Is this the right climate for change?
Civitas, 26 May 2010
A new climate change initiative is the cause of the latest rift in EU politics, writes Natalie Hamill. An EU Commission proposal that the target for the reduction of EU-wide carbon emissions should be increased from 20% to 30% (from 1990 levels) has been met with indignation by Germany, France and big business lobby groups, but is being trumpeted as “the right move at the right time” by the EU Commission and green groups.
A leaked copy of the draft proposal states “Both the international context and the economic analysis suggest that the EU is right to continue preparing for a move to a 30 per cent target.” The basis for this analysis is presumably that the estimated cost of a 20% reduction in carbon emissions has been lowered from €70 billion to €48 billion, due to the economic crisis. A reduction of more than 25% could now be reached at the same cost as previously budgeted for the target of 20%, and this push should also encourage innovation and the regeneration of the renewable energy industry in the EU, which has fallen behind in the economic crisis. Commissioner for Climate Change, Connie Hedegaard, elaborated at a press conference today that the unforeseen cost “saving”, coupled with lower carbon prices, makes the timing ripe for the EU to push for a 30% carbon reduction goal.
Unfortunately for Ms Hedegaard and the Commission, more than a handful of critics loudly disagree with the Commission proposal. Whilst the EU is floundering in dire economic straits, and member states are desperately tightening their belts, a pricey policy that could trigger mass job losses and soaring energy prices is unlikely to be embraced.
France and Germany immediately criticised the proposal for its ‘stand alone’ status; the consensus across the EU after the Copenhagen Summit was that a commitment to a 30% reduction would only be made if there was an equal international effort. This multilateral cooperation is seen as an important step for successful climate change policy. At the moment, globally, the political will for such action is down-trodden at best; one only has to consider the dog-eared and watered-down Climate Bill still limping around the US Congress… Ms Hedegaard however is optimistic (despite the failures of Copenhagen) that if the EU takes a proactive stance on carbon emissions and aims for a 30% reduction now, then more reluctant states (namely China and the US) will follow suit.
Disagreements over the correct way to tackle climate change have long permeated all levels of the EU. Powerful lobby group Business Europe, which represents some of the largest employers in Europe, is just one organisation trying to protect industry and jobs by lobbying intensely against the move; however the Green 10 (e.g. charities like Greenpeace and WWF) continue to strongly support an increase in carbon reductions. On climate change, the variety of opinion and huge implications of such a policy make finding a consensus at an EU level seem impossible, which will make the next stage of the proposal – its debate and discussion and analysis of how it would affect member states – even more crucial than usual.
I was under the impression that the climate change zealots had realised that we’d all caught on to their scam. Even the BBC has gone (mostly) quiet on the issue.
Just as the EU was never about democracy, climate change was never about science. They are both about post-democratic, post-new-science control. If nothing else, you could tell it was a scam by the way the Climategate committees were handled.
At the UK election, no major party had the guts to stand up and say it was nonsence and that by continuing with the fraud our economies and life style will be wrecked. The atmopshere needs more CO2, not less. It is not only harmless in quantities far greater than the remaining hydtocarbons could raise it to, more CO2 is beneficial.
How do we start a fully fledged debate on (a) getting out of the EU and (b) getting out of any climate change nonsence legislation?
I have very much appreciated the articles written by the ‘Civitas’ authors, and have always regarded them as writers whose opinion is based on good research. However I am somewhat disturbed by this article. It seems to deal well with EU politics and the political issues surrounding targets for the reduction of EU-wide carbon emissions. What is clearly missing is a critical approach for the justification of reducing ‘carbon emissions’ in the first place. With the concentration of CO2 currently at 390 parts per million (ppm), and despite the miniscule increase of 1-2ppm per year, this level is still as low as at any time in the past 600 million years, when levels peaked at around 7,000ppm – nearly *eighteen* times today’s concentration. Despite such high levels for long periods of time, which arose by purely natural processes, there was never any ‘runaway global warming’ or similar.
Furthermore, CO2-concentrations and average temperature of the earth have varied during those millions of years, yet the two curves have always varied independently of each other. Thus as there has never been any correlation between them, there is therefore no causal link between them.
So as no ‘worrying global warming’ ever happened in the past despite significantly higher CO2-concentrations, there is no reason to expect it to happen in the future. (On the contrary – slightly higher levels of CO2 will benefit plants, as optimum plant growth is between 1,000 and 2,000ppm.)
Bearing all the above in mind, and thus removing the foundation of the CO2-climate scare, might I suggest a more critical appraisal of the political situation in the EU regarding ‘climate’ might be along these lines…
as seen from an Australian point of view:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3848
and from the U.S. Science And Public Policy Institute:
http://sppiblog.org/news/european-maneuvering-on-climate-change
Best regards,
John M. Evans