1.1. Climate change measures to be signed and sealed before EU elections
16 January 2008, WWF
Brussels, Belgium – The European Commission will propose on January 23rd a set of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2020. WWF urges the Commission to comply with the agreements undertaken in Bali last month (emission cuts in developed countries between 25 and 40 per cent) and aim at domestic emissions reductions of at least 30 per cent compared to 1990 levels.
Less ambitious targets are unlikely to help the planet stay below 2 degrees global warming. WWF also warns that timing is a key factor for successful cuts in climate pollution.
TIMING – If all issues included in the upcoming “EU climate package” are discussed together, seeking endorsement from EU Member States and EU Parliament, the decision-making process might last more than two years. This may postpone the final agreement until the new EU Parliament and Commission are in place at the end of 2009 – too late to ask the world to take the European Union seriously at the decisive climate summit in Copenhagen in December 2009, where a global deal must be reached for emission reductions after 2012. WWF asks that the European Parliament and the Council deal with the various proposals presented by the European Commission separately and not as a “package”, since joint discussion will not only caused long delays but also instigate “horse trading”.
“To address the urgency of climate change and commitments towards citizens, we need a fast-track approach. The earlier the EU can show it is reducing climate pollution and moving to the renewable energies path, the better for the international debate,” says Dr Stephan Singer, Head of European Climate and Energy Unit at WWF.
“Europe must have in place its key climate policies before the European elections of 2009, otherwise EU ambitions as leader on climate change will be ridiculous”.
EMISSIONS TRADING – The Commission will amend the current Emissions Trading Scheme and propose how the EU carbon market should operate after 2012. WWF says that the 2020 cap for sectors covered by the scheme must be in line with a 30 per cent emissions reduction within Europe. In addition, WWF demands that at least a further 15 per cent emission reduction in developing countries is financed by Europe. This could be achieved through good quality carbon credits (“Gold Standard”) bought by European industries from third countries, emissions trading in specific sectors, technology transfer and direct funding. It is also critical that all pollution permits are distributed to companies through harmonised European auctioning.
“The failures of the current system must be swiftly eradicated to ensure that the Emissions Trading Scheme is a credible, effective and transparent means of decarbonising Europe as well as supporting developing countries. To this effect, it is essential that the overwhelming majority of revenues from auctioning assist developing countries to mitigate and adapt to the challenge of climate change,” says Sanjeev Kumar, Emissions Trading Coordinator at WWF.
WWF estimates that full auctioning of pollution permits may generate around 40-50 billion euro each year – potentially the largest climate policy fund available for financing sustainable and clean energy development, adaptation to climate change and combating deforestation in poor countries.
RENEWABLE ENERGIES AND BIOFUELS – In March 2007 the European Council agreed that 20 per cent of all energy consumed in the EU should come from renewable sources by 2020. WWF strongly supports this objective, which should be encompassed in the renewable energies directive. As the renewable energy share in the EU currently amounts to only 7 per cent, the achievement of such a target will require bold steps. A logical division of this target amongst sectors requires that the lion’s share lies with the power sector. According to WWF, the general 20 per cent renewable energy target translates into 35-40 per cent electricity from renewable sources.
“We need immediate and large scale investments into the only cost-effective available technology, offshore wind power”, says Dr. Singer.
“Offshore wind power across the Atlantic coastline from Ireland to Morocco and in the Mediterranean has the potential to make all coal and nuclear power stations in the EU redundant in two to three decades.”
The legislation will also include a sub-target of 10 per cent biofuels in the transport sector. WWF strongly believes that biofuels can be part of the solution both for climate change and sustainable development. WWF calls on the EU to help developing countries to produce them in a sustainable way. Depending on which crops are produced, where and how, biofuels can have positive or negative effects in terms of greenhouse gas balance, but also for general environmental, social and economic impacts.
WWF demands a mandatory certification scheme for all bioenergy to ensure that the production delivers real benefits. WWF presented a model certification scheme including social and environmental criteria in the study “Towards a harmonised sustainable biomass certification scheme”.
“This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the EU to reduce dependence on fossil fuels while contributing towards poverty alleviation in developing countries. A certification scheme for bioenergy is not about re-inventing the wheel, but about applying social and environmental criteria which are already in place for some agricultural and forest commodities,” says Jean-Philippe Denruyter, Global Bioenergy Coordinator at WWF.
“Furthermore, better engine efficiency and new automotive technologies, such as flex-fuel plug-in hybrids, are urgently needed to cut fuel demand in the first place”.
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS) – According to WWF, carbon capture and storage has only a transitional role to play, until economies will be on the renewable energy track. Carbon capture and storage should be applied to both old and new power stations. However this technology is not a “silver bullet” solution and the European Commission must propose a very tight regulatory framework to address geological safety of CO2 stored underground, says WWF.
1.2. EU climate policy ‘too negative’
18 January 2008, BBC News
Green groups have accused the European Union of planning for failure in global climate change negotiations.
Europe’s leaders promised last year to cut greenhouse gases by 20% by the end of the next decade, or by 30% if other big polluters made similar efforts.
But a draft document seen by BBC News shows that the European Commission is asking member states to just plan for the lower figure for the time being.
Campaigners say the lower target could harm the EU’s leadership on the issue.
The EU Spring Council last year resolved that for Europe to play its part in avoiding dangerous climate change the EU needed to reduce greenhouse gases by 30% from 1990 levels before the end of the next decade.
But it didn’t want to put European businesses at a disadvantage; so the council insisted that the US, Canada and Japan had to prove they were willing to do the same.
‘Planning for failure’
The EU said it was pleased with progress at the recent climate talks in Bali, at which US negotiators agreed to join negotiations on future carbon cuts.
Since then, the US has passed an Energy Bill designed to reduce emissions from cars and improve energy efficiency. And an increasing number of states are signing up for CO2 caps.
But the EU has apparently not yet seen enough reciprocal action from the other side of the Atlantic for Europe to plan for a 30% cut.
The draft document makes it clear that the EU will wait until a new global climate deal is settled before deciding on its final target. This could take two or more years.
So member states are being asked to plan for a 20% cut by 2020. The Commission sees this as a rational negotiating position, but green campaigners fear that any delay in planning for a 30% reduction will put it out of reach.
"This is planning for failure," said WWF spokesman Keith Allot.
"Europe should be planning for success in the climate talks. It is much easier for big industries to scale back from a tougher target than to scale up from a weaker one.
"If the EU decides on a 30% target that will be showing real leadership and will increase the moral pressure on America and the others."
A UK government source said the British government was pressing the Commission to ensure that the final text clearly lays out two sets of options for member states – one set based on a 20% cut and the other on a 30% cut.
Without clear reference to the 30% figure throughout, he said, the Americans would not take Europe seriously.
The European Commission on Wednesday will publish a whole raft of energy policy documents covering the EU Emissions Trading System, renewables and biofuels.
Many of the details are still being fiercely disputed as nations share out the burden of meeting their promises on the environment.
1.3. Nuclear power won’t cure climate change: Finnish PM
14 January 2008, Reuters, UK
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Building more nuclear power plants to reduce global warming emissions is not the way to fight global climate change, Finland’s prime minister said on Monday.
Many energy experts say one key to cutting back carbon dioxide emissions that heat the Earth’s atmosphere would be to rely more on nuclear power to generate electricity instead of coal-fired plants
But Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said reducing energy consumption, especially from automobiles, would do more to fight climate change.
"I don’t see that (more) nuclear plants can be a global answer" to climate change, Vanhanen said in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington. "It can not be the only answer."
The Bush administration is pushing for the construction of more nuclear power plants to help fight global warming.
The 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States provide about 19 percent of America’s electricity supply and prevent almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.
1.4. Sarkozy attacks EU carbon targets
15 January 2008, FT.com
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, has weighed into the controversy over the European Union’s climate change plans with an attack on some proposals as "neither efficient, fair nor economically sustainable".
Just six months before France takes up the EU presidency, Mr Sarkozy has written to Commission president José Manuel Barroso to set out his objections to the plan for reducing carbon emissions to be published later this month.
1.5. EU to stick to climate plan despite rival protests
17 January 2007, Guardian Unlimited
BRUSSELS – The European Commission will spell out next week, over the din of protests from industry and governments as well as green groups, how it intends to cut greenhouse gas emissions to fight climate change.
At stake, as Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said on Wednesday, is Europe’s credibility in claiming to lead the world in the fight against global warming.
European Union leaders agreed last March to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent in 2020 from 1990 levels, as well as use renewable sources for 20 percent of power production and biofuels for 10 percent of transport fuel by the same date.
The Brussels executive will propose next Wednesday how to share the burden of cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) output and of increased use of renewables such as solar, wind and water power and biomass. It will also unveil a major reform of the European Union’s emissions trading system (ETS).
"Our package next week is a demonstration of our willingness to put our money where our mouth is," Barroso told the European Parliament, reacting to a torrent of letters of special pleading or protest from governments and industry lobby groups.
Despite the noise, officials say the EU is well on its way to meeting the targets.
However, green campaigners say they are insufficient to arrest global warming and lack ambition, falling below the 25-40 percent emissions cut by industrialised nations called for by a U.N. climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, last month.
"Coming up with just a 20 percent proposal goes against both the scientific advice on what is needed to prevent a climate crisis and the moral obligation entered into in Bali," said Stefan Singer of the environmental campaign group WWF.
"It would give a very bad signal to the rest of the world."
Brussels responds that the 27-nation EU is prepared to raise its target to a 30 percent cut by 2020 if other major industrialised and emerging economies join in reductions.
Under the Commission plan, half the EU’s emission reductions are to come from the ETS, which almost collapsed when the price of carbon crashed in 2006 after it turned out member states had allocated too many permits to emit to their industries.
To overcome what Brussels sees as that design flaw, the Commission will in future set EU-wide emissions limits for all sectors covered by the trading scheme, and most permits will be auctioned off instead of handed out for free.
Representatives of big utilities, oil refiners and industries such as steel and aluminium have warned that making them buy permits at auction will force up energy prices and could drive heavy industry out of Europe.
Brussels is set to shrug off many of those protests, pointing to the utilities’ healthy profits, although last-minute wrangling continues over the scope of auctioning and pace of its phasing-in, EU officials say.
The other half of the EU’s emissions cuts will have to come from buildings, heating and cooling and transport, with each country receiving a target for CO2 reductions and a separate goal for increasing renewable energy use.
The Commission’s main yardstick in setting national targets is gross domestic product per capita.
The richest EU countries will be expected to cut emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels while the poorest new member states will be allowed to emit up to 20 percent more by 2020 to allow them an economic catch-up.
Some countries such as Sweden fear a double blow because they are rich and already use a lot of renewable energy.
With its many hydroelectric dams, Sweden is top of the EU class, drawing 39.8 percent of power from renewable sources, while Britain, despite its green preaching, is second-bottom with just 1.3 percent.
France meanwhile is demanding special consideration because it gets most of its electricity from low-carbon nuclear plants and its emissions are 25 percent lower than the EU average.
Germany and Spain object to tentative plans to allow companies to trade renewable energy, which they argue could wreck their successful schemes that provide a guaranteed price and grid access to renewable power generators.
But Berlin endorsed the EU’s expected renewable target on Thursday, when Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel told parliament: "For us in Germany it means roughly doubling our use. The grand coalition and the cabinet already agreed … that we will meet this goal for renewable energy and this was a great success for cooperation in this coalition."
Despite all the special pleading from utilities, heavy industry and member governments, Commission officials say the EU targets will not be very hard to achieve.
One official involved in preparing the package said that according to Brussels’ projections, the EU will already have cut emissions by 15.9 percent in 2010 from 1990 levels.
It should not be too tough to achieve the extra 4.1 percent cut over an entire decade, especially since aviation and car emissions will be cut under other EU policies now in the works. (Additional reporting by Sylvia Westall in Berlin; editing by Anthony Barker)
2.1. France and Germany push ahead with own energy liberalisation plans
17 January 2007, EUobserver.com
A Franco-German alternative to the European Commission plan to separate transmission of energy from its production within energy companies is taking concrete shape, but the European Commission has indicated it is unlikely to fly.
A working document, seen by EUobserver, suggests that energy firms’ production and transmission wings should be independent from each other and connected by only a common set of shareholders.
Under the scenario, "all transmission assets shall be owned by the transmission system operator" (TSO), which "shall have its own identity, different from the vertically integrated company with a separate branding and communication policy".
Additionally, "personnel leasing from any affiliated of the vertically integrated company to the TSO shall be strictly forbidden," the document says. That is to say that no staff may be shared between the parent company and the transmission firm.
In simple language, the Franco-German proposal would see the transmission system operator be a separate firm, distinct from the parent electric company, but at the same time the TSO would be owned by the same set of shareholders as the parent electricity firm.
This very point makes the joint initiative by Berlin and Paris – dubbed the third alternative – different to the liberalisation ambitions recently tabled by the European Commission, which the two leading EU states strongly oppose.
The asset break-up is seen in Brussels as essential to boosting competition and cutting prices in the energy sector. Control of both supply and transmission makes it harder for new entrants to enter the market, the commission says.
However, Berlin and Paris oppose the core of Brussels’ proposal, known as full ownership unbundling. This means splitting up energy firms’ production and transmission wings by forcing the parent company to sell its transmission networks.
They have also been reluctant to give their approval to an alternative scenario tabled by the EU’s executive body, which would see the setting up of an independent system operator (ISO).
Under this proposal, big energy companies would retain ownership of the transmission lines, but hand managing control over networks to an entirely separate operator. This company would not share any shareholders with the parent company.
In this way, says Brussels, the parent company would have no influence over the decisions taken by the independent manager.
According to one German diplomat, the commission went "too far" with its proposal, as it would "infringe constitutional property rights", but not necessarily ensure more competition in the sector.
"The ownership structure should be different", he said about the Franco-German initiative.
The Slovenian EU presidency has urged Germany and France – home to energy giants EDF and E.ON, which both supply energy and control transmission networks – to present their proposal this week.
However, it is expected they will not make it public until it is properly examined and agreed by the rest of the critics of the unbundling idea – Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovakia.
According to one commission official, speaking to EUobserver, the model – if presented in its current version – is unlikely to win over officials in the commission.
He said that having the same shareholders behind the production and transmission would not introduce competition and cut prices in the energy sector, as the decisions taken by each wing would tend to reflect the same group’s interests.
EU energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs himself said last December that he was "ready to discuss with those who still have doubts" about unbundling, but any new alternative should bring "real structural change similar to that proposed by the European Commission."
3.1. Car industry’s green claims a fairy tale says Greenpeace
17 January 2008, Greenpeace
Brussels, Belgium — As automobile shows opened in Brussels and Vienna today, Greenpeace challenged the European car manufacturers to stop undermining a European proposal for more fuel efficient cars, and instead take real action to lower the climate impact of their fleets.
Dismissing the car makers’ attempts to appear green as mere PR tactics, Greenpeace unfurled a giant banner of Pinnocchio in front of the European car show in Brussels. "Just as Pinocchio couldn’t be a real boy till he stopped telling lies, the car makers will never be green until they stop showing off a green image at car shows while filling the roads with ever heavier and more powerful gas guzzlers," said Helen Perivier, Energy Efficiency Project Leader for Greenpeace International.
Desperate to protect their market for heavier and more powerful cars, manufacturers last month succeeded in weakening an EU proposal to set mandatory carbon dioxide emissions standards for their fleets sold in Europe and push for further concessions.
"Car makers are doing their utmost to present a green image. But behind the concept cars and niche models is a backstage effort to block climate saving legislation and promote a vast fleet of polluting vehicles, " said Franziska Achterberg, Transport Campaigner for Greenpeace European Unit.
Ten years ago European carmakers promised to bring down average emissions to 140g/km by now. But the car makers’ progress to put their cars on a carbon diet has stalled to a virtual standstill , while their promises have proven no more than a tactic to delay binding standards. Despite the fact that technologies exist to address these issues, the car makers continue to evade their responsibility to confront climate change today.
Greenpeace believes the EU proposal will fail to effectively control carbon dioxide emissions unless lawmakers strengthen it by including a 120g CO2/km standard as a fleet average for 2012; and a longer-term target of 80g CO2/km by 2020; base emission standards on a car’s utility and not its weight; and sets effective penalties to ensure car manufacturers respect the new standards.
3.2. EU to allow poorest members to raise CO2 emissions
14 January 2008, Reuters UK
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – The European Commission will propose allowing the poorest new central European member states to increase greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 percent by 2020 over 2005 levels under a major energy and climate change plan to be unveiled next week, EU sources said on Monday.
The sources said the 15 old member states would bear the brunt of cuts required to meet the 27-nation European Union’s goal of an overall reduction of 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, with national targets set according to GDP per capita.
A draft document from the EU executive says the effort — the Commission has excised the term "burden" — should be shared "based on the principle of solidarity among member states."
Under the proposals, which could still be changed before the January 23 announcement, the richest old member states will have to cut emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main gas blamed for global warming, by up to 20 percent from 2005 levels.
The sources said Romania and Bulgaria, the poorest newcomers who joined in January 2007, would be given the most leeway to increase their CO2 output since they had the greatest need to catch up in economic development.
Luxembourg and Ireland were among the countries that would be expected to make the deepest cuts.
An EU official said 2005 was set as the reference year because it was the first and only year for which the EU had full data on actual emissions by installations covered by the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS).
Half of the overall cut would come from sectors covered by the trading scheme, including power generation, refineries and heavy industries, while the other half would have to be achieved by a mixture of increased renewable energy use and reduced emissions from buildings and transport.
Under the complex package of proposals on combating climate change, increasing renewable energy usage, reforming the ETS and promoting new green technologies, the sources said the biggest fight was over the obligation to use more renewable sources in power generation.
Renewables include solar, wind, wave and hydro-electric power as well as biomass.
The Commission has proposed that half of required 11.5 percent increase in renewables usage be shared out across the board, and the other half varied according to GDP per capita to be fair to poorer newcomers.
However, old member states such as Sweden, which already gets 40 percent of its power from renewable sources, argue this is unfair to them, since they have already made a huge effort.
At the other end of the scale, Britain gets only 1.3 percent of its power from renewables.
(reporting by Paul Taylor, editing by Marcin Grajewski)
3.3. Slovakia halts EU legal challenge over CO2 emissions
16 January 2008, EUbusiness
Slovakia’s government decided Wednesday to halt its legal challenge to a European Commission order to cut its carbon dioxide emissions after a compromise was reached, an official said.
The commission has agreed to increase Slovakia’s carbon dioxide emissions quota from 30.9 to 32.6 million tonnes, according to the ministry of environment in Bratislava.
"We considered the 1.7 million (tonnes of carbon dioxide) as a compromise," said Peter Visvader, environment ministry spokesman.
The European Commission had at first slashed the emissions quota by about 25 percent to 30.9 million tonnes. Slovakia originally demanded an annual allocation of 41.3 million tonnes.
Slovakia had filed its legal challenge in February 2007, arguing the new quota was threatening economic growth and failed to take into account the fact that it must use more fossil fuel after two nuclear reactors at its western Jaslovske Bohunice plant were shut down. Brussels is charged with approving national governments’ bids for carbon dioxide allocations as part of the second stage of its move to curb emissions of one of the main gases held responsible for global climate change.
3.4. EU Biofuels Policy Left in Tatters
18 January 2008, PWCN
A leaked internal European Commission document gives a damning verdict on the EU’s proposals to set a mandatory 10 per cent target for the use of biofuels in transport. The report, obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe and BirdLife International, reveals that the EU’s biofuels policy is likely to have a net cost of up to 65 billion euros, need huge amounts of land outside of Europe and questions whether it will make any greenhouse gas savings at all. The report, ‘Biofuels in the European Context’ was written by the EU’s Joint Research Council (JRC), the European Commission’s in-house scientific body. The cost-benefit analysis looks at whether using agrofuels (also known as biofuels) reduces greenhouse gas emissions, improves security of supply and creates jobs.
The report gives a clear ‘thumbs down’ on all three accounts:
– Greenhouse gas savings: due to the indirect effects of growing biofuels, the JRC concludes that the, ³uncertainty is too great to say whether the EU 10 per cent target will save [greenhouse gas emissions] or not². The report highlights that the greenhouse effect of using nitrogen fertilisers is ³significantly higher² than previous estimates and that land use changes (e.g. deforestation, draining of peatlands or ploughing grasslands) could potentially release enough greenhouse gas to negate the savings from EU biofuels.
– Security of supply: the EU would be better to invest in extra storing capacity to create a strategic oil reserve to buffer short term supply shocks rather than invest (much higher sums) in biofuels which would give a limited solution to the problem of insecurity of supply. ³There would be a positive effect, but its value is small compared to the costs,² the report says.
Employment creation; potential job creation risks being little more than wishful thinking as jobs created in the biofuels sector are likely to be offset by job destruction in other sectors affected by the biofuels target.
³The net employment effect of the programme would be insignificant,² according to the JRC.
Cost-benefit analysis: ³The costs of using biofuels outweigh the benefits of doing so,² the report states. It calculates that, ³the decrease in welfare caused by imposing a biofuel target is between 33 and 65 billion euros within an 80 per cent probability range².
The report finishes by stating that, “using the same EU resources of money and biomass, significantly greater [greenhouse gas] savings could be achieved by having only an overall target instead of a separate one for transport”.
The leaked report comes in a week in which environment and development organisations called for the biofuels target to be scrapped due to environmental and social problems, and just days before the European Commission will release its Directive on the promotion of renewable energy sources.
Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said: “This report gives a damning verdict on the EU¹s policy for using biofuels. The conclusions are crystal clear the EU should abandon biofuels and use its resources on real solutions to climate change.”
Ariel Brunner, EU Agriculture Policy Officer for BirdLife International said: “The proposed EU biofuels policy offers hardly any climate benefits at outstanding environmental risks. Now that even the Commission¹s own experts say so, it is time for the biofuels target to be set aside and for fresh thinking on how to really tackle climate change while preserving natural habitats.”
3.5. Biofuels could make matters worse in battle to prevent climate change
15 January 2008, TimesOnline
Biofuels will cause more harm than good to the environment unless strict controls are imposed on how they are grown, according to the Royal Society.
The fuels have the potential to help to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change, yet habitats could be devastated, scientists said after a 15-month inquiry.
The EU is reexamining its targets for biofuels. Stavros Dimas, the Environment Commissioner, has admitted that the adverse effects on the environment and poor communities have been underestimated. Concerns are rising over forests being cut down and habitats such as savannah dug up to make room for biofuel crops. People in the areas affected may have little say in the decisions, and there is competition for land between biofuels and the need to grow food for a growing population.
Biofuels, derived from plant crops such as maize and rapeseed oil, are added to conventional fuels. The Royal Society report urges the Government to switch emphasis from the quantity of biofuels produced to the effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Professor John Pickett, of Rothamsted Research, who chaired the inquiry, said that not enough was known about the benefits and costs of each biofuel crop.
From April, the Government’s renewable transport fuels obligation will require suppliers to ensure that 5 per cent of fuel sold here comes from renewable sources. The report said that it must take account of effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The entire supply chain must be assessed, from the fertilisers used to grow the biofuels to the fossil fuel they replace, Professor Pickett said. “One biofuel is not the same as another. The greenhouse gas savings of each depends on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used. Indiscriminately increasing the amount we are using may not automatically lead to the best reductions in emissions.”
The Department for Transport said that within two years the impact of each biofuel on tackling climate change would be taken into account.
The green gallon
— Biofuels are just the latest form of organic material to be used for fuel
— Bioethanol and biodiesel are derived from crops. In the US, maize is the prime source; here, rapeseed oil is often used
— Forests store carbon dioxide, as do soils that contain organic matter, so when the lumberjacks and ploughmen move in there are big greenhouse gas emissions
— Wheat prices have been pushed up by the use of land for biofuels
— Rising prices of fossil fuels, and concerns over supply, make biofuels an attractive alternative
4.1. IPCC scoping meeting on Renewable Energy Sources
21-25 January 2008, Lübeck, Germany
More info: http://www.ipcc.ch/
4.2. Sustainable Energy Week
28 January to Friday 1 February, Brussels, Belgium
Under the umbrella of the Sustainable Energy Europe Campaign (SEE), the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, the European Institutions, the Slovenian Presidency and major stakeholders concerned with sustainable energy are together putting on the second EU Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW). It will take place in Brussels, Belgium, and in other cities across Europe from Monday 28 January to Friday 1 February, 2008.
More info: http://www.eusew.eu/
4.3. EU-Japan Symposium "Climate Change and Perspectives for Japan – EU Cooperation"
23 January 2008, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia in Ljubljana
More info: http://eu2008.si/en/Meetings_Calendar/Dates/January/0123_ENV_SD.html?tkSuche=ajax&globalDatum=23.01.&multiDatum=23.01.&veranstaltungsart=&globalPolitikbereich=Environment&visiblePath=/htdocs/si&
4.4. Renewable Energy Policy Workshop
30 January 2008, Brussels
The workshop will be the first occasion to discuss the draft Directive and is aimed at policy makers at the local, national and European level, i.e. decision makers from the different EU institutions, national governments and local administrations; Renewable Energy market players and other relevant stakeholders (environmental NGOs, consumers groups etc.).
Co-organised by the European Commission, Directorate-General Energy & Transport, Regulatory policy & Promotion of renewable energy unit D.1 (DG-TREN) and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC).
More info: http://www.erec.org/calendar-of-events/event-sites/workshop.html
Disclaimer: We do not guarantee for the accuracy, reliability or content of information. For help or questions, contact: [email protected]