Commission plans to take a more low-key approach to Buenos Aires climate summit

Date: 29/10/1998

By Simon Coss

ANYONE expecting major developments in the world-wide fight against global warming to emerge from next week's international climate change talks in Buenos Aires is in for a disappointment.

Delegates preparing for the meeting in the Argentine capital say the talks will be more of an opportunity for governments to compare notes and discuss the way ahead than an occasion for announcing new breakthroughs.

Within the European Commission, this somewhat low-key approach can be seen in the attitude of many officials who will be travelling to Buenos Aires.

A year ago, when the EU was girding its loins to go into battle at the global warming talks in Kyoto, Japan, the Commission's tone was decidedly bullish.

Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard, aided and abetted by her trusty spokesman Peter Jørgensen, spent much of the second half of last year issuing hard-hitting declarations to the effect that the EU would not accept any old deal in Kyoto, and taunting the US over its half-hearted commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This no-nonsense approach helped produce a last-minute agreement which set out a variety of targets for cuts in greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, to be met by the international community by 2012. The figure set for the EU was a reduction of 8&percent; below its 1990 emissions levels.

This year, however, the Commission believes a much more conciliatory tone is needed. “Before we went to Kyoto we were not even sure there was going to be a deal, so we had to be somewhat tough in our approach,” explained Jørgensen.

Now that a deal has been struck, Bjerregaard's spokesman argues that the most important thing is to ensure that the international community remains committed to the Kyoto accord.

The biggest disaster which could occur in Buenos Aires, according to the Bjerregaard camp, would be for participants to push for measures which would alienate Washington and lead the US Congress to reject the Kyoto deal when it comes before them for ratification.

Russia, another of the world's major greenhouse gas producers, also needs to be treated with kid gloves, according to the Commission. “We cannot tackle global warming if these two countries are not part of the process. Without the US and Russia, forget Kyoto,” said one Bjerregaard aide.

In the light of this new-found spirit of conciliation, the message now coming out of Europe seems to be that the ends - meeting the Kyoto targets - are more important that the means.

People should not become too obsessed with particular policy initiatives, say officials, arguing that what is most important is to come up with a range of measures which will deliver the desired reductions on time.

But not everyone is convinced by this new, more relaxed approach. Environmental campaigners argue that Europe's stance on one policy option in particular needs to be toughened.

One of the most controversial aspects of last year's Kyoto deal was the acceptance that countries would be able to use the as yet untested practice of 'emissions trading' as a way of meeting some of their greenhouse gas reduction targets. Emissions trading was included in the Kyoto agreement at the insistence of the Americans and has been described as 'buying the right to pollute'.

Although the precise technicalities of the system have yet to be agreed, the theory is relatively simple: all countries eligible to take part in the scheme will be awarded a quota of emissions permits. Those who manage to meet their Kyoto targets without using all of their permits will be able to sell the remainder to countries which have exceeded their limits.

Before Kyoto, the EU, and Bjerregaard in particular, was highly critical of this approach, arguing it would be used as an excuse by some countries, especially the US, to avoid taking serious domestic action to reduce global warming.

After the Japanese agreement was signed, the Union accepted that emissions trading was going to happen but stressed that its use should be strictly limited. At the beginning of this year, the principle that no country should be allowed to use trading to achieve more than 50&percent; of its greenhouse gas cuts was being openly discussed.

However, the Union's line seems to have softened in recent months. At their meeting in Luxembourg in early October, EU environment ministers finally agreed that emissions trading and other 'flexible mechanisms' for reducing greenhouse gases should be “supplemental” to domestic measures.

They also said that a “concrete ceiling” should be imposed on the use of flexible mechanisms, but put no precise figure on what that ceiling should be.

While the 'green' lobby complains that this shows the Union is bowing to pressure from Washington, Commission officials maintain that the EU's main priority must be to try, whenever possible, to work together with the US and not appear overly confrontational.

“It is true that the EU and the US have different priorities on the question of ceilings for flexible mechanisms, but we need to find as much common ground as we can,” said one official.

Even with this new-found eagerness to accommodate Washington's concerns, it will still be difficult for the two sides to agree on every aspect of the climate change question. “We want as much reduction of greenhouse gases as possible and the US wants as little as possible. We want the strictest possible rules, they want the opposite,” said one expert.

Although they will not employ the same table-thumping tactics displayed in Kyoto, Union representatives will nevertheless travel to Buenos Aires with certain goals in mind.

Key among these will be a call for the international community to draw up a detailed action plan which includes a clear timetable for resolving what the institution calls the “unfinished business” of Kyoto.

The question of precisely what role the developing world should play in efforts to tackle global warming is also likely to cause some friction in Buenos Aires. The US wants poorer countries to be involved in any post-Kyoto strategy from the outset. The Union, backed by the developing states, says the lion's share of greenhouse gas reduction efforts must be made by the rich countries which are responsible for the vast majority of harmful emissions.

“Action to combat climate change should be addressed first by the world's industrialised countries that created the problem,” says a Commission paper on the Buenos Aires talks.

However, the Union's ultimate commitment to meeting the Kyoto targets will not be tested at Buenos Aires or at any of the subsequent climate change conferences already pencilled in for succeeding years. At some point, the EU needs to stop talking and actually implement the policies needed to deliver promised emissions cuts.

A first step was made this June when, after marathon talks, Eu environment ministers agreed on the reductions each individual member state should make in order to meet the Union's overall Kyoto target. But the really tough decisions still need to be made.

Most climate change experts believe it will be almost impossible for the EU to live up to its commitments if governments do not introduce some form of energy tax.

Until now, they have proved decidedly unwilling to do this because it would undoubtedly be unpopular with voters.

The only plan put forward for EU legislation in this area, a distinctly modest proposal from Taxation Commissioner Mario Monti, remains deadlocked in Council of Ministers negotiations.