Voluntary Emission Targets do not Work
October 2nd, 2007
Welcome to my blog.
Web sites can be at the cutting edge of the environmental debate and I will be frequently posting to share my thoughts on the European Union and in particular on the main environmental issues.
I very much look forward to readers being a source of new ideas … but most importantly I would like the blog to help build public awareness of environmental issues. Once public opinion is mobilised then politicians and businesses are usually quick to follow.
Climate change is one area where opinions are already clear. In a recent survey, 89% of the public agreed that the European Union should urgently put in place new policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is hardly surprising, because with climate change we are facing a catastrophe. This summer we have seen extreme weather in Europe: flooding in England and terrible forest fires in Southern Europe. 2007 has also seen the biggest melt of Arctic ice ever recorded.
At the beginning of last week, for the first time ever, leaders from 80 countries gathered at the UN to discuss global warming. It’s fair to say that there is now a political consensus that climate change is happening, that it is caused by human activities and that the impacts could be terrible. This is a huge progress from even two years ago. But recognising that a problem exists is not the same as actually doing something to fix it. So the real work still has to be done.
Then at the end of the week, the US administration hosted a meeting of 16 “major emitter” countries. Having the US talking about climate change is, in itself, a step forward. But the risk is that the call for “aspirational” targets for emission reductions will be seen as a positive development. It is not. The reality is that this type of voluntary target doesn’t work and what is needed is a mandatory set of targets and a binding legal framework to deliver them.
Without this we would simply be giving a licence to polluters to continue polluting. If countries conclude that “aspirational targets” are enough then it will be a distraction from – even an obstacle to - the real solution. It would simply allow reluctant governments to appear to do something while avoiding the real challenge of cutting their emissions.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm #
There is, as you say, a political consensus. However as you must be well aware that does not in itself signify the truth. Just expediency.
I trust that you will not refuse to listen to those who hold a contrarian viewpoint. Experience tells us that they too have an important voice.
Too many times has a political consensus condemned thousands to suffering, whilst the contrarians in the fullness of time were accepted as those with a more perceptive view.
——–
My country: Belgium
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm #
Good initiative Stavros. The more Commissioners go on-line the less the Commission looks like a faceless bureaucracy. I hope other politicians here in Belgium follow the example.
With climate change Elaib is 10% right (we always need to challenge the status quo) but 90% wrong. If there is a scientific and political consensus then perhaps we should listen instead of always waiting until we are totally certain. In every democratic society it is the majority that decides and if we wait until every one is OK then nothing will ever happen!!
——–
My country: Belgium
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am #
Voluntary or not, targets have to be realized and the US have a bad track record of upholding internationally agreed standards.
The question is: what can YOU do?
You can get Europe to cut emissions in spite of non-compliance by others, and fight the cynics, and make us Europeans proud of re-inventing our economy. Make it our interest, our prestige, to pioneer in saving and re-styling energy. If we are not going to make it globally, we at least can keep our heads up.
This kind of commitment is our only change to inspire the American people to change there habits and habitual politicians.
ps. Consensus does only mean so much, as Elaib rightly states. But in this regard it is consensus on one of the biggest, far-reaching events ever. It’s zero or one for many, mainly the poorest.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm #
I agree that it is a step forward that the US is finally engaged in climate change talks. But I also think that having “aspirational targets” is nothing less than a joke and is notoriously insulting to all countries that have committed to reducing emissions through a clear, aspiring -not aspirational- and legally binding framework. Once again, W. Churchill’s quote proves true:
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they’ve tried everything else.” Let’s hope it won’t be too late.
On another note congratulations on your blog. I think it is crucial that the public can express its opinion regarding environmental issues, not only in an NGO context but in a context that is closer to where decisions are actually being made. This is where we can be heard and hopefully we can make a difference.
——–
My country: United Kingdom
October 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pm #
Dear Commissioner,
this diary is an excellent idea to get a more personal take on EU environmental issues. But it should also serve as a door for the personal input from citizens.
In my view, the Commission is too shy to address individual environmental problems in its host city, but it severely damages the Commission’s credibility when anti-environmental behaviour takes place right in front of its door.
Brussels is certainly not a leader when it comes to good environmental policies. Quite to the contrary. Are you aware that the city of Brussels is installing a ski piste with real snow in the city centre on 6 and 7 October? The temperature forecast is 18 degrees! It seems that the city’s officials have never heard about climate change, let alone your diary.
——–
My country: Belgium
October 6th, 2007 at 5:38 pm #
Congratulations on starting your blog. Two things that would be nice:
- Follow other environmental blogs and link to them if you find an interesting article. A will make the EC blogs living less in a universe on its own.
- Do reply from time to time to user comments. This is what characterises a real conversation.
Looking forward to your next blog article.
October 7th, 2007 at 7:56 pm #
Moin moin, Herr Kommissar!
Auf welcher Rechtsgrundlage bestimmen Sie hier Nutzungseinschränkungen (terms of use) Ihres Blogdienstes, die im übrigen nicht in meiner Sprache vorliegen, die bekanntlich Amtssprache der Union ist? Ausserdem vermisse ich eine Verfügbarkeit dieses Dienstes in meiner Landessprache. Das ist ausgesprochen unhöflich von einer Person Ihres Ranges.
Aber zur Sache:
a) Warum kann man diese Frage der Emissionskontrolle nicht mit scharfen Handelssanktionen gegen Staaten verbinden als Anreizinstrument?
b) Wie beurteilen Sie die Mitwirkung von Großunternehmen aus Drittstaaten an der öffentlichen Meinungsbildung in Europa zu diesem Thema? Ich finde es erschreckend, dass Fremdstaaten public diplomacy auf europäischem Boden erlauben ohne dass klare Gegenmaßnahmen unserer Regierungen erkennbar sind zur Abschirmung der europäischen Zivilgesellschaft.
Was soll man denn bitte von sowas hier halten?
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=100207A
Finden Sie es in Ordnung, dass sich Journolobbyisten in Brüssel tummeln und von den Kommissaren hofiert werden?
Wieso hat man so lange ohne klare Ansage den Lobbyisten von
http://www.exxonmobileurope.com/Europe-English/Eu_Homepage.asp
freie Hand gelassen ohne einen Aufstand der Anständigen?
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/
http://www.knowmore.org/index.php/Exxonmobil
http://www.worldoutofbalance.org/
——–
My country: Germany
October 8th, 2007 at 9:31 am #
what about a system (like feedblitz) so that people can subscribe to your blog and receive the new posts into their emailbox?
Thank you in advance
ph
——–
My country: France
October 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pm #
Hello Stavros and thanks a lot for listening to us civil society and NGOs.
Yes you are right we need mandatory targets, voluntary ones won’t work well enough. The ETS is a good example. But as you know the ETS has also problems, and I would like to underline one of them, an important one, supplementarity of the CDM part. I read an interesting article written by the WWF on the subject:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/emission_impossible__final_.pdf
My understanding is that you shouldn’t allow companies or states to buy more then hald of their compliance requirements in the south. If you allow that, you may end up with an increase in Europe, an increase in the south, and the KP would still be still satisfied!
Stavros we are very serious about that, we are eager to help you, would you spend 15 minutes looking at our presentation of the problem, it is on the first page of our web site in english? we would like to meet you on that and have an exchange, and help you on this hot issue, if we can?
——–
My country: Switzerland
October 8th, 2007 at 5:40 pm #
Dear Mr Dimas,
For EU countries to accept CO2 emission targets is only a start. Governments will have a hard time reaching those targets unless there is a massive change in people’s attitudes and consumption patterns. The debate should not be so much about greener energy sources but also – and maybe mostly – about how to make individuals and industry SAVE energy in the first place.
Apart from the many European political initiatives currently in the pipeline, I do not see so much happening on the ground. But I did see last weekend the skiing-slope mentioned by Mr Grunebaum in his entry. In the heart of old Brussels a French Ski Village had been built outdoors onto the picturesque and very touristic fishmarket square. Not only had the city allowed the running of huge generators for 2 days to keep the snow from melting in the 20 degrees celcius (!), also Korean “lifestyle” 4-wheel drives were being marketed. Incidentally, one promoter of the event wrote: “la neige à Bruxelles est devenue un luxe”…
While so many Europeans agree that policies should be put into place to limit greenhouse gas emissions, I wonder what percentage of them would be happy to pay significant eco-taxes for their weekend city-trip flights or for driving around in a trendy “utility vehicle”.
Mass consumption patterns will obviously change where the “polluter pays” principle is properly applied (as it should), but for a real change to occur the minds and hearts of people have to be won too. Governments, regions and cities all over Europe need to encourage environmentally desirable behaviour in a more systematic and meaningful way, and openly discourage or even condemn unacceptable conduct.
——–
My country: Belgium
October 8th, 2007 at 6:01 pm #
Excellent idea. Let’s hope that you will dare to write your free thoughts, not boring & soft political stuff. And that this will make EU citizens desiring more EU
——–
My country: Sweden
October 12th, 2007 at 11:13 pm #
Dear Dimas,
What can we do , as always nothing , usually humans are always concerned when the catastrophe has been done , and i am talking in general in all countries (you have had a strong summer in your country with a huge number of fires and even dead citizens) , but lets keep this conversation in general , human race is negligent , if we see this from another view more personal we will realize that for every human being the situation that will stimulate him to act or react is far more retarded than someone would expect so (in a paradigm there are many cases that humans do not react until the very death is waiting for them in cases of health problems) , so the idea to provide as much hard information to the public with supporting articles will chain the events to a better environmental health , in addition the solutions that will be held responsible for the best must be very accurate (it is too sad that all the friendly solutions that are in the game can produce a very small amount of energy that is needed). So again without evidence and strong solutions there will be no change in this directions . Ictus cordis of the environment is suffering and there will be no savior from to be rescued . There is no time unfortunately for the human race so see you in the aftermath !!!!!!!!
——–
My country: Serbia and Montenegro
October 13th, 2007 at 5:55 pm #
In my capacity of expert of Nanopathology and nanotoxicity I see the impact of micro and submicronic particulate matter freely released in the environment inside the pathological tissues of humans and animals. That is non biodegradable and non biocompatible and is very dangerous for the people’s health.
Emissions (gases and soot) from combustive processes are polluting the environment inducing weather changes, and contaminating people, but overall our children, inducing pathologies. Letal diseases and babies malformations are increasing with an incredible, neverseen, rate. Politicians must realize that and introduce limits in order to decrease the environmental pollution.
——–
My country: Italy
October 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am #
Great support from single users needs for this official blog. They can inform directly Commissioner for facts and figures that are not easy to reach head office for Environment by ordinary (official) way.
European Commissioner for Environment proably is the “role of the direct future” as all (worlwide) executive decissions includes a big percentage of the presumable result on environment.
Good luck Mr. Dimas
——–
My country: Greece
October 15th, 2007 at 1:18 pm #
Indeed it does not work, and neither does voluntary carbon offsetting in Travel & Tourism.
EU pressure should be exercised on airline & car manufacturers to clean up their act!
Antonis B. Petropoulos
——–
My country: Greece
October 15th, 2007 at 4:21 pm #
EXPERIMENTS WITH CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES THAT ARE DISCHARGED FROM THE EXHAUSTS OF JET AIRCRAFT (CHEMTRAILS)
All of us have observed the trails of jet aircraft flying at a height of around 10,000 metres. These trails are caused by the exhaust gases they discharge instantly freezing into ice at the low circumambient temperature (temperatures lower than -60ºC) and subsequently producing the characteristic white jet trails. These white trails subsequently disperse rapidly and disappear. The “chemtrails” discharged chiefly from the exhausts of type KC-135 and KC-10 military aircraft and from white aircraft without distinguishing characteristics, according to eyewitness testimonies, differ from the ordinary white lines left by passenger jets.
Although they initially resemble the familiar white trails left by commercial jet aircraft, they immediately become thicker and denser, spread out in the sky and produce various x-formations which join up to make a light veil that remains in the sky for hours. Many times, on cloudless days after several hours of aircraft flying back and forth they can change the appearance of the whole sky. Some times they produce larger amounts of emissions and form very dense clouds with “tails” hanging down from them. These clouds in no way resemble the natural cumulus clouds that are often to be found in the sky at lower altitudes. Hundreds of people in Canada, the USA, Spain, the Philippines, England, France, Sweden, Hollan, Croatia, Mexico, New Zealand and Haiti, have reported similar sightings of “chemtrails”.
The question is: what is in these “chemtrails” and why are these experiments being conducted? No-one can give answer these questions with absolute certainty. There are suspicions that they are being carried out to regulate the atmosphere and weather conditions. Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb and the “Star Wars” anti-missile shield, submitted a paper in 1997 to the US government for mitigation of the “greenhouse” effect through the spreading of tiny particles of aluminium all over the planet. These particles of aluminium reflect and disperse harmful ultraviolet radiation but at the same time allow heat from the earth to escape into space. In his paper entitled “Global Warming and the Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-based Modulation of Global Change”, Edward Teller emphasises that the negative consequences of the Protocol of Kyoto for production of energy from coal and oil can be counteracted by filling the sky with light-scattering particles such as aluminium oxide. This method is much cheaper than restriction on emissions from burning oil and coal.
It is well-known that burning of oil and coal results in the production of gases such as carbon dioxide that increase the temperature of the planet. This is called “the greenhouse phenomenon” and with the Protocol of Kyoto, reiterated at the August 2002 Johannesburg International Summit, a 10% reduction in the output of these gases by 2010 was agreed. The United States did not sign the Protocol of Kyoto because according to President Bush such an action would have negative consesquences for the US economy. The fact is that it is the American oil companies that pressured the USA not to sign the Protocol of Kyoto and advocated a search for alternative solutions such as that of Dr. Edward Teller. In the context of solutions for the greenhouse phenomenon that would permit continued use of oil a patent was approved in the name of the Hughes Aeronautical Company for “spraying with the Welsbach technique with a view to mitigating global warming”. In the patent it is mentioned that aluminium and other reflective particles could be added to the fuel of jet aircraft and emitted from their exhausts.
Reinforcing the above account is the fact that following vigorous protests about “chemtrails” from people of the town of Espanola in Canada, an analysis of rainwater revealed traces of aluminium seven times above the legal limit. In an area of fifty square kilometres around Espanola, Ontario, where in 1998 aerosol spraying was carried out, for months residents suffered from intense headaches, joint pain, dizziness, asthma, short-term memory loss symptoms resembling those of influenza, without the fever, etc.
Another theory is that “chemtrails” contain a powder based on barium stearate. Every crystal of Dyn-O-Gel powder has the capacity to absorb 2,000 times its weight in water vapour and air. On 16th July 2001, using a C-130 military aircraft, the Dyn-O-Mat company dumped four tons of Dyn-O-Gel over Palm Beach, Florida, causing a storm cloud in the process of formation to disappear. The cloud disappeared from the airport radar. The Dyn-O-Mat company’s Dyn-O-Gel is able to neutralize hurricanes and typhoons, absorbing water vapour and energy. A representative of the company hastened to announce that the material is bio-degradable and does not harm the environment. It is of course well-known that energy is not destroyed but transformed. To what extent these transformations of energy affect the atmosphere is an important question.
It has also been reported that “chemtrails” contain mixtures of barium salts. The Variable Terrain Radio Parabolic Equation, VTRPE shows pilots what neighbouring radars can and cannot detect under different meteorological conditions. Aerosols of barium and titanium salts were used to upgrade the systems used in operations against Libya and in the Gulf War.
What do governments say about “chemtrails”. So far no government in the world has confirmed that areas of their territory have been sprayed with “chemtrails”. Those who have asked questions in many cases have been advised to cease doing so. In 2001 Congressman Denis Kucinich, a member of the committee to uphold the Outer Space Treaty, called for a permanent ban on military bases in space and in particular a ban on chemtrails, which he classified as weapons. Several months later his paper was revised and the word “chemtrails” omitted.
It has also been mentioned that biological experiments on entire populations have been carried out with “chemtrails” for the purpose of studying the effect of various pathogenic micro-organisms and viruses, as well as for experiments for the purposes of mass inoculation of the population in the event of a bio-terrorist attack. Day by day the evidence accumulates of the existence of “chemtrails”. No government has either confirmed or denied their existence or explained the purposes they serve.
Nikos Katsaros.
——–
My country: Greece
October 16th, 2007 at 11:15 pm #
Dear Stavros, your initiative is great for this blog.
I wonder how in a world of faster-bigger-higher our society will actually go slower-enviromental pro and slow down ! No one abandons the sweet dream of consumption until it turns to a nightmare ! Saving the environment and ourselves is not simply a matter of technology (fuel cells for instance and bio-fuels) but changing the patterns of consumption and way of living! The economic schools teach that environment is an indefinite source for exploitation! Now we start to learn but the momentum is leading to the traditional direction… How we will convince the developing countries when we do not providing an example ? I an afraid that we are going to learn in the hard way, suffering the consequences and grieving for lost lives… This is not to stop trying though !
——–
My country: Greece
October 16th, 2007 at 11:58 pm #
Enhorabuena por la iniciativa. Pero, ¿cuándo podremos leerle en otros idiomas que no sean el omnipresente (en la UE) inglés? ¿Nos contestará si le escribimos en otro idioma?
O, como siempre, al final los diálogos serán sobre todo con los euroescépticos británicos, los más beneficiados por la Unión y los que más se quejan.
(En Esperanto) Dankon kaj gratulon pro la iniciato. Sed ni ĉiuj esperas baldaŭ esti kapablaj legi vin kaj paroli al vi en alia lingvo, krom la ĉieestanta (en la EU) angla lingvo.
Un saludo
——–
My country: Spain
October 17th, 2007 at 11:41 am #
I effortlessly absorbed English from birth in 1926, and I greatly admire the effort you must have made to learn it as a second language. No doubt you proudly feel that it is suitable for everybody in the EU to learn, but please visit the following website, and then tell your readers what you think of what an expert says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YHALnLV9XU
Mi senpene absorbis la anglan denaske en 1926, kaj grande admiras vian klopodon por lerni ghin kiel duan lingvon. Sendube vi fiere sentas ke ghi taugas al chiuj EU-anoj kiel lerninda lingvo, sed bonvolu viziti la sekvan retejon, kaj poste informi viajn legantojn pri via opinio pri tio kion spertulo diras.
——–
My country: United Kingdom
October 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pm #
Αξιότιμε κ. Επίτροπε,
νομίζω ότι θα έπρεπε τα κείμενα (τουλάχιστον όσα έχουν γραφτεί από ελληνόφωνους) να υπάρχουν οπωσδήποτε στα Ελληνικά. Αν δεν κάνω λάθος τα Ελληνικά αποτελούν επίσημη γλώσσα της Ε.Ε. Θεωρώ ότι η αποκλειστική χρήση -μίας μεταξύ του συνόλου των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών μειονοτικής γλώσσας- με προσβάλει και μου στερεί το δικαίωμα της γλωσσικής ισοτιμίας.
Προκειμένου να μπορούν και οι υπόλοιποι -μη γνωρίζοντες την Ελληνική- ενδιαφερόμενοι να διαβάσουν αυτά τα κείμενα, θα πρότεινα να επιλεχθεί σαν γλώσσα-γέφυρα η διεθνής γλώσσα Εσπεράντο.
Ευχαριστώ!
Γεώργιος Δερμάτης
Σαρωνίδα Αττικής
Estimata s-ro Komisionano
mi opinias ke la tekstoj (precipe tiuj, kiuj estas skribitaj de greklingvanoj) devus nepre aperi en la greka. Se mi ne malpravas, la greka estas oficiala lingvo de EU. Mi pritraktas la unusolan uzon de iu, inter la eŭropaj civitanoj minoritata, lingvo ofendas min kaj rabas mian rajton je lingva egaleco.
Por ke ankaŭ la aliaj -ne regantaj la grekan- interesiĝantoj povu legi tiujn tekstojn, mi proponus la elekton de la internacia lingvo Esperanto, kiel ponto-lingvon.
Dankon!
Georgo Dermatis
Saronido-Atiko
——–
My country: Greece
October 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pm #
Egregio sig. Dimas,
sono contento che lei cerchi di entrare in contatto con i cittadini europei circa la difesa dell’ambiente.
Sono scontento che lo faccia in inglese, contribuendo cosi’ alla grande catastrofe ecoculturale dell’Europa che si annuncia, e cioe’ la scomparsa dei popoli e delle culture europee a favore di quella dell’impero guida (che tra l’altro e’ il responsabile dei problemi ambientali).
Cordialmente
Renato Corsetti
——–
My country: Italy
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:47 pm #
Mobile Phone Technology
Dear Sir,
I am a German physician and engaged with the hazards of mobile phone technology for years. I wrote to the Chancellor and to the Ministry of Environment in Germany, to the SCENIHR, without a striking success. Last year I wrote to your Directorate (because of the vanishing and deformed animals- e.g.hedge hogs in Austria),and got a kind response that the influence of the FFH is limited. Lately I addressed to Barroso.
Now I am very glad that the EPA (referring to the Bioinitiative) points out the health risks of the pulsed technology.
Thank you for this!
This issue should get highest priority in Europe and in the world! Please continue this work, please support the humans and the environment suffering by the fatal impact of radiation! It is a matter of urgency, a delay ought not to take place, in no way!
(A summary of the main risks: dementia in the young people, sudden death by heart attacks or stroke, cerebral bleeding, infertility, deformation, chronic fatigue syndrom-CFS- and other diseases of the cell membranes, preceded often by anxiety, depression and agitation, at last tumors)
Best regards,
Christine Aschermann
(Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychotherapy)
——–
My country: Germany
October 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pm #
Mr Stavros Dimas
European Comissioner
Od roku pisze do roznych komisji parlamentu o prostym sposobie rozwiazania problemu emisji CO2 w samochodach osobowych.Ale tego prostego rozwiazania jakos nikt nie dostrzega.Trwa batalia miedzy Parlamentem a producentami samochodow o ograniczenie emisji CO2 i ustalenie norm emisji.Od 10 lat w USA jest patent w postaci swiecy zapłonowej do samochdow.ale lepiej truc nasze srodowisko niz ta swiece zapłonowa produkowac.Wynalazek ten sie nazywa The Revolutionary FireStorm Spark Plug.Wymieniamy swiece w samochodzie i po problemie z emisja CO2, ale prostego sposobu nikt nie widzi ,bo jak to mozliwe?.Moze w Parlamencie ktos sie zastanowi i pomysli zaprosic wynalazce Roberta Krupe do Brukseli celem przedstawienia rozwiazania problemu emisji w naszych samochodach. Jestem pewien ze bedzie revolucja w samochodach przy niewielkim koszcie.
Producenci samochodow mogliby zaoszczedzic nawet na katalizatorach spalin.
——–
My country: Poland
October 30th, 2007 at 11:31 pm #
When it comes to adapting our behaviour towards the environment it becomes a daily ’struggle’, because we’re all so used to life like we life. We take a lot for granted! My concerne at this moment are all these televisionprograms, like ‘Rides’, Fifth Gear, Junkyard Wars, Pimp my Ride, etc. When one looks closely they still are about the thrill (short term), entertainment, possesiveness and other basic urges of man. This consumptive attitude is stimulised and also still brought as something good and normal!! Millions of people are watching this every day! So the awareness of environmental issues is kept low and a kind of ’seventies’ attitude is kept alive. We still are thinking in ‘compartments’ (if this is the right word for it?) and still too often we tend to put our heads in the sand and permitt ourselfs to act and behave like we used to: “It gose well as long as it gose well-attitude” When typing this one realise that there’s never said enough about this subject, because everything is intertwined with evrything!! It is a bit like those farmers who grow papavers for a living, the after effects of the endproduct (heroine) is devastating, but this is their only source of income and whith a ‘little’ bit of help one must transform this into something more constructive in the long run and still be able to urn a living.
——–
My country: Netherlands
November 8th, 2007 at 5:30 pm #
Pourquoi le commissariat européen à l’environnement finance publiquement la destruction de monuments historiques et des monuments appartenant au patrimoine de citoyens et de citoyennes depuis des centaines d’années?
Exemple:le Canal de Nantes à Brest en France.
La navigation fluviale est-elle devenue inutile pour la commission européenne?
Peut-être dans trentes années,les citoyens et les citoyennes de l’europe auront besoin de la navigation fluviale pour cause de problèmes de gazoil.
La commission européenne est-elle prête à financer,dans trentes ans,à reconstruction d’un canal qu’elle aura détruite?
——–
My country: France
November 15th, 2007 at 4:43 pm #
Dear Mr. Dimas,
Undoubtedly voluntary cutbacks of any sort do not work. Otherwise, police, courts and penalties would be obsolete.
I believe that the time has come to stop hiding behind our thumb (our other fingers having already been cut-off). All costs relevant to our modus-vivendi have to be incorporated in this very life-style. Hidden costs have to be identified, BEFORE they emerge as uncontrollable giants. These costs include the environmental impact of our energy consumption and production which will eventually emerge in the form of damage payments. These costs may initially be covered by insurance companies, but will however “reunite” and re-emerge as lump-sums which will threaten economies worldwide.
Already, studies have repeatedly shown that the economic cost of making the turn-around in our energy life-style today is barely affordable, while it will be catastrophic 10-20 years from now. It does not seem like we have the time to “sit and discuss”.
1. Therefore, the so-called peripheral costs have to be incorporated in the basic cost of energy (in every form it is used) and the resulting cost has to be assumed by the developed countries, since it is they who bear the responsibility of the past.
2. A per-capita emissions quota has to be set for every country, since every person has a right to pollute at an equal level. These quotas will simply be what the earth can bear divided by the population. The quotas must be set by international legal proceedings in order to have effect. Countries which pollute, beyond the allowed quota, shall not be invited to discuss the matter. They will be invited to the international courts, since this is a global matter and not one of national sovereignty.
Once the true cost of energy is revealed and a binding emissions quota is set world-wide, there is no fossil fuel that will be able to compete with the “smart”, ever lasting renewable energy. We all know that fossil fuels appear to be cheap today, for the same reason that labour appeared to be cheap in the days of slave-labour: major costs are not included.
True, the economies will suffer. Yet we must choose the “lesser of two evils”. Shall we choose to suffer economically or be significantly destroyed?
PS. Excellent idea “to blog”
——–
My country: Greece
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 pm #
REGARDING:
Unprecedented Environmental Disasters in Greece and Hunting Restoration
Ladies and Gentlemen
On November 14, 2007, the Greek Government have violated a decree of the Supreme Administrative Court of Greece (“Symvoulio tis Epikrateias”) regarding a provisional total ban on hunting, and have permitted anew hunting throughout Greece, even in the heavily devastated areas of last summer’s unprecedented fires (imposing locally some minor restrictions). The related Ministerial Decree has been signed by the Minister of Agricultural Development m. K. Kiltidis.
We live in an era of rapid climatic changes originating in the human activities and having tremendous and catastrophic consequences for the whole Planet’s ecosystems. Last summer, unprecedentedly disastrous fires have devastated 30,000 hectars of wild forest and agricultural land in Greece, bringing a lot of wildlife species to the borders of extinction, by the means of decimating their populations and destroying their natural habitats.
Having considered the above arguments, we regard the aforementioned arbitrary decision of Minister Kiltidis and of the Greek Government on hunting feloniously disastrous, and we kindly ask for your proper action.
With Honour
Thanasis Agelidis
Orestiada
Greece
——–
My country: Greece
December 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pm #
Dear Mr Dimas,
I am sure you are familiar with the prevalent situation of the state of the environment in Malta. Malta is become increasingly an overdeveloped island and the supposedly Environment and Planning Authority keeps on disregarding this fact and issuing controversial permits with agravate the situation. Our quality of life is being seriously undermined. We had hoped that on joining the EU you would be more vigilant on what takes place over here. We had hoped that if the local and National Authorities would not address this imminent issue, the EU would monitor and encourage them to do so. It is estimated that we have 53,000 vacant dwellings. If these dwellings were to be placed together they would make up five entire villages in Malta. Yet, instead of calling a moratorium on new developments, the planning authority keeps on issuing permits of multiple storey developments. Soon the 53,000 (which incidentally equals the amount of vacant dwellings in a much bigger country than ours, that of the entire Ireland) will explode to more and more. The recent blunder by MEPA (THE Environment and Planning Authority) was the giving green light to the construction of yet another hyper market in an exclusive green belt between the two quaint villages of HAL Safi and Hal Kirkop. This area has been statemented as an area of agricultural and archeological value. But who cares? Who cares that in 30 years we have constructed and ruined more land than has been done since the existance of these islands in the middle of the mediterranean. What future lies in store to our future generations who will be inheriting one building site, a jungle of urban constructions, with barely countryside and recreational open spaces. To my mind, you should repremand the Maltese authorites. Your attention has been summoned over and over again by environmental NGO’s . Mepa keeps on approving developments without requiring a basic, traffic, environmental, retail impact assessments.Property prices are hiked up purposefully, so that developers construct smaller units at cheaper prices for more overdevelopments.Rent laws remain archaic which are deterring landowners from putting their property onto the rent market. Green belts, green areas, and local plans are overnightly changed finding themselves with construction activity taking place within their peripheries. This was a gem of an island but successive administrations have helped to turn it into a pebblestone! Please help the European citizens of MALTA before it will be too late.
Sincere Regards,
Saviour Sammut
——–
My country: Malta
January 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pm #
Dear Commissioner Dimas,
I am a 17 year old birdwatcher from Malta and I really wish that the Spring hunting be abolished completely.
Since Malta entered the European Union, our government has opened the Spring hunting season every year and it is the only country in the EU to allow spring hunting…. and this is unacceptable.
Spring hunting is against the European Bird Directive and means that many bird species that start their journey from Africa back to their breeding grounds in Europe are shot and killed in Malta. This also means that here in Malta many bird species such as the turtle dove and quail do not even breed. This is because most of them that are migrating over Malta are shot. In Malta not only Turtle dove and quails are being shot, but even many protected species like Honey Buzzards and Marsh Harriers. I have seen this many times with my own eyes.
Some bird species which used to nest in Malta have been completely killed off from our island. These include the Barn Owl and the Peregrine Falcon, which is also known as the Maltese Falcon.
Another problem is that you can’t go to many locations in the country side, this is because it is full of hunting and trapping hides and some of the good bird watching spots are full of aggressive hunters and continuous gun fire. This is not fair because I have the right to enjoy the country side too. In Malta, the majority of Maltese do not want spring hunting to happen again.
Regards
Christopher
——–
My country: Malta
April 1st, 2008 at 8:50 pm #
Mister Dimas you must act immediatly!
The seal hunting has begun!
There are thousands of baby seal KILLING now in Gulf of
St Lawrence for their FUR!
Fishermans can brutally slaughtered the baby seals by clubbing and shooting them with the majority of seals killed aged three months or younger.
This is the most cruel slaughtered of HUMANITY!
BANN the import of whitecoat and blueback sealskins NOW!
SAVE THE SEALS SAVE OUR PLANET
RESPECT FOR ANIMALS RESPECT FOR PEOPLE
——–
My country: Greece
Leave a Reply (please consult the terms of use of this blog before posting a comment)