Modified:
27 Jan 2010
by Nadia999

Vote totals:

Yes:

0%

No:

0%

Neutral:

0%

 
Subscribe to This Debate
You are not currently subscribed to this debate.


Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
(Use commas to separate)
Bookmark and Share


DEBATE: EUROPE SHOULD ANNOUNCE BIG UNILATERAL CUTS IN EMISSIONS.

Angela Merkel was supposedly very annoyed that the Chinese were even against the previously agreed commitment to cuts of 80% by 2050 by developed nations (Europe and Japan in particular as the US had its hands tied) being included in the final deal at Copenhagen. The Europeans were also considering increasing their targets for 2020 from 20% to 30%, this in turn might have meant the EU upping their 2050 target to a 95% cut. Although it may eventually happen anyway if it had occurred at the conference it may have been enough to make the Copenhagen conference be seen as a success. Should the EU consider going it alone?





EUROPE SHOULD ANNOUNCE BIG UNILATERAL CUTS IN EMISSIONS.


Others may follow


One of the main ideas behind big emissions cuts is that other countries are likely to follow the move and promise to cut their own emissions some more in order to keep up and not be seen as being the sticking point. This would especially be the case with other developed nations, many of whom also had stated they might go further in their cuts if others were going to make deeper cuts. There is effectively a virtuous cycle where cuts in one country encourage all the others, both by showing it can be done and by providing political cover, ‘if they can do it so can we’.

This will not necessarily happen. Other countries may simply take the view that if someone else is doing more work to reduce emissions then they themselves do not need to do as much. They will use it as a bargaining chip to prevent cutting on their own greenhouse emissions


What do you think?  Vote on this point below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

EUROPE SHOULD ANNOUNCE BIG UNILATERAL CUTS IN EMISSIONS.


Benefits from being the first mover


Assuming that it is followed through and the cuts are really made there are potentially benefits to being the first to make such deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in a short period of time. The most obvious is in terms of technology; the areas committed to the deepest cuts will have to finance research into new green technologies and ways of turning those pledges into reality. This means extra employment in the ‘knowledge economy’ which most developed countries are trying to concentrate on already. Equally the first mover will be buying more solar panels, wind turbines etc. so it will make economic sense for the companies producing such renewable power sources to set up within that country or countries so as to reduce transportation.

Equally there are costs to being the first mover. If there are mistakes it is you who makes them, the first mover may gain the benefits of research but he will also pay the costs of that research in the first place.

Those who follow on however do not have these problems, they can pick the technologies that have been proven to work in the first mover countries. This makes it cheaper for them to reduce their CO2 emissions in the long run.


What do you think?  Vote on this point below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

EUROPE SHOULD ANNOUNCE BIG UNILATERAL CUTS IN EMISSIONS.


History.


As the first industrialised area Europe has a heavy burden to carry due to all the emissions it has created over the last 200 years. Europe contributed 27.7% of CO2 emissions in the 20th century[1] and this would be even higher if the 19th century was included too, as Europe will be the largest producer during this period having started on their industrial revolution first. Europe has therefore played an outsized part in the creating of emissions so should be willing to play an equally big role in reducing emissions.
  1. ^ http://earthtrends.wri.org/maps_spatial/maps_detail_static.php?map_select=488&theme=2

History seems to be a silly argument to make when thinking about worries of the future, what is done is done and there is no way for Europe to go back. Greater past responsibility should not really be a reason for Greater responsibility to produce less than their fair share in the future. Of course the EU has a lot of reductions to make until they are producing their fair share.


What do you think?  Vote on this point below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

EUROPE SHOULD ANNOUNCE BIG UNILATERAL CUTS IN EMISSIONS.


Economic competitiveness


 

The middle of a recession is not the time to be announcing cuts that may well effect the economic competitiveness of the Economy. Some areas of Europe – particularly Eastern Europe, have been very badly hit by the recession. These countries cannot afford to have all the extra costs to business that extra environmental regulation will bring. There will be costs in terms of administration and accounting for emissions, extra costs in actually going green, changing to using renewable power as the main energy source, reducing CO2 emissions from factories, cars, lorries etc. This means that countries that have not opted to reduce emissions will be able to produce the same goods for a cheaper price so undermining the competitiveness of that country in those products. This in turn would mean that more production goes abroad so causing the CO2 emissions to increase again.



EUROPE SHOULD ANNOUNCE BIG UNILATERAL CUTS IN EMISSIONS.


A drop in the Ocean


 

The European Union currently only emits 13.8% of global CO2 emissions, this is likely to reduce substantially as the EU’s emissions continue to fall while the developing world’s continues to sharply rise. With Europe contributing so little to future emissions it does not matter if Europe makes faster and deeper cuts because no matter the size of the cut made by Europe this will be more than compensated for by the rise in emissions elsewhere.



 
 

1. Others may follow
# 1

One of the main ideas behind big emissions cuts is that other countries are likely to follow the move and promise to cut their own emissions some more in order to keep up and not be seen as being the sticking point. This would especially be the case with other developed nations, many of whom also had stated they might go further in their cuts if others were going to make deeper cuts. There is effectively a virtuous cycle where cuts in one country encourage all the others, both by showing it can be done and by providing political cover, ‘if they can do it so can we’.

Global Youth Panel

|

16:04, 25 January 10

|

Karma Score: 552

|

Applause: 1


# 2

This will not necessarily happen. Other countries may simply take the view that if someone else is doing more work to reduce emissions then they themselves do not need to do as much.

Global Youth Panel

|

17:04, 25 January 10

|

Karma Score: 552


2. Benefits from being the first mover
# 1

Assuming that it is followed through and the cuts are really made there are potentially benefits to being the first to make such deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in a short period of time. The most obvious is in terms of technology; the areas committed to the deepest cuts will have to finance research into new green technologies and ways of turning those pledges into reality. This means extra employment in the ‘knowledge economy’ which most developed countries are trying to concentrate on already. Equally the first mover will be buying more solar panels, wind turbines etc. so it will make economic sense for the companies producing such renewable power sources to set up within that country or countries so as to reduce transportation.

Global Youth Panel

|

16:04, 25 January 10

|

Karma Score: 552


# 2

Equally there are costs to being the first mover. If there are mistakes it is you who makes them, the first mover may gain the benefits of research but he will also pay the costs of that research in the first place.

Those who follow on however do not have these problems, they can pick the technologies that have been proven to work in the first mover countries. This makes it cheaper for them to reduce their CO2 emissions in the long run.

Global Youth Panel

|

13:04, 26 January 10

|

Karma Score: 552


3. History.
# 1

As the first industrialised area Europe has a heavy burden to carry due to all the emissions it has created over the last 200 years. Europe contributed 27.7% of CO2 emissions in the 20th century[1] and this would be even higher if the 19th century was included too, as Europe will be the largest producer during this period having started on their industrial revolution first. Europe has therefore played an outsized part in the creating of emissions so should be willing to play an equally big role in reducing emissions.
  1. ^ http://earthtrends.wri.org/maps_spatial/maps_detail_static.php?map_select=488&theme=2

Global Youth Panel

|

16:04, 25 January 10

|

Karma Score: 552


# 2

History seems to be a silly argument to make when thinking about worries of the future, what is done is done and there is no way for Europe to go back. Greater past responsibility should not really be a reason for Greater responsibility to produce less than their fair share in the future. Of course the EU has a lot of reductions to make until they are producing their fair share.

Global Youth Panel

|

13:04, 26 January 10

|

Karma Score: 552


1. Economic competitiveness
# 1

The middle of a recession is not the time to be announcing cuts that may well effect the economic competitiveness of the Economy. Some areas of Europe – particularly Eastern Europe, have been very badly hit by the recession. These countries cannot afford to have all the extra costs to business that extra environmental regulation will bring. There will be costs in terms of administration and accounting for emissions, extra costs in actually going green, changing to using renewable power as the main energy source, reducing CO2 emissions from factories, cars, lorries etc. This means that countries that have not opted to reduce emissions will be able to produce the same goods for a cheaper price so undermining the competitiveness of that country in those products. This in turn would mean that more production goes abroad so causing the CO2 emissions to increase again.

Global Youth Panel

|

16:04, 25 January 10

|

Karma Score: 552


2. A drop in the Ocean
# 1

The European Union currently only emits 13.8% of global CO2 emissions, this is likely to reduce substantially as the EU’s emissions continue to fall while the developing world’s continues to sharply rise. With Europe contributing so little to future emissions it does not matter if Europe makes faster and deeper cuts because no matter the size of the cut made by Europe this will be more than compensated for by the rise in emissions elsewhere.

Global Youth Panel

|

16:04, 25 January 10

|

Karma Score: 552


Loading...