Europe Turns Up the Heat on the US

[FarCenter]

By Carsten Volkery in Brussels
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,666607,00.html

European Union leaders meeting in Brussels have agreed on funds to help the developing world address climate change and demanded the same from the US. German Chancellor Merkel also says that Washington's emissions reduction pledge doesn't go far enough.

There is a rule of thumb for European Union summits in Brussels: the shorter they are, the better the participants get along with each other. And the summit on Thursday and Friday of this week was an unusually quick one. By the middle of the day on Friday, the heads of government and state from the 27 EU member states were able to present their strategy as the Copenhagen climate talks enter their decisive phase.


Leaders from all 27 EU countries are to head to the Danish capital next week in an effort to convince those who are dragging their feet, particularly the United States and China, to make concessions on a climate deal. "I can tell you now, it will be a turbulent week," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "It will be extremely complicated. And it will not be a tension-free process."

Europe is convinced that it has done its part in setting the stage for an agreement. EU leaders agreed in Brussels to provide poor countries with annual assistance of €2.4 billion ($3.5 billion) from 2010 to 2012. The money is to go toward immediate measures to help them both deal with the effects of climate change and to combat global warming. Germany has pledged €420 million per year to the fund. The EU also reinforced its offer to provide developing countries €30 billion annually starting in 2020 to address climate change.

<SNIP>

---

Ultimately, with a 20% reduction in global CO2, and a leveling of emissions per capita around the world, the US is looking at reducing hydrocarbon usage to perhaps 15 to 20% of current levels. Quite a change!

[tabatha]

1. Good for them!

[amborin]

8. ditto; Europe is putting us to shame!

[Gregorian]

2. We've cooked our numbers. It's not 20% reduction, but 4%.

We've based our numbers on 1990's carbon emissions.

Aha, I just read the article. And it confirms what I just posted. See, I post first, then read. Not a good habit. :)

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. No, the US is offering a reduction based on using 2005 as a baseline.

Europe is committed to further reductions on 1990 levels. US emissions in 2005 are at approximately 20% above 1990 levels.

[Gregorian]

4. "4 percent reduction relative to the baseline of 1990 used by the European Union."

Where does the 1990 fit in? Is that the carbon emission level that the nations are trying to use as a comparison? If so, my point is valid in that we're using 2005 numbers as our baseline instead of the 1990 that Europe is using.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. 17% reduction relative to 2005.

Whereas the EU is pledging a 20% reduction on 1990 levels. (Which was the baseline year in the Kyoto agreement that the US didn't sign onto.)

America's lack of leadership or any significant and meaningful commitment to what may be one of the most important issues of our time is pretty pathetic, really. The moral cowardice of successive US administrations in being unwilling to commit to hard reduction targets because they don't want to piss off the energy industry or have to tell US voters that they will have to change their lifestyles is shameful. (Fun fact: the US, responsible for one fifth of global CO2 emissions with 1/20th of the global population.)

[FarCenter]

6. It is shaping up as US and China versus rest of world

[Gregorian]

7. Yes. We're in agreement that it's not an agressive move.

I'm deeply troubled by the fact that the time was ripe in the early 70's, and we let it slip by. My father's car got 40 mpg, and he commuted by bike.

It's similar to our abandonment of a universal switch over to the metric system. Those who use it realize how much easier and productive it is. But we chose as a country to lag, and drag the world along behind us.

How disappointing. But then, what's good for ecology is usually bad for economy, by virtue of the material requirements and the grand scale that comprises the market.

[Vidar]

9. Good for Europe. We continue to be a rogue state.