Looming green trade war
by Patali CHAMPIKA RANAWAKA
Immediately after the conclusion of the summit meeting at Copenhagen
conference (COP-15), I was compelled to return to the island to take
part in the final scheduled activities of the Presidential election
campaign. On my return, I had to draw my special attention to some
foreign media which had reported that the Copenhagen summit subsequently
had reached consensus and as a result, the members of the UNFCCC had
declared a new agreement to combat climate change.
However, on inquiry, the members of my delegation who were in
Copenhagen up to the last day of the summit, informed me that thirteen
Heads of States had decided to approve the final draft. The so-called
draft agreement includes no reasonable binding targets of emissions and
also it has completely ignored the Kyoto protocol which had been legally
agreed upon 12 years ago, in 1997.
Just prior to the commencement of COP-15, there were behind the
scenes discussions, led by the USA and some EU countries to make the
Kyoto protocol defunct and introduce a new Copenhagen protocol,
stipulating binding emission reducing targets for low emitting
developing countries as well.
At the very beginning, the Prime Minister of Denmark put forward two
draft texts - a political statement expecting the general concurrence of
the COP15 at its conclusion. Although, countries such as South Africa,
Brazil, China, India and Bangladesh had attended the meeting convened by
the Danish Prime Minister to discuss the new draft, it had not been a
part of the previous lengthy discussions they have had. Also, it had not
represented the progress previously that had been made in the
negotiation process of meetings from Bali (2007) and Poznan (2008) to
Copenhagen (2009).
The new text had ignored the basic accepted principles of common, but
differential responsibility by creating new binding obligations for the
developing and low emitting countries like Sri Lanka. The copies of the
text given to the participants at the meeting had been subsequently
withdrawn and the developing countries had registered their protest
against the undemocratic actions taken by the parties concerned.
However, when it came to light that the text had been leaked to the
media, nobody could help challenging the reputation of the Danish
government. In response to the western backed Danish text, China, India,
Brazil and South Africa (emerging economies), proposed an alternative
text, called Copenhagen Accord. However, this text too was subsequently
withdrawn.
During the high level segment (Dec.16-18), the plenary session
discussions were interrupted many times. The proceedings were continuing
till midnight amidst harsh climatic conditions of falling snow. The
exhausted and tired delegates were seen either dozing or moving in and
out of the conference hall at irregular intervals and finally most of
the delegates started leaving Copenhagen on December 18.
Exploiting these absences as a tactical move, a special meeting
headed by the US President Barak Obama and other western leaders was
convened. It was at this meeting they had finally issued the so-called
Copenhagen agreement.
In protest, Sudan on behalf of G77 and Bolivia (Sri Lanka has co
sponsored with Bolivia the new amendments to Kyoto Protocol and for
realistic binding targets by including the climate debt owed by the
so-called developed countries) left the conference. The Head of Bolivian
delegation cut her hand and showed the bleeding hand, symbolizing the
destiny of the developing countries.
Later, the British Minister David Milliband castigated "China" for
hijacking the climate talks and the US "Challenged" India for its
unwavering support to China and G77 position.
In reality global politics was seen getting polarized between the
west and the rest which was never seen before, with China, India, Brazil
and South Africa leading the rest of the world against the west.
According to the "The Economist" magazine in 2010, the GDP of China
will be $ 9845 billion (PPP), Brazil $ 2113 billion, India $ 3876
billion whereas the GDP of the USA is $ 14,840, Germany $ 2807 billion,
Britain $ 2160 billion and Japan $ 4228 billion, respectively. This
clearly showed the strength of the emerging economies and the declining
of the western economic might. The same report placed Sri Lanka as the
6th fastest economic growth country in 2010. These developed western
countries comprise only 46% of the global economy at present (2009) and
their share has been constantly declining. Most of their growth rates
are either minus or near zero. On the other hand the Asian economies are
catching up the markets.
So, in order to maintain the competitiveness, the western countries
need more and more fossil fuels. Since they clearly had seen the
catastrophic environmental disasters which may annihilate the entire
human civilization if they are allowed to continue business as usual
model - Burn more fossil fuel to achieve more growth at the expense of
the environment.
Now the USA and EU have realized that they cannot bargain with the
rest of the world. For them, the rest is too big to be handled. They
could not achieve their motive to have a new deal which includes
mitigation targets for China, Brazil, India and the rest of the
developing countries. Although, these western countries always used to
preach democracy, equality and human rights they tried to show the world
that the so-called Copenhagen agreement which was endorsed by a very few
countries as the general consensus. In the meantime, the west want to
burn more fossil fuel in the future as they did in the past disregarding
the equity principal of other nations realizing modern day climate
Nazism where some "super nations" exist. And they just endanger the very
existence of the future generations by allowing catastrophic
environmental disasters.
Now both the USA and EU are evolving a new phenomenon. According to
the "News Week" magazine (Dec.2008) European and the US lawmakers are
weighing bills to impose taxes on trade partners who fail to reduce
their carbon footprints. These broader tax adjustments are meant to stop
"carbon leakage" - when companies operating in nations with rigid
emission controls (say EU) move their factories to countries with more
lax standards (say China or Sri Lanka). Some advocates say that the
taxes are a green stick, wielded to force developing nations into a
global climate compact.
If we look at the American clean energy and security act of 2009
proposed by Waxman - Markey, it clearly indicates the coming green taxes
to control goods imported to the USA from developing countries.
The legislation has four titles
A clean energy title that promotes renewable source of energy and
carbon capture and sequestration technologies, low carbon transportation
fuels, clean electric vehicles and the smart grid electricity
transmission. An energy efficiency that increases energy efficiency
across all sectors of the economy including building appliances,
transportations and industry.
A global warming title that places limits on the emissions of heat
trapping pollutants. (Including Co2 emission from fossil fuel burning
where the USA emits 25,000 Kg per capita - 2009.) A transitioning title
that protects the US consumers and industry and promotes green jobs
during the transition to a clean energy economy.
In title 4 above, transitioning to a clean energy economy, there is a
sub title called ensuring domestic competitiveness which says "to ensure
that the US manufacturers are not put at a disadvantage relative to the
overseas competitors".
The draft authorizes companies in certain industrial sectors to
receive "rebates" to compensate for additional cost incurred under the
program.
Sectors that use large amounts of energy and produce commodities that
are traded globally would be eligible for the rebates.
If the President finds that the rebate provisions do not sufficiently
correct the competitive imbalances, the President is directed to
establish a "broader adjustment" program. Under the program foreign
manufacturers and importers would be required to pay and hold special
allowances to cover the carbon content in the US bound products.
Similar piece of legislature have been prepared in EU countries as
well, aiming to achieve these twin goals. By imposing carbon trade
barriers for foreign manufactured goods and services, they want to
enhance competitiveness of locally manufactured goods (protectionism)
and in the meantime force the goods manufacturing countries to cut their
emission levels. By that way, they (west) are going to wage a green
trade war on developing countries who refuse to accept the so-called
Copenhagen agreement which advocates binding emission cut targets for
developing countries as well.
Sri Lankan export market heavily depends on North America and EU (70%
of total export).
Therefore, these western countries could use this green trade tariff
to control our exports if we were going to produce our energy from
fossil fuels. So far Sri Lanka is categorized as a very low Co2 emitting
country.
Our per-capita emission level (2009) is 660Kg whereas in India it is
2000Kg and in China it is 5000Kg. Over this value in 2009 no country
could impose a green trade tariff on the US - Sri Lankan, because even
according to the IPCC's carbon budget, environmental permissible level
per-capita for 2009 is 2170Kg and we are far below that level.
But we are now in the process of introducing 1000 Mw coal plant in
Norochchole and another 1000 Mw plant in Sampur.
Generally coal power is being used as based load power where it
generates electricity continuously over the time. So, it may increase
our per-capita emission level dramatically (nearly doubled). According
to the Ceylon Electricity Board's national plan, they are going to
instal another 3600 Mw capacity coal plants in the time to come. This
type of emission clearly goes far beyond the carbon budget stipulated in
IPCC, meaning the carbon footprint of our manufactured goods will be
very high. We could not be able to sell these goods to western countries
in the near future.
Whatever the green trade sanctions that would be imposed by western
countries we should discourage ourselves using more and more fossil
fuels and as a alternative we should encourage renewable energy sources
as clean energies. Because the depletion of fossil fuel coupled with
global warming caused by burning of same fossil fuel will force us to do
so besides the western trade sanctions.
We need to have a green economy based on green energies.
On the other hand developing nations should evolve new trade avenues.
While imposing counter green trade tariffs for the worst polluted
markets and countries of the western world, they should improve their
own markets and act together to combat climate change and climate
terrorism perpetrated by the western world. An African proverb says "if
you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, go together."
The writer is the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Kanneliya - biodiversity hotspot...
The cute but not so cuddly porcupine resident at the circuit
bungalow is currently recovering from a broken leg. But that won’t stop
this mischievous creature from scurrying about its now familiar
surroundings.
He has a call that could make any girl start to coe! And knows well the
difference between friends and enemies.
|
