Blog
14.January 2010 - 22:48
An interplanetary dreamer
Oh you interplanetary dreamer, silhouette of an ectoplasm.
These were exactly my feelings as I heard what the Danish commissioner candidate Connie Hedegaard said some three hours ago. She is supposed to get the portfolio for Climate Commissioner. The portfolio in question is something quite new within the Commission; earlier the climate policy belonged to the responsibilities of the Environment Commissioner. In my opinion, this practice has always been a good and healthy one, as it forces the Commissioner to remain – in principal, at least – somewhat realistic. Now, all the oddballs hanging around climate policy can go directly into the orbit of earth and facts, unbounded by any realities.
I admit, Hedegaard knew her stuff and didn’t start to stutter when she was asked something. Hedegaard was proficient, logical and fluent. She showed leadership.
A religious-like leadership.
Here is a woman who has efficiently closed her eyes, her whole world, from certain facts and has concentrated on following other kinds of facts. However, it should also be possible to live in that nice little world, but that would naturally require the shunning of certain realities. Misinterpretations of climate science or the cooling weather trend was, without any hesitation, brushed aside. One disconcerting fact was also ignored: the EU does not represent any sort of leadership in climate issues and hasn’t done so for quite a long time.
This should have been obvious at the Copenhagen Conference at least. The US, China and Japan, all of them chose a track that rejects the UN-led model with emission restrictions and timelines negotiated previously. These actions directly focus on the reduction of carbon intensity and that will also become evident, in time, in the consequential reduction of emissions. At least this method does not expose the economy and jobs to unfair competition and unpredictable price fluctuations. The European economy and jobs are being exposed.
As the EU is still acting in this way, it will remain alone and the situation will worsen for European business enterprises. The most regrettable aspect is that nobody is gaining any advantage of this situation, least of all the citizens of Europe. The environment has not benefited, if the cleanest industries of the world are sanctioned within the emissions trade, whereas the others will not receive any sanctions.
I asked Hedegaard about the option of connecting the emissions trade to the system outside the EU. Yes, this is a problem: Hedegaard, like her predecessor, considers the emissions trade to be the flagship and success story of the EU’s climate policy. In her written answer, she admitted that she will endeavour to unite it with the other respective systems outside the EU, for instance, in the US. But – are there any such obligatory cap&trade systems elsewhere? No. Is something like that coming and if so, where? We don’t know. Would the connecting mean similar kinds of emissions targets and allocation of emission allowances? If not, how does the linkage of these emissions trading systems happen in reality? Generally speaking, the scarcity of emission allowances determines their market price. What would be the “right” price then – the price of the US’s emissions trading market or that one of the EU’s emissions trading system? The minimum and ceiling price of the emission allowances has been discussed in the House of Representatives in Washington D.C.. As there is no price regulation within the EU, how should systems with different currencies be united?
The answer that I received was written in a mere fluent to-and-fro style, except that the question didn’t concern different auction systems within the EU. CH changed the subject sovereignly and apparently hoped that I would not notice – actually I did, but as a member of the Committee on Research, Industry and Energy, I didn’t receive any counter-question.
From all accounts it is perfectly obvious that carbon leakage, which zeroes the climate efforts or industry’s future, is not bothering Connie much. But this is only to be expected from a Commissioner who is responsible for climate policy. To outline climate policy as a separate subject from energy and the environment is as if, for example in the case of leukaemia, doctors would just concentrate on taking care of a mere flu instead of the cancer.
Oh you interplanetary dreamer, silhouette of an ectoplasm.
These were exactly my feelings as I heard what the Danish commissioner candidate Connie Hedegaard said some three hours ago. She is supposed to get the portfolio for Climate Commissioner. The portfolio in question is something quite new within the Commission; earlier the climate policy belonged to the responsibilities of the Environment Commissioner. In my opinion, this practice has always been a good and healthy one, as it forces the Commissioner to remain – in principal, at least – somewhat realistic. Now, all the oddballs hanging around climate policy can go directly into the orbit of earth and facts, unbounded by any realities.
I admit, Hedegaard knew her stuff and didn’t start to stutter when she was asked something. Hedegaard was proficient, logical and fluent. She showed leadership.
A religious-like leadership.
Here is a woman who has efficiently closed her eyes, her whole world, from certain facts and has concentrated on following other kinds of facts. However, it should also be possible to live in that nice little world, but that would naturally require the shunning of certain realities. Misinterpretations of climate science or the cooling weather trend was, without any hesitation, brushed aside. One disconcerting fact was also ignored: the EU does not represent any sort of leadership in climate issues and hasn’t done so for quite a long time.
This should have been obvious at the Copenhagen Conference at least. The US, China and Japan, all of them chose a track that rejects the UN-led model with emission restrictions and timelines negotiated previously. These actions directly focus on the reduction of carbon intensity and that will also become evident, in time, in the consequential reduction of emissions. At least this method does not expose the economy and jobs to unfair competition and unpredictable price fluctuations. The European economy and jobs are being exposed.
As the EU is still acting in this way, it will remain alone and the situation will worsen for European business enterprises. The most regrettable aspect is that nobody is gaining any advantage of this situation, least of all the citizens of Europe. The environment has not benefited, if the cleanest industries of the world are sanctioned within the emissions trade, whereas the others will not receive any sanctions.
I asked Hedegaard about the option of connecting the emissions trade to the system outside the EU. Yes, this is a problem: Hedegaard, like her predecessor, considers the emissions trade to be the flagship and success story of the EU’s climate policy. In her written answer, she admitted that she will endeavour to unite it with the other respective systems outside the EU, for instance, in the US. But – are there any such obligatory cap&trade systems elsewhere? No. Is something like that coming and if so, where? We don’t know. Would the connecting mean similar kinds of emissions targets and allocation of emission allowances? If not, how does the linkage of these emissions trading systems happen in reality? Generally speaking, the scarcity of emission allowances determines their market price. What would be the “right” price then – the price of the US’s emissions trading market or that one of the EU’s emissions trading system? The minimum and ceiling price of the emission allowances has been discussed in the House of Representatives in Washington D.C.. As there is no price regulation within the EU, how should systems with different currencies be united?
The answer that I received was written in a mere fluent to-and-fro style, except that the question didn’t concern different auction systems within the EU. CH changed the subject sovereignly and apparently hoped that I would not notice – actually I did, but as a member of the Committee on Research, Industry and Energy, I didn’t receive any counter-question.
From all accounts it is perfectly obvious that carbon leakage, which zeroes the climate efforts or industry’s future, is not bothering Connie much. But this is only to be expected from a Commissioner who is responsible for climate policy. To outline climate policy as a separate subject from energy and the environment is as if, for example in the case of leukaemia, doctors would just concentrate on taking care of a mere flu instead of the cancer.