SPEECH/08/333
Stavros
Dimas
Member of the European Commission, responsible for
Environment
Winning the Fight against Climate Change: an
EU Perspective
Cambridge University
Cambridge – UK, 13 June
2008
Ladies and Gentlemen
It is a pleasure to be here in Cambridge today. And as we have just finished celebrating 50 years of our own institution – the European Union - this is put into some perspective when bearing in mind that the University will be celebrating its 800th anniversary next year.
Cambridge has a long and well deserved reputation for researching and discussion the most important issues of the day – and it gives me great pleasure to be invited to present a lecture on climate change. Which is surely the greatest global threat facing this generation – and indeed future generations.
What I will do today is briefly look at the facts about climate change and at the reasons why this should be a concern for us all. I will then outline what the EU is doing to cut its own emissions and to negotiate a global agreement for the period after 2012. And I will finish by making the point that global challenges like climate change mean that the world needs structures - like the EU - that can allow countries to work effectively together.
Three years ago I used to begin my presentations on climate change with a section setting out the scientific evidence and countering the arguments – which were seriously being made – that climate change was some kind of great hoax organised by an unholy alliance of ecologists, bureaucrats and self-interested scientists.
Thankfully, the Nobel winning work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change and campaigners like Al Gore mean that this is no longer needed. Climate change is happening. The scientific debate on this question is over and the facts speak for themselves.
The 10 warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1990. Over the last 100 years, the average surface temperature of the planet has increased by three quarters of a degree Celsius worldwide, by almost one degree Celsius in Europe and by no less than five degrees Celsius in the Arctic. If current trends continue the Arctic is set to be ice-free by the summer of 2060.
The number of cold and frost days has decreased in most parts of Europe, while the number and intensity of heat waves has increased.
Between 1850 and 1980 glaciers in the European Alps lost one third of their area and one half of their mass. Since 1980, another 20 to 30% of the remaining ice has been lost. This is not just abstract science. The managers of a Swiss ski resort have taken to wrapping the local glacier with a giant insulating foil in order to try and slow down the melt and protect their livelihoods. But this is clutching at straws - by 2050, about 75 % of the glaciers in the Swiss Alps are projected to have disappeared.
Ocean levels are rising. They have already risen by between 10 and 20 centimetres since 1900 and are predicted to rise by up to 60 cm by 2100. The temperature of the Oceans has also increased and sea surface temperatures over 26° Celsius are more common. This is a particular concern as this is the trigger the formation of tropical cyclones and hurricanes.
Over the last 5 years Europe has witnessed heat-waves, droughts, large-scale forest fires and devastating floods. The devastation brought by hurricane Katrina in the US was a tragic demonstration of the catastrophic damage that can be inflicted by extreme weather. And scientists predict that we are likely to see more droughts, more floods, and more severe hurricanes as the planet heats up.
The current situation is worrying - but what we see today is only the beginning of a period of further inevitable and unavoidable changes in the climate. The question we need to ask ourselves is not if the current situation will get worse - but how much worse – and what we can do to address it?
The world’s climate experts project a further increase of between 1.1° C and a 6.4° C by the end of this century. Even the lower of these figures would represent the fastest warming since the last Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago.
Global rainfall is predicted to increase although this will not be uniform. In parts of Africa and Asia, the frequency and intensity of droughts has worsened. In Europe we can anticipate a split: between a wetter northern Europe and a much drier southern Europe.
And warming is not the only risk. Researchers from the UK's National Oceanography Centre reported that the Gulf Stream is weakening, bringing less heat north. Their conclusions are based on 50 years of Atlantic observations and indicate that in the North West of Europe we may need to plan for a future which is cooler rather than warmer.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has always happened. It is a part of life on Earth – but there are two key differences with the climate change that we are currently witnessing. The first is that it is much faster and much more intense - which means that there is much less time for the planet to adapt to changes. The second it is that these changes in climate are a direct result of human activity – or to be more specific they are the result of greenhouse gas emissions and, most importantly, of CO2 emissions. Analysis of ice-cores has revealed that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years and twice as high as they were before the Industrial Revolution.
Climate change is happening and it is getting worse. The next question to ask is: why is climate change a problem?
When I come to northern Europe, I am sometimes asked, at least half seriously, if it wouldn’t be better with longer and warmer summers. But it is important to be clear that the sudden changes in temperatures we are experiencing are taking the whole planet to the edge of a precipice. There are set of clear and present dangers that threaten both our prosperity and also our security.
Firstly, the extreme weather we are already witnessing will get worse. We have to expect more intense floods, forest fires, heat-waves, droughts and hurricanes.
Secondly, human health will suffer as a result of climate change. The 2003 heat-wave in western and southern Europe claimed 20,000 lives. Climate change will also make smog more intense, and lead to higher rates of asthma and heart diseases. And, as tropical weather comes to higher latitudes, tropical diseases - like the West Nile virus - will follow.
As always, the poorest countries are the most vulnerable where there is little infrastructure to deal with extreme weather. The UN have identified global climate change as the root cause for the failure of two recent rainy seasons in East Africa. As a result, millions of people faced danger of starvation.
A third concern is the impact of climate change on agriculture. We can expect a northward shift of agriculture – and in northern areas rising temperatures could increase the possibilities for cultivation. Perhaps we can look forward to England becoming a major wine producing nation. But in southern areas – where water is already scarce – the risks are catastrophic. Already in 2003, many southern European countries suffered drops in yield of up to 30 %, and European farmers lost over € 10 billion in income. Failed harvests will become more common as the result of droughts, floods, storms, hail and an increase in pests and diseases.
A fourth concern is the impact of climate change on global water resources – which will in turn affect food supply, health, industry, transportation and ecosystem integrity. Further climate change is likely to lead to water shortages which could affect between 2 and 3 billion people.
Rising sea levels are a fifth cause for concern. 70 million of the EU's citizens live at or near the coast. Rising seas will threaten the homes and livelihoods of many people. And the situation is even more serious outside Europe. Low-lying areas and islands - such as the Maldives, the Nile Delta in Egypt, Bangladesh, to name but a few - face the threat of being flooded and submerged by the sea.
A sixth reason is the impact of climate change on nature, where we can already see that changing temperatures are causing widespread species extinction, migration and behavioural changes.
Many species can migrate – but many cannot. Take the example of coral reefs – which are home to over 25 per cent of all marine life. Coral takes many decades to develop and can only tolerate a narrow temperature range. Rapid rises in sea temperature could lead to the death of coral by bleaching – and the loss of entire ecosystems.
A seventh impact of climate change will be on global security. A report carried out by a panel of American generals and admirals concluded that climate change was a serious national security threat which could heighten global tensions. It was what they termed a “threat multiplier” in already fragile regions which raised the risk of failed states — which are the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism. According to John Ashton, the UK Foreign Secretary's Special Representative for Climate Change “Climate change is creating the most difficult security problem since the Cold War”.
Finally, all of the negative consequences outlined above mean that climate change is and will continue to be a huge economic burden. Infrastructure investments to deal with the impact of climate change are expensive. Worsening human health and the loss of agricultural fertility will be costly. Helping developing countries cope with climate change will require more development aid. The cost of Hurricane Katrina alone stands at $175 billion.
Last year's Stern Review for the UK government has shown that the benefits of limiting global warming far outweigh the costs of taking action. It estimates the long-term costs of climate change at between 5% and possibly up to 20% of global GDP if nothing is done to reduce emissions. This is a greater economic impact than the two world wars combined. And since I know that Lord Stern was a graduate of Cambridge University I am fully confident in the accuracy of his analysis.
In short, the impact of climate change could be catastrophic – in the most literal sense of the word. We cannot avoid all of the negative impacts. They are already happening. But if we act decisively, then we at least have a chance of limiting the damage.
Climate change is a fact and it is a problem of global dimensions. The European Commission has been at the forefront of efforts to raise awareness of the risks of climate change and to develop practical policies to cut greenhouse emissions. We have consistently made action a priority when other major global players tried to ignore the science. But we won the argument and there is now an overwhelming consensus among governments, business and civil society on the need to take urgent action.
The challenge is considerable. If current trends of emissions continue then global greenhouse gas emissions will double by the year 2050. But if we want to limit global warming to relatively safe level - about 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures - the world will have to more than halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The conclusion is clear: the international community needs to act fast. The next decade or so will determine whether we manage to bring the situation under control or we allow climate change to reach dangerous levels that will threaten our prosperity and the stability of our societies.
To cut global emissions there are two issues that need to be addressed. The first is the need to make sure that there is a truly global response to climate change – and I will return to the subject of the on-going international negotiations. But closely linked to this is the need for Europe to get its own house in order and reduce our own emissions.
On the 10th of March 2007, EU Heads of State and Government unanimously agreed on an ambitious climate change and energy strategy. They committed themselves to two targets for greenhouse gas emissions. The first is a cut of 30% by 2020 - which is conditional on other developed countries committing to comparable efforts. However, they also agreed to make a reduction of at least 20%, independently of what other countries do. At the same meeting Europeans leaders agreed on a binding target of 20% energy to come from renewable sources by 2020.
It is the Commission's job to turn these objectives into workable policies and in January of this year, we presented our Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package. This includes a revision of the EU emission trading directive, national targets for Member States covering those sectors that are not included in emission trading and a directive on renewable energy.
The EU emission trading scheme is the cornerstone of EU climate policy. It is a cost-efficient system where policy makers set a total cap on emissions but leave it to the market to decide where emission reductions take place. Within the total cap, each company can decide whether to cut emissions or to buy emissions from other installations. The Commission's proposal seeks to strengthen the emission trading scheme and widen it to new sectors and gases. It also foresees a yearly reduction of the total cap to ensure that the EU can meet its 2020 target. And once a global agreement is reached, the EU cap will be adjusted automatically, and a stricter reduction target will be brought in, contributing to total EU reductions of minus 30%.
Putting a price on carbon gives companies a framework for investment in low-carbon technologies and these are acting as a magnet for capital. Investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency passed US$100 billion in 2006. They then increased by a further 60% in 2007.
There are many sectors – such as transport, buildings, agriculture and waste management - that fall outside of the Emissions Trading System. For these sectors a 10% cut in emissions in needed between 2005 and 2020 and Member States' national measures will be supported by EU actions such as waste legislation, energy efficiency standards and our proposed regulation on CO2 emissions from cars.
The climate package also includes a legal framework for Carbon Capture and Storage. This technology is necessary quite simply because coal and gas will continue to be used in the future for power generation and carbon capture offers one possibility for emissions to be reduced substantially. The main focus of the Commission’s proposal is on the environmental security of the technology. It sets down requirements for permitting and liability to ensure that carbon capture and storage provides real environmental benefits.
The Climate and Energy Package is now being negotiated in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. At the same time, other initiatives have been proposed by the Commission to reduce greenhouse gasses from the transport sector - which is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the Union.
The fastest growing source of greenhouse gasses is the aviation sector where CO2 emissions have grown almost 90% since 1990. To address this source the Commission has put forward a proposal to include the aviation sector under the EU emissions trading scheme.
Cars are also a major source of CO2 and while overall emissions in the EU-27 fell by almost 8% between 1990 and 2005, those from road transport increased by 25%. We have therefore proposed legislation to limit the emissions from new cars.
To listen to some of the complaints from the car manufacturers it would seem as if we are asking the impossible. But we are not. Low emission vehicles already exist and the real issue is mainstreaming this technology. Reducing fuel consumption will also strengthen the EU's energy security, by reducing our reliance on oils imports. And better fuel efficiency will translate into reduced fuel bills at the pump for our citizens.
Turning Europe into a low carbon economy is one necessary part of our fight against climate change. It is the part that we have the most control over - but climate change is a global problem that is caused by global emissions and unless we can have a global response then even Europe’s best efforts will not make much of a difference.
The EU's over-riding priority remains an ambitious and comprehensive international climate agreement for the post 2012 period. The agreement on the Bali Action Plan at the UN Climate Conference in December was an important breakthrough. It opens the way for official negotiations with the aim of reaching an agreement at the Copenhagen Conference in December 2009.
The first rounds of discussions have confirmed that all partners are ready to intensify their efforts towards a global deal. But they also highlighted the considerable ground that still needs to be covered before Copenhagen. For example, we still need to find a common understanding on the long-term objective to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050.
As a starting point we will need binding reduction targets for developed countries. But future international climate co-operation must also engage with developing countries whose economies and whose emissions are increasing the fastest. We do not think that developing countries should, or indeed could, take on the same commitments as the industrialised countries. Their per-capita emissions and income levels are still a fraction of ours. So we will need to design a system that is more in line with their level of economic development.
The Commission is sometimes portrayed – at least by some Member States – as having a covert mission to steal national sovereignty away to Brussels. Well we do have a mission, but it is no secret, and has been well summarised by President Barroso as working to deliver a "Europe of Results". This means addressing the issues that really matter to European citizens – and there can be no issue where results are more urgently needed than climate change.
In today's world of accelerating globalisation there are many challenges that nations simply cannot address working on their own. Fighting terrorism, pandemics such as bird flu, poverty in Africa, nuclear proliferation and energy security. These are all areas where countries have to find a way of working together if their policies are to have any chance of success. And with climate change a global response is the only possible solution and there are five clear reasons why this will need a strong and effective European Union.
The first is because effective "climate diplomacy" will be essential if we are to convince the United States and key developing countries to come to the negotiating table. The EU has over 450 million citizens, half of the seats on the G8, accounts for more than half of the worlds development assistance, and has the largest market in the world. It is self-evident that by acting together we have a much greater diplomatic influence than by acting alone.
The second reason is leadership by example. The EU has provided the world with a demonstration of how it is possible for twenty-seven very different countries to act together to reduce emissions and without damaging national economies.
A third reason is because the EU has developed the world’s first example of a cross-border Emissions Trading Scheme to reduce greenhouse emissions. This is the most effective policy tool that exists for reducing emissions - and it is a model that the rest of the world is already looking to as we work towards a global approach to emissions control.
The fourth reason is because many of the other policies that are decided – at least partly – at the European level also need to be mobilised against climate change. These include the obvious sectors such as transport and energy. Research policy and industrial policy are also needed in order to develop and promote new technologies. Inside the EU, regional funds will have to support investments in emissions reduction and climate change adaptation. Development cooperation will have to support similar investments in third countries. And the EU's agricultural policy will have to protect the soils and forests which absorb CO2.
The fifth and final reason is linked to competitiveness. Industry often claims that high environmental standards could damage international competitiveness. But a common European approach applies across the entire single market. It reduces the impact on competitiveness and allows a higher level of ambition.
Ladies and Gentlemen
The science on climate change is clear and we can see the evidence is before our eyes. We have a good idea of the likely social, environmental and – following the Stern Review - economic cost of climate change. We already have the basic technologies that can reduce emissions ... and these are being improved all the time. We have the resources to make the necessary investments. If we are to have a chance of successfully tackling climate change the real challenges are not scientific, or technical or economic. They are political.
The EU has risen to this challenge and the Commission’s climate initiatives are clear evidence that Europe is moving towards a low-carbon economy. President Barroso has talked about a new industrial revolution and, as in the 19th century where Europe led the way to our industrialised societies, the winners will be those that anticipate and are prepared to take the lead. The competitiveness of the European economy will be determined by the progress that we make towards a low carbon economy built on resource and energy efficiency.
The immediate task over the next months will be convincing our partners to follow our example. But with the engagement of major developing countries and the progressive position on climate from both US Presidential candidates I believe there is a real window of opportunity to reach an international agreement in Copenhagen.
Thank you