Blog
30.June 2008 - 05:02
Translating discretions
“Influential work doesn’t mean that the actors produce proposals for amendments, which serve to attenuate the phrasing on climate change and to oppose almost everything that has been done in order to protect the climate; in other words, Kyoto Protocol, emissions trading and renewable energy targets.”
My colleagues Sirpa Pietikäinen and Satu Hassi ended their commentary report of today with this sentence. The hint seems to be superficially subtle but in plain words it means that Korhola is proposing harmful amendments. And also, that there are some “correct” things which will be performed in order to protect the climate: these include the Kyoto Protocol, emissions trading and renewable energy targets. At the same time, there is a resentful undertone that Korhola objects to exactly these “correct” things to do.
I cannot do anything else but just thank for the honour and acknowledgement. This says it all, and even confirms my efficiency.
However, as so very often, the truth is something different in this case, too. I will tell you now how different it is.
I really toned down the wording in regard to climate change, since the Parliament wanted to “condemn the attempts to make the results of studies on the reasons and effects of climate change look suspicious, unsure or questionable”. I wanted to attenuate this alarmingly patronising sentence; in fact, I wanted to delete it totally, as it is always very risky for politicians to get mixed up with the research results of scientists and their interpretations – I’ve justified this theme more specifically in my speech at the plenary session.
And yes: I object to the Kyoto Protocol as it is ineffective and bureaucratic. It is high time that we notice that the Kyoto emperor is naked and we look for more efficient means and agreements. The Nature magazine published an interesting article on this subject last autumn. I referred to this article in my Finnish blog Nature threw a hard punch at Kyoto (Nature antoi Kiotolle kovanpuolen tällin). China’s emissions, upon which Kyoto has no influence, will increase at such a pace that in 2030 they will be as high as the emissions that are now generated by the entire world. What use would it be, if a fourth of the world suffers while dancing to Kyoto’s tune? The Kyoto Protocol is not only ineffective but also dangerous, because it has curdled the discussion on new approaches and more efficient alternatives. I have written about this subject in my Finnish blog Stern, Science and Nature (Stern, Science ja Nature), among others.
And yes: I object to the emissions trading system in its present form. And why would anybody admire a system as a climate action, if that system unreasonably enriches electricity providers without bringing any climate benefit in exchange? The Commission must have finally understood the problems of emissions trading. As early as 2002, I was the first member in the European Parliament who picked up the issue of the problems of carbon leakage and windfall profits. At one time, the Commission even rejected their existence, but nowadays anybody can study the Emissions Trading Scheme and discover how the Commission now recognises this to be a problem. I myself have written about this subject for years now, here is one example: What went wrong in emissions trading (Mikä päästökaupassa epäonnistui). I don’t object, in principle, to emissions trading; a good version could be made out of it.
And yes: I object to the current form of the Commission’s new proposal for a directive concerning emissions trading. It is necessary to propose amendments to it. It is extremely important not to subject everything to auctioning, as there is no guarantee that the most efficient emission reductions would be obtained; most probably, it will only result in massive expenses. I do not oppose the emissions cuts as such. I would really like to make this point clear for the ladies in question. I only think the method is problematic. I would also like to point out that I’m not alone in my criticism nor am I some kind of oddball: the most important members of our group have signed the proposed amendments that I’ve prepared; Florenz, among others, who is the Parliament’s climate change rapporteur and former vice-chairman of the Committee on the Environment. I have explained the problems in the Commission’s proposal in my Finnish column Manipulations, speculations and an auction (Manipulaatiota, spekulaatiota ja huutokauppaa).
Last but not least: yes, I oppose the renewable energy target with this timeframe (20-20) and actually, others should also think about this, especially as a week ago, the journal Nature Geoscience warned that carbon sinks are threatened by the renewable energy target. This is exactly the point of which I am also totally sure; meaning that, sooner or later, even the environmental organisations have to realise what dangers this directive they actually campaign for brings. But let’s hope that it will not be “later”, as there is not much time left to find an efficient way to combat climate change and we can’t afford to destroy our forests. (And when the people will some day notice what kind of danger this directive poses our forests, I bet that they will quickly change their opinion and let us all understand that they have always been critical towards the use of biomass.) There is more about the subject in my Finnish blog What went wrong with the directive on the renewables and why isn’t wind good enough for me? (Mikä uusiutuvien direktiivissä on vikana ja miksei tuuli kelpaa minulle?).
Dear ladies, apparently you know what should really be done in order to protect the climate. Please tell me why it hasn’t worked out any better or more efficiently. The EU has increased its emissions, as did also the rest of the world. And the speed is already making me dizzy.
In Finnish: http://www.korhola.com/2008/06/hienovaraisuuksien-suomennoksia/
“Influential work doesn’t mean that the actors produce proposals for amendments, which serve to attenuate the phrasing on climate change and to oppose almost everything that has been done in order to protect the climate; in other words, Kyoto Protocol, emissions trading and renewable energy targets.”
My colleagues Sirpa Pietikäinen and Satu Hassi ended their commentary report of today with this sentence. The hint seems to be superficially subtle but in plain words it means that Korhola is proposing harmful amendments. And also, that there are some “correct” things which will be performed in order to protect the climate: these include the Kyoto Protocol, emissions trading and renewable energy targets. At the same time, there is a resentful undertone that Korhola objects to exactly these “correct” things to do.
I cannot do anything else but just thank for the honour and acknowledgement. This says it all, and even confirms my efficiency.
However, as so very often, the truth is something different in this case, too. I will tell you now how different it is.
I really toned down the wording in regard to climate change, since the Parliament wanted to “condemn the attempts to make the results of studies on the reasons and effects of climate change look suspicious, unsure or questionable”. I wanted to attenuate this alarmingly patronising sentence; in fact, I wanted to delete it totally, as it is always very risky for politicians to get mixed up with the research results of scientists and their interpretations – I’ve justified this theme more specifically in my speech at the plenary session.
And yes: I object to the Kyoto Protocol as it is ineffective and bureaucratic. It is high time that we notice that the Kyoto emperor is naked and we look for more efficient means and agreements. The Nature magazine published an interesting article on this subject last autumn. I referred to this article in my Finnish blog Nature threw a hard punch at Kyoto (Nature antoi Kiotolle kovanpuolen tällin). China’s emissions, upon which Kyoto has no influence, will increase at such a pace that in 2030 they will be as high as the emissions that are now generated by the entire world. What use would it be, if a fourth of the world suffers while dancing to Kyoto’s tune? The Kyoto Protocol is not only ineffective but also dangerous, because it has curdled the discussion on new approaches and more efficient alternatives. I have written about this subject in my Finnish blog Stern, Science and Nature (Stern, Science ja Nature), among others.
And yes: I object to the emissions trading system in its present form. And why would anybody admire a system as a climate action, if that system unreasonably enriches electricity providers without bringing any climate benefit in exchange? The Commission must have finally understood the problems of emissions trading. As early as 2002, I was the first member in the European Parliament who picked up the issue of the problems of carbon leakage and windfall profits. At one time, the Commission even rejected their existence, but nowadays anybody can study the Emissions Trading Scheme and discover how the Commission now recognises this to be a problem. I myself have written about this subject for years now, here is one example: What went wrong in emissions trading (Mikä päästökaupassa epäonnistui). I don’t object, in principle, to emissions trading; a good version could be made out of it.
And yes: I object to the current form of the Commission’s new proposal for a directive concerning emissions trading. It is necessary to propose amendments to it. It is extremely important not to subject everything to auctioning, as there is no guarantee that the most efficient emission reductions would be obtained; most probably, it will only result in massive expenses. I do not oppose the emissions cuts as such. I would really like to make this point clear for the ladies in question. I only think the method is problematic. I would also like to point out that I’m not alone in my criticism nor am I some kind of oddball: the most important members of our group have signed the proposed amendments that I’ve prepared; Florenz, among others, who is the Parliament’s climate change rapporteur and former vice-chairman of the Committee on the Environment. I have explained the problems in the Commission’s proposal in my Finnish column Manipulations, speculations and an auction (Manipulaatiota, spekulaatiota ja huutokauppaa).
Last but not least: yes, I oppose the renewable energy target with this timeframe (20-20) and actually, others should also think about this, especially as a week ago, the journal Nature Geoscience warned that carbon sinks are threatened by the renewable energy target. This is exactly the point of which I am also totally sure; meaning that, sooner or later, even the environmental organisations have to realise what dangers this directive they actually campaign for brings. But let’s hope that it will not be “later”, as there is not much time left to find an efficient way to combat climate change and we can’t afford to destroy our forests. (And when the people will some day notice what kind of danger this directive poses our forests, I bet that they will quickly change their opinion and let us all understand that they have always been critical towards the use of biomass.) There is more about the subject in my Finnish blog What went wrong with the directive on the renewables and why isn’t wind good enough for me? (Mikä uusiutuvien direktiivissä on vikana ja miksei tuuli kelpaa minulle?).
Dear ladies, apparently you know what should really be done in order to protect the climate. Please tell me why it hasn’t worked out any better or more efficiently. The EU has increased its emissions, as did also the rest of the world. And the speed is already making me dizzy.
In Finnish: http://www.korhola.com/2008/06/hienovaraisuuksien-suomennoksia/