BUSINESSEUROPE
I I 

?1?72 TE Fifi-R ENC 'r~j 5t CLIMATE MEE- iiN?L: CNN 15153012.)?

13 September 2018

2030 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION TARGET
1. Background

0 In June 2018, the European Commission. Parliament and Council during trilogues
collectively agreed to increase the energy ef?ciency binding target from 30% to
32.5% and the increased renewable energy target from 27% to 32%. Both have a
clause for a possible upward revision by 2023.

0 EU climate and energy commissioner Arias Canete concluded in August that 'Based
upon our calculation models. we should de facto achieve a reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions by 45% within the by 2030 compared to 1990 levels because of
these increased targets.

0 German Chancellor Merkel stated she is ?not very happy" about the Commission's
push and thinks ?we first of all have to stick with the goals we have already set for
ourselves. I don't think constantly setting new goals makes any sense?.

. Commission President Juncker in his 2018 State of the Union on 12 September
stated that he supports Canete's call both technin and politicely.

2. Next steps - timetable

- The Commission seems willing to have this debate and possibly agree on a position
in view of COP24. taking place in December 2018 in Katowice, Poland.

0 The issue might be pushed into the set of conclusions of the next European Council
on 18 October 2018. In case of an agreement (requiring unanimity), the impact on
EU legislations such as ETS or Effort-Sharing is an unclear territory even though the
Commission informally said that they have no plans of revisions at this stage. A
debate could be expected as well in the Environment Council on 9 October.

a It remains unclear when how the Parliament will position itself before COP24.

3. BusinessEurope advocacy and communication strategy

Members will be asked to discuss and agree on a line to take by BusinessEurope. As a
basis for discussion, several approaches are outlined below:

. To be rather positive as long as it remains as a political statement. with no
implications on the range of 2030 EU legislations (ETS, effort-sharing. etc.).

. To oppose the new increase of ambition, using the usual arguments of global playing
?eld, we cannot compensate for others. etc.

a To challenge the process. such as the need for more transparency on the
calculations. need for an impact assessment. risk of creating instability. etc.

. To ?minimise? the issue arguing that the formalisation of a ?de facto' extra ambition is
not what matters most. What is key is to persuade other major economies to catch
up with the ambition. and to make our transition in Europe a success. For this
we need stability to mobilise investments.

 

Av ?commas-i we a.i.s.b.l. muorz nus 
FAX .Wn- 1445
II mw. uni; E-VA - "un?tuu an54E .;mF l. ?loztom}m