Nordicum - Real Estate Annual Finland 2010 | Page 8

THE AGENDA

EU catastrophy in Copenhagen?
by Paavo Lipponen

t is, by now, clear that no
binding international agreement will emerge from the
Copenhagen Climate Summit.
From the beginning, expectations about so-called ambitious results were unrealistic.
The United States was not going to change its approach 180
degrees from Kyoto, and the developing countries could not be
expected to bear any extra burden.
The European Union has
been the driving force for climate action and deserves
credit for that. But this
championing has taken the form of publicity-seeking hype and
arrogant behavior on
the global scene, as if
the EU could dictate its
terms to others.
The EU has been setting goals that are both unrealistic and
hurting the European economy. The first mistake was the timeframe set at the Spring Summit 2007: to reach 20 percent emissions reductions and raise the share of renewable energy to 20 percent by 2020. Both goals were drawn from the hat, with no plan
how to reach them. Particularly the renewables goal is pure fantasy. By 2020 most member states will not make the specific targets
set for each of them. This kind of political culture seriously undermines the credibility of the Union.
The United States approach to Copenhagen looks less ambitious, but it represents a different, more realistic strategy. The US
goal is set for 2050, giving time to turn the wheels. The Obama administration is investing heavily in new technology for renewable
energy. To protect their own industry, the government will heavily

I

6

Nordicum

subsidize pulp and paper mills, recognizing the ecological role of
wood-based industries. Nuclear power is being openly promoted.
If the EU gives a unilateral, binding commitment at the Summit to 30 percent emissions reductions by 2020 – even with others
committing themselves – the rest of the credibility of the community will be lost. There is no concrete plan on the EU level nor on
member state levels on how to reach such a goal. At worst, a unilateral commitment would have catastrophic consequences for European industry competitiveness.
Cli