Blog
10.December 2014 - 16:43
EU climate strategy proven counterproductive: The EU has increased, not decreased its emissions
The academic dissertation of Eija-Riitta Korhola (MEP 1999-2014) was presented for public examination with the permission of the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences of the University of Helsinki on 15 November, the opponent being Professor Ye Qi from Tsinghua University, Beijing.
In her doctoral thesis Eija-Riitta Korhola seeks to explain why in spite of huge efforts so little has been gained in international climate politics. In addition to the absolute increase in emissions, a relative failure during the Kyoto period can also be observed. The EU hasn’t been successful either. Although it has been able to cut emissions according to its own targets, the increased import outside the EU outweigh the achievements in domestic reductions. Hence, if the consumption is taken into account, the EU has increased, not decreased its emissions. According to Korhola, “one basic mistake of our climate strategy is that it does not pay attention to consumption, just production. Therefore, we have outsourced our emissions but unfortunately our jobs, too. From the environmental viewpoint this can be considered as damage”, Korhola says.
”In the beginning of last decade I was still a firm supporter of the Kyoto protocol. However, the legislative work with emissions trading opened my eyes.
In 2005 when the Kyoto Protocol finally entered into force I anticipated in my press release that when it comes to climate, this treaty may be even counterproductive. The agreement is valuable as an expression of political will, but in terms of emissions it may be harmful. In the light of emission trends, this estimate was accurate. Good climate politics cannot be promoted without measures that happen hand in hand among the biggest emitters. Otherwise, the reductions in one place trigger an even higher increase in emissions in another. Analysing the international trade volumes support this conclusion.”
When demand in consumption is met by dirtier production coming from outside the EU, it can be said that, in spite of enormous efforts, the EU strategy does not meet the expectations in mitigating the emissions globally. The EU has persistently emphasised that sooner or later the other emitters will follow EU’s example. There is no evidence for this expectation: the big emitters have long since chosen a different strategy as they consider the EU strategy to be expensive and inefficient. The major emitters favour decarbonising the economy and technological investments instead of emission ceilings.
According to Korhola, if the EU wishes to attain a climate agreement in Paris, it should approach others and stop waiting for others to jump onto the Kyoto bandwagon – otherwise the biggest obstacle for the global agreement is the EU itself. Instead of emission ceilings the climate agreement could be based on the “emission floor”, scheme which favours clean production without setting a limit for the best performing, least emitting production.
The main environmental problems are still caused by overpopulation, poorly planned land-use and over-exploitation of natural resources. Our efforts should be targeted to these challenges too. Poverty, energy shortages, loss of biodiversity, desertification or the problems of developing countries cannot be reduced to a mere climate problem. However, by tackling these problems we can indirectly mitigate climate change.
Korhola’s dissertation is a joint thesis written for two faculties and departments, environmental politics and theoretical philosophy. She ponders the relationship between science and the political decision-making process. The author maintains that the research concerning climate change has been under immense external pressure and political demand.
The study discusses climate change as a so-called wicked problem – that is a multi-faceted bundle of problems. Parts of this study feature elements of action research: the writer has participated as an active legislator in the topic at hand, as is the case for emissions trading. It seeks to explain why such a genius system in theory has not been able to show its strength and results in practice for the EU. The legislative overlaps, mistakes being patched up, and a severe lack of coordination can be considered as key reasons. Different corrective measures to fix these overlaps have created an unpredictable and insecure investing environment for the European industry.
For more information,
please contact Eija-Riitta Korhola +358405360326
erkorhola@gmail.com
or read the thesis here: The Rise and Fall of the Kyoto Protocol – CLIMATE CHANGE AS A POLITICAL PROCESS
The academic dissertation of Eija-Riitta Korhola (MEP 1999-2014) was presented for public examination with the permission of the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences of the University of Helsinki on 15 November, the opponent being Professor Ye Qi from Tsinghua University, Beijing.
In her doctoral thesis Eija-Riitta Korhola seeks to explain why in spite of huge efforts so little has been gained in international climate politics. In addition to the absolute increase in emissions, a relative failure during the Kyoto period can also be observed. The EU hasn’t been successful either. Although it has been able to cut emissions according to its own targets, the increased import outside the EU outweigh the achievements in domestic reductions. Hence, if the consumption is taken into account, the EU has increased, not decreased its emissions. According to Korhola, “one basic mistake of our climate strategy is that it does not pay attention to consumption, just production. Therefore, we have outsourced our emissions but unfortunately our jobs, too. From the environmental viewpoint this can be considered as damage”, Korhola says.
”In the beginning of last decade I was still a firm supporter of the Kyoto protocol. However, the legislative work with emissions trading opened my eyes.
In 2005 when the Kyoto Protocol finally entered into force I anticipated in my press release that when it comes to climate, this treaty may be even counterproductive. The agreement is valuable as an expression of political will, but in terms of emissions it may be harmful. In the light of emission trends, this estimate was accurate. Good climate politics cannot be promoted without measures that happen hand in hand among the biggest emitters. Otherwise, the reductions in one place trigger an even higher increase in emissions in another. Analysing the international trade volumes support this conclusion.”
When demand in consumption is met by dirtier production coming from outside the EU, it can be said that, in spite of enormous efforts, the EU strategy does not meet the expectations in mitigating the emissions globally. The EU has persistently emphasised that sooner or later the other emitters will follow EU’s example. There is no evidence for this expectation: the big emitters have long since chosen a different strategy as they consider the EU strategy to be expensive and inefficient. The major emitters favour decarbonising the economy and technological investments instead of emission ceilings.
According to Korhola, if the EU wishes to attain a climate agreement in Paris, it should approach others and stop waiting for others to jump onto the Kyoto bandwagon – otherwise the biggest obstacle for the global agreement is the EU itself. Instead of emission ceilings the climate agreement could be based on the “emission floor”, scheme which favours clean production without setting a limit for the best performing, least emitting production.
The main environmental problems are still caused by overpopulation, poorly planned land-use and over-exploitation of natural resources. Our efforts should be targeted to these challenges too. Poverty, energy shortages, loss of biodiversity, desertification or the problems of developing countries cannot be reduced to a mere climate problem. However, by tackling these problems we can indirectly mitigate climate change.
Korhola’s dissertation is a joint thesis written for two faculties and departments, environmental politics and theoretical philosophy. She ponders the relationship between science and the political decision-making process. The author maintains that the research concerning climate change has been under immense external pressure and political demand.
The study discusses climate change as a so-called wicked problem – that is a multi-faceted bundle of problems. Parts of this study feature elements of action research: the writer has participated as an active legislator in the topic at hand, as is the case for emissions trading. It seeks to explain why such a genius system in theory has not been able to show its strength and results in practice for the EU. The legislative overlaps, mistakes being patched up, and a severe lack of coordination can be considered as key reasons. Different corrective measures to fix these overlaps have created an unpredictable and insecure investing environment for the European industry.
For more information,
please contact Eija-Riitta Korhola +358405360326
erkorhola@gmail.com
or read the thesis here: The Rise and Fall of the Kyoto Protocol – CLIMATE CHANGE AS A POLITICAL PROCESS