news> This week´s feature > November 24, 2005

Pre-Montreal Update:
Tony Blair Drives Greens Crazy, But Goes Ahead

November 24, 2005

By Holger J. Thuss, Executive Director of CFACT Europe

Two months after PM Tony Blair's U-turn on Kyoto on September 15, Greenpeace is back on track and applies the usual theatrical tactics. On November 14, the self-appointed "eco-warriors" blockaded three entrances to Downing Street with several tonnes of coal in protest at what they see as the Prime Minister's failure to tackle global warming.

Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "We've blockaded Downing Street with coal because Tony Blair has failed on climate change." It seems to him, PM Blair "is trying to kill off the Kyoto Protocol." Later on, Greenpeace published the dossier "Climate Crime File Tony Blair" detailing what Greenpeace considers to be Mr Blair's failures on the issue of climate change, including the green mantra that "Climate change is the greatest threat facing the planet." It states not only coal and oil but also nuclear power belong to the "inefficient, dirty and danger-ous energy sources".

Greenpeace declared war on Mr Blair because "his actions are now making things worse, not better" and -even worse- he is appearing "indistinguishable" from George Bush on green issues.

Stephen Tindale of Greenpeace: "Mr Blair is subtly back-sliding on his commitments and falling into the embrace of climate change sceptics - notably on the right of the Republican Party - who are welcoming their new ally with open arms." Andrew Lee of WWF adds: "Despite the huge dif-ference in historic rhetoric on the key issues of climate change and the control of hazardous chemicals, the actual negotiating position of the Prime Minister becomes daily less discernible from that of US President George W Bush."

Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth and other radical organisations seem to have lost faith in Mr Blair. They feel betrayed after they were convinced Mr Blair made their agenda a centre-piece of his current presidencies of the G8 and EU, and accuse him of undermining hard-fought gains such as the Kyoto protocol, by questioning the need for binding targets on reducing emis-sions and by introducing economic criteria in the climate debate.

Blair responded that "the force of globalization" has to be acknowledged. "We urgently need a framework, with the necessary targets, sensitively and intelligently applied over the right time-frame, that takes us beyond 2012. It can only happen if the US, China and India join with Europe, Japan and others to create such a framework. Failure will mean not only increasing the damage to the environment but in a world of greater competition for carbon fuel, real pressure on energy supply and energy prices. Yet such an agreement cannot materialize without the major nations of the world agreeing an approach that is fair and balanced, sharing the most advanced science and technology to tackle carbon emissions. In other words, a just settlement as well as an effective one." He also said, ignorance to the energy needs of "millions of the world's poorest" would be "moral indifference" and "a foolish betrayal of our own long-term interest".

Two days later, PM Blair made clear that "binding agreements" are still an option but said that any framework on emission targets needed to be agreed by everyone, and by the US, China and India - as the world's largest and fastest-growing economies - in particular. He added that the world has to combine the need for growth with "a proper and responsible attitude" towards the environment.

But India, which is exempt from the emissions caps imposed by the Kyoto treaty, is unlikely to agree to any emission caps because of its expanding energy-hungry economy, according to senior officials of the government of India, although analysts say developed nations will continue to pile pressure on the nation. China either is unlikely to commit to cutting emissions in the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol, fearing it would retard economic growth, says Zhuang Guiyang, meteor-ologist of the Chinese academy of sciences.

Unlike PM Blair, most of the political Brussels ignores such global trends. Entirely unimpressed, EU-Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas openly declared his support for the continuation of the Kyoto-mechanism - at a joint press conference with the WWF.

At the same time when major carbon emitters made it ultimately clear that they would never sign any "Kyoto II", the EU-Parliament adopted a report on winning the "battle against climate change" in reference to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal next week.

The text adopted supports among others binding greenhouse gas emission targets, a global cap-and-trade system, strong emissions reductions at home, using a combination of market incentives and regulation to stimulate investments in efficiency and/or carbon-free and low-carbon tech-nologies. The MEPs even call "on the Commission to put forward proposals and on the Member States to adopt the first European ecotax by 2009 at the latest".

Only a few days later, the British "Observer" titled "Britain opens way for new climate deal". Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, had told the paper that "she is prepared to accept voluntary targets". But to abandon setting compulsory targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions would mean the end of the Kyoto protocol, since that principle is the heart of the agreement. Again, "consternation among green campaigners" was reported. Even Stephen Tindale, head of Greenpeace UK, admitted: "Without mandatory targets [the Kyoto Protocol] is effectively dead."

At the Montreal conference, Beckett will act as EU negotiator. She said it would be impossible to achieve consensus on compulsory targets. She even likened developed countries which insist that such targets be agreed by poorer developing nations to new imperialists.

That Ms Beckett supports the voluntary targets scheme central to the new Asia-Pacific Partner-ship on Clean Development and Climate as proposed by US-President Bush is another clear sign for the end of the Kyoto protocol.

But that wasn't the only bitter pill for the international green movement to swallow in the last days. Under plans backed by Tony Blair, Britain will start building new civil nuclear power sta-tions, "The Times" reported a few days ago. The Prime Minister "has become convinced that building nuclear power stations is the only way to secure energy needs and meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions." Apparently he has effectively made up his mind. "His decision is a remarkable U-turn."

Additionally, the inquiry into the long-term economic effects of global warming carried out by Treasury senior official Sir Nicholas Stern, and another one headed by Margaret Beckett on cli-mate change targets are expected soon. Opposition to the nuclear option outside the Green movement: zero. Neither the Conservative opposition, nor Mr Blair's rivals in his own party are about to challenge it.

PM Blair's new policy in favour of flexible emission targets and economic priorities was also backed by a judgement of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Luxem-bourg of November 23. The Court annulled a decision of the EU-Commission refusing to admit the plan of the British government to increase the quantity of emission allowances.

The judgement ended a conflict between the UK government and the EU-Commission that lasted for more than 18 months. On 30 April 2004, the United Kingdom notified a national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP) to the Commission, indicating it was provisional and subject to further revision in the light of ongoing work.

A decision of the EU-Commission of 7 July 2004 stated that the total quantity of allowances to be allocated by the United Kingdom was not to be exceeded. On 10 November the United Kingdom proposed to increase the total quantity of allowances. However, the EU-Commission insisted that the amendments proposed were inadmissible. On 5 May 2005 the United Kingdom asked the Court of First Instance to annul this decision.

The Court granted the request made by the United Kingdom for the proceedings to be expe-dited, clarified the roles and the powers of the Commission and the Member States in the field of greenhouse gas emission allowances, and found that the Commission could not restrict a Mem-ber State's right to propose amendments. The Court added that the directive aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while respecting the needs of the European economy.

Not only supports the judgement PM Blair's policy to integrate long-ignored economic aspects into the climate debate. It also shows that the British u-turn on Kyoto has been longer prepared, is in line with the EU's own scheme for emission trading, and is better substantiated, than most of his critics are ready to admit.

It is not very likely that the British Prime Minister is the one who will give in at the Montreal Conference next week.

© CFACT Europe 2005.