25 Amendments of Holger KRAHMER related to 2011/2012(INI)
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EU's climate objective is to limit climate change to 2°C above the pre- industrial level; whereas the climate package adopted in December 2008 represents a first step towards ensuring EU action in line with this objective; whereas countries representing some 80% of global emissions have pledged to reduce emissions, although the Parties to the UNFCCC acknowledged in Cancun that current pledges are insufficient to meet the 2°C objective,. Taking into account that the Cancun conference did not reach a global agreement to turn these pledges into legally binding targets and the European Union is still the only large economic community having adopted unilateral emissions reduction targets.
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, according to the European Environmental Agency,Commission Communication the one-off reduction in emissions due to the economic crisis meant that in 2009, the EU's greenhouse gas emissions were 17.3% lower than i emitted around 14 % less greenhouse gases than 1990,
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the International Energy Agency has estimated that the EU's share of the global emissions was 13% in 2010 and will be 9% in 2030,
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas action by the EU alone will not be enough to combat climate change,
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, due to the economic crisis, emissions fromthe production and investment ability of sectors in the EU emissions trading system (ETS) as well as their emissions have been considerably lower than projected, and below the level of initial allocation,
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the general objective of the Emissions Trading Directive (2003/87/EC) is to promote reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in a cost- effective and economically efficient manner in order to combat climate change,
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the current lower carbon price willmay have a significant impact on investment decisions and will reduce the revenues from auctioning allowances for financing climate action in the EU and in developing countries,
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the Commission to come forward with proposals to move to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020 as soon as possible, and at the latest by the end of 2011ensuring that the climate and energy targets already set for 2020 are achieved;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the CommissReiterates that the European Union tohas come forwarmitted with proposals to move to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020 as soon as possible, and at the latest by the end of 2011self to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, or 30% if other industrialised and emerging countries follow suit;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Points out that the EU’s main priority should be to convince other partners in the world of the merits of making their own commitments on reductions that may even exceed those set out in the Copenhagen Agreement;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that the EU needs to step up its efforts from 2020 onwards and in this respect it could make sense to identify an intermediate target for 2030, for example; calls on the Commission to develop specific instruments to achieve these goals in the most cost-effective way;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that the European Council is not in favour of stepping up to a 30% reduction target without the participation of developed countries and other major emitters of greenhouse gases in an ambitious international agreement on climate change;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that, according to the Commission analysis, the surplus of allowances in the ETS due mainly to the economic crisis will correspond to around 2.4 billion banked allowances and unused international credits in 2020;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recognises that investment in green technologies depends heavily on the price signal delivered by the carbon market and concludes therefore that, under the current 20% target, the ETS will have a very limited rolerole which the ETS will play in driving emission reductions and deployment of low-emission technologies in the sectors it covers cannot currently be predicted with any certainty, as the forecast range for the carbon price is quite wide;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that, according to the Commission analysis, stepping up to the 30% reduction target with 25% domestic effort now represents an increase of EUR 11 billion as compared to 2008 projections for the absolute costs of the climate and energy package in 2020; notes the Commission assessment that this will raiseCommunication the additional total costs for the EU to step up from the current 20% to 30% are estimated to be around EUR 33 billion in the year 2020; notes the Commission assessment that in order to achieve this 30% reduction, it is estimated that the carbon price in the EU ETS would amount to some EUR 30/tonne of CO2, i.e. similar to the level estimated necessary for the 20% reduction target in 2008;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Recognises that the economic crises has reduced the ability of the EU economy to invest in low carbon technologies;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Deplores the lack of measures to capture thStresses again that, in particular, improvements in energy efficiency offer considerable negative-cost greenhouse gasemission reduction potential in energy and resource efficiency, and that a substantial number of climate protection measures consequently exist which pay for themselves simply thanks to the lower energy costs associated with them; calls for strict application of the least lifecycle cost principle in implementing measures under the Eco- design Directive and for the Commission to review the methodology to consider alignment to a ‘top-runner’ approach;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Deplores the lack of measures to capture the negative-cost greenhouse gas reduction potential in energy and resource efficiency; calls for strict application of the least lifecycle cost principle in implementing measures under the Eco- design Directive and for the Commission to review the methodology to consider alignment to a ‘top-runner’ approach, but warns for the risk of overregulation and stresses that the freedom of choice of consumers should be duly respected;
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Considers that shutting down nuclear power plants will lead to an increase of greenhouse gas emissions; recognises that this element should be taken into account when analysing the options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that European eco-industries employ approximately 3.4 million (FTE), which is tthe Commission Communication men timeons the figure for direct employment in the EU steel sector in 2007; points out that, according to recent studies, raising the EU climate target to 30% can foster up to 6 million additional jobs in Europat stepping up to a 30% reduction target generally shows small overall effects on employment according to macro-economic analysis, but that smart use of auctioning revenues or carbon taxes changes the picture;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes that energy-intensive sectors are likely to end up with a very considerable number of unused freely allocated allowances at the end of the second ETS period in 2012, which can then be carried over to 2013-2020 phase, putting them into a comparatively better position for international competition compared with 2008Points out that, according to the Commission Communication, companies will be able to carry over some 5-8% of their allowances from the 2008–2012 period into the third phase of the ETS (2013-2020), because many allowances were unused during the crisis;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27b. Recognises that the burden of industries covered by the EU-ETS will increase in the 2013-2020 phase, as a result of the Commission decision on benchmarking, the cross-sectoral correction factor and because of higher electicity prices,
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Notes that the USA, Japan and Australia for the time being abandoned the idea of having a trading and capping system for greenhouse gas emissions;
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Remains concerned about the large potential for windfall profits undermining public acceptance of the EU's climate policy and points to lack of evidence of any delocalisation; points out, however, that the EU carbon market should be free from intervention or regulation by the public authorities;
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Concurs with the Commission analysis thatStresses that for any potential future border adjustment measures or includingsion of imports in the ETS would, these need to be combined with full auctioning to the sectors concerned; considers that such a system could be envisaged especially for some standardised commodities, such as steel or cement, and electricity;secure a full level playing field for European companies and recognition by the EU’s trading partners.