25 / 56
1/2016
|
25
The climate agreement may be the first step in levelling
the playing field between Europe and other economic
regions, predicts
Ahti Fagerblom
, Manager for Energy
and Climate Policy at the Finnish Forest Industries.
“Not all industrialised countries have committed
themselves to decreasing CO
2
emissions at the same
rate as Europe, so the current agreement is not fully
equal yet. However, this is a step in the right direction
as other economic regions are now more dedicated
to climate actions.”
The ultimate goal of the agreement is to limit global
warming to below two degrees. The agreement
commits countries to implementing transparent actions,
but the carbon emission reduction targets are not
legally binding.
Fagerblom points out that the EU’s CO
2
emission
targets are still more ambitious than those of
competing economic regions like the US, China and
Japan. The agreement does not include the global
emission trading system either.
“Here we have a danger that the EU will now imagine
that the playing field is level and that there is no risk
of carbon leakage.”
Forestation has gained importance as a tool for
reducing CO
2
emissions.
“For us it is important that wood is seen as a
renewable raw material that supports climate targets.
People have to understand that when forests grow
faster than they are harvested, then our carbon
storage balance is positive.”
The forest industry is the most important producer of
bioenergy in Finland. The wood raw material is made
into pulp and other products, and the side streams
are converted into bioenergy.
“By investing in forests we help to promote their
healthy growth. We can utilise our forest resources
and maintain a good balance of resources at
the same time.”
LEG-UP FOR EUROPEAN
INDUSTRY FROM
CLIMATE AGREEMENT
responsibilities. The emissions trading systemwill also be
reformed after the climate convention.
“Power supply sources and industrial structures in the
EUmember states – including land use, housing and climate
– vary a great deal, whichmeans that agreeing on emission
reductions is not always an easy task even within the EU.
Internal disagreements will most likely be ironed out in
several meetings after Paris.”
Tiilikainen points out that the EU aims to reduce
emissions in the most cost-efficient manner available.
“Reductions must occur in areas where results can be
achieved effectively while keeping costs as low as possible.
This principle is set forth in the EU climate policy, but the
feasibility of practical applications cannot be determined
until later. Hopefully, the member states will not get stuck
arguing howmuch each party needs to cut emissions that are
not included in the scope of emissions trading.”
Tiilikainen emphasises that a comprehensive climate
convention will facilitate the implementation of the EU’s
own climate policy and support European industry in global
competition.
“The EUwill proceed with its own climate policy no
matter what. The larger the proportion of emissions covered
by the Paris convention, the stronger the competitive edge
gained by European industry,” he concludes.
CHINA
To achieve the
peaking of carbon
dioxide emissions
around 2030 and
making best efforts
to peak earlier
RUSSIA
25–30% cut
below 1990
levels by
2030
JAPAN
26% reduction
by 2030 compared
to 2013
reduce GHG 30%
below 2005 levels
by 2030
INDIA
33–35% reduction
of emission
intensity of GDP
by 2030
compared to 2005,
40% of energy from
non-fossil sources
by 2030