| Author (Person) | Egenhofer, Christian |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.10, No.14, 22.4.04 |
| Publication Date | 22/04/2004 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 22/04/04 AFTER many years of a tacit "Brussels consensus' that the Kyoto Protocol was good, is the mood changing? The EU, as the staunchest supporter of the protocol, set out to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 5%, seems to have had second thoughts in the light of US rejection and Russia dithering on ratification. Some EU governments such as Italy and Spain, the Finnish economics ministry, various industrial federations and European Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio have argued for dropping the Kyoto Protocol targets. Does this make sense? What is new? The US dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, the moment of Russia's ratification was always uncertain and the EU emissions trading scheme as the cornerstone of its industrial strategy was agreed in December 2002, after having largely accommodated industry's concerns about flexibility. So when one asks oneself what has actually changed, the answer must be, actually, nothing. But at a second glance, this is not entirely true. With the national allocation plans, which assign pollution rights to firms, the full economic implications have started to sink in. But it is especially that some governments have painfully realized how far they are still from meeting their Kyoto targets. And, even then, most member states give in to pressure and are being over-generous to their industries. This not only takes member states further from their targets, but also brings them into a dispute with the European Commission, which has made clear that excessive generosity in the form of over-allocation is not compatible with the treaty's state aid provisions. No wonder, then, that some member states panic and no longer love the child they have borne. The easiest way out is to get rid of the Kyoto Protocol. Using Russian non-ratification would be a convenient excuse. Will the competitiveness issue sink the Kyoto Protocol? The recent statements are in strong contrast to what is actually happening on the ground. All member states are busily implementing the EU emissions trading scheme, some member states are putting into place more domestic policies to that effect. It is true that there are some difficult economic effects. Most likely, however, these effects are concentrated on some sectors. And, most possibly, the effects of climate change policy are smaller than other costs related to currency fluctuations, taxes, cost for regulation of social or other policies. There is now wide acceptance including from the US government that climate change poses a threat. However, it is undeniable that implementation of the policies to achieve the Kyoto Protocol targets can have harsh economic implications. But this is not true for all sectors and companies alike. Efficient carbon reduction policies can lead to economic net benefits. BP has announced that cutting its emissions by 20% has generated a net benefit of $630 million (€528m). Nevertheless, there is strong evidence that some parts of the energy-intensive industries might suffer. While the effects on certain sectors seem to have become widely accepted, there is still debate about the impact in quantitative terms. The carbon price will be the decisive factor. One should not forget that there are many home-made problems that cannot be associated with the Kyoto Protocol. EU governments are unable or unwilling to tackle transport or household emissions. Naturally, if these emissions continue to grow at the current rate, the burden for industry will grow. As has been documented over and over again, energy-efficiency potentials for households are large but at the same time are not realized. What next? Seizing the momentum stemming from the lack of Russian ratification is understandable from some industries' and national governments' perspectives. But it raises the question of the longer-term implications. The EU and some member states, such as Germany, UK, France and Sweden, have politically committed to reduction targets of up to 60% compared to 1990 until 2050 while a number of key EU policies, notably the emissions trading scheme, have been adopted to achieve such long-term targets. The threat of climate change is real and European citizens' commitment towards climate protection policies is sincere. Russia has never said it would not ratify. There are countless initiatives in the US at state, local, business or Congress level while presidential candidate John Kerry has hinted he would bring the US into the protocol, if elected - although after renegotiations. Suspending the Kyoto Protocol targets in the EU would certainly not help these initiatives. Although the call for suspending its targets appears to be popular with some groups, it is at odds with actual developments in policy and society at large within the EU and outside. Russia might ratify any time, thereby bringing the protocol into force. That would leave an EU strategy that is based on suspending the protocol targets and deprive the EU of any leverage in shaping future negotiations. That cannot be in the interest of anybody in Europe and certainly will not make for a comfortable position for European governments. Unless those advocating suspending the targets can come up with a convincing long-term strategy looking beyond Russian ratification, it is hard to see how EU governments will change track. EU progress towards protocol targets
Author argues that despite the refusal by the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and Russia dragging its heels in the matter, it would be a mistake to drop the Protocol targets. |
|
| Source Link | Link to Main Source http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Subject Categories | Environment |
