Climate change This is how Finnish MEPs assess the EU’s climate package – Ville Niinistö: “procrastination and laxity” in action, Petri Sarvamaa does not consider Finland good

The HS asked the Euro representatives of the largest parties for their views on the EU’s climate package. Sound weights differ, for example, in whether the whole is partly too flimsy or partly too tight.

Finns MEPs give the EU Commission published on Wednesday thanks and reproaches to the comprehensive climate package.

HS asked for views from representatives of the largest parties. Sound weights differ, for example, in whether the whole is partly too flimsy or partly too tight.

On Wednesday, the European Commission unveiled a proposal for a so-called Fit for 55 program, which aims to reduce emissions by 55% from 1990 levels by 2030.

These include tightening and expanding emissions trading, carbon tariffs on carbon-intensive products from outside the EU and tightening up car emission standards. Land use and forests are strongly included in the EU’s emission reduction targets.

Read more: Forests, carbon tariffs, cars: Such climate measures are proposed by the EU Commission and can affect Finland

Sdp: n Miapetra Kumpula-Natri welcomes, above all, the fact that the EU has embarked on a major structural change.

“I think it’s terribly good to have this kind of idea to change the system here: make traffic emission-free, make energy emission-free,” he says.

“If we operated in Finland alone, we would not have the opportunity to change the products on the market. As Europe as 20% of the world economy, if we say that there is a demand for zero-emission cars here, then yes, they are starting to come. ”

Kumpula-Natri emphasizes that the package will create demand for clean technologies, which will create jobs for sectors and companies at the forefront of change. Finland can benefit because it is a pioneer with its carbon neutrality target for 2035.

In Kumpula-Natri’s opinion, there is a need for change, for example, in the fact that Finland’s winter conditions would be taken into account in maritime emissions trading. The same was emphasized by the European Minister on Wednesday Tytti Tuppurainen (sd) and the Minister of Economic Affairs Mika Lintilä (middle).

Read more: Climate Minister Mikkonen: “EU takes the climate crisis seriously”, new emissions charges for winter shipping for Finland “key issue”

The Greens Ville Niinistö estimates that the package will reduce emissions in line with the Commission’s target.

In general, he praises the package, even though the Greens have initially pushed for a tighter emissions reduction target.

“Yes, this has a very significant impact, above all, on the realization of the energy revolution and low-emission traffic. This is where the big investments start. ”

However, Niinistö believes that in certain sectors there is “considerable delay and slack in the package.” This is the case for him, for example, with regard to carbon sinks.

“If you say inhorealistically, then the Commission’s message is that even less needs to be done in the Finnish forests than has been done so far. That’s not really how it can go, ”he says.

Carbon sinks mean that forests and other vegetation sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The carbon sequestration target proposed by the Commission for Finland is 17.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, rounded.

Finland’s net sinks in 2013–2020 have varied between 8.2 and 23 million tonnes, largely depending on forest use. Last year, the sink was 23 million tons, which is higher than the target now set.

In the Commission’s calculation, the targets have been set on the basis of the level of sinks in 2016-2018. Niinistö points out that during these years the fellings were exceptionally large and therefore the sinks small.

“It happened so funny or good, as it now says, that Finland’s obligation to swallow is declining because we have cut down so much forest in recent years.”

Niinistö states that Finland’s own carbon neutrality target for 2035 requires larger sinks in any case.

Finland has thoughtthat meeting its own carbon neutrality target would require a level of 21 million tonnes of carbon sinks.

“The end result is that less is required of Finland in terms of carbon sinks than before and less than we have already been able to do. If the Forest Industry and MTK complain about this, then I don’t know what they want. ”

Regarding maritime emissions trading, Niinistö says that while the national boundary conditions, for example for winter shipping, are good to consider, it is essential for him now that Finland does not set out to water down the big picture in the negotiations.

Coalition Party Petri Sarvamaa says he would not describe the package as good for Finland.

“The whole thing is such that we roll up my sleeves and start work in the autumn.”

Sarvamaa also raises carbon sinks, for example. With regard to them, the “preliminary cautious” assessment is that the Commission’s proposal is more favorable to Finland than the worst fears.

“The felling volumes in 2016–2018, which are the basis in the Commission’s proposal, are reasonably ok for Finland,” he says.

“Compared to the horror pictures that were expected here, then in comparison with that, we can start working with Parliament and the Council.”

However, Sarvamaa emphasizes that there are still uncertainties about the future of the model.

As his own biggest concern about the package, Sarvamaa mentions a social fund through which it would be intended to support those who, for example, are hit by rising energy costs.

A fund of around € 70 billion is to be set up from the EU budget, and in the future it would be funded by ETS revenues.

It is the responsibility of the member states to make a plan of who can be covered by the support and how the support will be channeled to them. Member States are also expected to fund the support themselves.

Sarvamaa is concerned about the basis on which the money is distributed.

For example, if funding were to improve structures so that countries that are currently less involved in climate change efforts could participate better, it would make sense for Sarvamaa. According to the Commission, this does not seem to be the case.

“If, as the name implies, it becomes a social fund in the form of subsidies without forcing Member States to do and act on these objectives, then it makes no sense.”

Basic Finns Laura Huhtasaari says there are mostly a lot of questions about the package at this point, and things need to be clarified.

He also mentions, among other things, the expansion of emissions trading to maritime transport.

“Especially Finland, which is a completely export-dependent country, so the first thing for us to find out is how this will affect the competitiveness of our industry.”

For Huhtasaari, it is also necessary to find out the effect of the free allocation of allowances in emissions trading until 2025, after which it will be reduced by 10% per year.

“The price of fuels will also rise due to emissions trading. How will it affect industry and exports? ” He asks.

Like Sarvamaa, Huhtasaari is also critical of the fund proposed by the Commission to support low-income households.

I’m downtown Mauri Pekkarinen says that in the package as a whole, many things were better emphasized than one might have thought in light of the preliminary data.

“But there are many concerns and many things still to be clarified,” he says.

Pekkarinen also highlights winter shipping in the future emissions trading of maritime transport.

“That’s where we relatively lose.”

Pekkarinen adds that ignoring winter shipping is a bad thing, especially because Finland is already in a relatively weak position compared to Central European countries due to long transport distances.

Pekkarinen also clings to the goals of the burden-sharing sector. For him, the proposed emission reduction target for Finland is very tough.

Burden-sharing means that the EU has set national, binding emission reduction targets for non-trading sectors, such as transport, heating and agriculture.

Finland’s previous obligation was 39 per cent by 2030 compared to the 2005 level. Now the target would be raised to 50%. A few other countries have an equally tough goal.

“46-47 percent would still go so like, that too is tight, but 50 percent is really tough.”



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: