Blog
19.December 2009 - 22:49
A one-sided climate policy puts human rights in danger
The poor result from the Copenhagen Conference has been criticised, but as a matter of fact, it may be best for the planet at the moment. I predicted the proceedings at the Copenhagen Conference in my blog (http://eijariitta.blogit.uusisuomi.fi/2009/09/23/suunnitelma-b-voi-olla-tarpeen/) and my opinion was that the EU should have prepared a plan B. Negotiations between the largest emittors will reach more concrete results – and it really looks like it, although it hurts, no doubt, the pride of the EU and environmental organisations, as the traditional strategy is not good enough anymore. But on the other hand, only in Europe were people so blind that this change remained unnoticed or was not acknowledged.
The Kyoto model is heavily bureaucratic and inefficient and the global development has aged it long ago. As long as China can pass off as being one of the developing countries, there is no hope of an efficient agreement. Therefore, for instance, Japan and the US have for long have for long talked about the necessity of collaborative measures among the larger emitters. The detachment from the unsuccessful frame of Kyoto will take its time, but it is necessary in order to be able to ever create an efficient and fair climate policy.
The theory of how the EU could show the way to the others and be a leader and pathfinder in curbing climate change has now been finally falsified. This argument should never ever again be used in the context of climate policy. It is only fit as an example of an ill-measured self-esteem and an aggrandised ego.
It is now vital that the EU sticks to its decisions and does not tighten its own reduction target from 20% to 30% according to the current agreement. According to the Emissions Trading Directive, the EU’s emission reduction target of 20% can be changed to 30%, only if other industrial countries show comparable reduction efforts and the developing countries also have some kinds of obligations. It is not really sufficient that a political agreement was worked out at the Copenhagen Conference.
The tightening of this target would create a playground that is too unfair for those industries that are exposed to global competition. Jobs will vanish from Europe, as competing countries can meet the demand more cheaply. Neither will the environment gain anything, as the production in Europe is clearly cleaner when comparing the total emissions per production tonnes.
Due to these kinds of statements, the environmental organisations and the Greens gave me the label of being “on the errand of industry”. (I have even been called an errand girl of the steel industry, although, in fact, I support the emissions trading model, which I myself have proposed to the steel industry as their strategy from the beginning.)
But what if one looks at this matter from another point of view? I speak for the jobs in European industry as I am worried about human rights and the future of European values.
At the moment, the EU is the most important financer of the UN. The EU’s influence around the world is not independent of its financial wealth. If we make Europe financially weak by practicing a unilateral climate policy, we may very well say goodbye to the EU’s political authority and importance that we still hold in issues concerning human rights.
China may be an economic giant, but in matters of human rights and democracy it is a mere dwarf. We already look on, somewhat powerlessly, at the neo-colonialism that China is now practising in Africa by stripping natural resources, the environment and labour force. Should this be allowed to stretch over the entire world, without any strong political counter-powers? A strong EU is needed and without a strong economy, there will be no such thing.
I came back to Finland from the Copenhagen Conference two days earlier than I had intended – participation was more difficult than usual for us MEPs, as chaos close to the conference locations shut down the railway station, resulting in the delays of several trains.
All in all, even by modest observations, one could see that the main issue was money. The developing countries wanted an agreement that unburdens them from all obligations and will bring them profit in the future too. China succeeded to hide behind the united front and kept itself in the company of the very poor ones. The Kyoto Protocol has taught them this. Nothing really efficient will, however, be achieved for the climate policy, unless we can detach us from the old frames: wherever the global economy produces something, goods should not be manufactured in a dirty way as long as there is a clean possibility available.
The poor result from the Copenhagen Conference has been criticised, but as a matter of fact, it may be best for the planet at the moment. I predicted the proceedings at the Copenhagen Conference in my blog (http://eijariitta.blogit.uusisuomi.fi/2009/09/23/suunnitelma-b-voi-olla-tarpeen/) and my opinion was that the EU should have prepared a plan B. Negotiations between the largest emittors will reach more concrete results – and it really looks like it, although it hurts, no doubt, the pride of the EU and environmental organisations, as the traditional strategy is not good enough anymore. But on the other hand, only in Europe were people so blind that this change remained unnoticed or was not acknowledged.
The Kyoto model is heavily bureaucratic and inefficient and the global development has aged it long ago. As long as China can pass off as being one of the developing countries, there is no hope of an efficient agreement. Therefore, for instance, Japan and the US have for long have for long talked about the necessity of collaborative measures among the larger emitters. The detachment from the unsuccessful frame of Kyoto will take its time, but it is necessary in order to be able to ever create an efficient and fair climate policy.
The theory of how the EU could show the way to the others and be a leader and pathfinder in curbing climate change has now been finally falsified. This argument should never ever again be used in the context of climate policy. It is only fit as an example of an ill-measured self-esteem and an aggrandised ego.
It is now vital that the EU sticks to its decisions and does not tighten its own reduction target from 20% to 30% according to the current agreement. According to the Emissions Trading Directive, the EU’s emission reduction target of 20% can be changed to 30%, only if other industrial countries show comparable reduction efforts and the developing countries also have some kinds of obligations. It is not really sufficient that a political agreement was worked out at the Copenhagen Conference.
The tightening of this target would create a playground that is too unfair for those industries that are exposed to global competition. Jobs will vanish from Europe, as competing countries can meet the demand more cheaply. Neither will the environment gain anything, as the production in Europe is clearly cleaner when comparing the total emissions per production tonnes.
Due to these kinds of statements, the environmental organisations and the Greens gave me the label of being “on the errand of industry”. (I have even been called an errand girl of the steel industry, although, in fact, I support the emissions trading model, which I myself have proposed to the steel industry as their strategy from the beginning.)
But what if one looks at this matter from another point of view? I speak for the jobs in European industry as I am worried about human rights and the future of European values.
At the moment, the EU is the most important financer of the UN. The EU’s influence around the world is not independent of its financial wealth. If we make Europe financially weak by practicing a unilateral climate policy, we may very well say goodbye to the EU’s political authority and importance that we still hold in issues concerning human rights.
China may be an economic giant, but in matters of human rights and democracy it is a mere dwarf. We already look on, somewhat powerlessly, at the neo-colonialism that China is now practising in Africa by stripping natural resources, the environment and labour force. Should this be allowed to stretch over the entire world, without any strong political counter-powers? A strong EU is needed and without a strong economy, there will be no such thing.
I came back to Finland from the Copenhagen Conference two days earlier than I had intended – participation was more difficult than usual for us MEPs, as chaos close to the conference locations shut down the railway station, resulting in the delays of several trains.
All in all, even by modest observations, one could see that the main issue was money. The developing countries wanted an agreement that unburdens them from all obligations and will bring them profit in the future too. China succeeded to hide behind the united front and kept itself in the company of the very poor ones. The Kyoto Protocol has taught them this. Nothing really efficient will, however, be achieved for the climate policy, unless we can detach us from the old frames: wherever the global economy produces something, goods should not be manufactured in a dirty way as long as there is a clean possibility available.