EU Policy on Climate Change Mitigation since Copenhagen and the Economic Crisis. CEPS Working Document No. 380, 5 March 2013

The EU has long assumed leadership in advancing domestic and international climate change policy. While pushing its partners in international negotiations, it has led the way in implementing a host of domestic measures, including a unilateral and legally binding target, an ambitious policy on renewable energy and a strategy for low-carbon technology deployment. The centrepiece of EU policy, however, has been the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), a cap-and-trade programme launched in 2005. The ETS has been seen as a tool to ensure least-cost abatement, drive EU decarbonisation and develop a global carbon market. After an initial review and revision of the ETS, to come into force in 2013, there was a belief that the new ETS was ‘future-proof’, meaning able to cope with the temporary lack of a global agreement on climate change and individual countries’ emission ceilings. This confidence has been shattered by the simultaneous ‘failure’ of Copenhagen to deliver a clear prospect of a global (top-down) agreement and the economic crisis. The lack of prospects for national caps at the international level has led to a situation whereby many member states hesitate to pursue ambitious climate change policies. In the midst of this, the EU is assessing its options anew. A number of promising areas for international cooperation exist, all centred on the need to ‘raise the ambition level’ of GHG emission reductions, notably in aviation and maritime, short-lived climate pollutions, deforestation, industrial competitiveness and green growth. Public policy issues in the field of technology and its transfer will require more work to identify real areas for cooperation.

Climate Conundrums at High Altitude. EU Diplomacy Paper 01/2014, January 2014

The European Union (EU) was the frontrunner for the establishment of the world’s first multinational emissions trading scheme (ETS). Committed to combating climate change, the EU sought to overcome the multilateral paralysis within the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to mitigate aviation emissions. Unsuccessful in pushing for a global market-based measure (MBM) within the organisation, the EU was ready for take-off to include the sector in the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS). The geographical scope, however, including all flights from and to Europe in their entire trajectory, caused frictions with the international community about sovereignty issues. Ultimately, Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard announced a ‘stop-the-clock’ for international flights, a temporary derogation until the 2013 ICAO Assembly in order to find a global agreement. The ’stop-the-clock’ initiative provides ample opportunity to analyse EU leadership in curbing aviation emissions based on an analytical framework specifying different types of leadership. Its shows the global challenge to the EU’s claim of structural leadership on various levels in and beyond ICAO. The paper aims to analyse to what extent the EU is a global leader in mitigating aviation emissions and to identify the kind of EU leadership according to a threefold analytical framework. In addition, it will factor in the 'stop-the-clock' initiative and to what extent it altered the perception of EU leadership in the field. The paper comes to the conclusion that EU leadership in mitigating aviation emissions is not stalling. On the contrary, the EU, by pursuing the extension of the EU ETS, has put aviation emissions on everybody’s radar – and thus showed idea-based leadership. Proving the scheme’s feasibility further underlined EU leadership, in the form of directional leadership. The 'stop-the-clock' decision, however, already indicated what was later on confirmed in the 38th ICAO Assembly: Unilateral structural leadership of the EU in the field of aviation emissions is not credible at the moment.

EU actorness and effectiveness under political pressure at the Copenhagen climate change negotiations

This paper analyses the extent of European Union (EU) actorness and effectiveness at the fifteenth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009. For over a decade the European Union has been characterised as a leader in international climate policy-making and as an important actor in international climate change negotiations. The COP15 meeting in Copenhagen has overall brought about disappointing outcomes, especially from the perspective of the European Union. This casts doubts on EU leadership and begs the question of what has happened to EU actorness and effectiveness in this field. In terms of actorness we take Jupille and Caporaso (1998) as a point of departure and then specify a more parsimonious actorness framework that consists of cohesion and autonomy. Effectiveness (i.e. goal attainment) is seen as conceptually separate from actorness. Effectiveness is conceptualised as the result of actorness conditioned by the ‘opportunity structure’, i.e. the external context (of other actors, events and ideas) that enables or constrains EU actions. We hold that the EU’s actorness has been only moderate, especially given somewhat limited preference cohesion. In terms of the opportunity structure in Copenhagen we argue that the high degree of politicisation constrained the EU’s ability to negotiate and thus to attain its goals. Another external factor that had a substantial adverse impact on the EU’s effectiveness at the Copenhagen negotiations was the strong involvement of other actors with rather different positions, namely the United States (US) and the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China).

The 2015 Climate Agreement: What’s in it for the EU. CEPS Commentary, 17 October 2014

The European Union, together with other countries, is making a second effort to reach a comprehensive global climate change agreement in Paris in 2015, after the unsuccessful attempt to do so in Copenhagen in 2009. In a Europe still preoccupied with recovery from the economic crisis, why should the EU be tempted to offer leadership in the field of climate change and what would such an agreement bring – in short, what’s in it for the EU? Although the world has changed since the earlier attempt to reach agreement, the EU needs to continue to be a leader in the climate talks, argues the author, both for the sake of the world and for our own EU interest. Others will come and share that leadership and shape it together. It is the only way that we, the EU, can be successful in Paris.