Posts Tagged climate negotiations

Climate change: still happening

Posted by Stephen Gardner in Environmental armageddon on January 21, 2011

Blink and you’ll have missed it because it has attracted little media coverage, but 2010 was the warmest year on record. According to the World Meteorological Organisation, the global average temperature in 2010 was 0.53 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, while the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has it at 0.62 degrees Celsius above the twentieth century average, making 2010 equal with 2005 as the warmest year on record.

Now just a note for those who will point out that for much of the northern hemisphere December 2010 was extremely cold and snowy: when talking of “global warming” and “climate change”, please remember the clue is in the names. Global warming means the global temperature, on average, is going up. It does not mean that there is uniform warming in all places simultaneously. Climate change means, surprisingly, that the climate is changing. This change can be experienced in many ways: warmer weather in some places, cooler weather in others, more rain and storms and extreme events (as seen in Australia and Russia in 2010). The NOAA also has 2010 as the wettest year on record, in terms of global average precipitation, by the way.

Given the continued global warming trend, it seems surprising that the top EU politicians hardly mention it any more. In particular, the EU2020 strategy seems to be becoming an excuse to put off action on climate change until later. Real action on “low-carbon growth” is now seen as something for 2030 or 2050, rather than now. In recent speeches, Jose Manuel Barroso has barely mentioned climate change. In the EU economic growth priorities for 2011, the notion of sustainable growth does not even feature. In his speech to the first 2011 session of the European Parliament, Barroso briefly welcomed the relative progress in international negotiations on climate change at Cancun (venue for the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, at the end of last year), but then promptly put it in the same bracket as EU agreement on the Eurovignette truck road charging system. Climate change is becoming, it seems, a second division policy area.

And environment commissioner Janez Potocnik is not helping, deciding in the last couple of days to put off until 2013 a review of air pollution legislation that should have happened in 2004. Part of this review would be to set 2020 targets for reductions of some pollutants. Potocnik doesn’t want to put his head above the parapet, it would seem.

But, as climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard said in a recent debate organised by the Lisbon Council, “we’re in for some very expensive solutions if we just continue business as usual”. She wants the EU to increase its 2020 emissions reduction target from 20 percent to 30 percent compared to 1990 levels, but this idea has been on the table for a year without any real development in the discussion. Hedegaard will push it ahead of the next UN climate summit, in Durban, South Africa, at the end of this year. Its acceptance, or not, will be a major test of the EU’s resolve to try and do something about climate change.

, , ,

7 Comments

I’m impressed…

Posted by Stephen Gardner in Environmental armageddon, EU on March 9, 2010

…by Connie Hedegaard. Her pronouncements in the European Parliament this afternoon (9 March) mark an abrupt change of direction for European Union climate policy on a number of points.

First, she wants to reverse the EU position on the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. Before December’s disastrous Copenhagen climate conference, the Commission was saying that Kyoto should be scrapped and replaced by a new treaty. This played up to what the US wanted but was a total obstruction when it came to dealing with developing countries. Now, Hedegaard says the US should come up with an acceptable alternative if it refuses to countenance Kyoto. This is a big change.

Second, she has put deeper emission cuts by the EU back on the agenda, saying the Commission will prepare an analysis of the options for going from a 20 percent to a 30 percent reduction (by 2020 relative to 1990), in time for the June European Council. It’s worth pointing out here that Commission president José Manuel Barroso came close to dropping completely even the suggestion of the 30 percent target from his recent EU2020 plan, so Hedegaard’s revival of it marks a notable victory.

Third, she is talking about starting to make emission reduction plans beyond 2020, with the Commission to produce by the end of the year a paper on “scenarios” until 2030. This is interesting because it forces the powers-that-be to start thinking in serious terms about how very deep emission cuts might be achieved. In principle, if the EU is to keep to its plan of keeping global warming to less than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, radical action post-2020 will be needed.

Will Hedegaard get her way, or will it all be too much to swallow for Italy, Poland and the other reactionaries? We will see. But in the meantime, another Commission announcement today suggests Hedegaard might have a lot to do if she is to change entrenched EU thinking.

The Commission today (9 March) green-lighted a German subsidy of €30 million to ArcelorMittal so it could install a system at one of its steel plants that will reduce carbon emissions by 16 percent (presumably reduce them in relative, rather than absolute terms, which is fine but of course may make no difference to overall emissions). In the long-run ArcelorMittal will benefit because it will cut its energy costs by installing the technology.

Why should ArcelorMittal get this subsidy? The EU is supposed to have a polluter pays principle, and ArcelorMittal made profits of $1.1 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone. Why therefore should they be subsidised by the taxpayer? It is worth noting that ArcelorMittal reduced its costs in 2009 by $2.7 billion (see this report), ie. by closing plants and shedding jobs. Why is the steel giant given a big bung in return?

It is also worth noting that ArcelorMittal is sitting on a huge reserve of carbon allowances given to it as part of the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS). In fact, it has vastly more allowances than it needs, due to over-allocation and due to the recession, which led it to cut production, thus cutting its greenhouse gas emissions. These allowances are transferable to the next phase of the ETS, and can be sold after 2012, which means ArcelorMittal is already sitting on a windfall. The extra allowances freed up by the new technology paid for by the subsidy will boost the windfall even more.

I’m not impressed by that.

, , ,

11 Comments

EU failure in the COP-15 cop out

Posted by Stephen Gardner in Environmental armageddon on December 19, 2009

The Copenhagen debacle shows one thing very clearly: the European Union has minimal political clout to influence international climate negotiations. As I noted in a previous post, in the Copenhagen talks, China and the US were the only voices that really mattered. The Copenhagen result is a stand-off between them. There has been no commitment on the US side (ie. by rich countries) to a programme of emission reduction targets; and there has been no real commitment on the Chinese side to moderate the environmental impact of their march towards global economic dominance. The EU went to the Copenhagen summit with a list of aims and demands, but has been sidelined as the real global powers battled it out.

Let’s take a look at some of those EU aims and see which were achieved. Binding emission reduction targets for rich countries: failure. Quantified carbon intensity reduction targets for emerging economies: failure. Get rid of the Kyoto Protocol in favour of an all-encompassing treaty: failure. Mid-term targets: failure. Meaningful reform of the Clean Development Mechanism: failure. Integrated OECD cap-and-trade system: failure. Firm targets on reducing deforestation: failure. Measures to control aviation and shipping emissions: failure. Firm financing commitments by rich countries in exchange for sustainable development plans from China and the rest: OK, something small has been done here, with a short-term climate fund, and some vague commitments beyond that.

Overall, it’s been embarrassing. All the statements in advance of the summit about the EU leading the negotiations and setting the pace look very foolish now.

The consequences for EU domestic politics will be seen in the months ahead. Will there be any appetite among member states for further emission reduction commitments? I doubt it. Will industry welcome the chance to earn further windfall profits from the free carbon allowances they will receive through the emissions trading system, while at the same time demanding further concessions because there is no “level playing field”? You can be sure of it. And what does it all say about Barroso’s big idea for sustainable development through 2020, and even about the new Commission (is Connie Hedegaard still credible as climate commissioner?)? Not much.

Since the Copenhagen outcome has demonstrated the EU’s weakness on the global political stage, the logical next step would be to look at better use of its trade power. In another environmental field — the REACH chemicals legislation — the EU has shown that it can force behavioural changes on other economies if they want access to EU markets. Schemes factoring in the carbon cost of imports must surely come next.

, , ,

16 Comments

Copenhagen: facing failure

Posted by Stephen Gardner in Environmental armageddon on December 17, 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.

, ,

13 Comments

Heartwarming moment

Posted by Stephen Gardner in Environmental armageddon on December 13, 2009

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?

Heartwarming moment. Possibly love at first sight?

It’s Crown copyright, by the way.

, ,

3 Comments

Copenhagen climb-down

Posted by Stephen Gardner in Environmental armageddon on September 11, 2009

A general scaling-down of ambition in tackling global heating is taking place ahead of the COP-15 – the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in Copenhagen in December.

First, it seems clear that the European Commission has, under pressure from member states, moderated its plans on financial assistance to developing countries to help them deal with climate change. The Commission first published proposals in January for total assistance to developing countries of €175 billion annually by 2020, but this had by yesterday (Sept. 10) been reduced to around €100 billion, of which up to 40 percent could be from the poorest countries themselves, while the largest emerging economies such as China and India will also be required to chip in, based on their share of world GDP.

Green MEPs strongly criticised the revised plans, but the British and German governments put out statements saying the Commission had got it about right, so it seems fairly clear where the pressure came from to cut the financial pledges back.

The centre-right Swedes, meanwhile, seem to be taking a highly politically-pragmatic view. Swedish environment minister Andreas Carlgren, who will be a key negotiator in Copenhagen, has all but dropped mention of mid-term targets (ie greenhouse gas cuts to be achieved by 2020), speaking instead about “credible pathways” towards longer-term goals. This falls in to line with the US, who so far are happy to make promises to be achieved by succeeding generations (ie. goals for 2050), but who will only envisage very moderate cuts in the medium term.

Todd Stern, the US special envoy for climate change, stated clearly the American position yesterday (Sept. 10), in front of a House of Representatives committee. He suggested US negotiators at Copenhagen will stick to the mid-term cuts outlined in draft US legislation – cutting US emissions by 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels, or by around four percent relative to 1990 levels. Stern said he was working on “imparting a sense of reality” to the EU and others who want steeper cuts. “They are not going to get more than that [what is on the table at the moment from the US], so let’s get real,” he said.

He also said that any deal at Copenhagen must “combine a sense of what science says is required” with “a sense of pragmatism” – a strange statement seeming to mean “we will look at what science says is necessary, then do less.” What will prove right in the end, I wonder, political pragmatism, or scientific facts?

Or as Lemmy from Motorhead once said, “I don’t understand people who believe that if you ignore something it will go away. That’s completely wrong – if it’s ignored, it gathers strength. Europe ignored Hitler for years…as a result he slaughtered quarter of the world!”

, , ,

1 Comment