Mineta: Haltung der USA zu Kyoto 'wird sich letztlich ändern'[en] 

Um eine Zusammenfassung dieses Interviews zu lesen, klicken Sie bitte hier.

Could you highlight what you consider to be the main issues in EU-US relations?

Essentially, I think of the European Union–US relationship as being very strong. Sure there a number of individual little issues between us – and I think of them as little, even though each of the sovereign nations or maybe the EU thinks of them as very important – but I believe they are mostly negotiable, with the sufficient dialogue that exists between the two sides. 

This relationship is hugely important because in a matter of ten years and beyond, China and India will grow substantially – 1.4 billion population in China, 1.3 in India. Their economies are growing, their productivity is increasing and I think that's something we have to keep an eye on and why the EU-US relationship is so necessary. 

And I think, also just due to the nature of the continent, Europeans are much more worldly, much more knowledgeable about things that are happening on their continent as well as on what's happening in the United States, much more than US folks know what's happening in Europe. 

I mean, for example, I just arrived here in Brussels, and everyone's talking about what's going to happen on Thursday with the referendum in Ireland. But no-one is aware of anything like this in the US. 

Even I was unaware of it before getting here. It's like the discussions about the new President of the Council and the fact that the Prime Minister of Luxembourg is being considered for the job. And my first thought was – President of what Council? I mean I knew about Barroso being the President of the European Commission, but I had no idea what the President of the Council would be doing and what his relationship with Barroso would be. It's been a very eye-opening and educational trip! 

But I think this also reflects a trend in the United States on being – I don't want to really call it protectionist – more insular on how we view things. And it seems to me that while the economy is growing more and more towards internationalisation and companies and countries are increasingly inter-dependent, the United States is becoming more insular. 

We haven't been able to get the Central America free trade pact through, the Korean Free Trade Agreement isn't even being considered for the moment… Now it may be that people are waiting until after the elections to do this, but it seems to me that the whole issue of economic growth, the free flow of goods and people are really very important and that somehow we in the United States have got to get ourselves somehow more attuned to the realities. 

Does that also involve climate change? 

Oh absolutely! And, as they say in the army, AWOL – away without leave… And I think that maybe in the United States, we've been AWOL on this issue in the last six or seven years. But it does seem to me that in the last several months, the President has signed legislation or talked about things that relate more to climate change… 

But you remain the big absentee in international negotiations on this. Do you think this will change?

It will definitely change. I think two things are going to happen after the November elections, regardless of who wins. One is there will be much more focus on the need to rebuild all of our relations with the international community. And the other is that we will be much more active in the area of the environment and of the whole greenhouse gas issue. I mean, you know we never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and it just seems to me that we've got to pay much more attention to those two issues. And I think we will. 

There's also somewhat of an ongoing dispute between the EU and the US regarding the inclusion of aviation activities in the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. Do you think the US might give way on this in the future with a different administration? 

Yes, I think that's an issue that, grudgingly I would say, airlines are getting closer to accepting. I mean, not accepting – they don't like it but the reality is that the whole idea of transferring emissions through a cap-and-trade system is probably going to come about and that they can't keep opposing it and will have to figure out the best way for themselves to work with it.

But, we need to be careful, because if it becomes a disincentive, then it has the opposite effect of what you want to do. Just assessing additional costs on companies or on a country doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be brought into compliance. 

I remember when we had these airline security contracts. Airlines are in charge of security at their own gates and would have to make sure they were in compliance with all security measures. I remember that company X wasn't doing what they were supposed to be doing under the law. I fined them $1.2 million because of that. Then a couple of months later, I found that company Y wasn't doing what they were supposed to be doing, so I fined them $1.7million. But it didn't faze them. They signed the cheques and would just continue signing those cheques because it was cheaper for them than to be having training sessions and changing procedures for all their employees. 

So you want to make things happen through incentives because fining companies just doesn't work to make them comply. 

So are you saying that the EU's emissions trading system, which is more of a punitive system where companies have to pay for their pollution, is not as good as schemes for example being put in place in the US that tend to be more technology-driven, with a lot more support for investment and research? 

In a way I am comparing the two. But the question is, I guess, whether there is a balance of the two that we can construct that would still comply with what the European Union is interested in achieving while allowing companies, whether they be in Europe or the United States, to comply with the requirement. Right now, one camp is here, the other is there and there's not much give and take going on. We need to come up with a compromise between the two approaches that is acceptable to both parties. The approach that 'it's my way or the highway' is not going to serve anyone's purpose.

No matter how long these discussions take, I think it will be possible to achieve a solution. Remember how long the open skies negotiations were. They started in 2001 and went through various agreements, which first Europe turned down then the US Congress. But then they finally got a deal in 2007, although they took out foreign ownership and cabotage, which both went into what they called 'phase two'. And so now the second phase of negotiations started in May. But nothing is really likely to happen between now and the end of the year, with the elections coming up. 

But on the climate change issue, things are much more urgent. Also there are other issues that are getting pressing, including global trade negotiations under the Doha Round. Do you think there will be no progress at all before the end of this year? 

Everyone always wants to speed things up. And I do think that on the Doha, it's just been dragging on and on and on, so I would hope that there would be a successful conclusion. It's getting so much more important now. 

And on climate change? An increasing number of studies are more and more pessimistic about the world's future unless there is more international collaboration to deal with it quickly. How do you feel about this? 

Well, I still feel positive about that. The part that probably impacts the most is the price of oil. We know that it costs about $133 a barrel of oil today. But everyone is panicking because this could still drop down to $80 or $50. So, not knowing what's going to happen to fuel prices makes everyone less willing to put their money out there for R&D. They don’t know whether or not that investment is going to pay off. It's still more of an economic decision than a question of scientific technology or of research and development. 

But I do think companies will start looking more into alternative fuels as oil prices stay high. But it's not a clear picture as to what the source of the alternative fuels will be or when they will be available. 

There's a huge debate in Europe about biofuels. Is it the same in the US? 

Yes! Food prices keep going up and more and more corn is being diverted to biofuels rather than to food. I think where we are right now is a result of the law of unintended consequences. Everybody said biofuels, biofuels, biofuels, but they hadn't really thought out what would be all the implications. And now, as we go from E15 to E85 (15% ethanol content in fuel to 85%), the question is whether there is enough supply to be able to stabilise food prices and at the same time accommodate the amount of extra corn needed. And I'm not sure that an answer to that question has really been thought out. 

For example, in the US, there's an 18.4 cent gasoline tax. So this is applied against gasoline and not on the 15% of the ethanol content. So if we go to E85, that means we will get even less revenue from the gasoline tax because 85% will be exempted from it. But this is the money that we use for building highways and transit systems. So we're in a real fix as to how to develop the funds for construction and maintenance of highways and relieve congestion – especially with the increased costs of cement and steel. 

So you feel that biofuels are not a solution? 

The big question to me is: how much energy are we spending to produce biofuels and is there a saving? We may be using less oil as compared to before, but is it costing us more in electrical energy to produce those biofuels? 

Of course we need to find ways to reduce our oil dependency. That is why companies are looking at using saw grass and other non-food biofuel crops. I think hydrogen fuel is probably the ultimate answer. But the question is what to use as the source for hydrogen. Once we have found that, then I think the infrastructure will fall into place quite quickly. But it's inevitable that it will take a long time.