[ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

- having regard to the Commission Communication 'A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (COM(2011)0112),

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3

– having regard to its ~~previous resolutions regarding climate change, in particular its~~ resolution of 25 November 2010 on the climate change conference in Cancun (COP16),

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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,deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas, in the context of the international negotiations, the Climate Change Conference in Cancun (COP16) last December failed to make tangible progress as regards binding short or medium-term commitments by all the industrialised and emerging economies;

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas the International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that in the period 2008-2030 global demand for fossil fuels will increase by 40%, particularly in emerging and developing countries, where CO2 emissions will increase by around 45% by 2030;

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)

Ad. whereas, furthermore, a recent study commissioned by the Federation of German Industries (BDI) maintains that a reduction in emissions at national level will increase abatement costs substantially and will prove ineffective if other countries which emit large quantities of CO2 massively increase their production;

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas at negotiating level the EU has undertaken to increase its target for greenhouse gas emissions reduction to 30%, provided that a global international agreement can be reached under which all industrialised countries undertake to make equivalent commitments in terms of the effort required of their respective economies and the burdens imposed on their production sectors;

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the global carbon budget that is likely to meet the 2°C objective is about 800 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2005 and 2050; whereas the EU’s share of the global population in 2050 is projected at 5.7%,deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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,~~deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas, in this connection, the EU has expressed its desire to sign a ‘Kyoto- 2’, but the Commission has said that to give such an undertaking without the support of the major emitter countries would be a strategic error for Europe and would not bring benefits in environmental terms;

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas emission trading schemes (ETS) are potentially effective in reducing global emissions, but are not the only available approach or model,

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the lower carbon price will 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,deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the economic and financial crisis has drastically reduced the capacity of firms to invest in the low carbon technologies needed to transform energy production and use in Europe in the coming decades;

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas, according to the Commission, stepping up effort to 30% while the other countries retain their low pledges would have a limited incremental impact on the EU’s energy intensive industry, as long as the special measures for industry stay in place,deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

~~1. Welcomes the Commission Communication demonstrating that stepping up to a 30% target is technically feasible and economically affordable;~~deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Considers that the Commission Communication ~~demonstrating that stepping up to a 30% target is technically feasible and economically affordable~~‘Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage’ (COM(2010)0265) should be updated, taking into account the recent communication ‘A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (COM(2011)0112);

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcome~~Rejects the Commission Communication ~~demonstrating that stepping up to a 30% target is technically feasible and economically affordable~~‘Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage’ (COM(2010)0265);

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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 2011;~~deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to give due consideration to the fact that the immediate effects of the current costs of the EU climate and energy package will be to increase the final electricity price to consumers, while the frequently vaunted benefits of innovation and efficiency all remain to be verified;

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

~~Analysis of the 20 % target today~~deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that, according to climate science, limiting climate change to an average of 2°C does not guarantee avoiding significant adverse climate impacts, but overshooting 2°C is likely to multiply adverse impacts and increase the likelihood of reaching tipping points where temperature levels begin to force the release of naturally trapped carbon from sinks such as forests and permafrost, and limit the ability of nature to absorb carbon in the oceans;deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that, according to IPCC 4AR, to have a 50% chance of limiting climate change to 2°C industrialised countries need to reduce their emissions by 25-40% by 2020; points out that the EU’s current target is not in line with its 2°C objective;deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2011/03/31
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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 2050 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;deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Stresses that delaying 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;~~deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

~~8. Points out that, according to the Commission analysis, the surplus of allowances in the ETS will correspond to around 2.4 billion banked allowances and unused international credits in 2020;~~deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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 role in driving emission reductions and deployment of low- emission technologies in the sectors it covers;deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

~~10. Notes that, due to the surplus and low carbon price, the auction of allowances will also not mobilise resources for climate investments as expec~~deleted;

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2

~~Options and tools to move beyond the 20% target~~deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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 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;deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

~~12. Supports the Commission analysis that cost-effective sharing of the additional effort between ETS and non- ETS sectors remains the same as under the climate package;~~deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Concurs with the Commission analysis that moving to a 30% reduction target with cost-efficient effort sharing between ETS and non-ETS, and a 25% domestic effort (the rest with offsets), would correspond to an ETS cap reduction of 1.4 billion allowances;deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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 contribute;~~deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Recognises that some of the most cost- effective reduction potential is found in Member States that are currently below the EU average for GDP per capita, and that public intervention to facilitate financing of initial investments is likely to be necessary to achieve reductions in the non-ETS sectors; stresses the need for EU financial mechanisms to be revised to trigger cost-effective GHG reductions in the EU;deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls for specific targets for 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 accurate monitoring and accounting;deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Reiterates that EU reduction targets need to be primarily achieved within the EU; recalls that the use of international offsets replaces investment into the EU economy and delays domestic reductions in the EU;deleted

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Stresses that climate protection can be effective only if all the major national economies and industries take part in the effort through a binding international agreement establishing a fair distribution of the burdens, and ensuring the competitiveness of national economies so as to avert the real risk of European productive activities being relocated;

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)

18c. Notes that in general European firms have already taken measures to achieve emission reductions, not only in the EU but also at global level, through the creation of innovative products and solutions; calls for these measures to be properly supported by national and European policies designed to bring together measures to address climate change and energy challenges as part of a long-term strategy, with the direct involvement of both the public and private sectors, yet without placing additional burdens on undertakings or fuelling possible distortions of competition;

2011/05/02
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)

18d. Takes the view that in order to reduce emissions globally, the ETS will be a fully effective tool provided that it is adopted by all the major world economies and backed up by other tools (such as voluntary agreements, tax measures, etc.), to be considered on the basis of national priorities and capacities;

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Reiterates that it is vital to bridge the gap between the voluntary nature of the international commitments undertaken by non-EU countries and the recognition of a legally binding international system;

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3

~~Co-benefits and impacts~~deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Is convinced that the advantage of acting earlier contributes to significant long-term benefits for Europe’s competitiveness, by maintaining a strong position in a rapidly growing global market for clean technologies;deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Reminds the EU and the Member States of their duty to support greater investment in R&D and to provide an appropriate long-term general political framework to ensure that the more economically efficient carbon reduction technologies are developed on a large scale and within a very short time frame;

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)

19b. Highlights the need for the EU and the Member States to incorporate policies on climate, energy, industry and technology into an organic, comprehensive framework; within that framework, all economic and social stakeholders will have to play their role and efforts should be required not only of the industrial sector (and ETS sectors in particular) but also of other sectors such as transport and construction, and of civil society as a whole;

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

~~20. Considers that a move to a 30% climate target for 2020 would restore the incentives for innovation lost by the easing of the 20% target;~~deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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 fosb up to 6 million additional jobs in Europe;deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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, in the best-case scenario, foster up to 61.5 million additional jobs in Europe;

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Considers that, while moving to a more ambitious climate target does have primarily a 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;deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Emphasises the size of co-benefits related to improved air quality, estimated by the Commission at between EUR 6.3 billion and EUR 22 billion per year in 2020 without taking into account co- benefits related to reduced costs from illnesses; notes that, according to additional analysis, the health and air pollution co-benefits of a move to a 30% target increase this to a range of EUR 6.3 to EUR 35.8 billion, with the higher end being achieved when reduction efforts are domestic;deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Emphasises the size of co-benefits related to improved air quality, estimated by the Commission at between EUR 6.3 billion and EUR 22 billion per year in 2020 without taking into account co-~~Points out that there is no direct link between the benefits related to gre~~duced costs from illnesses; notes that, according to addi~~enhouse gas emission reductionals an~~alysis, the health and air pollution~~d the co- benefits ~~of a move to a 30% target increase this to a range of EUR 6.3 to EUR 35.8 billion, with the higher end being achieved when reduction efforts are domestic~~related to improved air quality or reduced pollutants;

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Notes the Commission analysis that achieving a 30% reduction target will reduce imports of oil and gas by some EUR 40 billion in 2020, assuming an oil price of USD 88 per barrel in 2020; considers that this oil price estimate is likely to be very conservative, as the Inbnational Energy Agency (2010) predicts an oil price of USD 108 by 2020, which would increase the estimated benefits of lower energy imports by more than 20%;deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Reiterates that in order to improve energy efficiency, all the various energy options need to be pursued in order to promote a neutral, balanced and non- discriminatory mix that includes traditional, renewable and nuclear energy sources;

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

~~25. Emphasises that the co-benefits of emissions reductions only occur for emissions reductions achieved inside the EU and where there is a strong emphasis on increased energy efficiency investment;~~deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

~~26. Concludes that stepping up to a 30% target has more benefits than costs for EU citizens and a domestic achievement of the reduction targets would bring the highest overall benefit;~~deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4

~~Assessing the risk of carbon leakage~~deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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 betb position for inbnational competition compared with 2008;deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
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;~~deleted

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

Oreste ROSSI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Concurs ~~with the Commission analysis that~~that it would be advisable to introduce border adjustment measures or includ~~ing~~e 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;

2011/04/01
Committee: ENVI

60 Amendments of Oreste ROSSI related to 2011/2012(INI)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024