European Union attitudes to climate change - discourse in key EU climate change documents

Ban Ki-Moon's climate change locomotive

UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon, at a news conference on October 1st with Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt, said that he was 'counting on the leadership of Mr. Reinfeldt and his European Union counterparts in meeting global challenges including climate change'

Mr. Ban said that 'the EU's role will be critically important' and coined a memorable phrase by saying that the EU could 'act as a locomotive' for the Copenhagen COP15 talks.

But Mr. Ban my not have given close attention to details of the EU stance on climate change, as the discourse in EU official documents, if read carefully, reveals EU attitudes that can be self congratulatory and prescriptive, particularly in relation to what developing countries should do.

Leadership at the Copenhagen meeting will require skills of diplomacy and persuasion, a willingness to see others points of view and flexibility in responding to them. In its official documents at least, the EU does not convey the impression that these are qualities that it can bring to the table.

The European Union position on climate change

The EU position on climate change is set out in two key EU official 'Communications' from the European Commission.

These are 'Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius-The way ahead for 2020 and beyond', part of a package of measures published in January 2007 and 'Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen', published in January 2009.

The Communications are turgid EU documents with nuggets of interest embedded in reams of eurospeak.

Luckily the EU does provide the key points in more digestible form as information for its citizens in Memos that accompany the Communications. 2007 MEMO/07/17 and 2009 MEMO/09/34.

The Memos, in Q&A format, provide answers to questions that the EU thinks its citizens might like to ask (!) about the Communications.

The Memos are an interesting read in relation to what they convey about EU attitudes as much as for their content.

Some insights about the EU attitudes and preoccupations about climate change implicit in the language and content of the Memos are highlighted here.

Re 'Limiting Global Climate Change to 2°C' 2007 MEMO/07/17

MEMO/07/17, if considered critically conveys a message that EU perceives itself to be a (self appointed) leader in relation to climate change, that the EU has set an example on emissions reduction that other developed countries should follow and that developing countries should follow EU prescriptions of what they should do about climate change.

The lofty tone visible at times in the rhetoric, neither acknowledges that others may have knowledge and understanding about climate change equivalent to that of the EU, nor that they may have their own valid plans for combating it e.g....

'The EU cannot win the battle against climate change on its own but it can show leadership by setting a convincing example'

(vis. Emulate the unilateral EU 20% emissions cut by 2020,and 30% if a satisfactory international agreement is concluded)

'Developing countries should .... reduce emissions in absolute terms from 2020 onwards'


Re 'Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen' 2009 MEMO/09/34

Two years on the EU position leading up to COP15 seems to have toughened. The 2009 MEMO/09/34 says that the Communication sets out 'concrete proposals for action by the EU and the rest of the international community'.

This could be construed as the EU setting out its vision for a climate change agreement but the tone of Memo/09/34 is very authoritarian. What the EU considers developed and developing countries 'should do' is emphasised e.g.

...30% by 2020 emissions targets for developed countries, differentiated on four criteria proposed by the EU ....national low carbon development strategies for all countries...extension of carbon markets ...international registration for developing country actions... reform of CDM.... and more..

The phrase, 'developing countries should...' and words 'should', 'necessary' and 'essential' are prominent.

The tone is often quite haughty e.g.

'To ensure an appropriate and effective contribution by developing countries...'

'Many policy options are available to developing countries where long term benefits can outweigh the costs...'

'Developing countries will increasingly be required to reduce the growth in their emissions using their domestic resources.....

Will Ban Ki Moon's EU locomotive leave the station?

The Memos convey that the EU sees itself as a leader, and as setting an example to others. They present a strong EU perspective that developing countries should contribute to the global effort and a preoccupation with, and drive to, extend carbon emissions trading; even in respect of developing economies e.g. 'financial assistance should be linked through carbon trading mechanisms'.

Whether others will see the EU as having a leadership role, or agree with the EU propositions about how climate change should be addressed, or be willing to follow the 'EU example' or its prescriptions for action, is questionable. It may well be that Ban Ki Moon's locomotive never leaves the station.

Approaching negotiations like a steamroller is not likely to lead to agreement. The EU will need to examine its self perceptions, be willing to accept other viewpoints, to compromise on its own ideas of how climate change should be addressed and perhaps be somewhat humble if it is to be an effective broker of a climate change agreement and become Ban Ki Moon's 'locomotive' for COP15.




References

Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius The way ahead for 2020 and beyond

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
COM (2007) 2 final Brussels, 10.1.2007

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0002en01.pdf

MEMO/07/17
Questions and Answers on the Commission Communication 'Limiting Global Climate Change to 2°C' Brussels, 10 January 2007

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/17


Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
COM (2009) 39 final Brussels, 28.1.2009
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0039:FIN:EN:PDF

MEMO/09/34
Questions and Answers on the Communication 'Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen' EC Brussels 28.1.2009
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/34&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en



Note

The choice of language used in all discourse carries with it perspectives and underlying assumptions reflecting the (unspoken) world views of both the writer and the reader and what they think is important, valuable or desirable. The quotes above are selected to highlight attitudes which strike this reader as underlying the EU position on climate change in the Memos. They do not necessarily correspond to interpretations made by other readers. References and links are provided to allow easy access to the documents in question.

Major Economies (MEF) emit nearly three quarters of world CO2

Some facts about MEF nations CO2 emissions


In October the UK is to host the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) meeting of 'leader's representatives'.The MEF was set up by US President Barack Obama to facilitate discussions between developed and developing nations about climate change.

The MEF comprises seventeen major economies - Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK, and the United States.

The MEF meeting in London provides a forum for informal dialogue to help prepare the ground for COP15. National representatives, together with Sweden representing the EU and Denmark in its role as host of the COP15 Copenhagen meeting plus UNFCCC representatives, will take part.

Some facts about CO2 emissions from MEF nations are presented and discussed here. Charts in this post show the percentage of world CO2 emissions attributable to MEF nations (Fig 11.1), and also their rate of increase (Fig 11.2) since 1990 when the Kyoto protocol was negotiated.

The MEF nations were responsible for 74% of world emissions of CO2 in 2006 and their contribution has been rising since then.

Two MEF nations, the USA and China, are by far the worlds largest emitters of CO2 each exceeding 20% of the world total in 2006. The USA and China are both large users of coal, and have considerable coal reserves. Combustion of coal is a major source of CO2 emissions and atmospheric pollutants.

Figure 11.1 MEF Countries % of World CO2 Emissions (click image to enlarge)

For the negotiations in Copenhagen to be meaningful both USA and China will need to agree to large cuts in their annual CO2 emissions or undertake equivalent commitments. Rising emission trends are also a concern since carbon intensive infrastructure (for example power and industrial plant) once in place, has long lifetimes.

Figure11.2 MEF Countries CO2 Emission Trends (click image to enlarge)

Commitments made by USA and China at COP15 will have a major influence on what other nations decide to do, but Copenhagen marks only the beginning of a long process in which all nations must become low carbon economies.

For example, in the future, to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, both USA and China will need to move to a position where they can leave their remaining coal reserves in the ground. Persuading their citizens of the necessity for this will be a massive challenge since it implies momentous changes in lifestyles, technologies and energy use.

US citizens are already very resistant to changes that affect their high energy lifestyle, so the political difficulties are significant. In China the lifestyle aspirations of the population will need to be addressed against a backdrop of environmental impacts due to climate change and population growth.

Such concerns will sit in the background, but shape the national positions taken, in the negotiations at COP15 in December.

Crafting a Copenhagen climate treaty to provide a post-2012 GHG mitigation framework is probably the most difficult diplomatic task that mankind has ever faced. Understanding the issues affecting other nations is important in negotiating an agreement. Less formal meetings such as the MEF meeting to take place in London can help mutual understanding.

While all nations will look at the commitments made by the two largest CO2 emitters with great care, they will also look at other high emitters (Fig.11.1). Russia, India, Japan, Germany, Canada and the UK contributed, as a group, 22% of world CO2 emissions in 2006 and coal dependence is evident as an issue for several MEF nations including Russia and India.

The EU, which includes Germany, the UK and Italy, but participates in the MEF as a single entity representing the 27 EU nations, is also a significant emitter of CO2. EU countries include coal dependent economies such as Poland.

The EU has already unilaterally committed to 20% GHG emissions cuts by 2020 and will extend this to 30% if other nations take on similar targets.

Without a doubt the example set by nations with large CO2 emissions, developed or developing, will influence the response of others.

Since MEF nations contribute nearly three quarters of world CO2 emissions the commitments that MEF nations make to climate change mitigation in Copenhagen will be critical to success or failure.

It is to be hoped that the discussions of MEF 'leaders representatives' in London will help to generate mutual understanding prior to Copenhagen and will aid the process of reaching agreement at COP15.

A Failure of Public Response to Climate Change?

Public Opinion and Climate Change Information



The latest Eurobarometer survey (2009) of Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change showed that Europeans generally feel well informed about global warming issues. Nevertheless climate change now ranks only third amongst what Europeans consider to be the world's most serious problems.

In July 2009 50% of Europeans saw climate change as the world's greatest problem but this represents a decline in importance compared with the 2008 EU survey when 62% of Europeans expressed that view. It is suggested that the world financial crisis being the top news issue in late 2008-9 may have affected the public perception of important world issues including climate change; however there may be other factors underlying the apparent decline in interest.

Measuring opinion about how the public view climate change is difficult, but public support is necessary if effective policies to combat climate change are to be implemented.

In a World Bank Working Paper 4940 (2009) Norgaard reviews the literature on levels of public knowledge about climate change, and citizens degree of concern about it, and provides analysis and policy suggestions.

The author suggests that there has been a 'worldwide failure of public response' to climate change and 'despite scientific evidence that climate change is serious problem having been available over the last 20 years, there has been a decline in public interest and concern about global warming'.


Public Opinion and Climate Change Information

From the literature review in the working paper a number of notable findings were adduced, and of particular interest are those related to information provision about climate change and public opinion.

- 'an almost universal finding worldwide' is the lack of understanding by the public of the basics of climate science

but also that

- a thorough understanding of climate change information is not a pre-requisite for people to show concern

and, interestingly, that

- public access to information about climate change does not necessarily result in public concern or actions to mitigate climate change

That having access to information about climate change does not lead to public concern seems counter intuitive given the serious nature of the evidence from climate science.

Most public information about climate change originates from news media and comes in a variety of forms. If news media are the primary source of public information about climate change then the absence or presence of the topic, and its depiction, provides the public with a measure of its relative importance.

Amongst other content, the World Bank working paper includes an analysis of climate change discourse in the media and Norgaard suggests that if news media are to be 'an effective agent of change' then three criteria should be fulfilled. The news media need to

- represent climate change as a serious problem

- send a clear message that the problem can be solved

- provide correct information about responses to climate change


Socially Organised Denial of Climate Change

There would appear to be a failure in the communication process such that climate change information does not transfer through public awareness into personal response or support for public policy.

The working paper analyses existing explanations for the lack of public response to climate change and suggests that public reaction could be understood in terms of a concept of 'socially organised denial' which draws on both sociological and psychological perspectives.

It is suggested that climate change information is known in the abstract but 'people work to avoid acknowledging disturbing information' and that people consider problems as serious only if they can see actions that can be taken to provide a solution.


Changing European Attitudes

The 2009 EU survey shows that more than half of Europeans feel well informed about the cause, consequences and methods of fighting climate change, although there are quite wide national variations. Around two thirds of citizens say that they have taken personal actions to combat climate change (these are most likely to be people saying that they are well-informed about climate change and those who think that climate change is a very serious problem).

Nevertheless there seems to have been a decline in interest in climate change since the Eurobarometer environment survey of 2007 which reported that 'Europeans are very concerned by global warming and a very large majority of them (89%) are in favour of the European Union taking urgent action'.

Questions remain about whether climate change information is being communicated in a way which engages the public,whether the information presented raises public concern and whether that concern is translated into individual actions and support for climate change mitigation policies.

Europeans, with a relatively high literacy rate and good access to information, seem to regard climate change as a serious issue. However in the period preceding the COP15 negotiations, they apparently feel climate change is less important than they did two years previously.

Using the three criteria cited above we may ask-

Is this due to a failure to communicate climate change as a serious problem?

Probably not.

The 2009 Eurobarometer survey suggests that EU citizens feel well informed about climate change and are concerned.

Has the public been given a clear message that climate change is a solvable problem?

Probably not.

The media discourse not been very coherent, providing a mix of information about threats and consequences, has conveyed the impression that there is much discord between nations, and has been pessimistic about the prospects of an agreement at COP15. That controlling CO2 emissions is important has probably been communicated, but how this delivers a solution to climate change has not.

Is the European public subject to the 'socially organised denial' suggested by Norgaard?

Probably.

The climate change discourse in the media has, in the run up to the COP15 negotiations, been fairly negative, expressed in terms of disagreements between nations about emissions mitigation, and the evidence and predictions from climate science have been portrayed as more serious than previously thought, and with more dire consequences. Optimism about climate change solutions has been lacking.

In contrast, the recent world banking crisis has been portrayed as a critical world issue but one with actions already being taken to tackle it, implying it is a solvable problem.


More Effective Messages about Climate Change are needed

While Europeans profess concern about climate change it now ranks only third in their estimation of the world's most serious problems. This might suggest that the messages about climate change in the media have been ineffective in fully engaging public opinion

Are the public failing to respond to climate change by avoiding acknowledging disturbing information (socially organised denial) or are they genuinely losing interest?

The effectiveness of communications about climate change to the public may need to be reconsidered if post-2012 policy and actions to combat climate change are to command public support.





References

European Commission (2009) Special Eurobarometer 313. Europeans’ attitudes towards
climate change. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_313_en.pdf

European Commission (2008) Special Eurobarometer 300. Europeans’ attitudes towards
climate change. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_300_full_en.pdf

European Commission (2007) Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf

The World Bank Norgaard K M(May 2009)Policy Research Working Paper 4940
Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change.
http://tiny.cc/Hw7hU

Upcoming posts

My apologies for there being no posts recently - my hard disc died.

New posts coming soon about

- the importance of using cumulative CO2 emissions when setting global CO2 emissions targets

- why public awareness of climate change issues does not necessarily lead to action to reduce its impacts PC97GHKVVYND

.

Climate Camp in London

Raising awareness about human induced climate change

Icenian, new to the idea of a climate camp, visited the London Climate Camp at Blackheath. The people were friendly, visitors were welcomed and the aims and ethos of camp were explained - essentially building a grass roots movement to combat climate change.

Camp decision making was by consensus and all shared in the work needed to keep the camp operating smoothly. There was a programme of workshops open to all, and in attending some of them, it was clear that the facilitators were knowledgeable about climate science and politics.

People attending the workshops, while coming to climate change issues from a diverse range of perspectives, respected the views of others, and discussion was lively.

The London Climate Camp was peaceful with the police mainly represented by a camera overlooking the camp from a tall crane well outside the perimeter.

Climate Camp Blackheath London 2009. Canary Wharf corporate buildings in the background

The climate camp members, young and old and from all social backgrounds, are working to raise public awareness about the effects of human induced climate change, which will have massive impacts on all countries in the world (impacts that include expanding deserts, water and food shortages, sea level rise, storms and flooding, mass migration...) unless the causes of climate change are addressed with great urgency the next few years.

The climate camp movement is trying to draw the attention of politicians and business leaders to the unique and unprecedented dangers posed by human induced climate change, circumstances which need an entirely different scale of political response from governments.

Business as usual is not an effective way forward if the most serious impacts of climate change are to be avoided. The introduction within the next few years, of radical and effective policy measures to combat climate change, developed with worldwide co-operation, is absolutely necessary.

Views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily represent those of climate camp as a whole

Control Coal to Mitigate Climate Change?

Top CO2 emitting countries have a large proportion of world coal reserves

Coal consumption is the key practical issue to be addressed in tackling the problems of climate change. Unsurprisingly trends in CO2 emissions bear a strong relation to coal consumption. Compare 'Coal Consumption of Top 15 CO2 emitters' (Figure 8.1) in this post with that showing the CO2 emission trends in the previous post.

Figure 8.1 Coal Consumption of Top 15 CO2 Emitters (click image to enlarge)

Coal is the major source of anthropogenic CO2 and a significant source of other environmental pollutants, but coal is the most abundant fossil fuel that provides an intense energy source and is relatively cheap.

Many economies have significant dependence on coal in their primary energy mix and its use provides electrical power and supports industry. To transform coal dependent economies, even if the will to do so existed, would take great efforts.

The coal reserves of the Top 5 CO2 emitters are shown in Figure 8.2. Apart from Japan these countries have large coal reserves, amounting to nearly 70% of the world total.

Figure 8.2 Coal Reserves of Top 5 CO2 Emitting Countries

An apparently reasonable strategy for combating climate change would be to phase out the use of coal worldwide or to reduce its use drastically. Technically and scientifically this would be a practical solution for CO2 mitigation but politically it would pose extreme challenges. (Issues to be considered in a future post)

Considering their substantial coal reserves, could the high CO2 emitting countries be persuaded of the wisdom of leaving their coal in the ground?

Claims about 'clean coal' technologies disguise the fact that the only clean coal technology is a coal technology in which all CO2 is captured and sequestered. As yet, although elements of the technology have been used in other sectors, the crucial Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies are still being developed and pilot tested.

A flexible CCS technology that could retrofitted to a wide range of existing power plants would be the ideal, but that seems an unlikely prospect in the short to medium term.

Can we control coal use to mitigate climate change? Have we the wisdom to leave it in the ground or only to use it when the CCS technology has been developed?

CO2 Emissions- theTop Fifteen Countries

CO2 emissions, and emissions growth rates are both important

In 2008 the fifteen top CO2 emitting countries together accounted for around three quarters of global CO2 emissions. These countries merit special attention during the COP15 climate change negotiations as their cooperation is important to achieving a successful outcome.

The trends in CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2008 for the fifteen major emitting countries are shown in Figure7.1 using data compiled by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Figure 7.1 CO2 EmissionsTrends 1990-2008 - Top 15 countries (click image to enlarge)

These data illustrate the massive contributions to global CO2 emissions made by the USA and China, and that since the beginning of the new millennium, China has raced ahead of the USA to become the world's largest CO2 emitter.

The group of countries with the next highest levels of emissions (~0.5 -1.7 thousand million tonnes CO2 per year) is now a mixture of developed and developing countries a distinction which, in relation to GHG emissions, is becoming outmoded since CO2 emissions from developing countries now exceed those of developed countries.

In terms of climate change impact both the absolute values of CO2 emissions and emissions growth rates merit consideration.

In relation to the amount of CO2 emitted, a small percentage reduction from a 'large emitter' represents many millions of tonnes of CO2 per year which are not added to the environmental burden.

The same percentage reduction from a country with moderate to low emissions represents a much smaller quantity of 'CO2 not emitted'. Nevertheless, when summed over many countries, these smaller reductions are also valuable.

However for climate change negotiators, focusing their efforts on persuading countries with large CO2 emissions to reduce them would have more impact as a strategy to achieve mitigation of global warming then distributing their efforts more widely.

In Figure7.1 the steep rise in CO2 emissions from China and also India are evident, and although emissions are high the USA, they do not show comparable growth rates. Despite the inadequacies of the Kyoto agreement, the emissions trends of most developed countries in the top fifteen are not increasing as steeply as those of developing countries.

Figure7.2 CO2 Emissions 1990 and 2008 - Top Five Countries

The rate of growth of CO2 emissions in China and India is staggering, the former more than doubling between 1990 and 2008 and the latter increasing by ~140% (Figure 2). In climate change negotiations, persuading countries with the highest rate of CO2 emissions growth to moderate such growth is vital.

Continuing business as usual in countries with both high and growing CO2 emissions could overwhelm collective emissions reductions made by even those countries with moderate emissions.

Focus on the fifteen

Trying to broker a universal agreement in which all countries preferences are taken into account is the ideal, but it is a complex and time consuming process. Reaching an agreement to mitigate CO2 emissions is urgent so one which can satisfy all countries may not be possible in the timescale needed.

It may be that climate change negotiators would have more immediate impact by focusing on the Top Fifteen emitters of CO2. By persuading those countries with large CO2 emissions to agree to reduce them, and those with the highest CO2 emissions growth to moderate their emissions growth, a solution might be found.




* Footnote
Data are taken from a collation by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). In this post only CO2, not other GHG and LULUCF, is considered .The PBL data includes CO2 from cement manufacture.

India, Coal and Global Warming - A Postscript

Indian Prime Minister's Speech

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh yesterday addressed a conference of the State Ministers of Environment and Forests. He spoke about climate change and the need to adopt an environment-friendly growth strategy.

'Our growth strategy can be and should be innovative and different' he said. 'For this India needs access to new technologies that developed countries already have' but 'We must also make our own investments in new environment-friendly technologies'

Recently sceptical comments have been emanating from various Indian ministries about India's development path and climate change strategy; this speech may be seen as reiterating the importance of the Indian Climate Change Action Plan (NAPCC).


See below