New Atlantic Alliance Needed to Fight Carbon
The European Union says climate change is "one of the greatest environmental, social and economic threats facing the planet." But can Europe sustain its commitment to fighting climate change in the face of skyrocketing energy costs and its growing dependency on Russia for natural gas?
The EU launched the world's first cap-and-trade system in 2005. Under this scheme, allowances for carbon emissions (caps) are assigned to the worst industrial polluters -- electricity, oil, building materials and paper. A company exceeding its carbon limit can buy additional allowances from companies that have credits (unused allowances) on a special carbon exchange.
In practice, the system isn't working as intended because basic carbon allowances were set too high and given out free of charge. So early this year the EU adopted a Plan B. Aimed at deeper carbon cuts, it sets a tougher EU-wide cap on overall emissions and progressively replaces free allowances with ones that must be purchased through an annual auction.
But now many Europeans are having second thoughts.
They face a dizzying rise in oil and natural gas prices, and they worry about Russia's ability to cut off the natural gas it sells to Europe. Italy recently announced plans to return to coal-fired power in the next five years, and countries like Germany and Poland will be tempted to follow suit. Unfortunately, the abundant coal in both countries is mostly low grade and highly polluting.
So will Europe stay the course on climate change? Can it? It can, but only if the United States becomes an active partner in the "war" on global warming.
The climate-change summit set for December 2009 in Copenhagen presents a made-to-order opportunity for America to do the right thing and to repair its battered reputation in the world.
Ten members of the European Parliament's Climate Change Committee recently visited Washington with a message for U.S. leaders: "(We) expect the next U.S. administration to make climate change a priority -- and to begin drafting the relevant domestic legislation -- from day one." The European legislators urged President Bush's successor "to do everything in his or her power to overcome every domestic obstacle standing in the way of an international agreement in Copenhagen."
The U.S. can learn from Europe. Europe's carbon footprint is much smaller than America's, despite the fact that Europe is the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, that the EU has a larger population -- 500 million vs. 300 million -- and that the EU's single economy is a mirror image of our own. What is Europe's secret?
Energy efficiency and conservation have long been a way of life in most of Europe. Cheap gasoline, for example, is something Europeans have never known because of high taxes at the pump. Regular gasoline now costs $8 to $9 a gallon in most EU countries. Fly over Europe's cities at night and the contrast with ours is striking -- the landscape below is shrouded in relative darkness.
In 2007, The Economist magazine notes, "the signal was clear: Europe will start saving the planet now, even if the selfish Americans (not to mention the Chinese and Indians) are not ready." But at the EU summit in March, leaders of nations with major-league business lobbies -- including Germany, France, Italy and Austria -- called for measures to protect European heavy industries in case the Copenhagen climate summit fails to produce a deal.
Without strong U.S. backing in coming years, Europe cannot succeed in "saving the planet." The United States and the EU are the world's two biggest markets; together they account for roughly half the world's total annual output. As partners in a global cleanup, they would have enormous leverage.
Whoever moves into the White House in January has a historic opportunity. The upcoming election is not only about the war in Iraq or the economy. It's also about protecting the planet.
Europe can't do it alone. Let's listen to what our presidential candidates are saying this time around as if the future of the world hinges on the outcome. It just might.
Tom Magstadt, author of "Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues," lectures on the European Union at the University of Kansas. He wrote this comment for the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
5 Comments so far
Show AllGotta go with the reputable scientific community: there is no doubt that we are causing the demise of the planet. We are in danger of being responsible for an ever greater number of species' loss (the number that we have already caused is a greater shame than we should ever have taken on) ... We are such a stupid, self-important species of ape :(
MeAlsoToo: [Any casual review of the 'greenhouse-effect' reveals that CO/Methane and sulfur/nitrous-compounds are the real Culprits — CO2-levels may play a factor in actually 'cooling the climate', and definitively are helping oxygen-producing and carbon-fixing Flora]
I agree. Anything more than extremely casual review will reveal your post to be absolute nonsense
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
Ya, the carbon is a real bummer. Carbon is the basis of all biological life on earth, which clearly represents the major threat to our Blessed Mother Earth. So what we really need to do is get rid of carbon-based life and replace it with silicon-based life, otherwise known as integrated circuits. Silicon-based life from sillyConValley(); would do the trick really well and this would finally rid our Blessed Mother Earth of carbon once and for all. Then we could all rejoice as we're dying that we had saved The Planet from us. How Christ-like!
You see, clearly we humans are the problem. We need to eliminate ourselves as quickly as the technology will enable. And, thankfully, there are Post-Humans in the works who will do a nice job of replacing us. Check it out at http://www.sillyconvalley.net/buildingposthumans.html
Oh, as for eradicating ourselves, no problem. There are already lots of contaminated vaccines on the market that will work just fine. We can accelerate the purge by auxiliary means such as engineered food shortages, endless wars on terror, nuclear wars on Islamofascist nations, and Peak Oil and Peak Water scams. Other ingenious methods can be brought to bear to intensify the surge, such as genetically modified foods that give everybody cancer, fluorides in the water, and other really cool methods like that. And don't worry, if that doesn't do it we here in sillyConValley(); will come up with something else. As long as it makes us a fast buck we can do it!
We could all learn a lot by following Norway's lead. Norway is very pro -environment but this does not prohibit it from developing viable off shore drilling endeavors. Norway is very proactive in other alternative energy sources as well - e.g. hydro energy. We need to follow their lead by snapping out of the "all or nothing" mentality and going for "fair and reasonable". We do not have to sacrifice the environment for the sake of energy (or vice versa). Norway proves that this is so.
The world has been-extant a very long time, and will hang-in-there for a long-time, yet -- requiring no 'Saving' by its chief-Parasite (although that parasite could certainly do with a nudge towards 'symbiosis&sustainability').
Yes...there has been Climate-Change/damage, and its caused by 'Man' -- but, this overall focus upon Carbon (particularly upon atmospheric carbon-dioxide) is ridiculous, counter-productive, and as much Hoax/Mythos as "Peak Oil" and our "GWofT".
We're rapidly entering a planned, Chaotic-future wherein such Mythos will enable and machinate mass-starvation, and the denial of Development/energy/Food/Water/etc. to those not favored by the Western-Elite. Carbon-taxation, and the nonsense of focusing on CO2 as principal "greenhouse-gas", is being employed to achieve Ends that are NOT in the public-Interest.
Most current and induced Climate-Change is the direct result of unregulated/coal-burning Utilities, dust from needless nuclear-'testing', and projects like HAARP -- not the recent/beneficial build-up of CO2. [Any casual review of the 'greenhouse-effect' reveals that CO/Methane and sulfur/nitrous-compounds are the real Culprits -- CO2-levels may play a factor in actually 'cooling the climate', and definitively are helping oxygen-producing and carbon-fixing Flora]