EU catastrophy in Copenhagen?

By Paavo Lipponen
The writer is former Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament of Finland

This article was published on NORDICUM 6/2009

It is, by now, clear that no binding international agreement will emerge from the Copenhagen Climate Summit. From the beginning, expectations about so-called ambitious results were unrealistic. The United States was not going to change its approach 180 degrees from Kyoto, and the developing countries could not be expected to bear any extra burden.

The European Union has been the driving force for climate action and deserves credit for that. But this championing has taken the form of publicity- seeking hype and arrogant behavior on the global scene, as if the EU could dictate its terms to others.

The EU has been setting goals that are both unrealistic and hurting the European economy. The first mistake was the timeframe set at the Spring Summit 2007: to reach 20 percent emissions reductions and raise the share of renewable energy to 20 percent by 2020. Both goals were drawn from the hat, with no plan how to reach them. Particularly the renewables goal is pure fantasy. By 2020 most member states will not make the specific targets set for each of them. This kind of political culture seriously undermines the credibility of the Union.

The United States approach to Copenhagen looks less ambitious, but it represents a different, more realistic strategy. The US goal is set for 2050, giving time to turn the wheels. The Obama administration is investing heavily in new technology for renewable energy. To protect their own industry, the government will heavily subsidize pulp and paper mills, recognizing the ecological role of wood-based industries. Nuclear power is being openly promoted.

If the EU gives a unilateral, binding commitment at the Summit to 30 percent emissions reductions by 2020 – even with others committing themselves – the rest of the credibility of the community will be lost. There is no concrete plan on the EU level nor on member state levels on how to reach such a goal. At worst, a unilateral commitment would have catastrophic consequences for European industry competitiveness.

Climate change has become a vehicle for promoters of sheer economic and ecological madness. In the EU the effects of populist and fundamentalist campaigning has affected even the highest levels of decision making. The process of making EU decisions in energy and climate has not been transparent and the same kind of culture is now being adopted by the Finnish government.

Meanwhile, our dependency on fossil energy sources is increasing. Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila – nowhere in Finland considered a lobbyist for fossils – condescendingly recognizes nuclear power as a “transitional” form of energy. Does he mean the world being in transition to a new fossil era?

With Copenhagen approaching, we are witnessing the latest great achievement of EU energy policy, the closing of the nuclear power plant in Ignalina, Lithuania. Is this what the EU has to offer: making a member country to become totally dependent on imported fossil energy, forcing the country on her knees?