Following the publication last November of the so-called “winter package” of climate and energy, which should serve to meet our international commitments on climate change, the various measures that it contains are being discussed in the European Parliament.
One of these key measures is the so-called European market for emission rights or ETS. A market mechanism that grants a certain share of free allocation rights to companies that emit greenhouse gases, so that emissions that are not covered by these rights must be acquired in a European market of emission rights. The number of free allocations should be reduced to meet European mitigation commitments. A rate of reduction that is under discussion between those who defend a decrease in the environment of 2.4% per year and those who place it two tenths below. An annual percentage reduction that should be substantially increased if we want to achieve decarbonisation of the economy in 2050.
Irrespective of the rate of decline in free credits, it is clear that the real emission limit will not be marked by ambitious legislative measures, but it is left to the will of the markets, and therefore of the pollutants, to set a price Non-free emissions that is high enough to deter companies from continuing to push global warming.
In this new negotiation, it is clear that it is irrelevant whether the EU ETS should issue a “price signal” capable of influencing long-term investments, since no Carbon bond. It sets a price that is insignificant when compared to the enormous cost that will be adapted to the effects that are already happening. Added to this is the amendment that allows to continue subsidizing sectors as polluting as coal, obviating that only a 100% renewable system is a guarantee of future, especially in the countries with lower incomes.
Ecologists in Action claims the position that already announced in 2013 opposing the ETS. For this and other global organizations, the EU emissions trading scheme aims to prolong dependence on fossil fuels and to expand and reinforce the role of financial markets in people’s daily lives. For example, Shell recently admitted that it is confident that ETS and the establishment of a “reliable carbon price will stimulate investments in carbon sequestration systems” to ensure sustainable use of oil, coal and gas. Companies that rely on fossil fuels also use the existence of ETS as an argument in favor of the elimination of EU targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
The lack of ambition in the design of the ETS contrasts with the clarity of other packages such as the promotion of more than 200 trans-European infrastructure projects, including pipelines and other infrastructure for gas transport, cross-border transport lines Electricity and infrastructure for the transport of carbon dioxide. This new regulation, like other innovative financial mechanisms such as the Europe 2020 Initiative for Project Finance Obligations, will have detrimental effects on local communities and the environment and will push the EU towards another round of fuel-based energy generation Fossils that the planet can not afford.
Ecologistas en Acción reiterates the imperative need to dismantle the emissions trading scheme. In addition, the environmental organization believes it is imperative to create a space to discuss how to achieve a rapid and fair progressive elimination of fossil fuels. Given that market-based mechanisms will not help us avoid the worst consequences of climate change, it is time to dismantle the ETS.