Blog action day ‘09
October 14th, 2009
Thank you very much for all your questions. It’s good to see that so many people share the sense of urgency that I feel when I look at our climate – Copenhagen has to deliver and I am sure it will.
I hope I haven’t been too technical, but sometimes it’s important to look at the thinking that underlies the main positions, especially on crucial issues like deforestation and ways to find incentives to prevent it. What we need is an agreement that is politically possible and scientifically credible, setting us on the path to a low-carbon future fuelled by clean, sustainable sources of energy.
I’ll be posting regularly on climate in the coming weeks, and going over what I see as some of the main building blocks in the agreement we need to reach in Copenhagen.
Many thanks for following,
Stavros Dimas
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
October 14th, 2009 at 8:01 pm #
Still(Yet) being a very local topic, it(he,she) wanted to know his(her,your) opinion about the bad(wrong) management in the quality of the waters as consequence of the continuous spillages of waste water without purifying to the rivers and coasts of Galicia - Spain and the measures that the EU is adopting or being going to adopt.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:15 am #
Today’s FT contained a section on Border Carbon Taxes and they quoted you as being not particularly in favour of them. This sits rather oddly with comments made by you over the years (High Level Gorup Meeting Nov 2007 & during the January launch of the package in 2008) where BCTs were seen as a possible fall back position (or a tool).
Given that large emitters such as China and India have yet to make any sort of committment with respect to BAU diveragence in a 2020- 2030 time frame I would have thought the BCT “tool” was something that could still be used. I would also observe that although BCTs are characterised as impacting on “poor” countries, in fact the focus would be on manufacturerd or semi-manufacturered goods.
I assume that BCTs are still part of the EU’s negotiating tool kit for the COP. I guess my core question is: has your position on BCTs shifted from “possible tool to get a good COP result” to “not in favour of them under any circumstance”?
——–
My country: Iceland
October 15th, 2009 at 10:20 am #
Great to see you involved at Blog Action Day 2009 on Climate Change: http://tinyurl.com/ybxll64 But we emore than this support from the EU.
What we need are real targets on CO2-emissions in Copenhagen. Real targets on renewables, like 100% renewables within 10 years. The technology is ready, but the money that’s the problem.
So i would ask you to set up an EU Sustainability Fund or even better a World Sustainability Fund witl lots and lots of billions in it. Let’s say the same amount of money governments worldwide gave to the fianancials. Just to save them.
Lets save Earth, seems to me just a little bit more important than saving financials. Thanks for your time and support. Do you also support 350.org on International Day of Climate Action 2009 and Seal the Deal from the United Nations?
And when you have seven minutes time, please listen to listen little child. An old speech but her words are still true.
——–
My country: Netherlands
October 15th, 2009 at 10:31 am #
Super initiative ! The Commissioner’s blog is exactly the kind of channel the world’s eyes will be on during the Copenhagen conference in December !
——–
My country: Lithuania
October 15th, 2009 at 10:45 am #
Dear Commissioner Dimas
The robust action you have taken so far this year to enforce the new EU directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe has demonstrated clearly Europe’s determination to be tough on air pollution.
The Campaign for Clean Air in London, ClientEarth, Environmental Protection UK as well as the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats in London have all written to you in recent days. Others are expected to join their call.
We are all urging you to reject the UK’s application for a time extension until June 2011 to comply with EU limit values for dangerous airborne particles (PM10) in London. We have done so because the Mayor of London’s draft Air Quality Strategy published last Monday confirms again that there is no plan yet for the UK to comply with those limit values by June 2011. Not least, ‘many of the proposals’ put forward by the Mayor are unfunded by his own admission. And the UK fails to meet the other pre-conditions for a time extension on PM10…
Please reject the UK’s application for a time extension for PM10 in London unless the UK produces within days or weeks a new, credible, robust and fully funded plan to achieve the PM10 limit values throughout London by June 2011.
Repeatedly demonstrating your determination to ensure air quality laws are complied with in full is one of the most meaningful things you can do at this stage to set an example ahead of Copenhagen. Oh, and you’ll save thousands of lives because little or no action would be happening on the ground in our large UK cities if it wasn’t for all the great work you and your team have done over the last three years on air quality.
Good luck at Copenhagen - we are depending on you!
With best wishes.
Yours sincerely
Simon Birkett
Founder and Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London
——–
My country: United Kingdom
October 15th, 2009 at 1:56 pm #
Dear Mr. Dimas,
Will you please press the Greek Government to validate with a strict law the European Landscape convention - ETS No. 176 - in order to protect the Greek landscape?
The protection of the landscape will have positive effects on the climate, since it will put a barrier to some huge projects that affect the environment and neglect the precious greek landscape.
Thank you.
——–
My country: Greece
October 15th, 2009 at 2:04 pm #
Dear Commissioner,
I think the Commission did a fantastic job by issuing good proposals for the Copenhagen Summit, and remaining committed to the environmental line it observed in the past years. I firstly wanted to congratulate you.
I am a french young citizen and I have many questions on the Climate Conference in Copenhagen that were left unanswered.
I have the impression that issues such as technology cooperation, knowledge transfer and obviously property rights are not in the spotlight for the moment. We do have an interest though in disseminating green technologies, and third parties also have an interest in improving their environmental efficiency. What is the negotiating line of the EU on that point? is there an agrement among Member States on the issue?
I also was wondering whether the EU might be too much focus on the US, while the US appear much more focused other countries such as China for instance. Could you lighten me on that point?
I was also wondering under which conditions would the EU would commit to an increased target of 30%? Is a political declaration a sufficient agreement in your perspective to commit to such a big increase? what negotiating weight would then be left to obtain other commitments at a later stage?
Where will this additional 10% be taken from?
I really look forward reading your answers,
Many Thanks for taking the time to communicate,
Best Regards,
Maite
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 2:07 pm #
My name is Roxana Bucata and I represent the main environmental news website in Romania. Our public would like to know how do you think the political crisis and the lack of an Environment Minister will influence the Romanian representation at the UN conference in Copenhagen? What do you think is the solution in this case?
What is your opinion about the Romanian attitude towards environmental issues and the awareness regarding the UN conference in Copenhagen in Romania.
What are the chances for an ambitious agreement to be signed by the world political leaders at Copenhagen? Do you think the United States and China will sign a global deal? Is the economic crises the main obstacle in reaching a consensus?
Thank you
——–
My country: Romania
October 15th, 2009 at 2:11 pm #
@Milieunet
Thank you for sending the link to the moving video, her message is very clear and understood, and yes, we need to seal an ambitious deal in Copenhagen!
As part of this deal, we absolutely need real and ambitious targets, in line with science. The EU legislated for a 20% renewables target as well as a 20% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for the year 2020 in our climate change and energy package. A good agreement in Copenhagen that brings in other developed countries and strengthens the engagement of developing countries will enable us to increase our greenhouse gas emission reduction target to 30%. We have been very clear to our developed country partners that we expect them to put ambitious targets on the table as well and telling our developing country partners that we expect them to come forward with concrete actions.
I also agree that we need to massively step up investments in clean energy and helping developing countries adapt to the impacts of climate change. The Commission last month estimated that by 2020 we will need around EUR 100 billion per year for developing countries alone, from public and private funding sources, and put 5 to 7 billion in public money on the table at the start of 2010 (see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/future_action.htm). EU heads of state and government will be discussing the Commission’s proposals on 29 and 30 October and I am confident that the EU will be able to put a robust financial package on the table.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pm #
@Roxana Bucata
Good afternoon Roxana,
As regards the political situation prevailing in Romania, I would not wish to make any particular comment but I am confident that an Environment Minister will be appointed by Copenhagen and that Romania will be duly represented there, together with all other Member States and the European Commission.
I believe that climate awareness is rising steadily in Romania, as this is the case in the rest of Europe, with people becoming increasingly aware of the impacts this is already having on a wide range of economic activities and even on their daily life due notably to extreme climate events that are becoming more frequent.
Climate change is already happening today and can only get worse if we do not act with the necessary determination now.
The Commission has launched an awareness raising campaign on climate change, in the perspective of Copenhagen notably. Others have taken similar initiatives, such as for instance the “seal the deal” campaign launched by the UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon. But all these initiatives can usefully be complemented by national and local initiatives and citizens have an important role to play as well.
Finding an agreement in Copenhagen on an ambitious and comprehensive international climate change deal is just imperative. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to put the world on track to limit climate change to 2°C. This is obviously a tremendous challenge but I am optimistic and confident that wisdom and sense of responsibility will prevail.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pm #
Cher Monsieur Dimas,
je suis une journaliste italienne.
Je voudrais savoir qu’est-ce qu’il se passera a votre avis si à Copenhagen on arriverà pas à un vrai aboutissement. Si d’un coté les Etas Unis et l’Union Européenne sont d’accord sur la necessité d’un changement réel, il ya la possibilité que plusieur pays tiers n’ayent pas envie de donner un coup de frein à leur dévelopement en mettant des limites, par examples, à l’emission de CO2. Je pense par example à la Chine, à l’Indie ou bien au Sud Est Asiatique. Ils pourraient dire: vous avez pollué pour un siècle, pourquoi devrions-nous arreter avant de commencer?
A votre avis Barack Obama est capable de traîner la revolution de l’environnement?
Une autre question. En Italie le nucleaire va repartir après 15 ans d’arret. Par un réfèrendum la population s’était exprime un avis négatif. Qu’en pensez vous de ce changement voulu par le gouvernement italien? Est-ce l’energie nucleaire à considerer une source alternative, malgré l’écoulement des déchets radioactifs?
Veuillez agréer, Monsieur Dimas, l’expression de mes sentiments distingués
Alessandra Flora
——–
My country: Italy
October 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pm #
Dear Commissioner
It’s always inspiring to hear the plans that we have for our climate, but sometimes it seems these are just vague aspirations.
What sort of plans are there that can be concretely implemented at country level for things like agriculture and transport and buildings? How is the Commission taking climate into account when doing things like restructuring the Common agricultural policy?
thanks,
Jeremy
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm #
Dear Commissioner
I read recently that to combat global warming, the Commission is trying to ban traditional electric lightbulbs.
How effective will this be?
And isn’t it true that the new ones contain mercury? Aren’t we going to solve one problem but create a waste mountain at the same time?
Do you have any figures that you can share with us regarding the effect of measures like this?
thanks
Lara
——–
My country: Germany
October 15th, 2009 at 3:04 pm #
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Dear Commissioner,
I am a journalist from Bulgarian National Radio and I have a question in regards to the warnings, send recently by the Commission to Bulgarian authorities because of failure to provide adequate protection for its natural heritage - Reference: IP/09/1484 Date: 08/10/2009: “Three of the warnings concern protected areas, while a fourth warning concerns the legislation currently in place. The areas involved are the Pirin Mountains, where an extensive ski centre is being developed; the Tsarevo municipality in the south of the country, where a large protected area near the Black Sea is under threat, and works along the Vaya River in the protected area of Emine-Irakli, near the Black Sea…”
What would you recommend to be done in order to restore the natural balance in these areas? Would you encourage Bulgarian authorities to destroy the hotels and sport facilities, whish have been illegally built in protected mountain and areas and beaches?
And why the Commission delayed so much these warnings, given the fact, that your services have been notified on many occasions over the past 2-3 years what was going on?
Thank you and best regards,
Diana Chepisheva
——–
My country: Bulgaria
October 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm #
@Maite
Thanks you for your kind words!
Technology cooperation is definitely in the spotlight for the EU, developing and deploying clean technology will be a key part of the Copenhagen deal. The EU position on technology is that we should double our investments in new technology research by 2012, increasing it to four times its current level by 2020. We also need increased international information sharing as well as the innovation centres in developing countries for research collaboration, capacity building, information and training of experts. And we propose the establishment of global roadmaps to guide national and international development towards a low carbon economy. Only last week the Commission published its Strategic Energy Technology implementation plan (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/set_plan/set_plan_en.htm) and earlier this year we published our plans for next steps in our cooperation on carbon capture and storage with China (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/china.htm).
As for the EU focus on the US: our focus is on all countries, not only developed countries but also emerging economies, but also the most vulnerable, who will be suffering most from climate change. This is why it is important that the Copenhagen deal is comprehensive, addressing both our efforts to reduce emissions and stepping up our cooperation to help those most vulnerable to climate change.
EU Heads of State and Government have agreed to increase the EU’s 20% target to a 30% target in the context of a fair and ambitious global agreement in Copenhagen, if other developed countries commit themselves to comparable reductions, and if economically more advanced developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities. The EU will need to decide if the offers on the table are enough when we see the outlines of the final Copenhagen deal, and share out the increase among EU sectors and Member States on the basis of that decision.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm #
Dear mr. Dimas, first of all thank you. And then, what about introducing a ‘carbon tax’ in Europe? Someone talked about this issue, if I remember well, the swedish presidency said this could be useful and an issue to talk about. Do you think we’ll ever succeed to put the carbon inside the cost of a product, on the road to build a more effective carbon market under Ets?
Thank you. ra.
——–
My country: Italy
October 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm #
Dear Commissioner
The more I read about the climate and the things that affect it, the more it seems that things like driving cars doesn’t really matter, what really affects the climate are things like trees, and the methane underground near the arctic .
If cutting trees in the rainforests has such a huge affect, how can you do something about that in an international conference in Copenhagen? how else are the people of those countries going to earn their living?
And what can we possibly do about methane?
Manuel
——–
My country: Spain
October 15th, 2009 at 3:11 pm #
Dear Commissioner,
Firstly I would like to express my true concern regarding the implications of climate change mitigation efforts as regards other important environmental issues e.g. atmospheric pollution. Do you think that the combat for Climate Change actually promotes solutions for other environmental problems as well, or is it an obstacle? When all the human resources (scientific community etc.) and a large part of the financial assets available for environmental protection are used for climate change, what is left for the everyday threatening problems?
Secondly, I would like to draw your attention on the Clean Development Mechanism concept and its credibility. How is Europe trying to change the problematic nature of Flexibility Mechanisms and assure their verifiability and additionality?
Do you agree that a 20% GHG emission reduction partly achieved by offsetting mechanisms is a true challenge for Europe, especially now when a substantial decrease of last year’s emissions due to the financial crisis has been reported? What is the “international agreement” that we are waiting for in order to commit to higher reductions? Is it ethical to imply that Europe is a leader in the combat of climate change when what we are mainly doing is using the “low-hanging fruit” of developing countries’ mitigation capabilities?
Looking forward to receiving your replies.
Thank you for this amazing initiative,
Kind Regards,
Zoi Vrontisi
——–
My country: Greece
October 15th, 2009 at 3:11 pm #
@aleflora
Madame,
L’Europe s’est engagée avec une grande détermination dans cette bataille pour limiter l’augmentation de la température à maximum 2°C, avec l’adoption du paquet climat et énergie à la fin de l’année dernière et cette année en vue de la Conférence de Copenhague où nous souhaitons qu’un accord ambitieux et global soit adopté par l’ensemble de nos partenaires. Aboutir à un accord est un impératif moral, environnemental et économique. S’engager dans la voie d’une réduction significative de nos émissions de gaz à effet de serre n’est pas seulement nécessaire, c’est également faisable d’un point de vue technique mais également d’un point de vue économique. Plus la réponse sera lente, plus les coûts seront élevés, sans parler des conséquences sur l’environnement et nos éco-systèmes.
L’administration américaine me semble tout à fait déterminée à avancer dans ce sens et à s’engager dans la voie d’une économie pauvre en carbone. Un projet de législation est actuellement en cours de discussion au Congrès et nous suivons ces développements avec grand intérêt et espoir dans la perspective de Copenhague. Mais nous ne pourrons limiter l’augmentation des températures à 2°C si les pays en voie de développement, et en particulier les pays émergeants, ne renforcent pas leurs actions pour s’engager vers une croissance moins intensive en émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Beaucoup d’entre eux, comme par exemple la Chine, l’Inde, l’Afrique du Sud ou encore la Corée du sud s’engagent déjà activement dans cette voie au niveau national. Nous devons les encourager et c’est précisément l’enjeu de l’accord international que de se mettre d’accord sur des outils pour les inciter à progresser dans ce sens, sans pour autant remettre en cause leurs perspectives de croissance.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pm #
Dear Commissioner,
I saw yesterday on the belgian news ( RTBF) that the ice is melting faster than the scientists thought. And that we are going to feel the global warning really badly in less than 20years, which is pretty scary! What does it mean? What exactly are we going to feel?
I am 21 years old and I am pretty scared about that future.
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 3:24 pm #
Dear Mr Antonini,
To tackle climate change, it’s important to make sure that the market reflects the costs of greenhouse gas emissions so as to change behaviour and incentivise less polluting technologies and actions. For around half of the EU’s emissions, the EU’s carbon market is giving such a signal. Where there is no such price signal, such as outside the carbon market, taxation has a role to play, both at European and at national level. I’m encouraged by France and Sweden’s movement in this direction, and am hopeful that this will be something that can be put in place across the EU.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pm #
Dear Comissioner,
My name is Carlos and I am now involved in a project related to the calculation of carbon footprint in products for reducing it.
I truly believe that the only way to curb climate change is through the work of all in our daily life.
Unfortunately, initiatives like ours, whose work for emission reductions can lead to high costs, often result, as in the case of organic products, at higher prices to consumers.
This makes the consumer to chose those products that are cheaper but have a higher cost in the long term.
Could de Comission try to encourage consumption of products that reduce their environmental impact, helping the consumers to apply their right to choose?
——–
My country: Spain
October 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pm #
Dear Jeremy,
Many of the policies implemented by Member States are the implementation of directives or regulation adopted at the EU level.
Many measures have been taken in recent years at EU level which will have a large trickle down effect at individual member state level in the coming years.
For instance the Eco-design Directive foresees the development of Eco-design requirements for energy using products in the residential, tertiary and industrial sectors. A concrete outcome of that is the gradual phase-out of traditional light bulbs that has already started with removal of 100 Watt light bulbs. In coming years for many other product categories there will be the introduction of enhanced energy efficiency requirements. Also for buildings, minimum requirements are foreseen for new buildings and existing ones subject to major renovation and an energy efficiency certification requirement is introduced due to EU-wide directives and a revision of the existing energy performance in building is presently going through the co-decision process in the Council and the European Parliament.
For more information see:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/eco_design_en.htm
On transport we succeeded in introducing binding performance standards on newly sold cars. By 2020 average greenhouse house emissions from newly sold cars in the EU should have decreased by around 40%! International aviation is one of the fastest growing sectors for greenhouse gas emissions. From 2012 onwards all aviation emissions will be included in the EU emissions trading system, with a cap on aviation of 5% below 2005 emission levels. If they want to emit more, they will have to buy emission rights from other sectors, as such contributing to the reduction in other sectors in the EU.
Finally decreases in cattle numbers and decreases in the use of mineral fertiliser and manure, in part due to changes in the incentives provided by the CAP, have led to a decrease in agriculture in the EU 15 by 11% since 1990.
I hope that this overview gives you a good picture of the types of measures we undertake at EU level to reduce emissions. But of course this is not sufficient, also in coming years we will need to examine established policies and see how we can further improve them to ensure greenhouse gas emissions continue to decrease.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pm #
Good luck with the Climate Conference in Copenhagen!
——–
My country: Netherlands
October 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pm #
Dear Zoi,
Thank you for your message. Tackling climate change is important because, without doing so, other environmental problems such as the loss of biodiversity will become worse. There’s a lot of complementarity between actions to protect the environment and I agree with you that climate action has to be mutually supportive with other related action such as for instance air quality. Europe’s commitment to a 20% reduction below 1990 levels is a minimum and to 30 % as part of an international agreement where other developed countries would commit to comparable efforts and developing countries, and notably emerging economies, would step up their efforts towards reducing the carbon intensity of their economic growth. This is what we need if we want to limit climate change to 2°C as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change recommended two years ago. The drop in emissions because of the financial crisis makes it easier to meet this target and to go further. At least of half of our reductions under the EU trading system will be within the EU. The Clean Development Mechanism is an important start for developing countries, but needs to be improved to ensure environmental integrity. Inaction in the face of this challenge is unethical, what is needed is a fair distribution of effort between richer and poorer countries. The more we wait to take decisive action, the more costly this will be. The case for action is compelling from an environment standpoint, but equally so from an economic standpoint. So, we have all we need to move ahead and take bold action together. This is what we need in Copenhagen.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 3:49 pm #
Dear Lara,
The decision to phase out incandescent light bulbs was taken after extensive discussions with stakeholders in the EU and consultations with EU Member States. We listened carefully to all the different points of view before the Commission proposal was made. What it means in practice is that the EU will reduce its annual CO2 emissions by up to 15 million tonnes and save up to 40 TWh electricity per year by 2020. This corresponds to the annual electricity consumption of 11 million european households.
The Commission has repeatedly made clear that there are other available options that can provide the same quality of light as incandescent light bulbs, with substantial energy savings (like halogens, for instance). Some of the energy-saving light bulbs such as CFLs do contain mercury, but we have provided guidelines on how to deal with that. Only some of the bulbs contain mercury, and LEDs for example don’t have this problem. There certainly won’t be a waste mountain; their lifetime is so much longer than a traditional bulb, for a start.
All things considered, I think that this decision brings significant climate benefits while not creating additional environmental problems.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm #
ΕΚΚΛΗΣΗ ΤΩΝ ΟΙΚΟΛΟΓΩΝ ΠΡΑΣΙΝΩΝ ΣΤΟΝ ΠΡΩΘΥΠΟΥΡΓΟ ΓΙΑ ΔΙΑΚΟΠΗ ΤΩΝ ΕΡΓΩΝ ΕΚΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΤΟΥ ΑΧΕΛΩΟΥ
Επιστολή στον Πρωθυπουργό κ. Γ.Α.Παπανδρέου και στην υπουργό Περιβάλλοντος κ. Μπιρμπίλη έστειλαν χθες οι Οικολόγοι Πράσινοι στην οποία απευθύνουν έκκληση να ανακοινώσει ο πρωθυπουργός στις προγραμματικές δηλώσεις της κυβέρνησης τη διακοπή των έργων εκτροπής του Αχελώου, με δεδομένο μάλιστα ότι ο πρωθυπουργός είχε προτείνει στη Μαρία Βασιλάκου, στέλεχος των Οικολόγων Πράσινων και των Αυστριακών Πράσινων, αλλά και γενικότερα στους Οικολόγους Πράσινους, να αναλάβουν το υφυπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος με αρμοδιότητες τα νερά, τα δάση και τη χωροταξία.
Οι Οικολόγοι Πράσινοι έχουμε δηλώσει ότι θα στηρίξουμε τις όποιες θετικές πρωτοβουλίες της κυβέρνησης για την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και τη στροφή της οικονομίας προς πράσινη κατεύθυνση, αλλά και θα ασκούμε τεκμηριωμένη κριτική όπου η κυβέρνηση δεν ανταποκρίνεται στις σημερινές ανάγκες για πράσινες λύσεις. Οι Οικολόγοι Πράσινοι επιλέγουμε να συμβάλλουμε στις αλλαγές πολιτικών και να εισάγουμε μια νέα κουλτούρα στην πολιτική.
Ειδικότερα στα θέματα των νερών, θέλουμε να ανοίξουμε έναν δημόσιο διάλογο, και με την κυβέρνηση, με στόχο να υπάρξουν άμεσα λύσεις. Η χώρα μας έχει μείνει πολύ πίσω σε θέματα προστασίας και διαχείρισης των υδατικών πόρων, ιδιαίτερα μάλιστα όταν η κλιματική αλλαγή δημιουργεί νέα δεδομένα στην περιοχή μας. Σημαντικά περιβαλλοντικά προβλήματα, όπως η ρύπανση των υπόγειων νερών και ποταμών, η εξαφάνιση της λίμνης Κορώνειας, η ρύπανση των υπόγειων νερών σε μια μεγάλη περιοχή στα Οινόφυτα-Ασωπό, παραμένουν κάτω από το χαλί, ενώ θα έπρεπε να είναι στο κέντρο του ενδιαφέροντος. Υπενθυμίζουμε ότι η χώρα μας έχει παραπεμφθεί στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο για σχετικές υποθέσεις.
Με δήλωσή του στα ΜΜΕ ο Νίκος Χρυσόγελος, εκπρόσωπος των Οικολόγων Πράσινων τονίζει: «Με δεδομένο ότι δημιουργήθηκε υφυπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος με αρμοδιότητες τα νερά, τα δάση και τη χωροταξία, καλέσαμε τον Πρωθυπουργό να πάρει μια πρωτοβουλία που σχετίζεται με το θέμα της διαχείρισης των νερών, να εξαγγείλει, στις προγραμματικές δηλώσεις της κυβέρνησης, την άμεση διακοπή των έργων εκτροπής του Αχελώου. Μια τέτοια πρωτοβουλία από την κυβέρνηση θα αποδείκνυε ότι έχει την πρόθεση να σταματήσει λανθασμένες πρακτικές του παρελθόντος και να προωθήσει βιώσιμες πολιτικές προστασίας και διαχείρισης των υδατικών πόρων».
«Τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια, η εκτροπή του Αχελώου αποτελεί το πιο ακραίο δείγμα παραλογισμού στη διαχείριση των νερών και του περιβάλλοντος», δήλωσε ο Μιχάλης Τρεμόπουλος, ευρωβουλευτής των Οικολόγων Πράσινων. «Το έργο έχει κριθεί, μετά από προσφυγές περιβαλλοντικών οργανώσεων και φορέων της Αιτωλοακαρνανίας, 5 φορές παράνομο από το ΣτΕ, και έχει αποκλειστεί, με απόφαση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, από κάθε ευρωπαϊκή χρηματοδότηση. Σύντομα πρόκειται να κριθεί από το ΣτΕ και το τελευταίο νομοθετικό πρόσχημα που του είχε δώσει ο κ. Σουφλιάς. Επίσης, το ΣτΕ έχει θέσει σχετικό ερώτημα στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο. Υπενθυμίζουμε ότι ένα ανάλογο έργο στην Ισπανία, το Υδρολογικό Σχέδιο, εγκαταλείφθηκε όταν ανέλαβε η κυβέρνηση Θαπατέρο».
«Η εκτροπή ποταμών για την αντιμετώπιση των σοβαρών προβλημάτων διαχείρισης του νερού είναι όχι μόνο λάθος πρακτική αλλά και επιλογή που παραβιάζει ξεκάθαρα την νέα ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική για τη βιώσιμη διαχείριση των υδατικών πόρων σε επίπεδο υδρολογικής λεκάνης (Οδηγία Πλαίσιο για τα Νερά 60/2000) που είναι, μέρος της εθνικής μας νομοθεσίας», επισήμανε η Ιωάννα Κοντούλη, εκπρόσωπος των Οικολόγων Πράσινων. «Μέχρι σήμερα έχουν δαπανηθεί από εθνικούς πόρους 600.000.000 Ευρώ σε λάθος κατεύθυνση και θα απαιτηθούν άλλα τόσα χρήματα για να γίνει μια τρύπα στο νερό. Το να σπαταλάμε πόρους σε μια εποχή μεγάλης οικονομικής κρίσης σε μια κατεύθυνση που επιδεινώνει ταυτοχρόνως τις περιβαλλοντικές συνθήκες είναι -θα συμφωνείτε- λάθος επιλογή».
Περιβαλλοντικοί φορείς, επιστήμονες καθώς και οι Οικολόγοι Πράσινοι έχουν καταθέσει προτάσεις με στόχο την επίλυση των προβλημάτων νερού στη Θεσσαλία με έργα εξοικονόμησης και ανακύκλωσης του νερού στην περιοχή, με μικρά έργα εκμετάλλευσης των υπαρχόντων υδατικών πόρων, με αντικατάσταση των συστημάτων άρδευσης με πιο αποδοτικά, και κυρίως με σοβαρή στήριξη των αγροτών για αλλαγή των υδροβόρων καλλιεργειών με άλλες που θα εξασφαλίζουν δίκαιο εισόδημα στους αγρότες, αλλά και προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και της δημόσιας υγείας.
——–
My country: Greece
October 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm #
@Pauline
I saw that report too and I sympathise with you. Latest scientific reports conclude that climate change is happening even faster than predicted only two years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change. Here in northern Europe we are going to feel things like hotter summers, wetter winters and more frequent extreme weather events. Scientific reports like this strengthen the urgency of global and bold action to control climate change. It is another reminder to world leaders that we need a strong and ambitious agreement in Copenhagen in December that puts global emissions on a downward path. At the same time we have to learn to cope with the climate change that is happening by adapting to it.
Stavros
October 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pm #
Με αφορμή την πυρκαγιά στην Εύβοια
Από προχθές η πολύπαθη Εύβοια ξαναδοκιμάζεται. Μέσα σε 2 χρόνια, το φυσικό της περιβάλλον και η τοπική οικονομία βάλλονται διαρκώς, ενώ η ασφάλεια και η υγεία των κατοίκων της τίθενται ολοένα και σε μεγαλύτερους κινδύνους. Οι Οικολόγοι Πράσινοι θεωρούμε ότι με αφορμή την προχθεσινή πυρκαγιά στη Λιχάδα Εύβοιας, η νέα κυβέρνηση πρέπει να υιοθετήσει άμεσα δύο προτεραιότητες:
Α. αυτή της Δασοπροστασίας, προτεραιότητα εθνικής σημασίας, όπως δεν θα πάψουμε ποτέ οι Οικολόγοι Πράσινοι να λέμε, αφού ο δασικός πλούτος της χώρας μας είναι εξίσου σημαντικός τόσο για την επιβίωσή μας στον πλανήτη όσο και ως βάση της πράσινης οικονομίας. Για πετυχημένη δασοπροστασία απαιτείται συνεκτική περιβαλλοντική και δασική πολιτική, που θα δίνει μεγάλη βαρύτητα στην οικολογική διαχείριση των φυσικών πόρων και στην πρόληψη των καταστροφών, χωροταξική πολιτική που θα προστατεύει το περιβάλλον και θα οριοθετεί σαφώς τις χρήσεις γης, υλοποίηση του δασολογίου, αναβαθμισμένη και πλήρως στελεχωμένη Δασική Υπηρεσία, εφαρμογή της νομοθεσίας που προστατεύει τα δασικά οικοσυστήματα, συντονισμός κατά τη δασοπυρόσβεση και εξάλειψη των πελατειακών σχέσεων που οδηγούν στην ανοχή και «επιβράβευση» παραβάσεων και αυθαιρεσιών.
Η πράσινη οικονομία δεν μπορεί να επιτευχθεί χωρίς τα δασικά οικοσυστήματα και θέλουμε να πιστεύουμε πως η νέα κυβέρνηση το έχει λάβει σοβαρά υπόψη της. Κρίνουμε ως θετική, μάλιστα, τη μεταφορά της αρμοδιότητας των δασών από το υπουργείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων στο νεοσυσταθέν υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος, Ενέργειας και Κλιματικής Αλλαγής και αναμένουμε τη συνέχεια. Επίσης, ευελπιστούμε ότι με την ένταξη της ενέργειας σε αυτό, τα θέματα που άπτονται της ΔΕΗ και του τρόπου μεταφοράς της ενέργειας, θα αντιμετωπιστούν με τη δέουσα υπευθυνότητα. Η περιβαλλοντική πολιτική που ασκήθηκε στη χώρα τις τελευταίες δεκαετίες με ευθύνη κυρίως του ΠΑΣΟΚ πρέπει να αλλάξει άμεσα!
Β. αυτή της περιβαλλοντικής, κοινωνικής και οικονομικής ανασυγκρότησης της Εύβοιας. Η υποβάθμιση που υφίσταται ο νομός είναι συνεχής και τίποτα δεν δείχνει ότι μπορεί να σταματήσει. Η μη διεκδίκηση αποζημιώσεων για τις πυρκαγιές του 2007 και η ανυπαρξία πολιτικών αποκατάστασης των πυρόπληκτων περιοχών, όπως αυτή καταγγέλθηκε από τον “Συνήγορο του Πολίτη” για την Κεντρική Εύβοια, επιβεβαιώνουν τα παραπάνω και μας προετοιμάζουν για πολλά νέα “Ληλάντια Πεδία”.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:05 pm #
Dear Mr. Dimas
My name is Karin Budrugeac and I represent the Association Green Revolution from Romania. Our organization will conduct in partnership with the European Comission in Romania a conference - “Romania on the way to Copenhagen”, an occasion to analyse the impact of the UN climate summit negociations in Copenhagen in Romania and to prepare the Romanian public for COP 15. Would you be interested in sending a message to our participants which we can present during the conference? Do you have a message of encouragement for us or maybe a piece of advice?
Thank you
October 15th, 2009 at 4:11 pm #
Dear Carlos,
I cannot agree more with you that awareness raising is an important part of our responsibility to take determined action against climate change so that people can take account of this in their daily actions and have their say on the importance of taking determined action at all levels, be it local, national or international. It’s also important that decision-makers make sure that the market reflects the costs of greenhouse gas emissions so as to change behaviour and incentivise less polluting technologies and actions. Products with a lower carbon footprint may be more expensive at the beginning but the initial investment often pays off since these products often bring energy savings and therefore money savings. Additionally, when a carbon price will be fully integrated into prices of goods and services, green products will not be more expensive than others. In the meantime initiatives like yours are very important to directly involve and inform consumers on the fight against climate change.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm #
Dear Manuel,
Methane emissions are the second largest type of man produced Greenhouse gas emissions, representing around 14% of global emissions. But there is indeed a risk that as the climate warms, certain tipping points will be crossed that would see the release of large natural sources of methane. This would only increase the amount of greenhouse gases. This may for instance happen with the thawing of permafrost in the Arctic regions that would potentially release vast amounts of methane.
To prevent tipping points being reached one has to prevent temperatures from rising so they won’t be triggered. To achieve this we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This relates to your second question that refers to the deforestation of rainforests which is responsible for around one fifth of global emissions and is therefore a crucial sector to reduce emissions. The EU objective is to halve emissions from global deforestation by 2020 compared to current levels!
Developing countries recognise the need to reduce emissions due to deforestation, not only for the climate but also for other issues such as local benefits and biodiversity. The challenge of the international negotiations is to agree on an incentive mechanism whereby developing countries would achieve faster reductions of their deforestation rates and through this receive financial compensation for the overachievement.
I would like to disagree with your assertion that driving cars doesn’t matter. It represents emissions as high as global methane emissions and they are potentially one of the fastest growing emission sectors in the world. As such one cannot state that it doesn’t matter. Transport, including cars, has to contribute as much to the fight against climate change as the trees in the rainforests.
Stavros
October 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm #
Dear Mr Dimas,
Nona Karadzhova the Bulgarian Environment minister said in an interview with Reuters this week that Bulgaria will have to reimburse part of the € 900 million it received in pre-accession aid to modernise and build new water and waste processing plants. Do you confirm this? How much exactly will Bulgaria have to repay?
Thank you
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 4:40 pm #
Dear Karin
Thank you for your message. I know about the conference, and it’s another example of the very encouraging levels of commitment and interest we are seeing in many of the Member States on climate change and in particular on the road to Copenhagen. Unfortunately my agenda won’t allow me to take part but I have asked my services to send you a recorded message. My message now would be one of thanks for your efforts so far. Let me stress that engagement and determination at all levels, local, regional, national and eventually global, all have a role to play in driving the world towards a low carbon economy and in convincing all countries to agree on an ambitious and comprehensive climate deal in Copenhagen. Climate awareness is essential in this context and there is no doubt that a conference like the one you are organising is most welcome.
Good luck with the conference, and thanks again for your interest.
Stavros
October 15th, 2009 at 4:40 pm #
First of all, Thank you very much for your answer.
I agree with you at all, but I also think that nowadays, while countries are trying to go out from the economic crisis, it’s very difficult for people to select green products Although they know the Environmental Impact of the conventional products! … In this situation, I think that the decision of reflecting the costs of the greenhouse emission at the market could have economic and social consequences at the short term, so we have to look for another solution that makes us be able to reach this great objective.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:49 pm #
Dear Mr. Dimas, our company has developed a project in Spain to calculate the carbon footprint in products based on PAS 2050 and LCA (Llife cycle analaysis) for the goverment of Andalussia in colaboration with DET NORSKE VERITAS, a recognized third party verification/certification body. I would like to invite you to visit our specific web site for this initiative (http://www.huellacarbono.es).
We would be very pleased if you could answer the following question. Nowadyas initiatives about carbon footprint are still on the voluntary side, will there be any EU regulation for future obligations to companies in doing carbon footprint?
Thank you in advance for your collaboration.
With kind regards from Spain,
Juan Antoniol
——–
My country: Spain
October 15th, 2009 at 5:09 pm #
Dear Stravos,
Looking for Eco-technologies on your webpage I found the ETAP.
As far as I understand this plan is very broad and no cohesiveness so the MS to apply or not EU views. Can you tell me more about the different actions taken? Practically?
In the same topic, Will the EC will increase even more funding toward R&D specific to Eco-innovation? CIP is good, Eco-innovation as well, but shouldn’t we push even more eco-tech in Europe?
Thanks a lot for your answers….
UL
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm #
Dear Rui,
Thanks for your insights but I cannot agree with them.
The scientific community, brought together under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has concluded that the most recent science shows that climate change is happening and that man made emissions are mostly responsible. The IPCC, which is composed of hundreds of scientists from all over the world, has conducted thorough analysis of all climate research and therefore lays a very solid foundation for ambitious global action.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm #
Dear Juan,
There’s an important role for companies such as yours to help businesses reduce their carbon footprints and consumers make the right choices. As the world becomes increasing conscious of the costs of carbon pollution, and this becomes priced into products and activities, these businesses will have an advantageous position. Under the EU emissions trading system, there are precise legally-binding requirements for monitoring and reporting emissions applying to large emitters. Applying this level of accuracy to product lifecycles has greater complications, and so voluntary action that helps consumers and business to make decisions may be more appropriate and is definitely a good start. Moving beyond this is something that will need further consideration before rules on this could be put forward at European level.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 15th, 2009 at 5:14 pm #
Dear Carlos,
The current commitments for carbon reductions in the EU are sufficient for carbon reductions to have a value, but it is clear that the commitments of the EU and other countries will need to increase if we are to limit the effects of climate change. Copenhagen should be a big step in this direction. We need the short term signals to put us in the right track for the long term, and by having a predictable system, our economy will be best able to make the changes that are needed. Labelling is one of these solutions, complementary to other tools, in both the short- and long-term, and our recovery from the economic crisis is an opportunity to move onto a more sustainable path.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 16th, 2009 at 8:45 am #
Mr Parr,
Let me clarify what my thoughts are on this issue. I believe, in fully line with the long standing EU position on this, that the best way to avoid carbon leakage and address competitiveness concerns is to agree on an ambitious and comprehensive climate change deal in Copenhagen. Let’s therefore negotiate with this objective in mind.
But it is also clear that the Commission will reassess the situation in the light of the outcome of Copenhagen, as mandated under the revised Emission Trading Scheme, and consider then whether, apart from free allocations, other tools such as border measures, may be necessary.
Stavros
——–
My country: Belgium
October 19th, 2009 at 2:52 pm #
Answers and solutions!!
——–
My country: United Kingdom
October 20th, 2009 at 4:19 pm #
Dear Mr Birkett
Thank you for your interest in the implementation of Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air and cleaner air for Europe, and your encouraging remarks about the work the Commission is doing in that regard.
The Commission is aware of the high pollution levels across the UK and more specifically in the area of Greater London.
The Commission therefore launched infringement proceeding against the UK on 29 January 2009, for its failure to respect daily and/or annual PM10 limit values in a number of air quality zones across the UK. My services are currently examining the reply sent by the UK 6 April 2009, together with the notification submitted by the UK authorities at the beginning of May 2009 for an exemption under Article 22 of the Air Quality Directive from the obligation to apply the daily and annual limit value for PM10 in the Greater London zone.
The Commission has nine months to decide whether the UK notification meets the requirements for an exemption and has not yet taken a decision.
However, I can assure you that we are assessing the UK notification against the conditions set out in the Directive 2008/50/EC, and the criteria in the Commission Communication on notifications of postponements of attainment deadlines and exemptions from the obligation to apply certain limit values pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2008/50/EC (COM(2008)403), just as we are doing for notifications from other Member States.
The decision about whether to continue infringement proceedings will be considered on the basis of the decision on the exemption, taking into account also the latest information on PM10 levels in the zones and agglomerations concerned.
Stavros Dimas
——–
My country: Belgium
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 am #
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 am #
Dear Ulrich,
Thank you for your interest in the EU Environmental Technologies Action Plan.
ETAP was set up in 2004 to boost EU eco-industries and maximise the potential of green technology to protect the environment. There are 11 priority actions in three broad areas: getting the results of research to the market, improving market conditions, and global action.
The measures are undertaken by the European Commission, national and regional authorities and other relevant organisations. EU Member States have an important role to play in supporting and promoting new technologies and in mobilising stakeholders. So far, 21 Member States have developed national roadmaps for environmental technologies under the plan.
Environmental technologies have become very relevant during the implementation of ETAP, especially in research and development programmes. €1.4 billion went to environmental technologies under the EU’s 6th Research Framework Programme to fund and promote European research from 2002 to 2006, and up to €10 billion will be channelled to R&D funding for environmental technologies under the 7th Research Framework Programme (2007-2013).
Under this programme some 30 projects are helping SMEs to innovate and bring new environmental products and services to market. We can look forward to more successes like the CrystalClear project which has achieved a new record in energy conversion efficiency for silicon solar modules while reducing manufacturing costs. A networking scheme to strengthen the coordination and cooperation of regional and national research programmes on eco-innovation (ERA-NET) will be launched in 2010.
In addition to the EU’s Competitive and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and LIFE+ funding programmes, the main source of support for environmental investments are the funds available under the EU’s Cohesion Policy and managed by Member States. More than €100 billion is expected to be invested in the ‘green economy’ from 2007-2013, including €3 billion for the support of eco-innovation in small and medium-sized businesses. One example of the type of project being funded is the InnoEnvi project in southern Finland, which is helping to bring together the private and public sectors in seven regions to promote environmental ventures. The project has created 5 mini-clusters around environmental technology projects involving 74 companies, research centres and local authorities, with links to neighbouring countries. For more information on ETAP, you can visit our website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/index_en.htm.
Stavros Dimas
——–
My country: Belgium
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm #
About Copenhagen Climate Change meeting
The reason this will fail
(in application, whatever about a postive announcement that will no doubt be made)
is the international tension brought about by the insistence on Emission Trading as a solution.
Emission trading, Cap and Trade, is wrong,
whether or not one believes that action is needed to specifically to reduce CO2 emissions
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x
Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting —
International Trade: Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market —
Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading —
Companies: Business Stability + Cost —
In Conclusion
As it happens, if there is to be an emission policy,
Electricity and Transport sectors alone (80% of CO2 emissions) are sufficient to meet emission reduction targets,
with measures advantageous in themselves
(including energy renewability, and that emissions contain much else, whatever about CO2, and that local benefits mitigate the need for international agreements),
long term funded for reduced consumer price impact,
without cap and trade schemes without industrial carbon taxes and without efficiency regulation
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
The often repeated argument that
“It takes too long to deal directly with energy supply and emissions, we must also act on consumption, banning products (light bulbs, cars, buildings, dishwashers..) that don’t meet defined efficiency standards”
doesn’t hold up:
1. Because the lowering of emissions from electricity generation and distribution can be addressed in several ways, not all of which need take time, and some of which need organizational skills rather than money. Grid interconnections can relatively rapidly spread low emission electricity from a specific source. http://ceolas.net/#em1x
2. Because there are numerous disadvantages to consumers of efficiency-defined bans. http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
3. Because energy and emission savings from such bans are not as great as assumed anyway. http://ceolas.net/#cc214x
4. Because -while it should not be needed- appropriate and temporary taxation on products that would otherwise be banned not only raises funds for relevant environmental projects, it quickly limits and redirects consumption for the time required, with more adaptability regarding scope and application than bans. http://ceolas.net/#gg5x
.
——–
My country: Ireland
November 7th, 2009 at 9:45 pm #
Dear Mr. Stavros Dimas.
I’m a citizen of the EU, actually living in Italy, I’m very preoccupied about the way we treat our resources of water and I find it scaring that the new laws from the EU oblige the Goverments to privatize it. We, citizens, want to keep the water as a public property, can you tell me if there is any hope for us???
Whit kind regards from Charlotte Elise Berg
——–
My country: Italy
November 11th, 2009 at 2:25 am #
About EU emissions:
Extending Cap and Trade agreement is the wrong way to go.
The issues are emission reduction and future energy supply.
Given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global
temperature - and given the expense of emission reduction - the key is
to engage in activites which
1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
(using USA examples, but applies to EU too)
Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020
typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on
electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles)
alone, since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.
The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:
1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all
else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or
immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid
distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills
for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other
energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition
advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil
imports.
4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement,
steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated
countries, the suggested electricity and transport changes are not
just more limited, but also largely local.
5. Less bloated proposals - a clearer focus for political discussion and agreement
In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no
value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes
in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in
which case Europe is on track, and may continue with more specific
emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and
transport measures and can involve other industries, if necessary.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial
loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state
guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect
on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and
predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business
continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared
expense and disruption.
——–
My country: Ireland
November 11th, 2009 at 2:27 am #
(continued)
No energy efficiency regulations
Energy efficiency is only one advantage that products can have.
Energy requiring products can have
appearance/construction/performance advantages, as well as lower
cost and, under some conditions, greater overall money savings.
http://www.ceolas/net/#cc2x including examples of cars, buildings, dishwashers etc
as well as light bulbs
Even if felt necessary to target such products,
then energy efficiency taxation makes more sense,
giving tax income for home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc
- and also lowering overall energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them
sales tax on efficient products can simultaneously be lowered, making them cheaper than today
Taxation is still wrong, but better for all concerned than bans.
————–
Emission Policy Alternatives
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce1x
Introduction: The need - or not - to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax — Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair
Trade — Surreal Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs –
Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Cost — In
Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions
.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pm #
Thank you for being there helping to protect Earth and fighting against deforestation, contaminated waste , etc. I work fonctionaire in Murcia, south of Spain with items related to environment and natural spaces.
Thank you and good luck.
Javier Abadía.
Murcia, Spain.
——–
My country: Spain
Leave a Reply (please consult the terms of use of this blog before posting a comment)