Blog
09.December 2008 - 04:49
Costly or cheaper?
I must apologise once again for neglecting my home pages – I clearly need a holiday. Still, I can’t complain that my work is not challenging and inspiring, it is obviously all that and in abundance. And I don’t now mean the presidential independence day reception, although I will not complain about that either! It is more interesting to get the chance to see what is being achieved in climate policy or if anything is being achieved at all.
Tomorrow, I will leave for the Poznan Climate Conference. You’ll find my press release on my participation in the conference right here. I have dealt with this subject, – besides in my latest column – in the newspaper Hämeen Sanomat, also in my letter-to-the-editor that I wrote together with Professor Gwyn Prins. You can find it here.
In the early morning, I discussed the matter with Minister Paula Lehtomäki on YLE Morning TV. There was no need for any kind of dispute, especially as the discussion did not pass over to the issues of renewable energies or feed-in tariffs. (I will return to this subject later on this website, as I have heard absolutely infuriating stories on how people are literally being walked over concerning the matter of wind power. I forecast that a sudden popular movement will take place.)
I agreed with Lehtomäki that the climate change package is moving in the right direction from Finland’s point of view. The acceptance of a benchmark model that I have supported for years now would be a solid basis for distributing the emission allowances. I already forecast last summer that the Parliament will not take any action in regard to it but the Commission will, and I feel great that I was not all that wrong in this point.
Our discussion touched upon the effects of the economic crises on the climate change package. We agreed that it should not mix up the serious targets – but, actually, I don’t think that it has. The editorial of yesterday’s Helsingin Sanomat has understood the whole situation a little incorrectly, as the writer stated that Italy and Poland oppose the emission cuts set by the EU. Poland and Italy do not oppose them. They only oppose the expensive method applied to cut emissions; this is exactly the same thing that I have been talking about all through this year.
The others would like to apply a costly auction, whilst I for my part would like to benchmark cost-efficiently. Hassi, the representative of the Greens of Finland, noted right away in the emissions trading negotiations that she would prefer a price increase so that consumer habits would have to change.
I understand the logic of this, but it will not work. Not as long as the emissions trading auction is unilateral: until then it is just a tax. In case the operational field of emissions trading were global, the auction is a fine alternative: the price of emission allowances could be easily transferred onto consumer prices, which would lead consumers to select the cleanest products – perhaps the entire carbon-intensive production fields would fade into the background. But unfortunately, the consumption environment does not work this way.
The dirtiest products which have been produced outside the EU will gain an increasingly competitive edge on the global market.
When considering the matter from the point of view of employment, this issue is quite central. I don’t see any good in the fact that European products, which are produced in the cleanest possible way, would have to take this burden upon themselves just for the sake of combating climate change. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Commission would be able to save what the Parliament blew. Awaiting the arrival of the results from the summit!
I must apologise once again for neglecting my home pages – I clearly need a holiday. Still, I can’t complain that my work is not challenging and inspiring, it is obviously all that and in abundance. And I don’t now mean the presidential independence day reception, although I will not complain about that either! It is more interesting to get the chance to see what is being achieved in climate policy or if anything is being achieved at all.
Tomorrow, I will leave for the Poznan Climate Conference. You’ll find my press release on my participation in the conference right here. I have dealt with this subject, – besides in my latest column – in the newspaper Hämeen Sanomat, also in my letter-to-the-editor that I wrote together with Professor Gwyn Prins. You can find it here.
In the early morning, I discussed the matter with Minister Paula Lehtomäki on YLE Morning TV. There was no need for any kind of dispute, especially as the discussion did not pass over to the issues of renewable energies or feed-in tariffs. (I will return to this subject later on this website, as I have heard absolutely infuriating stories on how people are literally being walked over concerning the matter of wind power. I forecast that a sudden popular movement will take place.)
I agreed with Lehtomäki that the climate change package is moving in the right direction from Finland’s point of view. The acceptance of a benchmark model that I have supported for years now would be a solid basis for distributing the emission allowances. I already forecast last summer that the Parliament will not take any action in regard to it but the Commission will, and I feel great that I was not all that wrong in this point.
Our discussion touched upon the effects of the economic crises on the climate change package. We agreed that it should not mix up the serious targets – but, actually, I don’t think that it has. The editorial of yesterday’s Helsingin Sanomat has understood the whole situation a little incorrectly, as the writer stated that Italy and Poland oppose the emission cuts set by the EU. Poland and Italy do not oppose them. They only oppose the expensive method applied to cut emissions; this is exactly the same thing that I have been talking about all through this year.
The others would like to apply a costly auction, whilst I for my part would like to benchmark cost-efficiently. Hassi, the representative of the Greens of Finland, noted right away in the emissions trading negotiations that she would prefer a price increase so that consumer habits would have to change.
I understand the logic of this, but it will not work. Not as long as the emissions trading auction is unilateral: until then it is just a tax. In case the operational field of emissions trading were global, the auction is a fine alternative: the price of emission allowances could be easily transferred onto consumer prices, which would lead consumers to select the cleanest products – perhaps the entire carbon-intensive production fields would fade into the background. But unfortunately, the consumption environment does not work this way.
The dirtiest products which have been produced outside the EU will gain an increasingly competitive edge on the global market.
When considering the matter from the point of view of employment, this issue is quite central. I don’t see any good in the fact that European products, which are produced in the cleanest possible way, would have to take this burden upon themselves just for the sake of combating climate change. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Commission would be able to save what the Parliament blew. Awaiting the arrival of the results from the summit!