Waiting for the 21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change that will be held in Paris in 2015, 28 EU leaders met at the European Council to discuss the 2030 targets.

We have already seen good results towards the goal 20-20-20 that has to be reached by 2020. It concerns greenhouse gas reductions, increase in the share of renewable energy consumed in the EU and improving energetic efficiency. But it’s time to set new, more ambitious limits. On October 23^rd, European countries reached an agreement about the 2030 strategy: instead of 20-20-20, we now have 40-27-27.

 This new policy framework aims at diminishing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% with respect to 1990 level, and at the same time reaching at least of 27% in the share of renewable energies and in the rise in energetic efficiency (compared to projections of future energy consumption) by 2030. The increase of the target is meant to build step by step a more competitive economy and energetic system for the whole European Union, trying to reduce the existing differences in the green sector among member states. From this long-term perspective, the EU Commission is already envisaging a road-map towards 2050, with the most ambitious goal ever: zero greenhouse gas emission.

Obviously, we are talking about a very long-term project, which will eventually face both economic and political obstacles. In the meanwhile, it is a strong signal coming from the EU Commission: no matter the economic crisis, the climate change issue has found its own place in the policy agenda, and cannot be ignored anymore.

But, what does the 40-27-27 provision mean?

Looking to a near low-carbon future, the core of this agreement consists in a sharp reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with respect to 1990. Does it look too ambitious? No: in 7 years we have already got to -18%! So, why haven’t they set higher targets? The current one, which is binding for all the member state, is an intermediate goal that is necessary to establish effective policies to reach zero-emission by 2050.

27-27 regards the share of renewable energies in the mix of energetic production and the increase in energetic efficiency: both have to reach at least 27% by 2030. Nevertheless these provisions are binding only at the European level, and they remain indicative at country level, threatening their effectiveness. On one hand, member states are free to set their own energy mix; on the other hand, they do not face any binding agreement. The risk of failure of the project remains high. What is the effectiveness of a guideline that does not image any penalties for countries that do not reach the goal?

Political issues determined this questionable choice: in order to reach an agreement among all the countries it has been taken into account the situation of some countries, e.g. Poland, which are still massively dependent on an heavy polluting industry.

We have definitely moved forward, but maybe we have been too shy: we fixed some objectives, but then we did not think enough about the way to implement them. For example, which policies will be adopt, both at the European and at the country level, to support renewable energy market growth? In particular, which subsidies have been imagined to protect these markets with big potential of growth but still too exposed to market risk such as the unfair competition from countries like China (which photovoltaic sector receives heavy government subsidies), sudden changes in technology, prices and costs? It is not about taking down competition, but helping a new born sector which is populated by post-start-up firms, not big MNCs. Without aids many firms which work in the renewable energy sector would fail

What about Italy? According to a recent study conducted by Ecofys for the European Commission, the commitment of our country in terms of support to solar energy is incredibly low, especially if we consider the enormous potential and comparing it to other countries. Germany is the leader of the sector, with more than 5bill€ investments in 2012. It is certainly true that the economic crisis plays a central role in the decision of investment for issues that are considered “secondary”, but why in 2012 the second country in Europe in terms of investments is Spain?

40-27-27 is a good starting point, and it is signal of the central position that the issue has assumed in the policy agenda, but there is still a lot of work to do. And the uphill path is still very long.

Author: Eliana Canavesio