7 October 2008 - Following this morning’s vote (1) on the emissions trading system (ETS) in the European Parliament’s environment committee, Green MEP Caroline Lucas commented:

"I’m delighted that the Environment Committee saw off attempts by industry to completely derail the ETS. It clearly rejected the last-minute package of amendments drafted by the steel sector, and submitted by German Conservative MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz, who has turned out to be a modern-day Jekyll and Hyde - serving as the Rapporteur in the Parliament’s Climate Change Committee, but at the same time attempting to destroy the EU’s flagship climate policy.

"While we regret that today’s vote did not increase the ambition of the Commission’s proposal, we are relieved that it preserved the crucial principle of allocation by auctioning, whereby industry must pay for the right to emit. Indefinitely handing out credits for free would have undermined this centrepiece of EU climate legislation and continued granting grotesque windfall profits to industry. 85% free allocation to the manufacturing sector in 2013 will be entirely phased out in favour of full auctioning of carbon credits by 2020.

"We are especially pleased that the Committee also succeeded in ringfencing 100% of the auction revenues - estimated to be worth a possible €50 billion per year by 2020 - for climate-related purposes, including 50% to be earmarked for climate protection in developing countries. Firm commitment to supporting their efforts to adapt - and tackling root causes such as deforestation - may make all the difference in securing an international agreement on climate protection in Copenhagen next year.

"For our credibility in the international negotiations, it is particularly welcome that the Environment Committee voted for an ETS that automatically keeps pace if the EU commits to a higher reduction target in a future international climate agreement.

"The Environment Committee today recognised the issue of carbon leakage, but underlined that problems faced within certain industry sectors must be addressed with a remedy for each specific ailment, once the international agreement is concluded, rather than with an overdose of free carbon credits for all."

Dr Lucas concluded: "Finally, on the issue of carbon capture and storage (CCS), we regret that the idea of "double crediting" was passed. This technology has a part to play, but so do many other new and exciting renewable technologies. We should not be articificially boosting CCS and prioritising coal at the expense of these - especially bearing in mind that CCS will not reach commercial stage until at least 2020, yet the science tells us that emissions must peak and begin to decline by 2015.

"Neither should any public subsidy for CCS come from disrupting the supposed market mechanism of the ETS: why not use auctioning revenues, as is proposed for other renewable technologies - or even redeploy existing fossil fuel subsidies? And if a key part of the motivation to accelerate CCS development is for its use in China and elsewhere in developing countries, then we fail to understand why MEPs rejected our Green suggestion to make the receipt of any credits conditional on an intellectual property sharing agreement."

ENDS

Notes to Editors

(1) 42 in favour, 24 against