Lessons for Theory and Practice
Edited by Michael Faure and Marjan Peeters
Chapter 3: Too Much Harmonization? An Analysis of the Commission’s Proposal to Amend the EU ETS from the Perspective of Legal Principles
Javier De Cendra De Larragán1 1. INTRODUCTION The EU has adopted a strong political stance towards climate change. In recent years it has taken a number of important steps in an attempt to develop a comprehensive climate change policy,2 at which core lay the EU burdensharing agreement established by Council Decision 2002/358/EC3 and the emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) established by Directive 2003/87/EC4 (hereafter Directive 2003/87/EC or the directive). The latter directive covers the key elements of the EU ETS, including the basic rules for the allocation of allowances. However it adopts a highly decentralized approach, affording Member States a significant leeway to make important regulatory choices. This decentralized approach has seemingly brought numerous problems, reducing the capacity of the EU ETS to achieve the main objectives of the directive, namely environmental effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and economic efficiency, and the sound functioning of the internal market by avoiding distortions of competition.5 Article 30 of the directive mandates the 1 2 Ph.D Researcher, METRO, University of Maastricht. However, EU climate change policy cannot be considered to be comprehensive yet. See Ludwig Kramer, ‘Some reflections on the EU mix of instruments on climate change’, in Peeters and Deketelaere (2006). 3 Council Decision 2002/358/EC concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfilment of commitments thereunder, OJ L 130, 15.5.2002, p.1. 4 Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.