I’ve neglected this blog for far too long, and it’s time to restart regular blogging. So my first topic is one which I followed for a while last year: the Energy and Climate Package. Actually, it isn’t specifically about that, rather it’s about what one of the outcomes of that was meant to be.

The Commission wanted to achieve a moral high-ground with the Package. Essentially, it should have poured icy cold water on the argument that the advanced portions of the developing world shouldn’t have to act on climate change in any strenuous way, as they didn’t make the problem, and the developed world has benefited hugely from emissions of greenhouse gases. Aside from the fact that this argument for non-action can be negated by matters of self-interest for the developing world, it was a fairly good idea of the Commission to try to lead the way.

Unfortunately (or some may say, fortunately), the EU doesn’t just do what the Commission wants. MEPs and national ministers have their say too, and the Package was watered down at every stage, until a very weak piece of legislation was spat out the other end. You could say that the institutions break the legislation down like grass in a cow’s stomach. Take that metaphor where you will.

Anyway, it seems that the Commission hasn’t realised that its proposals were digested in that way, as it has apparently just urged developing nations to cut their emissions, regardless of the EU’s rather limited actions, beholden as it is to commercial interests.

Certainly, the approach to tackling climate change must be global in scale, and stronger nations must help weaker nations, but though this may be initially suggested by the Commission’s media release, it does also go on to say that:

“Up to 2020 the bulk of actions in these countries will have low costs—or even benefits—and should be financed domestically.”

To me this does not seem to be a particularly constructive way of helping very poor states to make the necessary adaptations to their economies and infrastructure that will be needed. After the diluting of the Energy & Climate Package, it seems that the EU is in a bit of a muddle over what to do. A generally pro-action Commission (though clearly not a dream Green Commission) seems held back by the more reluctant views of member states and citizens. I think this is something I’m certainly going to come back to pretty soon.

A limited briefing today, and also possibly the last one for a little while, as I’m just a tiny bit pre-occupied with one or two other things.

Europe

The Council of Ministers has supported waste-to-energy incineration as part of the new waste directive, which also calls for 50% of household waste to be recycled by 2050.

A recently published Eurobarometer poll on animal cloning reveals that 61% of respondents thought such cloning was morally wrong. When figures from individual states are viewed, Austrians were most likely to think animal cloning was morally wrong, and us British were the least likely.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe’s flash-based “The Changers” game, but is seems to be promoting action against climate change, so, if you can figure it out, it may be worth a look.

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned the torpedo amendments to the Telecoms Package which were going to be voted on by the EP. Well, they’ve been voted on, and for the Greens opposing them, it’s a bit of good news and a bit of bad. Amendments K1 and K2, which would have allowed spyware to be added to EU citizen’s computers to prevent intellectual property infringement, and would have breached citizen’s privacy by processing the data they sent over the Internet were voted down. But H1, H2 and H3 were carried, meaning that monitoring of data can take place for security reasons, and ISPs may have to work with digital-rights-holders to prevent infringements.

It isn’t exactly the end of the world, but if the Package gets through the Council of Ministers as it stands, the Net in Europe will likely be a little less free.