Environmental issues,
sustainable development and the like are among my favourite topics to deal
with, and I aspire to deal with those professionally in the future. Last
Wednesday 5 June 2014, it was World Environment Day and this week
there has been some interesting developments on climate change, energy and emissions
reduction.
There have been two pretty cool
technological developments this week in the media. One is an actual technique,
one is still a concept. First in an article from the news website ScienceDaily, an excellent new technology was discussed and to me, this has a lot of
potential in our modern world. Some anonymous student developed roof tile
coating which can clean the air from smog! Just imagine the potential: all
roofs in cities and villages coated with this substance and our air will be
cleaner to breath. Supposedly it is cheap and does not harm the roof tiles. I
am really looking forward to see developments, I am eager to see it in shops
and put in on the roof tiles.
Second, a Dutchman has developed a concept to collect plastics from our oceans. Our oceans unfortunately are being used as
big ‘toilet bowls’. Because of the currents, there are several so-called
‘plastic islands’: areas where the plastics come together. The concept
invention plastics collector could collect this plastic, clean our seas and
therefore save some hard needed wildlife from death. The article which I read
is in Dutch but there is a video with some explanation. Please watch it! I am
only curious to see whether he will find sufficient funding and what will be
done with the collected plastics. Recycling? Burned? Dumped at landfills? I
guess you know what I would prefer to see.
It is really interesting to see what is
done in the scientific community to save humanity (not the planet. The planet
will be fine, also without us). However, I am a policy animal and this week has
seen some remarkable potential advances. At first, the United States committed itself to reduce the emissions from power plants with 30 percent by 2030. This
is a nice first step but I am rather skeptical. Please allow me to explain my
doubts in a populist way, through talking points:
1. Such target does not include
factories, airline companies, shipping, logistics, households and governmental
buildings. Power plants are large emitters but not the only ones. This target
is a step in the right direction but not more.
2. The president is two years in
his final term. This plan will become active in all states between 2016 and
2020. By that time, there will be a new president who potentially can overhaul
the entire plan. There is a large section in US politics who denies climate
change.
3. If the White House is committed
to this cause, why wait that long? The Obama Administration promised to fight
climate change, and it was a promise made during the first presidential
campaign in 2008. That’s six years ago.
4. In 2015 in Paris, there will be a new UN
climate change conference. This policy can be used to claim that the USA is
engaged in the fight against climate change and does not have to commit itself
internationally.
As you can read, I am rather unconvinced
about the proposed plan by the United States. The European Union said it
welcomes this plan from Obama. I’ll come back to this point later.
That the USA would take some action sooner
or later was expected, but more surprising was the ‘gaff’ from a Chinese
high-level climate change adviser. This individual told that China will include binding climate change targets in its next five-year-plan. China has to act,
that is inevitable. Numerous rivers are drying up, extremely polluted or even
dead: there is no life possible in these rivers. The cities are covered in smog
and extreme weather is hitting rural communities hard. Of course this was not a
gaff; this was a deliberate leak as a run-up to the 2015 UN climate change
conference. It was a way of informing other countries about a possible change
of course in Beijing. An international commitment from China would be a
significant step forward. More countries would be forced to participate and the
EU has promised to step up its game in case there are more countries committed
to climate change policies. However, China is still very much a strong advocate
of sovereignty and so far has not been in favour of multilateral action and
binding commitments. Also, there are several geopolitical concerns at the
moment which can change the policy priorities or can shut down constructive
international negotiations. I mean concerns such as North Korea and the
disputes over numerous islands surrounding mainland China. I will follow China
with great curiosity.
Now I want to come back to the European
Union. I have written extensively about the EU’s efforts in the
field we are discussing, both in this blog and during my academic career. The
EU tries to portray itself as the world leader and trend setter on all issues
related to climate change, environmental policy and energy. And the Union has
done well compared to the rest of the world, which has to be said. The
sustainable development policies for 2020 and 2050 are very ambitious and as a
result the EU has some right to comment on the efforts of others. Therefore I
was not surprised to read the positive press release concerning the USA plan.
However, I want to point at two news articles: EU eyes export help for coal-fired power plants
and EU proposal scraps mandatory 'dirty' label for tar sands. The headlines
tell the full story: The EU wants to give export subsidies to builders of
coal-fired power plants and its equipment, and the Union scrapped the
requirement of labeling for tar sands oil. Both these energy sources are among
the dirtiest in the world and the EU has now decided to (1) support one
financially, and (2) make it easier for the other to enter Europe. Both are
highly contradictory to the efforts of the EU domestically and indicate that
the Union is exporting its own emissions abroad to fulfill its energy needs. The
renewable and green energy could use such a subsidy as well, despite the money
already going to this sector. But what the renewable and green energy sector
could use foremost: passing laws in its favour without the enormous
discussions. The two proposals mentioned above did not cause a storm of outrage
from green interest groups or the negatively affected businesses. When the
renewable and green energy receive support, one can be sure that oil/natural
gas lobbyists and the fossil fuel energy companies seek media attention. Also,
numerous politicians at all levels would speak out. So far, I haven’t been able
to find any response from the European Greens for instance. Quite surprising, isn't
it?
Of course this does not mean that the EU
has changed course or is not committed to fight climate change anymore.
However, it does seem very much in line with the EU’s environmental directives
and regulations, the 2020 Agenda and other sustainable development plans.
Foremost, it can lead to reputational damages, as the EU is acting against its
own principles. Also, this can harm its negotiation powers on the world stage,
for instance at the 2015 UN conference. Other participants might take the EU
less serious and this can endanger the international negotiation efforts. Furthermore,
the timing is very peculiar, because there have just been European Parliament
elections (EP). At the moment there is no EP in session and the European
Commission is finishing up its work. Therefore, I see three potential problems
and reasons why the European Commission introduced these two pieces of policy at
this moment:
- The European Commission deliberately waited until after the elections, to wait for the EP to not be in session. This would undermine the European democratic process;
- The European Green parties and NGOs have not outspoken against these policies. This is of course very strange. At the moment, the media is focused on other topics (Ukraine, D-day for instance). This could mean that the climate change advocates only speak out when they have an easy podium to steak from. Therefore, do they really care?
- It can also mean that the European Green advocates’ hands are tied because of the negotiations for the top positions within the EP and the negotiations within the factions, to include new Green movements with the European Greens factions in the EP. That would mean that politics is getting in the way of progress.
All three options are equally disturbing.
No comments:
Post a Comment