• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
SPECIAL REPORT: ‘Defuse the Climate Time Bomb’ with Net-Zero by 2040, Guterres Urges G20 March 20, 2023
Devastating Impacts, Affordable Climate Solutions Drive IPCC’s Urgent Call for Action March 20, 2023
Window for 1.5°C ‘Rapidly Closing’, IPCC Warns March 20, 2023
Swift Action, Inclusive Resilience Vital in Face of Overlapping Climate Hazards March 20, 2023
Shift from Fossils to Renewables is Quickest, Cheapest Path to Cut Emissions, IPCC Report Shows March 20, 2023
Next
Prev

EU carbon plan is refused reprieve

April 16, 2013
Reading time: 3 minutes
Primary Author: Paul Brown

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The narrow vote not to approve a proposal for breathing new life into the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has divided opinion, with environment ministers saying they will find a way round the decision. LONDON, 17 April – The rejection by the European Parliament on 16 April of a rescue plan for the European Union’s flagship carbon-trading scheme, the EU ETS, has caused widespread dismay among environmental groups and green industries. The winners were the coal-mining and heavy industries, backed by Eastern European governments, particularly Poland (see our story of 20 February), which believed that paying for carbon credits would damage their competitiveness when the EU is already struggling for growth. The decision, by a narrow margin of 19, with more than 650 MEPs voting, is a severe setback for the EU’s attempts to cut carbon emissions. The pioneer carbon-trading scheme, launched in 2008, was seen as a way of using market forces to both clean up the environment and encourage green industries by forcing factories to modernize. Immediately after the vote the EU’s Council of Environment Ministers vowed it would think of another way of reviving carbon trading to help green technologies. The scheme sets a limit on the amount of carbon each industry or factory can produce and theoretically forces improvements in efficiency by reducing the enterprise’s permit to pollute over time. If industries exceed their limits they have to buy carbon credits from others who have successfully invested in new technology and so reduced their emissions below their targets, and who therefore have “credits” to sell. The market fell apart, however, because EU governments gave in to their powerful industrial lobbies and set very easy-to-meet targets, so much so that some industries made no improvements at all and were still able to meet the limits set. As a result, there were large quantities of carbon credits on the market that gradually fell in value. To be effective, traders say, carbon needs to have a market price of around €50 a tonne, but yesterday, after the Parliament’s decision, the price dropped to less than €3.

Protecting the economy

  To try to rescue the scheme, which runs until 2020, the European Commission had devised a plan called “backloading”, which in effect would have taken quantities of carbon credits off the market. This in turn would have forced the price of the remaining credits back up to a level where industry would have found it cheaper to invest in new technology than to buy them. The MEPs rejected the Commission’s plan by the narrow margin of 334 votes to 315. Poland had lobbied against the plan to protect its vast coal-mining sector. The country’s Environment Minister, Marcin Korolec, called the decision “a vote of reason”, claiming the plan would have slowed economic development. Finnish MEP Eiga-Riitta Korhola said: “In the present economic situation, the decision of backloading would be a wrong signal for households and industries alike. The burden of rising costs is not needed now.” Greenpeace called the vote an “historic failure” to mend the carbon-trading market. Barring a way to curb an oversupply of permits, the ETS cannot “dissuade polluters and promote investments in cleaner production”, said Joris den Blanken, Greenpeace EU policy director. Stephanie Pfiefer, executive director of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, said: “We are disappointed that MEPs have voted against the backloading proposal. “The ETS in its current guise may be flawed, but an EU-wide emissions trading scheme is important. Structured correctly, it can provide the long-term policy certainty necessary to drive low-carbon investment and reduce emissions.” – Climate News Network

  • Be among the first to read The Energy Mix Weekender
  • A brand new weekly digest containing exclusive and essential climate stories from around the world.
  • The Weekender:The climate news you need.
Subscribe



in Climate News Network

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

moerschy / Pixabay
Biodiversity & Habitat

Planetary Weight Study Shows Humans Taking Most of Earth’s Resources

March 19, 2023
27
U.S. Geological Survey/wikimedia commons
Biodiversity & Habitat

Climate Change Amplifies Risk of ‘Insect Apocalypse’

December 1, 2022
48
Alaa Abd El-Fatah/wikimedia commons
COP Conferences

Rights Abuses, Intrusive Conference App Put Egypt Under Spotlight as COP 27 Host

November 14, 2022
27

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

IFRC Intl. Federation:Twitter

Devastating Impacts, Affordable Climate Solutions Drive IPCC’s Urgent Call for Action

March 21, 2023
672
U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement/flickr

Willow Oil Project in Alaska Faces Legal Challenges, Economic Doubts

March 19, 2023
367
Kern River Valley Fire Info/Facebook

SPECIAL REPORT: ‘Defuse the Climate Time Bomb’ with Net-Zero by 2040, Guterres Urges G20

March 20, 2023
131
@davenewworld_2

Keystone Pipeline Safety Worries Lawmakers after TC Energy Ordered to Reduce Operating Pressure

March 19, 2023
247
Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine/Wikimedia Commons

IPCC Report Charts a Course for Ottawa’s ‘Clean Technology’ Budget

March 20, 2023
68
Kenuoene/pixabay

Shift from Fossils to Renewables is Quickest, Cheapest Path to Cut Emissions, IPCC Report Shows

March 20, 2023
68

Recent Posts

U.S. National Park Service/rawpixel

Window for 1.5°C ‘Rapidly Closing’, IPCC Warns

March 20, 2023
43
FMSC/Flickr

Swift Action, Inclusive Resilience Vital in Face of Overlapping Climate Hazards

March 20, 2023
40
Kiara Worth, UNClimateChange/flickr

Gap Between IPCC’s Science, National Actions Sets Challenge for COP 28

March 20, 2023
40
Photo by IISD/ENB

IPCC Sees Deeper Risk in Overshooting 1.5°C Warming Threshold

March 20, 2023
25
EcoFlight

Historic Deal Reopens B.C. Indigenous Territory to Fracking, Promises Land Restoration

March 19, 2023
430
Wikimedia Commons/Humans of Vanuatu

Six Countries Call for Fossil-Free Pacific

March 19, 2023
41
Next Post

The week that's gone: 13 April 2013

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}