EU promises clean power for China
Environmentalists welcome new EU–China partnership more than the U.S.’s new pact with developing nations.
As parties to the Kyoto Protocol gear up for their next meeting in Montreal at the end of November, the EU has announced a new partnership with China in clean energy technology. It has been widely welcomed, far more so than the six-nation Asia–Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate announced in July by the U.S. Based mainly on sharing technology, the Asia–Pacific pact attracted criticism for repackaging old bilateral agreements and lacking targets.
As the world’s second-largest CO2 emitter, after the U.S., China will be at the center of negotiations during the 11th conference of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in November. One of the topics up for discussion is how to get developing countries to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires. Until 2012, no developing countries, including China, are required to limit their GHG emissions.
The EU–China partnership, announced at the beginning of September, contains two “co-operation goals” to be achieved by 2020 and promises progress reviews at the annual EU–China summits. But details about funding are still lacking. The partnership’s first goal is to develop and demonstrate “zero-emissions” coal technology that captures CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants and stores it underground—for example, in sealed geologic strata. The EU has agreed to provide China with technological expertise and investment for a new low-carbon-emissions coal-fired power station, adds a European Commission spokesperson.
The second goal is to significantly reduce the costs of key energy technologies. The partners agreed to explore market-based instruments, such as emissions trading, and governmental guarantees for investors. Other objectives are to increase energy efficiency and to encourage research in areas such as energy conservation, renewable energy, methane recovery and use, hydrogen and fuel cells, and power generation and transmission.
Announced in July, the Asia–Pacific pact is the first of its kind to include the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest emitters of GHGs. The pact’s six signatories published a vision statement that stresses that it won’t replace the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, any actions taken under the pact will complement Kyoto, the parties say.
The Asia–Pacific agreement will build on transferring clean-energy technology among the six signatories: Australia and the U.S.—the only two industrialized nations that have not ratified Kyoto—as well as Japan, China, India, and South Korea. It focuses on the rollout of the whole range of existing and emerging technologies, including energy efficiency, renewables, hydrogen, biotechnologies, and nuclear fission.
Environmental groups have welcomed the EU–China partnership. “Unlike the recent Asia–Pacific pact, this agreement includes policies, markets and technologies, which should lead to real and significant action,” said Jennifer Morgan of the environmental group WWF. The International Energy Agency estimates that China will invest €1.5 trillion in its power sector by 2030.
Jacqueline Karas, climate change research associate with the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, says the Asia–Pacific pact could be viewed as complementary to Kyoto, because it takes a more pragmatic, technical approach. “But the U.S.’s preference for after-Kyoto would definitely focus on more bilateral agreements and cooperation centered on technology, so you could see this pact as putting down a marker.” Karas adds that she is certain the U.S. pact is having a “corrosive effect” on EU efforts to come up with a more Kyoto-style future agreement with binding targets.
Jeff Fiedler of the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council charges that the U.S. pact may be an attempt to undermine negotiations in Montreal. But is the U.S. trying to pull some countries out of the post-2012 process? “It’s ludicrous to believe that this option is a credible alternative to Kyoto,” retorts Fiedler.
