Blog
16.April 2005 - 00:00
It is difficult for the EU to achieve its climate goals without nuclear power
In their March Summit Meeting the leaders of the EU Member States agreed to cut 15-30 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 and even 60-80% by the year 2050. In the light of scientific evidence the decision was necessary and pressing. Last Autumn's research report of change in the Arctic climate confirmed the threat of climate change and that the Polar Regions were particularly vulnerable. The prospect of melting polar ice-caps is both real and alarming. Moreover, the recent drought in Southern Europe, especially in Portugal, demands bold political action to slow down global warming.
In other words, the EU's political decisions and rhetoric are sound but their implementation is becoming problematic. A decade of emission reduction has now ended and many Member States now find themselves facing an increase which they cannot halt, now that the easiest reduction measures; the "low hanging fruits" of the emissions basket have been picked. Nine out of the fifteen ‘old’ Member States have failed to hit their own Kyoto goals by over 20%.
The European Commission has also noticed that the emissions curves are now moving in the wrong direction. The EU has corrected the problem on paper and has straightened the curve by offering "additional measures" which, however, have not yet been sufficiently defined. The truth is that unless something radical is devised the EU will soon have to admit that it cannot achieve its Kyoto goals.
Apart from being disastrous for the planet, this would also be very embarrassing for the EU which has got used to being able to accuse the USA for its arrogant climatic policies and its refusal to sign up to the Kyoto protocol.
The EU's own Emission Trading Scheme, aimed at meeting Kyoto commitments simply does not solve the problem. At long last, the dawn of reality is shining on some of the Scheme's distortions in competition regarding quota trading. Poland will be the biggest seller of emissions allowances. It is clear that Poland will be selling nothing but hot air. The emission allowances leading to their trading do not depend on the country's reduction measures but on high levels of past emissions.
When the directive was published many people didn't want to believe that the national emission quotas would upset the emissions trade intended to be a flexible market mechanism, and turn it into something quite different. Countries like Finland, who took the lead in environmental consciousness, are faced with the regrettable fact that their early measures are not adequately rewarded.
Therefore it has to be stated that there is a kind of emissions trading practised in Europe which has more to do with structural politics than with curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, we are now financing Russia until 2012 after which they can, if they want, even withdraw from the Treaty.
The EU has emphasised that future climate policies must have a wider front: it is essential that USA, China, India and Brazil are included in the reduction measures. In the coming decades the 25 EU countries' share of the emissions will drop to under 10% of all emissions at the same time as the developing countries increase their contribution to half of all emissions. Unless the front can be widened, the EU's efforts will not make any difference.
One of the EU's problems is also the weakening of energy self-sufficiency. At present the EU imports half its energy from outside and by the year 2025 its dependence on imports is estimated to exceed 70%. In practice this means being dependent on Russia's natural gas, whose price development is unpredictable. The EU competes with India and China for the available energy while the joy of pricing it is left to Russia. This great dependence is not just an uncertain supply problem: in the near future it can also affect the quality of the EU's foreign policy and human rights.
It is estimated that the use of electricity will grow in all the member countries and this also affects such political aims as the undertakings regarding the information society, which have been based on the availability of electricity.
For the above mentioned reasons the interest in non-emitting energy sources, chiefly nuclear power, is growing again. Finland is not alone in its discussions about building additional plants. France, Great Britain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy and the Baltic countries are also waking up. Also Belgium looks set to dismantle its nuclear shutdown plans which were only formulated a couple of years ago.
As a result of running down nuclear power, the consumption of fossil fuels is growing everywhere. A "political" abandonment of nuclear power is much easier to do than finding adequate alternatives in practice. Sweden has tripled its nuclear capacity after deciding to give it up following a 1980s referendum. In Germany the Social Democrat-Green coalition government is, for reasons of "sustainable development" giving up nuclear power which produces almost 30% of the country's electricity. They don't explain how they will replace nuclear power with emission free generation, because wind power would supply only a small part of the deficit. Germany has a lot of installed wind capacity but it does not produce much electricity because wind power has a short period of peak use. All of Germany’s windmills together produce about 22 TWh a year whereas Finland's fifth nuclear power station will alone produce 13 TWh a year.
However, a decision to build additional nuclear plants should not be made unless it is strongly linked with a political commitment to reduce emissions. Nuclear power alone does not solve the climate problem. What is needed is a holistic strategy based on emissions- free, renewable and cost effective energy. In energy debates, nuclear power has often been set against forms of renewable energy. In the light of climatic goals this juxtapositioning has to be eliminated once and for all, so that the necessary emission reductions can be achieved in practice.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
Phil. Lic.
The writer is a member of the European Parliament and its Environment Committee.
Article published in Helsingin Sanomat
In their March Summit Meeting the leaders of the EU Member States agreed to cut 15-30 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 and even 60-80% by the year 2050. In the light of scientific evidence the decision was necessary and pressing. Last Autumn's research report of change in the Arctic climate confirmed the threat of climate change and that the Polar Regions were particularly vulnerable. The prospect of melting polar ice-caps is both real and alarming. Moreover, the recent drought in Southern Europe, especially in Portugal, demands bold political action to slow down global warming.
In other words, the EU's political decisions and rhetoric are sound but their implementation is becoming problematic. A decade of emission reduction has now ended and many Member States now find themselves facing an increase which they cannot halt, now that the easiest reduction measures; the "low hanging fruits" of the emissions basket have been picked. Nine out of the fifteen ‘old’ Member States have failed to hit their own Kyoto goals by over 20%.
The European Commission has also noticed that the emissions curves are now moving in the wrong direction. The EU has corrected the problem on paper and has straightened the curve by offering "additional measures" which, however, have not yet been sufficiently defined. The truth is that unless something radical is devised the EU will soon have to admit that it cannot achieve its Kyoto goals.
Apart from being disastrous for the planet, this would also be very embarrassing for the EU which has got used to being able to accuse the USA for its arrogant climatic policies and its refusal to sign up to the Kyoto protocol.
The EU's own Emission Trading Scheme, aimed at meeting Kyoto commitments simply does not solve the problem. At long last, the dawn of reality is shining on some of the Scheme's distortions in competition regarding quota trading. Poland will be the biggest seller of emissions allowances. It is clear that Poland will be selling nothing but hot air. The emission allowances leading to their trading do not depend on the country's reduction measures but on high levels of past emissions.
When the directive was published many people didn't want to believe that the national emission quotas would upset the emissions trade intended to be a flexible market mechanism, and turn it into something quite different. Countries like Finland, who took the lead in environmental consciousness, are faced with the regrettable fact that their early measures are not adequately rewarded.
Therefore it has to be stated that there is a kind of emissions trading practised in Europe which has more to do with structural politics than with curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, we are now financing Russia until 2012 after which they can, if they want, even withdraw from the Treaty.
The EU has emphasised that future climate policies must have a wider front: it is essential that USA, China, India and Brazil are included in the reduction measures. In the coming decades the 25 EU countries' share of the emissions will drop to under 10% of all emissions at the same time as the developing countries increase their contribution to half of all emissions. Unless the front can be widened, the EU's efforts will not make any difference.
One of the EU's problems is also the weakening of energy self-sufficiency. At present the EU imports half its energy from outside and by the year 2025 its dependence on imports is estimated to exceed 70%. In practice this means being dependent on Russia's natural gas, whose price development is unpredictable. The EU competes with India and China for the available energy while the joy of pricing it is left to Russia. This great dependence is not just an uncertain supply problem: in the near future it can also affect the quality of the EU's foreign policy and human rights.
It is estimated that the use of electricity will grow in all the member countries and this also affects such political aims as the undertakings regarding the information society, which have been based on the availability of electricity.
For the above mentioned reasons the interest in non-emitting energy sources, chiefly nuclear power, is growing again. Finland is not alone in its discussions about building additional plants. France, Great Britain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy and the Baltic countries are also waking up. Also Belgium looks set to dismantle its nuclear shutdown plans which were only formulated a couple of years ago.
As a result of running down nuclear power, the consumption of fossil fuels is growing everywhere. A "political" abandonment of nuclear power is much easier to do than finding adequate alternatives in practice. Sweden has tripled its nuclear capacity after deciding to give it up following a 1980s referendum. In Germany the Social Democrat-Green coalition government is, for reasons of "sustainable development" giving up nuclear power which produces almost 30% of the country's electricity. They don't explain how they will replace nuclear power with emission free generation, because wind power would supply only a small part of the deficit. Germany has a lot of installed wind capacity but it does not produce much electricity because wind power has a short period of peak use. All of Germany’s windmills together produce about 22 TWh a year whereas Finland's fifth nuclear power station will alone produce 13 TWh a year.
However, a decision to build additional nuclear plants should not be made unless it is strongly linked with a political commitment to reduce emissions. Nuclear power alone does not solve the climate problem. What is needed is a holistic strategy based on emissions- free, renewable and cost effective energy. In energy debates, nuclear power has often been set against forms of renewable energy. In the light of climatic goals this juxtapositioning has to be eliminated once and for all, so that the necessary emission reductions can be achieved in practice.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
Phil. Lic.
The writer is a member of the European Parliament and its Environment Committee.
Article published in Helsingin Sanomat