Environmentalists' uproar over EU summit

BRUSSELS, March 25 (UPI) -- Environmental lobbyists are voicing strong opposition over the European Commission's summit conclusions, claiming that EU leaders have failed to set long-term deadlines to meet target objectives after the Kyoto Protocol expires.

"Setting long-term targets is what businesses need when planning investments, and this is particularly crucial for the energy sector, whose today's choices have effects for several decades," said Martin Rocholl, director of Friends of Earth Europe, an environmental group based in Brussels.

The commission was expected during its two-day summit meeting this week in Brussels to discuss the future of the emissions reduction process under the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol agreement. The agreement, which expires in 2012, aims at reducing emission targets and maintaining an annual global surface temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

While the commission agreed Wednesday to control rises in the earth's surface temperature under the Kyoto pact and backed ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, EU leaders dropped its long-term target for 2050, despite agreements by environmental ministers earlier this month. Germany, Austria and Italy opposed setting the long-term targets citing economic reasons.

Environmental minister agreed during the March 10th summit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 to 20 percent by 2020 and to further reduce emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050 in developed countries.

The decision by the commission to drop the 2050 long-term target has caused much dissent by environmental business organizations, which claim that without a long-term target date the European economy will suffer while making it even more difficult to reduce emissions in the future.

"Putting more emphasis on Kyoto, and that must always mean looking at the needed structural changes now in order to achieve further reductions after 2012, would benefit innovation, employment and competition in a world that is slowly waking up to the challenge of climate change and will more and more look for low-carbon and highly efficient technologies," said Rocholl of Friends of Earth Europe.

The organization argues that without structural changes to combat global warming economic progress will stagnate making it even more difficult to achieve further emissions reductions in the future.

Earlier this month, European Commissioner of Energy, Stavros Dimas alluded to the possibility that target dates may not be set during the summit meeting.

"We have to ask ourselves when -- in political terms -- is the most opportune moment for committing ourselves to quantitative reduction targets," said Dimas. "I believe there are pros and cons with early action."

"Through targets, we set the agenda for the post-2012 debate and we give certainty to our industry. On the other hand, setting ambitious targets at this moment in time risks "leaving others behind" or scaring them off in the climate change negotiations," Dimas added.

Prior to the start of the summit, the World Wildlife Fund European Policy office, urged EU leaders to support the decision by environmental ministers to create concrete long-term climate target dates.

"This is what has to be done if the EU wants to keep global leadership in the climate change policy," said Dr. Stephan Singer, head of WWF European climate and energy policy unit. "If the European Union cannot agree on a road map for post-2012 targets, who could provide global leadership on this issue?"

"European heads of states and government should not sabotage the recommendations of their environment ministers. This would undermine the credibility and the global reputation of the European Union," added Singer.

The European Union has been the front-runner in combating climate change, acting as the lead implementer of the environmental treaty. The EU has pledged to lower its global emissions to 15 percent over the next two decades.

Aside from the long-term targets, environmental business organizations like the European Environmental Bureau have argued that the commission's conclusions did not address the issue of concrete measures to create better market conditions for eco-innovation.

"This is a missed opportunity that must be corrected at the December council when a revised sustainable development strategy is going to be discussed," said John Hontelez, Secretary General of the European Environmental Bureau.

The EEB has worked steadily with environmental ministers on green procurement initiatives, which would phase out environmentally hazardous subsidies, environmental tax reform and the green risk capital. The environmental business group argues that by ending subsidies the European economy would be transformed, increasing competitiveness and creation of jobs.

"EU leaders didn't actively seek concrete steps, apart from the decision on climate change," said Hontelez.

"If you would abolish subsidies, then you would send a different signal to governments to make it a more action issue and change public purchasing behavior," said Hontelez.

While the EEB and environmental ministers agree on a majority of issues, Hontelez says, the difference lies in that ministers have been unwilling to set deadlines.

"We received the support from the Environmental Council, as well as, the European trade unions and social NGOs for this approach. The Luxembourg Presidency was very positive about these ideas," added Hontelez.

"But it seems that the European Council prefers to stay with very abstract notions with what needs to be done."