EU relaxes renewables target, reaps criticism

[unhappycamper]

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/22/3005656/eu-ups-emission-limits-relaxes.html



Protestors from an anti-fracking group wait for the start of a demonstration outside EU headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2014. The European Commission on Wednesday proposed a framework for climate and energy policies beyond 2020 and up to 2030.

EU relaxes renewables target, reaps criticism
By JUERGEN BAETZ
Associated Press
January 22, 2014 Updated 8 minutes ago

BRUSSELS — The European Union on Wednesday shied away from more ambitious renewable energy goals as the bloc's sluggish economy appeared to dent its zeal in the global fight against climate change.

To the dismay of Germany, environmentalists and others, the European Commission stepped back from proposing tougher binding renewable energy targets for each of the 28 member nations. Instead, it seeks the introduction of a less ambitious pan-European goal of 27 percent by 2030.

There are fears the EU, long a trendsetter in climate change policies, might make it easier for the U.S., China and developing economies to dodge tougher action.

The proposal by the European Commission, the bloc's executive arm, will shape the EU's energy and climate action policies over the coming years, but it still needs approval from EU governments and the European Parliament over the coming year.

[Iterate]

1. The more accurate headline should be...

"EU commissioner doesn't propose strict national standards for post-2020 agreement, but instead proposes pan-European goal of 27 percent by 2030".
Subtitle: "Any proposal needs approval of EU Parliament and member States, with Parliamentary elections in May 2014."

Or similar words to that effect. I suppose AP didn't have enough internet ink for that headline. The takeaway story is that the pro-business Energy Commissioner represents people who don't want to pay for change in the infrastructure. Shocking, I know, and we haven't heard the end of it.

[FBaggins]

2. An even more accurate title would be...

"EU commissioners elect to target overall carbon reduction rather than dictate specific technologies or policies"

The takeaway story is that the pro-business Energy Commissioner represents people who don't want to pay for change in the infrastructure

Not really. The expectation was that the EU would set a carbon reduction target of 35% in the short term... but it appears that the UK has won the debate and the final target now appears to be 40%. That will require people to "pay for change in the infrastructure"... it just doesn't dictate what those changes must be in each country. With increased efficiency and nuclear power remaining on the table with renewables.

[kristopher]

3. That is the RightWing version, fer sher.

It's a power grab by the business-as-usual corporate lobby, so thank you for sharing their 'perspective'.

[FBaggins]

4. The "business as usual corporate lobby"...

... has no interest in increasing the carbon reduction levels. Note that the (supposedly) agreed-to levels substantially exceed those sought by the anti-nuclear nations.

But thanks for at least trying to spin the good news as "right wing".

[kristopher]

5. They want to maintain a stranglehold on the world's energy supply.

Last edited Wed Jan 22, 2014, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

We aren't shooting for 35 or 40%, we want 100% replacement of carbon. This move will act to cement in the economics that protect the fossil industry's existing assets from the threat of disruptive renewable technologies that are already causing their business model to crumble.

In short, it props the fossil industry up and retards the pace of transition.

But again, thanks for sharing the rightwing spin.

[kristopher]

6. Or they could use "ALEC's 'Electricity Freedom Act' proposed by EU commissioner"

Electricity Freedom Act

Summary: The Electricity Freedom Act repeals the State of {insert state}’s requirement that electric distribution utilities and electric services companies provide _____ percent of their electricity supplies from renewable energy sources by ____.

WHEREAS, forcing business, industry, and ratepayers to use renewable energy through a government mandate will increase the cost of doing business and push companies to do business with other states or nations, thereby decreasing American competitiveness;

WHEREAS, many renewable sources of power currently cost more than traditional electricity generation technologies, and are projected to do so for the foreseeable future;

WHEREAS, the costs of renewable energy will be borne by consumers regardless of income or circumstances;

WHEREAS, the costs of renewable energy that are not directly internalized are financed by taxpayers through numerous state and federal financial incentives;

WHEREAS, forcing renewable sources of power will impose the additional burden of integrating intermittent energy onto the electricity grid and threatening electricity reliability;

WHEREAS, the costs of such expensive transmission projects are also financed by ratepayers;

WHEREAS, no state or nation has enhanced economic opportunities for its citizens or increased Gross Domestic Product through renewable energy mandates;

WHEREAS, due to the renewable energy mandate a tremendous amount of economic growth is sacrificed for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that would have no appreciable impact on global concentrations of greenhouse gases;

WHEREAS, government mandates to produce renewable energy necessarily involve increasing costs for ratepayers while benefiting politically favored industries;

WHEREAS, primary emissions standards that leave to the marketplace the choice of compliance technologies can address air quality standards more efficiently than “technology forcing” mandates;

WHEREAS, technological advances continue to reduce the rate of air emissions from all fossil fuel sources where vibrant market economies are allowed to exist; and

WHEREAS, electric utilities may have invested in long-term renewable energy assets and/or purchase power agreements, as well as other infrastructure necessary to comply with current and future levels of renewable energy mandates;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the legislature of the State of _____ understands that a renewable energy mandate is essentially a tax on consumers of electricity that forces the use of renewable energy sources beyond what would be called for by real market forces and under conditions of real competition in generation resources; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State of {insert state} does not wish to discourage the marketing of “green” power and “green” pricing such that willing buyers and sellers of renewable energy sources are free to negotiate the terms and conditions of such sales, and no technology or class of technologies is given an unfair competitive advantage; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Act also recognizes the prudency and reasonableness of many of the renewable contracts and investments and allows for recovery of costs where appropriate; and

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED, that the State of {insert state} repeals the renewable energy mandate and as such, no electric distribution utilities and electric services companies will be forced to procure renewable energy resources as defined by the State of {insert state}’s renewable energy mandate.

Adopted by the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force at the 2012 Annual Meeting on July 26, 2012. Approved by ALEC Board of State Legislators on October 18, 2012.

ALEC documents:
Model policies on energy, environment, and agriculture
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_Natural-Resource-Reserve.pdf

The link to the above bill is part of this summary of 2014 Proposed Model Bills
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_EEA_2013_SNPS_35_Day.pdf