Europe's new targets of a 40% carbon emissions cut by 2030 and a boost to renewable energy have been greeted with both acclaim and derision for their ambition, or lack of it. Both views are justifiable: it's a classic example of a glass being simultaneously half full and empty.
For those focusing on climate change – the atmosphere right now is half full of carbon dioxide – the European commission's plan is clearly inadequate to meet the EU's own target of limiting global warming to 2C. For those focusing on the economy of the bloc today – EU citizen's pocket are half empty after a crushing recession – the deal was the most ambitious possible.
Initially, EC president José Manuel Barroso spoke optimistically, talking of a "marriage" between climate action and economic competitiveness: a demonstration that environmental action does not have to cost the Earth. But he soon became exasperated at the criticism: "Let's have some realism, no member state, even the ambitious ones, wanted more than a 40% cut."
Commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard, bristled too: "My message to the NGOs is be honest: 40% cut is a not a small thing, it is a big thing." The commisioners pointed out that the EU still remains well ahead of other major economies in its ambition to tackle global warming.
Both the green campaigners and the industrial vested interests were left equally unhappy. Such a fudge might be seen as a successful compromise in other circumstances, but here the stakes are just too high.
Climate change is, as Barroso put it, "the defining challenge of our time", while struggling economies are the defining challenge of today. This tension means the promise of the fast-growing green economy, in which Europe leads, looks to many more like a road to ruin than the path to prosperity it actually is.
The question, then, is how is Europe to move towards the clean, sustainable future that is essential to long-term wellbeing of us all and leave the dirty industries of the past behind? The commission made some progress: the target of at least 27% renewable energy by 2030 is an important political signal (and a defeat for the UK, which lobbied hard against it). The commission also pointed out that the biggest challenges for EU competitiveness is not in fact the cost of climate action.
But the commission also procrastinated on two of best ways to tackle the dual climate-economy problem: energy efficiency and the EU's trading scheme for carbon pollution permits. Furthermore, despite energy commissioner Günther Oettinger, more hawk than dove on climate, stating what every rational person knows - "shale gas not going to have same significance in the EU as in the US – the commission still failed to deliver binding safety regulation on fracking (as I reported, a victory for UK lobbying).
Two things need to happen next. First, the EU's member states, which now examine the commission's plan, must put in ways of ratcheting up the ambition in future to levels that match the seriousness of the climate change threat. Real world achievements are actually running ahead of the existing targets: the EU is already within 2% of its 2020 target of a 20% carbon cut.
Second, member states must get serious about tackling the foot-dragging of heavy industry, by easing the transition from the coal-black past to the bright future. Support, not hand outs, for business boosting energy efficiency will be important, for example, as will far more serious efforts to deliver carbon capture and storage.
Germany, with all its manufacturing might, may have opted for a fully renewable future, but Poland, 90% reliant on coal, will not. The UK, stupidly given its super-smart science base, is veering more to the Polish path than the German one.
Overall, the EC's plan is a long way short of delivering the sustainable climate and economy need for our future prosperity, but it is also a significant step towards it: the glass is both half full and half empty.
This article confirms the trend of countries saying they want to attack the issue of Climate Change, but doing very little to actually reach that goal. The EU has taken some steps in the right towards acknowledging the issue of Carbon Emissions. Many countries still have not admitted that there is a climate change problem and that carbon emissions are one of the main causes. Another acknowledgement the EU has made is that economic competitiveness does not have to come at the expense of the Environment. Although the EU has acknowledged some very important key points their overall goals fall short of combatting the real problem. The EU only wants to reduce carbon emissions by 40%, and produce only 27% of renewable energy. I personally believe that is a small improvement and giving over 15 years to reach this goal is pretty excessive. Projection for temperature increase, rising sea levels, and many other environmental problems are being predicted to happen all within 15 years. When this goal is actually met we will already feel many of the impacts the lack of sustainable practices are having on Earth. I feel the EU along with many other countries including the US needs to cut their carbon emissions at least 50% and should produce over 50% of renewable energy all within 10 years.
ReplyDeleteThe article did a good job of pointing out the facts on just how much the EU is planning to reduce carbon use by 2030. 40% is a good starting point for an effort to lessen the harmful amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The author does bring up a good point, in that our economic problem is secondary, but environmentally this is "the defining challenge of our time, while struggling economies are the defining challenge of today". With the economic trouble being what it is, the focus of many people is the here and now, but they fail to grasp just how pressing of an issue this is. They may have been lucky to get the vote for 40%, but it seems as if they are ahead of schedule, which is good. It seems that they are moving in the right direction and as the economy continues to bounce back, maybe there will be a bigger initiative.
ReplyDeleteA 40% cut is, as George in his post above me writes, a good starting point. That's all it is, a starting point. We can agree to 90% but that will only scare people and a simple number doesn't mean it will be successfully reached. Once benefits, both financial and environmental, are seen, there will hopefully be an exponential increase. So while 40% is the target, that doesn't mean it's a cap on total cuts. Boosting renewable energy has particular relevance today in regards to the Crimea crisis. With it's tough talk, the EU can do very little against Russia in terms of sanctions as it is fatally dependent on Russian gas. However, I also understand some hesitance by certain nations. A nation like Poland, for example, which has had a free economy for ~24 years and only recently began to recover from the effects of communism, will prefer to keep business as usual while hoping other nations will take the steps toward environmental protection. In the middle of an economic upturn, making drastic changes might be a bad idea especially if the voting public loses jobs or if prices increase. It's understandable, though not necessarily practical in the long run.
ReplyDeleteA 40 percent cut seems like a big number and a great starting point at first, but that's over a 16 years period up until 2030 and a lot could happen and get worst within that time period. It’s interesting to see that the EU is making a step to set a goal to reduce carbon dioxide emission. I don’t believe that the 40% is ambitious enough because anyone can set goal, setting a goal doesn’t mean that the goal will come to success. The article also states that the atmosphere is half full of carbon dioxide, therefore more than 40% cut is needed and looking at the rate of how things are changing for worst I a lot more effort is needed to tackle global warming. Climate change “the defining challenge of our time” needs to be taken more seriously, all the countries need to come together and tackle global warming. Europe cannot solve it all, other countries need to set their goals and work on achieving them because global warming; climate change is a worldwide thing.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem that we are facing is that it is almost already too late to start, people refused to think this matter of climate change seriously, between ignoring it and claiming that it doesn't exist at all. I am glad to read that EU is taking the initiative to cut the carbon in the climate, however, I feel that their goal is too far into the future. Sure 40% sounds like not so bad of a number, but in 16 years will the 40 percent they are planning for still be 40 or it will be equal to far less than that. This is a good way to attract other nations to give a serious thought and aim for a number too. But at the same time I think the constant changes in climate should encourage actions that are best fitting for the current climate problems and when they become worse in the future. Even though, this I am a bit critical towards it, I still think it is a good news that different nations are giving serious thought towards to our climate.
ReplyDeleteI think that cutting greenhouse gases by 40% is a good start for the European union. Once the EU is successful in cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40% then a more significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions should be pursued. Other nations like Poland should consider a greenhouse gas emission reduction. Poland's 90% reliance on coal is detrimental to the health of the environment and they should be working on a plan to rid themselves of dependence on coal.
ReplyDeleteI do think that a 16 year period to cut greenhouse gas emissions is too long. It would be better if that time was reduced to 8 years which is more reasonable. I believe the European Union has the capacity and the wealth to adopt renewable energy at a much faster pace than they are proposing, but that perhaps businesses and the European Union economy is reluctant of significantly changing their business practices and Industry practices which is why the European Union has proposed a reduction of 40% over a long time frame.
This is definitely a glass half full/empty effort in tackling the greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. However, compared to reality and the actual cost of what is necessary to make an everlasting impact...40% is just a scratch at the base problem. There needs to be more effort put forth by the state governments on coal-based industries providing incentives and easy transition toward greener factors of production. This would be a vital initiation in tackling the problem at the source of pollution itself.
ReplyDeleteIt was disturbing to hear the Poland is 90% reliant on coal, but recently I watched a documentary on the rise of China and their continued coal mining/burning to build their infrastructures and economy is probably just as close. We are stuck in the ways of the past when there are cleaner energy sources. My opinion on the 40% effort is a positive one, although a small figure on the larger level of the general problem, it is still a large number compared to being 25% or less.It is also pleasing to learn that the real world achievements are running ahead of the 20% carbon cut by 2020 by having an existing targets of the EU being within 2%. I would say that is a plus. Regarding this detail, the efforts should be maximized to match the seriousness of climate change and carbon emissions. If a pattern is consistent enough we may see results sooner than later.
-Sharda Naitram
In this article we look at the issue of climate change, the EU’s initiative to reduce carbon by 2030 and what countries claim they are willing to do to tackle the issue to reach these goals. The projected goal of 40% to which carbon emission should be reduced by is not enough to tackle the real issue. Although there have been relevant steps taken towards the issue of carbon Emission, the fact still remains that many countries have yet to admit that this issue is one of the main causes of the climate change problem. In retrospect 40% over the span of 16 years does not seem like a large enough goal. There is also the battle between the priorities; the article argues that economic problems should be secondary and that struggling economies are today’s challenge. However it is hard to focus on this with the most economic crisis that has affected many and has left them until today still crippled, countries such as Greece are still struggling, and so the priority is not necessarily environmental issues.
ReplyDelete-Yaisa Sousa
ReplyDeleteThe European Union’s plan to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030 is an excellent step on the road to a more sustainable world. While this goal should definitely be reevaluated as progress is made and 2030 approaches, a 40% cut is definitely a solid place to start. It is important to set realistic goals when it comes to the transition to a green economy and society because if the goal is too ambitious then it may be abandoned. With that, it is important to acknowledge that the EU is ahead of schedule - the article states that it is “already within 2% of its 2020 target of a 20% carbon cut.” Since the EU is reaching their goals more quickly than anticipated, the necessity to reevaluate as time progresses is increasingly significant. The European Union is made up of 28 member states, all of which have different levels of carbon emissions and the fact that all 28 states are on board to make serious changes to their carbon footprints is an accomplishment in itself.
Courtney Baxter
This article again points out the major battle faced by the movement toward a green economy: long run vs. short run. The brown economy has been running on a short run model, which is what has dragged our environment into the state it is currently in. Concerns for present gratification with disregard for future sustainability. I am not advocated we drag recovering economies back into instability and disaster caused by the '08 housing bubble, but if there was not so much greed for immediate gratification / profit / wealth and more concern about the future consequences of creating exotic debt instruments. This same idea applies to the present issue: by placing more of a priority on the current, immediate gratification effects of the brown economy model and ignoring the long term economic and sustainability effects of green policy, we are digging ourselves further into a hole of environmental degradation. As the article says, "Climate change is...'the defining challenge of our time,' while struggling economies are the defining challenge of today.."
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that the EU is actually willing to set a target for an emissions cuts is a great sign, especially when so many other countries are unwilling to do so. After all, as the author states, the EU leads many other major economies in its ambition to tackle global warming, and I feel like the EU has put in the most effort to slow down climate change. What are other major economies such as the US trying to do? They haven't done much in this regard and many remain reluctant to make the transition into a green economy. So I feel like we have to give credit where credit is due, and the EU should be commended for their efforts. It is important to set a realistic goal. If the EU sets a goal that is too high, certain countries might feel like there is no point in trying to reduce emissions since the intende cut by the 2030 target will never be reached. A 40% reduction is practical enough. As Connie Hedegaard stated, a 40% reduction is a big deal. A transition into a green economy is not easy. It is also important to note, however, that the EU is within 2% of its 2020 target of a 20% cut in emissions. Having noted this, I can see why many say the 40% cut is not ambitious enough. The EU looks like they can reach the 20% target way before 2020, so maybe a 40% cut in 16 years is too easy. Hopefully, if the EU gets much closer to a 40% reduction way before the intended timeframe, they can amend their goal and try to make a larger cut by 2030.
ReplyDelete-Monique Rivera
The last sentence of the post really sums up my feeling on the information presented. "Overall, the EC's plan is a long way short of delivering the sustainable climate and economy need for our future prosperity, but it is also a significant step towards it: the glass is both half full and half empty". The EU's goal to reduce carbon emissions by forty percent by 2030 really comes across as being pretty ambitious, as it is a substantial reduction to occur in a relatively short amount of time. Although I think that it would certainly be possible to meet this goal in a shorter amount of time, I think that would require cooperation from more nations than it has currently. Perhaps if emissions are reduced quickly enough, more countries will get on board and start making sacrifices in order to reduce the amount of carbon they are producing.
ReplyDeleteHaving a physical number to be the guideline of how much carbon emission cut they want to reduced is a good first step but before we start applauding Europe we must first see their game plan. The face that the citizen's were economically crippled, I simply don't believe that 40% is not an achievable number but it will set the bar for other countries to try to achieve it if Europe fails. The whole general conversations of developing plans and numbers to reach, means that political members of society finally start to realize that global warming is a real issue we must correct. In my opinion there is only one missing piece to the puzzle and that is actually regulations that are going to be put into place to actually achieve 40% carbon reductions by 2030. Is it going to be more efficient cars, public transportation, or any other limitations set by the government. Whatever this plan will be, its something that I would look forward to and its going to be imitated by different countries.
ReplyDeleteHaving a physical number to be the guideline of how much carbon emission cut they want to reduced is a good first step but before we start applauding Europe we must first see their game plan. The face that the citizen's were economically crippled, I simply don't believe that 40% is not an achievable number but it will set the bar for other countries to try to achieve it if Europe fails. The whole general conversations of developing plans and numbers to reach, means that political members of society finally start to realize that global warming is a real issue we must correct. In my opinion there is only one missing piece to the puzzle and that is actually regulations that are going to be put into place to actually achieve 40% carbon reductions by 2030. Is it going to be more efficient cars, public transportation, or any other limitations set by the government. Whatever this plan will be, its something that I would look forward to and its going to be imitated by different countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that the EU's decision to cut its carbon usage by 40% is a good starting point, because at least they are starting. But if they actually want to make an impact they need to slowly raise that percentage pretty often. I think that people tend to realize that change needs to happen when things start getting out of control. In this case with "global warming" and the possibility of running out of natural resources, no one is going to make moves until there is actually no resources and it's too late to cut down. Humans are very wasteful and we tend to take things for granted. But at least the EU is doing something to cut down and hopefully their actions will make others realize that this is something that needs to be done. Regulations by the government needs to take place, but they seem to busy with their head in the cloud making issues that aren't of real importance right now a priority and all the issues that should be first on the list are buried all the way at the bottom.
ReplyDelete