Seco: Fare-dodging on climate

Rosmarie Bär, Alliance Sud

The term «climate neutral» is now all the rage. Flying, filling up, printing, giving flowers, going on holiday – everything is now being advertised as «climate neutral». The publicity line suggests that it would take 99.96 euros for the average Swiss citizen – who produces 10 tonnes of CO2 per year – to become a «climate neutral» citizen. The principle is known as offsetting. It means that instead of reducing one’s own CO2 emissions by changing one's behaviour, a small surcharge is paid for this to be done elsewhere. The money is used to finance more or less meaningful projects in developing countries. The continuing unabated rise in CO2 emissions is another matter altogether.

The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (Seco) wants to make our country a «climate neutral Switzerland» no less. In a word, the proposal is that instead of cutting back CO2 emissions in Switzerland, we pay a ransom in developing countries. «There would be no further need for additional binding targets for emissions here at home.» This would give Switzerland an «improved reputation» at the forthcoming negotiations, says Thomas Roth, who is responsible for environmental and energy policy at Seco. For his part, Professor Philippe Thalmann of ETH Lausanne likens this strategy to «fare dodging».

Seco argues that it makes no difference to the climate where CO2 emissions are generated or where they are offset. For Switzerland it is cheaper and more efficient to cut CO2 emissions abroad through emissions trading. Yet at the same time, Energy Minister Moritz Leuenberger rightly issues the following warning before the UN: «If we fail to reduce emissions at home, how will we ever convince others to commit to emission control?»

From a developmental standpoint, the Seco proposal elicits the following considerations:

● The concept of a «climate-neutral Switzerland» is not an internationally applicable proposal, but a Swiss bid for special treatment. What if all the industrialized nations adopted the Seco idea of «disposing of» all their CO2 emissions in the developing countries?

● The poorest countries hardly benefit from the trade in certificates as they produce very little CO2. At the same time, they are the ones being hit hardest by the destabilisation of the climate and are being required make the biggest adjustments.

● Offsetting the totality of emissions abroad makes for «business as usual» at home. But since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the main obligation of industrialized countries has been to move away from the resource-guzzling lifestyle and economy, and more toward efficiency and renewable energies. According to Seco, it is the developing countries that should do this, as it is cheaper. In economic terms this is erroneous, and it is politically and ethically indefensible.

● It is wrong to assert that emission reductions abroad are more effective and cheaper. Studies show the opposite (OECD, ETHZ). In addition to the primary benefit of reduced emissions, the economy and society benefit from new markets, new technologies and jobs, as well as savings in healthcare and energy costs.

● The Seco idea violates the principle of «common but differentiated responsibility», as was recognised by Switzerland when it ratified the Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

● The assertion that Switzerland has the world's lowest CO2 intensity is untrue. It imports a great many goods that represent a high share of CO2. Both per capita emissions as well as emissions per unit of gross domestic product must take these grey emissions into account. The upshot is that in per capita CO2 terms, we are amongst the world's top 10.

● Scientists say that to ward off a global collapse, climate warming must be kept below 2 degrees centigrade. Without CO2 reductions at home, «climate neutral Switzerland» is ignoring this necessity.

● The core of the Kyoto Protocol is the industrialized countries' commitment to reduction. The Seco strategy would thwart the principle of subsidiarity for the purposes of a post-Kyoto agreement. Such a negotiating position is hardly acceptable for developing countries. Climate protection projects in developing countries must be implemented in addition to CO2 reduction in our own country.

● The atmosphere is one of humanity’s common goods. Every human being has an equal right to its use. Any future global «emissions budget» must therefore be based on the «per capita principle», i.e. «one human – one emission right». The future of international environmental law lies in addressing the common good of everyone.

Contact: Rosmarie Bär, Alliance Sud