EU emissions targets

I refer to the AFP article EU Cools Rhetoric On Deeper Unilateral Emission Cuts (May 28). The purpose of the EU Commission's Communication on May 26 of an analysis of the costs, benefits and options for moving beyond the EU's current target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, has always been to provide a factual basis on whether and when to move to a 30 per cent reduction target. Our analysis responds to a request made by the EU council of environment ministers in March. From the beginning we have made it perfectly clear that the purpose was not to reach a hasty decision this spring. Talk of the Commission "backpedalling" is, therefore, wrong.

It is evident that Europe's first political priority today is and must be to overcome the immediate economic crisis. However, the climate crisis will not go away in the meantime.

That is why we need to keep our emissions reduction target under review over the coming months.

The Commission's analysis shows the costs of moving to 30 per cent by 2020 but also the broader benefits.

Besides reducing emissions further, these benefits include helping to keep Europe at the forefront of technological innovation, thus creating jobs and strengthening our international competitiveness. This is crucial as major competitors like the US, China, Brazil and Korea ramp up their investment in low-carbon growth and jobs. Reducing our energy import bill, and thus increasing our energy security, would be a further important benefit for Europe.

Put another way, ambitious action has a price tag, but so does not acting. How we approach the fight against climate change has big economic implications for Europe. Do we want to keep the jobs and growth we derive from our leadership in the clean technologies of the future, or are we going to cede our lead to our competitors? As Europe discusses whether and when to move to a 30 per cent reduction target over the coming months, this question should be uppermost in our minds.