Download Document - Greenpeace Greenpeace USA by maclaren1

VIEWS: 24 PAGES: 4

									                                                                                                                                 May 2010

                 Industry myths blocking an EU 30% emissions cut

   Industry lobbyists opposed to stronger climate and energy policies have claimed for some time that an
   upgrade of the EU‟s 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction target from 20% to 30% would not be
   possible without cuts in industrial production and significant job losses.1 With the Commission due to
   launch a feasibility study on 26 May on an upgrade to a 30% target, this briefing counters industry
   scaremongering and unravels some of the myths that underpin its claims. It also illustrates how some
   industry sectors are set to profit from weak EU emission reduction targets while doing nothing to
   reduce emissions.

   Myth n.1: More ambitious climate policies in the EU could force companies to relocate production
   abroad. This could even create more emissions if companies move to countries with lower constraints
   on carbon emissions (so-called „carbon leakage‟).

 Independent economic research found that there is no empirical evidence that more ambitious climate
  policies will result in mass relocation of industries outside of the EU. Competition for European
  industries mainly comes from within the EU and not from producers outside Europe.

       “The empirical evidence on trade and location decisions suggests that only a small number of sectors have
                                                  2
       internationally mobile plant and processes” – The Stern Review

 There are many factors more influential than climate policies in determining the location decisions of
  companies, such as: distances to consumer markets, technological development, workforce education
  level, energy and transport infrastructure, currency exchange rates and access to raw materials.

       “Even where industries are internationally mobile, environmental policies are only one determinant of plant and
       production location decisions. Other factors […] are usually more important determinants of industrial location and
              3
       trade.” – Climate Strategies/Cambridge University

 A 2008 report by research organisation Climate Strategies and the University of Cambridge4 assessed
  the impact of higher reduction targets on 159 industry sectors covered by the EU emissions trading
  scheme (ETS) and concluded that only 23 sectors could experience a “non negligible” cost impact
  (meaning costs above 1% of total production costs). The exposure of these sectors to trade with non-
  EU countries is generally low, so the chances of relocation are even smaller. These findings are
  confirmed by research undertaken by the Öko Institut5, which examined industry in Germany, and a
  research project by research company CE Delft6 that examined industries in the Netherlands.




   1
     See for example a statement by Gordon Moffat, director general of Eurofer, the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries, on
   Point Carbon News (6 May 2010).
   2
     Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006), Part III - The economics of stabilisation, Chapter 11 Structural change and
   competitiveness.
   3
     Climate Strategies (2008), Competitive distortions and leakage in a world of different carbon prices: Trade, competitiveness and
   employment challenges when meeting the post-2012 climate commitments in the European Union.
   4
     Ibid.
   5
     Öko Institut (2009), Impacts of the EU ETS on industrial competitiveness in Germany.
   6
     CE Delft (2008), Impacts on Competitiveness from EU ETS.
   Myth n.2: Moving to a 30% emission reduction target will lead to job losses.

 While moving to a 30% target will not lead to a significant number of relocations outside of Europe, the
  existing trend for industry to outsource production to countries with lower wages outside the EU is
  likely to continue, independently of future climate policies.

 Research by economist Jeremy Rifkin (Foundation on Economic Trends) suggests that only 5% of job
  losses in industrialised countries are related to outsourcing.7 Most structural job losses in the EU and
  across the world occur due to the mechanisation of production methods, where people are replaced
  by computer software and machines.

       “A lot of politicians in Europe and America say, gee, the jobs are going to China – if only we could get the
       manufacturing jobs back, we would have jobs. What they don't know is that China has eliminated 15 percent of all its
       factory workers in seven years. Forever. They don't exist. This is the story no one wants to talk about: the cheapest
       Chinese workers, and they're pretty cheap, are not as cheap as the intelligent technology replacing them. Fourteen
                                                                                                       8
       percent of all the factory workers in the whole world have disappeared in the last seven years.” – Jeremy Rifkin.

 An upgrade to a 30% emission reduction target would encourage investments in labour-intensive
  instead of energy-intensive products. A 30% target will boost green technologies that are overall more
  labour intensive than conventional sectors. A Commission background document on the upgrade to
  30% leaked in the media indicates that moving from 20% to 30% could boost employment in the EU.
  The document argues that with the right policies in place, the number of net jobs created by 2020 (job
  losses and new jobs taken into account) would be at least 160,0009. The Institute for Sustainable
  Futures (ISF) of the University of Technology in Sydney concluded in 2009 in a study commissioned
  by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) that under a 30% emission
  reduction scenario 350,000 additional jobs would be created in the EU by 2020.10

   Myth n.3: The EU has already made an ambitious pledge of 20% emission reductions. Another 10%
   would be fatal for the European economy.

 Achieving only 20% by 2020 would mean much deeper emission reductions in later years. The EU has
  already committed to reducing emissions by 80-95% by 2050, implying a 40% reduction by 2020
  under a linear trajectory.

 Delaying emission cuts makes them more costly. The International Energy Agency estimates that
  each year of delay adds an extra €336 billion (US$500 billion) to the clean investment needed globally
  in the energy sector between 2010 and 2030.11

 Independent research12 found that emission reductions needed to reach a 30% target could be
  achieved at little or no extra cost, for example, through production process improvements in the steel
  industry, offshore wind development and the better insulation of buildings. Many of these investments
  could even have concrete cost-saving benefits for major European industry sectors and consumers.


 The economic recession has caused a major drop in greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions have
  already decreased due to economic restructuring in central Europe, reduced energy need for heating
  due to higher average temperatures and successful climate and energy policies. After the recession,

   7
     Rifkin, J. (1995), The End of Work.
   8
     Der Spiegel (August 2005). www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%202005.pdf
   9
     Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication „Unlocking Europe's potential in clean innovation and growth:
   Analysis of options to move beyond 20%‟, page 54.
   10
      ISF/University of Technology Sydney (2009), Working for the Climate (a study commissioned by Greenpeace International).
   11
      www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=290
   12
      www.ecofys.nl/com/publications/documents/Serpec4pager.pdf
   emissions in the EU are down by around 14% compared to 1990 levels.13 These figures demonstrate
   that an upgrade of the 30% target can be achieved by European industry more easily due to the
   reduction in emissions over the past two years and the lasting impact the recession will have on
   emissions between now and 2020.

 Furthermore, companies can cover a large proportion of their emissions by using offsets. In practical
  terms this means that the existing 20% target for 2020 only requires emissions reductions in Europe of
  around 16%. A 30% target could mean domestic emission reductions of between 21% and 25%, with
  the rest „outsourced‟ to often dubious climate projects in developing countries.

   Money for nothing
   Analysis by the European Commission14 and the International Energy Agency (World Energy Outlook
   2009) indicates that 2020 emissions by the EU ETS sector will be as high as in 2008, if the EU only
   committed to a 20% target. Sandbag, an organisation focussing on emissions trading, has estimated
   that under the EU ETS the EU's ten most polluting firms, including ArcelorMittal, Corus, Lafarge, CEZ
   and CEMEX, would have free surplus ETS carbon credits worth about €3.2 billion after 2012.15
                                             Sandbag’s Top Ten ‘Carbon Fat Cat List’
                                                                    Estimated
                                            Company               surplus AAUs         Asset Value (€)
                                                                   (2008-2012)
                                          ArcelorMittal                 99,801,132        1,397,215,847
                                             Corus                      26,965,777          377,520,882
                                            Lafarge                     23,507,560          329,105,840
                                      SSAB - Svenskt Stal               17,818,541          249,459,580
                                            Cemex                       14,669,057          205,366,804
                                           Salzgitter                   12,636,864          176,916,099
                                           US Steel                     11,281,904          157,946,658
                                       HeidelbergCement                 10,905,197          152,672,755
                                              CEZ                        8,359,590          117,034,260
                                      Slovenske elektrarne               6,760,715           94,650,010

   Furthermore, a study recently released by CE Delft16 shows that not only the power sector, but also
   energy-intensive manufacturing industries have made huge windfall profits from free carbon credits
   allocated to them under the EU ETS. Manufacturing industries have always insisted that they in any
   case could not make consumers pay for free credits because of international competition. The CE
   Delft study dismisses this argument.

   Companies in the refining, iron and steel sectors alone generated windfall profits of around €14 billion
   (2005-2008). Current plans to give these industries free carbon allowances from 2013 onwards would
   likely bring tens of billions more in windfall profits. Setting a 30% target would be an important driver to
   ensure these windfall profits are invested into energy efficiency, clean energy and green jobs.
   Demand


   13
      Emissions from companies under the EU ETS (including steel plants, refineries and power plants) fell by 10% or more in 2009, compared
   to 2008, leaving a surplus of emission credits. In 2008, emissions fell by 4-6% more than in 2007 – Point Carbon (2010), CMM March 2010:
   Primary CER price forecast for 2010-2012.
   14
      Draft Staff Working Document accompanying the European Commission Communication, graph page 34.
   15
      Sandbag (February 2010), The Carbon Rich List: The companies profiting from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Company analysis of
   the EU Emissions Trading Scheme compiled in association with carbonmarketdata.com.
   www.sandbag.org.uk/files/sandbag.org.uk/carbon_fat_cats_march2010.pdf
   16
      CE Delft (2010), Does the energy intensive industry obtain windfall profits through the EU ETS?
   www.ce.nl/publicatie/does_the_energy_intensive_industry_obtain_windfall_profits_through_the_eu_ets/1038
Greenpeace calls on businesses in the EU to speak out in favour of innovation and green growth and
to support an unconditional 30% emission cut by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. This should be a first
step towards a 40% emission target for all developed countries, consistent with keeping global
temperature increase well below two degrees Celsius and avoiding the catastrophic effects of climate
change.




    For a briefing analysing the content of the Commission paper on upgrading the EU’s 30% target, go to:
www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/analysis-commission-30-percent-paper-25-05-10




Contacts:         Joris den Blanken – Greenpeace EU climate and energy policy director:
                  +32 (0)2 274 19 19, +32 (0)476 96 13 75 (mobile), joris.den.blanken@greenpeace.org
                  Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU communications manager:
                  +32 (0)2 274 19 03, +32 496 15 62 29 (mobile) mark.breddy@greenpeace.org




                                                      www.greenpeace.eu
 Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the
  environment and to promote peace. Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments, the EU, businesses or political parties

								
To top