Despite pundits’ predictions, the European Union survived the Balkan crisis, enlargement fatigue, the fall of the Lisbon Treaty, and the sheer weight of its membership in general. What’s more, the EU has assumed a leadership role in addressing the current climate change crisis, due to the United States’ lack of leadership, and a topographical reality more vulnerable to the cataclysms of global warming.
While North Americans are preoccupied with the false “great-and-vast-frontier” notion of a never-ending earth, and developing nations continue to argue for the right to development, the EU successfully identified carbon as the commodity that will hold future political, economic, scientific, and sociological clout. From its March 2007 commitment to curb 20 per cent of carbon emissions against 1990-levels by 2020, to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) that manages the buying and selling of carbon credits, instances of EU mitigation efforts abound.
Yet when European leaders met last week to discuss the fate of this ambitious agreement, things were not looking good. The meeting saw western European countries pitted against their eastern counterparts, as some threatened to block the EU-wide greenhouse gas emissions cut. The veto bloc, led by Poland and Italy, argued that the agreements would be detrimental to its coal-dependent—and floundering—economy. With the credit crisis fuelling this claim, the veto bloc demanded more concessions, citing worries about increased dependence on Russian natural oil and gas.
In the end, French President Nicolas Sarkozy—who also holds the EU presidency—rescued the targets and timetables, arguing that the climate agreement is too important to be discarded under the “pretext of a financial crisis.” Yet no matter how frequently Sarkozy shines his le beau de Bruni smile, the tensions inherent in these EU dealings will not subside anytime soon.
As outrageous as it may sound, the Central and Eastern European countries’ claims are a legitimate concern. They do suffer from long standing legacies of coal-fired power plants. Fear of energy security apropos Russia is well-founded, and a clear economic chasm does exist between the East and the West.
While admirable, the EU’s ambitious plan to fully implement the ETS as a framework for the carbon market is fraught with obstacles, both institutional and psychological. The diversity of EU’s membership (25 countries and counting) could be an asset in different contexts, but has proven to be a major impediment in the climate change debate. The fear of carbon leakage is a real concern, and Western Europe’s attempt at greening its Easterly neighbours runs the risk of being perceived neo-imperialistic and overbearing.
However, this “now-is-not-the-time” populism should be fought with the “now-more-than-ever” reasoning. Central and Eastern Europe complain of unfair treatment, and accuse Western Europe of being insensitive to their “unique” historical and geographical backgrounds. Poland asks for free permits on its coal burning power plants. Bulgaria demands that Western Europe “do more,” claiming unfair disadvantage. Yet true unfairness would be to treat them differently than their more developed neighbours.
Western Europe’s efforts are more avuncular than neo-imperialistic. What Eastern Europe needs is not more coal from the Kremlin, but to bypass the carbon-heavy phase in history that got us into this mess in the first place and move towards sustainable energy supplies.
Furthermore, EU’s internal chasm runs the risk of damaging not only its domestic operations, but its ability to negotiate with other actors in the field of global climate negotiation. Its hardest currency is its capacity for leadership. This will only become more important with the critical United Nations conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.
The EU has been influential in global environmental politics since its conception. Although plagued with its own set of difficulties, continental Europe is the only negotiating bloc with serious commitment to move towards a low-carbon economy. The EU has the political will and ingenuity necessary to further cultivate its role as a leader in the field of alternative energy, environmental policy, and multilateral environmental negotiations. If leaders could set aside their differences and focus on leveraging this competitive advantage, a green revolution might just be around the corner.
