EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Climate policy could be 'collateral damage' of UK exit from EU

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 24 January 2013, updated 25 January 2013

Fears are growing in Brussels that climate policy could become a political football in any referendum on EU membership, following British Prime Minister David Cameron’s declaration of intent yesterday (23 January) to hold an in/out poll.

The UK Independent Party (UKIP), which has links to the eurosceptic right of Cameron’s Conservatives, launched a petition on 21 January calling for the EU’s climate and energy targets to be suspended.

The petition’s professed objectives – to prevent carbon leakage, stop ‘wasting money’ on unilateral climate measures, reduce energy prices and increase energy security by allowing more fossil fuel use – are widely shared on the Conservative right and among Europe’s energy-intensive industries. 

>> Read: Industry claims EU climate laws are squashing recovery

UKIP's initiative may not reach the million signatures needed to activate EU policy-making processes, but it has set alarms ringing that climate change could enter the UK’s Europe debate by the backdoor.

“I don’t believe that environmental legislation is high among David Cameron’s concerns about the EU, but certainly it could be a victim of collateral damage if the UK were to pull out [of the EU],” said Graham Watson, a Liberal Democrat MEP.

“There is certainly an agenda, which has infected sections of the Conservative party, that argues we should ignore the climate and just continue to make money hand over fist,” Watson said. “Those arguing for our withdrawal from the EU tend also to be those who wish to build on the fossil fuel economy rather than making the green energy switch.” 

Tom Spencer, a veteran ex-Conservative MEP, agreed that climate change policy would be “one of the victims” of the disruption accompanying a UK withdrawal from Europe.

But environmentalists in Brussels could also be among the losers if Britain checks out at the Brussels door.  

Firm climate line

The UK has historically taken a firmer line on climate policy than some other EU states for reasons ranging from the scientific quality of its Met Office, to the destruction of its coal industry in the 1980s.

Although London has weakened proposed EU legislation on Arctic drilling and tar sands, it has also pushed for stronger carbon dioxide emissions reductions targets and from 1 April, will be implementing a carbon price floor.

The UK has aligned itself with European states calling for robust backloading of up to 1.2 billion carbon allowances to shore up the EU’s ailing carbon market.

Isaac Valero, the spokesman for EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, said the EU climate policy showed how a united continent could deliver in Britain’s best interests.

“The UK is a driving force in shaping positively the European climate agenda,” he told EurActiv in an emailed statement. “A proactive and trusted partner, the UK brings in a great deal of expertise and enthusiasm to our climate policies.”

But within the UK’s governing Conservative party, more power is thought to lie in the hands of politicians such as the chancellor, George Osborne, and a Eurosceptic right, which is equally suspicious of climate science and federalism.   

True believers

“The public affairs campaigners, the deniers, the oil companies and chemical companies have all tried to make a link between euro-scepticism and climate-scepticism, arguing that they are both bogus and outdated ideas,” Spencer, a pro-European, said.

“Individual parliamentarians of centre-right arties across Europe have been the prime target of the denial campaign for the last three years, a deliberate attempt to cultivate the idea that if you’re a eurosceptic, if you’re a true believer in the free market, you wouldn’t want to pay for all these expensive things that are unproven,” he said.

Shortly after his election, Cameron famously told civil servants at the Department of Energy and Climate Change that he wanted to head “the greenest government ever”.

His then-environment minister Chris Huhne said he wanted to go “further and faster than ever before” in tackling climate change, but was subsequently forced from office in a scandal over a speeding offence.

Cameron is sincere in his vision but hindered by a lack of power in his party, according to Jules Peck, an environmental advisor to the current-PM while in opposition.

“There’s a big rump of the party that Cameron has to battle with who don’t give a damn about Europe and don’t give a damn about climate change,” Peck told EurActiv. “Us greenies say that the best thing about Europe is the environmental policy but the problem is that that’s exactly what the Tories don’t like about it: the environmental policy.”

Peck was the director of Cameron’s Quality of Life commission, and co-wrote the Conservative Party’s Blueprint for a Green Economy in 2007.

Next steps: 
  • 1 April 2013: UK government to introduce a carbon price floor
  • 2017: Britain to hold an in/out referendum on EU membership if David Cameron is re-elected
Arthur Neslen

COMMENTS

  • Everyone in Brussels knows that British Petroleum (BP) lobbied, initiated, and influenced lawmakers to accept the CCS and carbon trading (ETS) Directives in 2008 so City could make money and BP could commoditize and monetize CO2 which it needs for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Page 41 of Brussels Guide: http://www.pana.ie/download/CEO-lobby.pdf Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (United Nations IPCC) invented oil recovery using CO2, check out his company Glori Oil Energy: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=PJXC:GR&sid=a6yz_2qQZzn8

    By :
    Jenna Bedford
    - Posted on :
    24/01/2013
  • Anthropogenic Global Warming is a late 80's hypothesis that became massive fraud and then policy, initially by more than one country, but it is, oh so sorry, 99% German (I left 1% for the Danes) after about 1991-1993. Never mind the greedy and the fools who peddled it around the Globe. Getting rid of a fraudulent pseudo-religion used to tax the unsuspecting would be collateral BENEFIT. Please do enjoy the balmy interglacial while it lasts.

    By :
    archaeopteryx
    - Posted on :
    24/01/2013
  • Global Warming religion needs to be stop. I'm ok with good environmental stands. But this climate change histeria is just push is me away from green.

    By :
    Anonymous
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • I have attempted about 6 times times to vote in this poll and every time the voting procedure stalls at the captcha stage because I have supposedly failed to correctly identify the letters/numbers. There is something wrong with this system.

    Can this fault me fixed?

    By :
    marchesarosa
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • Climate change policy isn't a victim; it's a catalyst. If UK bugs out, that will be a prime reason for it. There are real global and local environmental concerns, but AGW is eating up much of the money for it.

    I am the main co-author of Watts et al. (2012). We have fully addressed the major concerns (TOBS and MMTS conversion) and will be submitting soon for peer review.

    We find that there has been warming, but owing to poor station siting, it is spuriously highballed by a factor of at the -- very -- least 50%, and more likely by over 250%.

    This is "corrected" not by adjusting the poorly sited station trends (sic) DOWNward to match the well sited stations, but by adjusting the well sited stations UPward to match the trends of the poorly sited stations.

    Neither microsite nor Mesosite bias is taken into account. It is ignored. Whether or not his is a willful omission is not something we address, but it remains a clearly demonstrated fact.

    NOAA and the HadCRU call this process "homogenization"; but it turns out to be more akin to pasteurization.

    Yes, the US is only 6% of global land mass, but the US Historical Climate Network is probably the finest in the word, and it is fatally flawed: The problems we find with the USHCN are likely far worse with the GHCN (the global network).

    I hate to use the word "fraud". Call it all a massive error coupled with confirmation bias.

    Conclusion: GW is indeed real (with or without the "A" -- but definitely without the "C").

    By :
    Evan Jones
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • Please would you cease to consider that ecological ideas are costs and causes of expenses. On the contrary ecologists wants new ressources like ecotaxes that could be useful even for UKIP facing the debts. Take for instance Areva which must protect its site of Uranium in Niger: Why is it so stubborn to the ecological ideas? Why must it pay the European army (isn't European? Oh sorry only French) to be protected as he could borrow a lot of money to a climate mitigating fund, fits south of Niger and Mali with photovoltaics panels, then pay back the credit and the rent of the military protection with the sold electricity?

    By :
    meleze
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • ". . . The UK has historically taken a firmer line on climate policy than some other EU states for reasons ranging from the scientific quality of its Met Office, to the destruction of its coal industry in the 1980s. . . ."

    The quality of the Met Office coupled with the scandle at the CRU and the conflict(s) with real world data that discredits the horror story prognostication of Al Gore's World (AGW) has finally begun to alert the general population to the massive hoax that was/is the tenants of the climate change religious sects.

    It is telling that "super storms" such as Sandy, which was not a single storm but a combination to multiple weather phenomenon, are held forth as evidence of AGW's affects, yet mere mention of weather events by the heathen non-belivers are ridiculed as mere weather events.

    By :
    John Lobenstein
    - Posted on :
    28/01/2013
  • Every decision in life involves some sort of cost-benefit relationship. (Benefit can be anything including non-economic.)

    But not to consider the cost-benefit of any action is both anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. And very, very unwise.

    In the case of so-called remedies for AGW, we have ceased to consider the costs, and the results are plain to see: Humungous cost, both direct and indirect(especially to the poor), and virtually no ecological benefit whatever to show for it.

    By :
    Evan Jones
    - Posted on :
    28/01/2013
  • Also, there is no increasing trend whatever in extreme weather. Hurricanes, Typhoons, drought, flooding, what have you. If anything, extreme weather has been on the decline. Even the leaked draft of IPCC AR5 admits this.

    There is some warming over the last 30 years, no question, but there is NO increase at all in extreme weather.

    By :
    Evan Jones
    - Posted on :
    28/01/2013
  • Evan Jones, where is your paper then? – You have been promising to publish for nearly a year. Sadly (for you) it has been discredited before it has been published – as well you know.
    Our economy needs reshaping and green growth (away from energy dependence on the Middle East and Russia) is the answer. £289 billion (IMF’s estimates Horton et al. (2009), has already been spent in the UK on insolvency in banks and liquidity in financial markets without creating a single job. A greening of the economy will produce jobs and a cleaner environment for our kids.

    By :
    Peter White
    - Posted on :
    29/01/2013
  • Such surety! But you really don't know what you are talking about. And a year? It's been nearly a year since last August?

    The pre-publication release was criticized because it did not account for TOBS bias or MMTS conversion. I also got around to adding the error bars (mathematically simple, but poorly supported by Excel).

    However, these concerns have been fully and completely addressed. The premise still holds and is rock-solid.

    The premise was that TOBS affected rural sites more than urban sites, and since microsite is obviously better in rural areas, this would wash out the differences between well and poorly sited stations.

    Except it isn't so.

    As anyone with a modicum of speed in the subject already knew full well, microsite for urban stations is greatly superior to rural microsite. So instead of the difference between good and poor sites narrowing, it actually widened once we had dealt with the TOBS problem.

    You'd have thought that the critics would have actually checked this out. They were so certain!

    So I'm doing a final QC of the station ratings as the final paper is being revised. We'll be submitting when we are ready.

    Nice try, though. Please play again.

    By :
    Evan Jones
    - Posted on :
    30/01/2013
  • As for green growth, the US is doing just fine in reducing its dependency on foreign oil and reshaping its economy. And has even cut CO2 emissions in the process, back to 1990s levels. At great profit and great gain in jobs.

    Can you say, "FRACKING"?

    Unfortunately, that's the only green that actually grows!

    Wind and solar are gargantuan money pits with very little to show for it (and much of that bad).

    By :
    Evan Jones
    - Posted on :
    30/01/2013
Background: 

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who has been largely critical of the EU, entered an uneasy government coalition in 2010 with the pro-European Liberal Democrat party.

But as the eurozone eyed greater fiscal, banking and possibly even political integration to sovereign solve its debt crisis, Cameron came under growing pressure from the rebellious right wing of his party for a new referendum on EU membership.

On 23 January, he announced that, if re-elected, he would call such a poll by 2017, after negotiating a new compact with the EU.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Climate & Environment News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Climate & Environment Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising