THE European Commission is to be asked to investigate the Government’s handling of a toxic dump discovered in Cork harbour.
Ireland South MEP Sean Kelly said he would be raising the matter with the commission after it was disclosed that a working group set up by the OPW had no remit to address remediation, contamination or containment at the site on Haulbowline island.
There was widespread anger after Health Minister Mary Harney refused to carry out a baseline health study on people living in the lower harbour.
Mr Kelly said it "beggared belief" that two years after the discovery of the dump, which contained highly carcinogenic Chromium 6, nothing had been done to assess its health risks or clean it up.
The MEP said he would be asking the commission if the Government had broken any European laws in relation to the dump.
He said he would also be appealing to the commission to provide money for a clean-up and a baseline health survey of the local population.
Earlier this week, Deputy David Stanton accused the Government of either attempting a cover-up or exhibiting incompetence by allowing the working group, set up under the OPW, to examine the future of the site without immediately addressing the most important issue: how to make it safe. Environment Minister John Gormley, meanwhile, has defended the Government’s protracted effort to find a long-term solution to the toxic Haulbowline site.
Cobh has a cancer rate 37% above the national average, and the cause of this hasn’t been identified.
The minister said the risk assessment and working group process, which has been criticised for its failure to deal with the contamination, was the best way forward.
"It is crucial that in dealing with such sites, rather than piecemeal action, which could inadvertently cause problems with the local community and the environment, a coherent overall approach is taken and we have the objective to ensure we get the best possible result."
Mr Gormley was responding to a Labour Party motion in the Seanad which criticised the Government’s record on the site.
Mr Gormley said the initial working group, which only met for the first time this year, would inform future work.
This will involve consultation with the community throughout the harbour area, he said, and help decide what is the best remediation method for the former Irish Steel site.
He said the Irish Steel buildings had already been demolished and decontaminated. And he claimed more had been spent on clean up work during 12 months of the Green Party in Government than in the previous 68-year history of the site.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label European Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Commission. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Incinerator objectors ask Europe to block planning board moves
THE European Commission has been asked to prevent Bord Pleanála allowing a company more time to make its case for the development of two major incinerators in Cork harbour.
CHASE (Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment) has lodged a complaint with the commission after the planning appeals board granted a further extension to Indaver to present its case for the development of toxic and municipal incinerators in Ringaskiddy.
CHASE spokeswoman Linda Fitzpatrick said they had submitted "that the perpetual granting of extensions in place of a decision constitutes unfair procedures".
An Bord Pleanála held a hearing into the development of the incinerators in April 2009.
CHASE contends that Bord Pleanála has postponed its decision on too many occasions since to allow Indaver time to provide extra information requested.
"Where material submitted by a developer is inadequate it should be ruled invalid and a decision issued on that basis," Ms Fitzpatrick said.
She said the group’s latest submission to the European Commission was in addition to an existing complaint it had made regarding Ireland’s inadequate compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment procedures, on the grounds that it constitutes a fundamentally unfair and illegitimate procedure.
"The neverending facilitation of the developer (Indaver) is in breach of Irish and European requirements for fair procedures, and so we have referred it to the European Commission which is currently considering our existing complaint. Indaver cannot legitimately be given open-ended opportunity to get their proposal right. Any competent company worth their salt would have a correct proposal in on day one, with minimal need for clarification," Ms Fitzpatrick said.
Indaver have been granted an extension until August 3 to submit further details on flooding and coastal erosion mitigation measures.
Indaver managing director John Ahern said it wasn’t his firm’s fault as Indaver was only complying with a request for a "considerable amount" of further information from Bord Pleanála.
"They (CHASE) are free to make a complaint, but this kind of thing takes time. That’s the process," Mr Ahern said.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
CHASE (Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment) has lodged a complaint with the commission after the planning appeals board granted a further extension to Indaver to present its case for the development of toxic and municipal incinerators in Ringaskiddy.
CHASE spokeswoman Linda Fitzpatrick said they had submitted "that the perpetual granting of extensions in place of a decision constitutes unfair procedures".
An Bord Pleanála held a hearing into the development of the incinerators in April 2009.
CHASE contends that Bord Pleanála has postponed its decision on too many occasions since to allow Indaver time to provide extra information requested.
"Where material submitted by a developer is inadequate it should be ruled invalid and a decision issued on that basis," Ms Fitzpatrick said.
She said the group’s latest submission to the European Commission was in addition to an existing complaint it had made regarding Ireland’s inadequate compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment procedures, on the grounds that it constitutes a fundamentally unfair and illegitimate procedure.
"The neverending facilitation of the developer (Indaver) is in breach of Irish and European requirements for fair procedures, and so we have referred it to the European Commission which is currently considering our existing complaint. Indaver cannot legitimately be given open-ended opportunity to get their proposal right. Any competent company worth their salt would have a correct proposal in on day one, with minimal need for clarification," Ms Fitzpatrick said.
Indaver have been granted an extension until August 3 to submit further details on flooding and coastal erosion mitigation measures.
Indaver managing director John Ahern said it wasn’t his firm’s fault as Indaver was only complying with a request for a "considerable amount" of further information from Bord Pleanála.
"They (CHASE) are free to make a complaint, but this kind of thing takes time. That’s the process," Mr Ahern said.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
An Taisce complains to European Commission over road projects
AN TAISCE has made a formal complaint to the European Commission that plans for a highway between Dublin and Derry involve a “transboundary breach” of the EU’s directive requiring strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of major projects.
It also claims that the directive is being breached by the National Roads Authority (NRA) in pursuing plans for more motorways and dual-carriageways and seeks “compliance action” on an alleged breach of the Habitats Directive by the planned New Ross bypass in Co Wexford.
Describing this bypass as “the largest single intervention in an area of sensitive ecology and landscape”, the complaint notes that it would include a high-level bridge 4km south of New Ross in place of an original, more modest route immediately adjacent to the town.
The bridge “cuts through the hill at Camlin on the Co Wexford side and passes over the river Barrow, candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC), to the Pink Rock in Co Kilkenny within sight of the area around the President John F Kennedy family farmstead at Dunganstown”.
It notes that a legal challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s approval of this scheme failed in the High Court on March 2nd and says the judgment of Mr Justice Hedigan failed to have regard to the review terms of the EU directive on environmental impact assessment.
An Taisce claims the NRA “has been given virtually autonomous legal status by the Irish Government to plan, seek consents for and funding for motorway/dual-carriageway schemes, both contained in the National Development Plan and even not”.
These included the Atlantic motorway/dual-carriageway from Letterkenny, Co Donegal, running via Sligo, Knock airport, Tuam, Ennis, Limerick, Mallow, Cork and Waterford, connecting with the New Ross bypass, with a new N30 link to the N11 bypassing Clonroche, Co Wexford.
Further sections of the N11 and N2 were to be upgraded to motorway standard. “As in the case of New Ross, a genuinely needed bypass is being used as the pretext for constructing massive inter-regional motorways or dual-carriageways”, An Taisce says.
In a letter to EU environment commissioner Janez Potocnik, it notes that Co Meath alone would have four motorways running through it.
“The Irish Government is also already committed to making extensive contribution to a new dual-carriageway running through Northern Ireland from the Monaghan border to Derry and the upgrading of the Belfast-Larne link,” An Taisce writes.
“The NRA is at advanced contract negotiation for the 80km Tuam to Crusheen sections of the Atlantic Corridor, and the New Ross bypass” it says, adding that plans for the M20 Limerick-Mallow-Cork section had been lodged with Bord Pleanála along with the Cork to Killarney N21.
Rather than scaling down schemes to reflect the lack of exchequer funding, the NRA and Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey were “actively working on a mechanism to subvert Government borrowing limits in finding a means to proceed with the road programme”.
This was to be achieved through either public-private partnerships (PPPs), “the plundering of the National Pension Reserve Fund or some sort of special dispensation from the European Central Bank through the European Investment Bank . . . The energy and resources being devoted to proceeding and securing funding for these road schemes and the secrecy with which it is being conducted and the lack of media or public awareness of the issues is astonishing”, it says.
Proceeding would “create a debt mountain for the next generation on top of that already incurred through the Irish banking and property collapse . . . at a time when the decarbonisation of power generation and transport ought to be the greatest priority”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
It also claims that the directive is being breached by the National Roads Authority (NRA) in pursuing plans for more motorways and dual-carriageways and seeks “compliance action” on an alleged breach of the Habitats Directive by the planned New Ross bypass in Co Wexford.
Describing this bypass as “the largest single intervention in an area of sensitive ecology and landscape”, the complaint notes that it would include a high-level bridge 4km south of New Ross in place of an original, more modest route immediately adjacent to the town.
The bridge “cuts through the hill at Camlin on the Co Wexford side and passes over the river Barrow, candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC), to the Pink Rock in Co Kilkenny within sight of the area around the President John F Kennedy family farmstead at Dunganstown”.
It notes that a legal challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s approval of this scheme failed in the High Court on March 2nd and says the judgment of Mr Justice Hedigan failed to have regard to the review terms of the EU directive on environmental impact assessment.
An Taisce claims the NRA “has been given virtually autonomous legal status by the Irish Government to plan, seek consents for and funding for motorway/dual-carriageway schemes, both contained in the National Development Plan and even not”.
These included the Atlantic motorway/dual-carriageway from Letterkenny, Co Donegal, running via Sligo, Knock airport, Tuam, Ennis, Limerick, Mallow, Cork and Waterford, connecting with the New Ross bypass, with a new N30 link to the N11 bypassing Clonroche, Co Wexford.
Further sections of the N11 and N2 were to be upgraded to motorway standard. “As in the case of New Ross, a genuinely needed bypass is being used as the pretext for constructing massive inter-regional motorways or dual-carriageways”, An Taisce says.
In a letter to EU environment commissioner Janez Potocnik, it notes that Co Meath alone would have four motorways running through it.
“The Irish Government is also already committed to making extensive contribution to a new dual-carriageway running through Northern Ireland from the Monaghan border to Derry and the upgrading of the Belfast-Larne link,” An Taisce writes.
“The NRA is at advanced contract negotiation for the 80km Tuam to Crusheen sections of the Atlantic Corridor, and the New Ross bypass” it says, adding that plans for the M20 Limerick-Mallow-Cork section had been lodged with Bord Pleanála along with the Cork to Killarney N21.
Rather than scaling down schemes to reflect the lack of exchequer funding, the NRA and Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey were “actively working on a mechanism to subvert Government borrowing limits in finding a means to proceed with the road programme”.
This was to be achieved through either public-private partnerships (PPPs), “the plundering of the National Pension Reserve Fund or some sort of special dispensation from the European Central Bank through the European Investment Bank . . . The energy and resources being devoted to proceeding and securing funding for these road schemes and the secrecy with which it is being conducted and the lack of media or public awareness of the issues is astonishing”, it says.
Proceeding would “create a debt mountain for the next generation on top of that already incurred through the Irish banking and property collapse . . . at a time when the decarbonisation of power generation and transport ought to be the greatest priority”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 1 November 2009
State faces €3.8m EU fine over shellfish water quality
THE EUROPEAN Commission has warned that Ireland will be fined over €3.8 million if it fails to implement a European Court of Justice ruling on shellfish water quality.
The warning issued by EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas states that Ireland has three months to “complete the necessary steps”.
Otherwise, the Government faces a lump sum fine of over €3.8 million and a daily penalty payment of nearly €40,000.
In a separate case, the European Commission is also sending Ireland a final written warning for “allowing changes to development plans without requiring a strategic environmental assessment”.
The warning relates to Ireland’s response to a European Court of Justice ruling in June 2007, which found that Ireland was neglecting its shellfish stocks by failing to designate shellfish areas and by failing to establish “pollution reduction programmes”.
The original complaint was submitted by the Irish Shellfish Association, which was concerned about the impact of untreated raw sewage in areas where shellfish were being cultivated.
“Clean waters support the sustainable production of shellfish, as well as enhancing the general state of the coastal environment.
“The shellfish industry is a significant employment sector in coastal areas and one of Ireland’s assets. Ireland should urgently complete the necessary steps to comply with the judgment as soon as possible,” the commissioner said.
Since the judgment, Ireland has designated 49 shellfish areas in addition to 14 which had already been selected. One area, Rostellan in Cork harbour, still requires designation, and the Department of the Environment said yesterday that it was “very confident” that the measures would be completed before the three-month deadline.
However, the European Commission says that “finalised and adopted pollution reduction programmes are still missing for all of the additional designations”.
These programmes have to be agreed with local authorities.
“Since the shellfish industry represents a significant employment sector in many of the areas affected, failure to ensure the necessary conditions for shellfish production may have wider economic implications. The absence of pollution reduction programmes also affects the general coastal environment,” the commission has stated.
The association’s executive secretary Richie Flynn said yesterday that the EU warning was “regrettable”, and “a signal to Government that it must pay more attention to rural industries, based on indigenous natural resources”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The warning issued by EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas states that Ireland has three months to “complete the necessary steps”.
Otherwise, the Government faces a lump sum fine of over €3.8 million and a daily penalty payment of nearly €40,000.
In a separate case, the European Commission is also sending Ireland a final written warning for “allowing changes to development plans without requiring a strategic environmental assessment”.
The warning relates to Ireland’s response to a European Court of Justice ruling in June 2007, which found that Ireland was neglecting its shellfish stocks by failing to designate shellfish areas and by failing to establish “pollution reduction programmes”.
The original complaint was submitted by the Irish Shellfish Association, which was concerned about the impact of untreated raw sewage in areas where shellfish were being cultivated.
“Clean waters support the sustainable production of shellfish, as well as enhancing the general state of the coastal environment.
“The shellfish industry is a significant employment sector in coastal areas and one of Ireland’s assets. Ireland should urgently complete the necessary steps to comply with the judgment as soon as possible,” the commissioner said.
Since the judgment, Ireland has designated 49 shellfish areas in addition to 14 which had already been selected. One area, Rostellan in Cork harbour, still requires designation, and the Department of the Environment said yesterday that it was “very confident” that the measures would be completed before the three-month deadline.
However, the European Commission says that “finalised and adopted pollution reduction programmes are still missing for all of the additional designations”.
These programmes have to be agreed with local authorities.
“Since the shellfish industry represents a significant employment sector in many of the areas affected, failure to ensure the necessary conditions for shellfish production may have wider economic implications. The absence of pollution reduction programmes also affects the general coastal environment,” the commission has stated.
The association’s executive secretary Richie Flynn said yesterday that the EU warning was “regrettable”, and “a signal to Government that it must pay more attention to rural industries, based on indigenous natural resources”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Friday, 25 January 2008
Barroso defends basisfor CO2 cut allocation
European Commission president José Manuel Barroso has said sharing the burden of CO2 emissions cuts between states based on relative wealth was the fairest way to do it.
He also predicted yesterday that EU states would negotiate very few changes to the commission's climate change proposal, which he described as a "historic decision".
"Responding to the challenge of climate change is the ultimate political test for our generation," said Mr Barroso.
"Our package not only responds to this challenge, but holds the right answer to the challenge of energy security and is an opportunity that should create thousands of new businesses and millions of jobs."
He confirmed several European leaders had lobbied him in the run-up to the publication of the package but said he felt that all EU states would agree to support the proposal.
Under the plan, Ireland will be forced to cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent before 2020, compared to its emissions in 2005. The Government will also have to ensure that 16 per cent of its total energy use comes from renewable energy sources by this date.
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has written to Mr Barroso arguing that allocating Ireland among the highest cuts in CO2 because of its high gross domestic product (GDP) is unfair. Mr Ahern said using gross national product (GNP) - which strips out the repatriated profits of multinationals based in Ireland - would be a better representation of wealth.
Other factors that need to be taken into consideration are Ireland's infrastructural deficit, our recent and projected levels of population growth and the relatively large size of Irish agriculture and its global competitiveness, according to the letter sent to Mr Barroso.
The Government is expected to make this point when the proposal is discussed at the Council of Ministers in Brussels later this year, when amendments are still possible.
The European Parliament will also get the chance to debate and amend the climate change proposal, which the commission wants to pass into law this year or early next year.
Mr Barroso staunchly defended the package in Brussels yesterday and the methodology chosen to allocate individual targets to member states.
He said sharing the burden based on GDP was "the fairest way to do it" and he did not envisage big changes to the proposal. "The final result in council will be, if not exactly what we have proposed, very, very close to it," he said, stressing the extensive consultation with states in the last few weeks.
He also noted that some EU states were complaining to Brussels about the proposed emissions and renewable targets, while actually setting tougher national targets for themselves.
Mr Barroso also shrugged off concerns from environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that last-minute changes to the package to introduce a special compensation regime for energy intensive industries would hurt the environment.
Climate and energy strategy: main points
• Sets targets for reducing greenhouse gases and increasing the use of renewable energy. It puts into practice the EU's commitments made at the UN conference in Bali: to cut EU CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, and boost the use of renewable energy to account for 20 per cent of total energy.
• Each EU state gets different targets based on its relative wealth. Ireland gets the highest possible target for cutting CO2 emissions - 20 per cent by 2020, compared to 2005. Heavy industry is covered by the emissions trading scheme. It must cut emissions by 21 per cent by 2020. Ireland must ensure green energy accounts for 16 per cent of total energy use by 2020. Green energy currently accounts for 2.7 per cent.
• The cost of meeting the targets is estimated at about 0.5 per cent of GDP per year, which could cost Ireland almost €1 billion annually. But the commission argues that not taking action would probably cost much more, possibly between 5 to 20 per cent of GDP because of higher oil prices and the consequences of climate change.
It says reducing the EU's dependence on oil and gas will also increase its energy security.
• Ireland has told the commission that targets based on GDP are too severe because this takes into account the repatriated profits from the multinational sector. It wants the commission to set targets based on gross national income, which could reduce the bill to about €800 million per year. The commission says consumers will face just a 5 per cent increase in bills by 2020 due to the plan, costing an extra €150 per year.
• Member states will face tighter restrictions on the use of so called flexible mechanisms and carbon credits to meet their emissions reductions targets. Under the Kyoto Protocol states such as Ireland were allowed more scope to invest in green energy projects abroad to offset higher CO2 emissions at home.
• The plan also allows additional State aid to be invested in renewables and gives a financial boost to research in new technology for "carbon capture and storage", which would see CO2 emitted by industry being pumped into disused oil and gas fields.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
He also predicted yesterday that EU states would negotiate very few changes to the commission's climate change proposal, which he described as a "historic decision".
"Responding to the challenge of climate change is the ultimate political test for our generation," said Mr Barroso.
"Our package not only responds to this challenge, but holds the right answer to the challenge of energy security and is an opportunity that should create thousands of new businesses and millions of jobs."
He confirmed several European leaders had lobbied him in the run-up to the publication of the package but said he felt that all EU states would agree to support the proposal.
Under the plan, Ireland will be forced to cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent before 2020, compared to its emissions in 2005. The Government will also have to ensure that 16 per cent of its total energy use comes from renewable energy sources by this date.
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has written to Mr Barroso arguing that allocating Ireland among the highest cuts in CO2 because of its high gross domestic product (GDP) is unfair. Mr Ahern said using gross national product (GNP) - which strips out the repatriated profits of multinationals based in Ireland - would be a better representation of wealth.
Other factors that need to be taken into consideration are Ireland's infrastructural deficit, our recent and projected levels of population growth and the relatively large size of Irish agriculture and its global competitiveness, according to the letter sent to Mr Barroso.
The Government is expected to make this point when the proposal is discussed at the Council of Ministers in Brussels later this year, when amendments are still possible.
The European Parliament will also get the chance to debate and amend the climate change proposal, which the commission wants to pass into law this year or early next year.
Mr Barroso staunchly defended the package in Brussels yesterday and the methodology chosen to allocate individual targets to member states.
He said sharing the burden based on GDP was "the fairest way to do it" and he did not envisage big changes to the proposal. "The final result in council will be, if not exactly what we have proposed, very, very close to it," he said, stressing the extensive consultation with states in the last few weeks.
He also noted that some EU states were complaining to Brussels about the proposed emissions and renewable targets, while actually setting tougher national targets for themselves.
Mr Barroso also shrugged off concerns from environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that last-minute changes to the package to introduce a special compensation regime for energy intensive industries would hurt the environment.
Climate and energy strategy: main points
• Sets targets for reducing greenhouse gases and increasing the use of renewable energy. It puts into practice the EU's commitments made at the UN conference in Bali: to cut EU CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, and boost the use of renewable energy to account for 20 per cent of total energy.
• Each EU state gets different targets based on its relative wealth. Ireland gets the highest possible target for cutting CO2 emissions - 20 per cent by 2020, compared to 2005. Heavy industry is covered by the emissions trading scheme. It must cut emissions by 21 per cent by 2020. Ireland must ensure green energy accounts for 16 per cent of total energy use by 2020. Green energy currently accounts for 2.7 per cent.
• The cost of meeting the targets is estimated at about 0.5 per cent of GDP per year, which could cost Ireland almost €1 billion annually. But the commission argues that not taking action would probably cost much more, possibly between 5 to 20 per cent of GDP because of higher oil prices and the consequences of climate change.
It says reducing the EU's dependence on oil and gas will also increase its energy security.
• Ireland has told the commission that targets based on GDP are too severe because this takes into account the repatriated profits from the multinational sector. It wants the commission to set targets based on gross national income, which could reduce the bill to about €800 million per year. The commission says consumers will face just a 5 per cent increase in bills by 2020 due to the plan, costing an extra €150 per year.
• Member states will face tighter restrictions on the use of so called flexible mechanisms and carbon credits to meet their emissions reductions targets. Under the Kyoto Protocol states such as Ireland were allowed more scope to invest in green energy projects abroad to offset higher CO2 emissions at home.
• The plan also allows additional State aid to be invested in renewables and gives a financial boost to research in new technology for "carbon capture and storage", which would see CO2 emitted by industry being pumped into disused oil and gas fields.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 20 January 2008
Plan seeks 20% cut in Irish emissions
The European Commission will ask the Government to significantly cut Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 in its new climate strategy, which is designed to hit the richest EU states hardest.
It will also restrict the State's ability to invest in clean energy projects abroad to offset higher emissions at home, a move that should force the first big cuts in Irish emissions.
The draft plan due to be published next week shares the burden of reducing CO2 emissions among all 27 EU states. It also sets legally binding targets for the percentage of total energy use accounted for from renewable energy.
The plan is based on the principle that the most onerous cuts should be shouldered by the countries with the highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Under this formula, Ireland, which is now the second-richest state in the EU, will face cuts of up to 20 per cent by 2020, when compared to 2005. Poor countries such as Bulgaria will be allowed to increase emissions by up to 20 per cent.
"Member-state reduction efforts should be based on the principle of solidarity between member states and the need for sustainable economic growth across the community, taking into account the relative per capita GDP of member states," says the plan, which faces tough opposition. It will be vigorously debated and amended by diplomats until it is finally published on Wednesday.
EU sources confirmed yesterday that Ireland would face among the toughest individual targets because of its prosperity and poor track record on cutting emissions. However, it will benefit from an upper cap, which restricts the maximum emissions cut demanded from a single EU state to 20 per cent when compared to its emissions in 2005.
This cap means the maximum possible cut would reduce Ireland's CO2 emissions to 55 million tonnes by 2020, which is the same level of emissions as 1990 - the base year used under the Kyoto Protocol.
Under this global strategy, Ireland was allowed to increase its emissions to a level 13 per cent above the 1990 figures but, with just four years left of the Kyoto strategy, Irish emissions are 25 per cent, or 13 million tonnes, above 1990 levels.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
It will also restrict the State's ability to invest in clean energy projects abroad to offset higher emissions at home, a move that should force the first big cuts in Irish emissions.
The draft plan due to be published next week shares the burden of reducing CO2 emissions among all 27 EU states. It also sets legally binding targets for the percentage of total energy use accounted for from renewable energy.
The plan is based on the principle that the most onerous cuts should be shouldered by the countries with the highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Under this formula, Ireland, which is now the second-richest state in the EU, will face cuts of up to 20 per cent by 2020, when compared to 2005. Poor countries such as Bulgaria will be allowed to increase emissions by up to 20 per cent.
"Member-state reduction efforts should be based on the principle of solidarity between member states and the need for sustainable economic growth across the community, taking into account the relative per capita GDP of member states," says the plan, which faces tough opposition. It will be vigorously debated and amended by diplomats until it is finally published on Wednesday.
EU sources confirmed yesterday that Ireland would face among the toughest individual targets because of its prosperity and poor track record on cutting emissions. However, it will benefit from an upper cap, which restricts the maximum emissions cut demanded from a single EU state to 20 per cent when compared to its emissions in 2005.
This cap means the maximum possible cut would reduce Ireland's CO2 emissions to 55 million tonnes by 2020, which is the same level of emissions as 1990 - the base year used under the Kyoto Protocol.
Under this global strategy, Ireland was allowed to increase its emissions to a level 13 per cent above the 1990 figures but, with just four years left of the Kyoto strategy, Irish emissions are 25 per cent, or 13 million tonnes, above 1990 levels.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 22 November 2006
EU to grant nitrates law derogations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)