Climate change policy is 'dead'
The climate policy of the European Union is now stuck in a dead end. Europe wanted to be the leader – showing the world the way. It wanted to export the "market-economic" instrument of emissions trading as a new standard of regulation. The climate summits in Copenhagen and in Cancun were supposed to herald a successor treaty for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
But both summits yielded zero results. Today it is clear that there is going to be no successor agreement. Also, the option of simply extending the existing Kyoto Protocol was thrown overboard by the main countries at the last G8 summit. The situation in global climate politics can be summarised in short as - there is no policy.
The emerging economies of Asia, especially, are refusing to allow their possibilities for growth to be curbed by obligatory CO2 reductions. Everywhere across the world, climate laws are being buried for good or put on ice. The once ballyhooed instrument of the emissions trading scheme is becoming obsolete. China, India and Australia are waving goodbye. In the US, the Chicago Climate Exchange was closed just after the last mid-term Congressional elections. Just before that, the self-anointed climate pope Al Gore cashed in by selling his shares.
"Climate politics is a dead project" is the buzz-phrase in Washington today. Yet, the EU is still clinging to all the measures and even discussing making them stricter than they already are. As a result, we are now left alone with the political costs of carbon reduction. We are ignoring international reality with an amazing level of tenacity.
As always - we continue to stick to the naive, worn-out argument: "Someone has to start the process." That start is a go-it-alone move. And if we do not wake up to that, then we will ruin our market economy with one-sided massive costs. Regarding industry, this process is happening slowly – almost as a creep. The Emissions Trading Scheme distorts competition to the disadvantage of European companies. As production in Europe becomes more and more costly, sooner or later industry will move to third countries - which do not have such a restrictive and costly climate policy. China and India, for example.
The consequences of the European solo mission become visible with the inclusion of airlines from third countries, into the ETS, in 2012. The row is just beginning to surface now. Since the EU wants to force airlines from third countries to participate, they are constantly taking action against it. Several third countries, such as America and China, went to court to fight this. But it is not just a question of law. A trade war recently started. China just blocked its order of the Airbus A380, in order to display its hostility against the ETS.
There is no way out of the dilemma. With the example of the inclusion of airlines in the ETS, the dimension of this problem becomes obvious. We are completely standing alone regarding the internationally non-enforceable climate measures and the costs are arising. The world is not a carbon market. It will never be one. The inclusion of airlines in ETS either ends in "war in the air", instigated by the EU or it will only be a factual Intra-European Emissions Trading Scheme - with clear disadvantages for European Airlines.
The latter situation is most likely. One of the only ways the European Commission can offer an olive branch is to meekly accept any reforms to the ETS, suggested by the third countries. The EU does not have any scope for negotiations. We have less pull than ever. And the consequences for the European aviation industry will be dramatic. The other option would be the modification of the ETS law. But then the commission would lose face.
Holger Krahmer is a German MEP and member of the Alliance of the Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group, in the European Parliament
When will the media stop showing pictures of power station cooling towers and chimneys of gas fired plants that are only emitting water vapour? Just sensationalism, it is not pollution!
Richard - Australia
Unfortunately, it looks as if Australia will be "looking to lead" once again as the Greens took over control of the Senate (Upper House) as from July 1. Now they can virtually dictate policy to the Labour government, which already relies on the support of independents in the lower house.
There is a growing awarenes in Australia that it might be best to wait and see what other larger emitters do before setting down legislation. But the governemnt is hell bent on introducing a carbon tax early this month and is negotiating a price per tonne with the Greens.
Grant Watt - Glenning Valley, Australia
Richard - Australia. This has been an ongoing battle for nigh on thirty years. I managed to get one TV station to pull an advert about 25 years ago, as they were showing old footage from East Gemany as what was happening in Austalia.
Recently, I have written and telephoned tv news at least 20 times about the footage and stills they use during the carbon debate, all to no avail.
Grant Watt - Glenning Valley, Australia
The solution to looming global warming? Easy. Reduce man-made emissions of carbon dioxide by cutting down on the use of fossil fuels - coal, petroleum and natural gas. Leave them in the ground.
The replacement? Renewables such as solar and windpower. If we phase in natural energy sources quickly enough, we may be able to avert catastrophic climate change.
Or so the story goes. But it is not quite so simple. As the proportion of renewable energy penetrating the electricity grid grows, the reduction of CO2 emissions drops sharply. By the time windpower (and, by analogy, solar) reaches about 20 per cent of the grid, the savings in CO2 emissions are negligible, of the order of a few percent.
The result seems counter-intuitive - surely the more renewable energy, the greater the reduction of CO2 emissions, and the less threat of global warming. But the reason for this finding can be found on the miles per gallon sticker on the windows of new cars.
The mileage for highway driving is always greater than that for city - stop and go - driving. When we touch the brake pedal, we change the engine speed. The lower mileage for city driving means less efficiency from the gasoline, and more pollution per mile driven.
In the same way, when back-up electricity (mostly natural gas power plants) - for the times the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine - is ramped up and down, there are more CO2 emissions compared to when the back-up is running full blast. Result - much of the emissions savings from using windpower or solar is lost.
Research results from Colorado, Texas, Germany, Ireland, Estonia and other countries bolstering the argument. If we are to save the world from the ravages of global warming, we will have to find an alternative to the programs advocated by many governments.
Herbert Inhaber - USA
Every person with some minimum intelligence should know that CO2 (natural and man-made) is indispensable for all life on earth - CO2 producing oxygen through photosynthesis in plants on land and in water.
So people who still talk about "sequestering and burying CO2", are proof of an absolute absence of any intelligence at all. The idea to tax CO2 emissions is a swindlers dream. Who else but corrupt and/or mentally deficient politicians could design the "carbon caps and emissions trading" scheme ETS?
Simple analysis of the very small amount of CO2 emissions shows it is a non problem and that even if all countries closed every coal mine and power station, and stopped all cars, trucks, ships and aeroplanes, it would be impossible to detect any effect on world climate and temperature.
Man-made CO2 is a trace-gas and as such only 0,001152 per cent of the atmosphere and thus of no influence whatsoever on global climate or temperature. Climate on earth is principally influenced by the sun's activity and cosmic rays, while human behaviour is absolutely unable to influence the global climate; so no CO2 involved at all!
This utmost important conclusion has been demonstrated by the bright Danish scientist Prof. Henrik Svensmark and his team. For the good of abundant life on earth, it would be best to let CO2 escape from car exhausts and chimneys unabated.
Therefore, cars and other products that are promoted as "low on CO2 emissions" are obviously in principle not helpful for abundant green nature, although the infinitely small amount concerning manmade CO2 will not affect nature at all; not in a positive sense, nor in a negative sense as explained before.
But it shows plain ignorance to advertise products with "low on CO2 emissions", which ignorance is wholly due to the 30 year long indoctrination with the AGW CO2 lies of the AGW protagonists/alarmists.
F. Eckenhuijsen Smit - Spain
Andrés Jonathan Drew sets out parallels between Sergio Leone's classic film and EU emissions trading scheme
