- Where We Work
- Who We Are
- Info & Tools
By Jason Anderson, Head of EU Climate and Energy Policy, WWF European Policy Office
A couple of years ago I went to an event at which gas enthusiast Dieter Helm browbeat climate DG Jos Delbeke about the insufficiencies of the current EU Emissions Trading System (in typical economist-speak the answer according to Helm is, assuming the political will to pass an adequate carbon tax, we’d have the money we need for innovation). Delbeke invited Helm to walk a mile in his shoes and see how much political will he could assume then. They agreed to disagree on the ETS, but happily converged in their common praise for the EU’s approach to vehicle efficiency standards, which are steadily driving down CO2emissions from cars.
So here’s an idea: mess up the one policy everyone agrees is effective, and put a greater burden on the one policy everyone agrees isn’t working properly. By putting road transport into the EU ETS, for example. That’s the position taken by the car industry and some countries, notably Denmark, which is showing themselves to be uncharacteristically short-sighted and self-interested on this point. The idea has crept its way into the Council’s 2030 negotiations as an option for national opt-in, according to the document leaked this Monday,
Fortunately, today Transport and Environment has released a timely and well-argued paper with the self-explanatory title ‘Why putting road transport in the ETS is a bad idea.’ Three main arguments follow: the ETS won’t deliver carbon savings in transport, inclusion of transport will damage the ETS and increase costs, and inclusion in the ETS jeopardises more effective policies.
WWF took a similar position in 2007 prior to the last major ETS review, which resulted in primarily sensible reforms, but without preventing the twin causes of the ETS’ current woes: insufficiently stringent allocations, and too-generous access to offsets for compliance. The basics, in other words. Adding road transport to the ETS is a bad idea generally, but positively reckless while simultaneously failing to tackle the ETS’ main problems head-on.