The EU should not shy away from setting CO2-related targets for transport. CEPS Policy Brief No. 229/January 2011

Transport is the only sector in the EU in which greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Unless this trend can be reversed, the EU will have little chance of reaching its objectives in the context of global obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions between 80% and 95% by 2050 compared to 1990. Many different solutions exist, including, for example, new technology such as electrification of road transport, modal shift, optimising existing technologies and policy measures and more radical measures such as binding GHG emissions targets. While there is some merit to all of these approaches, this Policy Brief argues that current EU policy thinking is not (yet) bold enough to credibly tackle the GHG emissions challenge from transport. It argues that: • The EU must take GHG emissions from the transport sector more seriously. • Sound transport pricing is important but it has limitations for the transition to a low-carbon transport system. • EU-level infrastructure policy is grossly inadequate, mainly but not only in view of the transformation of the EU transport system. • There is too much (blind) faith in technology solutions, thereby avoiding hard questions on how to curb transport growth. • Finally, well-designed technology deployment targets are a good way to start the transition to a low-carbon transport system

Looking for the cure-all? Targets and the EU's New Energy Strategy. CEPS Policy Brief, No. 118, 23 January 2007

[From the Introduction]. On 10 January 2007, the European Commission outlined the European Union’s ‘energy and climate change vision’ based on two principal documents: • Communication on “An energy policy for Europe”, and • Communication on future climate change policy for the period post-2012 when the Kyoto Protocol expires, entitled “Limiting global climate change to 2°C: The way ahead for 2020 and beyond”.1 These two documents have been complemented by several other sectoral policy proposals on renewables, the functioning and implementation of the internal market, infrastructure (notably electricity interconnectors) and sustainable coal, nuclear and energy technologies. In its own words, the Communication on “An Energy Policy for Europe” aims at “combating climate change, limiting the EU’s external vulnerability to imported hydrocarbons, and promoting growth and jobs, thereby providing secure and affordable energy to consumers”. Within the European Commission, the most controversial issue has been the nature of long-term targets. While greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets2 and a binding EU target to source 20% of all energy from renewables by 2020 have been relatively uncontroversial from the beginning, the issue of additional sector-specific targets, for example for renewables as a share of electricity generation, and possibly for heating and cooling, transport and for combined heat and power, has been more difficult. The discussion about the need for these additional sectoral targets is likely to continue and come to the fore again in the negotiations in the Energy and Environment Councils in February, to be finally settled in the European Council on 8-9 March 2007

Shaping the Global Arena: Preparing the EU Emissions Trading Scheme for the post-2012 Period. CEPS Task Force Reports No. 61, 6 March 2007

Having been underway for more than two years, the review of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is entering a decisive phase with the European Commission’s recent announcement that it will table formal proposals in the second half of 2007. Based on an assessment of the EU ETS, this new CEPS Task Force Report tests the performance of four different design models (a cap-and-trade system based on free allocation, benchmarks, auctioning and a credit-and-baseline system) against 10 criteria under three headings: environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency and the contribution of the ETS to achieving long-term climate change policy objectives. Based on this assessment, the report makes a number of recommendations in the area of allocation, creation of investment incentives and the merits of including new sectors and new gases. The report also addresses the particular challenge of completing the EU ETS review before a global post-2012 agreement can be reached, i.e. the EU ETS will be reviewed against an unknown global context

Making the most of the G8+5 Climate Change Process: Accelerating Structural Change and Technology Diffusion on a Global Scale. CEPS Task Force Reports, 5 June 2008

Under the chairmanship of Gunnar Still, Senior Vice President and Head of Environment Division at ThyssenKrupp, CEPS organized a Task Force to explore possible initiatives within the context of the G8+5 dialogue on tackling climate change. This report identifies a number of concrete measures that could reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while at the same time stimulating structural change and technology development and diffusion. It calls for supporting action-based approaches, which are essential to achieve the necessary reductions in GHG emissions, inform the post-2012 negotiations and address the most urgent issues such as surging energy demand and the need for clean energy technologies in emerging economies. An action-based approach can be regarded as a way of integrating targets and timetables, as they are agreed, with consistent and comparable policies and measures. With a view to a long-term climate strategy, this report attempts to present a portfolio of actions that can be implemented and accelerated on a global scale – especially in the G8+5 countries and the EU, and could become a basis on which developed and developing countries can cooperate

What lessons can be learned from the EU emissions trading scheme? CEPS Policy Brief No. 153, 28 February 2008

The EU emissions trading scheme (EU-ETS) introduced in 2005 is the only mandatory cap-and-trade system operating in the world today. Lessons could be taken from the EU stance which allows for flexibility in rules and realises emission reductions with firm commitments by stakeholders. This CEPS Policy Brief is published in a bilingual English-Japanese version. The Japanese version was originally published in Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 14 February 2008

Reform of the EU Institutions: Implications for the EU’s Performance in Climate Negotiations. CEPS Policy Brief No. 40, September 2003

This CEPS Policy Brief assesses the potential impact of the draft Constitutional Treaty of the Convention on the Future of Europe on the way the EU operates in international climate negotiations. Although Treaty revisions in the EU are ultimately decided by the EU member states, the Convention’s draft can be seen as an important blueprint that forms the starting point of the negotiations between the member states due to start in October 2003. Among the relevant issues that the authors identify are: A change in the number and form of the Council of Ministers formations. There is a chance that the Environment Council as it exists today will be changed, since most of its agenda – the adoption of legislation – will be transferred to the proposed Legislative Council. The transfer of remaining issues such as decision-making on multilateral environmental agreements to the Foreign Affairs Council or to an ‘Internal Market Council’ might offer some new perspectives, but it might also lead to a loss of environmental knowledge; The establishment of a Union Minister of Foreign Affairs (with a European External Action Service). Involvement of the Foreign Minister could offer an opportunity for more integration of foreign policy aspects in the EU’s position for climate change negotiations; Changes regarding the rotating Presidency. Currently the rotating Presidency has an important role in both preparing and negotiating the EU’s position in the climate negotiations. The proposal of a longer-term chair of the Council of Ministers (at least one year) is likely to increase the consistency of EU negotiation positions; More transparent procedures on how the Council of Ministers nominates the negotiator or leader of the Union’s negotiating team (Art III-227). The paper concludes that the Convention’s draft Constitution offers some interesting proposals that could lead to more integration of the broader range of external policies into the EU’s position for climate negotiations. Furthermore, there might be improvements related to the consistency of the EU’s position

Low-Carbon Technologies in the Post-Bali Period: Accelerating their Development and Deployment. CEPS ECP Report No. 4, 4 December 2007

This report analyses the very broad issue of technology development, demonstration and diffusion with a view to identifying the key elements of a complementary global technology track in the post-2012 framework. It identifies a number of immediate and concrete steps that can be taken to provide content and a structure for such a track. The report features three sections dealing with innovation and technology, investment in developing countries and investment and finance, followed by an analysis of the various initiatives being taken on technology both within and outside the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A final section presents ideas for the way forward followed by brief concluding remarks

Circular economy for climate neutrality: Setting the priorities for the EU. CEPS Policy Brief No 2019/04, 22 November 2019

The previous Commission policy on resources management was part of the priority for jobs and growth and economic competitiveness. The circular economy will be no less important for the new political priority of climate neutrality; it will become one of the indispensable elements for meeting the EU’s ambitions. EU climate policy and the circular economy are by and large complementary and mutually reinforcing. The circular economy is more than just another ‘product standards’ policy. In order for this to happen, • there is a need for a framework that is able to systematically address trade-offs, such as between the circular and the bioeconomy, but also between material efficiency and energy use, as well as • a mechanism to steer and monitor progress, touching upon the question of whether and if so, how to increase ambition and develop tools to monitor progress, for example via targets, and • the new Commission will need to develop and then scale up successful products and processes to create opportunities for new value chains while addressing risks, such as dependency on raw materials. Circular economy products for the foreseeable future will require both technology push and market pull policies. Both the circular economy and low-carbon economy will require new and often yet unknown business models. This will also require new methods of regulation. The principal challenge will be to create ‘lead markets’ for the circular economy in combination with lowcarbon products. Many ideas for this exist. They include, for example, ‘carbon contracts for difference’, carbon budgets for projects, consumption charges, taxes and tax exemptions, sustainable finance, product standards and public procurement. Ideas now need to be tested to see whether they could work in practice. Finally, the EU circular economy will need to be underpinned by a robust and transparent carbon accounting system. If effective, such as system can at the same time act as a catalyst for investment in the circular economy and low-carbon products and processes