E3G

European Parliament: climate emissions and democratic leadership

By Raquel C. Alvarez

An independent study commissioned by Green MEPs Caroline Lucas and Jean Lambert has revealed that the double seat arrangement of the European Parliament generates at least 20,000 extra tones of CO2 emissions – hastening climate change. But only a unanimous decision by Member States can change this situation.

The report, written by the consultancy Eco-Logica, was presented in Strasbourg on 25th April. It is the first evidence-based study of the climate change implications of moving the entire European Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg for four days a month.

It shows that keeping the split site arrangement costs EU taxpayers more than €200m a year and generates an extra 20,268 tonnes of completely unnecessary additional carbon dioxide emissions every year.

The study reports that ending the once a month Strasbourg parliamentary sessions would cut at a stroke the need for 2,650 offices, a debating chamber and nearly 50 conference rooms, most with full translation facilities that currently lie empty for 307 days a year. That could cut emissions by 3,928 tonnes of CO2 just in electricity and gas alone.

Attacked from many fronts

Strasbourg’s position as one of the official seats of the European Parliament has been enshrined in the EU treaty since 1992. Only a unanimous decision by the 27 member states could change this provision.

The report sponsored by Green Party MEPs isn’t the first attempt to change this situation. Indeed, a recent online petition signed by 1 million EU citizens featured on the reform agenda of two of the candidates who ran for the institution’s presidency in January.

Policy-makers, MEPS and academics have long supported the shift from inefficient use of resources to one which is more coherent with the EU’s ethos on the environment. Back in 2003, MEPs Nick Clegg and Michiel van Hulten authored an influential paper titled ‘Reforming the European Parliament’. This presented six recommendations to improve the functioning of the EP. Top priority amongst these was scrapping the seat in Strasbourg – which could have the effect of enhancing the efficiency of the Parliament and saving taxpayers money while simultaneously reinvigorating public confidence and trust in the institution.

The E3G ‘Europe in the World’ pamphlet published in December 2006 also made the case for stopping the monthly visit to Strasbourg, suggesting instead that

The massive savings to be made by abandoning the monthly European Parliament commute between Brussels and Strasburg should be invested in the development and application of the best of the deliberative and participatory processes currently being undertaken across Europe”

Rather than moving MEPs, their filing cabinets, assistants and Parliament officials between locations each month, it would be far better to bring citizens closer into the European democratic conversation through novel deliberative approaches. The pamphlet makes the case that the potential return on this investment in terms of legitimacy and citizen engagement would be huge.

The Greens and the EFA group have focused their recent efforts on more concrete measures to improve the EP’s impact on the climate. On the same day as the Eco-Logica report was presented, they also published a paper advocating measures such switching to green electricity or investigating alternatives to the multitude of annual parliamentary delegations - using video conferencing instead of flying to every destination for example.

This is much a political exercise as it is one of good housekeeping. Speaking at the launch of the reports, the Greens energy spokesperson Claude Turmes and co-President Monica Frassoni rightly pointed out that

The European Parliament is set to vote today to constitute a temporary committee on climate change. Before we start throwing stones however, we should make sure that our own house or houses are in order. It is seriously damaging to the EP’s credibility to have its MEPs chauffeur-driven in gas-guzzling cars, while working on legislation to set targets for EU car emissions, or to be debating EU renewables targets when 0% of the EP’s energy comes from renewable sources. The EP has to lead not only in rhetoric but also in its actions”

Now that’s a message that could be applied to much of the EU as a whole, not just the European Parliament. It will be interesting to see if MEPs can take a lead over the coming months.