Post
Whither Commissioner for Climate Change?
There is an interesting discussion in the European Voice pro and contra the creation of a European Commission portfolio for climate change policy.
Reinhilde Veugelers supports the creation of a new Commissioner post for climate change. She says that to keep the costs of climate change adaptation and mitigation ‘manageable', we will need a portfolio of technologies. However, to switch on the private-sector innovation machine, government intervention is needed. According to Veugelers, a pro-innovation approach to climate change requires a change in current EU policymaking. Creating the new portfolio would give a clear and strong political signal to governments and the private sector that work on limiting climate change is a priority. Additionally, much of the climate change-related work to be done at the EU level cannot easily be combined with other responsibilities. The third reason to have a dedicated climate-change post is that a pro-innovation approach requires intense co-ordination across policy areas such as energy, competition policy, the internal market, research and trade. The position of Mrs. Veugelers is developed in length in the Bruegel’s Memos to the new Commission
Claude Turmes does not agree. He believes that the idea of a dedicated climate-change commissioner is a gimmick that could become a dangerous Trojan horse. He fears that the environment commissioner would be sidelined, with a dramatically reduced portfolio. In a knock-on effect outside the Commission, member state environment ministers would see their junior position further compromised at a devalued EU Environment Council. Turmes believes that supporters of the idea for a climate change portfolio want to reduce the EU's climate policy solely to a fight for a global cap-and-trade regime. An empowered environment commissioner, on the other hand, could fight for the policies most effective for climate, economy and green jobs, and integrate EU climate policies into other policy areas, such as air pollution and biodiversity. He further claims that competences in the area of climate-change policy are best entrusted to those institutions that have proven they are willing to go at least some way to meeting the enormous challenge faced by the European Union.
Please note that both contributors do believe climate change is a serious challenge. I somehow miss the European Rush Limbaugh.
Comments
I would tend to side with Claude Turmes on this - the splitting of the portfolio would probably reduce the coherence of the environment policy and climate policy in general. Since the environment portfolio is a horizontal one (that needs to work across the other portfolios), there already needs to be a degree of co=operation and co-ordination between environment and the other DGs. Does having two separate departments pursuing environmental “lobbying” with other DGs really make sense?
If Barroso goes ahead with the “climate test” for draft legislation, then a lot of this could be internalised/made automatic so I’m not convinced of the “added value” a separate climate portfolio would give.
Right, there are some good reasons not to split the environment portfolio. But then, the idea of a separate climate change portfolio has more to do with supporting innovation and underscoring the importance of the issue itself.
I am personally quite disappointed by the lack of lively debate on this question. It would be great to hear more on the idea from other MEPs.
Something that’s missed in both reaction on the portfolio issue is the internal working of the European Commission. Currently there is a huge problem of compartmentalisation of the commission. Different DGs have great difficulty in cooperating on issues covering different DGs’ competences.
A vice-president for climate action (as it would be called), will enable such cooperation, bringing the DGs of environment, energy, transport, INFSO,... together in one framework. This is needed because climate action is about much more than only environment. It also implies a new energy policy, requires innovation, new technologies (e.g. information & communication technologies), ...
If you’re interested in more information on the internal organisation of the Commission: http://www.epc.eu/PDF/Ce19.pdf
Thanks, Waldo, that is an interesting perspective. In fact the most important question should be “What is the best institutional design for managing climate change policy?”.
One aspect that we have not touched upon is the internal organization of national administrations - maybe that will also be an important consideration?