37 Amendments of Eija-Riitta KORHOLA related to 2011/2012(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
- having regard to the Commission Communication ‘A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’(COM(2011)0112),
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
Citation 5 b (new)
- having regard to the Commission Communication on Energy Efficiency Plan 2011(COM(2011)0109),
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, according to the European Environmental Agency, in 2009 the EU's greenhouse gas emissions were 17.3% lower than in 1990; however stresses that this includes the effect of the economic crisis,
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, due to the economic crisis, emissions from sectors in the EU emissions trading system (ETS) have been considerably lower than projected, and below the level of initial allocation, but also the industries investment potential has been reduced at the same time; Notes, that the recovery of the European industries has again increased the activity;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas Article 1 of the Emissions Trading Directive (2003/87/EC) “establishes a scheme for GHG allowance trading within the Community in order to promote reductions of GHG emissions in a cost-effective and economically efficient manner.”
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the temporary lower carbon price will have a significantn impact on investment decisions and will reduce the revenues from auctioning allowances for financing climate action in the EU and in developing countries,
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, according to the Commission, stepping up effort to 30% while the other countries retain their low pledges wouldill have a limited incrementaln impact on the EU's energy intensive industry, as long aswhich needs to be mitigated by the special measures for industry stay in place,
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the 2010 Commission Communication demonstrating that stepping up to a 30% target is technically feasible and economically affordable; however acknowledges that data has changed in the recently published Commission 2050 Roadmap,
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 95 #
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 2011include an assessment of a cost efficient 2020 reduction potential in its assessments for the 2050 Roadmap;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the European Council has recognised that further reductions in the range of 80-95% by 2050 as compared to 1990 are necessary; points out that a linear trajectory between 2009 and 2050 would result in a 2020 target in the range of 34-38% as compared to 1990;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates that cumulative emissions are decisive for the climate system; notes that even with a pathway of 30% reductions in 2020, 55% in 2030, 75% in 2040 and 90% in 2050hen meeting the 2050 targets the EU would still be responsible for approximately double its per capita share of the global 2°C compatible carbon budget, and that delaying emissions reductions increases the cumulative share significantly;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that delaying global and European climate action would result in higher costs for achieving the 2050 target due to stranded investment in high-carbon capital stock and slower technological learning;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that, according to the 2010 Commission analysis, the surplus of allowances in the ETS will correspond to aroundcould be up to 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 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recognises that investment in green technologies depends heavilyamongst others on the price signal delivered by the carbon market and concludes therefore that, under the current 20% target, the ETS willfor which reason a low carbon price haves a very limitedsmaller role in driving emission reductions and deployment of low- emission technologies in the sectors it covers;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that, due to the surplus and low carbon price, the auction of allowances will alsomight not mobilise resources for climate investments as expected;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes that the average carbon price forecast for the third trading period is at about 28 Euro with 36 Euro in the year 2020, while the forecast of the modelling of the Commissions 2010 communication is at 16.50 Euro.
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that, according to the 2010 Commission analysis, stepping up to thea 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 raise the carbon price in the EU ETS to some EUR 30/tonne of CO2, i.e. similar to the level estimated necessary for the 20% reduction target in 2008;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. SupportsCalls upon the Commission analysisto regularly analyse and to ensure that the cost-effective sharing of the additional effort between ETS and non-ETS sectors remains the same as under the climate package;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes the option of implementing the change in the ETS through cancelling allowances assigned for auctioning; considers however that all sectors should contribut; stresses however that a stable and predictable EU ETS is essential to investment decisions, which is not in line with cancelling carbon allowances in order to politically steer the carbon price;
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 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for specific targets forthe Commission to investigate the role of the EU land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), ensuring permanence and the environmental integrity of the sector's contribution to emissions reductions as well as sector in its assessment of future climate change policy including accurate monitoring and accounting;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that a move to a 30% climate target for 2020 would restore the incentives for innovation lost by the easing ofincreasing the necessary efforts on energy efficiency are the way forward to meet the 20%20 targets and even surpass them;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that European eco-industries employ approximately 3.4 million (FTE), which is ten times 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 Europeclimate change policy will lead to a restructuring of the EU economy, increasing jobs in one sector of the economy but decreasing jobs in another as a long term employment balance is by definition neutral;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Observes that more and more countries worldwide have already recognised the opportunity afforded by climate technologies and environmental technologies and are converting their economies accordingly, more than is the case in Europe; notes in this connection promising developments, for example China’s new Five Year Plan, which provides for accelerated expansion of markets for environmental technologies, or the Meseberg decisions adopted in Germany;
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Considers that, while moving to a more ambitious climate target doescan have primarily aa short term positive impact on job creation, measures should be taken to facilitate structural change and labour-force retraining in communities with a large- scale loss of high carbon employment and also to ensure new growth sectors have sufficient access to appropriately skilled labour;
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Draws attention to the fact that, in addition to developing new climate technologies, disseminating them is decisive; calls on the Commission to take action in this field too, for example by creating new financing arrangements;
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Concludes that stepping up to a 30% target has more benefits than coshe 2020 climate target has both costs and benefits for EU citizens and a domestic achievement of the reduction targets wouldmight bring the highest overall benefit;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes that some installations in energy-intensive sectors are likely to end up with a very considerable number of unused freely allocatcould end up with unused allowances at the end of the second ETS period in 2012, which can then be carried over to 2013-2020 phase, putmitigating them into a comparatively better position for international competition compared withmpact of the benchmarks in place for emission trading after 200812;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Notes that installations representing a very large majority of the non-power sector emissions covered by the ETS have been granted free allocation up to a product specific benchmark on the basis of high pre-recession production levels for the entire period up to 2020; however notes that only the best 5% of companies in such a benchmark could receive a level of allocation needed to meet the emissions, whereas 95% of the installations will have to buy credits; notes that allocation will be based on the basis of high pre-recession production levels for the entire period up to 2020; however notes that this does not apply to all sectors and companies in an equal way and a number of sectors are already recovering from the crisis and back at 2008 production levels;
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Notes that the actual amount of allocation is a distribution issue as the total cap for industry is fixed and any ‘overallocation’ to industry as a whole can not occur as it is capped directly by the cross sectoral reduction factor;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Remains concerned about the large potential for windfall profits and the ongoing uncertainty and discussion on the ETS undermining public acceptance of the EU's climate policy and points to lack of evidence of any delocalisation;
Amendment 348 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Concurs with the Commission analysis that border adjustment measures or including imports in the ETS would 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;delete
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Calls upon the Commission to assess the findings of a recent study that the CO2 emitted domestically and consumed via imported goods increased in the EU by 47% between 1990 and 2006 and to analyse to which extent this had carbon leakage or similar effects on the ETS sectors and non-ETS sectors;
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Supports investigating in the future revision of the EU ETS after 2020 the possibility of applying a more targeted approach to any use of offsets, and restricting the use of CDM credits generated in energy-intensive sectors in countries other than the least developed countries, initially through measures such as the application of a multiplier, for instance requiring two CDM credits to be surrendered per tonne emitted in the ETS;