Notes from Brussels

Tuesday, October 7, was a day of high emotion. If you are interested in the efforts being made to combat global warming, read on....

'Super Tuesday' in the environment committee

The committee room was packed. Lobbyists and parliamentary assistants filled up every spare seat and were crushed against the walls. The European Parliament's Environment Committee was voting on 86 pages of amendments to the legislation on the proposed new EU's Emissions Trading Directive. At 10.20 we reached Consolidated Amendment 16.

Civil war had broken out within the large right-of-centre bloc of the European Peoples' Party (EPP). Irish MEP Avril Doyle, one of their number, was the Parliament's Rapporteur (negotiator) on this crucial climate change legislation, and her support for the European Commission's proposals was securing voting majorities thanks to almost everyone except her own Group.

Consolidated Amendment 16 was on a different issue and in theory had the support of the EPP, the Liberal Democrats, and at least a sprinkling of Socialist members. It proposed the setting up of a _10 billion fund to support the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

Taking CO2 out of the fossil fuels used in power production and burying it permanently deep underground is seen by many as a vital stop gap measure to curb the rate of emissions into the atmosphere from the rapidly growing worldwide use of coal. The so-called 'Consolidated' amendment was almost identical to a proposal (Amendment 500) I had tabled with cross party support from Avril Doyle and Linda McAvan (Labour MEP - Yorkshire).

Taking up the challenge

Two years ago I had a meeting at the Foreign Office in London with John Ashton, the special advisor on climate change to the Foreign Secretary. John was relentless about the realities. China gets 80% of its electricity from coal. It is building one gigawatt of electricity generating capacity (a big power station) every week. Worldwide use of coal is expected to increase by 70% over the next 20 years and emissions will soar. Unless we develop CCS technology we have no chance of dealing with the problem of global warming.

I gained the chance last February to become Parliament's Rapporteur on a draft EU law known as the Directive on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. It is framework legislation that makes arrangements for identification of safe CO2 storage sites, for monitoring, and for long term responsibilities. I took on the task with relish but set myself a goal that went far beyond the technical details of the legislation - to address the issues necessary to accelerate the development of CCS.

Europe's Prime Ministers met to discuss climate change in March 2007.
Amongst their conclusions was a declaration that they would support the building of 10-12 commercial CCS demonstration projects by 2015. Yet here we were, 18 months later, with not one project identified and no funding mechanism agreed to support the costs of those who would apply the innovative technology on a huge scale for the first time.

Developing a strategy

For 8 months I had worked to promote the means of delivering the goals. Working closely with lobbyists from Climate Change Capital, Shell, Alstom and a host of other companies, as well as with NGOs like WWF, Bellona, E3G and the European Climate Foundation, I have visited Warsaw, Berlin, Paris, Oslo and The Hague in order to meet with Ministers and argue my case.

Within 20 years CCS should be commercially competitive. The cost of having to buy allowances to emit CO2 into the atmosphere will make investment in capture equipment and storage sites worthwhile. But in the short term it could double the cost of building a power station

My plan was to get money to support the demonstration projects from the short term use of carbon allowances within the Emissions Trading Scheme, with cash being paid to the developers of the first plants only when CO2 was actually being stored underground instead of being emitted into the atmosphere. This incentive would then be backed up by regulatory means, banning construction from 2015 of dirty, coal-fired power stations unless they were equipped with CCS technology.

An uphill struggle

I knew I had a few supporters in the Council of Ministers. The UK Government in particular was enthusiastic. My old rival, Labour MP Phil Woolas, came out to Brussels in his role as Climate Change Minister to see me and offer support. We joked about the newspaper cutting on my wall that proclaimed my victory over him in the 1995 Littleborough & Saddleworth by-election.

But opposition to the idea of using carbon allowances to fund CCS projects remained considerable. Finance Ministers in national capitals mostly hated the idea that even a small proportion of the money that might come to them in 2013 from the auctioning of carbon allowances could be diverted away.

Some people complained that the proposal would flaw the 'perfection' of the Emissions Trading Scheme, or that it favoured the use of one technology over another, or that the development of CCS was objectionable in any case. Even though CO2 is a naturally occurring inert gas it is difficult to stop some people comparing it to radioactive or explosive waste, while some green activists object to anything that might enable the continued use of fossil fuels in power generation.

Consolidated amendment 16 had taken account of at least a few of these concerns and addressed one in particular, the idea that rich electricity generating companies might make even more windfall profits at public expense if carbon prices were to soar over the next few years. "No", it said, "the European Investment Bank can be used as an intermediary to protect the public purse and put pressure on potential developers to invest their own money first."

The key vote

Avril was taking hits from her own side in the Committee, but surviving thanks to the votes of Liberal Democrats, Socialists and others. Consolidated Amendment 14 was passed. Consolidated Amendment 15 gained similar approval. My heart was racing as Consolidated Amendment 16 was put to the vote.

A forest of hands seemed to go up in opposition, many of them from amongst the EPP ranks behind Avril Doyle. Maybe her own people had just got into the habit of opposing everything she proposed. The Chairman called for an electronic test of the vote.

The result: *33-33. No majority achieved. REJECTED.*

My world shrank to a tiny cocoon. I remember little about the next 30 minutes. Eight months work had come to nothing. With neither the Council nor the Commission offering an alternative proposal, CCS had been kicked into touch. One of the major tools in the fight against climate change had been blunted. My chance to make a difference for the better had passed. I carried on voting with my colleagues, amendment after amendment, like an automaton.

Life after death

Then Jules Maaten, leader of the Dutch Liberals, leaned over and said: "Surely we still have to vote on Amendment 500?" Slowly my brain moved back into gear. The original Amendment 500 would have been superseded by Consolidated Amendment 16. But Jules was right, the latter had been defeated so Amendment 500 would now be put to the vote after all. On our lists it was still a few pages off.

Jerzy Buzek (EPP), the former Polish Prime Minister, came past me as our votes continued. "Jerzy, are you going to vote for 500?" I asked. "It's difficult, Chris. It makes reference to taking allowances from the 'New Entrants Reserve'. New EU Member States think you are getting at us." "No, no, Jerzy," I said, "that was never our intention. It is a technical proposal only."

Votes past and up came the amendment. I raised my hands above my head and clapped. "Point of order, Chairman." I gained the floor.

"Chairman," I said, "the consolidated amendments were circulated to us all but we have not been given copies today of the original amendments. This means that some members may not be aware that Amendment 500 is crucial to the funding of the carbon capture and storage demonstration projects that have been promised, and that could make such a difference to reducing the problem of global warming.

"Some members I know are concerned that it could penalise new Member States, but I am sure I speak on behalf of Linda McAvan and Avril Doyle in saying that that was never our intention, and that we shall address the issue in subsequent negotiations with the Council of Ministers."

"That wasn't really a point of order," said the Chairman, accurately, "but thank you anyway. Let's put it to the vote." A show of hands went up.

"CARRIED," announced the Chairman. I thought about calling for a check on numbers, but you don't ask questions when the referee has just given you the game!

A big step forward

Realisation sank in slowly. The situation was rescued. The misery that I had experienced, and that I later discovered had been shared by many supporters around the room and who had despaired when the original vote was negative (the UK Government representative had left after the vote and called his colleagues in Whitehall to say that all was lost), started to fade away.

I have never been euphoric after an election victory. Usually I feel a sense of burden about the responsibility of living up to the hopes people have vested in me. I had the same feeling in the committee room that day. Success was good. No, it was FANTASTIC, but it was also only the beginning. Having taken the first step the task ahead would be to win over a majority from amongst the sceptical governments represented in the Council. Weeks of meetings with Ministers and Commission officials now beckons.

But the vote in committee had done one thing, it had thrown down a challenge. "Here's our idea, what's your alternative?" The European Parliament has made a proposal that can work, now the Ministers have to support it or provide a different answer.

An unexpected bonus

Oh, and later in the day the Committee gave its backing by a large majority to my call for the introduction of an emissions performance standard on new power stations. It declared that from 2015 no installation should be authorised that emit more than 500g CO2/Kwh, which for those uninitiated means 'no new coal-fired power stations without CCS'.

This was the regulatory part of my strategy, and it immediately threw the cat amongst the power industry pigeons. California has already introduced such a limit, but even though Arnold Schwarzenegger got there first the idea has simply not been part of the political debate in Europe.

It set the seal on what I can probably count, election wins excluded, as the most important day in my political life.

Chris Davies MEP