Compromise is good politics, but a lot more needs to be done

[mailchimp_signup][/mailchimp_signup]

The relatively simple story was the one on cars and CO2. The Commission has now, more than 10 years late, seen the light and realised that regulation is needed to make cars more fuel-efficient. It will take about four years for any law to come into effect, but under the proposals, cars should be 20% more efficient by 2012 than they were in 2005, achieving 130 g/km CO2 on average rather than 162. Tyres, air conditioning systems, CO2 labelling, advertising and taxation should also improve.

The bad news is the watering down of the 11-year old 120 g/km target, after shameless lobbying by the current EU president Angela Merkel and the Commission vice-president Günter Verheugen. Commissioners are required to act independently of their nationality, but Verheugen appears to have been influenced by a hysterical campaign by German car makers that had no basis in fact.

We desperately need a new political target for post-2020, and our proposed 80 g/km is feasible, especially if it is signalled now.

The decarbonisation of fuels is more complicated. Europe has a biofuels directive, with a non-binding target that 5.75% of all transport fuels should be from biomass by 2010. On 10 January, the Commission floated the idea that this should be raised to 10% by 2020. We screamed about this, because it was reinforcing the current policy that encourages biofuels to be produced at the lowest possible cost, regardless of the social and environmental impact. Or to put it another way: it bases the target on the fuel (biofuels), rather than the problem needing to be solved (reduction in harmful emissions from road transport).

Hence our delight when, two weeks later, the Commission tabled a real legal proposal saying the climate impact of all fuels had to be reduced by 10% by 2020. While we have strong reservations about biofuels, we have welcomed this climate-based approach. Why? Because it gives fuel suppliers an environmental obligation (an obligation based on the problem needing to be solved), rather than an obligation to blend in a product with uncertain environmental performance. It gives them an incentive to clean up the production of their petrol and diesel. And it changes the direction of the biofuels market. What would count under the climate-based approach is which biofuels producer could deliver greenhouse gas savings at lowest possible cost. This is a fundamentally different and better approach and gives a clear signal to the biofuels market that those with a good climate performance have a better future than those with a bad one.

The climate-based approach to biofuels also opens the door to other fuels such as biogas, electricity and hydrogen, as long as they are produced sustainably. That is not just good for the environment, but the diversity contributes to better energy security, because we are not just betting on one horse.

So assuming ministers and MEPs recognise the huge benefits of this climate-based approach to transport fuels and it becomes law, will the climate impact of Europe’s transport finally go down? Probably not, sadly. Road freight, aviation and shipping have still not been seriously addressed, nor has demand growth. There are still a lot more areas that need tackling.

The climate is changing, not just in reality but also in Brussels‘ corridors of power. Awareness that action is needed, action cheaper than inaction, and a pro-active policy is better than a reactive one is on the rise. But it needs to take root, and last longer than just the memory span of a freakishly warm last half year, a high-profile documentary and the findings of an ex World Bank economist.

This news story is taken from the February 2007 edition of T&E Bulletin.