How does the EU propose to measure the impact of initiatives under Horizon Europe?
Key impact areas and impact measures will be part of the development of Horizon Europe’s Cluster number 5 on Climate, Energy, Mobility.
In the context of the strategic planning being undertaken (with work programs to be developed) research and innovation actions will call for project proposals. For example, ‘key research and innovation orientations’ are part of the strategy setting for Horizon Europe, and the program needs to not only develop a wide range of advanced low and zero carbon technologies, but to organise R&I activities from a system perspective, by working on solutions (e.g. electrification, storage, zero carbon fuels, carbon neutral communities and cities) across sectors such as energy, transport, infrastructure, and buildings. Infrastructure, network development, digitalisation and skill development of the workforce are key enabling factors for decarbonisation, as well as to enhance security, safety and efficiency of the energy and transport system and the built environment. In addition, climate resilience and climate proofing of infrastructure help the EU with climate change adaptation and the related socioeconomic transformation. Moreover, there is a need to optimise R&I activities from a value chain perspective, to support the circular economy and to reduce environmental footprint and pollution arising from different stages. Impact measures will be a part of this process.
As another example of measuring impact, for instance under key Horizon 2020 objectives, climate action and sustainable development are relevant to all areas of the program. So, at least 35% of Horizon 2020’s total budget is expected to address climate action, while at least 60% is expected to involve sustainable development.
Engaging citizens is crucial, as we live in democracies. So, what will be the best way to get everyone on board? “The carrot” with promises of “hope” and benefits – or “the stick” using regulation, carbon fees?
I believe you need both. As individuals and as a society, we need to be hopeful about the future and our capacity to address environmental challenges, even complicated and sometimes contentious ones such as climate change. I’m personally optimistic we can step up and change for the better how we do things – individuals, companies and all levels of government. Just look at what’s happening in Europe. Whilst one should never rest on one’s laurels, the EU has already taken many bold steps and we’re raising our ambition even further – the European Green Deal, which I discussed in the webinar, is an example of this. I’ve seen examples of countries coming together to try to solve our common problems countless times across my diplomatic career.
The EU has also shown that sensibly calibrated regulation is necessary and effective. For example, on greenhouse gas emissions, those emitting these polluting byproducts need to account for this. Under the EU emissions trading system, the total number of allowances (carbon permits) is dropping in a transparent and predictable way, and importantly, the rate of this decline will be ratcheted-up even further as we enter phase 4 next year. This provides a clear market signal. There are numerous other examples I can cite, for instance, in the EU, as in Australia, we have compulsory energy consumption labelling for appliances. These measures help people make informed decisions.
More on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
To add to the above comments, it’s important to highlight the positives. The European Green Deal for us is a growth strategy. The same can be said for our work on the circular economy. It’s about addressing these big environmental problems, but in a way that maximises our welfare and delivers commercial opportunities for those companies willing to see the writing on the wall. Our COVID-19 stimulus measures are also partly oriented at addressing environmental issues. For example, 30% of our combined new EU budget, and €750bn covid response package, agreed to in July, targets climate change. There’s an express recognition in the agreement that outcomes must be consistent with our goal of climate neutrality by 2050.
EU Budget and covid measures agreement referred to above: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/45109/210720-euco-final-conclusions-en.pdf
Agriculture is the major CO2 emitter. How do you propose to deal with this including international food security?
Agriculture accounts for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, so it’s important. Under EU legislation adopted in May 2018, EU Member States have to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions from land use, land use change or forestry are offset by at least an equivalent removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere in the period 2021 to 2030.
Of course, food security is paramount, and we need to be vigilant that no measures inadvertently create perverse outcomes undermining food supply chains – in the EU or globally. In this vein, I recently read with interest Australian efforts looking at commercialising a novel type of feed, which dramatically reduces emissions from cattle. To me, this is an example of the business opportunities we see in addressing climate change.
Related link: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/forests/lulucf_en
If you could do only one thing to turn climate action into a mainstream activity, what would it be? Can you give an example(s) of how mainstream climate action has stopped a war or armed conflict or lack of action has resulted in armed conflict?
It is widely recognised that climate change acts as a ‘threat multiplier’ – one more compelling reason why we need to take action. Threats to stability are multiplied when food and water supplies decrease – from the Sahel to the Horn of Africa for example. It forces people to move and increases tensions between communities. We work in North Darfur to improve the management of scarce fresh water, so communities can share what they need to grow food where they live; an EU project there supports 100,000 farming families, reducing the pressure to compete with others seeking to maintain their crops. On the first question, I think we can take some responsibility as individuals in our everyday choices at work and in our private lives. The top-down regulation, policies and targets are vital, but the actions we all take everyday matter. For instance, we recently had to turn over our EU Delegation vehicle, so we chose the plug-in hybrid variant.
What are the best points of climate cooperation between EU and AUS e.g. possibilities for joint R&D, technical transfer, renewables, and hydrogen?
We recently held our EU-Australia High Level Dialogue on Climate Change – led on the Australian side by the Ambassador for the Environment and on the EU side by our Director-General (head of the climate department in the European Commission). Whist it would be inappropriate for me to go into the details of our exchanges, there are many areas of common interest. For example, Australia is looking to the possibility of developing a hydrogen export industry and using it as a fuel and feedstock for domestic consumption. We too have just released a hydrogen strategy, and some of our Member States are looking closely at the possibilities with hydrogen.
Also, Australia is not alone in having to manage the transition in the electricity system, where there are increasing levels of intermittent generation (e.g. wind and solar), as the proportion of coal-fired power declines. This is a positive development in terms of greenhouse gas emissions but needs to be managed so as to address issues such as electricity system strength and to ensure various technical parameters in the grid are maintained. There are plenty of other areas where we can look to learn from one another, for example, the financial sector is increasingly alive to the issues around climate risk – in the EU, in Australia and globally.
The EU and Australia work closely together within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and are like-minded in many areas.
How soon can we start to see regulation and policy from Governments around existing materials from non-renewable resources, and seeing them replaced (where suitable) with plant-based alternatives?
In the EU, you can see clear evidence of targets, regulations, policy work and legislation where we see there’s a need for it in terms of addressing our environmental footprint and consumption of non-renewable resources. Of course, we’ve got a long way to go and it’s not our place to lecture others. Our ongoing work-stream in the areas of ‘circular economy’ is probably the most relevant to your question. Many people immediately think waste when discussing notions of circular economy, but the concept is much broader than this. It’s about designing products which last longer, are repairable, use fewer resources and can be readily dissembled and recycled. We are working on all these facets. Sometimes decisive legislation is called for. As one way to help combat the scourge of plastic marine litter, we have actually legislated a ban on certain problematic single-use plastics. Under the new rules, single-use plastic plates, cutlery, straws, balloon sticks and cotton buds will be banned by 2021. We note Australia is decisively taking action on plastic pollution – at local, state and federal government levels in different ways. We’re watching closely these developments.
Circular economy: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/sustainability/circular-economy_en
We are promoting a project on clean energy sources in Europe. How can we raise the awareness of general public about this issue?
We really need more information to answer this more fully. But in the meantime, I highlight that the EU has (legislated) renewable energy targets for 2020 and now 2030. For us it’s now 32% of final energy consumption from renewable sources by 2030. This will happen at a collective level in the EU – with progress monitored closely by the European Commission. There’s a great deal of interest in clean energy in the EU, in Australia and globally. It’s not just about climate change outcomes, it’s as much about commercial realities these days. Good luck with your project.
How significant do you believe the role of women in leadership is (or lack thereof), in achieving climate action/behaviour change? Both from a business and local/community/personal perspective.
Of course, addressing gender equality is a priority for the EU. We can’t solve climate change, or any other global problems for that matter with half the world’s population not playing a commensurate role. Gender equality features as one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (number 5; there are 17 goals – each with specific targets under them). The SDGs are fully supported by the EU. The European Commission and other EU institutions provide many examples of female leaders.
Again, we can and should make more progress in the area of gender equality, but things are improving. Here in Australia I happen to know that the Clean Energy Council champions women working in the renewables industry and has initiatives and events to support this.
Your thoughts on the planned carbon border adjustment mechanism?
I’m not going to say a lot on this at this time, because it’s a measure being considered by the European Commission and will ultimately be decided by our legislative bodies – the Council (Member States) and the European Parliament. As with any EU important initiative, the future mechanism will be subject to an
impact assessment, involving a prior consultation open to all stakeholders. Of course, such a mechanism would be WTO compliant and would dovetail with measures taken our side such as the EU ETS. We continue to monitor climate action by other countries.
The European Green Deal state-of-play and background: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
Further detail on European Green Deal, including explanation of the carbon border adjustment mechanism: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1576150542719&uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN
How can we create partnerships across the Pacific to tackle the issues across a broader scale?
Many Pacific Island countries are especially vulnerable to climate change. The EU works closely with them. We have a Delegation in Suva that covers most of the region, and we also have Delegations in Port Moresby and in Dili. Elements of our development cooperation assistance to third countries address both climate change mitigation and adaptation. For example, we are working with Kiribati to assist with the provision of access to safe drinking water – a climate resilience issue. We also participate in the Pacific Islands Forum meetings (as observers). We work with our Pacific partners and cooperate with third countries – Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Japan, as well as the Asian Development Bank and World Bank – on infrastructure through the Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility. It’s extremely important we work with developing countries to provide the assistance they need and want, but it’s also imperative we coordinate our efforts as donors.
We have annual ‘trilateral’ meetings between the EU, Australia and New Zealand where we discuss Pacific matters. Of course, climate change impacts and responses feature in our deliberations.
The Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility: https://www.theprif.org/
Delegation of the European Union to the Pacific: https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/fiji_en
Recent Comments