EU climate deal - can it, or can't it?
POZNAN, POLAND: So the numbers are still in the deal; and if the numbers are all, as the EU claims, then everything in the world's climate garden smells of roses.
Following what have apparently been strenuous talks, the 27 EU nations that have just agreed an energy and climate package in Brussels are still intending to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called it "the most ambitious package anywhere in the world". The targets themselves aren't the world's most ambitious, but the bloc is the first to set out a detailed raft of mechanisms for making the cuts.
The EU decision has practical and symbolic significance - practical because of its impact on greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, and symbolic because the EU traditionally claims to be the world's leader on climate change, and so what it does affects what others are prepared to do.
So we find the Brussels decision reverberating around the halls here in Poznan, half a continent away, where 189 members of the UN climate convention have been haggling for two weeks over what might and what might not go into a new global pact which is supposed to be finalised in a year's time.
Stavros Dimas, the EU's environment commissioner, suggested here that the numbers are indeed all, as did French ecology minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet. Their line is that the rest of the world will look at the EU decision, see the 20% figure intact, and be satisfied that the bloc is making firm commitments to reduce emissions at a time of financial strife.
As Mr Barroso put it, in a play on Barack Obama's campaign mantra: "The EU's message to global partners is 'yes you can'."
But the small print of the agreement may tell a different story.
Let me bombard you with a few numbers. EU emissions are already about 9% below 1990 levels; so a further 11% is needed to reach the 2020 goal.
Countries will be allowed to purchase 3-4% of that by buying emission credits outside Europe - through, for example, building renewable energy facilities or paying to plant carbon-absorbing forests in developing countries.
So that leaves a target from now of 7-8%. But companies and countries can, if they want, buy extra credits on the open market until 2012 and bank them, effectively betting that the early investment will save them money in the long run.
Calculations by WWF suggest that could result in a further 3-4% being lopped off the target; so now the concrete pledge could amount to a 4% reduction over the next 12 years.
One more number crunch. The EU package envisages not a 20% but a 30% cut by 2020 if there is a global deal.
The UK Committee on Climate Change, when presenting recommendations to the UK government at the beginning of the month, took a twin tack approach, effectively saying "you should do x if the EU target is 20% and you should do y if it ends up being 30%."
The European Council deliberations over the last two days have barely mentioned the 30% target, let alone plotted a path towards achieving it if it comes into play.
Mme Kosciusko-Morizet said a decision was taken to "prepare for 20%, and then set up a decision-making process that would enable us to adapt to the 30% figure".
Remembering that from today's levels of emissions, 20% and 30% really mean 11% and 21%, that means the EU may suddenly have to decide how to double the level of its existing commitment - and the option of buying carbon credits from abroad has already been heavily exercised.
Plus the concentration on 20% could send the message that the EU isn't expecting a global deal any time soon.
Phew. Sorry to burden you with so many numbers, but the phrase "the devil is in the detail" could have been coined for this issue - it's a perfect description, and one of the reasons why I have lost so much hair doing this job.
And I haven't even mentioned yet the other numbers that have some observers hopping mad - the derogations that will allow some sectors of industry to get their pollution permits for free rather than having to buy them.
Predictably, environmental groups have condemned the package.
Tomas Wyns from the Climate Action Network called it "a very dark day for EU climate politics", for Stephan Singer of WWF it was "an embarrassment".
Oxfam's Elise Ford, concerned that the package will not now be raising funds earmarked for helping the poorest countries adapt to climate impacts, said that "millions of poor people have been left in danger because EU leaders bowed to business lobby pressure and faltered at an historic moment".
This isn't the final EU word on the matter. The European Parliament meets on Wednesday, and it could yet throw the package back to governments; certainly some MEPs are already talking of rejecting it as unacceptably weak.
If that happens, the game of ping-pong could go on for some time.
The impact on developing countries, without whose engagement there cannot be a global deal, will take some time to emerge; there is lots of small print to digest.
One African delegate I spoke to wasn't impressed by the level of ambition. "It's not enough," he said.
If that turns out to be a widely-held view, all bets on reaching that elusive Copenhagen deal would be off.
Delegates here stood and cheered Al Gore's speech to the rafters as he, too, used the Obama line of "yes, we can".
While the large print of the EU package might give the same message, there's a chance that the small print will be heard as "no, we couldn't" - in which case, the response might be "well, we can't either".
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
"Delegates here stood and cheered Al Gore's speech to the rafters as he, too, used the Obama line of "yes, we can"."
Call me cynical, but Al Gore and his company Generation Investment Management, a company set up with David Blood, Ex-Goldman Sachs Asset Management?s CEO to invest in companies producing all things green, must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Complain about this comment
This is a complete scam.
Global temperatures peaked in 1998, and have been falling ever since. They have now dropped down to the level they were at in 1990. The hypothesis that extra CO2 causes warming is well and truly disproven.
How can the BBC continue to ignore this?
Complain about this comment
So, despite the increasingly politicised and discredited IPCC , our so called leaders use plant food gas as an excuse for increased taxation.
When will we get some objective and balanced reporting from the BBC for our licence fee ?
Complain about this comment
The problem of European Union is its eurocentricity, unreasonable expectation for the rest of the world see logic in a complex decision making that locally is seen 'clever'.
Countries like Venezuela and Iran have been advocated not to develop their own nuclear energy sectors while at the same time they are derided of using fossil fuels.
Whilst most countries probably will not go to same extent 'to put their foot down' on Europan or American dictates, instead of opting for clean energy they go for the easy goal: coal. Coal is never enemy of America or Europe like nuclear fuels and energy are.
There are no President in the Third World today wondering what is the real priority in Europe and America.
Europe expects solar cells and wind turbines be the recommended "cheap" forms of energy for China, India and Africa
to wean off CO2 emissions. Yet, more nuclear power is built by the Western countries while apparently preaching against nuclear energy industry in Middle East, Asia and Africa.
"Thou shall, I won't" seems to be the slogan in the energy mix by Europe. President Bush has at least been honest by declaring that he cares little for air quality, does not want nuclear energy for Iran or others and wants more fossil fuel energy.
The sad point is that Europes treatment on Iran's idea of reducing CO2 emissions are looked as example by tens of countries who may block any unfair, eurocentric and short-sighted deal in Copenhagen next year.
50% nuclear / 50% renewable will be the choice of the moment until there are enough clean energy equipment available on the marketplace to replace dirty energy.
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
Complain about this comment
What an utter farce. No global warming for a decade, temperatures falling, and yet more billions being screwed out of the innocent taxpayer on another white elephant project. The BBC are out of line for not reporting the falling global temperatures despite rapidly rising CO2. We've seen what happens this year when you give supposed "experts" too much power - they abuse it like anyone. I implore readers to look at the global temperature data and make their own mind up - something the BBC seemingly don't want to do as they refuse to show temperature charts. i wonder why that is?
Complain about this comment
To Richard Black
Thank you for you reporting. You manage to toe the BBC's editorial line, be informative and at the same time avoid the laughable exaggeration and alarmism displayed by so many of your contemporaries.
In 20 years when someone publishes a comic anthology "What they used to say about Global Warming" you will be spared ridicule.
Complain about this comment
Now let me recall. This is all about stopping global warming.
Well, it looks like the efforts so far have been very encouraging as temperatures have dropped steadily for a few years. Perhaps it's time to stop the efforts incase we bring about catasropheic global cooling!!
Come on good people, when are we going to knock this ridiculous hoax on the head once and for all and save all this wasted time and our taxes.
Complain about this comment
There are a bunch of dedicated skeptics here. For example, they all seem to be reading from the same script, about global temperatures dropping since 1998. Where did they get this from? Please read this carefully written and documented article on temperature trends in the last 50 years:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
About halfway through is a graph which shows the dramatic rise in temperature during the 1990s and 2000s.
I don't know if those commenting negatively here are misinformed from another source (I would like to see where they get their information from) but it is a dangerous error they are making, sadly enough.
Complain about this comment
PlanetThoughts
I don't doubt that recorded temperatures rose towards the end of the 20th century. The current trend is, however, downwards. Now I know you will say that recent temperatures are weather not climate and I would agree, but there is nothing unusual about changing climate. Climate has always changed and always will. There are many explanations for the rise in temperature including natural events, changes in siting of weather stations, changes to the coating used to protect weather stations, solar, etc etc, so just because the temperature fluctuates doesn't mean that man is responsible.
Your link also shows the often discredited Hockey Stick and it amazes me that the BBC's Climate Wars, the IPCC etc etc still hold up this worthless piece of propaganda. If you read the articles on the history of the Hockey Stick you would see the slight of hand carried out by it's producer. I know you will say there are many alternative temperature reconstructions that agree with Manns Hickey Stick, but you must know that many of these "independent" studies are either based on the same data or are "peer-reviewed" by the same people who are promoting AGW. Why do you think these people are so reluctant to have their work scrutinised by outsiders? NASA can't even be bothered to check the temperature data received from people like NOAA and we all know that NOAA have made serious mistakes when issuing their data, don't we?
Instead of asking why we are sceptical, try reading the information for yourself and then understand why there is no consensus on man made climate change, indeed there is a growing consensus that climate change is happening, but we are not responsible. 650 scientists, which is more scientists than actually authored the IPCC report, are now prepared to say publicly that they do not think climate change is man made.
Complain about this comment
Oh, PlanetThoughts
Read the work by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski on CO2 and you will see why CO2 is not the culprit in "man made global warming". You could also visit CO2 Science for reasons why CO2 is not a pollutant
Complain about this comment
CHANGING FUTURES: HAPPY BIRTHDAY CLIMATE CHANGE AND POPULAR CULTURE?
For those who also follow the history of things environmental, today is a date for the calender.
Six years ago today at 4.13pm on 19th December 2002, the original risk assessment that:
"climate change is a greater threat than terrorism", was published.
This was used to try and justify a change in UK foreign policy, away from a war on Iraq, with the recommendation that climate change and Africa be two areas of focus instead.
Climate change and Africa also becoming the agenda of the 2005 Gleneagles G8.
Or as the lawyers qualification is. If the document wasn't the original source, it is even more extraordinary that it managed to 'predict' these events.
Celtic Lion
Complain about this comment
As one would say the jury is out on Global warming . I understand that EU is attempting to focus on the problem . I do agre that any nation and the world should work and develop clean useful energy and industry ...but what aboy the out cry from nations such as China, India . Those nations would claim that the Western nations had their turn ... true point . What do we do ?? There is no clear answer because those nations will act in a national interest ..not a world interst .
The EU in its wisdom attempts to advise , in this brave new world, their efforts about Global warming . Show by example !
Let's presnt the facts from what I understand ..and please correct me if the facts are incorrect .
Germany :
Is in the process of building between twenty -five to twenty - eight coal fired power plants within the next ten years ( These are the raw facts unless the new plants are replacements for old pcoal fired plants ..but no natural gas , wind , solar plants to replace coal fired if that is the case .
Italy
Plans to develop more use of coal fired plants so they will rise from 14% to 33% coal fired.
EU
The plan for the EU is to build about fourty coal fired plants within the next five years . These projected power plants will not be fuled by nucular , natural gas ( Think of Russia or the "new " USSR ) wind , thermo.
China
To date built more coal fired plants that would be able to generate power to the UK !
So please as an American I understand that a clean world is a healthy world but ..don't say and do other things !!!!!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS