Hopes of a sustainable future for EU biofuels policy have been dealt a blow following the European Commission’s decision to delay a critical decision on how to account for the impacts of ‘indirect land use change’ (ILUC).  Environmental groups BirdLife Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Transport & Environment (T&E) are calling for the immediate revision of biofuel sustainability criteria to take ILUC impacts into account, reads a press-release.

Nusa Urbancic of Transport & Environment (T&E) said: “The science shows that Europe’s biofuel policy currently causes more environmental problems than it solves.  Despite that, after more than a year of work, and countless scientific studies, the European Commission has decided to delay action again, leading to continued uncertainty for the biofuels industry.” ILUC is a result of fields of food crops being converted for biofuel production.

Additional farm land is needed to grow the displaced food somewhere else in the world, causing rainforests, grasslands and ancient peatlands to be ploughed up to meet the demand.

This releases huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, has severe impacts on people and threatens some of our most valued biodiversity worldwide. Faustine Defossez of the EEB commented: ”A policy promoting biofuels that save emissions on paper but not in reality is doomed. The only way out of this scenario, and to secure a future for biofuels, is to start accounting for all emissions associated with its use, including indirect land use change’”. A recent study by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) based on the National Renewable Energy Action Plans submitted by EU Member statesfound that, unless EU policy changes, extra biofuels coming on the market will increase greenhouse gas emissions by 81 to 167% (1). EU targets, agreed in 2008 as part of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED), oblige Member States to source 10% of their fuels from renewable sources, resulting in a huge boom for biofuels.   The RED also contains ‘sustainability criteria’, but these do not include the issue of ILUC but instead subject it to a Commission review by the end of 2010.

Over the past year the Commission has gathered thousands of pages of research into the issue, the balance of evidence of the studies leaves no doubt that ILUC impacts are substantial.  However, the Commission has been reluctant to release the findings of the studies and only did so following legal action by environmental groups (2). “More and more evidence has revealed the impact of both direct and indirect land use change driven by the European Renewable Energy Directive” said Trees Robijns of BirdLife Europe.

“The Commission should do all it can to avoid negative direct and indirect effects on people, their environment and the climate. How much longer do we have to keep waiting before they take the evidence seriously and take action?” The environmental groups are calling for the full environmental impacts, including those from ILUC, to be taken into account in the sustainability criteria. Such an approach is the only way of ensuring that biofuels sold on the EU market are better than the fossil fuels they replace, and hence it is also the only way to give future investment security to the industry.

(1) IEEP study: www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid/611 and briefing:

www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid/612 (2)

See: www.transportenvironment.org/News/2010/3/Green-groups-sue-Commission-over-withheld-biofuels-docs/

Nusa Urbancic

Bolivian ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solon, has explained, via a press-release published by The Guardian, his country’s dissent at the COP16 in Cancun. We reproduce infra his discourse in its entirety.

<< Diplomacy is traditionally a game of alliance and compromise. Yet in the early hours of Saturday 11 December, Bolivia found itself alone against the world: the only nation to oppose the outcome of the United Nations climate change summit in Cancún. We were accused of being obstructionist, obstinate and unrealistic. Yet in truth we did not feel alone, nor are we offended by the attacks. Instead, we feel an enormous obligation to set aside diplomacy and tell the truth.

Pablo Solon (Photo: UN)

The “Cancún accord” was presented late Friday afternoon, and we were given two hours to read it. Despite pressure to sign something – anything – immediately, Bolivia requested further deliberations. This text, we said, would be a sad conclusion to the negotiations. After we were denied any opportunity to discuss the text, despite a lack of consensus, the president banged her gavel to approve the document.

Many commentators have called the Cancún accord a “step in the right direction.” We disagree: it is a giant step backward. The text replaces binding mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with voluntary pledges that are wholly insufficient. These pledges contradict the stated goal of capping the rise in temperature at 2C, instead guiding us to 4C or more. The text is full of loopholes for polluters, opportunities for expanding carbon markets and similar mechanisms – like the forestry scheme Redd – that reduce the obligation of developed countries to act.

Bolivia may have been the only country to speak out against these failures, but several negotiators told us privately that they support us. Anyone who has seen the science on climate change knows that the Cancún agreement was irresponsible.

These pledges contradict the stated goal of capping the rise in temperature at 2C, instead guiding us to 4C or more. The text is full of loopholes for polluters, opportunities for expanding carbon markets and similar mechanisms – like the forestry scheme Redd – that reduce the obligation of developed countries to act.

In addition to having science on our side, another reason we did not feel alone in opposing an unbalanced text at Cancún is that we received thousands of messages of support from the women, men, and young people of the social movements that have stood by us and have helped inform our position. It is out of respect for them, and humanity as a whole, that we feel a deep responsibility not to sign off on any paper that threatens millions of lives.

Some claim the best thing is to be realistic and recognize that at the very least the agreement saved the UN process from collapse.

Unfortunately, a convenient realism has become all that powerful nations are willing to offer, while they ignore scientists’ exhortations to act radically now. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that in order to have a 50% chance of keeping the rise in temperature below 1.5C, emissions must peak by 2015. The attempt in Cancún to delay critical decisions until next year could have catastrophic consequences.

Bolivia is a small country. This means we are among the nations most vulnerable to climate change, but with the least responsibility for causing the problem. Studies indicate that our capital city of La Paz could become a desert within 30 years. What we do have is the privilege of being able to stand by our ideals, of not letting partisan agendas obscure our principal aim: defending life and Earth. We are not desperate for money. Last year, after we rejected the Copenhagen accord, the US cut our climate funding. We are not beholden to the World Bank, as so many of us in the south once were. We can act freely and do what is right.

We are not desperate for money. Last year, after we rejected the Copenhagen accord, the US cut our climate funding. We are not beholden to the World Bank, as so many of us in the south once were. We can act freely and do what is right.

Bolivia may have acted unusually by upsetting the established way of dealing with things. But we face an unprecedented crisis, and false victories won’t save the planet. False agreements will not guarantee a future for our children. We all must stand up and demand a climate agreement strong enough to match the crisis we confront. >>

Construction Site of NPP Belene

“Cost overruns, financial woes, construction delays, and serious quality assurance concerns”. This is how the US Ambassador to Bulgaria Nancy McEldowney characterizes the Belene nuclear power plant in a report found on WikiLeaks, and recently published by the Guardian.

The criticism goes on: “the Belene NPP project continues to move forward despite strong warnings about project safety and quality by project experts”. It is these concerns that drove away the strategic investor in the project, Germany’s RWE, which had acquired 49% of the project in 2008. From the viewpoint of RWE, cooperation with the Bulgarian government and the Russian contractor (Atomstoyexport), had proven to be “poison for the investment of the company”.

The main objections, delivered to the Ambassador by technical experts, were that critical safety regulations were being overlooked in order for construction to be achieved as soon as possible. The reason for this was the Bulgarian government’s aspiration not to lose the German investor. At the same time, RWE had reported that they were being “kept in the dark” about most technical aspects of the project. It had voiced its concerns and asked to see the complete documentation of the project.

Further, RWE had expressed its uneasiness in working with Atomstroyexport, and stressed the need for strengthening ‘European business practice’. In the ensuing months, the German company had tried to sell its share of the Belene NPP, most notably to Belgium’s Electrabel, without any success. It therefore comes as no surprise that, when RWE pulled out of the project, its share went back to the Bulgarian government, who froze the project temporarily while looking for a new investor (the only candidate at the moment is a Russian company, with some indication that Serbia and Romania wish to join in).

The end of the report states the following: “There is clearly something amiss at Belene… [yet] the government is unlikely to abandon the project any time soon”.

In Bulgaria, this is not news. RWE’s pulling away from the Belene project was a bad surprise, yet the government has not lost its enthusiasm at building the power plant. Traicho Traikov, Minister for Economics, Energy and Tourism, has repeatedly stated that construction of the NPP will not occur without an investor, and definitely not from the budget. This has been explicitly supported by Simeon Dyankov, Minister of Finance, whose chief aim is to balance the budget, currently marred by a huge deficit. In addition to this, public support of the Belene NPP is high, especially since the closing down of two reactors at Kozloduy in 2007.

Nevertheless, this WikiLeaks report implies three facts: 1) Bulgaria needs to improve its reporting and documentation on the Belene project, if an investor is to be found; 2) Transparency is key to attracting cooperation from other member states of the EU; 3) Bulgaria’s cooperation with Russia on the matter is being closely monitored. It seems the central issue of the debate is no longer a nuclear power plant meant to produce 34% of the country’s electricity, but a financial power-play in a small country in the Balkans. Whether Belene will ‘glow’ anytime soon remains to be seen.

Nations must follow up their successful UN
Climate Change Conference in Cancún with higher global emission cuts and
the rapid launch of new institutions and funds to show the world that a new
era of international cooperation on climate change is an established fact,
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), said on Monday.

“Cancún was a big step, bigger than many imagined might be possible. But
the time has come for all of us to exceed our own expectations because
nothing less will do,” she said.

The Cancún Agreements, reached on 11 December in Cancún, Mexico, call forcountries to list under the UNFCCC the emission reduction targets and
actions which they announced in 2010, forming the collective basis for the
largest mitigation effort the world has ever seen. They also agreed to
build a comprehensive system of mutual accountability towards these goals.

“It needs to be implemented as fast as possible, and it needs to be
accompanied by credible accountability systems that will help in measuring
real progress,” said Ms. Figueres.

If all these targets and actions are fully implemented, UN estimates show
they could deliver only 60 percent of the emission reductions that science
says will be needed to stay below the agreed two degree rise in average
temperatures, and two degrees does not guarantee the survival of the most
vulnerable peoples.  “All countries, but particularly industrialized
nations, need to deepen their emission reduction efforts and to do so
quickly” the Executive Secretary said.

Building up agreed support to the developing world

The Cancún Agreements also include the most comprehensive package ever
agreed by governments to help developing nations deal with climate change,
including new institutions, funding channels and a technology transfer
mechanism to help the developing world build its own sustainable,
low-emissions future, adapt more effectively to climate change, and
preserve and protect its forests for the good of all nations.

“In Cancún, governments renewed their trust in each other, but to succeed
fully they need to press boldly ahead with what they have agreed.
Implementation is the most effective avenue to harness the support of
business and civil society, both of which are critical,” Ms. Figueres said.

“These institutions must be rapidly launched with expert and active
management, and then capitalized,” she said. “Many millions of the poor and
vulnerable people of the world have been waiting years to get the full
level of assistance they need. Industrialized nations will soon have a
clear, comprehensive structure into which they can direct the funding they
have promised,” she said.

“The UNFCCC secretariat will work intensively to support all governments in
this new work. I sincerely hope that when governments meet in South Africa
in a year’s time they can point to new and concrete examples of success
that are benefitting people and having impacts on the ground,” she said.

“I expect in particular to see rapid decisions on appointing the board of
the new Green Fund and the Committee of the Technology Mechanism. I also
look forward to receiving the details of fast-start financing from
industrialized countries so the secretariat can compile the information
that shows clearly the amounts that have been raised and are being
disbursed,” she said.

The Cancún Agreements asked developed nations to send the UNFCCC
secretariat details of their part in the USD 30 billion of fast-start
finance, which they promised to deliver between 2010 and 2012 to support
developing countries, ahead of an agreed long-term finance programme, which
will raise at least USD 100 billion a year by 2020. The first fast-start
finance reports to the UNFCCC secretariat are due in May next year.

The Green Fund establishes a long-term climate finance institution for the
first time under the oversight of the Parties to the climate change
Convention and with a 24-member board that balances representation between
developed and developing nations.

“Cancún has significantly expanded the menu of climate implementation and
resources available to countries under the United Nations, and the UN
system together is ready to respond rapidly in line with countries’ needs.
The imperative to act is now,” said Ms. Figueres.

Even the skeptic champion, Bjorn Lomborg, told me more than two years ago that we are “the first ever generation to to burn its own food”. This declaration was taken in the very context of the food crisis in 2008, a year in which a third of the world population was on the brink of famine. Also noteworthy is that meanwhile the financial crisis had already raged in the United States.

While the Danish skeptic was not preoccupied with emissions, tens of studies are bringing forth proofs that biofuels are pressurizing ecosystems. The indirect land use change is one of the most intricate emission generators currently on the UN table.

In Cancun, on the  land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) front, less progress has been made. Developed and developing countries remain divided over the so-called “logging loophole”, which has blocked negotiations for years and lets developing countries choose which activities they will and will not include in accounting for emissions.

Under the current proposals developed countries would be able to hide up to 5% of their 1990 emissions, a loophole as big as the aggregate Kyoto Protocol reduction target, announced Climate Action Network. Due to a few forestry-heavy Member States, the EU, at its turn, is internally split on this issue and therefore cannot push for environmentally sound accounting rules. There is great concern that in order to be able to finalize the negotiations on the Kyoto negotiating track, developing countries will allow rich countries to cheat their way out of accounting for real emissions.

Wikileaks

Kenneth Richter posted a summary of secret cables on Friends of the Earth blog. Wikileaks reveal some yet more evidence about US attempts to push GM crops onto Africa. The cables also contain notes from an international meeting called by Gordon Brown on biofuels and the food crises in 2008.

In a meeting Joachim Von Braun, Director General of the Inter Food Policy Institute Research (IFPRI) suggested a moratorium on maize for biofuels. Their modeling showed it would immediately slash maize prices by 20 per cent and wheat prices by 10 per cent, with further reductions because it would discourage speculation.

But this idea was dismissed by other participants. Cargill’s Ruth Rawling predicted that wheat prices would come down quite quickly without the moratorium. The Overseas Development Institute estimated that prices would fall back from their 2008 peak to roughly what they had been in the early 1990s.

Wheat has now risen in price by nearly two-thirds in the past six months. Pier Luigi Sigismondi, Unilever’s chief supply chain officer acknowledges: “The world is losing arable land at a rate of about 40,000 square miles a year. That is land being used for biofuel production, while climate change is eroding away topsoil.”

FAO now predicts another major global food crisis for 2011. It is outrageous that the main effects of what was considered the panacea of emissions and energy consumption, biofuels, are currently sky high emission levels, destroyed ecosystems, and hunger.

by Lubomir Mitev

Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Benin: most Bulgarians hear these names for the first time. In fact, these are countries in the world. Most Bulgarians would probably not be able to point them out on a map. Yet, all of them made high-level statements, held press-conferences and held negotiations at the CoP 16 in Mexico. The Bulgarian delegation did not.

Nona Karadjova, Minister for Environment and Water, was nowhere to be found at the high-level conference in Cancun. To be fair, her Greek counterpart, Tina Birbili, was not present either. Yet, the Romanian Minister for Environment, László Borbely, was not only there, but also held strong opinions on several of the topics being discussed.

It is difficult to imagine a forum where members of the European Union do not send high-level officials to defend their national positions, despite the existence of ‘common positions’ within the Union. Bulgaria and Greece might not be ‘big’ political players, but neither are Vanuatu and Benin (or Cape Verde for that matter). And, even if one does not get the opportunity to speak to the Presidents of these states, 2celsius managed to have an interview with Mr. Borbely. At the same time, all attempts made to contact the Bulgarian delegation were met with bitter disappointment.

Perhaps it was the sunny beaches of Cancun, or the idea that Europe should speak with one voice, or the famous Mexican cuisine, which made the Bulgarian delegation shroud themselves in mystery. The lack of Bulgarian media covering the conference, or even publishing a single story about it (which could be borrowed from AP, the most active media organization at the CoP 16), is a simple fact of life.

From all this, one can infer and state the following: Bulgaria does not care about the environment or whether negotiations succeed or fail. Seemingly, it is the EU who makes Bulgaria act on the subject, or in other words, “I don’t really care, but my boss told me to do it”.

As one Bulgarian journalist in Cancun, it brings me great pleasure to leave the conclusions to you!

Ground-breaking report launched in Cancun (Mexico) reveals massive health benefits from higher climate change targets in the European Union.

For the EU as a whole, the anticipated benefits could be as high as €30.5 billion. These savings would be on top of the up to €52 billion health gains anticipated as a result of emission cuts to reach the EU’s current 20 per cent target, according to figures released by Health and Environment Alliance and Health Care Without Harm Europe.

The report – “Acting now for better health: A 30% target for EU climate policy” – commissioned by the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe), provides the first-ever estimates of the health savings for different Member States should the EU move from the current 20 per cent target to a 30 percent target on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The study offers conclusive evidence that cleaner energy and cleaner air, associated with an immediate move to 30% domestic cuts in greenhouse gases by 2020, would go a long way to paying for itself in better health through Europe.

Public health in Romania would benefit up to 1,358 million Euros per year by 2020 if the European Union decides to strengthen their climate change targets.

Figures for Romania are released as to coincide with “Health Day” in Cancun, where the Conference of Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change took place. They are provided as an extension to a ground-breaking report published in Brussels in September 2010.

The new figures for Romania show that cleaner air resulting from the achievement of a higher European target would result in public health benefits of between €471 million and €1,358 million per year from 2020.

This would include:

• An increase in life expectancy of 6,200 years spread across the population.
• 538,000 fewer days of restricted activity
• 55,000 fewer days when people need to use respiratory medication
• 6,300 fewer consultations for upper respiratory symptoms and asthma
• 134,000 fewer working days lost annually due to cardiac and respiratory problems.

“Romania would do particularly well from the European Union adopting a 30% target on emission reductions. This is not only as a result of its own internal action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also because, given its location, it would pick up the benefit of actions in surrounding EU countries, such as Hungary and Bulgaria.  Combined with the size of its population this makes a substantial benefit” says Mr. Mike Holland, lead author of the report.

Elisabeta Teodorescu, president of Climate Action Network Romania

„Such a report reminds that the huge financial benefits related to climate change mitigation are not yet taken into account. They result from an improvement of the quality of life, better health, reducing risks and natural disasters that affect us already, reducing costs related to migration and populations’ relocation etc. Facing such arguments, it is beyond our understanding why economic and political actors in Romania see climate change mitigation as far too costly for the country”, declared Mrs. Eliza Teodorescu, president of Climate Action Network Romania.

Romania would do well compared to many other EU countries as a result of a stronger EU target on emissions reductions. It ranks 5th among the EU27 Member States on health benefits (see chart below).

The report goes beyond recent European Commission figures on health benefits, which did not provide national figures and calculated health benefits on the basis of increased mortality due to exposure to air pollution only. The analysis covers the costs of both death and ill-health, such as restricted activity due to heart and lung conditions, hospital costs, consultations, and medication.

HEALTH BENEFITS FOR ROMANIA FROM STRONG CLIMATE POLICY

It is estimated that cleaner air in Romania resulting from the achievement of a ‘30% internal’ rather than a 20% reduction in emissions would result in public health benefits of between €471 million and €1,358 million per year from 2020.

Annual health benefits include:

• An increase in life expectancy of 6,200 years spread across the population.
• Better health and lower health costs: 538,000 fewer days of restricted activity; 55,000 fewer days when people need to use respiratory medication; 6,300 fewer consultations for upper respiratory symptoms and asthma.

Other benefits: A more productive workforce: 134,000 fewer working days lost annually due to cardiac and respiratory problems.

Romania’s position in the climate negotiations held at the COP16 – Cancun was a cautious one. The uncertain global context in which important players such as the U.S., Canada, Russia or Japan showed a stagnant or reluctant attitude and the EU continues to be the biggest spender in the emissions reduction cause, made Romania skeptical about cutting emissions by 30% or signing a binding agreement at the present time.

Laszlo Borbely, the Romanian Minister of Environment, leading the Romanian delegation in Cancun, tells us more on these matters.

Interview carried out by Raul Cazan

Translated and edited by Cristina Mircea

2C: The hottest topic at the COP-16 summit in Cancun was the “Fast Start Funding” for helping developing countries to deal with climate change. We know that the EU has already given 2,2 billion euros in 2010 and has a target of 7,4 billion euros by 2012. We also know that decisions on how funds are allocated will be taken at national level. What is Romania’s contribution in this context?

There are voluntary commitments at the present time, to be developed by 2012. And it is very important for us this year to have at least somewhat a compromise on what will follow after 2012. As for Romania’s position on this matter, we have pledged to give 15 million euros by 2012, of which 5 will be allocated next year, and the remaining 10 million, in 2012.

Last week we passed a note to the Government to allocate these funds to the Republic of Moldova, to be invested in projects such as emissions reduction, infrastructure, energy rehabilitation of buildings. I even talked to my counterpart in Moldova, Mr George Salaru, and he pledged to come up with those specific projects until next month. These projects are going to be monitored and achieved by 2012.

2C: What was Romania’s position regarding the climate negotiations in Cancun?

We have to be very cautious, because so far the discussions clearly showed that the U.S. hasn’t taken a single step in signing a legally binding and other countries such as Russia, Japan, Canada are reluctant too, because they accuse the fact that the U.S. , responsible for a quarter of the global emissions, hasn’t properly involved in any of the negotiations.

China on the other hand, even though it hasn’t assumed any commitment, has invested a lot in the green economy, during the last two years.

Personally, I am very skeptical about delivering any spectacular results, or signing  a legal agreement at the moment, but, nevertheless, we have to carefully analyze which way we go from here. Even if the EU has a commitment of up to 30% reduction, we requested an analysis on what that means for every member state, because this means more money and we don’t want to commit ourselves before seeing what happens globally.

This emissions reduction requires a lot of money and affects the economy as well.  The energy prices will be more expensive if you rely more on renewable energy so we have to stay cautious and observe first how the rest of the world approaches this issue, before committing ourselves to some expenses, especially now, during recession time.

Therefore, we have a cautious attitude in terms of reducing emissions by 30% until 2020.

For now let’s see what 20% means in financial terms and what happens in South Africa, at the COP 17 and we’ ll take a decision by 2012. This is Romania’s position.

2C: There is another aspect of this emissions reduction issue, regarding its reference year, which should be 2005 and not 1990. What can you tell us about that?

What these Western European countries have to understand is that after 50 years of communism Romania has made substantial efforts. That is the reason why we insist on 1990 to remain the reference year. We have a number of 300 million AAU’ s allocated, meaning about 1,5- 1,8 billion euros for investments  in the  green economy segment in Romania, by 2012.  We also had a success at the Environment Ministers Council in Luxembourg, concerning the carry-over of the emissions certificate issue, after the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.  The developed countries of the EU don’t approve the carrying forward of these units after 2012, but our country has been very firm about finding a way to make this carrying possible and the money to be used for internal compliance, which means reduced emissions for Romania.

2C: You had a bilateral meeting with Poland in Cancun. Did you have any discussions about this issue?

We had many bilateral meetings and the one with Poland was indeed a significant one.

We continue to support Belgium, Hungary and Poland to be stronger and have a say, as they will be the ones holding the EU’s presidency. We also need to correlate because Romania can obviously relate to some point of views regarding the cooperation with these countries. They hold the EU presidency and must have an attitude as a mediator so that we can better negotiate the matter of  these units and the reference criteria to be discussed after 2012.

We also have signed agreements with some of these countries and we support each other, because we have common interests related to big power plant polluters, the possibility of using other fuels than natural gas and also related to the issue of allocated AAU’s.

So we have many ways in which we can make ourselves heard and have an attitude that can influence decisions taken at EU level.

Six months since Bulgaria was banned from the emission trading scheme, the UN body in charge of administering the Kyoto Protocol has stated that the country has corrected its problems. The administrative procedure for re-accreditation has begun and should be completed before the end of 2010.

The question was raised by the Bulgarian delegation to the UNFCCC CoP 16 in Cancun. The UN body replied that the visit by experts to the country in the autumn had produced positive results.

Bulgaria’s accreditation to the ETS was suspended in June 2010, due to problems with the national system of measurement of annual greenhouse-gas emissions in 2007 and 2008. It has come to light that, due to ignoring a message from the UN, the state had not measured emissions from certain sectors, such as waste. Apart from municipal and regional waste depots, the country had a large number of illicit landfills, whose ecological impact was not assessed.

Also, the validity of the data was brought into suspicion due to the lack of communication between the Ministry of Environment and Water, which is responsible for measurement and reporting, and the Ministries of Economy, Agriculture and Interior Affairs, as well as the National Statistical Institute. Nona Karadjova, Bulgarian Minister for Environment, explained that the visiting commission from the UN in the autumn of 2010 had reported that these problems have been resolved. As a result, the country should be allowed to resume trading its quota of 200 million ‘carbon credits’ in the beginning of 2011.

Nevertheless, the Vice-Chairman of the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Dimitar Brankov, explained that the EU had allowed Bulgaria to trade its allowances only in April 2010, which resulted in only 9.4 million credits being sold before the suspension of the accreditation. Since the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and the CoP 16 did not reach an agreement on a second commitment period, the fact that the country can begin trading again is not going to prove as fruitful as expected, added Mr. Brankov. Also, demand for credits is very low at the moment, which greatly limits the possibility of selling allowances.

The automotive industry, backed by the governments of Germany, Italy and France has succeeded in severely weakening an EU law setting CO2 standards for new vans, reads a Transport & Environment press release.

The deal, agreed this evening at a behind-closed-doors meeting of representatives of the European Commission, Parliament and member states, will lead to higher fuel costs for millions of small businesses across Europe and runs counter to evidence of rapid progress in car emissions in recent years according to Transport & Environment (T&E).

The ‘trilogue’ agreement between representatives of the three European institutions is for the average new van sold in the EU to emit 175g CO2/km in 2017 and 147g CO2/km in 2020.  The original Commission proposal of 135g CO2/km in 2020 was weakened under enormous pressure from carmaking nations, led by Germany.

Kerstin Meyer, senior campaigner at T&E said:  “The industry said it couldn’t make a 14% improvement in van efficiency over nine years, meanwhile it managed to improve car efficiency at more than three times that rate last year.  Policymakers must to a better job of holding the industry to account when it makes such claims.“

Because CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency are directly linked, weaker emissions standards mean vans will use more fuel.  Fuel is a major cost to small businesses who depend on vans to run their operations.  Unlike the automotive industry, which has received billions of euros of taxpayers money during the financial crisis, small businesses have received little help.

Meyer commented:  “The automotive industry, which has benefited from billions of euros of taxpayers money in subsidies, low interest loans and research grants has once again bullied politicians into getting an easy ride.   Meanwhile, thousands of small businesses that have received little help in the crisis but depend on vans to run their operations, will suffer from higher fuel bills for years to come. “

The vehicle industry claims that it would be prohibitively expensive to make vans more fuel efficient.  But research carried out for T&E by TNO/CE Delft showed that by simply returning to the engine power levels of 1997, fuel costs and CO2 emissions could be cut by up to 16%, vehicle purchase costs by up to 10%, and total cost of ownership by up to 12%.  The changes required could also be introduced quickly and in existing models.  In short, the cost of buying and running vans would go down rather than up.

Nevertheless, Connie Hedegaard, the European commissioner for climate action, welcomed the agreement. “The agreed regulation will make vans less polluting and will contribute to our overall ambition to cut emissions from transport,” she said in a statement.