Support Indy
Media

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Read CC In Your
Own Language

CC Malayalam

Iraq

Peak Oil

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Questioning EU Policies On Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Dr.Peter Custers

11 July, 2008
Countercurrents.org

Debate and public opinion building on climate change should, amongst others, seriously question the existing policies of the European Union. Forceful demands need to be formulated and canvassed for internationally, stating that the EU move beyond the limited targets which its institutions and most Europe-based environmental organisations have so far set.

Recently, a spate of newspaper reports have described the alarming predictions made by the team of scientists that is led by the renowned US climate change scientist James Hansen. According to this team's assessments, the dangers of rapid climate change have so far been seriously underestimated, and the rise in global seawater level alone could result in Bangladesh being eliminated from the earth within this century. Since climate catastrophe urgently needs to be averted, these American scientists advise that carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere do not just need to be brought down. In fact, existing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, now estimated to be 385 parts per million, themselves need to be reduced.

Bangladesh, as even its present 'interim'-government appears to realise, can ill afford to ignore the views expressed by these critical scientists. Yet, what demands should be formulated towards the European Union and other 'donors' who are primarily responsible for the dumping of CO2 in the atmosphere? is the European Union leading the way in saving the planet, or are its policies lagging behind the findings and demands of climate science? Below, I would liked to criticise both the targets which the European Union has so far set itself vis-a-vis European emissions of greenhouse gases, and the methodology which it applies to achieve its reductions. A discussion regarding these topics should be helpful towards formulating demands which put the future survival of Bangladesh and of life on the earth first.

First of all, there is a problem with the EU's targets. The EU's policy on targets is in line with the estimate of the International Government Panel of Climate Change that a rise in the world's temperatures of two degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels is acceptible. However, scientific evidence collected by James Hansen's team at NASA's Goddard Institute in the US, based on their paleoclimatic studies, indicates that acceptance of a two degree Celsius change of climate as 'safe' rests on dangerous illusions. Even a 1.7 degree increase in global temperatures most likely will already set in motion processes of 'feedback' (notably the 'albedo flip'), which will result in a disastrous rise of water levels in the world's oceans.

A second target of the EU that needs to be disputed with force is the target of a shift from reliance on fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources, to the extent of 20 percent by 2020. Even if this shift be combined with reliance on the capture of carbon dioxide at source, which itself is a disputed methodology towards achieving emission reductions, the combined reductions will not suffice to achieve the target which conscientious scientists believe needs to be set and implemented, in order to prevent worldwide catastrophe. There is growing consensus amongst scientists and other public opinionbuilders, that the world's chief emitters of greenhouse gases need to aim at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by as much as 90 percent in the very shortest possible time, i.e. within a few years' time.

The next major criticism of the EU's policies relates not to targets bu to the lack of convincing or even substantial results up until now. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the EU was to achieve gradual and limited reductions in the level of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012). These targets were very modest, too modest no doubt if they are compared with the targets that many scientists insist are absolutely necessary. However, what is even more disturbing is that until very recently, no reduction by the worst European polluters was achieved at all. For according to newspaper reports, the level of CO2 emissions by Europese's heavy industries as late as in 2006 registered a net increase.

Further criticisms relate to the methodologies chosen by the EU to achieve its reductions in emissions. One approach which has come in for severe criticisms is the policy of the EU aimed at tapping biofuels as an alternative source of energy, i.e. as an alternative to fossil fuels. The EU has targeted a shift from fossil fuels to biofuels, to the extent of 10 percent by 2020. However, the idea of shifting to biofuels originally was not conceived in order to respond to environmental concerns, but was aimed at achieving energy security (i.e. reduced reliance on oil). Moreover, both from a social and from an environmental point of view, stimulating production of biofuels is unacceptable, since it threatens to lead to world hunger (through the shift away from food crops), and to the destruction of tropical forests (which now absorb CO2).

A second methodology which is given prime importance by the EU is reliance on the capture and storage of CO2. This is an idea which Dutch academic researchers have been working on for years, and which Dutch corporate capital intends to test pretty soon. However, the big question is whether the capture and storage of CO2 is at all responsible from an ecological (i.e. health and environmental) point of view. Past experiences with nuclear waste (which like CO2 and other greenhouse gases is a form of non-commodity waste) indicate that the storage of hazardous waste in the earth's soil is not free from risks. One of the key
worrries is that such storage will ultimately affect the aquifers, resulting in the contamination of drinking water consumed by humans and by other species.

A third methodology which the EU uses is the mechanism of emissions trading. This is, of course, an idea which also has been developed under the Kyoto Protocol. It is based on the allocation of emission 'rights' to corporate capital and other polluters, and on the presumption that polluters (for instance those located in the world's North) who exceed their quota and polluters who have an excess, i.e. unused quota, can exchange their 'rights'. Mechanisms of calculation/measurement have been put in place, in order to promote the trading in these 'rights'. However, the fundamental flaw in this whole system is that it transforms non-commodity waste (CO2 and other GHGs) into a form of commodity, and provides commercial rights to abuse the global commons to the world's most notorious polluters.

From a Bangladeshi perspective, the critique regarding targets which the EU sets, and regarding the non-achievement of even excessively modest targets is, of course, the most essential. If climate change reaches a 'tipping point' such as may happen soon, according to Hansen and his team; if the socalled 'albedo flip' is set in motion, meaning that climate change is accelerated in view of the fact that the reflection of the sun's rays from ice back into space ('albedo') is suddenly reversed ('flips'), the rise in the level of the oceans' water will be fast, and will have catastrophic effects for coastal areas, islands and other low lying areas throughout the world, foremost for densely populated coastal zones of Bangladesh. Hence, EU targets need to be very urgently upgraded, and absolutely need to be met.

Among the methodologies for emission reductions chosen by the European Union, the choice in favour of biofuels also needs to be prominently criticised, since it directly affects the food security of Bangladesh's poor. Although the international rises in food prices which have occurred in the first part of 2008 are due to a combination of factors (including international speculation in food crops, and neoliberal/export-oriented policies), and not to biofuels alone - the shift in production from food crops to biofuels according to both scientists and journalists has also played a role. Hence, the critique of the EU's policy regarding biofuels needs to be incorporated in a demand programme, which addresses the interests of the population of Bangladesh.

In short, debate and public opinion building on climate change and Bangladesh should, amongst other things, seriously question these existing policies of the European Union. Forceful demands need to be formulated and canvassed for internationally, stating that the EU move beyond the limited targets which its institutions and the Europese-based environmental organisations have so far set. Not money aimed at 'adaptation', but the political demand in favour of drastic policy changes should be the lead principle guiding lobbying efforts towards the European Union. Given the magnitude of the threat that looms, Bangladesh has a great interest in mobilising international opinion, aimed at radically bringing down carbon dioxide emissions, and such in the shortest possible time.

Dr.Peter Custers is alobbyist/academic on Bangladesh. Author of 'Questioning Globalized Militarism. Nuclear and Military Production and Critical Economic Theory' (Tulika Publishers, New Delhi/Merlin Press, London, Independent Publishers Group, Chicago, 2007/2008)

(This article has been published in the daily New Age, Dhaka, Bangladesh, July 8, 2008)


 


Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights

Comment Policy


 

Digg it! And spread the word!



Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.



 

Feed Burner
URL

Support Indy
Media

 

Search Our Archive

 



Our Site

Web