Tag Archives: committee
MEPs Approve Proposals To Reduce Biofuels Emissions
Influential Environment Committee backs cap on crop-based fuels and moves to include indirect emissions in EU directives By Will Nichols 11 Jul 2013 EU parliamentarians have approved proposals to limit the contribution of conventional biofuels toward its green transport targets, in a move producers labelled “complex and ineffective”. MEPs in the influential Environment Committee (ENVI) voted 43-26 – with one abstention – to set a cap for fuels made from food crops at 5.5 per cent and include emissions arising from indirect land use change (ILUC) factors such as clearing of forests, wetlands or grasslands in the Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel Quality Directive when calculating official emissions impacts. The commission had already proposed a five per cent cap, roughly equating to current levels, but the EU Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) said last month this should be raised to 6.5 per cent and recommended ILUC factors not be included until the methodology for measuring indirect emissions is more reliable . The cap is designed to accelerate the development of so-called second-generation biofuels, which derive from materials such as waste, agricultural residues or algae, which in theory do not compete with food production but have yet to reach industrial levels of production. The Committee approved proposals that such advanced biofuels should account for at least two per cent of overall consumption by 2020 and, to boost the market share of electric vehicles , electricity produced from renewable sources should also account for two per cent. Green groups have blamed biofuel production for rising food prices and point to a number of research papers that suggest ILUC emissions mean that some forms of biofuel, particular biodiesel made from palm or soybean oil, are worse for the environment than the petrol and diesel fuels they are designed to replace. However, producers argue the science around ILUC calculations is still in its infancy and that the EU should not undermine a £14bn industry on such a premise. Moreover, they argue there is a real threat the EU will not be able to meet its goal of using 10 per cent green energy in transport by 2020 by effectively ruling out 80 per cent of EU biofuels, and warn that by changing the goal posts the move could deter investors in next-generation fuels. Kåre Riis Nielsen, director of European affairs at Danish company Novozymes, which manufacturers enzymes for both first- and second-generation producers, branded the proposals “a complex and ineffective package”. He said the proposals in the ITRE report would be a better way of promoting the best performing biofuels while addressing ILUC issues in a “practical manner”. “Limiting the share of conventional biofuels to 5.5 per cent prevents further growth of the industry and ignores the strong contribution conventional ethanol makes to decarbonise the transport sector even when ILUC is accounted for,” Nielsen said in a statement. “The ENVI Committee has ignored the opinions provided by other Parliamentary Committees… that recommended a more balanced approach allowing conventional biofuels to develop sustainably while incentivising further innovative advanced biofuels. “Today’s vote fails to provide the needed long-term and stable policy framework for industry and investors and would jeopardise the future of best performing biofuels including advanced biofuels industry.” Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth, gave the measures a cautious welcome, but argued that they represented a “timid step” when bolder action was required. “The introduction of ILUC factors is an important decision to ensure that only biofuels that benefit the climate are being supported,” he said. “But it’s disappointing that the committee has not set a trajectory for phasing out the use of food for fuel, but instead chose to cap it at a level that is even higher than current use. “It’s crucial that when the parliament’s plenary votes in September, it must not further water down the current proposal.” Giuseppe Nastasi of ClientEarth, was equally circumspect, arguing a five per cent cap is still too high to prevent ILUC emissions, “Moreover, MEPs voted to subsidise some advanced biofuels made from environmentally dangerous materials such as industrial and municipal waste (with the exception of a few waste streams), plus forestry and agricultural residues whose use endangers biodiversity and soil fertility,” he added. “This will have to be corrected by Parliament on 10th September.” However, Nusa Urbancic, clean fuels manager at campaign group Transport & Environment, said the proposals would promote the production of “genuinely emissions reducing transport fuels” including advanced biofuels and renewable electricity for electric vehicles. “It is encouraging to see that MEPs in charge of protecting our environment finally addressed the elephant in the room by fully accounting for indirect emissions in the EU biofuels policy. This vote will pave the way for truly sustainable transport fuels, which actually reduce emissions , as of 2020,” she said. “The full European Parliament now needs to uphold in September the science-based decision made by the Environment Committee. Otherwise, public support worth at least €10bn a year will continue to be wasted on harmful biofuels that in many cases pollute twice as much as conventional fuels.” Continue reading
Day 2 Of House RFS Hearing Focuses On Agriculture, Food
Taylor Scott International Continue reading
Parliament Committee Votes To Prop Up EU’s Ailing Carbon Market
Published 20 June 2013 The European Parliament’s Environment Committee has given its support to a compromise plan to boost the price of allowances on the EU’s carbon market. To become law, the proposal to temporarily remove some of the glut of permits that has weighed on prices still needs to win backing from a plenary session of the parliament next month in Strasbourg, and from EU member states. Traders said the market had already priced in a positive vote and allowances on the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) fell by 3.6% to €4.53 a tonne short after the vote on Wednesday (19 June). After a defeat of the proposal in a full session of the European Parliament in April, the carbon price fell to a record low of less than €3 a tonne. British MEP Chris Davies, spokesman for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe on the committee, indicated that the deal was far from perfect. In a statement after the vote, he said the plan “amounts to little more than a modest regulatory adjustment. It will maintain the operation of carbon trading but it will not provide a driving force to promote long-term low-carbon investments.” “We still need to agree on clear targets for Europe’s CO 2 reductions by 2030 to give investors greater certainty”, Davies said, “and we urgently need to secure a global agreement on measures to tackle climate change.” Green groups welcome deal Campaigners welcomed the yes vote, although environmentalists say the proposal is very weak and will have a limited impact on prices. But they hope it will be a stepping stone towards deeper structural measures, such as the permanent withdrawal of some carbon permits. “With this vote the Environment Committee has sent an important political signal: there is still commitment to the EU’s flagship climate policy,” said Rob Elsworth of the campaign group Sandbag. The carbon market plan was meant to be a quick fix for a market that has hit a series of record lows far below levels of €40 to €50 needed to drive a shift to lower carbon energy. The proposal has met fierce resistance from heavy industry, which complains about anything that drives up the cost of energy in difficult economic times, and from Poland, whose economy depends on coal. Germany has failed to take a stand ahead of elections in September. Carbon prices have reacted to the twists and turns of the debate, which has dragged on for years. Price swings, often in excess of 10%, have been exaggerated by the weakness of the market. POSITIONS: Eurofer , the European steel industry association, voiced scepticism about the vote, saying backloading was an “unnecessary intervention” in the EU carbon market and that greater attention should be paid to industrial competitiveness instead. “The EU emissions trading scheme is working as it should and Europe is well on track to meet its 2020 reduction targets,” says Gordon Moffat , director-general of the European Steel Association. “Instead of artificially raising carbon costs the Commission must address the competitive disadvantages for industry resulting from European climate and energy policies.” There were some modifications brought by the Parliament’s vote which Eurofer welcomed as satisfactory, however. These include provisions to reintroduce carbon allowances that have been withheld from one year to the next and a new financing mechanism to reserve 600 million allowances for the development of innovative low-carbon technologies. “Of course these modifications might be regarded as improvements compared to the original version. It seems that there is less risk now of emissions allowances being removed from the market permanently,” Moffat said. “Still, the proposal represents market interference as well as additional, artificial increases in energy prices. It would have been more helpful if all the political energy that went into meddling with the ETS would have been invested in policies that strengthen the competitiveness of European industry.” Oxfam , the global anti-poverty group, said the Parliament committee vote had “sent a signal to markets that EU climate policy is here to stay”. However, it criticised the compromise deal for weakening the European Commission’s original proposal “substantially”. Lies Craeynest , Oxfam’s EU climate change expert, said: “The upcoming structural reform of the ETS will need to be much more ambitious to help stave off dangerous climate change which threatens the food security of millions around the world. “The proposal for a new fund makes lots of sense but it should be aimed at funding real climate solutions at home and meeting the EU’s promises to help poor countries deal with climate change abroad, rather than propping up energy-intensive industries.” NEXT STEPS: 1-4 July : European Parliament to vote on proposal at a plenary session in Strasbourg. Continue reading