Zero Carbon Caravan

European political leaders meet today to decide what our response to global warming is going to be. Last year, the heads of state agreed to a 30% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. As the Campaign for Climate Change argues, “this could be amazing, but some countries are stalling.”

In particular, Germany is balking at original commitments and seeking concessions for its heavy industry. Along with Germany, Poland and Italy are also seeking concessions, particularly in the wake of the global credit crunch. Poland seems to have been satisfied with some payments its going to receive. But the ‘difficult’ Berlusconi and the under-pressure Merkel could wreck both Poznan and the EU commitments.

What can you do?

You could be a bored cynic. Or, you could join with campaign groups who are staging protests to encourage public democratic action:

• Avaaz are running a campaign to urge Merkel to lead on climate

• Coalition Time To Lead are also running a petition

• The Uk Youth Delegation to Poznan are urging you to jam Gordon Brown’s phone

Background to the EU promises

In January 2008, the Commission proposed the EU make a 20% cut in its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, or a 30% cut if other countries agree to cut their emissions too. But the proposal also allows a large part of these cuts to be achieved by buying carbon credits for projects to reduce emissions in developing countries. This is one major criticism of the UK Climate Change Bill–what’s the point of an 80% target if the UK can achieve most of that by paying (’offsetting credits’) for it to be done abroad? That option does nothing to encourage behaviour change where it’s needed most–in developed Western industries.

On the targets being debated in Poznan to replace Kyoto–remember that?–even the targets being discussed there (50% by 2050… confused yet?) is viewed as too low by some. Which could be ok if the EU’s new agenda, of making Europe carbon free to lure China into an agreement, works out. (For an audio overview of EU proposals, listen to David Adam at the Guardian).

When these carbon credits from outside Europe are taken into account, the cuts required by Europe are significantly lower than the Commission’s proposal suggests. Even the proposal to cut European emissions by 30% only means around 22% in reality.

As the Time to Lead coalition of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, through the coordination of the Climate Action Network (CAN), say: “If other developed countries followed this lead, we would not make the cuts we need globally, so this proposal is not consistent with the commitments made by European leaders to keep global warming below 2ºC.”

Does everyone ageee 2ºC is the target?

No. In fact, organisations such as PIRC, who recently gave evidence to the UK parliamentary audit committee, believe that this is too high. There are also people arguing convincingly that 2ºC is a political target only, and bears no real resemblance to what is an actual ’safe’ figure. Hence their latest report, Climate Safety. It seems that 2ºC might in fact be the cover for shifting us towards what is ‘politically acceptable’ rather than what is needed. Why would the UK agree to the necessity for 80% cuts but then agree that across Europe only 30% (or 20%) is required? Someone who has been explaining it far, far better than I can here is Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre. It’s worth reading his powerpoint, via the Transition Culture Blog (probably the best tited blog post ever on climate: 9 degrees, the Wizard of Oz, and Sex).

The EU Emission Trading Scheme

It’s not only the targets that will be debated these next two days. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is also on the table.

The House of Lords EU Committee yesterday called for “ambitious reforms to the EU’s Emissions Trading System, pointing out that as the EU’s main tool in reducing carbon emissions it is vital that the system is a success.” In particular they focused on the resistance from countries such as Poland, arguing that:

The Committee received evidence that Member States such as Poland, with a high reliance on coal burning to generate power, were opposed to moves to ensure all carbon permits in the power industry were auctioned rather than given away as was the case in phase 1 of the ETS. The Committee argue that the EU should aim for 100% auctioning of allowances by 2013, and where exceptions are made for certain Member States it should be on the understanding that the time limited transition period is used to develop and trial clean coal technologies. [Original emphasis]

However, the EU ETS scheme should be thoroughly assessed for its contribution to fighting climate change. As the House of Lords themselves admit: “The EU ETS has become the cornerstone of UK and EU climate change policy but at the end of its first stage its record - in delivering reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - is as yet unproven.”

What is proven is its abiity to make big companies lots of money, for example:

The biggest beneficiary, according to Carbon Market Data, has been ArcelorMittal. In 2007, the world steel production leviathan had a “huge surplus” of 18.5m tonnes of CO₂ in allowances. ArcelorMittal’s power in negotiating additional carbon subsidies was demonstrated in Belgium at the beginning of 2008, when the firm said it would not reopen a blast furnace in the Liège – raising attendant concerns about lost jobs – without significant extra emissions permits. The Belgian federal and regional authorities freed these up by stripping the carbon allowances from electricity generation plants.

And which desperately in need country, trying to pull itself out of poverty while suffering the worst effects of climate change, is rightly benefitting most? India? Bangladesh? Vietnam?

On the buying side, London is a winner. It is, according to the World Bank, the “carbon finance hub of the world,” a position it consolidated in 2007. The United Kingdom is responsible for nearly 60% of purchases of CDM carbon credits, with London-based institutions, such as compliance buyers, project developers and banks, accounting for the bulk of this…

…other regions of the world profit far less. India supplies 6% of carbon credits, and the rest of Asia (excluding China) 5%. The whole of Africa, notwithstanding its huge renewable energy potential (solar power, for example), supplies only 5%.

London Banks. Hold on–those same banks being bailed out with our taxes…?

This is why pressure groups such as Ieta, which John Vidal in the Guardian on Wednesday noted was the largest delegation (bigger than most countries) in Poznan, with 256 delegates, are attending, to ensure that carbon markets keep working for those who can make money out of them.

As I argued back in my thesis in 2005, carbon markets seem, in the cold light of day, well, another market. And aren’t capitalist markets as we have them exactly what has brought us to this global crisis in the first place? As the Transition Culture blog says, ‘economic growth was a good idea at the time, but…’. And proof that left and right do meet at the other end of the circle: the scpetical scientist Jennifer Marohasy is also launching/promoting a fundraising campaign to resist an ETS for Australia.

And six of the best…

These have been some of my favoured reads on Poznan over the last few days:

• Amplified Green: half-way to Copenhagen
• The WDM Poznan blog: a human face on climate change
• Lo CO2 Travel: Australians go overland to Poznan (22,236km)
• Greenpeace: Pressure builds on Poznan
• Just in Just Out: for quick moving updates and info
• My Trees: Why does Poznan matter?
• Planey in Limbo: 25-hour coach journey to get to Poznan

Yes, we know that’s seven. Want one more? But don’t worry, it’s not all positive and enlightened inspiration. There are those using Poznan as a hook to explain how they still aren’t quite able to get to grips with the Greenhouse effect.

(x-posted at The Current Climate)