Bishop Hill EU for turning?
Mar 14, 2013 Climate: Parliament EU The Wall Street Journal is reporting the existence of a draft EU document that may turn out to be significant:
European policy makers must factor in the impact of the region’s deep financial crisis and stumbling economies as they design climate and energy policies, according to a draft European Union document seen by The Wall Street Journal.
The document signals that the 27-nation bloc may be reining in its ambition to lead the world in tackling climate change.
The paper, whose final version is expected to be published March 27, aims to start a debate ahead of the drafting of the EU climate and energy policy for the decade between 2020 and 2030, of which a first version should be ready by the end of this year.
Who knows what kind of a mess we could be in by 2020, but at least this report suggests the EU has now noticed that there is a problem.
Reader Comments (78)
Scarface,
A central plan to create the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, when their very thinking is against being dynamic and competitive. What could go wrong?
We're doomed, laddie, doomed!
Both the UN and the EU are looking for new ideas...
And from the EU http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-101_en.htm
Interesting post, Ruth. I note that they are implicitly acknowledging that the criticisms of green policies (they are expensive and will make life less pleasant) have merit.
As a non-EU member observer - and boy, I am smarting at missing out on that Nobel Prize you guys won - the machinations of the EU are unfathomable.
It seems to me that the EU is just another European empire, of which there have been quite a few. In the end, they all fall apart because, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, "there is no such thing as Europe." Despite numerous attempts at homogenisation, the various components - which may or may not conform to the ever-changing national boundaries - remain stubbornly different. The UK, being a group of islands, is even less connected than Italy and France are to each other.
For the sake of world peace, and my friends and relatives in the EU, I really hope that pragmatic concerns will override crazy policies like CO2 targets. I also hope that they find a weaselly way to get rid of the single currency, which has been a catastrophic failure and inflicted terrible hardships on people who live in the poorer countries.
johanna:
"It seems to me that the EU is just another European empire, of which there have been quite a few."
Hi johanna - please can you expand on this? I'm not a great one on political history so I'm intrigued to know what precedents you see for the EU in Europe? Thanks.
Re: new direction for Europe:
//
Proposal for a new EU Environment Action Programme to 2020
Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said: "We cannot wait until the economic crisis is over before we tackle the resources, environmental and climate crises. We must address all these at the same time and so include climate and environmental concerns into all our policies. This strategy gives businesses and politicians the long-term view we very much need for making the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon society in Europe."
The Commission's proposal will be considered through the ordinary legislative procedure by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Once agreed, the new EAP will become EU law.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/index.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/proposal.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/pdf/ia_annexes/Annex%201%20-%20Details%20of%20public%20consultation.pdf
//
Looking forwards to seeing the draft plans for 2020 to 2030.
Not banned yet - let's start with the Romans. They at least had the sense not to try to remake their Empire entirely as a mini-Rome, but certainly imposed Roman laws and taxes wherever it was feasible. They imposed an official language for important matters. They introduced regulations where previously there had been none, or overrode the existing ones. In the later stages, they even had two capitals, just like the EU.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire also come to mind. Same MO. I'm not exactly steeped in European history, but no doubt there are other examples.
My point, which space and boredom considerations meant had to be very condensed, is that the history of Europe for the last couple of thousand years has alternated between forces trying to amalgamate it and forces trying to break it up. The illusion of stability that post WWII residents have is utterly at odds with history. The maps are constantly being redrawn, even now (eg the recent breakup of Czechoslovakia).
The EU resembles the various previous empires in more ways than not.
Johanna,
A decade or two back I recall that the EEC (before it upgraded itself to the EU), were the butt of a joke that described it as the "Belgian Empire" because it is the seat of the major EU institutions. And a comfortable seat at that.
The phrase has been attributed to Margret Thatcher.
But johanna - were there any previous democratic "unions"? As I understand it the Romans had an all conquering military power? As you say the maps are constantly being redrawn, but haven't these changes come about through force? Have there been any previous empires based on democracy?
I will leave it to BH readers who reside in the EU to comment on how democratic the processes were that landed them in their current situation. But in response to your broader question, it was not possible because there were no democracies in mainland Europe during almost all of the last 2000 years. Even France, which kicked the idea off at the end of the C18th, backslid several times. The rest were absolute monarchies, or ruled by lesser aristocrats or warlords, and/or were in the clutches of one of the transient Empires.
"But in response to your broader question, it was not possible because there were no democracies in mainland Europe during almost all of the last 2000 years."
So I guess we agree it is a different beast.
I said it was analogous. Animal species have nothing to do with it. Please don't put words in my mouth.
These words came from your keyboard/voice input/whatever:
"It seems to me that the EU is just another European empire, of which there have been quite a few."
later on, these words came from your keyboard/voice input/whatever:
"But in response to your broader question, it was not possible because there were no democracies in mainland Europe during almost all of the last 2000 years."
Conclusion - there haven't been "quite a few" - there have none. That makes it "a different beast" - my words.
btw - suggest you check the maps of the Ottoman Empire and overlay them on the EU before you claim it as an example of "another european empire".
@ cosmic
Hard to come up with something. And it was done before succesfully, so it's just brilliant!
Forecast:
A day will come that a US President will shout: "Mr. Van Rompuy, tear down this wall!"
Brownedoff: You're wrong to say that I have "dropped out" of the mission with Athelstan but I take no offence at this, as you've twice been at pains to assure me I shouldn't. And nor should you, when I say you've completely misunderstood :)
Not wishing to get too embroilled in the politics of the EU and the economic strains that it faces, but I consider that there is not enough recognition given to inevitable future disparities.
The EU desire all countries to be equally competitive. However, the Club Med have these past few years been selling government debt at a rate between 2 to 6% above that of Germany and the Northern block. Some of these are fixed for 10 years. The upshot is that Club Med are thereby carrying forward a debt liability considerably less favourable to that of Germany and the Northern block. This means that to reach equal competive with the Northern block, the Club Med countries have to be even more efficiemnt than say Germany that extra efficiency being required to dampen the effect of having to pay higher debt/bond interest rates.
To add to this, Germany enjoys an enviable position. People buy their products not based upon price competiveness but upon reputation for German quality and engineering and of course the status symbol which having a high end german car garnishes. That repudation takes many many decades to achieve and cannot be quickly aquired.
For example, if SEAT could build a car which is in every way just as good as a BMW (same size, specification, performance, handling, economy, style etc), people will still buy the BMW over the SEAT. Notably, this is still the case even if the SEAT is cheaper. The BMW does not have to be built as competitively as the SEAT since the consumer is more than willing to pay a premium for what it consders to be hidden qualities of the BMW (quality, repudation, street cred etc). BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Porche etc do not need to be built down to a price. indeed, to some extent, the price needs to be inflated to keep them desirable.
The same goes for Bosch, Miele, Siemens products over say the Italian equivalents such as Zanusi, Indesit, Olivetti etc. The same point applies to French luxury goods such as perfume. Asda's George perfume (apart from packaging and marketing) may cost just as much to make as Channel and may smell just as good, but who wants to give his girlfriend or wiife a bottle of Asda's George? Channel can sell their products at up to 40 times the price that Asda's George will sell at simply because of reputation. One of the charms of Channel is that it costs a lot. People are prepared to pay a huge premium over and above the true costs of manufacturing and part of that desire is that in paying such sums they are making a status symbol (in this case showing their girlfriend/wife that they are worth alot).
The upshot of all of this is that for Club Med to compete with the Northern block, they do not simply need to be equally as competitive, they need to be far more competitive than the Northern block. I do not consider that this point and its implications are fully appreciated by EU politicians. There is no reason to presume that Club Med will ever become equally as efficient and competive as the Northern block, still less that they will become far more efficient.
We should celebrate the differences between countries, not try and crush the differences making them some homogenous whole. I have spent much time in Germany and like the country a lot. But the appeal of Spain or Italy is that they are not Germany. Some years back, I owned a Maserati. It was terribly unreliable (silly intermittent electrical fault) but I would not have swopped it for a high end Merc or BMW even if they could be relied upon to start every time I turned the key. Part of its charm was its charcter, and part of its character was its Italian approach to life, or is that the Spanish way of life, namely manjana!
The ultimate problem with the EU venture is that the politicians do not appreciate the individuality of its citizens, and it is this individuality which will be the ultimate downfall of the project..
Brilliant Richard. And what you say is reason not to be defeatist, including about one sign of rationality on climate.
richard verney -
"and it is this individuality which will be the ultimate downfall of the project.."
I think the fact that they (EU politicians) are writing policy out to 2020 and beyond whilst basing it on consultations which reach approx. 1 in 1,000,000 of the population will play a part too. See the last link in my 1.16am post above for an example. It may have lasted the right amount of time but it I doubt it would withstand much of a challenge to its validity.
Consultations. Well, pardon my cynicism (again) but I place that word with the phrase 'evidence-based policy' as a euphemism for 'We are going to do what we want, but here's a sop to legitimacy.'
richard verney
A better analogy is VW/SEAT/Skoda. They are all essentially VWs under the skin. Cars with VW badges are just as likely to have been built on the same production lines as SEAT in Spain or Skoda in the Czech Republic as in Germany, but, German badge=German quality=premium price for the same product.
johanna: you missed the French Empire. not banned yet will soon be along to outline the precise democratic process by which the EU parliament tipped out Berlusconi's democratically elected government and installed their poodle. I'm sure overthrowing national governments is a totally legitimate democratic process: fully transparent, and entirely supported by EU legislation.
Rhoda: your cynicism may well be right. Just as many were cynical about Gorbachev and seemed to have perfectly good reasons to be. With Andropov they were surely right to be cynical. But I well remember the moment that Thatcher was strangely non-cynical about Gorby, the man she could do business with. That's what I call greatness, given what happened next.
I don't in any way bet my life that this one report in the WSJ presages the beginning of the end. But I've also learned that cynicism seldom leads to positive change. A firm agnostic stance seems better. Who knows when the dam will break that Richard Verney has spelled out so well. We live and we learn.
Mar 14, 2013 at 5:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff
quote
The UK is alone in, effectively, banning the construction of new-build coal-fired power stations - as Ed Miliband crowed in 2008, "no new coal without CCS".
unquote
The German target is 30% cut in emitted CO2 by 2020. Their industry will lose about half of its profit margin if that figure is adhered to, and there is no way they'll hit the target if they keep building coal-fired stations -- well, there is a way, but closing down industry when the alternative is to stitch up the rest of the EU with a quick rule change? Hmmm, tricky decision....
I was aware of the Drax conversion to burning wood. I bet we don't see pictures of devastated forests in NA with a poor little porcupine sitting forlornly on a log as his habitat is trashed in the name of false science. Time was when Greens were called tree huggers.
And another thing... Does wood not emit nasties as well as coal? Or is there a derogation for biomass burning?
JF
For Rhoda:
***********
The better regulation agenda has already led to a significant change in how the Commission makes policy and proposes to regulate. Stakeholder consultations and impact assessments are now essential parts of the policy making process. They have increased transparency and accountability, and promoted evidence-based policy making. This system is considered to be good practice within the EU and is supporting decision-making within the EU institutions2. The Commission has simplified much existing legislation and has made significant progress in reducing administrative burdens
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0543:FIN:EN:PDF
Read the numbers and weep:
*********************************
I. INTRODUCTION
This stakeholder consultation aimed at collecting input for a Communication presenting the Commission's priorities for smart regulation, as announced in the President's political guidelines of autumn 2009.
The consultation ran from 23 April to 25 June, as an internet consultation open to all stakeholders and the consultation papers were translated into all official EU languages. The Commission also accepted a number of contributions after the deadline.
There were 79 replies to the consultation from a broad range of stakeholders, including 4 individual citizens, 17 non registered and 38 registered organisations, as well as 20 public authorities. These can be accessed at
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/smart_regulation/contributions_en.htm
This report summarises the views provided by stakeholders. The Commission's reply to the major points raised can be found in the Communication on smart regulation [COM(2010)543]. Given many detailed contributions on how to improve public consultation, the Communication announces a full review of the Commission consultation policy by 2011.
**********************
Eight page Consultation Report here:
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/smart_regulation/docs/smart_regulation_consult_report_final_en.pdf
not banned yet, that puts my mind at ease, as I am sure was your intention.
Mar 15, 2013 at 9:50 AM | Julian Flood
The beauty of EU targets is that they can be safely ignored when it becomes obvious to sensible nations that the sh1t is about to hit the fan.
Of course, the UK will hit the target, no trouble at all, because most of the "fossil fuel" generation capacity will be either demolished or lying idle by mid-summer 2018. At that time, the level of CO2 emitted by the UK will be at the level last seen when Nelson took one in the eye.
As to burning wood instead of coal here is something to feed your imagination.
Yes, wood does emit nasties and at the moment Tilbury Power Station (about 900 MW) are awaiting a permit from the authorities, who are presumably considering health issues, to allow them to continue burning wood. If the license is refused it will close down this year when the hours allowance under LCPD opt-out run out.
As to derogation, it seems that the numpties are emulating Nelson with vigour as they are hell bent on encouraging the conversion of large coal-fired power stations to wood burners - see the transcript of the R4 broadcast posted by Alex Cull earlier this week on Unthreaded - Mar 12, 2013 at 12:13 PM on page 7.
Maybe there is already a derogation on the EU books, I might have a look but don't hold your breath.
Marxisms plan A was to conquer the Western capitalistic world trough the worker clas revolution during WW1. That did not happend and the reason was the Western culture/values/nationalism that made the working clas put on their uniforms and go to war instead of revolting.
The cultural Marxism is now fighting a war on Western culture/values/nationalism etc and at the same time fighting capitalism with politized environmental and climate "tools".
The aim is getting rid of capitalism, that is giving the Western people far longer and better life's than Marxism ideology can. And the aim is to corrupt the Western culture/values/nationalism so much that very few will pick up their guns and fight the comming of the International socialism(Marxism?) attemptet with the Pact on Climate Copenhagen 2009. Thank God the Chinese resisted. Probably because they understood that this ment the end to their economic growth and what they had archived economically since the 1980's.
What's really at stake here is your lifestyle, freedom, democracy and economic prosperity etc.
Regarding the EU and the Commission there are just three words that describe then (in any order!)
Cupidity
Stupidity
Rigidity.