17 Amendments of Françoise GROSSETÊTE related to 2011/2012(INI)
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, according to the European Environmental Agency, in 2009 the EU's greenhouse gas emissions were 17.3% lower than in 1990; however stresses that this includes the effect of the economic crisis,
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, due to the economic crisis, emissions from sectors in the EU emissions trading system (ETS) have been considerably lower than projected, and below the level of initial allocation, but also the industries investment potential has been reduced at the same time; Notes, that the recovery of the European industries has again increased the activity;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the temporary lower carbon price will have a significantn impact on investment decisions and will reduce the revenues from auctioning allowances for financing climate action in the EU and in developing countries,
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, according to the Commission, stepping up effort to 30% while the other countries retain their low pledges wouldill have a limited incrementaln impact on the EU's energy intensive industry, as long aswhich needs to be mitigated by the special measures for industry stay in place,
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the 2010 Commission Communication demonstrating that stepping up to a 30% target is technically feasible and economically affordable; however acknowledges that data has changed in the recently published Commission 2050 Roadmap,
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the Commission to come forward with proposals tontinue the international climate change negotiations with a view to securing an ambitious agreement; points out that the move to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020, as soon as possible, and at the latest by the end of 2011mentioned in Directive 2009/29/EC is dependent on this agreement;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the European Council has recognised that further reductions in the range of 80-95% by 2050 as compared to 1990 are necessary; points out that a linear trajectory between 2009 and 2050 would result in a 2020 target in the range of 34-38% as compared to 1990;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that delaying climate action at international level would result in higher costs for achieving the 2050 target due to stranded investment in high-carbon capital stock and slower technological learning;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that, according to the Commission analysis, the surplus of allowances in the ETS will correspond to around 2.4 billion banked allowances and unused international credits in 2020; points out that the provision enabling these allowances to be banked has enabled carbon prices to be maintained; considers, furthermore, that stable rules for the European emissions trading market are important for encouraging investment and that a Commission initiative to make registry access safe and improve market regulation would be welcome;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that, due to the surplus and low carbon price, the auction of allowances will also not mobilise resources for climate investments as expected; considers that the Member States should encourage effective use of auction income during stage 3 so as to promote R&D and innovation with a view to achieving long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; firmly believes that effective coordination between the Member States, via the Commission, should make it possible for a large proportion of this income to be used for joint Community projects, enabling the EU to compete effectively with the research policies of its competitors;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. SupportsCalls upon the Commission analysisto regularly analyse and to ensure that the cost-effective sharing of the additional effort between ETS and non-ETS sectors remains the same as under the climate package;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes the option of implementing the change in the ETS through cancelling allowances assigned for auctioning; considers however that all sectors should contribut; stresses however that a stable and predictable EU ETS is essential to investment decisions, which is not in line with cancelling carbon allowances in order to politically steer the carbon price;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that a move to a 30% climate target for 2020 wcould restorestrengthen the incentives for innovation lost by the easing of the 20% targ, if the conditions laid down in Article 28 of Directive 2009/29/EC are met;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Concludes that stepping up to a 30% target has morwould have benefits thfor EU citizens and the European ecosts for EU cnomy, if the conditizeons andre met, and that a domestic achievement of the reduction targets would bring the highest overall benefit;
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Notes that installations representing a very large majority of the non-power sector emissions covered by the ETS have been granted free allocation up to a product specific benchmark, equivalent to 10% of the most efficient installations at European level, on the basis of high pre- recession production levels for the entire period up to 2020;
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Concurs with the Commission analysis that border adjustment measures or including imports in the ETS would need to be combined with full auctioning to the sectors concernedare important for offsetting the gap in terms of carbon constraints between the EU and third countries; considers that such a system could be envisaged especially for some standardised commodities, such as steel or cement, and electricity; considers that a multilateral climate agreement would be the best instrument for reducing the negative effects of CO2 on the environment but, as such an agreement is unlikely to be concluded in the near future, the Union should continue to look into the possibility of putting in place, for those industries actually exposed to carbon leakage, appropriate environmental instruments in addition to the auctioning of CO2 quotas under the ETS, in particular a ‘carbon inclusion mechanism’ that complies with WTO rules, as this would make it possible to counter the risk of CO2 emissions being transferred to third countries;
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Supports investigating in the future revision of the EU ETS after 2020 the possibility of applying a more targeted approach to any use of offsets, and restricting the use of CDM credits generated in energy-intensive sectors in countries other than the least developed countries, initially through measures such as the application of a multiplier, for instance requiring two CDM credits to be surrendered per tonne emitted in the ETS;