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.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS