Greenhouse: MEPs express themselves on Climate Change and the upcoming Copenhagen

On the 20th of October the plenary session of the European parliament had a debate on the Position of the Council on the Copenhagen Agreement which are to take over and replace the current Kyoto agreement.

This debate gave no votes on the content of the statement currently drafted but gave space for the MEPs to express themselve on the content and what is at stake at the Copenhagen debate. Therefore, we have prepared three questions to the Maltese MEPs to give their vews on Climate Change and Copenhagen.

The following are the questions asked and the answers recieved:

The EU is seen as having taken a leadership position in the drafting of the Kyoto protocol, and also later in the way it lived up to its commitments differently from the rest of the western world. Given the greater likeliness of cooperation and a greater amount of countries involved this time around at Copenhagen what position should the EU take in the negotiations?

I would like to see the EU taking a strong position for Copenhagen, pressing for an ambitious and comprehensive agreement that will prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Most importantly, we should insist on binding emission reductions for all industrialised countries and appropriate action by developing countries to limit emissions. We also need to establish a global framework for adaptation to climate change, whose main component should be an expanded international carbon market that would generate a large part of the funds necessary for mitigation measures and promote emission cuts. I also support the socialist view that developing countries have contributed least to climate change but are facing its most severe consequences, therefore we must also ensure that climate change policies do not undermine, but work towards the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. Generally, as an outcome of Copenhagen, I would like to see a single, legally binding agreement that builds on the Kyoto Protocol and moves it forward.

- Louis Grech

As it did before, the EU should show its strong commitment to fight the challenges of climate change. It should demonstrate the leadership in taking up ambitious mitigation action within its borders and outside and through its determination to support developing countries both financially and technologically in moving to a low carbon growth scenario. The EU must continue with its current commitment of reducing carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 with the aim to reach an even more ambitious target to reduce emissions by 30%. However, the success of our efforts lies in mutual confidence, trust and belief that sustainable growth on a global scale is the way to respond to the challenge.

- John Attard Montalto

Simon Busuttil - No Reply

David Casa – No Reply

Edward Scicluna – No Reply

________________________________

A lot has been said on the best way to finance our way out of the financial crisis and climate change as a dual objective. Where would EU funding be most effective in the aim of reducing EU carbon emissions and which type of technology seems most promising in achieving these objectives?

· At the moment, in the S&D Group and in the Budget Committee it has been agreed that as regards Budget 2010, funding should not be allocated for economic recovery at the expense of issues such as climate change. Thus, I firmly believe that one issues should not be at the expense of the other.

· The biggest source of carbon emissions is fossil fuel combustion, so our first priority should be the development of technologies that reduce our dependence on it or replace it altogether. Therefore providing funding for research and development of renewable energy sources has clear benefits. The transportation and construction sectors are major sources of carbon emissions and investments to make them less polluting would contribute to mitigate the financial crisis as well. Funding eco-friendly infrastructure and making buildings more energy-efficient will create many "green jobs" in the short term and save costs and emissions in the long term. Generally, I am strongly in favour of providing EU funds for cost-effective solutions that will pay for themselves in the long term, while at the same time reducing emissions. I also believe it is important to subsidize developing countries with new technologies that reduce emissions, which they would not be able to afford otherwise.

· Generally speaking, the EU budget - in its present format -cannot deal efficiently and effectively with issues related to climate change.

In October 2008 I had made a formal proposal that was approved by Parliament. The proposal dictated that the Union will create a specific fund to finance measures on climate change which will cost millions of euro annually, but within the context of an integrated strategy. I proposed that the fund be financed through the Emissions Trading Scheme, under which companies throughout the EU pay charges according to the greenhouse gasses their plants and factories emit.

Thus, in this respect, I am arguing that the creation of a specific "Climate Change Fund" or a dedicated budget line would significantly improve the EU's capability to effectively address climate change issues from a budgetary and financial perspective

- Louis Grech

Considering that the effective use and introduction of renewable energies in many spheres of life presents a solution to reducing carbon emissions it would be helpful to accelerate the evolution of mechanisms which function on renewable energy sources (for example, support mechanisms for cooling and heating), as well as introducing renewable energy requirements on the local level when it comes to planning and building in industrial and residential areas. The most promising answer to achieving these objectives is a mix of energy producing technologies using wind, sun, currents, thermal sources, etc. If I had to single out a particular source I believe the sun is the answer.

- John Attard Montalto

Simon Busuttil - No Reply

David Casa – No Reply

Edward Scicluna – No Reply

________________________________

Malta stands to lose considerably in terms of tourism, agriculture and biodiversity from the impacts of climate change. What is your view on these arising issues in the Maltese context?

Not necessarily, since the months in which tourism is lowest will see an increase in the number of tourists as the weather will be warmer. The months which today are referred to as high season will be negatively impacted. The end result will probably be a balancing out in the numbers lost in very hot months with the numbers gained in warmer months.

This will also apply to energy usage since an increase in cooling systems will be compensated with a decrease in warming systems.

As the sun is the answer as a source for future energy Malta will be in a better position to harness this type of energy.

The rise in sea water levels will affect the surface area of the islands, however it will not be difficult to use reclamation procedures as the depth of water under which the areas will be submerged will be moderate.