On 3 and 4 December 2008, the full Parliament will vote on a package of four proposals, tabled by the Commission on 23 January this year to reduce the EU's CO2 emissions by 2020 while boosting the share of renewable energies to 20% over the same period.
Originally scheduled for the plenary during the third week (15-18) of December, an earlier vote means that EU heads of state and government will need to take the views of the bloc's co-legislators into account when they convene for the next European summit on 11 and 12 December in Brussels. The French EU Presidency remains committed to reaching a deal before the end of 2008.
A plenary vote after the summit would have put the Parliament in a potentially awkward position, since summit deals need to be reached by unanimity rather than by qualified majority voting. And once a unanimous agreement is reached, there may not be much room left for further adjustments by the Parliament, which could unravel the consensus reached between national capitals.
This is especially true with respect to the climate and energy package, with sharp differences between member states evident on several key points (EurActiv 21/10/08). Indeed, most observers expect that a final deal could be tenuous and will be reached in the 'classic' EU style through 'horse trading' and last-minute deals to get reluctant countries on board.
Though details remain elusive, it is also likely that member states will engage in trade-offs between the different elements of the package, with significant 'flexibility' built into the final deal. This means that richer EU countries could, for example, obtain emissions reduction credits by financing emissions reductions in poorer member states.
MEPs are unlikely to oppose flexibility as they have already backed the notion during their votes in the environment (ENVI) committee (EurActiv 08/10/08). But Parliament and Council are far from seeing eye-to-eye on several other aspects of the package.
The issue of how to spend revenues collected by member states during the auction of emissions permits under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is among the most contentions points in the debate. MEPs want the monies to be spent on climate change-related technology and other investments, with at least 50% of the monies diverted to developing states.
But most member states, while not opposed to clean technology investments per se, are opposed to any mandate from Brussels on how the funds should be spent.
There is also disagreement over the date for identifying industrial sectors at greatest risk of competition from third countries with lax rules on CO2 emissions. Parliament agrees with the Commission that sectors should only be identified after international climate change talks wrap up in Copenhagen in December 2009, but the Council insists that industries should be identified as early as June 2009 in order to provide investment certainty.
In advance of the plenary vote, representatives of the Commission, Council and Parliament will participate in tri-partite talks to make progress on the details of the package.
