Blog
02.December 2010 - 22:39
Towards Cancun – When the world was not saved after all
A year ago, we prepared for the Copenhagen climate conference, and the world was looking forward to redemption. There was a counter on the European Parliament’s website which counted the seconds to “the salvation of the planet”; the meeting in question was regarded as the deadline. It was also said that it was “the last moment to tackle climate change” and “to save civilisation as we know it”.
The Copenhagen COP-15 Conference was a culmination point: the UN-led climate policy had been worked on for 17 years, there had been toing and froing on the Kyoto Protocol for 12 years, and two years had passed since the Bali Conference, which created the so-called roadmap to Copenhagen. The conference attracted more world leaders than ever before, and the participation of non-governmental organisations also reached a record level. Having attended numerous climate conferences, I noted that this was the first time that the congestion was unbearable. The conference was advertised as the most important in the history of mankind.
The culmination point fell flat. The world was not saved after all. Instead of a climate treaty, the so-called Copenhagen Accord was achieved. It included a modest nod to the demands of climate science regarding the restriction of the rise in temperature, and a promise of money to developing countries.
Those who observed the matter extensively, myself included, were able to tell beforehand that there would be no comprehensive climate treaty. The front lines were so far apart, and the EU’s fantasy that it would be in the lead on climate actions, was completely one-sided. Rather, it was a question of a “follow me, I’m coming right behind you” logic, which has already been smiled at elsewhere for a long time. While the EU still believed in the policy of restriction, heavy legislation, emission limits and emissions trading as a means to combat climate change, the major emitter countries wanted technological cooperation and vigorous investment in emission-reducing technological innovations.
Thus it was no surprise that China, India and Brazil left the EU alone and started out on a new negotiation track. The EU’s policy is an expensive, inefficient and bureaucratic response to the problems. The EU just does not want to believe it, not even now. We are going to Cancun next week, and still the European Parliament is demanding tighter unilateral emission limits for the EU. It is allegedly cheaper now that our economy is in such poor condition.
I find the Parliament’s line irresponsible. Our own group, for whose stand I was responsible in the European Parliament’s Industry, Research and Energy Committee, unanimously opposed the tightening of the emission limit. It would be a better cure to attempt to achieve a global united front than to further raise the threshold for joining it and, at the same time, to continue outsourcing our jobs and competitiveness. If we really raise the target to 30 per cent, the next window of opportunity will be that it is not profitable to make, for example, window glass in the EU.
It can now become incredibly expensive, even for the environment, for poverty is not only a social problem. Environmental protection is usually the first thing to be compromised on.
What is wrong with the EU’s approach?
Let’s compare the situation with cancer, for instance. There is too much cancer, everybody agrees on that. In principle, negotiation-hungry politicians could get the idea of a new international agreement, which would commit participants to reduce the amount of cancer deaths by 20% by the year 2030. The various Member States would ratify the agreement and start the work. Everybody understands what should be done: more money for research, more cancer screening, more correct nutrition and more information and instruction. The correct measures would in due course bring the desired results.
But would states become tempted to attain their own target by means of loopholes? For example, would it be possible to reconsider cause of death diagnoses in order to improve statistics – was cancer the primary cause after all? Or should the backgrounds of immigrants be checked – a bad thing to accept refugees from areas suffering from chemical warfare, for example? And so on. The idea is against common sense but gimmickry could provide rapid help with statistics. Nevertheless, everybody understands that it is only through correct actions that the aggregate whole can be helped.
I confess that, regarding greenhouse gas emissions, I no longer believe in a policy of restriction and emission ceilings. They produce results too slowly and they mostly just pass problems to and fro in the planet’s atmosphere as they transfer emissions from one place to another. Moreover, while considering carbon dioxide only, other serious environmental problems have been forgotten and air pollution has even been increased. Instead of setting emission limits, legislation should be used to motivate us towards correct and justified environmental actions, which are sensible in all circumstances.
I also believe that the entire climate policy suffers from extreme unrealism and hubris. We have bitten off more than we can chew by assuming the goal of “climate control” – it will not succeed. When the history of recent decades is written, it will be called the era of climate megalomania when man’s ability to interfere with nature’s mechanisms was highly exaggerated. I dare claim this, for this project, which is “coming of age”, has produced amazingly few good results. Therefore it would be high time to draw conclusions befitting adults.
It is time to redefine either the goal or the means – preferably both.
Yesterday, information was received that the Japanese government has rejected the Kyoto Protocol. It does not intend to continue on the same track when the treaty expires in 2012. According to the representative of the Japanese government, the treaty is out-dated as it only covers 27% of emissions and thus it is an expensive and inefficient system. Environmental organisations are furious but, in respect of the matter itself, I find the decision welcome. Finally.
Today, information was received that former friends of emissions trading from the Friends of the Earth organisation urge the consideration of other alternatives and confess to the inefficiency of the system. Finally.
Next Tuesday I will leave for Cancun with the European Parliament delegation. In my next blog I will tell what kind of climate policy I myself believe in.
A year ago, we prepared for the Copenhagen climate conference, and the world was looking forward to redemption. There was a counter on the European Parliament’s website which counted the seconds to “the salvation of the planet”; the meeting in question was regarded as the deadline. It was also said that it was “the last moment to tackle climate change” and “to save civilisation as we know it”.
The Copenhagen COP-15 Conference was a culmination point: the UN-led climate policy had been worked on for 17 years, there had been toing and froing on the Kyoto Protocol for 12 years, and two years had passed since the Bali Conference, which created the so-called roadmap to Copenhagen. The conference attracted more world leaders than ever before, and the participation of non-governmental organisations also reached a record level. Having attended numerous climate conferences, I noted that this was the first time that the congestion was unbearable. The conference was advertised as the most important in the history of mankind.
The culmination point fell flat. The world was not saved after all. Instead of a climate treaty, the so-called Copenhagen Accord was achieved. It included a modest nod to the demands of climate science regarding the restriction of the rise in temperature, and a promise of money to developing countries.
Those who observed the matter extensively, myself included, were able to tell beforehand that there would be no comprehensive climate treaty. The front lines were so far apart, and the EU’s fantasy that it would be in the lead on climate actions, was completely one-sided. Rather, it was a question of a “follow me, I’m coming right behind you” logic, which has already been smiled at elsewhere for a long time. While the EU still believed in the policy of restriction, heavy legislation, emission limits and emissions trading as a means to combat climate change, the major emitter countries wanted technological cooperation and vigorous investment in emission-reducing technological innovations.
Thus it was no surprise that China, India and Brazil left the EU alone and started out on a new negotiation track. The EU’s policy is an expensive, inefficient and bureaucratic response to the problems. The EU just does not want to believe it, not even now. We are going to Cancun next week, and still the European Parliament is demanding tighter unilateral emission limits for the EU. It is allegedly cheaper now that our economy is in such poor condition.
I find the Parliament’s line irresponsible. Our own group, for whose stand I was responsible in the European Parliament’s Industry, Research and Energy Committee, unanimously opposed the tightening of the emission limit. It would be a better cure to attempt to achieve a global united front than to further raise the threshold for joining it and, at the same time, to continue outsourcing our jobs and competitiveness. If we really raise the target to 30 per cent, the next window of opportunity will be that it is not profitable to make, for example, window glass in the EU.
It can now become incredibly expensive, even for the environment, for poverty is not only a social problem. Environmental protection is usually the first thing to be compromised on.
What is wrong with the EU’s approach?
Let’s compare the situation with cancer, for instance. There is too much cancer, everybody agrees on that. In principle, negotiation-hungry politicians could get the idea of a new international agreement, which would commit participants to reduce the amount of cancer deaths by 20% by the year 2030. The various Member States would ratify the agreement and start the work. Everybody understands what should be done: more money for research, more cancer screening, more correct nutrition and more information and instruction. The correct measures would in due course bring the desired results.
But would states become tempted to attain their own target by means of loopholes? For example, would it be possible to reconsider cause of death diagnoses in order to improve statistics – was cancer the primary cause after all? Or should the backgrounds of immigrants be checked – a bad thing to accept refugees from areas suffering from chemical warfare, for example? And so on. The idea is against common sense but gimmickry could provide rapid help with statistics. Nevertheless, everybody understands that it is only through correct actions that the aggregate whole can be helped.
I confess that, regarding greenhouse gas emissions, I no longer believe in a policy of restriction and emission ceilings. They produce results too slowly and they mostly just pass problems to and fro in the planet’s atmosphere as they transfer emissions from one place to another. Moreover, while considering carbon dioxide only, other serious environmental problems have been forgotten and air pollution has even been increased. Instead of setting emission limits, legislation should be used to motivate us towards correct and justified environmental actions, which are sensible in all circumstances.
I also believe that the entire climate policy suffers from extreme unrealism and hubris. We have bitten off more than we can chew by assuming the goal of “climate control” – it will not succeed. When the history of recent decades is written, it will be called the era of climate megalomania when man’s ability to interfere with nature’s mechanisms was highly exaggerated. I dare claim this, for this project, which is “coming of age”, has produced amazingly few good results. Therefore it would be high time to draw conclusions befitting adults.
It is time to redefine either the goal or the means – preferably both.
Yesterday, information was received that the Japanese government has rejected the Kyoto Protocol. It does not intend to continue on the same track when the treaty expires in 2012. According to the representative of the Japanese government, the treaty is out-dated as it only covers 27% of emissions and thus it is an expensive and inefficient system. Environmental organisations are furious but, in respect of the matter itself, I find the decision welcome. Finally.
Today, information was received that former friends of emissions trading from the Friends of the Earth organisation urge the consideration of other alternatives and confess to the inefficiency of the system. Finally.
Next Tuesday I will leave for Cancun with the European Parliament delegation. In my next blog I will tell what kind of climate policy I myself believe in.