On Wednesday, the European Parliament will cast its deciding vote on the EU climate package of legislation. The vote will bring what has been an intense legislative process to end but what will it mean?

The climate package comprises legislation on emissions reductions from EU industry and other sectors, on renewable energy, on car emissions standards, and setting out a framework for carbon capture and storage technologies. Of these five proposals originally presented by the European Commission, only one has really escaped relatively unscathed after EU governments engaged in a free-for-all to gut the proposed laws.

Some of the changes introduced by the different national governments have seriously wounded the proposed laws. This leaves MEPs with some difficult decisions as they mull how to cast their votes.

Clearly, the biggest hatchet job was carried out on legislation aimed to introduce binding CO2 emissions limits on cars. The legislation was aimed at significantly improving the emissions standards (and consequently fuel efficiency) of cars. However, the end outcome (click to read more) will postpone any improvements until after 2012, with the full limit only taking full effect in 2019. Green MEPs have tabled amendments to try and at least rescue the medium term (2020) emissions limits but it is hard to see how the new rules could be seen as an improvement.

On the other hand, the legislation aimed at ensuring 20% of EU energy comes from renewable sources by 2020, got off relatively lightly. Notably, the overall target and mechanisms for internal trading will not be subject to a review. The maintenance of a target for renewables in transport, which the Greens strongly oppose, is a bitter pill to swallow but improvements have been secured from the original proposals. (click to read more)

The headline legislation on emissions reductions from industries presents a much less clear cut decision.

The EU's binding target for a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (based on 1990 levels) remains. However, the draft laws on both an emissions trading scheme (for emissions from the power sector and heavy industry) and effort sharing (of emissions reductions from all other sectors) are considerably weaker than the EP environment committee wanted.

For starters, the EU commitment to shift its emissions reduction target from 20% to 30%, following an international climate agreement, will now be subject to a new legislative process - and not automatic, as voted by the EP.  This means, at best, that the fight over sharing of the reduction effort between ETS and other sectors and the differentiation of the effort between Member States will need to be repeated. It also means that the higher target could be put in question.

A major positive in the emissions trading scheme is the acceptance of full auctioning for emissions permits for the power sector (despite initial exemptions for eastern and central European countries). However, this is tempered by major exemptions from auctioning for other sectors, as well as the provision for a high level (50%) of external offsetting (i.e. buying 'credits' in emissions-reduction projects in third countries to offset committed emissions reductions). (click to read more)

On the effort sharing of emissions reductions from other sectors (like transport and agriculture), a major positive is that there is a binding annual reduction pathway for emissions reductions from member states. This is made even more robust by a compliance mechanism, which would mean member states not complying with their pathway would have to compensate for their non-compliance the following year.

However, here too, the level of external offsetting is far too high - up to 80% of the effort could be delivered through the purchase of external offset credits (click to read more). The Greens have also tabled amendments to rectify this in the final vote.

There is almost nothing positive to say about the proposals on carbon capture and storage. The rules would allow the building of inefficient and polluting power plants 'ad infinitum' in the hope that CCS might one day become viable. Given the urgent emissions cuts needed. This is just irresponsible law-making (click to read more).

All in all, the climate package has clearly emerged from the EU summit battered - a bit like the EU's international reputation on climate change. It is clear that some of the proposals are potentially counter productive. So, while the legislation may have been presented as a 'package', thankfully that does not mean you have to take the lot or leave it. Lets hope all MEPs remember that.