In these days, the Polish government has filed two more complaints with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) about EU legal acts related to the tightening of EU climate policy as part of the Fit for 55 package.
This time the so-called CBAM tax, ie a mechanism to adjust prices at the borders taking into account CO2 emissions, as well as the system of trading CO2 emission rights, as well as the operation of the so-called market stability reserves.
The question of how to vote
In both cases, we question not only the solutions in the regulations and directives that regulate both issues, but above all their legal basis. Poland points out that these solutions are both fiscal in nature and affect the structure of each Member State’s energy mix, and as these issues fall under the exclusive competence of Member States, unanimity is required and not, as decided in the EC and the EU Council, qualified majority.
Earlier, the government decided to appeal legal acts of the ECJ of the EP and the Council regarding the ban on registration of internal combustion engine vehicles after 2035, bringing the EU CO2 reduction target from the previous 40% to 55% increased in 20230, annual reduction of the number of free CO2 emission permits and interference in forest management of Member States under the so-called LULUCF regulation. In these cases, the EP and the Council of the EU also decided to vote by qualified majority, while all these solutions naturally fall under the exclusive competence of the Member States, so that their violation requires the unanimous consent of all Member States.
Price increase
Let us remind you that in April the European Parliament first adopted the legal acts mentioned above with a large majority and all MEPs representing the opposition parties: Platform, Links, PSL, Ruch Hołownia (a week later the EU Council ) The EP voted, among other things, on solutions that extend the EU ETS system (allowances for CO2 emissions) to two more sectors of the economy, namely transport and construction, as well as a much greater burden than before of the cost of permits for aviation and maritime transport emissions.
These solutions, in addition to expanding the application of the ETS system to other sectors of the economy, also through an increasing number of so-called free CO2 emission allowances, will drive up the price of these allowances on European exchanges. The package of legal acts voted also includes the Social Climate Fund, which aims in particular to support households in meeting climate policy requirements, as well as the so-called Carbon Footprint Tax (CBAM), aimed at levying EU imports of certain energy-intensive goods from third countries where such climate taxes do not exist.
Social Climate Fund
Minister Moscow opposed these solutions at the EU Council meeting and motivated her decision, among other things, by the fact that, according to the estimates of the Ministry of Climate, due to the fact that the Polish energy sector is based on coal for about 70% , the rise in the prices of CO2 allowances make them account for about 40% of electricity prices and as much as 55% of district heating costs (i.e. heating in cities) . In turn, the inclusion of transport and construction in the ETS will significantly increase the operating costs of households, and the reduction of free allowances for air and maritime transport will increase the prices of airline tickets and the costs of companies using sea deliveries . According to the supporters of these solutions, all these problems will be solved by the aforementioned Social Climate Fund, which is estimated at over EUR 100 billion per year, but Poland’s needs only in relation to the implementation of the tightened climate policy until 2030 are estimated at almost 190 billion euros .
EU example
The left-liberal majority in the European institutions (Parliament, Commission and Council) argue that by pushing through these solutions, they want to make the EU a leading entity in the world with a stricter climate policy. She is convinced that the rest of the world will follow the EU’s example and will also decide to adopt and implement similar solutions, and that the largest CO2 emitters will not be in 2050, as they had envisioned so far, but will immediately start reducing CO2 emissions. .
Unfortunately, the EU itself is becoming more and more like a swimmer who jumps into a swimming pool without first checking whether it contains water, because it wants to implement a policy that will significantly increase the cost of operating in the EU, with the hope that it will be possible to reduce them in the future, through a leap in technical and technological progress in all areas. The only thing is that this progress is not certain and the rest of the world, including the largest CO2 emitters, is announcing the introduction of stricter climate policies, but at their own pace (e.g. the largest of them, China after 2030).
We will see how the ECJ will respond to these complaints, especially now that the main promoter of these controversial solutions, Frans Timmermans, has just stepped down as a Commissioner and is making the switch to Dutch politics due to early parliamentary elections in this country.
Source: wPolityce