracking on this plan for a temporary fix of the EU carbon market that it is now only a shadow of what it should have been. The best it will do is give some very short-term relief and act as a fundraiser for polluting industries with no obligation for deeper carbon cuts. Instead of polluters, it is taxpayers that will be picking up the carbon bill.”

The proposal will now go to the full European Parliament for a vote on 2 July.

Greenpeace calls on the European Commission to strengthen the ETS by cancelling 2.2 billion carbon allowances before 2020. The Commission should also propose a domestic 2030 climate target for the EU of 55 per cent, as part of a package of targets, including a 2030 renewables and energy savings target. As long as EU decision-makers do not put in place an effective scheme, national governments must fill the gap with national coal and carbon taxation schemes, said Greenpeace.

Notes:
[1] After the last backloading proposal failed to get majority support in the European Parliament on 16 April, the price of a carbon allowance (to emit 1 tonne of carbon dioxide) hit a new record low of €2.63.

Contacts:
Joris den Blanken - Greenpeace EU climate policy director: +32 (0) 476 961 375, Joris.den.Blanken@Greenpeace.org
Mark Breddy - Greenpeace communications: +32 (0)496 156229, Mark.Breddy@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments, the EU, businesses or political parties.

Proposed EU nuclear safety rules won't rule out a European Fukushima

edavitt — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:44:00 +0200

Brussels – The European Commission today released a long-awaited proposal for new EU-wide nuclear safety rules. These proposals come in the wake of EU nuclear stress tests, which were prompted by the Fukushima nuclear accident of 2011. Although fundamentally flawed, the tests revealed a number of serious shortcomings in the safety of European nuclear plants [1].

Reacting to the publication of the proposal of the proposal, Greenpeace nuclear energy expert Jan Haverkamp said: “These new rules will do little to rule out a European Fukushima. They ignore the human factor, terrorism and sabotage. Planning for emergency evacuations in the event of an accident is similarly inadequate. The proposed partial testing of nuclear power plants every six years would also leave some parts of a plant untouched for decades, meaning it could take several rounds of testing for some elements of a plant to be checked. If anything, this proposal demonstrates that nuclear safety is a utopia.

While the Commission’s plan slightly improves the independence of nuclear regulators, the directive does not address the risk of terrorist attack and the need for evacuation and off-site emergency responses in the case of an accident. The new periodic reviews only offer small improvement on the current ten year ones, and will only test parts of each plant periodically. The Fukushima meltdown highlighted how close links between the nuclear industry and the authorities impeded responses to a wide-scale disaster. This proposal shows how that industry can still have a hand in deciding its own regulation, said Greenpeace.

The European Parliament and Council will assess and amend the Commission proposal. A final agreement is expected in 2014.

Notes:

Commission press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-532_en.htm?locale=en

[1] ‘Nuclear stress tests find serious safety problems, but still only scratch the surface’, Greenpeace, 4 October 2012: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2012/stress-tests/

Contacts:
Jan Haverkamp – Greenpeace expert consultant on nuclear energy and energy policy: +48 534 236 502 (mobile), jan.haverkamp@greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt – Greenpeace EU communications officer: +32 476 988584 (mobile), edward.davitt@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments, the EU, businesses or political parties.

Report: Silent Killers

edavitt — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:24:00 +0200

A Greenpeace International report on the health effects of coal powerJN449 - Silent Killers

Breathing should not be life threatening. Children should not get asthma or suffer development problems from the air they breathe while playing. Of the fundamental rights in this world, being able to breathe clean, fresh air should be one of the most important. Apparently, it isn’t to governments and energy producers in Europe.

In Europe, 300 plants burn coal to produce electricity, spewing out millions of tonnes of pollution every year. Hour after hour these plants fill the air with toxic pollutants, including mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium and tiny sulphate and nitrate particles that go deep into people’s lungs. Pollution from coal is a silent killer. The air breathed in Europe harms everyone – babies, children and adults, especially the elderly. An estimated 22,000 people died prematurely in Europe in 2010 because of toxic emissions from coal plants.

Coal-fired power plants are also the largest source of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that have already changed our climate. Continued coal burning will cause even more catastrophic climate change. The hundreds of thousands who die now from climate change will grow to millions within decades.

This year is supposed to be the EU’s “Year of Air”. Yet, Europe’s politicians are not stopping the more than 50 new coal-fired power plants being built or in the development stage that will increase the death toll. The coal industry will continue to have a licence to kill for decades. This death toll from coal must be stopped.

Greenpeace, working with other civil society organisations, has helped stop dozens of coal-fired power plant projects from taking off in Europe. More needs to be done. European politicians must take action to remove the world’s deadliest source of electricity. The solution is right in front of them: renewable energy. Through our Energy [R]evolution, Greenpeace has developed a sophisticated scenario that could transition Europe from coal to an energy system based on clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency. A clean energy system would be good for the climate and for public health. It would create sustainable, clean power, thousands of new jobs, and economic opportunities. By driving the development of clean energy, Europe could end the energy poverty of approximately two billion people.

It is time for European politicians to phase out coal and lead the transition to clean energy and clean air. It is time for them to lead the way in healing the planet and improving the quality of life for all.

New report finds failing EU carbon market threatens effectiveness of 2030 climate proposals

edavitt — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:00:00 +0200

Brussels – The EU will need to make an extra seven per cent saving to its carbon emissions as part of the 2030 climate action due to the failure of the its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), according to a new report by consultancy group Ecofys.

Under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), industries, such as energy companies, steel and cement producers, are issued permits to emit carbon, purchasing extra permits when required and selling excess when possible. The ETS is currently suffering from a large oversupply of permits, lowering the price of carbon and undermining the incentive for industry to invest in cleaner production. The Ecofys report, The Next Step in Europe’s Climate Action: Setting Targets for 2030, finds that without EU intervention to fix the ETS, the extra seven per cent cut would be needed to ‘eat up’ the surplus of ETS carbon permits by 2030.

European ministers [1], business groups [2] and opinion leaders [3] have all highlighted that strong EU 2030 targets would help raise the record-low carbon price by increasing the demand for carbon permits. In a paper published in March, the European Commission stated 40% emissions reductions by 2030 are necessary. In May, the United Kingdom government proposed to set a 2030 emissions reduction target of 50 per cent [4]. Greenpeace is advocating a cut in excess of 55% [5].

In May, the European Council called on the Commission to table a concrete proposal so that EU leaders can debate 2030 climate and energy policies in March 2014.

Ecofys director of energy and climate policy Niklas Höhne said: “It is essential for the effectiveness of the EU’s emissions trading system that the trajectory of the EU’s greenhouse gas target until 2030 is set in a way that takes into account any pre-2020 surplus. Given the currently expected surplus, the 2030 target or the trajectory towards it would need to be significantly more stringent than otherwise.”

Greenpeace EU climate policy director Joris den Blanken said:“This report shows the 40 per cent 2030 carbon target put forward by the European Commission is woefully inadequate, especially given the impact of a failing ETS. The EU needs a stricter 2030 target if it wants to keep the ETS alive and avoid the most severe effects of climate change."

The Ecofys report also finds that the EU’s emission reductions by 2030 should be around 49 per cent of 1990 levels (midway between a range of 39% to 79%) [5]. However, these percentages do not take into account the effects of the current carbon permit surplus in the ETS and assume that the EU will deliver 25 per cent emission reductions by 2020 [6]. The report uses data on globally required emission reductions from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as well as different widely used approaches to calculate the share of the burden between different countries.

Considering these findings, Greenpeace calls on the European Commission, the European Parliament and EU governments to support a more ambitious domestic carbon emissions goal for 2030 of at least 55 per cent (49 per cent plus the 7 per cent adjustment for the ETS). This climate target must be part of a climate and energy package including a 45 per cent target for renewable energy uptake and a binding energy savings target. These three targets can together help encourage innovation, increase resilience to high and volatile fossil fuel prices, and strengthen the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Background

On 16 April, the European Parliament rejected a proposal that would have enabled the European Commission to temporarily curb the oversupply of permits in the ETS. The proposal was instead sent back to the Parliament’s environment committee. On 19 June, the committee will hold a new vote on the temporary carbon market fix, followed by a vote in the July plenary session of the parliament.

The surplus of unused permits now represents around 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon. With continued political opposition towards short-term intervention in the ETS, the surplus is expected to grow to 2 billion tonnes by 2020 (twice the volume of all of Germany’s annual greenhouse gas emissions). Record low carbon prices have damaged the credibility of the system and allowed a slide back to more polluting energy options, such as coal-fired power plants.

Ecofys report ‘The next step in Europe’s climate action: setting targets for 2030’: www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2013/Ecofys-The-next-step-in-Europes-climate-action-setting-targets-for-2030/

Notes:

[1] Joint statement on the ETS by nine EU ministers (7 May 2013)

[2] Business Europe considers 2030 policies as the real priority in the ETS fix debate (16 April 2013): http://www.businesseurope.eu/content/default.asp?PageID=568&DocID=31557

Energy companies call for 2030 climate and energy policies (23 February 2012): http://static.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/Open%20Letter_FINAL-2.pdf.

[3] Financial Times editorial on fixing the ETS calling for 2030 targets (17 April 2013): http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/329f0798-a762-11e2-9fbe-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Smkn1BUV.

[4] UK challenges EU to set emission reduction target to 50 per cent: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-urges-europe-on-50-ambition-on-emissions-reductions.

[5] Greenpeace, 27 March 2013,‘Green paper kicks-off boxing match on Europe’s energy future’: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/Green-paper-kicks-off-boxing-match-on-Europes-energy-future/.

[6] Effort-sharing approaches to combat climate change involve dividing cuts of greenhouse gas emissions between countries in a way that reflects their current as well as historical contributions to emissions, their level of economic development and other factors. For this report, five of the most commonly used international approaches were analysed. The 49 per cent figure represents the median of a range from 39 to 79 per cent identified by these five approaches (‘Contraction and Convergence’, ‘Common but Differentiated Convergence’, ‘Multistage’, ‘Greenhouse Development Rights’, ‘Triptych’) for EU countries. For more information, see www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2013/Effort-sharing-approaches.

[6] The European Environment Agency projects 25 per cent EU emission reductions in 2020, compared to 1990 levels, with implementation of existing and planned EU climate and energy policies: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ghg-trends-and-projections-2012.

Contacts:
Joris den Blanken - Greenpeace EU climate policy director: +32 (0) 476 961 375, Joris.den.Blanken@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Ecofys Report: The next step in Europe’s climate action: setting targets for 2030

edavitt — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:00:00 +0200

Policy report commissioned by Greenpeace EUecofys_PolicyPaper

As 2020 edges closer and governments and investors demand certainty beyond, we are witnessing the first moves towards a new EU climate and energy package with 2030 objectives. But how much must EU greenhouse gas emissions be reduced in order to be effective, adequate and fair? And how can robust 2030 policies help to restore the credibility and effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system (ETS)?

This analysis, commissioned by Greenpeace and conducted by Ecofys, illustrates how through the application of widely accepted effort sharing approaches, the EU’s ‘fair share’ in 2030 global emissions reductions could be around 49% compared to 1990 levels (the 49% figure representing the median of a full range from 39 to 79%). Moreover it reveals that in order to restore the effectiveness of the ETS, and accommodate its current surplus of allowances, an additional reduction of 7 percentage points will be required.

EU agrees workable deal on fisheries reform to recover fish stocks and support low-impact fishing

edavitt — Thu, 30 May 2013 08:11:00 +0200

Brussels – The EU has taken a leap towards a final deal on fisheries reform after almost two years of negotiations. Following late-night talks, Irish fisheries minister Simon Coveney, representing the Council of European ministers, and European Parliament negotiator Ulrike Rodust MEP, announced in a press conference today that a compromise had been reached on the main aspects of reform.

The Parliament and EU ministers have been at odds over how ambitious the EU’s failing Common Fisheries Policy should be.

Commenting on the outcome of the meeting, Greenpeace EU fisheries policy director Saskia Richartz said: “For decades in Europe, fishing has been a story of decline, with severe overexploitation of fish stocks and small-scale fishermen squeezed out of business by a minority of profiteering fishing barons. The deal that is emerging today is good news, even if we are disappointed that ministers blocked a deadline for the recovery of fish stocks. For the first time, the EU has recognised the value of low-impact fishermen by highlighting the need for social and environmental criteria in the allocation of fishing quotas.”

The compromise between the European Parliament and the Council sets an obligation to end overfishing by 2015 for most stocks, but allows an additional five years in exceptional cases where reductions in fishing pressure may “seriously jeopardise the social and economic sustainability of the fishing fleets”. The deal also includes a commitment to rebuild fish stocks, but fails to include a deadline to achieve sustainable stock levels. Crucially, the new rules will now require governments to eliminate excessive fishing capacity in their fleets and to use transparent environmental and social criteria when allocating access to fishing grounds and quotas. In addition, it will in future be prohibited for EU vessels to overfish the waters of other nations. The amount of fish that can be discarded at sea will also be reduced.

The compromise still needs approval by a committee of permanent representatives from EU member states known as Coreper and some technical details still require fine-tuning. This is also not quite the end of the line on EU fisheries reform: the new framework for EU fisheries subsidies still has to be agreed.

Contacts:

Saskia Richartz – Greenpeace EU fisheries policy director: +32 (0)495 290028, saskia.richartz@greenpeace.org

Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU communications: +32 (0)496 156229, mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs, follow: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Greenpeace comment on reported drop of EU carbon emissions in 2011

mbreddy — Wed, 29 May 2013 14:00:00 +0200

Brussels – The European Environment Agency has released new figures for average EU carbon emissions in 2011 [1]. The figures show an 18.4 per cent drop in emissions since 1990, just shy of the EU’s target to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.

Reacting to the news, Greenpeace EU spokesperson Mark Breddy said: "This drop in carbon emissions in 2011 is good news, but the situation isn’t entirely peachy. What the numbers demonstrate is that the EU has virtually hit its 2020 target to cut carbon nine years early. This shows how ridiculously low the 20% target is and highlights the need for EU governments to step up ambition levels.”

“The 2011 drop is mostly due to a milder winter and the effects of the economic slowdown in Europe. Beneath the surface, the numbers also show that the EU’s carbon market is grinding to a halt, allowing European industry to start using more super-polluting fuels like coal and lignite," added Breddy.

Greenpeace is calling for at least a 30 per cent cut in domestic EU emissions by 2020 and a 55 per cent domestic cut by 2030.

Notes:

[1] European Environment Agency press release: http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/greenhouse-gases-2011-emissions-lower

Contact:

Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU head of communications:

+32 496 156229 (mobile), mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Monsanto signals partial withdrawal from EU

edavitt — Wed, 29 May 2013 14:00:00 +0200

Brussels – Monsanto will no longer actively push their products within the EU, except in countries where there is political support, according to a story from Danish media service Investigative Reporting Denmark [1]. The news comes after over two million people worldwide came out onto the streets over the weekend to protest against political interference and environmental damage by one of the world’s biggest biotech companies.

A Monsanto representative is quoted in the report as saying that the company decided in 2011 to stop pushing its untested and potentially dangerous products within the EU, except in those countries where it “enjoys broad farmer support” and “broad political support”. The representative concluded that Monsanto will therefore restrict its genetically modified (GM) crops to only Spain and Portugal. However, he noted that existing field trials will continue. There is no indication that Monsanto will drop its pending applications to market new GM crops in the EU.

German chemical company BASF withdrew its biotech operations from Europe in January 2012 [2].

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “This is a good day for science and innovation in Europe. With their obsession on GM, Monsanto and other biotech multinationals have been hindering progress for too long. Genetic engineering is a crude and outdated technology. It threatens the environment and health, and it cannot provide the solutions that farming desperately needs. Other cutting-edge biotechnologies and ecological methods should now be given the space to deliver real benefits for European farmers and consumers [3].”

Notes

[1] ‘GMO lose Europe – victory for environmental organisations’, Investigative Reporting Denmark, 29 May:http://www.ir-d.dk/gmo-lose-europe-victory-for-environmental-organisations/.

[2] http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2012/BASF-retreats-from-Europe-as-GM-crops-rejected/

[3] ‘Chemical giant BASF flees Europe’, Greenpeace blogpost, January 2012: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/blog/chemical-giant-basf-flees-europe/blog/38759/

Contacts:
Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0) 477 777 034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt - Greenpeace media officer: +32 (0)476 988 584, Edward.Davitt@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Over 100,000 voices call on EU to support low-impact fishing

edavitt — Wed, 29 May 2013 06:30:00 +0200

Brussels – As a final round of negotiations to reform EU fishing rules began Tuesday evening in Brussels, Greenpeace delivered over 100,000 paper boats signed by people from around Europe in support of low-impact fishing and a fundamental reform of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Negotiators representing EU fisheries ministers, the European Parliament and the Commission received around 25,000 folded paper boats and 90,000 online boats, just before attending what is expected to be one of the final joint meetings to attempt to reach a compromise deal on the new CFP.

The paper boats are being collected in ports across nine different countries as part of a grand European tour by Greenpeace ship the Arctic Sunrise in support of small-scale fishermen [1]. The tour began in March and will end in London on 9 June.

Greenpeace EU director Jorgo Riss said: “This ship tour and countless other campaigns have shown that there is a massive wave of public support for Europe to end overfishing. Final negotiations to hammer out a deal on EU fisheries reform will now take place behind closed doors and it’s important that politicians don’t forget what is at stake. They must end the senseless overexploitation of our seas, recover fish stocks and set a course that favours low-impact fishermen. If they don’t, then all ocean life will be irreparably damaged and no-one will be able to make a living from fishing anymore.”

The paper boats were delivered to the Irish EU presidency, represented by ambassador Tom Hanney, the European Parliament negotiator, MEP Ulrike Rodust, and EU fisheries commissioner Maria Damanaki.

Greenpeace supports a target for fish stock recovery by 2020 at the latest, a trimming of the fishing fleet to sustainable levels with priority access to fishing grounds for low-impact fishermen, and financial penalties for countries that fail to implement the rules.

In a vote in February, the Parliament overwhelmingly supported an overhaul of the rules which have led to decades of overfishing and a decline of the European fishing industry [2]. On the other hand, EU ministers – in particular from France and Spain – have resisted meaningful reforms and ignored the plea of low-impact fishermen [3].

Small-scale vessels make up around 80% of the EU fishing fleet, but low-impact fishermen are struggling to make a living on the very limited share of quotas they have access to [4].

Notes:

[1] The paper boats are being collected in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, Croatia, Italy, Spain, France and the UK. The virtual paper boats on https://myboat.gp are from several other EU countries, including Germany, Belgium, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Ireland and Portugal.

[2] According to the European Commission, around two thirds of European fish stocks are currently fished beyond sustainable levels (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0278:EN:NOT). One third of European fishing jobs have been lost in the last decade (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SPLIT_SEC:2011:0891%2851%29:FIN:EN:PDF).

[3] Council tables weak deal on EU fisheries reform, Greenpeace press release: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/Council-tables-weak-deal-on-EU-fisheries-reform/.

[4] In November 2012, small-scale fishermen from across Europe signed a joint declaration calling for a fair fisheries reform: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzJMQ8kN2XRLWXUzVXpocDkzeXc/edit.

Contacts: Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU communications: +32 (0)496 156229, mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs, follow: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

EU food agency links fourth pesticide to bee decline

edavitt — Mon, 27 May 2013 13:21:00 +0200

Brussels – In the latest scientific warning against the impacts of common pesticides on bees, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has today released a scientific assessment linking a pesticide known as fipronil to harmful effects on bees. Three other bee-harming pesticides have been partially banned in Europe following similar damning reports from EFSA published in January.

EFSA concluded that fipronil, produced by German chemical company BASF, poses a “high acute risk to honeybees when used as a seed treatment for maize” [1]. EFSA’s assessment also identified large information gaps in scientific studies, preventing it from assessing risks to pollinators other than honey bees and dangers from exposure to residues of the chemical (for example in soil and non-targeted plants). Given the information available, EFSA found lower risk levels for fipronil use on some vegetables.

In light of the evidence, Greenpeace is calling on the EU to ban fipronil and to develop a comprehensive plan to tackle the collapse in bee populations in Europe.

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “The fact that fipronil and other pesticides toxic to bees were authorised at all shows that EU safety testing is in dire need of an overhaul. These pesticides have been building up in our environment for a decade, so limited, temporary bans won’t be enough to give bees a breather, particularly while other similar chemicals are still being used. The Commission should develop a comprehensive plan for the protection of insect pollinators, starting with a solid ban on fipronil and other bee-harming substances.”

Last month, a majority of EU countries backed a two-year partial ban of three other pesticides, classified as neonicotinoids, which EFSA said were causing harm to bees [2]. On 24 May, the European Commission formally enacted the ban, which will take effect in December 2013 [3]. Greenpeace’s recent report on the chemical threats facing bees in Europe, Bees in Decline, shows the effect that the three neonicotinoids, and four other common pesticides, including fipronil (which is not itself a neonicotinoid), are having on the health of pollinators [4].

While an important first step, the partial ban of the three neonicotinoids - clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – is insufficient to help Europe’s pollinators stage a recovery. The EU should spearhead further research into the connections between Europe’s most widely used pesticides and the decline of pollinators, and shift funding from the current chemical-intensive agricultural system to modern ecological farming practices.

Bees and other pollinators play a crucial role in food production. Around a third of the world’s food crops directly depend on natural pollination from bees and other animals [5].

Notes

[1] EFSA assesses risks to bees from fipronil:http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130527.htm

[2] Greenpeace, Majority of EU countries support partial ban of bee-killing pesticides, 29 April 2013: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/Majority-of-EU-countries-support-partial-ban-of-bee-killing-pesticides

[3] Bee Health: EU-wide restrictions on Pesticide use to enter into force on 1 December, 24 May 2013: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-457_en.htm

[4] Bees in Decline, (March 2013) Greenpeace Research Laboratories technical report: http://bees-decline.org/

[5] Kremen C, et al (2007), Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change, Ecology Letters, 10: 299-314.

Contacts:
Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0) 477 777 034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt - Greenpeace media officer: +32 (0)476 988 584, Edward.Davitt@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Comment on EU summit discussion on energy

edavitt — Wed, 22 May 2013 12:41:00 +0200

Brussels, 22 May 2013 – Today, European leaders are meeting to discuss how the EU can ensure the supply of affordable, safe and sustainable energy. EU governments are keen to cut rising energy prices and are under pressure to back seemingly cheaper but extremely polluting fuels with expensive side-effects.

Greenpeace believes that the key to future competitive energy pricing and long-term security of supply for the EU lies with energy efficiency, renewables and a flexible energy system.

Greenpeace EU energy policy adviser Frederic Thoma said: “An EU energy policy that ignores long-term costs is like a restaurant that charges you less but doesn’t do the washing up – in the end somebody has to deal with the mess. Short-term thinking on energy is as unforgivable and as costly as short-term thinking on taxation or banking. An integrated European energy system should be built on a modern and smart grid that promotes the use of clean and safe energy sources, not a temporary, polluting waste of money that does nothing to secure our economy.”

Greenpeace welcomes the commitment from today’s Council to discuss a new framework for climate and energy policy for 2030 in March next year, and calls upon the Commission and ministers to come forward with proposals for strong binding targets for renewable energy, energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Greenpeace wants a renewable energy target of 45% and a greenhouse gas target of at least 55% domestic cuts by 2030.

Contacts:
Frederic Thoma - Greenpeace EU energy policy adviser: +32 (0) 486 401 895, Frederic.Thoma@Greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt - Greenpeace media officer: +32 (0)476 988 584, Edward.Davitt@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

EU sets limits on oil drilling under extreme conditions

edavitt — Tue, 21 May 2013 09:16:00 +0200

Brussels – Greenpeace has cautiously welcomed the support of the European Parliament in its plenary vote today for a new EU law on oil and gas offshore drilling. The law will go some way to ensuring that oil companies limit drilling in harsh conditions such as those that exist in the Arctic, where cleaning up an oil spill is impossible; however long phase-in periods for existing operations leave room for concern.

The new law obliges oil companies to assess the ability to clean up an oil spill in difficult conditions, such as prolonged darkness, ice cover or rough seas, where standard response procedures cannot be used. The agreement also calls for international political action to promote higher standards on prevention, preparedness and response to Arctic oil pollution.

Joris den Blanken, Greenpeace EU spokesperson on the issue:

“This law is a first step towards preventing oil companies from drilling in European waters where clean-up operations would be extremely difficult. EU leaders must now work to set an international ban on Arctic oil drilling, where any effective response to an oil spill is impossible.”

Besides the clear progress on oil spill response requirements, the directive is still weak and would allow discrepancies in the way different EU countries implemented their safety regimes. Greenpeace also regrets that compensation for oil spill damages for affected fishermen or tourism operators is not included in the law, and that existing oil rigs will have a full five years before they must comply with the new rules.

EU governments are now expected to rubberstamp the directive and to implement it when it enters into force. Greenpeace urges EU governments to implement this law in the strictest possible manner, setting in place a real safety regime.

Contacts:
Joris den Blanken – Greenpeace EU climate policy director: +32 (0)476 961375 (mobile), joris.denblanken@greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt – Greenpeace EU communications officer: +32 (0)476 988584 (mobile), Edward.davitt@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Council tables weak deal on EU fisheries reform

edavitt — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:10:00 +0200

Brussels – Another marathon session of negotiations on the reform of EU legislation on fisheries has ended in disappointment, said Greenpeace. The ministers have been meeting in Council since Monday to revise their position on the main points of the reform before going into final negotiations with the European Parliament.

Commenting on the outcome of the meeting, Greenpeace EU fisheries policy director Saskia Richartz said: “The brakes are on so tight that it’s taken months of intense talks for ministers to move just a fraction. The deal submitted today still lacks the determination needed to turn things around for Europe’s fish stocks and fishing communities, but it just about keeps the door open for final negotiations with the European Parliament. Only leadership from the parliament, which has great political and public support behind it, can now steer the reform safely home.”

Main opposition to reform came from Spain, France, Portugal, Greece and Belgium. These countries in particular objected to a target date for the recovery of Europe’s overfished stocks and insisted for loopholes to be worked into a partial ban on discards. The German minister repeatedly pushed for a better deal, while Sweden was the only country to refuse to sign up to the Council position because of a lack of ambition.

The European Parliament and its negotiator, centre-left MEP Ulrike Rodust, will need to decide whether to continue negotiations on the basis of the Council’s position. Unless ministers are willing to compromise, negotiations will be thrown off course and threaten the chances of reforming fisheries rules in 2013.

In a vote in February, the Parliament overwhelmingly supported an overhaul of the rules which have led to decades of overfishing and a decline of the European fishing industry [1]. On the other hand, EU ministers – in particular from large fishing nations – have resisted reforms [2].

Greenpeace supports a target for fish stock recovery by 2020, a trimming of the fishing fleet to sustainable levels, financial penalties for countries that fail to implement the rules, and a strict ban on the wasteful practice of discarding unwanted fish.

Note to editors:

[1] According to the European Commission, around two thirds of European fish stocks are currently fished beyond sustainable levels (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0278:EN:NOT), while one third of European fishing jobs have been lost in the last decade (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SPLIT_SEC:2011:0891%2851%29:FIN:EN:PDF).

[2] Joint NGO statement, Fisheries Council: threat of collapse hangs over fisheries reform: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/threat-of-collapse-hangs-over-fisheries-reform

Contacts:

Saskia Richartz – Greenpeace EU fisheries policy director: +32 (0)495 290028, saskia.richartz@greenpeace.org

Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU communications: +32 (0)496 156229, mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs, follow: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

EU ministers conclude marathon negotiating session on fisheries reform

edavitt — Tue, 14 May 2013 16:37:00 +0200

For the final comment on the outcome of the meeting of fisheries ministers, go to: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/Council-tables-weak-deal-on-EU-fisheries-reform

Brussels – EU fisheries ministers have concluded a marathon session of negotiations on the reform of EU legislation on fisheries. The ministers have been meeting since Monday to revise their position on the main points of the reform before going into final negotiations with the European Parliament.

Greenpeace EU fisheries policy director Saskia Richartz said: “Details of the agreement reached early this morning are still patchy and, as so often in politics, the devil is in the detail. What is clear, despite the efforts of the Irish EU presidency, is that there is still a significant gap between the reluctant stance of some countries and the progressive position of the European Parliament. When ministers speak of ‘real and practical solutions’ they often mean that they have settled for a low level of ambition. The parliament will need to decide whether to continue negotiations on the basis of this take-it-or-leave-it proposal from the Council. It must continue to represent the political and public support behind the recovery of our oceans for Europe to be able to safeguard its marine environment and keep its sustainable fishing sector alive.”

Unless ministers are willing to compromise, negotiations will be thrown off course and threaten the chances of achieving a reform of fisheries rules before European Parliament elections in mid-2014. The Irish EU presidency, which negotiates with Parliament on behalf of EU ministers, has said it would aim secure a final agreement on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy by June this year.

Note to editors:

[2] Joint NGO statement, Fisheries Council: threat of collapse hangs over fisheries reform: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/threat-of-collapse-hangs-over-fisheries-reform

Contacts:

Saskia Richartz – Greenpeace EU fisheries policy director: +32 (0)495 290028, saskia.richartz@greenpeace.org

Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU communications: +32 (0)496 156229, mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs, follow: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Tomorrow's breaking news on EU fisheries reform

mbreddy — Tue, 14 May 2013 07:15:00 +0200

Stormy outlook for European fisheries as short-termism prevails? Or will it be clear skies ahead?20130514 spoof paper fisheries Council CFP reform

A special double-sided edition on the make-or-break meeting of EU fisheries ministers.

Fisheries Council: threat of collapse hangs over fisheries reform

mbreddy — Fri, 10 May 2013 08:58:00 +0200

WHAT? EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council

WHEN? Monday 13 & Tuesday 14 May

WHERE? Brussels, Belgium

[For the final comment on the outcome of the meeting of fisheries ministers, click here.]

Fisheries ministers will meet in Brussels next Monday and Tuesday to revise their position on the reform of EU fishing rules. The reluctance of some countries, including France, Spain and Poland, to find common ground with the Parliament on key issues of the reform is threatening to cause the collapse of negotiations on a new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), warned NGOs.

The Parliament’s negotiator, MEP Ulrike Rodust, has signalled that she would be prepared to compromise, but that a significant strengthening of the Council’s position would be needed to broker a deal [1]. On 6 February, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in support of a comprehensive and ambitious overhaul of the CFP to rebuild fish stocks by 2020, promote low-impact fishing, strengthen fleet management and ban discards [2].

NGOs are calling on the Council to back fish stock recovery by 2020, reduce fishing capacity in accordance with agreed guidelines, support financial penalties for countries that fail to implement the rules and abandon loopholes that weaken the proposed discard ban. A breakdown of negotiations would only satisfy the short-term interest of countries that want to avoid new measures to end overfishing, recover fish stocks and rebuild a sustainable fishing sector, said NGOs.

NGO press invite – Monday photo opportunity:

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ea404aee9c118a31232e854a0&id=d16dfc887f&e=

Fisheries Council agenda:

www.eu2013.ie/media/eupresidency/content/documents/AGRIFISH-Agenda--13-14-May.pdf

www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/137054.pdf

Contacts:

Greenpeace – Mark Breddy: +32 (0)496 156229 - www.greenpeace.eu

WWF – Alexandra Bennett: +32 (0)477 393 400 - www.wwf.eu

Oceana – Angela Pauly: +32 (0)478 03 84 90 - http://oceana.org

OCEAN2012 – Mike Walker: +32 (0)476 622575 - http://ocean2012.eu

BirdLife Europe – Caroline Jacobsson: +32 (0)478 20 62 84 - https://europe.birdlife.org

Notes:

[1] Rodust writes letter to ministers: Parliament is ready to compromise, http://cfp-reformwatch.eu/2013/05/rodust-writes-letter-to-ministers-parliament-is-ready-to-compromise/

[2] Euro MPs back large-scale fishing reform to save stocks, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21352617

	European Parliament position (6 February 2013)	Council position (26 February 2013)
Stock recovery	Seeks to eliminate overfishing by 2015 to recover fish stocks above levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) by 2020 at the latest.	Seeks to eliminate overfishing by 2015 “where possible” and in other cases allow overfishing to continue until 2020; does not include any stock recovery target.
Fleet capacity	Wants member states to: i) annually report their fishing capacity by fleet segment, using Commission guidelines to ensure the quality of reporting is improved; ii) reduce fleet overcapacity. Subsidy payments should be suspended if a country has failed to comply with the above.	Wants member states to: i) annually report their fishing capacity by fleet segment. However, rejects the mandatory use of agreed Commission guidelines; Opposes suspensions of subsidies to countries that have not reported or failed to reduce their fishing capacity.
Low-impact fishing	Promotes low-impact fishing methods, including through preferential access to fishing quotas.	Opposes preferential access for fishermen that use low-impact fishing methods.
Discards	Has expressed zero tolerance for discards; wants discard ban to apply to all fish species.	Accepts only a partial discard ban for species governed by a quota or a minimum landing size (which is the case for just 15 per cent of stocks in the Mediterranean); is pushing for major loopholes, including a maximum discarding rate of 7-9 per cent.

European Parliament position (6 February 2013)

Council position (26 February 2013)

Stock recovery

Seeks to eliminate overfishing by 2015 to recover fish stocks above levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) by 2020 at the latest.

Seeks to eliminate overfishing by 2015 “where possible” and in other cases allow overfishing to continue until 2020; does not include any stock recovery target.

Fleet capacity

Wants member states to:

i) annually report their fishing capacity by fleet segment, using Commission guidelines to ensure the quality of reporting is improved;

ii) reduce fleet overcapacity.

Subsidy payments should be suspended if a country has failed to comply with the above.

Wants member states to:

i) annually report their fishing capacity by fleet segment. However, rejects the mandatory use of agreed Commission guidelines;

Opposes suspensions of subsidies to countries that have not reported or failed to reduce their fishing capacity.

Low-impact fishing

Promotes low-impact fishing methods, including through preferential access to fishing quotas.

Opposes preferential access for fishermen that use low-impact fishing methods.

Discards

Has expressed zero tolerance for discards; wants discard ban to apply to all fish species.

Accepts only a partial discard ban for species governed by a quota or a minimum landing size (which is the case for just 15 per cent of stocks in the Mediterranean); is pushing for major loopholes, including a maximum discarding rate of 7-9 per cent.

MEP proposals for van emissions ask for too little, too slow

edavitt — Tue, 07 May 2013 07:56:00 +0200

Brussels – The European Parliament environment committee today voted to support long-term targets to improve van fuel efficiency and reduce carbon emissions by 2025. However, the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) failed to tighten up the EU’s unambitious 2020 targets, and supported loopholes that would limit improvements in fuel efficiency. The standards for vans also fall far below equivalent emission standards for passenger cars backed by the same MEPs only last month [1].

MEPs supported unambitious targets for vans of 147g CO₂/km for 2020 and a range of 105 g to 120g CO₂/km for 2025. Last month, they supported a 95g CO₂/km target for cars by 2020, which would be equivalent to about 118g CO₂/km for vans [2]. A wide gap between cars and vans targets could also undermine the target for cars through ‘leakage’ – the reclassification of cars as vans so as to avail of the less strict regime. The committee’s support for loopholes known as supercredits also means that each van under 50g CO₂/km would count 1.3 times towards the average fleet target.

In addition, MEPs supported the introduction of speed limiters set at 120km/h for new vans from January 2014. The parliament will now negotiate a final deal with European ministers and the European Commission before the end of June.

Greenpeace EU policy director Franziska Achterberg said: “It is good that MEPs have now supported long term targets for both cars and vans. But with much weaker targets compared to those for passenger cars, van manufacturers are on a slow path to cleaner transport. The introduction of loopholes into the mix means that European vans will not benefit from the innovations that stricter standards have helped bring about in passenger cars. European governments must support stronger targets to encourage technological development and tackle rising emissions from road transport.”

The number of vans on Europe’s roads is steadily increasing [3]. The average emissions of new vans registered in Europe were 179 g/km in 2011 [4].

Notes:

[1] Greenpeace: MEPs bend but do not break under car lobby pressure, 24 April 2013 http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/MEPs-bend-but-do-not-break-under-car-lobby-pressure/

[2] TNO 2012, Assessment of alternative targets and modalities for the CO2 regulation for light commercial vehicles, http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/TNO%202012%20Vans%20report.pdf

[3] Anfac 2010, European Motor Vehicle Parc 2008, http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20100427_EU_Motor_Vehicles_in_Use_2008.pdf

[4] ICCT 2012: European Vehicle Market Statistics, http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Pocketbook_2012_opt.pdf

Contacts:
Franziska Achterberg - Greenpeace EU transport policy director: +32 (0)498 362 403, Franziska.Achterberg@Greenpeace.org
Ed Davitt - Greenpeace media officer: +32 (0)476 988 584 Edward.Davitt@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Employment on board

edavitt — Mon, 06 May 2013 13:00:00 +0200

The world’s oceans cannot withstand the current rate of fishing. In order to ensure the future of marine biodiversity and of those who make their living by it a sustainable fishing model must be established.Employment on Board report

The report On-board employment is the first part of a broader project, designed to examine the present economic and social conditions of the fishing industry and to examine the part played within it of small-scale, as opposed to industrial, fishing methods. This summary shows how the fishing industry has evolved over recent decades and the effects this evolution has had on employment. It also looks at the part small-scale methods play in sustaining fishing communities, and at the extent to which these methods are in danger.

NGOs concerned over threats to block EU fisheries reform

edavitt — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:05:00 +0200

Today, following a meeting with Irish fisheries minister and chair of the EU fisheries Council, Simon Coveney, European civil society and conservation groups expressed their concern about the threat of delays or the possible collapse of negotiations on EU fisheries reform.

A number of countries, including France, Spain, Poland, Lithuania, Greece and Romania, are resisting efforts to find common ground with the European Parliament on key issues such as fleet management and discards. Coveney must not give in to these short-sighted positions but instead re-double his efforts to win agreement with all fisheries ministers for an ambitious reform.

The only issue where the Council is currently showing willingness to compromise with the Parliament is on the subject of stock recovery to levels that can support the so-called maximum sustainable yield.

Recently, the European Parliament overwhelmingly voted for a far-reaching reform that would end four decades of overfishing and set the target to recover fish stocks by 2020. The Commission and millions of EU citizens support this reform and want to see an end to the misuse of taxpayers’ money and improvements in enforcement and fisheries control. Decisions taken by the EU fisheries Council are to blame for many of the failures of the Common Fisheries Policy and have led to a situation in which around two-thirds of European fish stocks are overexploited and almost one-third of fishing jobs have been lost in the last decade alone.

A breakdown of the fisheries reform negotiations under the Irish Presidency would only play into the hands of those countries that want to continue overfishing and avoid new measures to recover fish stocks and rebuild a sustainable fishing sector. The NGOs urge ministers to settle on a compromise that includes a timeline for stock recovery, targeted measures to eliminate excess fishing capacity and the promotion of low-impact fishing.

BirdLife Europe – https://europe.birdlife.org
BirdWatch Ireland – www.birdwatchireland.ie
Greenpeace – www.greenpeace.eu
NEF – the new economics foundation – http://www.neweconomics.org
Oceana – http://oceana.org
Ocean2012 – http://ocean2012.eu
WWF – www.wwf.eu

Press contacts:
Mark Breddy, Greenpeace: +32 (0)496 156229

Mike Walker, OCEAN2012: +353 (0)866 033002

Majority of EU countries support partial ban of bee-killing pesticides

edavitt — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:58:00 +0200

Brussels – A clear majority of EU countries have supported the European Commission proposal to temporarily ban three pesticides that are scientifically shown to be harmful to bees: imidacloprid and clothianidin, produced by chemical company Bayer, and thiamethoxam, produced by Syngenta.

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “Today’s vote makes it crystal clear that there is overwhelming scientific, political and public support for a ban. Those countries opposing a ban have failed. Now, the Commission must draw the only conclusion possible and immediately halt the use of these pesticides as a first step to protect European food production and ecosystems. Any further delay would mean giving in to the lobbying muscle of Bayer and Syngenta.”

The three pesticides are all neonicotinoids, pesticides that are used to coat seeds before germination, added to soil or sprayed on plants.

In scientific reports published earlier this year, which triggered the Commission proposal, the European Food Safety Authority said the three neonicotinoids posed “high acute risks” to honeybees in certain crop uses [1]. Extensive peer-reviewed scientific research has linked even low doses of neonicotinoids with neurological and other physiological damage on bees, as well as with disrupted foraging patterns and damage to immune systems [2]. The European Environment Agency also recently issued a report warning against the consequences of inaction on these pesticides [3].

Ignoring scientific evidence on the toxicity of such pesticides, companies like Syngenta and Bayer have been running an intensive lobbying and public relations campaign in an attempt to delay a ban [4], said Greenpeace. Other pesticides produced by these and other companies also pose a severe threat to bees and other pollinators. A recent Greenpeace report, Bees in Decline, identified seven bee-killing pesticides produced by Syngenta, Bayer, BASF and other companies, four of which are not neonicotinoids [5]. Greenpeace is campaigning to remove these pesticides from the market as a crucial first step to start a move away from industrial farming in Europe.

Partial bans of neonicotinoids are already in place in Italy, France, Germany and Slovenia, with no significant negative impacts on agricultural production.

Greenpeace European bees campaign coordinator Matthias Wüthrich said: "Bee decline is one of the most obvious and visible effects of a failed industrial farming model, which contaminates our environment and destroys farmers' smartest natural ally - pollinators. European policymakers should shift funding away from chemical-intensive agriculture and promote ecological farming."

Notes:

[1] European Food Safety Authority, ‘EFSA identifies risks to bees from neonicotinoids, January 2013.

[2] Science: Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production, A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees; Nature: Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees.

[3] European Environment Agency, January 2013 , Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation II, Chapter 16, Seed‑dressing systemic insecticides and honeybees.

[4] Corporate Europe Observatory, Pesticides against pollinators; ‘Private letters reveal Syngenta and Bayer’s furious lobbying against EU measures to save bees’, 11 April 2013.

[5] Greenpeace Science Unit, April 2013, Bees in Decline.

Contacts:
Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0)477 777 034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org

Greenpeace EU press desk: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

MEPs bend but do not break under car lobby pressure

edavitt — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:03:00 +0200

Brussels, 24 April 2013 – Members of the European Parliament’s environment committee have voted in favour of long-term targets to improve car fuel efficiency and reduce carbon emissions by 2025. But MEPs also voted to weaken the EU’s 2020 target said Greenpeace.

MEPs agreed that average emissions for new cars in 2025 should be within a maximum range of 68-78 grammes of CO2 per kilometre. The exact target, they suggest, should be firmed up before 2017.

Reacting to the vote, Greenpeace EU transport policy director Franziska Achterberg said: “European parliamentarians have shown foresight by backing standards for 2025. This timeline would give carmakers enough time to clean up their act. But the range they indicate is still too high to truly drive investments in technological innovation. Greenpeace is calling for a target of no more than 60g CO2/km in 2025.”

MEPs also backed loopholes [1] that would weaken a previously agreed standard of 95g CO2/km for 2020. These loopholes, known as supercredits, would allow electric cars to count more towards the average emissions of a car fleet than SUVs. The effect of this accounting trick would be to increase carbon emissions, raise costs for drivers and drain the European economy with expensive oil imports. Volkswagen, Europe’s largest carmaker, has already committed to reach the 2020 target without loopholes [2].

“MEPs have fallen into the trap set by carmakers claiming that standards can only be met if they are riddled with loopholes. But carmakers have cried wolf before, proving themselves wrong by innovating faster than they said they could,” [3] added Achterberg.

Greenpeace calls on European governments and the European Commission to back stronger targets for 2025 and to reject loopholes that would weaken the existing 2020 target [4].

The Irish EU presidency has said it aims to broker a deal on car standards between the Parliament, European governments and the Commission by the end of June.

Notes:

[1] Compliance by creative accounting: How supercredits would undermine the EU’s car CO2 standards for 2020 (briefing), www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2013/Supercredits-briefing/

[2] Volkswagen and Greenpeace underline strict CO2 limits for new cars,http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2013/03/Volkswagen_and_Greenpeace_underline_strict_CO2_limits_for_new_cars.html

[3] Tired of hot air? Car industry claims vs. reality (briefing), http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/Global/eu-unit/reports-briefings/2013/A4_myths_reality.pdf

[4] The case for 2025 targets for CO2 emissions from cars and vans (briefing) http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/Global/eu-unit/reports-briefings/2013/20130130%20BR%202025%20car%20emission%20target_final.pdf

Contact:

Franziska Achterberg – Greenpeace EU transport policy director:

franziska.achterberg@greenpeace.org, +32 (0)2 274 1918

Greenpeace EU press desk: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Supercredits briefing

edavitt — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:30:00 +0200

Brussels – In advance of this week’s vote in the European Parliament environment committee on the car CO2 emission standards, Greenpeace is today releasing a briefing and infographic on the effect that so-called supercredits would have on the system. The car industry has convinced a number of decision-makers, including many of the Euro-parliamentarians voting today, to support supercredits.Compliance by creative accounting

Drawing from a recent study from Ricardo-AEA (jointly commissioned by Greenpeace and Transport and Environment), Low Emission Car Measures Under the EU’s CO2 Regulations for Passenger Cars, the attached briefing and infographic show that ‘supercredits’ would only undermine the benefits of the new law and delay the achievement of its 95 gram CO₂/km target by 2020. In particular, the less the EU improves the fuel consumption of European vehicles, the higher the costs that will be borne by drivers.

The briefing outlines why supercredits are the wrong proposal at the wrong time, highlighting their negative effects showing they would result in:

• A worse deal for the climate - more CO2 emissions

• A worse deal for Europe’s economy - higher oil import bills

• A worse deal for consumers - bigger fuel costs

• A worse deal for Europe’s competitiveness - loss of EU leadership on cleaner cars

Contacts:

Franziska Achterberg – EU transport policy director: franziska.achterberg@greenpeace.org, +32 (0)2 274 1918

Ed Davitt – EU communications officer: edward.davitt@greenpeace.org, +32 476 988584 (mobile)

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

EU climate policy suffers major blow

edavitt — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:29:00 +0200

Brussels – The European Parliament rejected in a vote today a modest, short-term fix of the EU carbon market, intended to curb the oversupply of carbon permits.

Greenpeace EU climate policy director Joris den Blanken said: “Today’s vote is a historic failure. In its present form, the carbon market will not stop a single coal plant from being built. As long as EU decision-makers cannot make the European carbon market work, member states should fill the vacuum by introducing national climate measures, such as taxes on coal use and phase-out schemes for coal-based power plants.”

After this vote, the stability of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is in serious doubt - the Parliament rejected the proposal and sent it back to the Environment Committee. Unless the oversupply of emission permits is addressed, it will not serve its central purpose – to dissuade polluters and promote investments in cleaner production. Record low carbon prices have damaged the credibility of the system and allowed a slide back to more polluting energy options, such as coal.

In several EU countries, including Germany, Poland and the Netherlands, new coal‐fired power plants are either planned or under construction, and existing coal plants across Europe could run longer. Burning coal has severe impacts on climate change, local pollution and human health.

Contacts:

Joris den Blanken – Greenpeace EU climate policy director: +32 (0)476 961375 (mobile), joris.den.Blanken@greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt – Greenpeace EU communications officer: +32 476 988584 (mobile), edward.davitt@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Report: Low Emission Car Measures Under the EU’s CO2 Regulations for Passenger Cars

edavitt — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:53:00 +0200

Ricardo-AEA report for Greenpeace and Transport & EnvironmentRicardo-AEA_Low-Emission-Car-Measures_final

Passenger cars and vans together account for more than half of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transport sector in Europe. While GHG emissions from other sectors are generally falling, those from transport have increased by 23% since 1990. In response, the European Union has implemented regulations to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and vans.

This report from Ricardo-AEA, their fourth in a series commissioned by Greenpeace and Transport and Environment, explores the impacts of different systems that are supposed to incentivise more rapid uptake of ULEVs, according to their proponents, to better understand their potential impacts in a range of areas. In particular three main areas that have been explored as part of this study:

1) Analysis of the impacts (on actual CO2 emissions achieved and additional manufacturing costs) of the following supercredit design options, depending on take-up of ULEVs:

a. Qualifying thresholds used to define ULEVs (in gCO2/km).

b. Caps in the numbers of qualifying vehicles.

c. Annual or cumulative credits.

d. The multipliers applied for supercredits.

e. Different uptake scenarios for ULEVs in 2020.

2) Analysis of the impacts (on actual CO2 emissions achieved and additional manufacturing costs) of the following flexible mandate design options, depending on take-up of ULEVs:

a. Qualifying thresholds used to define an ULEV (in gCO2/km).

b. Central, lower and upper thresholds/targets for % sales of ULEV.

3) Analysis of the wider EU-wide impacts of the different supercredit or flexible mandate options in comparison with those for the Commission’s proposal (EC 2012, EC 2012a, EC 2012b) in terms of estimations of:

a. Average new car gCO2/km in 2020.

b. Total car fleet CO2 emissions in 2020 and 2030.

c. Typical fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicle produced in 2020 and 2030, and average annual fuel costs for the whole EU car fleet in 2020 and 2030.

d. The level and cost of oil imports in 2020 and 2030.