Blog
22.November 2009 - 22:57
The Commission plots a stricter climate change target
Last October, a BBC news article wondered about the cold weather conditions that had taken place over the past months and asked where global warming was now. Now, when 2010 is almost over, we’ve already measured the facts concerning the temperature increase that hasn’t after all followed the increase in emissions during the current decade. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere followed the same line as the temperature increase during the last decade and, therefore, it was considered that the greenhouse theory was confirmed. The warming has now come to a halt and globally a cooler time period has set in. According to some scientists, the cooling development may even continue for a couple of years more.
Does it mean that the Kyoto Protocol was so efficient? Unfortunately not, as a matter fact, it was quite the contrary. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and already now we may say that climate change policy has been poor.
During the great climate change hype, emissions have increased in both absolute and relative terms. The most worrying fact is that the global carbon-intensity has increased: in other words, emissions per GDP – meaning that things are being performed in a dirtier way than in former days, although the development should have progressed in the opposite direction.
The reason for this is the rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of China and India. The Kyoto Protocol classifies both of these as developing countries and no valid emission restrictions concern developing countries. Therefore, it is no wonder that industry and workplaces, including those from Europe, are also shifting over there, and to much dirtier circumstances. This phenomenon is called carbon leakage.
It is also most regrettable that a good and solid environmental and development policy has provably been superseded by the carbon dioxide centred climate policy. This haste has led us to drastic consequences. The talk about mega problems and the wait for some mega solution has turned our focus away from so many acute problems: poverty, erosion, air pollution, epidemics.
Two and half years ago, the climate change discussion was at its hottest, as the EU summit made the decision on cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from the level of 1990 by 2020. It was also agreed that the EU would commit itself to cuts of 30%, provided that the other industrial countries bindingly consent to this. The principle is important as only a synchronous decrease ensures that emissions will not just wander from one place to another.
As more scientific information on the complexity of climate change pours in, it has become quite clear that the implemented actions have been inefficient. One would really wish that Europe will now show a new kind of leadership concerning climate issues. It is now time to consider very carefully what kinds of measures are worth investing millions of euro in. The current strategy will increase energy prices and jobs will be lost. Is this all really worth it, especially as the scientific information points out, besides carbon dioxide, new factors of the climate fluctuation.
One explanation for this stubbornness is that climate change has become increasingly a societal issue and some parties like to take advantage of this phenomenon, both politically and economically. The ability of decision-makers to follow science has always proceeded with some delay.
This week, information has already leaked from Brussels that the Commission prepared, in secrecy with certain Member States, a proposal according to which the cuts of 30% would be implemented immediately.
The plan is devastating. It was already made clear in advance that the competing countries will not commit themselves to any respective cuts at the Copenhagen Conference. There will be no binding agreement, but just a political frame. The EU cannot make its own serious decisions by leaning on anything such as this.
According to some sources, Sweden, Germany, Great Britain and France are all trying to achieve the percentage change on the basis of the CO2 market estimations of a certain research centre. These estimations claim that the CO2 price could be kept at a “reasonable” level, i.e., at a level that promotes the emissions cut measures, provided that the cuts were 30%.
The hankering can be explained by the European electricity producers, who are busily lobbying and are now annoyed by the free emission allowances enjoyed by large industrial plants. The free allowances are designed for the emissions trading system so that the industry would not run off to the third countries owing to the competition distortions. This would not be necessary, if an extensive international agreement could be achieved. Those who try to achieve the expensive CO2 price and auction system want to implement the 30 percent status, as the protection would not concern this status and therefore, these quarters would ensure enormously high profits for themselves, just according to Fortum’s model.
According to rumours, Finland has objected to this plan, which was quite right on the part of the government. It was justified, and not only because of our employment situation but also because of environmental reasons, since it really is not any environmental action to complicate the circumstances of the cleanest production as long as the competitors are allowed to pollute freely.
In this light, it would naturally be very desirable for Finland to be represented at the Copenhagen Conference solely by such knowledgeable parties that are able to appraise the country and understand the general view of the climate change policy. The government is surely able to perceive and comprehend the situation, but what do the others do?
Last October, a BBC news article wondered about the cold weather conditions that had taken place over the past months and asked where global warming was now. Now, when 2010 is almost over, we’ve already measured the facts concerning the temperature increase that hasn’t after all followed the increase in emissions during the current decade. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere followed the same line as the temperature increase during the last decade and, therefore, it was considered that the greenhouse theory was confirmed. The warming has now come to a halt and globally a cooler time period has set in. According to some scientists, the cooling development may even continue for a couple of years more.
Does it mean that the Kyoto Protocol was so efficient? Unfortunately not, as a matter fact, it was quite the contrary. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and already now we may say that climate change policy has been poor.
During the great climate change hype, emissions have increased in both absolute and relative terms. The most worrying fact is that the global carbon-intensity has increased: in other words, emissions per GDP – meaning that things are being performed in a dirtier way than in former days, although the development should have progressed in the opposite direction.
The reason for this is the rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of China and India. The Kyoto Protocol classifies both of these as developing countries and no valid emission restrictions concern developing countries. Therefore, it is no wonder that industry and workplaces, including those from Europe, are also shifting over there, and to much dirtier circumstances. This phenomenon is called carbon leakage.
It is also most regrettable that a good and solid environmental and development policy has provably been superseded by the carbon dioxide centred climate policy. This haste has led us to drastic consequences. The talk about mega problems and the wait for some mega solution has turned our focus away from so many acute problems: poverty, erosion, air pollution, epidemics.
Two and half years ago, the climate change discussion was at its hottest, as the EU summit made the decision on cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from the level of 1990 by 2020. It was also agreed that the EU would commit itself to cuts of 30%, provided that the other industrial countries bindingly consent to this. The principle is important as only a synchronous decrease ensures that emissions will not just wander from one place to another.
As more scientific information on the complexity of climate change pours in, it has become quite clear that the implemented actions have been inefficient. One would really wish that Europe will now show a new kind of leadership concerning climate issues. It is now time to consider very carefully what kinds of measures are worth investing millions of euro in. The current strategy will increase energy prices and jobs will be lost. Is this all really worth it, especially as the scientific information points out, besides carbon dioxide, new factors of the climate fluctuation.
One explanation for this stubbornness is that climate change has become increasingly a societal issue and some parties like to take advantage of this phenomenon, both politically and economically. The ability of decision-makers to follow science has always proceeded with some delay.
This week, information has already leaked from Brussels that the Commission prepared, in secrecy with certain Member States, a proposal according to which the cuts of 30% would be implemented immediately.
The plan is devastating. It was already made clear in advance that the competing countries will not commit themselves to any respective cuts at the Copenhagen Conference. There will be no binding agreement, but just a political frame. The EU cannot make its own serious decisions by leaning on anything such as this.
According to some sources, Sweden, Germany, Great Britain and France are all trying to achieve the percentage change on the basis of the CO2 market estimations of a certain research centre. These estimations claim that the CO2 price could be kept at a “reasonable” level, i.e., at a level that promotes the emissions cut measures, provided that the cuts were 30%.
The hankering can be explained by the European electricity producers, who are busily lobbying and are now annoyed by the free emission allowances enjoyed by large industrial plants. The free allowances are designed for the emissions trading system so that the industry would not run off to the third countries owing to the competition distortions. This would not be necessary, if an extensive international agreement could be achieved. Those who try to achieve the expensive CO2 price and auction system want to implement the 30 percent status, as the protection would not concern this status and therefore, these quarters would ensure enormously high profits for themselves, just according to Fortum’s model.
According to rumours, Finland has objected to this plan, which was quite right on the part of the government. It was justified, and not only because of our employment situation but also because of environmental reasons, since it really is not any environmental action to complicate the circumstances of the cleanest production as long as the competitors are allowed to pollute freely.
In this light, it would naturally be very desirable for Finland to be represented at the Copenhagen Conference solely by such knowledgeable parties that are able to appraise the country and understand the general view of the climate change policy. The government is surely able to perceive and comprehend the situation, but what do the others do?