http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/46516/story.htm
EU to Set Easier CO2 Regime for Heavy Industries
Paul Taylor
Planet Ark
January 21, 2008
BRUSSELS - Europe's steel, aluminium and cement industries will have a special, less strict regime for greenhouse gas emissions under European Commission proposals to fight climate change to be announced this week.
After weeks of intense lobbying by business and governments, EU sources said on Sunday those three energy-intensive industries would be introduced more slowly into a new system for auctioning permits to emit carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2013.
The sources insisted on anonymity because wrangling is continuing in the Commission on final details of the proposals on CO2 emissions, renewable energy sources, biofuels and carbon sequestration to be unveiled on Wednesday.
A key flaw of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme -- the main instrument for curbing pollution blamed for global warming -- has been that governments issued emission permits for free, handing industry windfall profits.
Under a planned reform, the sources said most sectors covered by the ETS will have to buy about one-fifth of emission permits from 2013 -- fewer than in early drafts of the proposal -- rising annually to reach 100 percent in 2020.
Those sectors include energy and power generation, including refineries, despite fierce lobbying by European oil majors BP and Shell to go easy on refineries.
The overall aim is to reduce European emissions of CO2 by at least 20 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.
[MY, MY: HOW EU ASPIRATIONS FOR ENLIGHTENED ENVIRONMENTALISM HAVE FALLEN!!]
However, the sources said the EU executive was sensitive to concerns that the three big energy-intensive industries could be driven out of Europe if subjected to the same regime.
[EU COMMISSION SMELLS THE COFFEE!!]
"Those concerns are being sufficiently taken into account through the benchmarking regime and a different allocation regime," one official said.
WHITTLED DOWN
He declined to give figures but said energy-intensive industries would have a bigger initial allocation than originally planned, a lower starting point for the percentage of emissions permits to be auctioned and a slower phase-in.
The Carbon Trust, a British government-funded body charged with helping companies cut emissions, warned earlier this month that cement, steel, aluminium, chemicals, fertiliser and pulp and paper businesses might be hurt by the stricter EU regime.
But the sources said officials had whittled down the number of energy-intensive sectors likely to enjoy special treatment to just the three.
Europe's top business lobby last week attacked Commission plans to implement the deep emissions cuts agreed by EU leaders last year, saying that auctioning pollution permits could hurt industry in global competition.
"In the absence of a comprehensive international agreement, auctioning of allowances will harm the competitiveness of European companies, especially in energy-intensive industries," BusinessEurope Secretary-General Philippe de Buck wrote in a letter to Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
The draft proposal provides for a review in 2011 of the impact on energy-intensive industries, depending on whether there has been an international pact on curbing emissions by then.
The EU package will also propose mandatory national targets for cutting CO2 emissions from buildings, heating and cooling and transport, as well as binding national targets for using renewable energy sources in power generation. (Editing by Caroline Drees)
Showing posts with label economic cost-benefit analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic cost-benefit analysis. Show all posts
Monday, February 4, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Many in China Get It: See EU Environmental Regulations For What They Really Are - Disguised Trade Barriers
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2007-08/15/content_6027388.htm
Green barrier disguises face of protectionism
By Huang Qing
(China Daily) August 15, 2007
The European Union's Framework Directive on Eco-design Requirements for Energy Using Products (EuP), or the third-generation "green barrier", was implemented on Saturday.
The EuP standard puts stricter environmental requirements on energy-using products' life cycle assessment and, therefore, exercises restrictive influence on those products' design, manufacture, use, maintenance and retrieval.
Compared to the EU's two earlier green barrier directives, the EuP directive imposes stricter requirements, has a wider scope and will have a greater impact on the business of relevant firms.
Green barriers are an economic phenomenon, which emerged this century as environmental-protection awareness grows ever stronger across the globe. Europe is an area where environmental protection consciousness runs highest and, consequently, related undertakings take on an aura of sacredness.
It is against this ideological background that the EU has promulgated its green barrier directives. Thanks to the fact that environmental problems pose a serious threat to mankind and that sustainable development and green consumption represent the trend of the times, the barriers do have some virtue.
But behind the morality facade, I fear some protectionist considerations are at work.
Dictated by globalization necessities, the world's industrial structure is undergoing a major realignment and some manufacturing operations are moving to the developing world, of which China is a part.
However, the rapid expansion of manufacturing industries in these countries rouses worries from developed countries. In this context, the developed nations put in place green and technological barriers one after the other, in a bid to hold an advantageous position over the competition.
By setting up green technological standards, developed countries automatically push up the cost of developing nations' exports by large margins and, in turn, weaken their competitive power.
Besides enjoying technological advantages, developed countries maintain an edge over developing nations in testing technologies. So the latter, apart from bearing larger production costs, have to pay large amounts of "soft costs" in the forms of testing and certification fees.
In addition, the green barriers serve to make the deteriorating environment in developing countries all the worse.
Developing countries generally implement lower environmental standards than developed ones. And transnational corporate giants, all of which are headquartered in developed countries, shift energy-consuming and high-polluting operations into developing nations through making investments, or simply dump non-green products into these nations.
The green barriers, therefore, make developing countries shoulder double baggage - the worsening environment caused by dumped goods and by engaging in energy-consuming and high polluting production operations.
The green barriers, which are actually a new type of trade barrier, have gained acceptance from the World Trade Organization. They can steer clear of many trade rules and render the competitors speechless. And the latter stand little chance of winning any case on trade disputes arising from the implementation of the green barriers.
[THIS ASSESSMENT IS NOT TRUE - THERE IS AMPLE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO PREVAIL IN A WTO DISPUTE IF BROUGHT]***
Generally, there are no unified international standards to follow in working out green requirements. Developed countries that enjoy the right to formulate them, are thus automatically placed in an advantageous position. In many cases, what they say goes.
In view of all this, the green barriers are a kind of one-way green tax levied on the developing world.
[IT IS ALSO A ONE-WAY GREEN TAX LEVIED ON DEVELOPED COUNTRY CITIZENS]**
Developing countries are caught in a green dilemma. On the one hand, going green represents the trend of the times and ecological civilization and sustainable development are the common aspirations of all mankind. On the other, they are at a green disadvantage, having insufficient capital and backward technologies. Worse still, they also have disadvantages in social awareness, education and social organization.
Confronted by the green barriers, what can companies in developing countries do?
In business it is all about the survival of the fittest, so these firms must adapt to the changing situations and respond to the challenges. This means they must raise the environmental standards of their products.
In the face of the green barriers, the developing world should have more say in green affairs.
For example, it should push developed countries to shoulder the historical responsibilities for global warming and make better use of the compensation mechanisms for carbon-discharge reduction.
Also, they should appeal more strongly for lowering the threshold of environmental-protection technology transfer and put stricter controls on the shift of energy-consuming and high polluting operations.
[BY FIGHTING EUROPE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NON-SCIENCE & NON-ECONOMICS-BASED PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AT THE WTO, CHINA, INDIA, ETC. CAN ENSURE THAT THERE EXIST OBJECTIVE REGULATORY BENCHMARKS TO GUIDE POLICY MANAGEMENT OF PROVABLE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS]**
The world's environmental problem today is to a fairly large extent a product of the past. Developed countries, in the course of their industrialization, wrought damage to the global environment. This is a historical debt they should pay. Moreover, their way of life today should also be held responsible for the worsening environment.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE - CHINA, INDIA AND OTHER INDUSTRIALIZING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE PLAYING A ROLE IN EXACERBATING EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS]**
It is unfair to make the developing world shoulder all the historical responsibilities or pay the historical debt. Developed countries should take more responsibility for global environmental protection.
The author is a council member of the China Foundation of International Studies
Green barrier disguises face of protectionism
By Huang Qing
(China Daily) August 15, 2007
The European Union's Framework Directive on Eco-design Requirements for Energy Using Products (EuP), or the third-generation "green barrier", was implemented on Saturday.
The EuP standard puts stricter environmental requirements on energy-using products' life cycle assessment and, therefore, exercises restrictive influence on those products' design, manufacture, use, maintenance and retrieval.
Compared to the EU's two earlier green barrier directives, the EuP directive imposes stricter requirements, has a wider scope and will have a greater impact on the business of relevant firms.
Green barriers are an economic phenomenon, which emerged this century as environmental-protection awareness grows ever stronger across the globe. Europe is an area where environmental protection consciousness runs highest and, consequently, related undertakings take on an aura of sacredness.
It is against this ideological background that the EU has promulgated its green barrier directives. Thanks to the fact that environmental problems pose a serious threat to mankind and that sustainable development and green consumption represent the trend of the times, the barriers do have some virtue.
But behind the morality facade, I fear some protectionist considerations are at work.
Dictated by globalization necessities, the world's industrial structure is undergoing a major realignment and some manufacturing operations are moving to the developing world, of which China is a part.
However, the rapid expansion of manufacturing industries in these countries rouses worries from developed countries. In this context, the developed nations put in place green and technological barriers one after the other, in a bid to hold an advantageous position over the competition.
By setting up green technological standards, developed countries automatically push up the cost of developing nations' exports by large margins and, in turn, weaken their competitive power.
Besides enjoying technological advantages, developed countries maintain an edge over developing nations in testing technologies. So the latter, apart from bearing larger production costs, have to pay large amounts of "soft costs" in the forms of testing and certification fees.
In addition, the green barriers serve to make the deteriorating environment in developing countries all the worse.
Developing countries generally implement lower environmental standards than developed ones. And transnational corporate giants, all of which are headquartered in developed countries, shift energy-consuming and high-polluting operations into developing nations through making investments, or simply dump non-green products into these nations.
The green barriers, therefore, make developing countries shoulder double baggage - the worsening environment caused by dumped goods and by engaging in energy-consuming and high polluting production operations.
The green barriers, which are actually a new type of trade barrier, have gained acceptance from the World Trade Organization. They can steer clear of many trade rules and render the competitors speechless. And the latter stand little chance of winning any case on trade disputes arising from the implementation of the green barriers.
[THIS ASSESSMENT IS NOT TRUE - THERE IS AMPLE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO PREVAIL IN A WTO DISPUTE IF BROUGHT]***
Generally, there are no unified international standards to follow in working out green requirements. Developed countries that enjoy the right to formulate them, are thus automatically placed in an advantageous position. In many cases, what they say goes.
In view of all this, the green barriers are a kind of one-way green tax levied on the developing world.
[IT IS ALSO A ONE-WAY GREEN TAX LEVIED ON DEVELOPED COUNTRY CITIZENS]**
Developing countries are caught in a green dilemma. On the one hand, going green represents the trend of the times and ecological civilization and sustainable development are the common aspirations of all mankind. On the other, they are at a green disadvantage, having insufficient capital and backward technologies. Worse still, they also have disadvantages in social awareness, education and social organization.
Confronted by the green barriers, what can companies in developing countries do?
In business it is all about the survival of the fittest, so these firms must adapt to the changing situations and respond to the challenges. This means they must raise the environmental standards of their products.
In the face of the green barriers, the developing world should have more say in green affairs.
For example, it should push developed countries to shoulder the historical responsibilities for global warming and make better use of the compensation mechanisms for carbon-discharge reduction.
Also, they should appeal more strongly for lowering the threshold of environmental-protection technology transfer and put stricter controls on the shift of energy-consuming and high polluting operations.
[BY FIGHTING EUROPE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NON-SCIENCE & NON-ECONOMICS-BASED PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AT THE WTO, CHINA, INDIA, ETC. CAN ENSURE THAT THERE EXIST OBJECTIVE REGULATORY BENCHMARKS TO GUIDE POLICY MANAGEMENT OF PROVABLE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS]**
The world's environmental problem today is to a fairly large extent a product of the past. Developed countries, in the course of their industrialization, wrought damage to the global environment. This is a historical debt they should pay. Moreover, their way of life today should also be held responsible for the worsening environment.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE - CHINA, INDIA AND OTHER INDUSTRIALIZING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE PLAYING A ROLE IN EXACERBATING EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS]**
It is unfair to make the developing world shoulder all the historical responsibilities or pay the historical debt. Developed countries should take more responsibility for global environmental protection.
The author is a council member of the China Foundation of International Studies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
