 Good afternoon, of course the green paper is non-binding. It's not legislation But for for Greenpeace as it is for Irish presidency as it is for Shell it is a key a key issue and why is that actually because the green paper will start a design process for a new round a new wave of legislation for 2030 so These policies will will shape the investment decisions for decades to come and they will determine Whether a transition towards the green economy will be successful And it will also determine whether Europe will play a meaningful role Towards the international negotiations with as the most important element the COP in 2015 in Paris Because Europe must have its house in order in order to convince others to come aboard So it's quite crucial that we get these 2030 policies right One of the main design issues for the 2030 climate energy policy framework Is the one of coherent targets and an integration of the policy architecture? And I would like to elaborate a bit on this and then also touch on the issue very important issue of competitiveness So Greenpeace and that's together with with energy companies of course other NGOs But also companies like Philips Axel Nobel have all spoken out for an approach with trio of targets And there are actually three main arguments For not only having a greenhouse gas target only or an emissions trading approach Only but also having a dedicated renewable energy and a dedicated energy savings target in place for 2030 First firstly renewable energy and energy savings have been recognized by the European Commission as And also by the EU government as so-called no regrets options So that means that under any type of decarbonization scenario You would need to have investments in energy savings and renewables anyway Even if politicians would decide to focus more on nuclear energy or on carbon capture and storage Renewables aren't necessary to provide enough electricity and heat to European citizens So that means that in any case we need a good investment climate for these options And that brings me to my second argument Renewable energy targets and energy savings targets will actually reduce the future costs of emission reductions Let's first for example look at renewables Here you can see on this on this slide from Bloomberg new energy finance energy finance that's There were already massive cost reductions over the last years in the cost of renewables And that's of course largely due to R&D, but also thanks to large-scale deployment of renewable energy and Types of renewable energy are actually cheaper than than nuclear nowadays And of course investments can be triggered by a carbon market By market pool, but they can never replace the clarity of fixed Renewable energy deployment targets for 2020, but it should also be there for 2030 The ATS is a good mechanism That's I would not like to dispute that it rewards investments in technologies that are mature and cost efficient in a very short term But the ATS won't help investments in technologies that are currently still under development that are still immature This is a slide that I stole from the OCO Institute this is a Batement cost curve so you can see here the payment potential in terms of emissions and here the cost Renewables are more here. They have maybe right now higher cost, but in the million term you will need them So you need dedicated policies to have also investments R&D investment deployment investments in these technologies The ATS price will only work properly for these options in the middle and for energy savings. It's actually even more Obvious because a lot of the efficiency measures already have negative costs and are actually on the left side of the abatement Curve, but they are locked in Companies individuals are not investing in energy savings because for example, there are capital barriers or there are knowledge barriers So you need specific regulations as well to unlock this very low cost or even cost negative potential so without an energy savings target Europe will simply pay too much For its climate action and that would be a shame especially in these more difficult economic times Thirdly dedicated targets for renewable energy and energy savings will help to align the 2030 policies with other EU policy objectives not only the environmental ones, but also Resource efficiency job creation energy security lowering the health care costs Europe is today spending over one billion euro a day on importing fossil fuels And that's leading to a major energy trade deficit for example Example is Ireland of course you've spent over six billion euros on fossil fuel imports in 2011 and renewables have helped in Ireland in 2011 300 million euros you saved by replacing natural gas imports with renewable energy Production that's a great achievement and Ireland is therefore also in a key position to take the lead In Europe both in the political debate and in terms of investments in our example health care costs coal plants in Europe cost is Today 43 billion every year in terms of lung diseases heart diseases lost working days and Specific policies encouraging renewables will help to cut these these bills and that's absolutely crucial Then I come to the issue of competitiveness Because of course another reason to look at 2030 Renewable energy energy savings green house gas targets is the issue of competitiveness And of course it's right now very important, but I'm concerned that so far the debate is too much Narrowing down on the issue of electricity prices and Competitiveness is actually broader than that. It's also about a good investment climate for innovation education level of the workforce tax policies Importantly the renewable energy policies that Europe had so far have helped To bring to Europe a first mover advantage globally two-thirds of the investments in renewable energy are done by European companies and In the EU there are over one million people working in the renewable energy sector But of course Chinese South Korean American companies want to take over that leading role, but if we want to keep European companies to stay in the lead We need to put in place a 2030 Framework with a specific renewable target with a specific green house gas target and a specific energy savings targets Secondly competitive this is not only about the price of electricity, but it's also about how efficient Industries are actually operating Because more efficient industries will be of course less Vulnerable will be more resilient to fluctuating and high fossil fuel prices And under any scenario as also Yaku mentioned energy prices will go up and it's Where we take climate action or not? Prices will go up and so it's better if industries prepare themselves for that and become resilient to this fluctuating and increasingly high prices of coal gas and oil Then I would also like to touch on on an issue that is more complex But so far not really highlighted in the debate around competitiveness And I can best explain that with an example of the steel industry you can see here on the X Access you can see GDP per capita of countries and here on the Y axis you can see Steel consumption per unit of GDP So how much still do you need to produce one euro for GDP and What you can see in this graph is that well China Brazil and India are of course rapidly growing emerging economies here on the left side there There's still consumption per unit of GDP is rapidly growing because they need a lot of investments in infrastructure In buildings, etc. But EU is out here. We are a mature economy We already have a lot of railways. We already have a lot of roads. We already have a lot of buildings and This is an broader context that needs to be taken into account in the competitiveness debate about Related to energy and climate because it is simply unrealistic to expect That in the EU the demand levels for steel will reach again Indian or Chinese levels And it's also not likely that you will export a lot of steel to Brazil because Brazil has actually made your Iron ore mines so it will in any case be cheaper to produce the steel in Brazil that they need for the Brazilian markets So I would like to to here challenge a bit a very simplistic picture that the competitive Competitiveness, but it's only about the price of carbon on the price of electricity. I think the key thing that should be Faced in the debate is how do actually European industries and this is the example of the steel industry But applies to the cement to the glass to the chemical industry. How do you as an industry adjust? to this new economic situation operating in a in a mature economy as the as the EU and In Greenpeace, we actually believe that the transition to the low carbon economy can actually help industries To to recover Because to continue with the example of the steel industry instead of Fighting very strict climate and energy targets the students who could actually benefit I'm closing One wind turbine has the same steel demand as 500 cars But also other products for example cement a glass for the renovation of an insulation of buildings is absolutely crucial There's an opportunity for these industries But of course also the industry must transform itself must look at low carbon methods of steel production and That's not straightforward there. We need to have a discussion in the context of 2030 Green paper in terms of 2030 targets and measures What can be the role of European industry in delivering on these targets? And how can we put in place the financing mechanisms and the measures needed to bring these companies on board But of course we interest also to hear the ideas of shell in this in this regard so I Hope Greenpeace helps very much that the 2030 green paper can be the start of a evidence-based open debate And only with such a debate involving all the stakeholders we can make of course Climate action or Europe into a success and hopefully that will also lead to success for the economy. Thank you