Opinion

EU should pay member states to get rid of coal

The European Union should act to ensure the continued transformation of its energy system, and encourage member states to overcome their dependence on coal for supplying electricity. Helping coal-mining regions with the transition should require €150 million per year – a mere 0.1% of the total EU budget – and the EU would not even need to establish a new fund to support it.

By: Date: December 5, 2017 Topic: Energy & Climate

This opinion piece is based on the policy brief “Beyond coal: facilitating the transition in Europe” and was also published in:

Global warming can seem an overwhelming challenge. To have any hope of limiting catastrophic temperature increases, humans must take drastic and coordinated action around the world. Progress is slow, but there are some green spots of good news. Here in Europe, the energy sector is being transformed by advances in renewable energy and firm policies on carbon emissions. Since 2000, the EU energy system has modernised at a rate that few expected.

But Europe still has a dirty secret. Many EU countries have still not switched off the most polluting part of the energy mix: coal.

Coal continues to play a major role in the electricity generation for several EU countries: 80% in Poland, and over 40% in the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Greece, and Germany. Even the gas-exporting Netherlands produces 35% of its electricity from coal. So far only a few EU countries have pledged to shut down their coal-fired power plants altogether: the UK, France, Italy and the Netherlands.

This needs to change, because coal’s lingering place in the EU energy system is disastrous for the climate, for the environment, and for human health.

From a climate perspective, coal is the worst way to generate electricity – even compared to other fossil fuels.

From a climate perspective, coal is the worst way to generate electricity – even compared to other fossil fuels. A coal-fired power plant emits 40% more carbon dioxide than a gas-fired plant producing the same amount of electricity, and 20% more than an oil-fired plant. To look at it another way, coal is responsible for 75% of carbon emissions in the European electricity sector, but only produces 25% of our electricity. Electricity generation produces a quarter of Europe’s total carbon emissions, and is vital in plans to green other sectors. Decarbonising electricity is vital. After all, a shift to electric cars will mean little if we power them with electricity from coal.

Coal is also bad for the environment and human health. Coal-fired power plants across Europe are responsible for the largest amounts of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter released into the air.  These pollutants can enter the human body and cause various health problems, from lung cancer to heart attacks. Air pollution causes 400,000 premature deaths in the EU every year.

And yet, several countries in Europe continue to support coal-fired electricity production. They justify this stance with arguments about energy security and worries about job losses in the coal mining industry. At first glance these concerns are understandable, but with a little EU support, neither should delay the phase out of coal power.

Energy security is a valid concern. A country highly reliant on coal cannot switch overnight to cleaner sources of electricity. However, the transition is feasible. Several countries have already successfully phased out coal without compromising energy security and competitiveness. It is a question of good planning, and that needs to start now.

Coal mining employment in Europe is no longer a major issue. The country with the highest number of coal mining jobs is Poland, with 100,000 people employed.

The socio-economic argument about job losses is also unconvincing. Coal mining employment in Europe is no longer a major issue. The country with the highest number of coal mining jobs is Poland, with 100,000 people employed. This represents a mere 0.7% of Poland’s total employment. In all other countries coal mining employment stands below 30,000 units, always representing less than 0.6% of total employment.

Of course the closure of mines will be painful for those few workers and communities who still depend on them. The EU should step in and offer its support. Concretely, the EU should put in place a scheme to help coal miners who will lose their jobs. This would reduce the political damage and incentivise coal-reliant countries to start or accelerate their phase-out plans.

The EU does not even need to establish a new fund to support the transition of coal mining regions to other industries. It just needs to make a better use of the already existing European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), which supports workers in displaced industries with their job hunt, offering retraining or underwriting attempts at entrepreneurship. The scope of the EGF could be broadened to cover coal mining regions immediately with a minor amendment to the current 2014-2020 budget.

Looking to the future, the globalisation fund’s focus on coal mining regions could be further strengthened, transforming it into a ‘European Globalisation and Climate Adjustment Fund’. €150 million per year should be devoted to support coal mining regions: a mere 0.1% of the total EU budget.

 €150 million per year should be devoted to support coal mining regions: a mere 0.1% of the total EU budget.

Climate change is a complex global problem that needs international solutions. But it is clear that coal needs to go. By compensating regions that still depend on coal mining, the EU can show solidarity with those who have something to lose from the phase out. It can also speed up the transition, generating substantial benefits for all Europeans in terms of climate, environment and health. Meaningful support for countries and workers facing global challenges; targeted support for changes that benefit all Europeans – is this not exactly what we expect the EU to do?


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to communication@bruegel.org.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Deep Focus: Energy transition in the next EU institutional cycle

Bruegel fellow Simone Tagliapietra speaks to Sean Gibson in this instalment of 'The Sound of Economics', on the matter of the European energy transition and how the EU should proceed in the new institutional cycle.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Energy & Climate Date: July 10, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

‘Lo spread’: The collateral damage of Italy’s confrontation with the EU

The authors assess whether the European Commission's actions towards Italy since September 2018 have had a visible impact on the spread between Italian sovereign-bond yields and those of Germany, and particularly whether the Commission’s warnings have acted as a ‘signalling device’ for bond-market participants that it might be difficult for Italy to obtain the support of the ESM or the ECB’s OMT programme if needed.

By: Grégory Claeys and Jan Mazza Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 8, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

It’s hard to live in the city: Berlin’s rent freeze and the economics of rent control

A proposal in Berlin to ban increases in rent for the next five years sparked intense debate in Germany. Similar policies to the Mietendeckel are currently being discussed in London and NYC. All three proposals reflect and raise similar concerns – the increase in per-capita incomes is not keeping pace with increases in rents, but will a cap do more harm than good? We review recent views on the matter.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Faut-il s’endetter pour le climat?

Jean Pisani-Ferry, soutient qu’il ne faut pas s’interdire de financer une partie du coût de la transition écologique par l’endettement.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Energy & Climate Date: July 2, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The June Eurogroup meeting: Reflections on BICC

The Eurogroup met on June 13th to discuss the deepening of the economic and monetary union (EMU) and prepare the discussions for the Euro Summit. From the meeting came two main deliverables: an agreement over a budgetary instrument for competitiveness and convergence and the reform of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) treaty texts. We review economists’ first impressions.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Uncertainty over output gap and structural-balance estimates remains elevated

The EU fiscal framework strongly relies on the structural budget balance indicator, which aims to measure the ‘underlying’ position of the budget. But this indicator is not observed, only estimations can be made. This post shows that estimates of the European Commission, the IMF, the OECD and national governments widely differ from each other and all estimates are subject to very large annual revisions. The EU should get rid of the fiscal rules that rely on structural balance estimates and use this opportunity to fundamentally reform its fiscal framework.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 17, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The campaign against ‘nonsense’ output gaps

A campaign against “nonsense” consensus output gaps has been launched on social media. It has triggered responses focusing on the implications of output gaps for fiscal policy under EU rules, especially for Italy. But the debate about the reliability of output-gap estimates is more wide-ranging.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 17, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Brussels Policy Dialogue: Insights for EU and Member States’ Climate Agenda

The event is a policy dialogue organised under the project, 'COP21: Results and Implications for Pathways and Policies for Low Emissions European Societies'.

Speakers: Petya Icheva, David Morales, Artur Runge-Metzger, Oliver Sartor, Marta Torres-Gunfaus, Vincent Van Steenberghe and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: June 7, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

External Publication

Liability: When Things Go Wrong in an Increasingly Interconnected and Autonomous World: A European View

In the following article, Scott Marcus first considers the sources of potential defects and what might be done to redress them. He then goes on to consider what constitutes a product defect as well as the associated liability in light of recent (and potential future) EU Directives.

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: June 6, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

L’euro sans l’Europe : un projet incohérent

Jean Pisani-Ferry constate que tous les grands partis ne remettent plus en cause l’euro. Il souligne néanmoins que trois vulnérabilités – économique, politique et internationale – menacent la monnaie unique.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 28, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Europe – the global centre for excellent research

This report, requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, analyses the EU’s potential to be a global centre of excellence for research as a driver of its future growth in a complex global S&T landscape, and how EU public resources can contribute to this.

By: Michael Baltensperger and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: May 22, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The latest European growth-rate estimates

The quarterly growth rate of the euro area in Q1 2019 was 0.4% (1.5% annualized), considerably higher than the low growth rates of the previous two quarters. This blog reviews the reaction to the release of these numbers and the discussion they have triggered about the euro area’s economic challenges.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 20, 2019
Load more posts