The Brexit negotiations enter what should be the final stages at the end of 2018, with an outline agreement on the future relationship. A new IEEP paper sets out what is needed to avoid the risk of environmental standards being lowered for competitive advantage.
37 results found for "Martin Nesbit" ordered by most recent first
Although the EU has an aspirational goal of an 80-95% GHG emissions cut for 2050, compared to 1990 levels, currently planned measures and intermediate goals are not in-line even with the low end of this aim. Additionally, the EU would have to over perform if 1.5 degrees were the aim, as developing economies cannot realistically be expected to reduce emissions as quickly.
The future-focused rhetorical framing of the State of the Union speech is encouraging. It needs to be followed through by the Commission with a renewed emphasis on environmental sustainability.
Read IEEP Senior Fellow and Head of Climate and Environmental Governance Programme, Martin Nesbit's, analysis of the 2018 State of the European Union speech.
Today, the Commission starts putting some flesh on the bones of its plans for EU spending after 2020. Their communication earlier in May set out some broad principles, which we commented on here. Over the next week or so, they will be publishing detailed legislative proposals for the different programmes; and regional affairs Commissioner Corina Crețu set the ball rolling by announcing proposals for cohesion spending.
As the UK and EU negotiators focus on the future relationship, our briefing note looks at how environmental legislation could be treated, and in particular what counts as an “equivalent” commitment. Getting this right matters; both to avoid competitiveness disputes, and to deliver green goals.
The Commission has set out its initial proposals for the next “Multi-Annual Financial Framework” – the planning period for the EU budget which sets the priorities for spending, and shares out EU money between programmes and Member States. We’ve been examining what’s at stake for the environment, sustainable development, and Europe’s future.
European countries have developed a wide range of policies to encourage climate mitigation through land use “sinks”; but as the land use sector is brought fully into the EU’s climate targets, policies will need to be more ambitious, and more focused on results.
Martin Nesbit, head of climate and governance and David Baldock, senior fellow at IEEP spoke at an evidence session of the House of Lords' Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Committee on 28 November.
The Future of Europe is everyone’s business and so is the impact of climate action over the decades to come.
The EU has to make sure it is able to tackle the biggest and longest-lasting policy challenge it faces. IEEP, E3G and the Heinrich Böll Stiftung Foundation have recently joined forces to make sure climate policy gets more attention as part of the Future of Europe debate launched by the Commission.
Europe is debating its future development and structures. A new report argues that they have to work for the energy and climate transition.
Negotiations between the EU and US on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) were launched in 2013.
Over the years the EU has had a major impact on ensuring that governments do what they promise on the environment. As the UK leaves, both the British Government and the EU-27 need to think about how to replicate those benefits in future.
How climate objectives are mainstreamed into the current EU budget and what should be done in the future?
A European system for chemicals regulation makes obvious sense – but Brexit risks leaving the UK without access to that system. Nigel Haigh, former Executive Director of IEEP, explains that even if the UK secures an overall deal, there are big challenges to finding an answer to the chemicals conundrum.
IEEP and CEPS looks at the current EU budget’s performance and its proposed reforms from the perspective of cities and regions in their report for the Committee of the Regions.
Study by IEEP and ICF feeds into the Commission’s Fitness Check of monitoring and reporting obligations arising from EU environmental legislation.
How do we harness the emotional power of language better to reduce our destructive impact on the natural world? Can we stop speaking like eurocrats and start speaking like people?
A greater shift towards climate-smart agricultural land management is increasingly urgent if the EU is to reach the emissions reductions target set out in response to the Paris Agreement. To do so requires more emphasis on climate within the Common Agricultural Policy and action to reduce the climate footprint of consumer consumption patterns.
In a study for the European Parliament’s REGI Committee, IEEP examined the experience of climate mainstreaming in Cohesion Policy in the current and previous programming periods and identified the implications of the Paris Agreement in order to offer recommendations for future climate mainstreaming in the post-2020 Cohesion Policy.
IEEP’s London Director Martin Nesbit discussed Brexit and climate implications with Susanne Ehlerding from Der Tagesspiegel.