Doc. 9040

18 April 2001

Technological possibilities for fulfilling the targets of the Kyoto Protocol (to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)¹

Opinion

Committee on the Environment and Agriculture

Rapporteur: Mr Guillermo Martínez Casañ, Spain, Group of the European People's Party

1.       Conclusions of the committee

1.       The Kyoto Protocol is a practical initiative aimed at reducing climate change in the decades to come. In order to be able to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) it is not enough simply to improve current technology in energy production, it is also necessary to review the whole energy system and users’ behaviour so as to bring about a reduction in energy consumption.

2.       Furthermore, it is essential that all action taken at intergovernmental level, whether European or international, comprise a degree of flexibility so that account can be taken of individual national situations in order to ensure that policies can be effective.

3.       The Committee on the Environment and Agriculture is in general agreement with the factual analysis of the situation as presented by the Committee on Science and Technology.

4.       However, it cannot endorse the analysis made of nuclear energy and exposure to nuclear energy related radiation, or the conclusions in the final part of the report.

5.       It is difficult to accept, as stated in paragraph 41, that the health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster have been “exaggerated strongly” and that the only cancer connected to the fallout is children’s thyroid cancer. The rapporteur believes that even if this were the case, it is too serious to be downplayed.

6.       It is just as difficult to accept, as stated in paragraph 42 – that the other health consequences can be attributed to stress deriving from fear, which in turn, was primarily due to a lack of information.

7.       The rapporteur has no wish to re-open the debate which has so often polarised the Environment Committee and the Science Committee. For this reason, he has decided not to comment on the following paragraphs in the report which raise questions on which the two committees disagree, in the belief that this debate should not result in yet another confrontation between those in favour and those against nuclear energy.

8       However, the rapporteur points out in this connection that the potential risks associated with nuclear energy, along with the problems of waste reprocessing and storage and nuclear plants, have led several European countries to conclude that this type of energy is not environmentally sustainable and to stop using it.

9.       For these reasons, he believes that there is no justification for presenting nuclear energy as Europe’s only strategic option for achieving the objectives set by the Kyoto Protocol, as the report by the Committee on Science and Technology appears to do.

10.       Whether at European Union or OECD level, the means cited for achieving the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol are quite different in nature and relate primarily to improving energy efficiency, reducing consumption and developing renewable energy sources.

11.       In addition, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be accompanied by efforts to protect and promote the natural absorption of these gases.

12.       Certainly, the other approaches referred to above may appear less radical and less effective in the short term. Accordingly, greater priority should be given to them so that the objective results which can be legitimately expected of them can come about as quickly as possible.

13.       To this end, it is essential to take appropriate economic action, whether by developing renewable energy sources or introducing taxes on those means of energy production which cause heavy pollution.

14.       In the light of the above, the rapporteur is unable to accord any relative priority to a possible need to convince the public of the efficiency and safety of nuclear energy. However, he believes it is important for the emphasis to be placed on promoting more judicious management of energy consumption on the part of the various users.

2.       Explanatory memorandum

2.1       Introduction

15.       The report presented by the Committee on Science and Technology clearly shows that energy production causes a climate change, the consequences of which could prove disastrous for humanity.

16.       The use of fossil fuels releases GHGs and fine particles into the atmosphere. It is these gases which trap infrared radiation and cause a warming of the atmosphere. According to some reports, the fine particles are directly responsible for over a hundred thousand deaths in Europe.

17.       In order to comply with the Kyoto commitments, ie reducing GHG emissions by the year 2010 by 5% on average compared with the 1990 level, there has to be some rationalisation of energy production by addressing energy needs at both national and regional level.

18.       Furthermore, the price of energy should include external costs related to the use of resources and possible reviews of energy policies should be looked into. In particular, account should be taken of different countries’ attitudes to nuclear energy and the use of renewable energy sources.

19.       The Chernobyl disaster clearly showed that the consequences of nuclear accidents on plants and animals, and on the health of individuals are appalling and difficult to accept.

20.       Although nuclear power stations are becoming safer all the time, the risks of an accident cannot be totally ruled out at this stage.

21.       Consequently, encouraging the use of this form of energy is today totally contrary to the decisions on energy policy taken by certain member states.

2.2       Avenues to be explored

      a.       Review of energy policies

22.       For its part, the Committee has always been opposed to an increase in nuclear energy. Nonetheless, it us up to the countries concerned to make their own choices and to decide on whether it is appropriate to have nuclear power stations within their borders.

23.       While it is true, as stated in the report of the Committee on Science and Technology, that energy savings would be one of the prime means of fulfilling the targets of the Kyoto protocol, it is less true that these can be achieved solely by state-of-the-art technology. It is just as important to change the habits of all energy consumers.

24.       Various European Environment Agency (EEA) reports refer to a number of well-focused initiatives aimed at changing the behaviour of different consumers, but these are thought to be too modest to bring about the desired results by the 2010 deadline. In any event, such initiatives should be increased, even if any tangible results cannot be expected until after the Kyoto deadline.

25.       Not only national but also regional policies should immediately be focused on reducing energy consumption, particularly in the two sectors which produce the most GHG emissions: (i) electricity and heat production and (ii) transport.

26.       Awareness-raising and educational initiatives, together with a system of economic and tax measures relating to products and services which help reduce consumption, should be priority areas in consumer-oriented activities.

27.       The Committee on the Environment and Agriculture endorses the proposals of the Committee on Science and Technology with regard to improving the energy efficiency of power plants and using combined heat and power regeneration (CHP).

28.       However, it believes that with regard to action in the transport sector, one of the most central to this issue, it is also essential to take account of the contribution which an appropriate regional/spatial planning policy can have on reducing the harmful effects of transport on the environment. To this end, urban policies should seek to optimise the use of energy and space within towns and cities.

      b.       Inclusion of external costs in the price of energy

29.       At present, the price of energy includes only the cost of the resource itself and its transformation. No account is taken of the so-called external costs arising from the production and consumption of energy, particularly those relating to deterioration of the environment.

30.       It is high time that thought be given to including external costs in the price of energy. This seems fair and justified from the economic point of view, but it is also sensible in order to bring home to all users the need to monitor their energy consumption.

31.       Radical decisions have to be taken with regard to subsidies for the use of coal, which – at least for certain varieties and given that there is no appropriate treatment process available – is a major source of GHGs and fine particles. In a similar vein, thought could also be given to introducing a tax on fossil fuels to encourage energy savings.

      c.       Use of renewable energy sources

32.       Renewable energy sources have significant potential and, if used sensibly, could represent a considerable proportion of total world energy production in the decades to come. Clearly, one of the most effective ways of fulfilling the targets of the Kyoto protocol would be to encourage use of such sources rather than fossil fuels.

33.       It is particularly important to take urgent decisions on promoting these sources and to introduce a system of financial incentives so that this sector can further develop.

3.       Proposed amendments

3.1       to the draft recommendation

3.1.1       Replace paragraph 4.1 with the following new paragraph:

      “implementing all possible means to save energy, whether this be developing technological and scientific capabilities, introducing taxes on certain energy sources, or other initiatives aimed at changing the practices of the different consumers.”3.

3.1.2       In paragraph 4.vi., replace the words “re-assessing nuclear power’s acceptability and possibilities of use…” with the following words:

      “re-examining the use of nuclear power…”3.

3.1.3       After the current paragraph 4.vi, add the following new paragraph:

      “ensuring that transport policies, while contributing to the balanced development of the European area, are in keeping with the rationale behind the aims of the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore place the emphasis on a shift from road to rail transport and on inter-modal transport.”3.

3.1.4       After the current paragraph 4.viii, add the following new paragraph:

      “re-examining, with a view to reduction or abolition, the system of aids to fossil fuels which contribute to the maintenance of a high level of greenhouse gases; and taking the appropriate economic action to promote the production and use of renewable energy sources, and to improve their competitiveness.3.

3.2 to the draft resolution

3.2.1       Replace paragraph 3 with the following two new paragraphs:

      “The Assembly stresses that it is essential to curb and reduce carbon dioxide and fine-particle emissions and that, to this end, it is also important to give a high priority to reducing energy demand through energy conservation and improved energy efficiency.”“

      “Moreover, in view of the fact that some countries have chosen, or might choose, the nuclear energy option, the Assembly considers it important that:”su

      sub-paragraph 3.i, ii, iii: delete

      sub-paragraph 3.iv: amend the wording as follows: “steps be taken to ensure that existing nuclear plants comply with the highest safety standards”

      sub-paragraph 3.v: remains unchanged

      sub-paragraphs 3.vi, vii: delete

      sub-paragraph 3.viii: remains unchanged

Reasons for this amendment

      It is incorrect to say that increased use of nuclear power is essential if carbon dioxide and fine-particle emissions are to be reduced.

      Most authorities, be they institutional or scientific, agree that the two main directions to be followed for meeting the targets of the Kyoto Protocol should be: energy efficiency (ratio of energy consumed to wealth produced) and the development of renewable energy sources (with a target – for the European Union – of increasing the share of renewable energy in total energy production to 12.5% by 2010).

      Even if we confine ourselves to an objective analysis of the advantages and drawbacks of the different energy sources and refrain from adopting a position of principle either for or against nuclear power, the question which has to be asked is why one should invest (a great deal of money) in nuclear plants, spend even more, proportionally, on their upkeep and have to live with an albeit minimal, but nevertheless real, risk, when there is so much potential in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

      In addition, without either denying or underestimating the progress achieved in the reprocessing of radioactive waste, the problems connected with the management of such waste are far from being solved, either from the technical standpoint or, even less, from the economic standpoint.

      In the light of the above, and bearing in mind the Council of Europe’s commitment to sustainable development, the Parliamentary Assembly cannot distance itself from the energy policies which many of its member states have adopted, and many organisations recommend, and which are more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

      The Council of Europe does not wish to adopt a firm anti-nuclear stance, but neither can it adopt a diametrically opposed position and go so far as to encourage member states to develop and give priority to this form of energy on the sole ground that it is a means of reducing carbon dioxide and fine-particle emissions.

      This would be tantamount to taking a “short cut” whereby all the other problems connected with nuclear power, which are numerous and even serious, would be deliberately overlooked.

3.2.2. After the current paragraph 4, add a new paragraph reading as follows:

“It also emphasises the importance that should be attached to informing the public about the consequences of the different energy sources, the risks associated with climate change and the need for changes in energy consumption.”

o

o o

Committee for report: Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Doc. 8810 rev.)

Committee for opinion: Committee on the Environment and Agriculture

Reference to committee: Doc. 8320 and Reference No. 2359 of 30 March 1999

Opinion approved by the committee on 16 February 2001

Secretariat of the committee: Mrs Cagnolati, MM. Sixto and Chevtchenko

¹ See Doc. 8810 rev.