Lisbon Treaty does NOT enshrine climate policy 8 June, 2008
Posted by Willy De Backer in European Union, Lisbon Treaty.trackback
As Ireland is getting ready for a crucial referendum on 11 June, climate change policy is being used as an argument to say “yes” to the new Lisbon Treaty. But does the EU’s “Constitution light” really help in tackling global warming? Is the current EU part of the problem or part of the solution?
Labour leader Eamon Gilmore stated on 7 June that the inclusion of climate change in the Treaty by giving it a legal basis is an indication of the EU’s leadership on the issue. Problem is that much more than a legal statement of intention is really needed for a climate change U-turn. If we want to reach any of the (moderate) IPCC targets, we will have to make radical changes to our taxation systems and this is precisely the weakest link of the European Union’s institutional structure.
Because of the unanimity rule on taxation policy (still part of the Lisbon Treaty), the Union has never been able to agree on the necessary carbon tax which would be a much better instrument than the unconvincing Emission Trading Scheme. It will also never be able to instigate the necessary shift from taxing labour to taxing declining natural resources.
This is why I would vote “No” if I were allowed to have a say on the Lisbon Treaty. This Treaty does not provide any real answer to the climate and energy crisis and should therefore be rejected.
good point – certainly the environmental elements of the Lisbon Treaty seem largely aspirational, as with other (social) elements such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
I’m an Irish voter (and Green Party supporter) who’s going to be voting Yes, for a variety of reasons, but I hadn’t considered actually the implication of tax unanimity on environmental measures. Certainly in Ireland, the national veto on taxation is being heavily emphasised in response to No campaigners who fear erosion of our low tax base. How short-sighted!
Incidentally, the Irish Green Party, part of the governing coalition, narrowly missed reaching a 2/3rds majority amongst its members to campaign for the treaty, historic considering their previous unwavering opposition to the EU treaties. The party have also, however, gained the inclusion of an Irish carbon tax commitment in the governmental programme.
Hope some of those details from a local perspective might interest you. In general I agree with your argument, but I’m still going to approve the treaty.
Sir,
I’m a portuguese and I took some action because the prime minister of my country decide to “forget” the previous made promise, to do a referendum to the european treaty. All I ask you is to disseminate the following blog among your friends and fellow-blogers:
http://notolisbontreaty.blogsome.com
I’m not anti-european, but I advocate the construction of an Europe of/for the citizens.
Thank you,
OM
Hey Willy,
Do you really think specific policies should be enshrined in the Treaty? OK, we don’t call it Constitution any more, but if I have problems with it, it’s because it is too specific – directly or by implications – on certain policy issues, not because it’s too vague.
I believe that we have more severe reasons to take the fight against climate change more seriously than some legal texts. Your point on taxation, however, is far more perturbing, that’s indeed a reason to be sceptical about the EU’s committedness in climate policies.
Greetings,
Daniel
PS: I had this SNAP link preview also on my blog for a while, it’s a nice toy, but on the long run rather annoying than helpful for your visitors, don’t you think?
Willy, why do you think a carbon tax would be more effect than ETS rationing? Under ETS, the cap will eventually reach zero. With a tax, people just go on paying (e.g. petrol, cigarettes etc.) And, given that we can legislate ETS now without national vetos, why bother with a non-productive academic point when a cap-to-zero proposal (-1.74% every year until zero is reached) is before the legislator? Wouldn;t it make more sense to attack those who are trying to weaken the ETS proposal, e.g. certain industrial sectors?
Mark, legislate ETS without national vetos? Let’s not be naive, who do you think decides at EU level? National governments, as far as I know. And how realistic is the cap-to-zero proposal with all the heavy lobbying indeed from certain industry laggards?
Willy,
Governments who put in place a carbon tax will also have an incentive to ensure that the well of income does not run dry. If you want to consider the ‘political economy’ of emissions trading, you have to look at all aspects.
For now, a carbon tax requires unanimity in the EU for the forseeable future. Emissions trading does not require unanimity. Ergo, we do emissions trading.
A cap to zero as Mark talks about it will not be really needed. We need a continuously lower cap. At some point, the alternatives will be so much cheaper that no more new greenhouse gas generating processes will be implemented. After that we wait for the old to fade.
The relevant fight in the near future will be to push the EU to use a 30% rather than a 20% reduction in 2020 as the baseline for the ETS cap.