Blog
10.December 2008 - 04:48
News from Poznan
Greetings from the Poznan Climate Conference. It is quite cold outside – this weather is really no match to last year’s famous negotiations in Bali – talks with a tan. I even got a fur hat as a welcome gift from the host country.
According to several conference sources, the situation is tricky. The negotiations at the official level have not achieved any significant results and the situation has been described as conflicting. A mutual basis for an international agreement is not easily found. This means that when the ministers arrive tomorrow to finish the negotiations, an exceptional amount of work and open questions will remain: at least some 7 thematic entities or so they say. According to what I’ve heard, the presiding country of the EU, France, has warned the ministers that the negotiations might continue over Saturday and the attendance for such is highly desirable.
The future priorities of the US will naturally interest all parties at the climate conference. However, it is a known fact that there will be hardly anybody who can say anything about it. The Bush administration has no leverage anymore and Obama does not hold an actual mandate yet. Therefore, Greenpeace will use the situation and market its collateral programme here, which promises to reveal the truth about US climate targets. Naturally, this is some kind of propaganda, as the real agent is a lame duck.
However, an American congressional representative who gave a speech to the delegation of the European Parliament today kept those who apparently assume that Obama would soon conform to the European concept, in their places. Binding legislation will hardly be achieved anytime soon. I’ve thought the same myself: although we may hear more amenable rhetoric compared to the former days, the US government will hardly present any binding legislation during this year at least, as the 2010 midterm elections are so close. There is a rumour going around here that the US will not accept any obligations or impose on itself any restrictions at the UN level, instead, it will initiate its own emissions trading, on its own terms.
The third rumour that leaked out concerns the EU’s own climate change package. France wants to introduce all the results of the EU summit right here at the Poznan Conference, as these should accelerate the international negotiations and serve as some sort of release device to remove the negotiation blockage which has already come about.
It sounds great, but due to my metier as a parliamentarian, I cannot be overjoyed. This means that the Council would just simply bypass the Parliament, with no hesitation, because we are the ones who make the decision on the result of the summit – reject or approve – but not until next week.
In practice, I admit that the Council has only the best of the best to offer. The stance of the Parliament is no good; in fact it is very undemocratic. I have already reported the reasons for this in a previous blog earlier this autumn. If there’s any hope, it will come from the Council.
But on the other hand, changes have been attempted. Today to my surprise, a piece of news reached me here in Poznan: the EPP-ED group has submitted my compromise package to the plenary session in the name of the group. This is quite an issue: the largest group will still not support its own main rapporteur, but quite clearly gives its support to my alternative model. I really don’t know what will happen to it in the plenary session. It can always be withdrawn, if we decide to agree with the Council’s solution. But anyway – as a gesture, this warms my heart, and especially so, as the struggle of this autumn was not easy at all. Within this, it has been unavoidable not to tread on other people’s toes and I never enjoy doing so.
My firm stance on behalf of the Council seems to require some kind of explanation, which I’ve never had the time to put down in writing. Well, the Council, i.e. the Member States of the EU, has been reprimanded in public that the climate change package would be attenuated or vitiated. Even the editorial of the Helsingin Sanomat presented an erroneous interpretation, according to which Italy and Poland would now beat down the reduction goals by invoking economic reasons.
This is not true. Not one of the Member States will propose lowering the goals that have been set for emissions cuts. This misconception must be the result of the rhetoric used by the environmental organisations. It is a question of means: the discussion has been focused on what kind of methods should be used for the reductions: through an expensive auction or by benchmarking in a more advantageous way. The Greens of Finland and environmental organisations support the costly model, as it is their belief that a high price implies efficiency. An auction would raise the costs of emission allowances and an increase in prices would influence consumers’ behaviour and therefore lead towards climate-friendlier choices – perhaps even the entire carbon-intensive production would fade into the background. Theoretically seen, this is a good idea, but unfortunately it will not work out in practice, unless the emissions trading system is expanded worldwide. Otherwise, a unilateral tax will be imposed on the world’s cleanest industries.
For this reason, the ambitious European goals seem not to be so ambitious after all, if the set goals remain singular. It would be essential now to create a situation where the implemented emission cuts will not trigger any increase in emissions somewhere else; in other words, it would be important to create an emission reduction front that would be as extensive as possible, before Europe implements one-sidedly higher numbers and harsher methods.
In my opinion, to increase prices artificially these days would be quite an irresponsible act, as we now know that there will not be any significant environmental benefit involved.
Greetings from the Poznan Climate Conference. It is quite cold outside – this weather is really no match to last year’s famous negotiations in Bali – talks with a tan. I even got a fur hat as a welcome gift from the host country.
According to several conference sources, the situation is tricky. The negotiations at the official level have not achieved any significant results and the situation has been described as conflicting. A mutual basis for an international agreement is not easily found. This means that when the ministers arrive tomorrow to finish the negotiations, an exceptional amount of work and open questions will remain: at least some 7 thematic entities or so they say. According to what I’ve heard, the presiding country of the EU, France, has warned the ministers that the negotiations might continue over Saturday and the attendance for such is highly desirable.
The future priorities of the US will naturally interest all parties at the climate conference. However, it is a known fact that there will be hardly anybody who can say anything about it. The Bush administration has no leverage anymore and Obama does not hold an actual mandate yet. Therefore, Greenpeace will use the situation and market its collateral programme here, which promises to reveal the truth about US climate targets. Naturally, this is some kind of propaganda, as the real agent is a lame duck.
However, an American congressional representative who gave a speech to the delegation of the European Parliament today kept those who apparently assume that Obama would soon conform to the European concept, in their places. Binding legislation will hardly be achieved anytime soon. I’ve thought the same myself: although we may hear more amenable rhetoric compared to the former days, the US government will hardly present any binding legislation during this year at least, as the 2010 midterm elections are so close. There is a rumour going around here that the US will not accept any obligations or impose on itself any restrictions at the UN level, instead, it will initiate its own emissions trading, on its own terms.
The third rumour that leaked out concerns the EU’s own climate change package. France wants to introduce all the results of the EU summit right here at the Poznan Conference, as these should accelerate the international negotiations and serve as some sort of release device to remove the negotiation blockage which has already come about.
It sounds great, but due to my metier as a parliamentarian, I cannot be overjoyed. This means that the Council would just simply bypass the Parliament, with no hesitation, because we are the ones who make the decision on the result of the summit – reject or approve – but not until next week.
In practice, I admit that the Council has only the best of the best to offer. The stance of the Parliament is no good; in fact it is very undemocratic. I have already reported the reasons for this in a previous blog earlier this autumn. If there’s any hope, it will come from the Council.
But on the other hand, changes have been attempted. Today to my surprise, a piece of news reached me here in Poznan: the EPP-ED group has submitted my compromise package to the plenary session in the name of the group. This is quite an issue: the largest group will still not support its own main rapporteur, but quite clearly gives its support to my alternative model. I really don’t know what will happen to it in the plenary session. It can always be withdrawn, if we decide to agree with the Council’s solution. But anyway – as a gesture, this warms my heart, and especially so, as the struggle of this autumn was not easy at all. Within this, it has been unavoidable not to tread on other people’s toes and I never enjoy doing so.
My firm stance on behalf of the Council seems to require some kind of explanation, which I’ve never had the time to put down in writing. Well, the Council, i.e. the Member States of the EU, has been reprimanded in public that the climate change package would be attenuated or vitiated. Even the editorial of the Helsingin Sanomat presented an erroneous interpretation, according to which Italy and Poland would now beat down the reduction goals by invoking economic reasons.
This is not true. Not one of the Member States will propose lowering the goals that have been set for emissions cuts. This misconception must be the result of the rhetoric used by the environmental organisations. It is a question of means: the discussion has been focused on what kind of methods should be used for the reductions: through an expensive auction or by benchmarking in a more advantageous way. The Greens of Finland and environmental organisations support the costly model, as it is their belief that a high price implies efficiency. An auction would raise the costs of emission allowances and an increase in prices would influence consumers’ behaviour and therefore lead towards climate-friendlier choices – perhaps even the entire carbon-intensive production would fade into the background. Theoretically seen, this is a good idea, but unfortunately it will not work out in practice, unless the emissions trading system is expanded worldwide. Otherwise, a unilateral tax will be imposed on the world’s cleanest industries.
For this reason, the ambitious European goals seem not to be so ambitious after all, if the set goals remain singular. It would be essential now to create a situation where the implemented emission cuts will not trigger any increase in emissions somewhere else; in other words, it would be important to create an emission reduction front that would be as extensive as possible, before Europe implements one-sidedly higher numbers and harsher methods.
In my opinion, to increase prices artificially these days would be quite an irresponsible act, as we now know that there will not be any significant environmental benefit involved.