Blog
11.December 2010 - 22:37
An autopsy of climate performance
It is that time of the year again. “Judgement Sunday” (Finnish term; the last Sunday before Advent; in the Catholic world known as the Solemnity) came and went, but the environmentalists are anyway a couple of weeks late from the course of the Finnish ecclesiastical year. Nevertheless, their drill is the same. Ahead of the climate conferences in December, an annual list of sins is published and nations are urged to repent.
In the climate comparison 57 countries were evaluated in terms of the development of emissions, the emission level and national and international climate policy. The organisations behind the project are Germanwatch and Climate Action Network. Finland is reportedly again alarmingly poorly placed regarding its climate performance.
While Sweden and Norway hold the top place, Finland is at the same level with Spain and Greece, among others. Everybody realises that this is not the case.
Therefore, such news no longer affects me. The problem with climate reviews and carbon footprints is mostly non-transparency. The constellation makes a moderate amount of slanted interpretation possible, in which the ideological or political share is large, unless the evaluation criteria are disclosed.
I became interested and asked about this a couple of years ago, when the very same Germanwatch placed Finland at the level of Belarus and the like, while Sweden held the top position. The press exercised severe self-flagellation due to the performance but it began to bother me that there was such a difference compared with Sweden. After all, our countries’ conditions and practices are not that different, except that Sweden can enjoy a large share of hydropower.
At first I wanted to know what that Germanwatch actually is. It presents itself as an independent non-profit, non-governmental organisation, which concentrates on the issues between the North and the South. So it is some kind of a development cooperation or development issue organisation, which examines the problems related to trade, the environment and the relationships with developing countries. I know something about those issues as I have worked in development cooperation. On its website, Germanwatch says that it produces research material to support decision-makers. The climate index in question is one of the research studies it has made.
Germanwatch placed countries in an order of superiority on the basis of their climate performance, founded on the parameters and weightings selected by the organisation itself. An examination of the calculation method for the climate change performance index (CCPI) in question can shed some light on the figures for “naughty” Finland:
The weightings are approximately the following: energy consumption and emissions, 30%, sector-specific emission trends, 35%, total emission trends with respect to the Kyoto Protocol obligations, 15%, international climate policy, 10%, and national climate policy, 10%.
It is interesting that of the figures received by each country; only barely one third is accounted for by energy consumption and emissions – which are those that have real bearing on the end result. The rest is politics, even 20 per cent pure politics, as it is a question of the index-makers’ own value choice of the significance of nuclear power and renewable energies, among other things. Fifty per cent consists of the emissions trends of randomly selected years. And regarding the actual substance, the 30%, the index does not in any way take into account the climate, the structure of export industry and the distances in the country in question.
Germanwatch’s own attitude towards energy choices has a decisive role for the study. Germanwatch justifies the position of nuclear energy in the index thus: “Since nuclear power is a risky source of energy, it has been assessed according to the CO2 equivalent per energy unit.” This statement means that nuclear power emissions are given the figure corresponding to coal-power emissions, in other words, nuclear power is burdened according to modern coal power.
Thus, nuclear power is not viewed as emission-free, even though that quality is its strongest asset. Surprisingly enough, neither are renewable energies neutrally viewed as emission-free: while nuclear power is punished, renewables are rewarded more than they deserve on the basis of being CO2 emission-free, as they are viewed separately from the others. Germanwatch gives the following grounds for it: “Because of its essential importance for sustainable emissions reduction, the share of renewable energies is considered separately”. The “sustainable development” reputation of renewable energies obviously receives an additional bonus.
If one should analyse Finland’s ranking, it is weakened by the following circumstances:
1. Finland’s high energy consumption compared with the population and GDP. This is explained by the industrial structure, cold climate and long distances. Finland does not receive understanding for exporting energy-intensive products: a nation of five million manufactures paper for one hundred million people. Since the paper is made in Finland using almost the world’s cleanest methods, some understanding could be expected.
2. Finland’s high CO2 emissions compared with the population, GDP and energy consumption. This could be assessed using the same arguments as energy consumption.
The weighting of these first two points was 30% in the index.
3. The nuclear power under construction in Finland is punished at the item “national policy”. The weighting in the index is 10%.
4. Finland’s emissions trend in the selected years compared with the Kyoto Protocol obligation for Finland. However, such trends are partly incidental, and they are affected by the business cycles of industry and weather conditions. The weight of this item in the index is 15%.
5. Sector-specific emissions trends in the selected years. In the case of Finland, it has not been a question of an increase in carbon-intensity but in production volume. Regarding steel, whose production has also increased, there could be reason to take into consideration that Finland makes quite clean steel and that the emissions are close to the theoretical minimum. The weight of this item is 35 per cent.
6. Finland’s current nuclear power production is equated with coal power production, i.e. it is not treated as CO2-free. Therefore, Finland is punished at the emissions trends and climate policy (national and maybe also international climate policy), among other points. The weight of international climate policy is 10%.
7. The growing air traffic in Finland causes a small additional burden. It is not evident from the review but you could suspect that Finnish air traffic may be burdened due to the fact that the flights departing from Finland have longer distances to fly. Maybe one factor is that Finnair operates many long-distance flights to Asia – which is no doubt the most climate-friendly route because near the pole, the journey is clearly shorter owing to the form of the globe.
8. Finland uses peat in its energy mix; peat is our oil. In practice, it supports the burning of wood, as peat diminishes boiler corrosion. The use of peat can be criticised and it is true that its CO2 emissions are high, but it is not so often remembered that the burning of wood produces even larger emissions – it is just understood to give it a computational zero by virtue of renewability. Besides, both of them cause particle emissions, yet only the use of wood is regarded as an action against climate change. I am not in favour of opening wild bogs and swamps for peat harvesting, however, in bogs and swamps already opened, harvesting helps reduce their emissions, and therefore this should be taken into account computationally in the same way as in respect of wood. Even though peat is not a renewable energy source, the annual growth of the biomass is considerably larger than its annual use.
All in all, this was one example of what kind of politics the investigation of the carbon footprint may involve. Opening these issues for discussion and making them transparent is well-founded and necessary, so that kicking around with the carbon footprint would better hit the right targets.
It is that time of the year again. “Judgement Sunday” (Finnish term; the last Sunday before Advent; in the Catholic world known as the Solemnity) came and went, but the environmentalists are anyway a couple of weeks late from the course of the Finnish ecclesiastical year. Nevertheless, their drill is the same. Ahead of the climate conferences in December, an annual list of sins is published and nations are urged to repent.
In the climate comparison 57 countries were evaluated in terms of the development of emissions, the emission level and national and international climate policy. The organisations behind the project are Germanwatch and Climate Action Network. Finland is reportedly again alarmingly poorly placed regarding its climate performance.
While Sweden and Norway hold the top place, Finland is at the same level with Spain and Greece, among others. Everybody realises that this is not the case.
Therefore, such news no longer affects me. The problem with climate reviews and carbon footprints is mostly non-transparency. The constellation makes a moderate amount of slanted interpretation possible, in which the ideological or political share is large, unless the evaluation criteria are disclosed.
I became interested and asked about this a couple of years ago, when the very same Germanwatch placed Finland at the level of Belarus and the like, while Sweden held the top position. The press exercised severe self-flagellation due to the performance but it began to bother me that there was such a difference compared with Sweden. After all, our countries’ conditions and practices are not that different, except that Sweden can enjoy a large share of hydropower.
At first I wanted to know what that Germanwatch actually is. It presents itself as an independent non-profit, non-governmental organisation, which concentrates on the issues between the North and the South. So it is some kind of a development cooperation or development issue organisation, which examines the problems related to trade, the environment and the relationships with developing countries. I know something about those issues as I have worked in development cooperation. On its website, Germanwatch says that it produces research material to support decision-makers. The climate index in question is one of the research studies it has made.
Germanwatch placed countries in an order of superiority on the basis of their climate performance, founded on the parameters and weightings selected by the organisation itself. An examination of the calculation method for the climate change performance index (CCPI) in question can shed some light on the figures for “naughty” Finland:
The weightings are approximately the following: energy consumption and emissions, 30%, sector-specific emission trends, 35%, total emission trends with respect to the Kyoto Protocol obligations, 15%, international climate policy, 10%, and national climate policy, 10%.
It is interesting that of the figures received by each country; only barely one third is accounted for by energy consumption and emissions – which are those that have real bearing on the end result. The rest is politics, even 20 per cent pure politics, as it is a question of the index-makers’ own value choice of the significance of nuclear power and renewable energies, among other things. Fifty per cent consists of the emissions trends of randomly selected years. And regarding the actual substance, the 30%, the index does not in any way take into account the climate, the structure of export industry and the distances in the country in question.
Germanwatch’s own attitude towards energy choices has a decisive role for the study. Germanwatch justifies the position of nuclear energy in the index thus: “Since nuclear power is a risky source of energy, it has been assessed according to the CO2 equivalent per energy unit.” This statement means that nuclear power emissions are given the figure corresponding to coal-power emissions, in other words, nuclear power is burdened according to modern coal power.
Thus, nuclear power is not viewed as emission-free, even though that quality is its strongest asset. Surprisingly enough, neither are renewable energies neutrally viewed as emission-free: while nuclear power is punished, renewables are rewarded more than they deserve on the basis of being CO2 emission-free, as they are viewed separately from the others. Germanwatch gives the following grounds for it: “Because of its essential importance for sustainable emissions reduction, the share of renewable energies is considered separately”. The “sustainable development” reputation of renewable energies obviously receives an additional bonus.
If one should analyse Finland’s ranking, it is weakened by the following circumstances:
1. Finland’s high energy consumption compared with the population and GDP. This is explained by the industrial structure, cold climate and long distances. Finland does not receive understanding for exporting energy-intensive products: a nation of five million manufactures paper for one hundred million people. Since the paper is made in Finland using almost the world’s cleanest methods, some understanding could be expected.
2. Finland’s high CO2 emissions compared with the population, GDP and energy consumption. This could be assessed using the same arguments as energy consumption.
The weighting of these first two points was 30% in the index.
3. The nuclear power under construction in Finland is punished at the item “national policy”. The weighting in the index is 10%.
4. Finland’s emissions trend in the selected years compared with the Kyoto Protocol obligation for Finland. However, such trends are partly incidental, and they are affected by the business cycles of industry and weather conditions. The weight of this item in the index is 15%.
5. Sector-specific emissions trends in the selected years. In the case of Finland, it has not been a question of an increase in carbon-intensity but in production volume. Regarding steel, whose production has also increased, there could be reason to take into consideration that Finland makes quite clean steel and that the emissions are close to the theoretical minimum. The weight of this item is 35 per cent.
6. Finland’s current nuclear power production is equated with coal power production, i.e. it is not treated as CO2-free. Therefore, Finland is punished at the emissions trends and climate policy (national and maybe also international climate policy), among other points. The weight of international climate policy is 10%.
7. The growing air traffic in Finland causes a small additional burden. It is not evident from the review but you could suspect that Finnish air traffic may be burdened due to the fact that the flights departing from Finland have longer distances to fly. Maybe one factor is that Finnair operates many long-distance flights to Asia – which is no doubt the most climate-friendly route because near the pole, the journey is clearly shorter owing to the form of the globe.
8. Finland uses peat in its energy mix; peat is our oil. In practice, it supports the burning of wood, as peat diminishes boiler corrosion. The use of peat can be criticised and it is true that its CO2 emissions are high, but it is not so often remembered that the burning of wood produces even larger emissions – it is just understood to give it a computational zero by virtue of renewability. Besides, both of them cause particle emissions, yet only the use of wood is regarded as an action against climate change. I am not in favour of opening wild bogs and swamps for peat harvesting, however, in bogs and swamps already opened, harvesting helps reduce their emissions, and therefore this should be taken into account computationally in the same way as in respect of wood. Even though peat is not a renewable energy source, the annual growth of the biomass is considerably larger than its annual use.
All in all, this was one example of what kind of politics the investigation of the carbon footprint may involve. Opening these issues for discussion and making them transparent is well-founded and necessary, so that kicking around with the carbon footprint would better hit the right targets.