3E Intelligence

Hot political issues come in cycles. One year, politicians think people worry most about jobs and therefore launch big jobs and growth programmes, one year later the media and surveys tell them to concentrate on climate change.

So, the question is: will the current interest of politics in the global warming issue be a passing fad or will other topics rule again in the near future.

There might be some signs indeed that the mood might be shifting again, as an interesting Ipso/Mori survey picked up by the BBC today shows that nearly 60% of citizens still think scientists are unsure about climate change. Moreover, the survey suggests that “terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change”.

With the renewed fear of terrorist attacks after the events in the UK, I would not be surprised if the climate change issue will disappear slowly but surely from the politicians’ radar screen. Watch out Commission President Barroso. He seems to have a good nose for the newest trends “Public ‘in denial’ about climate change”

See also The Telegraph: “Public ‘in denial’ about climate change”

I want to come back to the conclusions of the informal meeting of EU environment ministers in Essen because it could set some signposts of where the EU is heading in the next few years.

First of all, the Presidency’s paper underlines the economic importance of environmental technologies and eco-innovation and defines the EU’s ambition to remain the world leader in terms of eco-efficient technologies. It also advocates - and that is more significant- the need for strong environmental policies, based on a “strong regulatory core“.
Pointing to the 20-20-20 targets defined by the March Council, the paper sees the need for a “comprehensive strategy for ecological modernisation”, requiring contributions from different policy areas such as environment, energy but also trade, industry, research, transport and budget.

There is a “need for a systematic review of key EU policies” to “hasten the mainstreaming of eco-efficient innovation”. The EU’s industrial policy as well as the Lisbon strategy will have to be revised, according to the Essen conclusions and the new eco-industrial policy should be flanked by the upcoming EU Action Plan for Sustainable Production and Consumption (expected to be adopted before the summer break).

“Tomorrow’s economic competitiveness will, to a large extent, be based on energy and resource efficiency”, says the summary. For sure, the EU has come a long way since it defined a very neo-liberal competitiveness goal in 2000. “The key to future jobs, growth and wealth, as well as to protecting the environment, will be fast and efficient eco-innovation. This requires strong environmental regulation combined with a broad range of other policy measures“. Is this the same EU which a bit more than a year ago had big problems with the weak environmental thematic strategies, because they could undermine the EU’s competitiveness?

The paper promises no more and no less than a “new view on Lisbon” with the following highlighted policy instruments:

US House speaker Nancy Pelosi and EU President Jose Manuel Barroso briefly met with the European press today. Pelosi is visiting Europe together with a bipartisan US Congress delegation to talk about transatlantic policies on climate change and trade. The delegation visited Greenland first and went from there to Berlin to speak to German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the runup to next week’s G8 summit in the German town of Heiligendamm. They also met with Nicholas Stern, the author of the UK’s report on the economics of climate change. The “first lady” of the Congress writes her own impressions about the trip on her blog The Gavel.
After having kept around 50 journalists (including yours truly) waiting for about half an hour, both Pelosi and Barroso kept their “meeting with the press” minimal in size as well as content. “Two questions” only, said Barroso’s aide and, of course, these questions were attributed to Reuters and Bloomberg. Not that it really mattered because the statements of both “world leaders” were exemplary in their banality.
Applauding each other like good statesmen, Pelosi and Barroso saw “common ground for progress” (in Greenland?). The controversial House Speaker behaved like a real good patriot when she refused to make any comments on her government’s climate policies. “We are not here to discuss our differences with the current administration”, she said. Pity for all these good journalists who had waited so long to hear at least one interesting quote to use :). Well at least some of them has some nice pictures.
More on the Pelosi visit to the European Commission in the International Herald Tribune.

The joint declaration on energy security, efficiency and climate change issued at the end of the EU-US summit cannot hide the fact that the Bush administration remains unconvinced by Mrs Merkel’s and President Barroso’s arguments and targets for climate change mitigation. In the same day as the signing of this EU-US diplomatic agreement, American government delegates at a Bangkok meeting were hard at work unraveling the third report of the IPCC’s 2007 Climate Change evaluation. More on this story from Time/AP.

• Dutch environment minister Jacqueline Cramer presented on 27 April the final report of an expert group on biomass use. The “Cramer Commission” has defined criteria for the sustainable use of biomass in transport, electricity and chemicals production. The European Union is preparing similar criteria for Europe-wide application.
  The report is available in Dutch only. Reuters has more on this story. EurActiv has an extensive LinksDossier on the EU’s biomass policy.
• 10 European environmental NGOs (Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth and others) have issued a very critical report on the achievements of the Barroso Commission in the field of environment, energy and sustainable development. Although the green G-10 has a positive note for environment commissioner Dimas, the Commission as a whole gets only a 4 out of 10 for its first 2,5 years. Only the Commission’s climate change efforts receive a good grade. Read the report and the G-10 press release.

Commission President Barroso clearly has a good doctor who helped him shake off his climate change fever as quickly as you and I can say “European emissions trading scheme”.

In an article in the British Telegraph yesterday, Barroso is said to have taken the side of all these innocent citizens who might become victim to feverish climate preachers such as Mr. Gore or rising UK stars Miliband and Cameron. According to the Telegraph, the Commission President opposes ideas to tax air travel and any other initiatives (such as studying the possibility of personal carbon rationing) as this would undermine personal freedom and run the risk of “turning people against the cause”. And what about these poor industries then, Mr President, who now have to carry the entire burden in the fight against climate change? Do they not deserve some of your liberal compassion?

Truth is: our dear Commission President does still not really understand the urgency of the challenge and the need for behavioral changes at ALL levels of society.

One consolation: he is not the only one in the Commission or the only politician whose climate change fever seems to be more linked to the media attention for the topic than to a genuine understanding of the destructive effects of global warming on future economic prosperity.

Moreover, his own commission colleagues, although seemingly committed to fight climate change, are not ashamed (and probably not even aware) of endorsing new EU measures which run counter to the so-called ambitious climate change objectives Brussels has triumphantly announced a few weeks ago. One example: this week’s “Open Skies” agreement between the EU and the US, which will lead to more air flight and has no clauses whatsoever to compensate for the increased greenhouse gas emissions as a result thereof.

“Mijnheer de President, wel te rusten, slaap maar lekker in je mooie Witte Huis” (famous protest song in the 60s by Dutch Boudewijn de Groot) [Good night Mr. president and sleep well in your nice White House, or in the Berlaymont, in this case )