Archive for December, 2009

As the Copenhagen climate conference appears to be drawing to an inglorious end, it is worth reflecting on the basic problem for environmental policy: in most cases, environmental problems only get cleaned up when they become so bad that the short-term gains from exploiting resources whatever the pollution cost simply cannot be justified any more, no matter how sophisticated the lobbyists’ arguments.

Numerous studies (most recently the TEEB study) show that cleaning up pollution, not ripping up forests, not pouring chemicals into water and so on, will produce long-term benefits for us all. But these are intangible public benefits, and ranged against them are private benefits: huge profits for a few in the short-term from the pillaging of resources.

This seems to be at the heart of the Copenhagen climate non-consensus. Those who will lose out most from climate change are poor, developing countries, especially in Africa and Asia. But in the short or even medium term, what do rich countries have to gain from helping them out? Of course from the point of view of global equity and fairness, the rich world should pay to clean up the global pollution it has caused by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for the last century and a half. But tell that to those who control the purse-strings in wealthy countries.

African countries negotiating in Copenhagen have recognised their weak position – that the only real leverage they have is moral leverage – by scaling back their requests for climate adaptation cash.

I wrote recently about a case that illustrates well the priority given to short-term gain by those that have lobbying power, over the general good, when it comes to environmental questions:

Every Brussels policy edict comes with green edging nowadays. So, when in September Monaco suggested that the best way to conserve the highly endangered and emblematic Atlantic bluefin tuna was to ban international trade in it, the European Commission was quick to lend its support – only to huff and puff when Spain and other Mediterranean countries declined to back it up.

But behind all the talk of sustainability, EU money has been bankrolling the bluefin-decimating fleets. Spanish green MEP Raül Romeva has discovered that the Commission has paid €33.4 million since 2000 to vessels licensed for the bluefin fishery. These boats, many owned by industrial fishing conglomerates, are rather less concerned with conservation than they are with selling at premium prices to the Japanese as much of the giant tuna as possible.

And although the Commission has repeatedly talked about the need to reduce Europe’s fishing-fleet capacity, most of the subsidy has been spent on new vessels that will terrorise any remaining bluefin for years to come. EU money has helped pay for no fewer than 121 boats that participated in the bluefin fishery in 2009, including 15 purse seiners, hated by environmentalists because they indiscriminately scoop up sealife in giant drawstring bags. Meanwhile, scappage payments have been made for just nine vessels. Pass the salt and vinegar! (this article was originally published in Private Eye magazine).

Back in Copenhagen, the EU continues to insist it is leading the world in the fight against climate change, when in reality the only two countries that matter are China and the US. The EU’s climate policies may bring some productivity and innovation benefits but will make no difference when it comes to tackling global warming unless the US comes on board. China meanwhile is becoming more of a superpower every day, and can increasingly call the shots. A international climate deal will be a US-China deal. The rest of us can only hope that it does not totally marginalise us.

The Danish police response to protests at the Copenhagen climate change conference has led to accusations of heavy-handedness and an excessive state response to a largely legitimate demonstration. It all sounds a bit like the G20 protests in London in April, but the Danes must have not bothered to look at that for any lessons that could be learned. They are accused of using the same “kettling” mass-segregation tactics that have now to a great extent been discredited in Britain.

Anyway, in the midst of the demonstration, Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change felt the need to send out a bizarre press notice consisting only of a photo captioned “A policeman and march participant share a smile at the climate march in Copenhagen.” Why the British government felt the need to do PR on behalf of the Copenhagen police is not clear, but for the record, here is that heartwarming image:

Heartwarming moment. Possibly love at first sight?

It’s Crown copyright, by the way.