During a recent meeting of the environment, ministers of EU member countries sidestepped the issue of declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant. While the ministers agreed on a proposal to reduce industrial pollution, various environmental groups criticized the ministers’ inaction on what seemed an essential and significant decision in Europe’s fight against climate change.

According to the deal reached, heavy industries like power plants and oil refineries will have to comply to new and stricter sulfur and nitrogen emissions as well as the release of dust particles, asbestos and heavy metals into the environment. Obviously, carbon dioxide has been left out which is why the environmentalists have been fuming. European leaders should have sent a strong message by classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant keeping in mind the Copenhagen Climate Talks scheduled later this year.

Classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant would have added teeth to the EU goal of 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 by adding the health aspect it. European Environment Bureau, a coalition of local environmental groups voiced its concerns saying:

Shouldn’t environment ministers be more concerned about ensuring better health and environmental conditions for their citizens rather than securing additional profits for operators by prolonging the period during which underperforming plants can continue being heavy polluters?

These groups have every reason to be dissatisfied. The proposal is all but strict. It allows the member nations to delay the implementation of already weak emission standards up to 2020, thus negating the very purpose of the proposal. The lack of agreement between the member nations is due to the fact that a group of nations is unwilling to move away from fossil fuels given their low cost and easy availability; this is not only hampering the fight against climate change but also setting a bad precedent for the rest of the world.

Divisions within the EU are primarily responsible for the lackluster approach towards taking bold and meaningful actions to tackle the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions. While one group of members demanded that stricter measures be adopted keeping in mind the upcoming negotiations for the next climate treaty others like Britain and Poland opposed the same.

Poland has been opposing tougher emission reduction goals from the very beginning. 95 percent of it power generated comes from domestic coal reserves which is why it has expressed reservations in moving to expensive renewable energy systems. In addition, giving up coal as primary source of energy could potentially make Poland dependent on Russian gas supplies which would be a geopolitical nightmare as Europe has witnessed in the recent past. It was a group comprising of Poland and Britain, among others, which argued and successfully negotiated a clause in the agreement to delay the implementation of stricter emission standards.

With Poland reluctant to make the transition and Britain proposing new coal-fired power plants there opposition to such agreements is understandable but they must see the bigger picture. Ambiguous approach would only hurt the global effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. On one hand, the British Prime Minister calls for a $100 billion climate fund while, on the other hand, his government opposes measures to fight climate change.

Carbon intensive industries cannot be given a free hand and they must be penalized for not meeting emission standards. The situation today calls for urgency in our actions. The opportunity that awaits the world in the form of the next climate treaty must not be wasted away by running away from our responsibilities. Carbon trading mechanisms should be revamped in order to provide a smooth transition from fossil fuels to clean energy but delaying crucial measures or deliberately weakening them would solve no purpose but by doing so we would only be fooling ourselves.

Reprinted with permission from Red Green and Blue