EU climate policies

[kassy]

EU agrees windfall tax on energy firms

The European Union has agreed to impose emergency measures to charge energy firms on their record profits.

Ministers have agreed windfall taxes on certain energy companies as well as mandatory cuts in electricity use.

The plan includes a levy on fossil fuel firms' surplus profits and a levy on excess revenues made from surging electricity costs.

The cash raised is expected to go to families and businesses.

But the bloc is divided on whether and how to cap the wholesale price of gas.

It comes as Europe braces itself for a difficult winter due to the cost of living crisis and squeeze on global energy supplies.

The bloc is largely trying to wean itself off Russia energy but it has left it scrambling for other alternative, expensive, sources.

A windfall tax is imposed by a government on a company to target firms that were lucky enough to benefit from something they were not responsible for - in other words, a windfall profit.

Energy firms are getting much more money for their oil and gas than they were last year, partly because demand has increased as the world emerges from the pandemic and more recently because of supply concerns due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

EU ministers estimate that they can raise €140bn (£123bn) from the levies on non-gas electricity producers and suppliers that are making larger-than-usual profits from the current demand.

Earlier this month, the European Commission's vice-president, Frans Timmermans, said that fossil fuel extractors will be told to give back 33% of their surplus profits for this year.

"The era of cheap fossil fuels is over. And the faster we move to cheap, clean and homegrown renewables, the sooner we will be immune to Russia's energy blackmail," he said.

"A cap on outsize revenues will bring solidarity from energy companies with abnormally high profits towards their struggling customers," he added.

Earlier this week, 15 member states, including France and Italy, asked the EU to impose a price cap on gas bills to slow the soaring costs.

...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63089222

[kassy]

EU agrees law to remove CO2 with woodlands and other carbon sinks

BRUSSELS, Nov 11 (Reuters) - The European Union has agreed to a law to expand its forests, marshes and other "sinks" that absorb carbon dioxide (CO2), a measure that could allow the bloc to raise its target for cutting net emissions of greenhouse gases.

...

The law sets a target of removing 310 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030 through the use of soil, trees, plants, biomass and timber.

Binding targets are to be set for all 27 EU members, aimed at progressively increasing absorptions and reducing emissions so that the EU-wide objective is reached.

Currently, EU countries have to ensure they compensate emissions from land use and forestry with at least an equivalent amount of carbon removal. Under the new law, from 2026 removals of CO2 need to exceed emissions

The law could lead the EU to increase its target for reducing net greenhouse emissions to nearly 57% by 2030 from 1990 levels, compared with the current 55%, while putting it on course to achieve climate neutrality by 2050.

The deal is last of three the European Union was hoping to clinch in time for a U.N. climate summit that started in Egypt on Sunday.

The bloc struck a deal last month on a law effectively banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035 and on Tuesday agreed to a law that sets national targets to reduce carbon emissions.

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/eu-agrees-law-remove-co2-with-woodlands-other-carbon-sinks-2022-11-11/?rpc=401&

[kassy]

The secretive EU body that likes to say 'no'


Not every scandal results in a public outcry. Some scandals remain in the dark. Without public pressure for positive change, problematic cases persist — for too long.

The European Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) is such a case. Although the RSB, and the wider so-called 'Better Regulation' agenda of which it is part, have been heavily criticised by NGOs from the outset, the general public has barely noticed their problematic influence on EU legislation. Even EU insiders are often unaware of the workings of the board. But take a closer look at the RSB and alarm bells start ringing.

The main task of the RSB is simple: it assesses draft impact assessments of upcoming EU legislative proposals as prepared by the commission. If the RSB's opinion on the impact assessment is negative, the legislative proposal cannot move forward.

The assessment must then be substantially revised and resubmitted for a review. If the RSB's second opinion is negative too, it get's tough. Only the vice-president for interinstitutional relations and foresight can then submit the legislative initiative to the College of Commissioners to decide whether or not to proceed with the proposal.

This de facto veto power is only one aspect that gives the RSB the leverage to effectively delay or even water-down legislation. And it mostly hits legislation tackling the climate crisis, protecting the environment, or other rules aimed at protecting Europe's 448 million citizens.

The unelected RSB undermines the work of EU Parliament and the Council: it lacks democratic legitimacy. Moreover the RSB has a very early say on the likely direction, scope, and depth of proposed new EU rules before the parliament sees the final proposal from the commission.

Lack of transparency
With the significant influence it can have on EU legislation, it is disturbing that the RSB is allowed to operate largely in secret. EU citizens and even MEPs have no insight into how the RSB reaches its decisions, because the RSB's opinions are only disclosed once the final legislative proposal is published.

...

The root of the problem is the so-called 'better regulation agenda'. Its job is to ensure that new EU rules are as narrow as possible and don't hurt business profits too hard.

Although the evaluation toolbox includes criteria for social and environmental impacts , the RSB's opinions often emphasise economic impacts and costs, as a new study by political scientist Brigitte Pircher and commissioned by LobbyControl and the Chamber of Labour, Vienna confirms. This is a bias within the 'better regulation' agenda, but it also reflects the lack of social and environmental expertise on the RSB — which the European Ombudsman is currently also investigating.

What difference does it make? One example is the Due Diligence Directive for Sustainable Business. The aim of the directive is to oblige companies to take responsibility for environmental or human rights violations throughout their value chain.

The RSB issued two negative opinions on this initiative and delayed it significantly. Also, after several contacts with Danish/Swedish industry, both the number of companies covered by the draft legislation were reduced and the scope in terms of the value chain was limited.

https://euobserver.com/opinion/157037

[NeilT]

The EU is absolutely Huge.  Larger in population than the US and whilst it has less states, each state is/was a sovereign nation with the entire political and legal tail that creates.

It took the EU 13 years to get the accounts signed off by the court of auditors.  However once they had finally sorted the problems out it has remained signed off every year since.

The larger the government is, the more we see this problem.  I'm regularly negative on EU stuff but in this case they at least know it is a problem and are working to fix it.  The main problem is how long it will take to fix it.  That and how long do we have left before we must have this fix?  I'd say we're already out of time.

[kassy]

German lawmakers approve a contentious plan to replace fossil-fuel heating

BERLIN (AP) — German lawmakers on Friday approved contentious legislation for the replacement of fossil-fuel heating systems, passing a major climate policy plan that prompted lengthy infighting in the governing coalition and helped push down its poll ratings.

Parliament's lower house voted 399-275, with five absentions, for the bill — months after an initial version of it was first approved by Chancellor Olaf Scholz's Cabinet.

...

The legislation calls for newly installed heating systems in new housing developments to be at least 65% fueled by renewable energy starting in January. It allows for existing heating systems to keep running and be repaired, with several-year transition periods before the new rules apply to older buildings.

The plan, softened considerably from the original proposal, provides for government subsidies to help people switch heating systems. By 2045, when Germany aims for net zero emissions of greenhouse gases, all heating systems must be switched to renewable energy sources.

...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/german-lawmakers-approve-contentious-plan-133612576.html

[Freegrass]

EU Commission announces preliminary tariffs up to 38% on Chinese EVs

UPDATE: EU-China tensions flare up as Chinese government backlashes against EU tariffs announcement

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/eu-commission-announces-preliminary-tariffs-up-to-38-on-chinese-evs/

The EU will impose additional tariffs of 17.4% to 38.1% on electric cars produced in China, the European Commission announced on Wednesday (12 June), prompting strong condemnation from the Chinese government, which threatened to “take all the necessary measures” to defend its companies.

Announcing preliminary results from its anti-subsidy investigation confirmed prices are being distorted by Chinese state support, EU Commission Vice-President Margaritis Schinas said on Wednesday the value chain of Chinese electric cars “benefits from unfair subsidisation, which is causing a threat of economic injury to EU battery electric vehicles producers.”

“When our partners breach the rules, we will assert our rights,” Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis said in a statement.

“Today we have reached a milestone in our anti-subsidy investigation,” he said, adding that “this is based on clear evidence of our extensive investigation and in full respect of WTO rules.”

Duties will differ per carmaker, with Chinese state-owned manufacturer SAIC facing the highest duty at 38.1%, Chinese Geely to face 20% and BYD 17.4%.

Western brands producing electric cars in China – including Tesla, Dacia and BMW – will face a 21% duty.

Although formally EU tariffs would be imposed as of 4 July 2024, the announcement from the EU executive’s trade unit – headed by Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis – is preliminary.

“We will now engage with Chinese authorities and all parties with a view to finalising this investigation,” Dombrovskis said.

Sources following the matter expect the move is intended to kick start negotiations with China and possibly change the final rate, if not scrapping it all together, in the final decision, which has to happen by November 2024.

The final rate of the countervailing duties will then be put to a vote by the Council – where only a “qualified” majority of member states, meaning at least 15 countries representing 65% of the total population, would be able to block it.

Chinese reprimand foreshadows thorny negotiations

However, Chinese officials were quick to react to the news, with the Ministry of Commerce posting heavily angered statements on its website at 12:24 CET (18:28 local time).

“China is highly concerned and strongly dissatisfied with the fact that the EU side has ignored China’s repeated strong opposition, and ignored the appeals and dissuasion of the governments and industries of many EU member states.”

“The European Commission is holding high the banner of green development with one hand and wielding the big stick of ‘protectionism’ with the other hand to politicize and weaponize economic and trade issues,” the Ministry said, adding this “is not in line with the spirit of the consensus of Chinese and EU leaders on strengthening cooperation.

“[The move] will affect the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade cooperation between China and the EU,” Chinese officials then went on to warn – adding that they “will closely follow the EU’s follow-up progress and resolutely take all necessary measures to firmly defend the legitimate rights and interests” of Chinese companies.

They also called on EU counterparts to “correct […] wrong practices” and quickly implement what was recently agreed at the “trilateral meeting between China, France and the EU.”

Finally, they urged the Commission to “properly handle economic and trade frictions through dialogue and consultation.”

Before the decision, the Commission was subject to heavy lobbying, with the Chinese government threatening to retaliate against the EU with measures against the agricultural or aviation sector. European carmakers, too, stepped up warnings against the move as they fear they could become the target of countermeasures taken by the Chinese government.

In 2023, 19.5% of electric vehicles sold in Europe were made in China, according to NGO Transport & Environment, many of which were cars of brands of Western carmakers such as Tesla, Dacia or BMW.

Chinese brands such as BYD and MG, meanwhile, could reach a market share of 11% this year, the organisation estimates.