PES Manifesto

1. mentsük meg par kata.szabo le jeudi 6 décembre 2007 à 07h56

2. Integration has its limits par nanne in berlin le mercredi 12 décembre 2007 à 21h02

The EU needs to make sure that its policies are somewhat coherent, of course. But there also needs to be space for experimentation. Indeed, we don't have the silver bullet. This can be resolved by interweaving a variety of approaches in a certain manner to come to a combined result. But that could get too rigid. I'm more in favour of a mixed solution in which we have some policy integration, but also investment in a variety of different solutions and an exploration of different new approaches.

Right now, the EU and most Member States have a political momentum that's really promising. What's lagging behind is the momentum of the private market, and bottom-up solutions from communities. The EU is generally not as good in starting businesses as is Australia or the US. It's trying to get there, of course. But we need to press the financial sector harder to come up with more seed money, and alternatively provide some ourselves. We also need to shape stable markets. Germany has done this with its feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. Having a feed-in tariff scheme across Europe should be a priority for the PES.

Unfortunately Commissioner Dimas seems to feel more for carbon credits, which are much less effective. They tend not to create a stable market, and don't foster local support, which feed-in tariffs do.

We really need to figure out how we can get people to invest more in energy efficiency in their homes. The big problem there is that people are really averse of big front-up investments (or sometimes just plain incapable of getting the money together), even if these will pay off on the longer term. A solution there should be to provide financing. Right now the state tends to subsidise these investments to a certain percentage, but the subsidies would be much better spent on providing zero interest financing, if possible through the utilities to just integrate the payback in the electricity bill.

3. Carbon credits par zentrist le jeudi 13 décembre 2007 à 12h18

I want to emhasise nanne's point about carbon credits. Such a system of tradeable carbon credits will undermine feed-in tariffs for renewable energies which are used in 18 EU member states. You cannot have it both: getting emission credits for using renewable energy sources and at the same time subsidies for introducing renewable energy. Clearly the majority of Member States goes for feed-in tariffs. The Commission should respect it.

To nanne's last point: I think the social dimension of climate and energy issues is a central point for socialists. We cannot accept that the middle classes buy fancy hybrid cars, while their poorer neighbour have to be content with 14 year old Ford Mondeos. Apart from the social issue, it is simply not good enough for the climate when the poorer sections of society cannot participate in reducing emissions. 

4. Credits / The Social Dimension par nanne in berlin le jeudi 13 décembre 2007 à 20h18

When I discussed carbon credits I actually meant to write about 'renewable energy credits' which are a different thing. I apologise for the confusion. But I think zentrist and I are on the same page.

The social dimension certainly is a central point. But we should not just look at restraints we have to take into account. There are many synergies between green and social solutions. We have to focus on those win-win options.

A good example is congestion pricing. Many people think that congestion pricing hits poor commuters harder, but this does not need to be true. Congestion pricing, by making the road less clogged with cars, improves public transport by bus and private transport by bike. If the money earned with congestion pricing is put into public transportation, as it is in London, the results are overwhelmingly progressive.

Cars in a broader sense are a difficult point for me personally because I am offended by the view that everyone has a right to own a car for his or herself. Cars are not a human right.

Still, I can see that people in the countryside are really limited in their mobility if they don't have access to a car. I hope that old-fashioned investment in public transportation and new developments like car-sharing co-operatives and tele-working can compensate for most of that. The long term solution is to change the built environment, as a newer post in this category recommends.

Owning and driving a car is not going to get cheaper anytime soon and the state should not start subsidising fuel or car ownership more than it already does.