Claude Turmes, GLOBE EU member, weighs up costs of a new Climate Commissioner
Messages from our Members
Tuesday, 03 November 2009 11:41
Claude Turmes, the Luxembourgeois Green MEP and GLOBE EU member, last week wrote a letter speaking out against Commission President Barroso’s plans, to create a new post for European Commissioner for climate change. Barroso has pledged to create the new position, in a move intended to strengthen coordination across relevant policy areas, as well as ensuring that climate-related work becomes more focused.
There has been growing support from some quarters for the proposed restructuring of the Commission hierarchy, with those in favour arguing it would make work on climate change more concentrated.
On the one hand this would be because creating such a post would send a strong signal to governments and the private sector that work on climate change is a priority, thereby galvanising efforts. It would also allow the new Commissioner to focus exclusively on climate change policy rather than having to combine this with other responsibilities. Finally, as Reinhilde Veuglers of the policy think-tank Bruegel explains ‘a pro-innovation approach requires intense coordination across policy areas such as energy, competition policy, the internal market, research and trade’ and ‘A commissioner would have such a mandate’ to carry out these tasks.
However Mr Turmes has come out strongly opposing such a move, insisting that it would in fact have more of a detrimental impact on climate change policy. For one thing, he explains, creating such a position would severely reduce the portfolio of the environment Commissioner, which would in turn have the knock-on effect of compromising and devaluing the position of environment Ministers and their influence as part of the environment Council.
The Green MEP believes that plans to create such a post would ultimately hinder progress on key environmental policy areas including climate, saying that an environment Commissioner is better placed to ‘fight for the policies most effective for climate, economy and green jobs, and integrate EU climate policies into other policy areas, such as air pollution and biodiversity’.
He also fears that the substance of climate-change policy would be substantially weakened by the proposed move, suggesting that the focus would shift more exclusively towards fighting for a global cap and trade scheme. He points out that ‘the environment and the economy have paid a high price for the structural weaknesses of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), which has so far chiefly produced bonanza windfall profits and prices too low and volatile to encourage investment and lower emissions substantially’.
If Mr Barroso’s plans for a new climate change Commissioner go ahead, someone will be appointed to the new post for the beginning of the next Commission, which is due to take over in the new year.
There has been growing support from some quarters for the proposed restructuring of the Commission hierarchy, with those in favour arguing it would make work on climate change more concentrated.
On the one hand this would be because creating such a post would send a strong signal to governments and the private sector that work on climate change is a priority, thereby galvanising efforts. It would also allow the new Commissioner to focus exclusively on climate change policy rather than having to combine this with other responsibilities. Finally, as Reinhilde Veuglers of the policy think-tank Bruegel explains ‘a pro-innovation approach requires intense coordination across policy areas such as energy, competition policy, the internal market, research and trade’ and ‘A commissioner would have such a mandate’ to carry out these tasks.
However Mr Turmes has come out strongly opposing such a move, insisting that it would in fact have more of a detrimental impact on climate change policy. For one thing, he explains, creating such a position would severely reduce the portfolio of the environment Commissioner, which would in turn have the knock-on effect of compromising and devaluing the position of environment Ministers and their influence as part of the environment Council.
The Green MEP believes that plans to create such a post would ultimately hinder progress on key environmental policy areas including climate, saying that an environment Commissioner is better placed to ‘fight for the policies most effective for climate, economy and green jobs, and integrate EU climate policies into other policy areas, such as air pollution and biodiversity’.
He also fears that the substance of climate-change policy would be substantially weakened by the proposed move, suggesting that the focus would shift more exclusively towards fighting for a global cap and trade scheme. He points out that ‘the environment and the economy have paid a high price for the structural weaknesses of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), which has so far chiefly produced bonanza windfall profits and prices too low and volatile to encourage investment and lower emissions substantially’.
If Mr Barroso’s plans for a new climate change Commissioner go ahead, someone will be appointed to the new post for the beginning of the next Commission, which is due to take over in the new year.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
