EU-US Summit Facts Brief No. 7
CLIMATE CHANGE
The aim of all parties is to reduce the global level of greenhouse gas
emissions. The European Union believes this requires action by industrialised
countries primarily at the domestic level and that we should all be working
out how to reduce emissions in our own countries.
Targets
The United States proposes the stabilisation of all greenhouse gases
at the 1990 level by years 2008 to 2010 for all industrialised country
parties.
The EU proposes reductions from 1990 levels of at least 7.5% by 2005
and of 15% by 2010 for CO2, CH4 and N20 as a basket to be achieved by
industrialised country parties individually or jointly. HFC, PFC and SF6
should be added to this basket not later than the year 2000.
Flexibility
Targets as such are less significant than the real effectiveness of the
agreement in reducing emissions including using such flexible instruments
as emissions trading and joint implementation.
The US wants emissions trading to begin at once under the Protocol
without specified conditions for its application. Their emissions trading
would include banked emission reductions (so called “hot air”)
of Russia and Central and East European countries although these arise
from the downturn in their economies.
The EU does not oppose flexibility instruments in principle, provided
they are allied to strong targets. Trading should not be the main means
of achieving reductions: this should be domestic action. Modalities and
guidelines should be set for emissions trading by the first Meeting of
the Parties. The EU is concerned about allowing hot air to be traded.
If hot air accumulated by the economies in transition before 2008 could
be traded in, there would simply be enough CO2 quotas around to allow
the parties to meet any target on paper without taking any direct action.
Differentiation
Having previously favoured a flat rate target for industrialised country
parties, the US stated on December 1 that it was “prepared to consider
the possibility of limited carefully bounded differentiation."
The EU is not opposed to differentiation in principle, but continues
to believe that the most efficient and fairest method for achieving reductions
will be a flat rate target to be achieved individually or jointly. Under
almost any differentiation formula, the US, with its high per capita emissions,
would have to agree to a higher target than the EU.
The EU bubble
The European Community and its Member States have no choice but to act
jointly. This is because the competence for implementing the Convention
is divided between the Community and the Member States. Both would have
to be Parties to the Protocol. This is the basis of the Union’s participation
in the Convention itself and in numerous other similar international agreements.
Joint achievement has no economic advantage for the EU. The Community
would have the same combined total of emissions reductions as it proposes
for the US.
On enlargement of the Community, the targets of the EC and of the adhesion
countries would either remain separate until renegotiation or the tonnages
for the adhesion countries would be added to the European Union’s
pre-enlargement target keeping the combined level unchanged. The EU is
not proposing that earlier reductions or “hot air” should be
taken into account.
If the Union fails to meet its combined level of emissions, both the
Community and those Member States who missed their internal burden shares
would be legally responsible at the international level. This is stricter
than what is proposed for other parties who make such agreements. Their
responsibility would be limited to the new target notified under the agreement
.
Back to EU-US Summit Index
