Very few of us think about the voting processes of the European Union on a day-to-day basis. But recently, we have been researching the passage of some important European energy legislation. What we have learned surprised us, not so much on the outcome (which is what we had hoped for) but the process by which it was conducted. It has presented us with a moral dilemma which we share here with you today.
The legislation in question is known as the Just Transition Fund (JTF), which:
- Is part of the European Green Deal, aimed at moving the EU from reliance on fossil fuels to greener forms of energy.
- has a significant budget of 17.5 billion Euros.
- Is intended to provide finance to assist the energy transition in Member States, particularly for those which rely heavily on fossil fuels, especially coal.
- sets out the criteria and conditions which are to be applied in distributing the budget among applications made by Member States.
One important issue to consider is whether the energy transition should move directly from coal production to renewable energy such as wind or solar, or whether it would be legitimate to move from coal to renewables via the bridging technology of installing natural gas facilities. The rational of those who advocate this approach is that natural gas – while a fossil fuel – is less carbon-intensive than coal and would be a move in the right direction.
However, investing in new gas is less of a carbon saving than moving directly to renewables, and locks in any new gas infrastructure which will have a design lifetime of at least 25 years. The European Commission therefore developed proposals for the European Parliament which banned the use of JTF funds for fossil fuels, including natural gas.
The Commission proposals were considered by the European Parliament in the middle of September 2020. They proposed a significant number of amendments to the plans, including amendment 45 which stated that natural gas bridging technology should be financially supported, subject to certain conditions being met. The vote of the European Parliament – in a reasonably close vote - agreed to this amendment.
It is interesting to consider how the MEPs of each Member State voted on this amendment, which was:
- supported by around half of the MEPs in Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Greece
- supported by almost all MEPs from Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria
- opposed by almost all MEPs from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Austria.
The voting rationales of individual countries are to be the subject of ongoing analysis.
The issue then passed to a procedure which can be used when the European Parliament proposes amendments to Commission proposals. This is known as trilogue, involving as it does negotiations between three parties – the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of Ministers. The outcome of this process – in December 2020 – was that the legislation was returned to its original position, i.e., the bridging technology of natural gas would not be supported by the Just Transition Fund.
And so, we have an outcome which favours a stronger energy transition – as we had hoped. This was however achieved through a process in which the views of democratically elected representatives have been reversed through a process of negotiation with unelected officials. This presents us with a moral dilemma indeed.
- Researcher
- More information
Iain Todd (todd@essb.eur.nl) is a Visiting Professor working in the Global Social Challenges (GSC) pillar of the Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences. Alexandrina Rotaru (498777ar@student.eur.nl) is a third-year student within that department.
We would welcome any comments on the above findings – please get in touch!
