As 94% of Poland's electricity comes from coal, the country says it needs ''more time than others'' to meet its CO2 reduction targets outlined in the 'Europe 2020' strategy. Polish industry is even more critical of the goals. EurActiv Poland reports.
After the EU summit on 17 June, which adopted the 'Europe 2020' strategy for growth and jobs (see 'Background'), Polish experts on energy and climate change warned that the new strategy will repeat the mistakes of the EU's climate and energy package.
Adam B. Czy?ewski, chief economist at Polish company PKN Orlen, one of Central Europe's largest refiners of crude oil, outlined what he sees as the main weaknesses of the environment strategy:
- The EU's climate and energy objectives lack a broader global reference: if only the EU sets such ambitious aims, its market will become less cost-effective and consequently less competitive on the global stage. Secondly, if only Europe pursues environment-friendly goals, such single-handed action will not succeed in preventing or significantly reducing climate change.
- The year 2020 is too short a horizon for the environmental strategy, as within this time-frame prospective investments in new technologies will not have produced measurable effects.
- The 20/20/20 objectives are over-ambitious and/or miscalculated. With a maximum exploitation of the available instruments the attainable levels are 14/10/10: a 14% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, a 10% increase in the share of renewables in Poland's energy mix and a 10% cut in energy consumption. However, 10/7/6 is a more realistic aim.
- The EU's strategy involves the costly yet ineffective allocation of resources, since too many measures are to be assigned to the development of wind energy. Simultaneously, demand for energy from coal and gas is neglected, perpetuating Europe's dependence on Russian gas and weakening its energy security as a consequence.
Polish Environment Minister Andrzej Kraszewski was particularly critical of 'Europe 2020' for proposing a possible increase in emission cuts to 30%. He believes that such an option should only be considered if similar reduction plans are adopted by the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases like the US and China.
Otherwise, the European economy will become less and less competitive, he warned.
Kraszewski is generally in favour of ambitious reduction quotas, but he believes Poland ''needs more time than others'' to meet them. The minister proposed that anti-climate change provisions should be adopted less uniformly: 94% of Poland's electricity comes from coal and thus more attention should be devoted to developing clean coal technologies, he believes.
Waldemar Pawlak, the Polish economy minister and vice-prime minister, disapproves of changes to be introduced to the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Currently, most CO2 permits are given to power plants and energy-intensive industries for free. Yet in order to meet the new targets for emission cuts, permits are to be bought at 'auctions'.
According to Pawlak, the introduction of emission benchmarks and fees would be a better incentive for the member states to reduce emissions than auctioning, which will eventually cover all permits.
However, the Climate Coalition and the Polish Ecological Club – two of the major Polish NGOs operating in the environmental field – do not share the fears expressed by Polish politicians about the climate and energy targets.
Indeed, they criticised the reluctance of EU decision-makers to increase greenhouse gas emission levels, as ''only reducing countries' emissions by 40% by 2020 will keep the rise in average global temperatures to under 2°C – to which the EU has already committed itself''.
Polish citizens share NGO views on the urgency of environmental action and – unlike government decision-makers – value the climate more than economic balance.
According to a November 2009 poll conducted by the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper, around 62% of Polish citizens believe that Poland should slash its emissions even if it were to cause rises in electricity, heating and fuel prices or add to the economic slowdown.
Meeting the EU's '20/20/20' objectives on greenhouse gas emission reductions and renewable energies is one of the five priorities of a draft ten-year economic plan unveiled by the European Commission in March, called 'Europe 2020' (EurActiv 03/03/10).
The strategy defines five headline targets at EU level, which member states will be asked to translate into national goals reflecting their differing starting points:
- Raising the employment rate of the population aged 20-64 from the current 69% to 75%.
- Raising the investment in R&D to 3% of the EU's GDP.
- Meeting the EU's '20/20/20' objectives on greenhouse gas emission reduction and renewable energies.
- Reducing the share of early school leavers from the current 15% to under 10% and making sure that at least 40% of youngsters have a degree or diploma.
- Reducing the number of Europeans living below the poverty line by 25%, lifting 20 million out of poverty from the current 80 million.
On 20 June, the EU member states adopted the 'Europe 2020' strategy for growth and jobs. The new strategy includes the '20/20/20' targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions and renewable energies outlined in the EU's climate and energy package, but also allows for a possible further increase in emission reductions – to 30% – if the European Commission sees this as attainable.
In a series of articles, the EurActiv network will present the state of play in individual EU countries on each of the targets. This series looks at how member states react to the environmental 20/20/20 targets.
The EurActiv network has already found that Eastern EU countries have either rejected or dismissed as irrelevant the planned EU target to reduce poverty (EurActiv 06/05/10). Most will adopt national research and development (R&D) targets that are below the EU-wide goal of spending 3% of GDP on R&D by 2020 (EurActiv 04/06/10).
- European Commission:Europe 2020 targets(3 Mar. 2010)
- European Commission:Europe 2020: Commission proposes new economic strategy in Europe(3 Mar. 2010)
- European Council:Conclusions(26 Mar. 2010)