With the ink barely dry on plans by the European Commission for fighting climate change, members of the EU have already started a game of tug-of-war to pull the legal proposals in their favor.
"It's most important that the national targets ... take into account solidarity and [economic] convergence," said Arturas Paulauskas, Environment Minister for Lithuania, one of the EU's newest and least developed members.
The EU's climate-change plans "are not the place to deal with cohesion and solidarity -- that is what cohesion funds and the [EU] budget are for," retorted Hilary Benn, environment minister for Britain -- one of the EU's richest and most developed economies.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
A year ago, EU heads of government agreed that the bloc should cut its emissions of carbon dioxide (the gas most associated with global warming) to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
On Jan. 23 the commission -- the bloc's executive -- proposed laws detailing how this should be done. Monday's meeting was the first time member states had turned to the issue, and they lost no time in pushing for changes that would benefit their own economies.
One key complaint dealt with the way the commission calculated the individual carbon dioxide reduction targets that it set for each member.
While the EU's overall target for emissions is calculated as a reduction below 1990 levels, the commission told each country to reduce its emissions to a target based on emissions recorded in 2005. Commission experts say that this was because 2005 was the first year in which accurate emissions figures became available.
But a number of former communist states whose heavy industry collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union insist that their targets be based on 1990 levels. Since the industrial collapse led to a massive fall in their carbon dioxide emissions, any such change would make it much easier for them to hit the target. Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Bulgaria all call for a target based on 1990 emissions.
But Spain, whose 2005 emissions were far higher than in 1990, and which would therefore have to work much harder if its proposed cuts were based on 1990, insists that 2005 be the reference year.
A second dispute is shaping over the proposal to make heavy industries -- especially energy generators -- bid for carbon dioxide emission permits at auctions. The commission proposes that in the long run, all heavy industries should have to buy permits.
But countries that are home to heavy industries oppose the move, saying that it would damage their competitiveness. Germany, Spain, Lithuania and Slovakia have all sounded alarms over the issue.
And Poland, the Czech Republic and Estonia -- all reliant on highly-polluting coal or even more polluting oil shale for their electricity generation -- go a step further, insisting that electricity generators, too, be allowed free permits.
"If we have to buy 100 percent of allowances from 2013, it would cost 5 billion euros [US$7.6 billion] per year and the price of energy would rise by 50 to 70 percent," said Maciej Nowicki, Poland's environment minister.
Above all, it is the commission's attempt to make member states fulfil their targets by improving their performance at home which has run into a storm.
Current climate legislation allows EU members broad latitude to claim credit at home for paying for emissions-reduction projects in other countries. A wide range of member states say that the new proposals do not allow them to do that enough.
Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg and Spain -- all rich states with high targets from the commission -- want to be allowed to get more credit for paying for third-country reductions, while poorer states such as Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia and Bulgaria want more "flexibility" in the way rich states are allowed to help them.
Monday's meeting was only the first skirmish in the tug-of-war. EU heads of government are set to discuss the proposals on March 13, and even the most optimistic commentators say that no final decision on the laws is likely until October.
And with the EU's member states already flexing their own muscles and looking for allies, the commission's climate-change proposals look set for a long, tense struggle before they come into law.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS