Intentions and hopes. The EU authorities were deeply disappointed by the final declaration from the Copenhagen climate change conference. The president of the European Council, Fredrik Reinfeldt (Sweden) and the president of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, considered it as a third rate compromise but gave their backing because it aimed to safeguard support to developing countries. This text includes a few commitments of principle and a tighter timetable for future work - the process has now begun but the bulk of the task remains to be tackled (EUROPE 10045). Two days later, the European Council expressed its deep disappointment at the results which, according to the Swedish president of the Council, Andreas Carlgren, do not meet humanity's expectations or European goals. He confirmed that the EU would “continue to pursue a legally binding agreement” aimed at containing global warming to well below 2 degrees (EUROPE 10046). The EU is now looking ahead and is determined to play a leading role. The Environment Council will meet for an informal session at the end of next week (15-17 January in Seville) and will have available a detailed analysis of the Copenhagen Agreement, which the European Commission said would be provided in the next few days, without having to wait for the official investiture of the “Barroso II Commission”. The Spanish president of this Council, Teresa Ribera, has said that a basis for work exists and the aim is for a global and legally binding agreement to be concluded in November in Mexico.
The EU will wage war on this front but at the same time will take action on parallel dossiers - top of the list, biodiversity, which is just as much a prerequisite and on which the EU cannot be effective on its own. The global targets set out for 2010 will not be reached. While stepping up its action, the EU will fight for ambitious targets to be set out by the conference next October in Nagoya (Japan).
Industries defend their interests. The brief outline of the situation and timetable should not hide the various uncertainties and risks of slippage that persist. The interests at stake are colossal and having too many illusions should be avoided. We should not imagine that environmental protection is an ambition sought by all. The oil and nuclear industries, as well as those promoting new energy source, are all logically defending their positions, even though we ought to acknowledge that there have been some efforts made (sometimes remarkable) to go beyond this stage. Differences are sometimes very sharp within groups that appear at first glance to have convergent interests. For example, one of the fiercest battles (not leaving out the mutual attacks and accusations) involves energy from terrestrial wind turbines. Adversaries condemn it as too expensive, inefficient and damaging to the environment but it is defended as the ideal solution by the industry concerned. When too many interests are at stake, caution is required.
Funding accountability. A similar remark could apply, in my opinion, to certain developing countries, which give the impression that their reactions to the compromise obtained are subject to a single criterion: the amount of financial aid they get. When we think of the level of corruption and embezzlement in certain cases, caution should be shown with regard to granting automatic subsidies. The self-flagellation going on in Europe and other industrialised countries, which are portrayed as the only ones responsible for climate change and therefore guilty of the difficulties of the developing world, leaves out one specific detail - industrialisation and technological progress have brought everything from electricity, to cars, planes, household goods and so forth, which no-one wants to give up. The industrial world certainly does have a duty to fully participate in protecting forests and other natural resources indispensable to humanity as a whole - why should Brazil and certain Asian countries bear the burden of action from which all humanity will benefit? Funding, however, must be linked to programmes commonly defined and subject to serious controls. It is necessary to prevent the funding promised to certain African, Asian and other countries being definitively used for making massive purchases of arms or used for corruption and to perpetuate endless conflicts.
The forgotten factor. Intellectual courage is also called for to affirm, at least on a level of principles, another factor: saving the planet against climate change cannot be effectively organised unless the fundamental question about humanity's place in the environment is posed. This issue has already been raised in this column (EUROPE 10028) and will require, at some point, further comment. (F.R./transl.fl)