iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Nikolas Kozloff

Nikolas Kozloff

Posted: January 7, 2011 03:28 PM

Perhaps, prior to the WikiLeaks scandal, small island nations which stand to be deluged by rising sea levels might have looked to the European Union and, specifically, Germany to provide leadership on climate change. Recent disclosures, however, have probably dashed any such hopes. Far from looking out for the interests of vulnerable countries imperiled by global warming, the European Union has conspired with the United States to limit the scope of climate change reform in international negotiations.

Even if the EU wanted to set an ambitious course on climate change, there are serious doubts about the bloc's ability to do so. Indeed, when it's not negotiating with the U.S. behind closed doors, the EU has shown little unity on issues of vital environmental importance. To make matters worse, Germany and the U.S. reportedly lied about a satellite program ostensibly designed to collect information about climate change. In reality, Germany had no intention of employing the satellites for any such purpose --- the technology would be simply used for spying.

The WikiLeaks scandal represents a kind of fall from grace for Germany, which has long prided itself on its green credentials. Indeed, it wasn't so long ago that U.S. diplomats painted a rather flattering environmental portrait of the Angela Merkel government. In December, 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia noted that "Germany has long been the leading contributor of financial and technical assistance to Brazil on deforestation and climate change." U.S. Chargé d'Affaires Lisa Kubiske added that Germany planned to invest 100 million Euros on climate change and renewable energy projects. Furthermore, Kubiske added, "Germany has long played the leading role in the international effort on conserving the Amazon forest."

Even as it sought to deal with the Amazon, however, Germany fretted about climate change politics closer to home. According to cables, there were acrimonious divisions within the 27- member EU prior to the Copenhagen climate summit held in December, 2009. When the Dutch demanded that the EU cut its emissions by 30 percent, Italy and Poland balked during a particularly "vicious" meeting. One German official dismissed Poland's argument disdainfully as "give us two billion euros for technology." "Germany is concerned that a lack of internal solidarity is leading to problems with the EU's position and leadership internationally," noted the U.S. Chargé d'Affaires in Brussels.

Copenhagen and German Lack of Leadership

While Germany certainly confronted a disconcerting scenario, Merkel failed to push ahead and seemed to accept a zero sum game. Prior to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, U.S. ambassador to Germany Phillip Murray wrote Secretary of State Clinton that

"German leaders recognize the challenge of passing climate change legislation in the U.S. and have lowered their expectations for the possibility of reaching a legally binding agreement next month at Copenhagen. They have begun to describe the Summit as one step in a larger process -- a politically binding framework -- and may be preparing the German public for a less ambitious outcome."
Far from seeking to exercise true leadership on climate change, Merkel advocated a strong "US/EU position towards the major emerging economies, particularly China and India, to urge them to commit to ambitious national actions at Copenhagen."


During the conference itself, major powers such as China, the U.S. and Brazil amongst others cobbled together a hastily agreed upon climate compromise. In the wake of the summit, some countries were left feeling bitter and pessimistic. The EU signaled that it would only sign on to a new UN treaty if other big economies agreed to make deeper cuts in their emissions. According to cables, incoming European Council President Herman Van Rompuy felt "angry that Europe was elbowed out of discussions in Copenhagen."

Van Rompuy was pessimistic that upcoming climate talks at Cancún would yield any positive result, and suggested that the U.S. and EU negotiate on their own and then approach China. The EU official was not the only one to share such a dismal outlook: Chancellor Merkel too was frustrated by the lack of progress at Copenhagen and started to move away from her goal of limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Merkel even signaled to the rest of the EU that she would not support the idea of Europe going it alone on climate change. Playing the blame game, the Chancellor said that China and India represented a true "structural problem" when it came to reaching a binding climate agreement.

Climate Change Shenanigans

The EU, then, felt excluded from negotiations but was not prepared to act as a trailblazer on climate change, arguing instead that emerging economies such as China and India should assume responsibility. The EU takes its cue from Germany, and in this case Merkel's lack of leadership had unfortunate consequences: in early 2010, U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman met with EU officials, including Van Rompuy's Chief of Staff, in Brussels. The aim of the discussions was to "push back against coordinated opposition of BASIC countries (China, India, Brazil and South Africa) to our international positions." Though the BASIC group had widely differing interests, U.S. diplomats observed, the bloc was "surprisingly united" and would "take turns" playing the U.S. and EU off against each other.

To be sure, BASIC is a huge obstacle when it comes to climate change and other nations should take a stand against the bloc at international summits. On the other hand, the U.S. is not much better than BASIC when it comes to setting policy. If they wanted to take a more principled stand at this point, EU officials might have refused to take sides with either the U.S. or BASIC in the meaningless race to the bottom. According to cables, however, the EU cynically negotiated with the U.S. in an effort to head off meaningful change. When Froman remarked that "the U.S. and EU need to... work much more closely and effectively together... to better handle third country obstructionism and avoid future trainwrecks on climate," the Europeans agreed to lobby BASIC as well as the G-77 group of poor nations in advance of the next climate summit in Cancún, Mexico.

If Washington had any doubts about where Europe stood, EU officials certainly cleared up any uncertainty: when Froman remarked that it would be necessary to "neutralize, co-opt or marginalize" radical Latin American nations which were advocating deeper cuts in carbon emissions, the Europeans agreed that it was imperative to "work around unhelpful countries such as Venezuela or Bolivia." An EU official then noted how "ironic" it was that Europe donated a lot of money to radical Latin American countries, but they in turn were "actively discouraging" others from signing on to Copenhagen, a heavily criticized accord which the EU nevertheless sought to foist on the rest of the world. Simultaneously, in preparation for Cancún the EU aimed to downgrade public expectations for the summit, hoping to merely score modest agreements on climate financing and a climate warning system.

Cancún Expectations

Despite such unpromising backroom diplomacy, the Cancún summit ended with Germany agreeing to reduce its emissions by 40 percent by 2020. That would be well ahead of pledges made by the EU bloc as a whole, which only agreed to reduce emissions by 20 percent. Indeed, Der Spiegel reports that "other countries in the [EU] club are appreciative of Berlin's pledge -- but none have followed the example." For Cancún to be effective Germany will have to cajole other member states to make deeper commitments, but already there are indications, in the words of Der Spiegel, that the central European powerhouse "no longer wants to be the model EU pupil."

Since China and the U.S. left Cancún without offering concrete carbon pledges, it is up to the EU to make the greatest difference on global warming. German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, a member of Chancellor Merkel's Christian Democrats, argues that his country must "advance decisively," in the post Cancún milieu. A new eco-boom, he declares, might create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. If other EU members should renege on carbon reductions, Röttgen argues, Germany should lead even further by raising its targets to between 42 and 50 percent.

Throwing cold water on that idea, Merkel says that such a deep commitment would put pressure on the economy. Officials at the Chancellery declare that "Germany, with its national reduction target of 40 percent, is at the upper limit" of its Cancún targets and that other EU countries need to make up the difference. Seeking to avoid a confrontation with Merkel, Röttgen has now changed his tune and lambastes other EU countries, demanding that they "make a contribution that corresponds to the German contribution."

The Satellite Imbroglio

Failing to inspire fellow EU members is disappointing enough, though further WikiLeaks cables show that the Merkel government has truly acted cynically. Recently, Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten released U.S. cables from the American Embassy in Berlin dating from early 2009 to early 2010. The documents show that Germany and the U.S. sought to develop a joint satellite program which would be operational by 2013. Code named HiROS, or High Resolution Optical Satellite System, the project would reportedly detect objects on the ground as small as 50 centimeters in diameter and take infrared images at night.

Because of the controversial nature of HiROS, the U.S. and Germany planned to present the project to the public as a civilian project which would study climate change and improve the environment. In reality, however, HiROS was "under the total control" of German intelligence and the national aerospace center. Observing the growing German-U.S. détente, neighboring France grew concerned and sought to derail the satellite program at every turn. The Merkel government, however, which had long sought to become a leading player providing satellite data, disregarded French entreaties.

The satellite imbroglio reveals the Merkel government at its most crass. At a time when the world desperately needs satellite data to further understand global climate change, Germany seems more intent on outmaneuvering its fellow EU members on intelligence gathering. Even as its rails against other European countries for not living up to their carbon commitments, Germany is pursuing narrow self interest and failing to use its technology for the benefit of all. If anything, the WikiLeaks scandal may sow suspicion amongst EU members and make further environmental diplomacy that much more difficult to achieve.

On the other hand, ongoing disclosures might actually spur a public outcry and further debate. With the chances for climate change legislation looking dimmer and dimmer in the new Republican-dominated U.S. Congress, the EU must be a more forceful player on global warming. As the most significant political and economic country in Europe, Germany must lead in a much more convincing way than recent WikiLeaks cables suggest. Perhaps, German environmentalists and the media will raise a stir and pressure the Merkel government to finally assume its historic responsibility.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of No Rain in the Amazon: How South America's Climate Affects the Entire Planet (Palgrave-Macmillan). Visit his blog, www.nikolaskozloff.com

 
Perhaps, prior to the WikiLeaks scandal, small island nations which stand to be deluged by rising sea levels might have looked to the European Union and, specifically, Germany to provide leadership on...
Perhaps, prior to the WikiLeaks scandal, small island nations which stand to be deluged by rising sea levels might have looked to the European Union and, specifically, Germany to provide leadership on...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:07 PM on 01/10/2011
you gotta love how hard the US is fighting, using leverage they don't even have, while at the same time COMPLETELY CAPITULATING to US health insurers without getting a single concession in healthcare reform. our government is completely owned by Big Corporations. completely. we could unilaterally agree to reduce our GHG emissions, which would HELP our economy, and still work towards getting India and china onboard.

and say what you want about Merkel, she is no more "Germany" than Bush is "America." against government collusion with Big Energy, the German people implemented a national feed in tariff, so THEY are paid fairly for producing clean power on their rooftops - in only a few years, rooftop solar has gone from 0% to 2% of the total electricity grid and installations have been doubling every year.

so why haven't we done the same? we don't need an international deal or (god forbid) a new scam like cap and trade, all we need is a generous feed in tariff supporting solar PV and microwind that is democratically owned, and sited within the built environment - the rest will flow from that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Badgersouth
11:04 AM on 01/10/2011
All of the pious pontificating by climate deniers has absolutely no impact on what's happening in the real world.

Glaciers and ice sheets are melting, sea level is rising, the atmosphere and the oceans are warming, forests are burning, plants, animals and insects are migrating, deserts are advancing, and severe weather events are occurring more frequently.

These are just some of the many lines of evidence of manmade climate change that people and scientists throughout the world have observed and documented.

In addition, the oceans are becoming more acidic as mankind pumps an ever increasing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:25 AM on 01/10/2011
And why should EU-countries shoot themselves in the leg by taking rigorous action in troubled economic times when the US, the world´s biggest polluter, and China are unwilling to do that? The EU can´t stop climate change by itself, why don´t you demand more from the country that´s the biggest cause of it all and where it´s still being debated whether climate change is real and if it´s caused by human beings?
photo
OliverTwist
Contrarian advocate for truth and justice
07:42 AM on 01/10/2011
Nations are focused on the greed of their few sponsors.

The mass of powerless citizens will pay the price.
HansB
The only good certainty is a dead certainty
07:21 PM on 01/10/2011
Because rigorous action (1) creates jobs, (2) pays itself back in the long run, (3) leads to technological advances and competitive advantages, (4) sets a good example, and (5) does reduce CO2 emissions, if not by enough; and also (6) because SOMEONE has to lead when the US doesn't.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
04:21 PM on 01/09/2011
But what is going to sink the warmist ship, one suspects, is the fickleness of our EU colleagues, who might be talking the talk on greenery but, on the other hand, they are investing heavily in coal. The particular culprit here is Germany, and we have recent acquired a list of new coal projects in the pipeline – listed below:

- EVONIK, Walsum (Duisburg), 800 MW black coal (2010)
- RWE, Neurath (Cologne), 2 x 800 MW lignite (2009)
- RWE Westfalen (Dortmund-Hamm, 2 x 800 MW black coal (2011)
- EON Datteln (Dortmund), 1 x 1100 MW (!) black coal (2011)
- ENBW Karlsruhe, 1 x 800 MW black coal (2011)
- Trianel (municipality) Lünen, 1 x 800 MW black coal (2011)
- Vattenfall Moorburg (Hamburg), 2 x 800 MW black coal (2011)
- Vattenfall Boxberg (close to Leipzig), 1 x 800 MW lignite (2011)

The dates in brackets are the completion dates of the boilers (hydraulic testing and first fire).

In mainland Europe the German utilities are building the following units

- EON, Maasvlakte (Rotterdam), 1 x 1100 MW black coal
- RWE Eemshaven (NL), 2 x 800 MW black coal.

That is over 11 GW, coming on-stream this year or next, while we are doing our best to close down our coal plants. The bizarre thing though is that these are high efficiency plants, with a conversion factor of 45 percent, compared to British coal sets which deliver about 38 percent.

Richard North, at EU Referendum
HansB
The only good certainty is a dead certainty
07:12 PM on 01/10/2011
Yes, Germany has turned back to coal in a big way. A disastrous decision.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
09:36 PM on 01/11/2011
Perhaps a very intelligent and thoughtful decision. Inexpensive, reliable energy keeps people alive, warm, and healthy. Life expectancies increase when reliable energy is assured. South Africa is also building a huge coal fired power complex, to provide reliable, inexpensive energy to its people for the first time. Why should Germany act any differently?
03:39 PM on 01/08/2011
Is is no surprise the US and EU don't want to yield power to small states. But if Obama were half the supporter of climate policies that Merkle has been, he'd have called just 1 Senator and urged them to pass a climate bill last year. Instead, Obama pressured no one, accepting defeat in his own chamber without even trying. When Merkle came to the US and spoke to Congress, she pled for climate action. She related those challenges to US-German cooperation in bring down the Berlin wall, while using language that appealed to conservatives. Then right befodre Copenhagen, she asked for a personal meeting with Obama to press for big US cuts. And he didn't have time to see her. Angela Merkel is 10 times the politician that Obama is on Climate Change. Wen Obama gave his 'big' Oval Office spech on the subject he couldnt' even get the words "climate change" out of his mouth. This article spins like a top and is an exceptionally poor analysis.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:17 AM on 01/08/2011
"In December, 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia noted that "Germany has long been the leading contributor of financial and technical assistance to Brazil on deforestation and climate change." "

In 2008 Merkel was chancellor in a coalition government with social democrats, before that (until 2005) the green party was part of the government coalition -- so Germany may well have been a contributor to all sorts of climate projects.
Since 2009 Merkel (conservative) has formed a government with a market liberal (neocon) party. What if anything, Mr. Kozloff do you expect from that for climate policy? I expect nice words and little action, only what is good for energy saving industries in Germany.

"The EU takes its cue from Germany,... "

Only if that pleases 27 nations with very different governments and agendas, that is, not that much, really.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realitytrumpsbull
Two 'alves of coconut!
01:56 AM on 01/08/2011
I think Julian Assange is CAUSING global warming, with all the gossip-mongering.
09:08 PM on 01/07/2011
climate change is just another way for progressives to gain power
mothergrace
If they knock you down, bite 'em on the ankle.
11:19 PM on 01/07/2011
Wow. I had no idea I had so much power. Causing climate change to gain power, shazaam!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:46 PM on 01/07/2011
Thank you Wikileaks.

You expose the REALITY of the globalwarming, climatechange, climatechaos canard.

Too much money for too little return. Even the "virtuous" realize what a boondoggle this Gore-led fantasy represents.

All is illuminated.
mothergrace
If they knock you down, bite 'em on the ankle.
11:20 PM on 01/07/2011
We must have been reading different articles.

Of course, twisting everything to fit the agenda is a strong suit of the right.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:45 AM on 01/08/2011
No, you had it right the first time. You must have been reading a different article.
05:16 PM on 01/07/2011
Thank you, WikiLeaks, for the source documents. They speak for themselves.