How to reach sustainable development which meets the social and economic aspirations of developing countries while at the same time avoiding the dangers of e.g. global warming? The Community has yet no answer. Instead of taking the lead at the Rio conference, the Commission proposal for improving energy efficiency and limiting CO2 emissions came too late to be of real use. The Council further weakened our position linking the introduction of an ecotax to similar measures by our OECD partners.
The Climate Change Convention adopted in Rio is disappointing. No target date for developed countries to return to former greenhouse gas emission levels. No strategy to increase energy efficient technologies and use renewables, only good intentions. Action however speaks louder than words! The Commissions' strategy to decrease CO2 emissions certainly contains some positive elements: the use of fiscal or economic measures where the market can work, the use of regulations and subsidies elsewhere. Its 'no regret strategy' is primarily aimed at energy saving measures and should be adopted as soon as possible. The substitution to renewables however lacks real commitment.
On one important point, the strategy is very unclear: the introduction of the tax is conditionalized to action of our OECD partners, and on top of that energy intensive industries are exempted. This restriction is difficult to understand. Firstly, the proposed tax is an important internal measure: a large part of the measure is born by households. Why should we make internal policy dependent on Japan and the US? Secondly, the Commission should propose a better policy for exempting energy-intensive industries from the tax. The Community could eventually decide to exempt temporarily certain industries, at the same time they should be bound to energy saving targets. In general it would be better for European industries to welcome the introduction of a tax, it is a market incentive to build up a competitive edge. The Commission proposals concerning regulation and subsidies for energy saving (SAVE, ALTENER) will probably fail to meet their target: 5.5% CO2 reduction up to 2000. We are at the moment far away from
stabilising, much less reducing emissions and much more stringent measures seem to be necessary to reverse this trend.
A study 'Energy in Europe: A View to the Future' (DG 17, September 1992) estimates future energy needs up to the middle of the 21st century, when total world population is assumed to be around 10 billion people. It shows that even when energy consumption per capita is halved in the developed countries and doubled in developing countries by the year 2050, world energy consumption will grow by 5 billion ton of oil equivalent (Gtoe) compared to the present 8 Gtoe. It is clear that this is a very conservative and optimistic estimate. Other estimates show increasing energy consumption by 12 to 22 Gtoe. Such a business as usual future would imply global carbon emissions increasing from 6 CtC today to at least 13 GtC by 2050.
The study sees a solution in four 'revolutions':
-larger use of renewables which ultimately will replace around 40-50% of today's total energy consumption -achievement of high energy efficiency levels by use of best available technology -increased scientific research to develop new energy technologies which lie at the frontier of knowledge -investments in new non-fossil fuel energy systems
I would like to add that we need to develop specific energy technologies for developing countries and transfer our knowledge.
To sum up: the Community is faced with tasks for which present policies fall short. We need a more ambitious Community energy strategy and a supplementary cohesion policy. A redirection of our research programme is necessary towards sustainable energy sources and the technological needs of the developing countries. Energy policy's ultimate goal should be the improvement of the quality of life. The European Community should act responsible and take the lead instead of waiting for actions of trade partners.
Annemarie Goedmakers
