Magazine / Society / Climate / Debate | 03/04/2007

The EU as a Pioneer in Climate Policy

As a resolution adopted at the EU Spring Summit on 9 March 2007 makes clear, the EU intends to assume a leading role in international climate policy. But how great is the consensus among member states?

Only twice in the past has the subject of global warming been as omnipresent in the media as it is now: in 1992 during the UN summit in Rio de Janeiro, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted, and in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was passed in Japan.

Flood: extreme weather situations such as torrential rains are occurring
more frequently.
Photo: stock.xchng

Even in France, where environmental issues aren't very popular, there have been detailed reports on climate change and possible solutions for some time now. And in Germany, too, the issue is receiving more and more attention and making the headlines with increasing frequency. On March 2 2007, the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" dedicated an entire culture section to the climate change debate.

A climate diet every now and then

These days there is general consensus that climate protection measures are necessary. When the Czech president Vaclav Klaus described the warnings of climate researchers as "irrational" back in October 2006, Antje Buchholz, a German correspondent for the Czech newspaper Prazsky Denik, commented with sarcasm on 13 October 2006: "Professor Klaus remains unmoved by the arguments of hundreds of experts."

Climate protection has also become a hot topic for consumers. There are discussions about what the individual can do to help prevent climate change, or in other words, to reduce his or her own CO2 emissions. "There's nothing wrong with putting yourself on a climate diet every now and then - whether it's what you eat, how you travel or how you heat," wrote Hanna Gersmann on 23 February 2007 in the tageszeitung.

The climate as a niche topic

The period between 1997 and 2005, on the other hand, was a kind of blank during which climate change was barely discussed. Climate conferences were spent battling out the finer points of the Kyoto Protocol, and some of those were so complex that it was virtually impossible to convey them to a wider audience.

It was only when the Kyoto Protocol took effect on 16 February 2005 - without the US and Australia - and with the British EU and G8 presidencies in the same year that the issue was taken seriously again. British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that climate change was "the greatest challenge facing mankind this millennium". His team of advisers began drawing up a white paper aimed at turning the British economy into a "low-carbon economy". In Great Britain, interest in the subject of climate change has not waned since.

Reports alarm the general public

Both Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" and the report by former world bank economist Nicholas Stern on the cost of climate change have now turned the niche topic into a global topic. Particularly the "Stern Report", which calculates the cost of global warming, has added fuel to the debate. The economy and growth are no longer being played off against climate protection. Now the latter is increasingly regarded as both a necessity and an opportunity for economic success."

George Monbiot commented on 31 October 2006 in British daily The Guardian that "It is a testament to the power of money that Nicholas Stern's report should have swung the argument for drastic action, even before anyone has finished reading it."

Then last February the first part of the new IPCC Report appeared, compiled by a panel of leading climate experts set up by the United Nations. The IPCC researchers laid the blame for climate change squarely on mankind, and set 2020 as a deadline for the necessary changes.

The EU's climate policy

The European Union has traditionally played a key role in international discussion on climate change, and has always been a driving force at UN climate negotiations. So it's not surprising that expectations for what the EU can achieve for the follow-up to the Kyoto process are high. The agreement is due to expire in 2012. If a basic framework for a post-Kyoto agreement is not laid out at the climate conference in Bali this December, there is the risk of a gap between the two treaties. Among other things, this would be a fatal blow for emissions trading. The emissions trading scheme, which makes emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) expensive for industry by imposing limits, would probably collapse.

Emissions trading: a European model

Yet emissions trading, which represents an attempt to reduce greenhouse gases using a market model, is the EU's flagship project. This has been recognised by EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas. Just before Christmas he rejected the first ten national emissions allocation plans submitted to him for the Emissions-Trading Scheme, saying they didn't go far enough. Shortly beforehand, France had withdrawn its allocation plan, which would probably have suffered the same fate. The British plan had only a small flaw; all the others had major problems as they were far too generous with emissions permits for their industries in the second phase of trading (2008-2012).

The media is following these developments closely. European newspapers welcomed the European Commission's rejection of the emissions plans of certain countries. "The commission has at least shown that it is determined to be a credible regulator," noted Kate Hampton in The Economist of December 1, 2006. On the same day, the French Le Monde wrote that the Brussels authorities "are demonstrating their ability to resist the pressure of the business world." The bottom line in the media appears to be that if the emissions trading scheme fails, the EU will lose its credibility as far as climate protection is concerned.

The EU's action plan

Now, however, the 27-state Union has gone a step further. With the climate summit in Brussels "Europe has reinvented itself," writes Gerd Appenzeller in the Tagesspiegel. In her current capacity as president of the EU, Angela Merkel has managed to bring the other member states to agree on a new climate protection action plan. At the Bali climate conference in December 2007, the EU will offer to reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent by 2020, and will aim for 30 percent should other states agree to take similar steps. In addition, by the same date 20 percent of its overall energy consumption is to be covered by renewable energies - nuclear energy does not count as renewable - and biofuel is to account for ten percent of all fuel. Energy efficiency is to increase by 20 percent, which means energy consumption should go down by the same amount. If the EU reaches these targets it will prove that a prosperous society model can indeed go hand in hand with less destruction of the climate.

An example like this is urgently needed to make consistent climate protection measures attractive enough to encourage emerging states like China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa to take their own initiatives.

A policy of symbols?

Nonetheless, right up to the end of the summit, France and the countries of Eastern Europe tried to have nuclear energy chalked up as an environmentally-friendly energy source in order to get round the target for renewable energies. Moreover, countries like Poland and the Czech Republic are concerned about stringent reduction targets for CO2 emissions because their economies are just starting to catch up with the rest. The Brussels summit brushed over the really difficult issues. No decisions were made as to how the burden of reaching the targets is to be distributed between individual states. Indeed, the summit would have failed without this limitation.

In the March 10th issue of the Nébszabadság, Brussels correspondent László Szöcs summed up the complexity of the situation as follows: "Cyprus needs energy to cool down the country. Denmark needs energy to heat. Finland is expanding its nuclear power facilities while Germany is reducing them. The EU has called for measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which will have a negative impact on the German car industry, while Italian and French cars already fulfil the requirements." Meanwhile, in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung of March 11th, Hendrik Kafsack describes the accord as an "agreement on targets and symbols".

Like Kafsack, most commentators doubt the EU's action plan will actually culminate in an agreement because the goal is to find an "adequate and reasonable" target for each country. But what is "adequate and reasonable"? As Pascal Aubert noted on 13 March 2007 in the French daily La Tribune, "There are as many interpretations as there are stars on the European flag."

Dagmar Dehmer

Dagmar Dehmer has been Political Editor for the Berliner Tagesspiegel since 2001. Her main topics are climate protection, the environment and Africa.
» to author index

Further articles on the subject » EU Policy, » Environmental Policy, » Energy Policy, » Europe
More from the press review on the subject » EU Policy, » Environmental Policy, » Energy Policy, » Europe