Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
ce in November 2011 made a commit-
ment to pursue the goal of having the country
The Danish government that took o
s entire electricity and heat supply
come from renewable sources by 2035. In 2010 the UK launched a Green
Investment Bank, with £3 billion of capital. For the period 2011
'
14, the German
government increased its research and development funding for green technologies
by 75 per cent over the preceding three-year period, partly in response to the
decision to phase out nuclear power generation by 2022.
5
Late in 2011 the EU
agreed to make
-
300 million of Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) revenues avail-
able for CCS and other renewables projects through the EIB. In April 2012 the
British government launched a new £1 billion scheme for the commercialisation
of CCS, and another £125 million for research on CCS.
6
At the UNFCCC Durban summit in December 2011, the EU pushed hard and
on the basis of its proposed accord China, India and the US
€
nally agreed to
emissions targets with legal force
albeit only from 2020. And 35 states agreed to a
second round of post-Kyoto treaty commitments. At the follow-up Doha summit
in December 2012, the EU stressed the positive from what most interpreted as an
underwhelming summit, insisting it had kept doubters on board with preliminary
work towards a new international agreement from 2015.
These all represent signi
-
s general performance
on climate change policy has been far from faultless. Many observers doubt the
logic and impact of the EU
cant advances. However, the EU
'
'
s talismanic
'
20/20/20 by 2020
'
strategy: its arbitrari-
ness is clearly re
ected in the convenience of all the numbers being 20. The EU
decided against moving unilaterally from the 20 to a 30 per cent emissions reduc-
tion target. The e
ect of the economic crisis is such that the 20 per cent emissions
target is now achievable without great e
ort; even the 30 per cent target would
not require much additional reform. Moving from 20 to 30 per cent reductions
would only cost the EU 0.1 per cent of GDP, according to the Commission. Yet
despite this, the EU has promised to increase to a 30 per cent reduction target only
if others follow suit. Moreover, this was not a
rm or ambitious enough commit-
ment to make states like the US calculate that they would be better o
in terms of
net welfare gain by increasing their own o
ers.
7
Emissions targets may be met by
2015, yet several member states refuse to contemplate any revision that would
enjoin meaningful structural change prior to 2020. After the EU agreed to suspend
a tax on non-EU airlines
'
emissions for one year in 2013, member states backed
away from supporting
rm action after the suspension lapsed.
DG Energy has lamented that
'
the quality of National Energy E
ciency Action
.
8
Yet, while the
Plans, developed by member states since 2008, is disappointing
'
2012 energy e
ciency directive has created a new legislative framework, member
states are still to be subjected to binding targets for e
ciency gains. The directive
was watered down to exclude any binding obligations or control mechanisms on
