The ups and downs of cutting emissions

Date: 05/03/1998

By Simon Coss

ONE of the most bizarre aspects of the Union's approach to tackling global warming is that some EU countries will actually be allowed to increase their production of greenhouse gases.

The Union's strategy for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases is based on a concept known as 'the bubble'.

Under this system, 15 different national emissions reduction targets will be combined to meet the overall EU goal.

This means, in practice, that while some EU member states, notably the Uk and Germany, will have to make very large cuts, others will be permitted to increase their levels. The four Union countries which are currently in this position are Spain, Portugal, Greece and Sweden.

The three southern states, all major beneficiaries of the Union's multi-billion-ecu structural funds, have been given permission to increase their emissions because rising levels of greenhouse gases are seen as an unavoidable consequence of economic development.

As people buy more cars, and new factories and businesses open, the argument goes, emissions are bound to grow.

Indeed, the only reason Bonn was able to pledge to cut its emissions by 25&percent; was because of economic collapse in the former East Germany.

However, environmental groups argue that the southern states are taking too traditionalist a view of the emissions question.

“I think it is a pity that they are planning to raise their output of greenhouse gases,” said John Hontelez of the European Environment Bureau (EEB).

“The southern states should use their existing lower levels as an opportunity rather than seeing emissions reduction as a burden.”

Hontelez and other green campaigners say the southern member states should be encouraged, possibly through a more targeted allocation of structural funds, to invest in new 'clean' technology and try to avoid the sorts of environmental traps more developed states have fallen into.

“If you think less cars per capita is a sign of underdevelopment, then you don't understand what the future will be,” said Hontelez.

Sweden's case is different. Stockholm has been given permission to increase its emissions because it has chosen to close down its atomic power industry and replace nuclear reactors with coal-fired power stations.

This poses something of a problem for the environmentalists. “We applaud the closing down of nuclear power stations, but it is a shame they are not looking towards renewable energy sources,” said one green campaigner.

The atomic power lobby points out, however, that the only installations currently capable of producing the amounts of electricity needed to meet the country's energy requirements are either nuclear reactors or power stations which burn 'dirty' fossil fuels.