France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have simultaneously launched a call for the European Union (EU) to commit to a larger reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. In recent months, the EU has weathered economic troubles. But the current plan for increased energy cuts is being billed as a bid to help economic recovery and to shore up energy security.

Currently, the agreed EU target is to reduce energy use by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. In scientific terms, the current 20% reduction target is not likely to restrict global temperature rise to the 2°C – the key climate danger threshold identified by the IPCC.

The main line of argument being repeated across the three major EU powers is that Europe’s current focus on recovery from recession must not distract from the type of economy that is appropriate in the medium and long-term. Thus, Jean-Louis Borloo, France’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary, states that “without a path to a sustainable low-carbon future, we will face continued uncertainty and significant costs from energy price volatility and a destabilizing climate.” His counterparts, in the UK and Germany respectively, Chris Huhne and Norbert Roettegen, agree. “We’re determined to make the economic case for the EU to cut its emissions by 30% by 2020 as quickly as possible,” Huhne said.

The current argument is that the recession itself has cut emissions in the EU’s traded sector by 11% from pre-crisis levels. Thus, the current carbon price is too low to stimulate significant investment in “green jobs” and “green technology.” Thus, Borloo, Huhne and Roettegen contest that if the EU sticks to 20% reduction targets, Europe is likely to lose the race to compete in the low-carbon world to countries such as China or the USA—which, following from the Copenhagen COP, they are looking to create attractive environments for low-carbon investments.

Though, reduced emissions during the recession has brought projected annual costs in 2020 of meeting the existing 20% target down a projected third from €70bn ($89bn, £59bn) to €48bn. A move up to 30% is now estimated to cost only €11bn more than the original cost of achieving a 20% reduction. To put this into perspective, according to the International Energy Agency, every year of delayed investment on low-carbon energy sources costs €300bn to €400bn at the global level into the future.

But it remains to be seen what the tangible motivation will be for increasing thresholds on carbon reductions to 30%. In the past, feed-in tariffs have been successful; but with a declared reduction target, perhaps even written into law formally, there will be issue with anxiety related to the current recession. Also, competition is key to motivate changes and the USA Congress just dropped the proposed comprehensive climate change package.

The Environment Ministers in the UK, Germany, and France have addressed general public in their call for increased reduction targets. In recent months there has been a surge in popular press discussion of extreme temperatures. The first six months of 2010 brought a string of warmest-ever global temperatures. Connecting these extreme weather months to long-term climate change patterns remains difficult, according to experts. “When we are looking at the scale of a season or a few months, we can’t talk about trends related to climate change,” Herve Le Treut, head of France’s Laboratory of Dynamical Meteorology. But, for the general public these extreme temperatures reflect the concept of climate change.

Between the extreme temperatures recently and potential business-case outlines, 30% reduction targets seem to have some potential. But only time and changing circumstances will tell…

It’s been almost a month since the UK’s newly elected, and historic, Coalition Government was formed, introducing an interesting partnership between the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties. With over 22 bills announced in last week’s Queen’s speech, the Coalition certainly has its work cut out over the next 18 months.

Without doubt, the biggest concern of this Government is the reduction of the national deficit, which stands at a colossal 12% of GDP. However, the newly elected PM, David Cameron, and his Liberal Democrat deputy, Nick Clegg, have pledged that the urgent need to develop a low-carbon economy will remain a key issue and focus amidst deficit reduction plans. To affirm his commitment, one of Cameron’s earliest announcements included a target to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10% within next 12 months. In the same vein, the PM has also committed to push the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% by 2020.

The Energy Security and Green Economy bill announced in the Queen’s speech last week is expected to deliver some of the pledges made in the Coalition Government’s manifesto (see below). The Bill will focus on maximising energy efficiencies and renewable energy generation through a range of innovative policy measures, including ‘green loans’ for buildings and businesses, designed to increase investment in green technologies and efficiency measures across the UK. Importantly the loans are associated with the building or business and not the individual, enabling owners to transfer payments to new owners if the property/businesses are sold.

However, this Green Deal is the only part of the government’s low-carbon agenda that is currently certain to make it into the final version of the Bill after DECC announced that a host of other legislative measures “may” be included in the legislation. The Department is still finalising proposals for legislation to regulate emissions from coal-fired power stations (with uncertainty around the baseline for performance), provide a framework to govern the rollout of smart grid technologies, lay the foundations for a green investment bank, reform energy markets to enhance security of supply and competition between operators and ensure North Sea infrastructure is open to companies operating in smaller oil and gas fields. Whilst the latter option remains controversial, the Government has made suggestions that it will seek to maximise opportunities for the continued extraction of fossil fuels and opencast mining, ironically exhausting carbon intensive energy resources to build the ‘foundations’ of a renewable and low carbon economy. This has dismayed some environmentalists, who remain skeptical about how this Coalition will set itself apart from the previous Labour Government.

However, the proposals put forward will have to contend with the £6.25bn of public spending cuts also announced last week by George Osborne. Whilst the Department for Energy & Climate Change (DECC) won’t suffer as much as some other Government departments, it is set to lose £85M from its budget, with DEFRA losing as much as £162M. In what he has described as the “fastest and most collegiate spending review in recent history” Osbourne plans to recover the remaining savings in £20.2M cuts to the department’s delivery bodies and a further £26m from other efficiencies, including £6M by targeting lower impact spend in the Regional Development Agencies. In addition, £34M will be cut from business support programmes including moving forward the closure of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP), which provides grants to households and businesses installing renewable energy technologies. A new feed in tariff incentive, launched in April 2010 is expected to replace the LCBP and provide incentives for microgeneration of renewable technologies, however with the launch of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) not expected until next year, there are concerns that some parts of the market are exposed to a lack of policy clarity or incentive.

Leonnie Greene of the Renewable Energy Association said producers of biomass systems, ground source heat pumps and other renewable heat technologies now urgently needed clarity on when the proposed Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme will be introduced.

Whilst many of these cuts are likely to deliver emissions reductions, the Government is faced with the risk of stifling long term green investments, which would inevitably deliver economy wide savings in the future.

Interestingly, two of the government’s most controversial environmental policies – its proposal to enforce a floor price for carbon and reform renewable energy incentives by extending the feed-in tariff – were noticeably absent from the list of measures to be included in the final bill. Whilst the Government has demonstrated some ‘fresh thinking’ on this agenda, there is a sense that there is much thinking still to be done. Inevitably the next 12 months will be critical, and comprehensive consultation, speedy implementation, and strong political direction will determine how well Cameron guides the UK through its worst debt crisis, and critical energy reforms to better position the nation in a future low carbon economy.

The Coalition Government’s vision for decarbonising the UK

1. The establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters;
2. The full establishment of feed-in tariff systems in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded ROCs;
3. We will instruct Ofgem to establish a security guarantee of energy supplies.
4. Measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion;
5. The creation of a green investment bank to support low carbon projects to transform the economy. As part of the creation of a green investment bank, the Government intends to create green financial products to provide individuals with opportunities to invest in the infrastructure needed to support the new green economy.
6. The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills;
7. Retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs;
8. Measures to encourage marine energy;
9. The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard;
10. The establishment of a high-speed rail network;
11. The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow and the refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted;
12. The replacement of the air passenger duty with a per-flight duty;
13. The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits;
14. Measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence;
15. Measures to promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity;
16. Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles;
17. Continuation of the present government’s proposals for public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fired power stations; and a specific commitment to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10% within 12 months.
18. Intention to seek an increase in the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the climate change committee.

Ministerial Arrangements in the new Coalition Government

Chris Huhne MP has been appointed Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the new coalition government.

Charles Hendry MP and Gregory Barker MP have been appointed as Ministers of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Lord Marland has been appointed as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

The French government is working towards implementation of a direct carbon tax by July 2010. France’s Constitutional Council struck down the first version of the carbon tax bill last 29 December. On 21 January 2010, the government proposed a number of amendments to the original legislation, which is aimed at encouraging French consumers to be more energy efficient and conscious of their energy decisions.

The first version of the bill was meant to take effect on 1 January; halting its inception has been greatly embarrassing to Prime Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy. The legislation was deemed unconstitutional due to a large number of sectoral exceptions. The new version of the bill will maintain the originally proposed 17 EUR per tonne of carbon dioxide with compensation for households. There has been a reduction in the number of exemptions. Though, certain “sensitive and energy-intensive sectors” will still receive special exemptions. Farming and fisheries will pay just one-quarter of the normal rate; road transport and shipping, will only pay 65 percent.

French Environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, has begun a series of consultations with companies, trade unions, and environmental non-governmental organizations concerning the specifics of the legislation. “The goal is to develop a new draft, which will be sent to Parliament for approval by spring,” spokesman Luc Chatel told a press conference after the weekly cabinet meeting.

Under the new proposal, the tax level remains at 17 EUR per metric tonne of CO₂ at over 1,000 of the most polluting sites. The main innovation of the amended bill is the inclusion of previously excluded sectors, such as power stations, oil refineries, and cement works. These plants were exempted in the first version of the bill because they are scheduled to be subject to a European Union quota system to be implemented in 2013. EU regulation calls for emissions in those sectors to be reduced by 21% by 2020.

In late January, a poll released by ViaVoice showed 51 % of the French public thought the government should abandon the tax proposal. “The carbon tax should not be an umpteenth tax used for filling up the state coffers,” small business union CGPME said in a statement. The French government is addressing this concern. It continues to stress that for businesses of all sizes, combined with the reform of local business taxes, the carbon tax will merely serve to transfer taxation away from work and investment. Yet, the debate continues to focus on how to compensate low income households,; due to inefficiency, the tend to use relatively more fuel and many work at night before public transport is running.

“The best would be for it to be ready in 2010 but it’s true that all these details … are complicated,” Michel Rocard, a former Socialist prime minister, said in an appearance on Europe 1 radio. “I don’t know if we will be ready in 2010.”

Last July, Rocard headed a review report of the potential tax for the government. At that time, the burden of the tax was presented as being divided roughly equally between households and businesses. There is no clear indication of how this division will change under the most recent tax proposal.

After a first round of consultations, the French government has unveiled two options for introducing the tax system into industrial sectors already subject to the European emissions quota system.

The first option would levy the carbon tax on all industries, but the introduction would be at reduced rates for companies most exposed to international competition, as well as for those that are the largest consumers of energy. A series of quantitative criteria (yet to be fully unveiled) will be used in order determine the particular rate of tax.

Additionally, under this plan, companies would be entitled to receive a tax credit on investments aimed to reduce both energy consumption and emissions and to prevent industrial risks.

The second option for the tax would construct a bonus-penalty system. All industrial installations would be subject to the tax of of 17 EUR per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. Under this second plan, each business would receive a lump sum tax credit, dependant upon its efforts made to reduce emissions.

“This is the beginning of a wider process of reflection and consultation,” Economy Minister Christine Lagarde said after the report was presented.

While most politicians agree emissions must be cut to fight global warming, a key part of the debate is on how to compensate poorer households, workers in certain sectors and those who need to drive because they work at night or live in rural areas.

France aims for an 80% reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2050.

France would be the largest economy to apply a direct carbon tax, mirroring existent measures in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland.

Author: Nyla Sarwar

"Big Heads" seek financing for climate change (Image by: Oxfam)

An ambitious and positive draft text presented at the UN climate summit has failed to impress developing countries, who argue that more finance is needed to support their low carbon development and adaptation in some of the most vulnerable nations.

The so-called “long-term action plan text” believed to be much more positive that the “Danish text” leaked earlier in the week, sets GHG reduction targets for developed countries of around 25-45% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. These targets are expected to be extremely ambitious, and will require the sequestration of already emitted atmospheric carbon, potentially limiting worldwide temperature increases to 1.5C – 2C. The text is now up for negotiation, and demands much stronger commitments from the developed counties, compared to figures already laid out on the table.

UK PM Gordon Brown has been actively engaged in the negotiations to encourage the EU to confirm its more ambitious commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 30% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. It is expected that this will require the UK to contribute 40% emissions reductions by 2020, instead of the 34% share previously committed.

Gordon Brown has also been pivotal in negotiations among EU leaders to provide immediate finance for developing countries to adapt to climate change. Announcing that the EU would commit 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn, $10bn) for adaptation in developing countries over the next three years, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt reaffirmed Europe’s commitment to moving the Copenhagen negotiations closer to a global deal.

The UK’s promise, at £500m ($800m; 553m euros) a year, was the highest. Reports from Brussels suggest the German contribution will be 480m euros per year from 2010 to 2012. Earlier, Mr Brown and France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy told a joint news conference their two nations would contribute at least £1.5bn (1.7bn euros; $2.4bn) spread over the three years.

The money pledged is for a “fast start” fund to help the world’s poorest nations tackle rising sea levels, deforestation, water shortages and other consequences of climate change between 2010 and 2012, and reduce their own emissions.

The promised EU contribution will make up a sizeable portion of a proposed global figure of $10bn (7bn euros) annually.

Financial discussions in Brussels saw EU leaders during the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to consider a global tax on financial transactions to reduce the risks of a further financial crisis and raise funding for tackling climate change.

“The European Council encourages the IMF to consider the full range of options including insurance fees, resolution funds, contingent capital arrangements and a global financial transaction levy in its review,” the summit’s final statement said.

Whilst the text confirms the consensus between nations that halting forest protection is crucial, the details of measures to reduce deforestation are still al long way off. Developing countries are still demanding more funding from developed countries, and the details of a long term and fundamental financial package still remains hugely uncertain. The new text also requires developing countries to cut their carbon emissions by 15-30% by 2020 compared to BAU, and developing countries retired from the plenary requesting further time to digest the potential consequences of such commitments.

Additionally, reports suggest that the EU and US have finally agreed to a twin track deal which ensures that the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that forces rich countries to cut emissions – continues at least until a new legal treaty is signed.

“This is very, very complicated. It’s tough because the world is trying to peak emissions. There is a long way to go. We are anxious and conscious of the scale of the challenge that remains,” said the UK climate and energy secretary, Ed Miliband.

The text will be negotiated in more detail next week, with details of a finance package and forest protection measures expected to dominate discussions. Developing countries will be calling for tougher commitments, and as Nasa scientist Jim Hansen recently commented – the climate agenda is not amenable to half measures. “It would be like saying, I’ll agree to cut 40% of slavery.”

Bang it on the table, Gordon!

The Guardian has it that the EU is once again stalling on adaptation finance being additional to aid (see previous Climatico posts on this issue here and here). Someone has forwarded them “confidential papers” where key lines of negotiating text have been removed. Apparently it says, “Cannot accept reference to ‘additional to’, and ‘separate from’ ODA [official development assistance] targets.”

This has of course brought howls of complaint from the development NGOs, who argue, rightly in my opinion, that adaptation finance is a justice issue. Climate change was mostly caused by rich countries, the argument goes, and so any costs that poor countries incur in adapting to it should be financed by rich countries. Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia’s PM) puts it best, saying,

“[Climate change] has created a more hostile environment for development. No amount of money will undo the damage done. But adequate investment in mitigating the damage could partly resolve the problem. … Developed countries are thus morally obliged to pay partial compensation to poor and vulnerable countries and regions to cover part of the cost of the investments needed to adapt to climate change.”

Aid has completely different objectives (as well as different political economy questions around it), and should be protected from mission creep. Developing countries have consistently argued that a fair deal on finance is necessary for them to accept anything on the table at Copenhagen. If they are to get no additional funds, they might walk, and rightly so.

International Development is one of the few areas in which Gordon Brown still claims moral authority. He has banged his “big clunking fist” on the table before, to prevent rich country backsliding on development assistance – let’s hope he does it again. What he proposed last year is the least worst option – it acknowleges that adaptation and development do cross over to an extent, and therefore promises that 90% of adaptation finance from the UK will be additional to ODA. Along with the £10bn global fund he annoucned on Friday, this provides a useful framework for the EU.

 EU leaders failed to agree on a financing proposal for developing countries after their two-day summit this week, leaving the EU’s negotiating position on the issue open-ended.

A Kenyan riverbed: developing countries are expected to bear the brunt of climate change because of their geography and their lack of capacity to adapt to change (Image: Matt & Kim Rudge @Flickr)

In a set of conclusions that were long on rhetorical concern about accelerating climate change but short on any new commitments for the EU, the European Council effectively endorsed the views set forth in the Commission communication on funding that I discussed a few weeks ago. This means that the 27 Member states have agreed a common view of the amount of funding required for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries – €100bn annually by 2020 – but not over how much of this should come from the EU and its members.

One of the reported reasons for the failure to reach an agreement is reported to be, as usual, down to differences between the richer and poorer members of the EU. A coalition of East European countries allegedly resisted specific commitments due to concern over their ability to afford the proposals. But the BBC also reported differences over negotiating strategy as a cause for the ambiguity of the Council’s position. Germany, it is suggested, believed that providing an explicit figure would provide less of an incentive for other developed countries to make similar commitments.

How much the EU is really willing to pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, then, remains to be seen. But the failure of EU leaders to establish a common position underlines the political difficulty associated with large transfers of wealth to countries whose citizens don’t vote in European elections.

Mont-Saint-Michel, on the Normandy coast of France, is the sight of new conflict.  The most recent battle is not in a medieval setting, but a modern struggle against two good, but opposed environmental causes.  On one side are those who want to reduce carbon emissions by installing windmills.  On the other side stand ecologists who suggest that windmills churning above the tidal flats of Mont-Saint-Michel would distract from the natural beauty of the medieval monument and potentially destroy the landscape in the future.

France is on an ambitious route to expand its use of windmills in renewable energy.  Currently there are 2500 windmills producing 4500 megawatts per year; the goal is to have 8500 windmills producing 25000 megawatts by 2020.  Windmills are becoming increasingly sought after by EU goals to limit greenhouse gases.  Last week, the EU recommended that it invest $ 70 million in clean energy over the coming decade, tripling windmill construction to produce 20 % of Europe’s electricity.

Those against the windmills near Mont-Saint-Michel have nothing against the quest for clean energy but rather argue that windmills above the ridgeline are not the way to achieve this goal.  Allies have formed across France, and an ambitious campaign to prove the windmills would desecrate the vista has begun.

The mayor of Mont-Saint-Michel, Eric Vannier, has stayed out of the debate for the most part, but 600 locals have pooled finances to hire lawyers to sue local government.  They expect a court ruling in Spring 2010.  If the group wins the lawsuit, “they’ll have to put everything back beyond 30 km (~18.5 miles),” said Corinne Gressier, who runs the group “Windmills: Turbulences.”  But she also realizes, “if we lose, it’s over.”

French law bans windmills closer than 1500 feet from historical monuments.  The current court case in will be on trial in Nantes.  It concerns plans to build 300 foot high windmills on farmland in Argouges, on a plateau a bit more than 10 miles southeast of Mont-Saint-Michel.  The monument attracts about 3 million visitors each year to admire the rock-top monastery.  Andre Antolini, president of renewable Energies Syndicate, told reporters last month that, “at the proposed distance, tourists to the monument would only see tiny blades peeking over the horizon.”

But for protesters like Gressier and the national alliance of environmental groups, the three windmills at Argouges would just be the tip of the iceberg if building is permitted.  There are current plans for an additional 80 towers in farming communities across the entire ridgeline above Mont-Saint-Michel.

The complicating issue is that farmers and village counters tend to embrace proposals to install windmills in their fields because of the payments they receive.  They get stipends for use of the land and villages are provided tax revenue on income from electricity, which is sold to the national grid.  “It’s a flourishing business,” said Jean-Louis Butre, president of the Durable Environmental Federation, based in Paris.

At present France gets about 80 percent of its energy from nuclear reactors and an additional 12 percent from hydraulic generators.  That leaves a balance of 8 percent that must be filled by oil, coal, natural gas, solar, or wind.  Butre explains that if government decided to fill that gap with windmills, it would have so many that they would be part of the scenery in more than a third of the country.

In fact last year, Butre challenged president Sarkozy’s strong push for wind energy in the book “Fraud: why windmills are a danger for France.”  The former President Velery Giscard d’Estaing, a supporter for nuclear power, wrote the preface to the book.  He denounced windmills as an “unacceptable use of public funds, a deceptive public discourse, and often questionable business.”

Now the delegation from Argouges, with support from groups around France, waits to see if they will win the court battle and put atop to the windmill construction near Mont-Saint-Michel.  It remains to be seen how this part of Mont-Saint-Michel’s represents 13 centuries of history will play out.

This month, the European Commission published development roadmaps for seven key low carbon technologies. Thy relate to wind, solar, bioenergy, CCS, nuclear technologies, as well as smart grids and energy efficiency, for the period 2010 and 2020. 

There is a long-standing policy debate over how best to spur innovation in low-carbon technologies. One option is to let markets ‘pull’ technology development along. According to this reasoning, if governments ensure there is a credible price for CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, then companies will start to develop new technologies with lower emissions in response to this market signal. The other possibility is for governments to use a policy ‘push’ and pay directly for early-stage R&D into new and promising technologies.

The roadmaps follow the publication of a EU Strategic Energy Technology Plan in 2007. It outlined a vision where the EU enjoyed global leadership in a range of low-carbon technologies. Each roadmap has been developed by the Commission in consultation with the relevant industries, and attempts to describe, step by step, how each technology should develop over the next decade in order to fulfil the vision of the SET Plan. Development in each of the technology areas is backed by an European Industrial Initiative, which is a public-private partnership working in each of the low-carbon technology areas.

In practice, governments usually opt for a combination of the two. The SET Plan was the EU’s policy push for low technologies, accompanying the market pull of the carbon and renewable energy targets included in the Climate and Energy Package it unveiled in the same year.

While the Climate and Energy Package and its 20/20/20 targets have successfully made it into EU law, the SET Plan has arguably been somewhat neglected by comparison. The Commission’s new communication implicitly acknowledges this by speaking of the need for the SET Plan now to be ‘taken forward to implementation’.

But implementation costs money and, critically, the Commission’s new roadmaps don’t come with any new funding plans attached. The Commission calls on Member States to dig deeper into their own pockets to fund energy R&D – a recommendation that is unlikely to receive a warm welcome from treasuries across Europe as they seek to recover their battered public finances – and proposes to use the European Investment Bank’s lending power to fund research in promising areas.

The communication also refers to the role of other countries in developing low-carbon technologies. As with other areas of international climate negotiations, there are large inequalities in the distribution of low-carbon innovation. While the EU can justifiably point to its global climate leadership committing early to substantial emission reductions (at least, compared to other developed countries), the US is leading the pack in terms of its expenditure on developing low-carbon technologies, from biofuels to smart grids. A number of international negotiations are in progress to improve coordination between developed countries and sure that they all pull their weight when it comes to energy R&D; another set of negotiations again are discussing how developing countries can access these new technologies.

As reported by EurActiv, it is not only global cooperation that lies behind the SET Plan: there is something of a technology race occurring between different developed countries, with potentially large future gains available to countries who lead the development of new low-carbon technologies. The IEA this week released its technology road map for CCS that envisages an investment of US$6 trillion by 2050. Companies who are successful in developing CCS technologies now will be able to profit from this economic activity in future. Similar arguments apply to other low-carbon technologies like renewable generation and low-emissions vehicles.

There is no question that low-carbon technologies will be vital during the twnty-first century: without them mitigating climate change will be intolerably expensive. How many of those technologies will be European in origin depends in no small part on whether the Commission succeeds in finding R&D funding at a scale that matches its R&D vision.