Questioning EU Policies On Greenhouse Gas Emissions
By Dr.Peter Custers
11 July,
2008
Countercurrents.org
Debate and public opinion building
on climate change should, amongst others, seriously question the existing
policies of the European Union. Forceful demands need to be formulated
and canvassed for internationally, stating that the EU move beyond
the limited targets which its institutions and most Europe-based environmental
organisations have so far set.
Recently, a spate of newspaper reports have described the alarming
predictions made by the team of scientists that is led by the renowned
US climate change scientist James Hansen. According to this team's
assessments, the dangers of rapid climate change have so far been
seriously underestimated, and the rise in global seawater level alone
could result in Bangladesh being eliminated from the earth within
this century. Since climate catastrophe urgently needs to be averted,
these American scientists advise that carbon dioxide emissions into
the atmosphere do not just need to be brought down. In fact, existing
atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, now estimated to be 385 parts
per million, themselves need to be reduced.
Bangladesh, as even its present 'interim'-government appears to realise,
can ill afford to ignore the views expressed by these critical scientists.
Yet, what demands should be formulated towards the European Union
and other 'donors' who are primarily responsible for the dumping of
CO2 in the atmosphere? is the European Union leading the way in saving
the planet, or are its policies lagging behind the findings and demands
of climate science? Below, I would liked to criticise both the targets
which the European Union has so far set itself vis-a-vis European
emissions of greenhouse gases, and the methodology which it applies
to achieve its reductions. A discussion regarding these topics should
be helpful towards formulating demands which put the future survival
of Bangladesh and of life on the earth first.
First of all, there is a problem with the EU's targets. The EU's policy
on targets is in line with the estimate of the International Government
Panel of Climate Change that a rise in the world's temperatures of
two degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels is acceptible. However,
scientific evidence collected by James Hansen's team at NASA's Goddard
Institute in the US, based on their paleoclimatic studies, indicates
that acceptance of a two degree Celsius change of climate as 'safe'
rests on dangerous illusions. Even a 1.7 degree increase in global
temperatures most likely will already set in motion processes of 'feedback'
(notably the 'albedo flip'), which will result in a disastrous rise
of water levels in the world's oceans.
A second target of the EU that needs to be disputed with force is
the target of a shift from reliance on fossil fuels towards renewable
energy sources, to the extent of 20 percent by 2020. Even if this
shift be combined with reliance on the capture of carbon dioxide at
source, which itself is a disputed methodology towards achieving emission
reductions, the combined reductions will not suffice to achieve the
target which conscientious scientists believe needs to be set and
implemented, in order to prevent worldwide catastrophe. There is growing
consensus amongst scientists and other public opinionbuilders, that
the world's chief emitters of greenhouse gases need to aim at reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases by as much as 90 percent in the very
shortest possible time, i.e. within a few years' time.
The next major criticism of the EU's policies relates not to targets
bu to the lack of convincing or even substantial results up until
now. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the EU was to achieve gradual and limited
reductions in the level of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases (8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012). These targets were very
modest, too modest no doubt if they are compared with the targets
that many scientists insist are absolutely necessary. However, what
is even more disturbing is that until very recently, no reduction
by the worst European polluters was achieved at all. For according
to newspaper reports, the level of CO2 emissions by Europese's heavy
industries as late as in 2006 registered a net increase.
Further criticisms relate to the methodologies chosen by the EU to
achieve its reductions in emissions. One approach which has come in
for severe criticisms is the policy of the EU aimed at tapping biofuels
as an alternative source of energy, i.e. as an alternative to fossil
fuels. The EU has targeted a shift from fossil fuels to biofuels,
to the extent of 10 percent by 2020. However, the idea of shifting
to biofuels originally was not conceived in order to respond to environmental
concerns, but was aimed at achieving energy security (i.e. reduced
reliance on oil). Moreover, both from a social and from an environmental
point of view, stimulating production of biofuels is unacceptable,
since it threatens to lead to world hunger (through the shift away
from food crops), and to the destruction of tropical forests (which
now absorb CO2).
A second methodology which is given prime importance by the EU is
reliance on the capture and storage of CO2. This is an idea which
Dutch academic researchers have been working on for years, and which
Dutch corporate capital intends to test pretty soon. However, the
big question is whether the capture and storage of CO2 is at all responsible
from an ecological (i.e. health and environmental) point of view.
Past experiences with nuclear waste (which like CO2 and other greenhouse
gases is a form of non-commodity waste) indicate that the storage
of hazardous waste in the earth's soil is not free from risks. One
of the key
worrries is that such storage will ultimately affect the aquifers,
resulting in the contamination of drinking water consumed by humans
and by other species.
A third methodology which the EU uses is the mechanism of emissions
trading. This is, of course, an idea which also has been developed
under the Kyoto Protocol. It is based on the allocation of emission
'rights' to corporate capital and other polluters, and on the presumption
that polluters (for instance those located in the world's North) who
exceed their quota and polluters who have an excess, i.e. unused quota,
can exchange their 'rights'. Mechanisms of calculation/measurement
have been put in place, in order to promote the trading in these 'rights'.
However, the fundamental flaw in this whole system is that it transforms
non-commodity waste (CO2 and other GHGs) into a form of commodity,
and provides commercial rights to abuse the global commons to the
world's most notorious polluters.
From a Bangladeshi perspective, the critique regarding targets which
the EU sets, and regarding the non-achievement of even excessively
modest targets is, of course, the most essential. If climate change
reaches a 'tipping point' such as may happen soon, according to Hansen
and his team; if the socalled 'albedo flip' is set in motion, meaning
that climate change is accelerated in view of the fact that the reflection
of the sun's rays from ice back into space ('albedo') is suddenly
reversed ('flips'), the rise in the level of the oceans' water will
be fast, and will have catastrophic effects for coastal areas, islands
and other low lying areas throughout the world, foremost for densely
populated coastal zones of Bangladesh. Hence, EU targets need to be
very urgently upgraded, and absolutely need to be met.
Among the methodologies for emission reductions chosen by the European
Union, the choice in favour of biofuels also needs to be prominently
criticised, since it directly affects the food security of Bangladesh's
poor. Although the international rises in food prices which have occurred
in the first part of 2008 are due to a combination of factors (including
international speculation in food crops, and neoliberal/export-oriented
policies), and not to biofuels alone - the shift in production from
food crops to biofuels according to both scientists and journalists
has also played a role. Hence, the critique of the EU's policy regarding
biofuels needs to be incorporated in a demand programme, which addresses
the interests of the population of Bangladesh.
In short, debate and public opinion building on climate change and
Bangladesh should, amongst other things, seriously question these
existing policies of the European Union. Forceful demands need to
be formulated and canvassed for internationally, stating that the
EU move beyond the limited targets which its institutions and the
Europese-based environmental organisations have so far set. Not money
aimed at 'adaptation', but the political demand in favour of drastic
policy changes should be the lead principle guiding lobbying efforts
towards the European Union. Given the magnitude of the threat that
looms, Bangladesh has a great interest in mobilising international
opinion, aimed at radically bringing down carbon dioxide emissions,
and such in the shortest possible time.
Dr.Peter Custers is alobbyist/academic on Bangladesh.
Author of 'Questioning Globalized Militarism. Nuclear and Military
Production and Critical Economic Theory' (Tulika Publishers, New Delhi/Merlin
Press, London, Independent Publishers Group, Chicago, 2007/2008)
(This article has been published in the daily New Age, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
July 8, 2008)