By Anders Wijkman is the European Parliament’s rapporteur for the resolution on ‘Winning the battle on Climate change’ - 28th November 2005
The EU needs to think big in Montreal and strike a deal with the world’s developing countries, if the US decides not to come on board, writes Anders Wijkman MEP.
The stakes are high in Montreal this week. More than 10,000 people will gather to discuss how to strengthen future global action on climate change.
In spite of years of international cooperation to try to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG), emissions are still increasing rapidly. Leading scientists have been arguing for several years that global emissions must be reduced if we are to avoid “dangerous climate change”.
There are several key issues at stake in Montreal. One is to take stock of the progress made, if any, in terms of the Kyoto Protocol and the emissions reductions agreed upon.
For the world as a whole the picture is not a rosy one, emissions are still increasing.
For the EU the emissions situation is a mixed one. Some member states, like Germany, Sweden and the UK, are on track to meet their Kyoto targets. In most other member states, however, emissions are rising.
Hence, the most important challenge for the EU in Montreal, in my opinion, will be to demonstrate that the EU will live up to its Kyoto commitments.
The other main challenge will be to make sure that some kind of agreement is reached on the post-Kyoto period. The best result would of course be for countries to agree on long-term emission reduction targets.
We know that the business community is very much in favour of long-term targets.
Ivestments in energy production, construction, manufacturing and the development of new vehicle engines have to be long term in nature.
The only thing companies know for sure today is Kyoto. The European Parliament has already made suggestions in this direction.
The resolution adopted by parliament on November 16 makes a strong call for such targets.
For 2020 we recommend a reduction by 30 per cent for industrialised countries. For 2050 the target is set at 60-80 per cent.
We have to be realistic, though. Long term targets will not be agreed upon in Montreal. The main reason, no doubt, is the intransigent position of the US.
Some people believe the US administration was changing its position after the G8 meeting this summer and as a consequence of Hurricane Katrina.
But that does not seem to be the case. And when US leader George W Bush does not make concessions, dialogue with the rest of the world, notably the developing countries, is made much more difficult.
When listening to EU climate negotiators everybody seems to be hoping for the best, that somehow a breakthrough will happen in Montreal and the US, all of a sudden, will agree on some kind of process on how to address the post-2012 period.
I hope they are right. But I would hedge my bets. We need a plan B as well. We need something to work on if the US does not play along.
The EU accounts for only 14 per cent of total GHG emissions, which means that we desperately need to engage other main actors in mitigation efforts.
The US is critical. In the long-term no climate regime can be effective without them.
In the short-term, however, I would suggest that we had better agree on something with the rest of the world, even if the US does not join, rather than leaving Montreal empty handed. Developing countries are enormously important.
A few years from now their emissions will be larger than those of the industrialised countries.
Demand for energy will have to increase significantly in the years to come to modernise the economies in the South and do away with poverty.
So emissions will rise rapidly, unless, of course, we can assist developing countries to invest in cleaner and more efficient forms of energy.
Leap-frogging is possible. We have seen that in the telecommunications sector. Why not also in the field of energy?
Developing countries do not have to repeat our mistakes, and there are alternatives to conventional fuels such as modern biomass for cogeneration, wind energy and solar energy.
But such solutions are in most cases more expensive. That is why measures to support and facilitate technology cooperation and technology transfer are so urgently needed.
The original idea was that the Kyoto Protocol would include mechanisms to facilitate technology cooperation.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was established, with the intention to facilitate technology transfer from the North to the South and to stimulate investments in low-carbon technology and energy efficiency.
The sad fact is that the CDM is not working. After years of operation only a limited number of projects have been agreed upon.
The CDM is a very good example of what happens when decision-making principles within the UN clash with the business community (where decisions are faster and less bureaucratic).
What is desperately needed in Montreal is on the one hand a thorough review of the rules of the CDM to make this mechanism more viable.
Parallel to that, I suggest that the EU should enter into a strategic partnership with countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
The idea would be to actively support technology leap-frogging in these countries. The concrete suggestion would be for the EU to pay the cost differential between investing in conventional technologies and investing in the cleanest possible alternative.
The EU has already started climate technology cooperation with China and India. In the case of China an offer has already been made to finance a pilot plant for Carbon Capture and Storage. This initiative is of course a positive one.
However, given that China plans to open more than 500 new coal-powered power plants in the next decade or so a single pilot plant will not mean much.
We have to think big. That is why I suggest that the EU, parallel to the more conventional agenda in Montreal, should engage in serious discussions with countries like China and India to reach bold technology cooperation agreements for the years to come.
The necessary funds would have to come from member states budgets but also from the next long-term budget of the EU. Climate change is a serious threat to our security. The sooner we realise that the better.
It is in all our interest to make sure that developing countries do not repeat our mistakes and get locked into the carbon economy.
This article originally appeared in the November 28 edition of Parliament Magazine.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.