Le lobby y explique notamment - en des termes candides - comment il va « rester plutôt positif tant qu’on en reste au niveau des déclarations politiques, sans implications législatives » et « s’opposer à toute ambition accrue, en utilisant l’argument habituel de la distorsion de compétitivité face à nos concurrents ». Autres tactiques prévues : entraver le processus par des arguments procéduraux, suggérer que mettre en place des objectifs supplémentaires « n’est pas le principal problème », en arguant qu’il vaut mieux encourager la Chine et les autres à réduire leurs propres émissions.

Derrière le vernis vert de la communication d’entreprise, les grandes firmes continuent donc à refuser, via les lobbys patronaux et les associations professionnelles, toute forme de régulation contraignante dans le domaine climatique. D’un côté, quand il s’agit de défendre leur réputation et leur image, les multinationales françaises et européennes mettent en avant leurs engagements climatiques ; de l’autre, à travers des lobbys impersonnels, moins compromettants, elles tiennent un discours parfois à l’exact opposé.

Le quotidien britannique The Guardian a contacté plusieurs multinationales membres de BusinessEurope, y compris les françaises EDF et Engie, ou encore Google, Facebook et Microsoft pour solliciter leur réaction sur une proposition si éloignée de leurs discours publics. Aucune de ces entreprises n’a souhaité prendre ses distances avec BusinessEurope. Ces révélations interviennent au moment où l’ONG InfluenceMap publie une nouvelle étude sur le positionnement des grandes multinationales sur les questions de climat, en tenant compte de leur lobbying indirect.

BUSINESSEUROPE ■ ■ DISCUSSION NOTE FOR ENERGY & CLIMATE WG MEETING ON 19/09/2018

13 September 2018
EU’S 2030 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET

1. Background
• In June 2018, the European Commission, Parliament and Council during trilogues collectively agreed to increase the EU’s energy efficiency binding target from 30% to 32.5% and the increased renewable energy target from 27% to 32%. Both have a clause for a possible upward revision by 2023. • EU climate and energy commissioner Arias Cahete concluded in August that “Based upon our calculation models, we should de facto achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 45% within the EU” by 2030 compared to 1990 levels because of these increased targets. • German Chancellor Merkel stated she is “not very happy" about the Commission’s push and thinks “we first of all have to stick with the goals we have already set for ourselves. I don’t think constantly setting new goals makes any sense”. • Commission President Juncker in his 2018 State of the Union on 12 September stated that he supports Cafiete’s call both technically and politically.

2. Next steps - timetable
• The Commission seems willing to have this debate and possibly agree on a position in view of COP24, taking place in December 2018 in Katowice, Poland. • The issue might be pushed into the set of conclusions of the next European Council on 18 October 2018. In case of an agreement (requiring unanimity), the impact on EU legislations such as ETS or Effort-Sharing is an unclear territory even though the Commission informally said that they have no plans of revisions at this stage. A debate could be expected as well in the Environment Council on 9 October. • It remains unclear when / how the Parliament will position itself before COP24.

3. BusinessEurope advocacy and communication strategy
Members will be asked to discuss and agree on a line to take by BusinessEurope. As a basis for discussion, several approaches are outlined below :
• To be rather positive as long as it remains as a political statement, with no implications on the range of 2030 EU legislations (ETS, effort-sharing, etc.). • To oppose the new increase of ambition, using the usual arguments of global playing field, we cannot compensate for others, etc. • To challenge the process, such as the need for more transparency on the calculations, need for an impact assessment, risk of creating instability, etc. • To “minimise" the issue arguing that the formalisation of a ‘de facto’ extra ambition is not what matters most. What is key is to persuade other major economies to catch up with the EU’s ambition, and to make our transition in Europe a success. For this we need stability to mobilise investments.

AY CeCCHTLMJLRGH 106
9E* 1COO BRUSSELS
HI .G I.M VAT 9E 868 410 279
BUSINESSEUROPE a.i.s.b.l. T E l .33(0)2 23TeS 11
FAX .32(0)2 23’ 14 46
E