Do you think that the UK's membership of the European Union is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? If a referendum were held on the UK's membership, how do you think you would vote?
These are the questions that David Cameron is addressing in his speech on Europe, and that are asked in public polling surveys on this most touchy of subjects.
According to one recent survey, which asked just these questions, over 56% would "probably or definitely" answer that they would vote to leave, and 45% think that Britain's membership is a Bad Thing. Only 28% believe it is Good for the country.
But the answer you get depends on the question you ask.
Suppose a pollster asked you this question:
Are you grateful that we have clean beaches?
Or how about:
Is legislation to keep our water and air clean from industrial pollution a good thing?
What about:
Do you think it is a good idea to set targets for manufacturers to make their products consume less energy?
I am willing to bet that well over three quarters of the population would answer yes to all of these questions.
Then the polling company might ask the question:
Are you aware that all of the above are controlled by laws emanating from Europe that have been accepted by the British government?
I am willing to bet that well over three quarters of the population would answer no to that question.
In this debate on Europe we hear a lot from the business lobby about red tape from Europe holding back growth.
As if, were we tomorrow to cast off from the continental landmass, like a hot air balloon we would rise majestically into a sky of profit having jettisoned the ballast of legal compliance.
It is never mentioned exactly which laws are supposed to be jettisoned.
Even the coalition government's own campaign to cut red tape, in which the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs has played an enthusiastic role, has actually found little besides ancient and redundant legislation that it can bury without affecting health and ecosystems in a way that would cause public outrage.
It is precisely our membership of the European Union that has forced business and agriculture in this country to take care of our environment and protect our health, to safeguard species and habitats from the otherwise careless activities associated with the production of goods and wealth, energy and employment.
These are successes that figure high on people's list of priorities. Breaches of, say, pollution laws, occurring on their doorsteps trigger howls of anguish and outrage.
The Bathing Water Directive protects our beaches. Directives like the Groundwater, Habitats, Industrial Emissions, Landfill, Nitrates and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive protect us, our children, families and neighbourhoods from dangerous pollution.
Do UKIP and Eurosceptic MPs in all parties wish to abolish all of these as they abandon Europe?
Do they, perhaps, want to make Britain the continent's 'dirty old man'?
Let me ask you: are these protections, instead, not something to celebrate?
We can legitimately ask that, if our national government had not been not forced by Brussels to incorporate these laws into national legislation, whether it would have done so, and indeed whether they would be enforced, and by whom?
Think of how many times Britain has been taken to court for breaches of environmental laws, for example in the case of dirty beaches.
It is because of Europe that raw sewage is no longer poured straight into the sea and our rivers and waterways.
Even now, London is under threat of prosecution from Europe for breaches of air pollution legislation.
These foreigners should not be sticking their noses into our business, you say? Who else is going to protect our environment?
If you want us to leave Europe then you have to be clear on this.
That 'the environment', meaning weather, sea currents, migrating birds and so on, does not respect international boundaries is precisely the reason why we need a continent-wide protection regime.
And it is because it has set, and is due to meet as a bloc, its targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for growth in renewable energy, and for increases in the energy efficiency of products made within its boundaries, in its fight against the worst ravages of climate change, that Europe can speak with a louder and more authoritative voice at global climate change talks.
The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and the Landfill Directive encourage recycling. The ambition of the Water Framework Directive is to protect our waterways.
I am sorry, but unless you can convince me that, outside of Europe, we would introduce protection at least as good as these for the environment, and, even more importantly, enforce all of these, I will vote overwhelmingly for us to stay within the European Union.
I'm all for simplifying red tape. But let's hear it for European green tape. Without it, our environment would be even more despoiled than it is already.
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Friday, January 18, 2013
Monday, April 18, 2011
The conflict between European Directorates that's sabotaging UK climate hopes
Researchers for two British green campaign groups have discovered figures in European Commission documents which establish that it is possible for Europe to make 30% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, as called for by the UK and six other European states.
The discovery exposes a conflict at the heart of European climate change policy between the Climate and Energy Directorates-General (DGs), led by Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard and Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger respectively. It reveals why the policy has not yet been adopted while showing that there is no statistical basis for not doing so.
A month ago, Chris Huhne, the British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, called for the EU emissions cut target to be raised from 20% to 30% by 2020. In a letter also signed by Environment Ministers from Denmark, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, he wrote, "Now is the right time to discuss the most cost-effective route to achieving our 2050 goals, maximising growth, jobs and prosperity throughout Europe. We are not starting from scratch; the EU has already cut emissions by 17% from 1990 levels by 2009."
At the time, EC ministers were about to discuss the EC's Roadmap for a low carbon economy. WWF said the letter was "a step in the right direction" but added that "Europe's fair share of emissions reductions to address climate change lies even higher - at the end of 2009, forty of the world's leading climate scientists joined a WWF statement calling for a 40% cut by 2020."
It is WWF's researcher Arianna Vitali, together with Brook Riley of Friends of the Earth, who discovered the statistical evidence, calling it a "breakthrough".
The evidence is identified as follows: the Climate DG's official position is that a 25% reduction in GHGs by 2020 is possible if the EU's goal of a 20% improvement on energy efficiency is also met.
Its basis for the the claim is found on page 55 of its Low Carbon Roadmap for 2050 impact assessment which projects an energy consumption rate in Europe of 1,740 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) by 2020.
This contrasts with a projection for the same rate of just 1,600 Mtoe in the DG Energy's Energy Efficiency Plan communication (page 2).
EurActiv, the European Union affairs portal, quotes unnamed Commission officials as saying that the discrepancy of 140 Mtoe is because the scenarios used in the Low Carbon Roadmap do not assume an achievement of the 20% energy efficiency target, as it is not legally binding.
Yet the DG Energy document clearly assumes that it is achieved. And if it was achieved, then DG Climate's modelling shows that a 30% reduction in GHG emissions would result. So why, then, is DG Energy blocking the raising of the target?
This is all the more puzzling because both departments use the same modelling system - called PRIMES.
The unnamed source quoted by EurActiv states that the reason is due to "long-standing tensions" between the two departments . They are, it says, "very reluctant" to work together "on any statistics that could be used to link energy efficiency with emissions reductions, including the energy consumption figures used in the Roadmap's Impact Assessment".
Energy Commissioner Gnther Oettinger, whose department is more subject to lobbying from energy-intensive industries, maintains that the EU's current 20% emissions reduction target for 2020 is the maximum that can be achieved without harming Europe's industries.
Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard wants a 30% target to help the EU's longer-term goal of 80-95% cuts by 2050.
The existence of the tensions perhaps explains why the energy efficiency goal of the European Union remains only voluntary, while the other two climate-related goals (on GHG reduction and renewable energy) are mandatory - industry perceives the short term capital costs of having to adopt the target as too onerous.
WWF and FOE are now hopeful that the exposure of the discrepancy will add fuel for the UK's demand that the target be increased, and that a strong energy efficiency directive due to be agreed in June to recommend that the EU's efficiency targets be made binding.
The discovery exposes a conflict at the heart of European climate change policy between the Climate and Energy Directorates-General (DGs), led by Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard and Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger respectively. It reveals why the policy has not yet been adopted while showing that there is no statistical basis for not doing so.
A month ago, Chris Huhne, the British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, called for the EU emissions cut target to be raised from 20% to 30% by 2020. In a letter also signed by Environment Ministers from Denmark, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, he wrote, "Now is the right time to discuss the most cost-effective route to achieving our 2050 goals, maximising growth, jobs and prosperity throughout Europe. We are not starting from scratch; the EU has already cut emissions by 17% from 1990 levels by 2009."
At the time, EC ministers were about to discuss the EC's Roadmap for a low carbon economy. WWF said the letter was "a step in the right direction" but added that "Europe's fair share of emissions reductions to address climate change lies even higher - at the end of 2009, forty of the world's leading climate scientists joined a WWF statement calling for a 40% cut by 2020."
It is WWF's researcher Arianna Vitali, together with Brook Riley of Friends of the Earth, who discovered the statistical evidence, calling it a "breakthrough".
The evidence is identified as follows: the Climate DG's official position is that a 25% reduction in GHGs by 2020 is possible if the EU's goal of a 20% improvement on energy efficiency is also met.
Its basis for the the claim is found on page 55 of its Low Carbon Roadmap for 2050 impact assessment which projects an energy consumption rate in Europe of 1,740 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) by 2020.
This contrasts with a projection for the same rate of just 1,600 Mtoe in the DG Energy's Energy Efficiency Plan communication (page 2).
EurActiv, the European Union affairs portal, quotes unnamed Commission officials as saying that the discrepancy of 140 Mtoe is because the scenarios used in the Low Carbon Roadmap do not assume an achievement of the 20% energy efficiency target, as it is not legally binding.
Yet the DG Energy document clearly assumes that it is achieved. And if it was achieved, then DG Climate's modelling shows that a 30% reduction in GHG emissions would result. So why, then, is DG Energy blocking the raising of the target?
This is all the more puzzling because both departments use the same modelling system - called PRIMES.
The unnamed source quoted by EurActiv states that the reason is due to "long-standing tensions" between the two departments . They are, it says, "very reluctant" to work together "on any statistics that could be used to link energy efficiency with emissions reductions, including the energy consumption figures used in the Roadmap's Impact Assessment".
Energy Commissioner Gnther Oettinger, whose department is more subject to lobbying from energy-intensive industries, maintains that the EU's current 20% emissions reduction target for 2020 is the maximum that can be achieved without harming Europe's industries.
Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard wants a 30% target to help the EU's longer-term goal of 80-95% cuts by 2050.
The existence of the tensions perhaps explains why the energy efficiency goal of the European Union remains only voluntary, while the other two climate-related goals (on GHG reduction and renewable energy) are mandatory - industry perceives the short term capital costs of having to adopt the target as too onerous.
WWF and FOE are now hopeful that the exposure of the discrepancy will add fuel for the UK's demand that the target be increased, and that a strong energy efficiency directive due to be agreed in June to recommend that the EU's efficiency targets be made binding.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The dire threat to the European renewables industry
I don't often quote other peoples' blogs, but this is vital, as it's about the heart of the battle for control of UK and European energy policy.
A few of days ago I was talking about feed-in tarriffs. Defra press office's little joke at BERR's expense was the tip of the iceberg of a bitter dispute at the heart of UK energy policy development.
This battle sees support for new nuclear build, gas and carbon capture pitted against support for renewables, in which a feed-in law should have a rightful place.
As we're going to miss our renewables targets, the UK (BERR) is pushing in Europe for a grossly inefficient use of voluntary credit purchases to make up its renewables shortfall.
It works, according to Miguel Mendonca, a policy officer for the World Future Council and author of Earthscan title 'Feed-in Tariffs: Accelerating the Deployment of Renewable Energy' (May 2007), like this:
The Government will be resurrecting civil nuclear power — just as seven of the UK's 16 nuclear power plants are currently off-line for repairs and maintenance.
Support will also be given to carbon capture and gas infrastructure.
(NB: British unions are well represented in the conventional energy industry, with coal and nuclear carrying significant union membership. The UK renewables industry has no union.)
A harmonised set of certificates of origin (guarantees of origin, or GOs) will be designed; for each kWh of green electricity produced, the producer can ask a competent national body to issue a green certificate.
This can be traded and will be counted towards the national target in the country into which the certificate is sold.
The country from which the certificate originates will not be able to count it under its own national target achievement plan.
The opposition to feed-in is entrenched in the conventional energy industry.
They (Eurelectric et al) have mobilised a fresh campaign against feed-in.
The UK's energy companies are mostly owned by German and French utilities (such as E-ON, RWE and EDF) — who all oppose feed-in, but some welcome the opportunity for large profits from wind farms.
They vigorously defend a domestic system which blocks out everyone except the biggest investors, themselves — the reverse of what a feed-in system achieves — and lobby in Europe for a system which will undermine everyone else's renewables systems.
The only winner can be the conventional energy industry.
Miguel concludes: "It seems clear that the renewables industry here is still far from safe, with national governments and energy giants working behind the scenes to keep the industry in check, or worse."
Until the new draft Directive emerges in January, we won't know the fate of renewables here.
> Read Miguel's full article here
A few of days ago I was talking about feed-in tarriffs. Defra press office's little joke at BERR's expense was the tip of the iceberg of a bitter dispute at the heart of UK energy policy development.
This battle sees support for new nuclear build, gas and carbon capture pitted against support for renewables, in which a feed-in law should have a rightful place.
As we're going to miss our renewables targets, the UK (BERR) is pushing in Europe for a grossly inefficient use of voluntary credit purchases to make up its renewables shortfall.
It works, according to Miguel Mendonca, a policy officer for the World Future Council and author of Earthscan title 'Feed-in Tariffs: Accelerating the Deployment of Renewable Energy' (May 2007), like this:
The Government will be resurrecting civil nuclear power — just as seven of the UK's 16 nuclear power plants are currently off-line for repairs and maintenance.
Support will also be given to carbon capture and gas infrastructure.
(NB: British unions are well represented in the conventional energy industry, with coal and nuclear carrying significant union membership. The UK renewables industry has no union.)
A harmonised set of certificates of origin (guarantees of origin, or GOs) will be designed; for each kWh of green electricity produced, the producer can ask a competent national body to issue a green certificate.
This can be traded and will be counted towards the national target in the country into which the certificate is sold.
The country from which the certificate originates will not be able to count it under its own national target achievement plan.
The opposition to feed-in is entrenched in the conventional energy industry.
They (Eurelectric et al) have mobilised a fresh campaign against feed-in.
The UK's energy companies are mostly owned by German and French utilities (such as E-ON, RWE and EDF) — who all oppose feed-in, but some welcome the opportunity for large profits from wind farms.
They vigorously defend a domestic system which blocks out everyone except the biggest investors, themselves — the reverse of what a feed-in system achieves — and lobby in Europe for a system which will undermine everyone else's renewables systems.
The only winner can be the conventional energy industry.
Miguel concludes: "It seems clear that the renewables industry here is still far from safe, with national governments and energy giants working behind the scenes to keep the industry in check, or worse."
Until the new draft Directive emerges in January, we won't know the fate of renewables here.
> Read Miguel's full article here
Friday, March 09, 2007
Public opinions and market opinions
Some recent statistics on Employment and financial benefits of RE and public opinion on climate change policies
Public opinion
According to a Eurobarometer survey in all European Member States, 87% of Europeans are concerned about the climate change.About the same number (82%) think that their energy use has an impact on the climate and 83% would support a minimum target for renewable energy sources.
Almost two thirds (62%) of the citizens think EU-agreed measures are the best way to tackle energy-related issues.
There is less agreement on how such measures should be implemented.
One third prefers taxing, one third thinks public funding of research would be the best option and the others think that prohibiting inefficient technologies would stimulate energy innovation best.
Nuclear energy is not generally seen as the best way to reduce CO2 emissions.
About 60% of Europeans want to decrease the share of nuclear energy, and only 30% want to build more nuclear power plants.
Employment and financial benefits of RE
The world is on the brink of an energy revolution that will dominate financial markets for years and provide a huge stimulus to global economic growth, according to the latest issue of Barclays Capital's influential Equity Gilt Study.Investments in alternative energy sources are expected to grow to between $6.2bn and $8.8bn by 2009 as decades of U.S. and European research and development mature.
In 2005 Britain's environmental industries had a turnover of £25bn, according to the DTI, a figure projected to grow to £46bn by 2015.
With 13% growth last year, Germany’s renewable share in overall energy demand caused a renewed growth of jobs in the renewable energy sector.
In 2006 the number of employees working in the German renewables industry passed the 200,000 threshold.
Scottish Renewables has revealed the results of research into the economic impact of its members, the first study of its kind in Scotland.
The results show that 2,596 people are employed by SRF members in Scotland, and that the members of SRF had a combined turnover of £550m in 2006.
Employment in the 'renewables sector' is expected to grow sixfold by 2010 in the south west of England.
Meanwhile, a report from the investment bank Lehman Brothers, set out the position starkly - companies that adapt to the challenges of climate change will win friends and make money.
Those that do not will struggle to survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)