Linking EU climate and energy policies: policy-making, implementation and reform

  • Jon Birger SkjærsethEmail author
Original Paper


This contribution examines the EU’s innovative climate and energy package: how this package of binding policies has been initiated, decided, implemented and reformed. The key argument is that linking climate and energy concerns can help to explain how the EU managed to adopt an ambitious package of policies aimed at achieving 2020 goals. The combination of differently valued issues, side payments to overcome distributional obstacles and the creation of synergies contributed to a successfully negotiated outcome. The consequences for implementation and further policy development towards 2030 are explained by challenges in reproducing these joint EU-level gains at national level and by new circumstances. This may weaken the EU’s chances of realizing a low-carbon economy and ‘leadership by example’ in international climate policy.


Climate Energy EU Initiation Decision-making Implementation Reform Issue linkages 


  1. Barnes, P. M. (2011). The role of the Commission of the European Union: Creating external coherence from internal diversity. In R. K. W. Wurzel & J. Connelly (Eds.), The European Union as a leader in international climate change politics (pp. 41–58). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Christensen, A. R., & Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2012). EU policies on car emissions and fuel quality: Reducing the climate impact from road transport, FNI report 14/2012. Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Commission of the European Communities. (2000). Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply. COM(2000)769 final, 29 November.Google Scholar
  4. Commission of the European Communities. (2005a). Doing more with less. COM(2005) final, 22 June.Google Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities. (2005b). Winning the battle against global climate change. SEC(2005)180, 9 February.Google Scholar
  6. Commission of the European Communities. (2005c). Commission decision setting up a High Level Group on Competitiveness, Energy and the Environment. 2006/77/EC, 23 December.Google Scholar
  7. Commission of the European Communities. (2006). Green paper on a European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy. COM (2006) 105 final, 8 March.Google Scholar
  8. Commission of the European Communities. (2007a). Limiting global climate change to 2 degrees Celsius—the way ahead for 2020 and beyond. COM(2007) 2 final, 10 January.Google Scholar
  9. Commission of the European Communities. (2007b). An energy policy for Europe. COM(2007) 1 final, 10 January.Google Scholar
  10. Commission of the European Communities. (2007c). Impact assessment accompanying renewable energy roadmap. SEC(2006) 1719, 10 January.Google Scholar
  11. Commission of the European Communities. (2008a). Europe’s climate change opportunity. COM(2008) 30 final, 23 January.Google Scholar
  12. Commission of the European Communities. (2008b). Impact assessment. Document accompanying the package of implementation measures for the EUs objectives on climate change and renewable energy for 2020. SEC(2008) 85/3, 23 January.Google Scholar
  13. Commission of the European Communities. (2011a). A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM(2011) 112 final, 8 March.Google Scholar
  14. Commission of the European Communities. (2011b). Energy roadmap 2050. COM(2011) 885 final, 15 December.Google Scholar
  15. Commission of the European Communities. (2012a). Renewable energy: action plans and forecasts.
  16. Commission of the European Communities. (2012b). The state of the European carbon market in 2012. COM(2012)652 (undated).Google Scholar
  17. Commission of the European Communities. (2012c). Commission staff working document. Proportionate impact assessment. Brussels, draft, 2012 (undated).Google Scholar
  18. Commission of the European Communities. (2013a). Green paper: A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. COM(2013). 169 final. Brussels, 27 March.Google Scholar
  19. Commission of the European Communities. (2013b). Green paper 2030: Main outcomes of the public consultation. Commission Services Non Paper. Brussels.
  20. Commission of the European Communities. (2014). A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. COM (2014). 015 final. Brussels, 22 January.Google Scholar
  21. Costa, O., & Jørgensen, K. E. (Eds.). (2012). The influence of international institutions on the European Union: When multilateralism hits Brussels. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  22. Council of the European Union. (2005). Council conclusions on climate change and energy efficiency. Brussels: 2695th Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council Meeting, 1 December.Google Scholar
  23. Council of the European Union. (2011). Environment. Luxemburg: 3103rd Council Meeting Environment, press release, 21 June.Google Scholar
  24. Council of the European Union. (2014). Environment. Brussels: 3297th Council Meeting Environment, press release, 03 March.Google Scholar
  25. Eikeland, P. O. (2012). EU energy policy integration—stakeholders, institutions and issue-linking, FNI report 13/2012. Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
  26. ENDS. (2006a). EU energy paper draws praise and criticism, 8 March.Google Scholar
  27. ENDS. (2006b). EU Parliament urges energy efficiency revolution, 2 June.Google Scholar
  28. ENDS. (2006c). Franco-German ministers set EU green agenda, 27 September.Google Scholar
  29. ENDS. (2007). States back unilateral EU climate gas curbs, 20 February.Google Scholar
  30. EurActive. (2005). ‘High noon’ for EU’s environment policies, 20 July.Google Scholar
  31. EurActive. (2006a). Interview with European Commission Secretary-General Catherine Day, 26 September.Google Scholar
  32. EurActive. (2006b). UK energy review answers some EU green paper questions, 12 July.Google Scholar
  33. EurActive. (2007). EU makes bold climate and renewables commitment, 9 March.Google Scholar
  34. Eurobarometer. (2006). European citizens in favour of a European energy policy, says Eurobarometer survey, Brussels, press release, IP/06/66, 24 January.Google Scholar
  35. European Council. (2004). Presidency conclusions from European Council 25 and 26 March 2004. Brussels, 19 May.Google Scholar
  36. European Council. (2005). Presidency conclusions from European Council 15 and 16 December 2005. Brussels, 30 January.Google Scholar
  37. European Council. (2006). Presidency conclusions from European Council 23 and 24 March 2006. Brussels, 18 May.Google Scholar
  38. European Council. (2007). Presidency conclusions from European Council 8 and 9 March 2007. Brussels, 2 May.Google Scholar
  39. European Parliament. (2004). Committee on industry, research and energy hearing with Mr Andris Piebalgs. Brussels, ITRE/2004/D/49530, 15 November.Google Scholar
  40. European Parliament. (2007). European Parliament resolution on climate change. Brussels, P6_TA(2007)0038, 14 February.Google Scholar
  41. European Parliament. (2012). Parliament calls for low-carbon economy by 2050. Brussels, PR\40876.Google Scholar
  42. European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). (2005). Large scale integration of wind energy in the European power supply: Analysis, issues and recommendations. Brussels: EWEA.Google Scholar
  43. Fairbrass, J., & Jordan, A. (2004). Multi-level governance and environmental policy. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 147–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. High Level Group on Competitiveness, Energy and the Environment (HLG) (2006). Contributing to an integrated approach on competitiveness, energy and environmental policies. Brussels: HLG, 2 June.Google Scholar
  45. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  46. Hovi, J., & Skodvin, T. (2008). Which way to U.S. climate cooperation? Issue linkage versus a U.S.-based agreement. Review of Policy Research, 25(2), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hovi, J., Sprinz, D. F., & Underdal, A. (2009). Implementing long-term climate policy: Time inconsistency, domestic politics, international anarchy. Global Environmental Politics, 9(3), 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ibec. (2013). Summary of member state responses to the 2030 green paper for a climate and energy framework. Dublin, October 2013.Google Scholar
  49. IPCC. (2007). Summary for policy makers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  50. Marks, G., Hooghe, L., & Blank, K. (1996). European integration from the 1980 s: State-centric vs. multi-level governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(3), 341–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McKibben, H. (2010). Issue characteristics, issue linkage and states’ choice of bargaining strategies in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Moravcsik, A. (1999). A new statecraft? Supranational entrepreneurs and international cooperation. International Organization, 53(2), 267–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morgera, E., Kulovesi, K., & Muñoz, M. (2011). Environmental integration and multi-faceted international dimensions of EU law: Unpacking the EU’s 2009 climate and energy package. Common Market Law Review, 48(3), 829–891.Google Scholar
  55. Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (Eds.). (2006). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Oberthür, S., & Pallermarts, M. (Eds.). (2010). The new climate policies of the European Union. Brussels: VUB Press.Google Scholar
  57. Oberthür, S., & Roche Kelly, C. (2008). EU leadership in international climate policy: Achievements and challenges. International Spectator, 43(3), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Polish Chamber of Commerce. (2012). Assessment of the impact of the emission reduction goals set in the EC document ‘Roadmap 2050’ on the energy system, economic growth, industry and households in Poland. Warsaw: EnergSys.Google Scholar
  59. Sebenius, J. K. (1983). Negotiation arithmetic: Adding and subtracting issues and parties. International Organization, 37(2), 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Skjærseth, J. B. (1994). The climate policy of the EC—too hot to handle? Journal of Common Market Studies, 32(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Skjærseth, J. B. (2014). Implementing EU climate and energy policies in Poland. FNI report 2014, forthcoming. Lysaker, Norway: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
  62. Skjærseth, J. B., & Wettestad, J. (2008). EU emissions trading: initiation, decision-making and implementation. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  63. Skjærseth, J. B., & Wettestad, J. (2010). Fixing the EU Emissions Trading System? Understanding the post-2012 changes. Global Environmental Politics, 10(4), 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tollison, R. D., & Willett, T. D. (1979). An economic theory of mutually advantageous issue linkages in international negotiations. International Organization, 33(4), 425–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Schaik, L., & Schunz, S. (2012). Explaining EU activism and impact in global climate politics: Is the Union a norm- or interest-driven actor? Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(1), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weale, A., Pridham, G., Cini, M., Konstadakopulos, D., Porter, M., & Flynn, B. (2000). Environmental governance in Europe: An ever closer ecological union? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wheeler, D. (2010). Confronting the American divide on carbon emissions regulation. Working paper 232. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Fridtjof Nansen InstituteLysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations