|
America and Global Warming: Europe's View
With Kjell Larson,
Minister of the Environment, European Union
Thursday, June 14, 2001;
President Bush's visit to Europe highlights one of the biggest
differences of opinion between the United States and Europe: global warming. While Bush has repudiated the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global climate change, the European Union (EU) has strongly supported it.
As EU Environmental Minister Kjell Larsson puts it, "A short-sighted approach to environmental concerns and a weak environmental policy now will have serious repercussions for many years to come."
Larsson will be live online from the EU Summit in Sweden to talk about global warming, U.S. policy and Europe's approach to climate change issues.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
washingtonpost.com:
Due to confusion about the time difference between Sweden and Washington, Kjell Larson's discussion will begin at 1 pm EDT, not noon as previously announced. We regret the error. Please feel free to submit questions.
washingtonpost.com:
Welcome Mr. Larsson. Thank you for joining us. Is there anything you would like to say to readers of washingtonpost.com before we start taking audience questions.
Kjell Larsson: I´m happy to be with you and hope for a vivid discussion on one of the most pressing issues for the future!
New York, N.Y.:
I was wondering why no European nation has approved the Kyoto treaty. If the treaty is as good as France, Germany, and England say it is then why is Romania the only nation to approve it? The nations of Europe have had over three years to get it done. The nations of Europe can't blame bush for that.
Kjell Larsson: All European countries are prepared to ratify next year at the latest after a good political settlement on the outstanding modalities of the protocol which we hope to resolve this summer. This has been the basis for our work - also for the US until the new US administration decided to leave the Kyoto process.
Burke, Va.:
As a frequent traveler to Europe, I continue to be impressed by the dominant use of diesel and turbo-diesel engines in cars of all sizes. These engines offer excellent fuel economy, low smoke, and sufficient power for even larger cars. In the US, the prevalence of such engines is still very small, and there are (especially in states such as California) ever more stringent air quality standards, such as those for NOx.
Do the EU countries have any issues in terms of the widespread use of diesels, especially in metropolitan areas?
Kjell Larsson: Diesel is generally better from a climate point of view but worse from a quality of air point of view. But new diesel engines are competitive also in this respect.
Arlington, Va.:
Do you believe that the increasing trend towards privatization and deregulation in EU industry will compromise environnmental values, or are there fundamental business laws in EU industry that ensure corporate interests are second to environmental/social interests?
Kjell Larsson: I think we have quite strong envisonment regulation (which we now are strengthening)that will be able to match this development. And we also see advantages with deregulation from an env point of view, eg railways.
Washington, D.C.:
Many European countries, including the U.K. and Germany, have adopted environmental taxes--in many cases, returning the revenue to their economies through cuts in other taxes. What has been the reaction of businesses to this approach, both before and after enactment? Are there multinational companies that have taken a strong public position in support of environmental taxes? If so, has this helped advance this approach?
Kjell Larsson: This has happened also in Sweden and we intend to continue. I look forward to a strong drive in Europe to internalize env costs. Companies are in general positive to the use of economic incentives although they might protest when it hurts their own activities.
Louisville, Kentucky:
Regarding President Bush's first European visit, the Bush administration's public emphasis will be on areas of agreement and cooperation. I believe that the major differencesa between Bush and the Europeans on global warming will be glossed over as "trivial." Will there be a concerted effort by the EU to keep this issue in the forefront, so that Bush will be unable to pretend that it does not exist?
Kjell Larsson: We will certainly not look upon these differencies as trivial.Yes we will continue to keep this issue in the forefronr where it belongs!
Washington, DC:
In order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, consumption of fossil fuels must be cut back. In a country like the United States, with high per-capita energy use, the potential exists (however difficut to achieve) to reduce emissions through conservation and higher taxes on fossil fuels. However, a country like Sweden already has a much lower per-capita energy use (and much higher energy costs), so potential reductions are much more difficult to obtain. How does your government plan to reduce emissions to fit the Kyoto protocal?
Kjell Larsson: Our target within the European "bubble" permits an increase of 4 percent. Our national objective though is a reduction of two percent. We will use taxation, investment support, emission trading, increased use of biofuels and information.
Middleburg, Va.:
Why should we enter into Kyoto Treaty when we can solve our own problems? With Ford and GM announcing that fuel cells are their future, with Fuel Energy Inc revolutionizing stationary power, Amory Lovins with his hypercar, Bill McDonough with his designing of buildings and products, with all our plentiful forest that could act as carbon banks with easements placed on them to ensure that they would stay that way forever, I see no point to enter into a treaty that creates diseconomies, that creates an uneven playing field and that concentrates on consumption rather than population and consumption. If we are revolutionizing the world, why should we even listen to Europe?
Kjell Larsson: If you can achive your target of minus 7 % without the Kyoto protocol I would certainly be very happy.If you can achieve it why leave the Kyoto protocol?
Boulder, Colorado:
The strong European reaction to the administration's withdrawl from Kyoto gives me the impression the Europeans are not fully aware of the intense opposition to Kyoto in the U.S. Senate, the body ultimately responsible for ratification of any climate treaty. If you are aware of this, why the strong reaction to the withdrawl of a treaty that already had no chance of U.S. ratification?
Kjell Larsson: We are of course also reacting to the position of the Senate. I´m however not impressed by the repeated reference to the vote in the Senate on dev countries´ obligations that was cast 5 months before the Kyoto protocol was decided and when no one knew about the obligations that really exist for these countries within the protocol.
Washington, D.C.:
What is the status of EU efforts to enact a minimum EU-wide carbon tax?
Kjell Larsson: So far we have not succeeded.
Falls Church, Va.:
In your opinion would the EU be willing to allow the US to renegotiate its target or timetable as relates to the Kyoto Protocol as a means to keep them at the table?
Kjell Larsson: We have not considered that. Our aim is not to open up the protocol but to get it enacted.
New York, NY:
Most of Europes forests have been ravaged by environmental damage. Why do Europeans feel superior in environmental issues when they don't even restrict emissions from automobiles?
Kjell Larsson: 65 % of my country are covered by forests. We certainly don´t feel superior. We have lower emissions from automobiles on average than the US and certainly have restrictions and higher taxes on petrol.
Arlington, Va.:
... Will EU countries be able to make the leap and actually ratify the Kyoto agreement?
Kjell Larsson: Yes, that´s our aim and we will do all we can.
Washington DC:
Are there long term plans to phase China and India into Kyoto? If not, is economic growth in those areas important enough an achievement to trump restricting emissions of greenhouse gases?
Kjell Larsson: Yes, without mentioning any particular country we certainly have to discuss quant targets also for developing countries for the next commitment period.
Arlington, Va.:
Thank you for your time; I have a deep appreciation for Sweden's environmental awareness. Would (has) Sweden or the EU consider trade sanctions based on environmental stances?
Kjell Larsson: No, we have not discussed sanctions and I´m sure we will not. I think that would be wrong and contraproductive. Thanks for your appr words about our env policy. But we are far from perfect.
Columbus, Ohio:
Do you consider there to be scientific consensus on global warming even though many prominant scientists disagree on this (e.g. Richard Lindzen in last Monday's Wall Street Journal opinion page)?
In particular, how do you answer the complaint that the "policy recommendation summaries" of various global warming reports highly distort the more detailed "science sections" and assume unrealistic, worst-case scenarios?
Kjell Larsson: There will never be total concensus. The mainstream opinion among scientists is more than enough to act upon.
DC:
Greetings Minister Larsson,
It is a great pleasure to have you with us on this discussion board. There are many of us in the U.S. who are strongly opposed to our President's view points on the environment in general and global warming in particular. We are very, very happy to hear about all the demonstrations going on in Europe and we hope that it will open Bush's eyes a little as to the potential long term damage he is causing with his short term views and his irrational arguments concerning the impact on the American economy.
What is the potential for the EU to go it alone on some of the KP mechanisms until the U.S. finally catches up? ...
What is the percentage of GHG coming out of Europe and the former Soviet Union and how does that compare to what the U.S. is emitting?
If the rest of the world eliminates or reduces significantly GHGs but the U.S. carries on, will this have any positive affect on reducing the impact of GW globally and will it have a negative effect on the economy of EU? [edited]
Thanks again.
Kjell Larsson: Thanks. We believe it possible to get enough support from other countries to get a ratified protocol anf we certainly hope that the US will come along. With 20 percent of the world economy the EU provides 15 percent of global emissions. With the same share of the global economy the US provides 25 percent.
Guadalajara, Jalisco Mexico:
It is well known that automobiles are the main producers of CO2. What do you suggest we do to change our dependence on the all-mighty car?
Kjell Larsson: More efficient motors, the development of biofuels and fuel-cells, better collective transports, city planning, faster and more flexible railways, more biking! Just as examples.
Washington, D.C.:
In looking at the various ways the European countries have tried to reduce carbon emissions, some raise revenue (e.g., auctioned permits and taxes) while others do not. In those that have used revenue raising approaches, there seem to have been signicant benefits for the economy, as well as the environment, by recycling the revenue back to taxpayers. Can you comment in more detail on the impact of recycling the revenue in this way?
Kjell Larsson: We use that approach with good results in my and other eur. countries and we will continue to do it. It certainly has increased the pressure on companies for cleaner technologies, which generally I believe will give them a competitive advantage also in global competition.
St. Louis, Missouri :
China is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, yet nothing in Kyoto would require them to cut back. And India is not too far behind Please explain to me how exempting a select few of the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases improves climate change?
Kjell Larsson: Emissions per capita in China are less then 10 percent of the same in the US. China has responsbilities and they are active in energy efficiency and in replacing bad coal combustion plants with cleaner technologies. And we will of course for the next commitment period have to discuss to give also China quant targets. And don´t forget: Since 1950 80 percent of emissions have come from the industrialized ocountries while the burden of climate change falls primarilly on poor countries.
Annapolis, Md.:
How will this subject affect relations between the US and Europe if Bush continues not to accept the Kyoto Treaty?
Kjell Larsson: We will have to try to continue discussions and cooperation eg on developing technological solutions.
Buffalo, N.Y.:
Frankly speaking, why should a deeply flawed agreement like Kyoto be supported by the U.S., an agreement that does not include China and India, the two most populous nations on earth, that rejects market-based solutions to pollution reduction rather than the statist solutions favored by the European Union, and which would amount to essentially unilateral industrial disarmament on the part of the United States? [edited]
Kjell Larsson: Not to repeat a lot of what I´ve already written: The flaws of the protocol are not larger than that ALL countries except the US are prepared to continue working with the protocol. What you write about industrial disarmament is not serious. The problems of environmental disarmament are.
Washington, DC:
Thank you for taking our questions:
... To what degree can the EU alone make significant headway in reducing the impact of global warming when the U.S. is responsible for the greatest emissions? [edited]
Kjell Larsson: We have to live up to our commitments. We have achieved half in half the time. We have to find support among other countries to ratify the protocol and continue discussions with the US and hope your country will join the protocol later.
washingtonpost.com:
Our thanks to Kjell Larsson for taking extra time to answer so many questions. Is there anything you would like to say in closing?
Kjell Larsson: I´ve appreciated our discussions. I hope to be able to continue discussions with friends and allies in your country and strongly believe that this is the major environmental issue and that this global threat requires a truly global respons. Thank you very much from a sunny Gothenburg!
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Dirda
on Books at 2 p.m. EDT
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
