Climate change and the European Parliament: Damning report reveals the environmental damage of EP travelling circus
A new independent study launched in the European Parliament today has highlighted the climate damage caused by the EP having two seats and alternate meetings in Brussels and Strasbourg. The study, commissioned by Green MEPs Caroline Lucas and Jean Lambert, is the first evidence-based analysis of the climate impact of the EP's two seat arrangement and shows that it accounts for a significant amount of excess CO2 emissions - in the region of 20-30,000 tonnes per year (1). It follows on from a report on a more (energy) efficient European Parliament, which was part of Green MEP Monica Frassoni's campaign for presidency of the parliament (2). Speaking at the launch of the study, Caroline Lucas said:
"We already know that the EP's multiple seat arrangement costs the EU taxpayer more than €200m a year, now we have concrete evidence of the damage caused to the climate by the travelling circus. At least 20,000 excess tonnes of CO2 are belched into the atmosphere each year: the equivalent of 13,000 return flights from London to New York (3).
"Maintaining two parliamentary chambers, with the office space this entails, and transporting up to 3,000 supporting staff and journalists to and fro clearly has a negative impact on the environment. This anachronistic arrangement is completely unnecessary and undermines the credibility of the EU in positioning itself as the leader in the global fight against climate change, as well as its commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020."
Jean Lambert added:
"Strasbourg is a historic city that has symbolised post-war reconciliation but the European Parliament's Strasbourg seat has come to represent all that is wrong with the EU. Now we have evidence of the environmental damage it represents. How much longer will EU heads of state and government bury their heads in the sand and refuse to end this ridiculous arrangement, which a clear majority of EU citizens and MEPs oppose?"
At the launch, the Greens/EFA group also presented a paper (4) on concrete measures the EP can take to improve its impact on the climate and the environment in general. The measures include updating the parliament's fleet to cars with a much better environmental performance, switching to green electricity and the need to investigate alternatives to the multitude of annual parliamentary delegations - using video conferencing instead of flying to every destination for example. Commenting on the paper, Greens energy spokesperson Claude Turmes and Co-President Monica Frassoni said:
"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.
"There are a number of ways this could be achieved, some of which could be enacted relatively swiftly - such as simple energy saving measures and a much greater use of video conferencing - and other more fundamental changes, which will take longer - like updating the EU's car fleet to make it more climate-friendly or switching to a green energy provider. Hopefully, the EP's President will take these suggestions on board as he seeks to improve the overall functioning of the parliament."
Editors notes:
(1) The study, researched by Professor of Sustainable Transport John Whitelegg of the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York, totals the extra carbon emissions generated every month by MEPs, staff, journalists and visitors travelling from Brussels to Strasbourg and back, the 'carbon costs' of freight between the two sites, and the energy needed to maintain the two Parliament buildings. (The study is also available at the following url: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/180/180441.eu_and_climate_change@en.pdf )
It reports that as well as more than €200 million euros financial cost, the two-seat arrangement is responsible for a very minimum of 18,901 tonnes of completely unnecessary additional carbon dioxide emissions every year – more than some entire countries. This figure is a conservative estimate, based on 'best case' data and estimates provided by the EU itself, and includes only transport and energy costs without examining other impacts. Actual emissions produced are likely to be far higher, possibly in the region of 30,000 tonnes, when all factors are considered, though the report has deliberately sought to use conservative figures to increase the widespread acceptance of what is the first evidence-based and robust study of the environmental and climate change implications of running a one-seat, Brussels-based, operation for the European Parliament.
The study reports that ending the Strasbourg parliamentary sessions would cut the need at a stroke for 2,650 offices, a debating chamber and nearly 50 conference rooms, most with full translation facilities. That could cut emissions by 3,928 tonnes of CO2 just in electricity and gas alone. Similarly, the monthly travel of 2,000 parliamentary staff and interpreters, nearly 1,000 assistants, journalists and lobbyists, 785 MEPs, 15 lorry-loads of trunks and documents, would be rendered completely unnecessary.
(2) The report, published in January, is available at the following url: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/164/164428.for_a_more_energy_efficient_parliament@en.pdf
(3) Figures from Climate Care - www.climatecare.org
(4) The paper, 'Greening the European Parliament', is available at the url: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/180/180437.eu_and_the_environment@en.pdf.
