The revision of the TEN-E guidelines, to be proposed by the European Commission later this year, should be consistent with EU energy and climate targets for 2030, its long-term commitment on decarbonisation and the energy-efficiency-first principle, said MEPs in a resolution adopted on Friday (10 July) by 548 votes in favour, 100 against, and four abstentions.
In order to ensure that the projects selected for the next PCI (projects of common interest) list are in line with the EU’s climate commitments, MEPs call on the Commission to also propose transitional guidance before the end of 2020. To be granted PCI status, projects must contribute to keep the energy supply affordable, in keeping with the five principles of the Energy Union.
The TEN-E regulation was set up in 2013, before the Paris Agreement was adopted, and several developments have since significantly changed the landscape of energy policy, MEPs recall.
The European Parliament rejected an objection to the 4th PCI list last year, following a debate with the European Commission.
Under the Trans-European Network-Energy (TEN-E) Regulation, adopted in 2013, the Commission identifies the most important PCIs across the EU, so that these projects can benefit from simplified permits and the right to apply for EU funding from the Connecting Europe Facility.
Most projects aim at ensuring undisrupted delivery of electricity and gas to all parts of the EU, by closing cross-border gaps in the network and enhancing local storage capacity.
Building a Climate-Resilient Future - A new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change
The European Commission has adopted a new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, setting out the pathway to prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change. While the EU does everything within its power to mitigate climate change, domestically and internationally, we must also get ready to face its unavoidable consequences. From deadly heatwaves and devastating droughts, to decimated forests and coastlines eroded by rising sea levels, climate change is already taking its toll in Europe and worldwide. Building on the 2013 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, the aim of today's proposals is to shift the focus from understanding the problem to developing solutions, and to move from planning to implementation.
European Green Deal Executive Vice President Frans Timmermans said: “The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark reminder that insufficient preparation can have dire consequences. There is no vaccine against the climate crisis, but we can still fight it and prepare for its unavoidable effects. The impacts of climate change are already felt both inside and outside the European Union. The new climate adaptation strategy equips us to speed up and deepen preparations. If we get ready today, we can still build a climate-resilient tomorrow.”
Economic losses from more frequent climate-related extreme weather are increasing. In the EU, these losses alone already average over €12 billion per year. Conservative estimates show that exposing today's EU economy to global warming of 3°C above pre-industrial levels would result in an annual loss of at least €170 billion. Climate change affects not only the economy, but also the health and well-being of Europeans, who increasingly suffer from heat waves; the deadliest natural disaster of 2019 worldwide was the European heatwave, with 2500 deaths.
Our action on climate change adaptation must involve all parts of society and all levels of governance, inside and outside the EU. We will work to build a climate resilient society by improving knowledge of climate impacts and adaptation solutions; by stepping up adaptation planning and climate risk assessments; by accelerating adaptation action; and by helping to strengthen climate resilience globally.
Smarter, swifter, and more systemic adaptation
Adaptation actions must be informed by robust data and risk assessment tools that are available to all - from families buying, building and renovating homes to businesses in coastal regions or farmers planning their crops. To achieve this, the strategy proposes actions that push the frontiers of knowledge on adaptation so that we can gather more and better data on climate-related risks and losses, making them available to all. Climate-ADAPT, the European platform for adaptation knowledge, will be enhanced and expanded, and a dedicated health observatory will be added to better track, analyse and prevent health impacts of climate change.
Climate change has impacts at all levels of society and across all sectors of the economy, so adaptation actions must be systemic. The Commission will continue to incorporate climate resilience considerations in all relevant policy fields. It will support the further development and implementation of adaptation strategies and plans with three cross cutting priorities: integrating adaptation into macro-fiscal policy, nature-based solutions for adaptation, and local adaptation action.
Stepping up international action
Our climate change adaptation policies must match our global leadership in climate change mitigation. The Paris Agreement established a global goal on adaptation and highlighted adaptation as a key contributor to sustainable development. The EU will promote sub-national, national and regional approaches to adaptation, with a specific focus on adaptation in Africa and Small Island Developing States. We will increase support for international climate resilience and preparedness through the provision of resources, by prioritizing action and increasing effectiveness, through the scaling up of international finance and through stronger global engagement and exchanges on adaptation. We will also work with international partners to close the gap in international climate finance.
Climate change is happening today, so we have to build a more resilient tomorrow. The world has just concluded the hottest decade on record during which the title for the hottest year was beaten eight times. The frequency and severity of climate and weather extremes is increasing. These extremes range from unprecedented forest fires and heatwaves right above the Arctic Circle to devastating droughts in the Mediterranean region, and from hurricanes ravaging EU outermost regions to forests decimated by unprecedented bark beetle outbreaks in Central and Eastern Europe. Slow onset events, such as desertification, loss of biodiversity, land and ecosystem degradation, ocean acidification or sea level rise are equally destructive over the long term.
The European Commission announced this new, more ambitious EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change in the Communication on the European Green Deal, following a 2018 evaluation of the 2013 Strategy and an open public consultation between May and August 2020. The European Climate Law proposal provides the foundation for increased ambition and policy coherence on adaptation. It integrates the global goal on adaptation in Article 7 of the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goal 13 action into EU law. The proposal commits the EU and Member States to make continuous progress to boost adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change. The new adaptation strategy will help make this progress a reality.
Show us the plan: Investors push companies to come clean on climate
In the past, shareholder votes on the environment were rare and easily brushed aside. Things could look different in the annual meeting season starting next month, when companies are set to face the most investor resolutions tied to climate change in years, write Simon Jessop, Matthew Green and Ross Kerber.
Those votes are likely to win more support than in previous years from large asset managers seeking clarity on how executives plan to adapt and prosper in a low-carbon world, according to Reuters interviews with more than a dozen activist investors and fund managers.
In the United States, shareholders have filed 79 climate-related resolutions so far, compared with 72 for all of last year and 67 in 2019, according to data compiled by the Sustainable Investments Institute and shared with Reuters. The institute estimated the count could reach 90 this year.
Topics to be put to a vote at annual general meetings (AGMs) include calls for emissions limits, pollution reports and “climate audits” that show the financial impact of climate change on their businesses.
A broad theme is to press corporations across sectors, from oil and transport to food and drink, to detail how they plan to reduce their carbon footprints in coming years, in line with government pledges to cut emissions to net zero by 2050.
“Net-zero targets for 2050 without a credible plan including short-term targets is greenwashing, and shareholders must hold them to account,” said billionaire British hedge fund manager Chris Hohn, who is pushing companies worldwide to hold a recurring shareholder vote on their climate plans.
Many companies say they already provide plenty of information about climate issues. Yet some activists say they see signs more executives are in a dealmaking mood this year.
Royal Dutch Shell said on Feb. 11 it would become the first oil and gas major to offer such a vote, following similar announcements from Spanish airports operator Aena, UK consumer goods company Unilever and U.S. rating agency Moody’s.
While most resolutions are non-binding, they often spur changes with even 30% or more support as executives look to satisfy as many investors as possible.
“The demands for increased disclosure and target-setting are much more pointed than they were in 2020,” said Daniele Vitale, the London-based head of governance for Georgeson, which advises corporations on shareholder views.
While more and more companies are issuing net-zero targets for 2050, in line with goals set out in the 2015 Paris climate accord, few have published interim targets. A study here from sustainability consultancy South Pole showed just 10% of 120 firms it polled, from varied sectors, had done so.
“There’s too much ambiguity and lack of clarity on the exact journey and route that companies are going to take, and how quickly we can actually expect movement,” said Mirza Baig, head of investment stewardship at Aviva Investors.
Data analysis from Swiss bank J Safra Sarasin, shared with Reuters, shows the scale of the collective challenge.
Sarasin studied the emissions of the roughly 1,500 firms in the MSCI World Index, a broad proxy for the world’s listed companies. It calculated that if companies globally did not curb their emissions rate, they would raise global temperatures by more than 3 degrees Celsius by 2050.
That is well short of the Paris accord goal of limiting warming to “well below” 2C, preferably 1.5.
At an industry level, there are large differences, the study found: If every company emitted at the same level as the energy sector, for example, the temperature rise would be 5.8C, with the materials sector - including metals and mining - on course for 5.5C and consumer staples - including food and drink - 4.7C.
The calculations are mostly based on companies’ reported emissions levels in 2019, the latest full year analysed, and cover Scope 1 and 2 emissions - those caused directly by a company, plus the production of the electricity it buys and uses.
Sectors with high carbon emissions are likely to face the most investor pressure for clarity.
In January, for example, ExxonMobil - long an energy industry laggard in setting climate goals - disclosed its Scope 3 emissions, those connected to use of its products.
This prompted the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers) to withdraw a shareholder resolution seeking the information.
Calpers’ Simiso Nzima, head of corporate governance for the $444 billion pension fund, said he saw 2021 as a promising year for climate concerns, with a higher likelihood of other companies also reaching agreements with activist investors.
“You’re seeing a tailwind in terms of climate change.”
However, Exxon has asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for permission to skip votes on four other shareholder proposals, three related to climate matters, according to filings to the SEC. They cite reasons such as the company having already “substantially implemented” reforms.
An Exxon spokesman said it had ongoing discussions with its stakeholders, which led to the emissions disclosure. He declined to comment on the requests to skip votes, as did the SEC, which had not yet ruled on Exxon’s requests as of late Tuesday (23 February).
Given the influence of large shareholders, activists are hoping for more from BlackRock, the world’s biggest investor with $8.7 trillion under management, which has promised a tougher approach to climate issues.
Last week, BlackRock called for boards to come up with a climate plan, release emissions data and make robust short-term reduction targets, or risk seeing directors voted down at the AGM.
It backed a resolution at Procter & Gamble’s AGM, unusually held in October, which asked the company to report on efforts to eliminate deforestation in its supply chains, helping it pass with 68% support.
“It’s a crumb but we hope it’s a sign of things to come” from BlackRock, said Kyle Kempf, spokesman for resolution sponsor Green Century Capital Management in Boston.
Asked for more details about its 2021 plans, such as if it might support Hohn’s resolutions, a BlackRock spokesman referred to prior guidance that it would “follow a case-by-case approach in assessing each proposal on its merits”.
Europe’s biggest asset manager, Amundi, said last week it, too, would back more resolutions.
Vanguard, the world’s second-biggest investor with $7.1 trillion under management, seemed less certain, though.
Lisa Harlow, Vanguard’s stewardship leader for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, called it “really difficult to say” whether its support for climate resolutions this year would be higher than its traditional rate of backing one in ten.
Britain’s Hohn, founder of $30 billion hedge fund TCI, aims to establish a regular mechanism to judge climate progress via annual shareholder votes.
In a “Say on Climate” resolution, investors ask a company to provide a detailed net zero plan, including short-term targets, and put it to an annual non-binding vote. If investors aren’t satisfied, they will then be in a stronger position to justify voting down directors, the plan holds.
Early signs suggest the drive is gaining momentum.
Hohn has already filed at least seven resolutions through TCI. The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, which Hohn founded, is working with campaign groups and asset managers to file more than 100 resolutions over the next two AGM seasons in the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia.
“Of course, not all companies will support the Say on Climate,” Hohn told pension funds and insurance companies in November. “There will be fights, but we can win the votes.”
Plato tackles climate change
What connects Plato, ancient Athenian philosopher, to the most pressing long term problem of the 21st century? In his new book Plato Tackles Climate Change, Brussels-based author and teacher Matthew Pye offers a guide to making sense of the climate crisis. Journeying through the ideas of Western philosophy’s founding father, the book boldly brings together an information rich scientific perspective on the climate crisis with the probing playfulness of Plato’s work. The book blends accessibility with depth, and does not shy away from the big questions" writes Sebastien Kaye, recent graduate of Environmental Governance at the University of Oxford
The student of Socrates, Plato, is perhaps the best known of the ancient philosophers. He had a deep influence in classical Antiquity. Plato established the first university, an academy of Philosophy in Athens where his students worked on important philosophical issues concerning truth, virtues and metaphysics. Centuries later, the rediscovery of Plato in the West provided a major stimulus to the Renaissance - a rebirth that was (arguably) triggered by the crisis of the Black Death. Matthew Pye brings Plato back to life, resurrecting his insights to make sense of our current climate emergency.
The problem of climate change, Matthew Pye demonstrates, demands another major rethink of everything. Confronted by the non-negotiable laws of physics, the threat of systemic breakdown, and a society with an increasingly slippery relationship with the truth, this book offers a safe and challenging intellectual space to chew over everything. He argues that it seems rather reckless to allow our short-sighted desires and over excitable human pride to get the better of some simple truths about reality. Pye highlights how unwise it is to play around with deep seated equilibriums in nature, and how risky it is to have a slack and casual attitude to the truth; and with carefully constructed points he brings in Plato’s life and works to help make things clear.
One section is concerned with “Truth Decay”. He notes that the stale tactics of the climate sceptics, with their glib conversations that are designed to distract and dissuade, now look increasingly marginalised, and that the surge in climate change awareness has been long overdue. However, Pye exposes just how serious the crisis remains and how disconnected from reality we still are. He points out that we are still not asking some very basic questions, such as “How fast must we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to stay below 1.5°C or 2°C?”, “Why are climate targets still not rooted in the mainstream science of the carbon budget?”.
Matthew Pye weaves into the analysis personal accounts of his expedition into the world of climate change education and action. Ten years ago, he founded a Climate Academy for secondary school students in Brussels. At the centre of this effort has been a collaboration with some pioneering work by scientists who have created an index to make clear the vital statistics behind the climate crisis. Endorsed by the numerous world authorities in climate science, the project “cut11percent.org” provides the percentage reductions of GHG emissions that every country should be reducing every year to stay within a ‘safe’ operating space of warming. The book explains the key facts and principles in the agreement among scientists that in order to have a chance of staying within the temperature thresholds of the Paris Agreement, the Very High Developed nations of the must cut global emissions by 11% each year, starting now. Every country has its own yearly percentage of emission reductions that increases with inaction. People have the right to know these vital statistics that are updated every year. Pye argues that they are the survival codes to a safe future – and the absence of laws to embody this basic act of common sense is starkly revealing of the human condition.
Championing this right to knowledge and the determined call that political efforts must be uniquely based on the scientific reality of the climate crisis, acts as the book's central message.
Plato was the first to point to the fault lines that exist in a system where popular belief can usurp the truth through the democratic process; the ancient Athenians voted to get into a catastrophic war with the Spartans and they voted to execute wise old Socrates. Indeed, beyond the figure of the high-minded philosopher juggling with concepts such as virtues, truth and the soul, there is the human called Plato who experienced major trauma and tragedy in his life. When the democracy that he lived in made reckless decisions, when the booming culture of Athenian society was overtaken by the forces of the Spartan army, he struggled to make sense of everything. How could such a noble and progressive society be so short-sighted? How could such an innovative and advanced culture, with remarkable achievements in both the arts and technology fail so catastrophically? Pye brings the historical context of Plato to life, and then turns the same questions towards our own time.
Plato’s early criticism of democracy holds true when analysing the contemporary politics of climate change as much as it does in making sense of the success of recent right-wing populism.
Matthew takes on both of these, tailoring a thread between them and Plato’s ‘Simile of the Ship’. In this simile, the ship is like a State, where the captain is blind and needs to be guided. The ship’s navigator (the Philosopher), who is trained in the art of navigation, is overthrown by quarrelling, truth-averse sailors (the Demos). We have all embarked on the journey of climate change – we cannot escape it. The ultimate decision, Pye highlights, rests on who we are going to appoint as the captain of our ship – the deniers and delayers or those who have the courage to face the truth of climate change and act upon it?
Pye concludes that the central solutions to tackle climate change have to be legal and they have to be courageous. Legal because a systemic problem requires a systemic solution – laws have far more leverage and power than individual actions. Courageous because thinking outside of the cultural clichés of climate change requires us to be genuinely modesty about our own efforts, and it also means that we have to be brave enough to acknowledge the true scale of the crisis. The book, like his Academy and his lessons to young people, invites the reader into a space where these things seem both doable and reasonable.
Nigeria4 days ago
Governor Yahaya Bello: Making a difference in Kogi State, Nigeria
Climate change4 days ago
Building a Climate-Resilient Future - A new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change
Azerbaijan4 days ago
Why 'Khojaly is a genocide'?
EU5 days ago
European politicians condemn upcoming business forum with Iran which ignores Iranian terrorism on European soil
coronavirus4 days ago
Merkel says COVID variants risk third virus wave, must proceed carefully
Data4 days ago
European strategy for data: What MEPs want
Estonia1 day ago
Commission proposes to provide €230 million to Estonia under SURE
EU4 days ago
WHO says working with Commission to manage regional COVID vaccine donations