The Environmental Enigma
How really committed are Central and Eastern Europeans to environmentalism?
Earlier this month, European Union leaders agreed to adopt a binding target on the use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power. Each state will decide how to contribute to meeting a 20% boost overall in renewable fuel use by 2020. Similarly, EU leaders pledged to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020.
While there was an air of achievement in Brussels, with Eurocrats patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves for being so environmentally conscious, not everyone was happy. Many leaders from Central and Eastern Europe were clearly not satisfied with the outcome. As most countries within the region are still more dependent on coal-based heavy industry, many had argued that they would be unable to make the investment in wind farms and solar power necessary to meet binding targets. The prime minister of Hungary, for instance, noted that due to Hungary's unfavourable geographical position in this respect, the country wouldn't be able to generate more than a 15% boost in renewable energy use at best. As he went on to add, it's not a question of commitment but of capacity.
There is a small grain of truth to these remarks. The European Commission often comes up with proposals and ideas without thoroughly thinking them through. A typical example is a directive that EU officials are presently working on which would force people to switch to low-energy fluorescent bulbs. This ban is expected to come into effect by 2010, but some speculate that it could come into force as early as next year.
The problem with forcing people to use fluorescent bulbs in order to save energy is that it's a misplaced gesture which actually defeats the purpose of saving energy. Fluorescent bulbs aren't useful if they are kept on for short periods of time. When such a bulb is off, the gas mixture is non-conductive. Thus, when power is first applied, a high voltage (several hundred volts) is needed to initiate the discharge. Hence, frequently turning on and off such a bulb reduces its lifespan. However, once the discharge has taken place, a much lower voltage - usually less than 100 V for tubes 30 watts or less, 100 to 175 volts for 30 watts or more - is needed to maintain it. The energy savings, therefore, is mostly gained in prolonged use.
What this means is the virtue of frugality is being needlessly sacrificed. Instead of teaching people to save energy by not wasting it, an attitude of waste is being actively encouraged. While this attitude of waste is offset by the low operating costs of fluorescent bulbs, this same attitude doesn't transpire to other areas. For instance, it's widely acknowledged that billions of devices sitting idle in "standby" mode waste vast amounts of energy. Thus, getting used to leaving the lights on all the time as opposed to turning them off indirectly encourages us to use "standby" mode in a like manner.
Aside from this, there are some concerns over possible health aspects to the prolonged use of fluorescent bulbs. Being a gas discharge lamp, such bulbs won't generate all frequencies of visible light. The precise effect of this on a person, as with extensive mobile phone use, isn't exactly clear. Moreover, fluorescent bulbs contain trace amounts of mercury and are a concern at landfills and trash incinerators where the mercury from many bulbs can escape and contribute to air and water pollution. Such a concern will become all the more real when the use of fluorescent bulbs becomes mandatory. Finally, for those living in Central and Eastern Europe, there is also the additional question of cost.
Due to these and other concerns raised by some member states over their ability to meet binding targets, some concessions were made in the usual wheeling and dealing way that is common at EU meetings. For example, both France and Finland appeared satisfied with the recognition of the contribution that nuclear energy makes in "meeting the growing concerns about safety of energy supply and carbon dioxide emissions reductions". Meanwhile, the fears of Central and Eastern European leaders were allayed by an acknowledgment that "differentiated national overall targets" for renewable energy would be set, "with due regard to a fair and adequate allocation taking account of different national starting points".
Impressive as all this rhetoric coming from Brussels may sound, many experts remain sceptical, noting that that Europe has been down this road before with the Kyoto Protocol and other grand pronouncements related to the environment. In fact, many calculate that the EU will be unable to reach its Kyoto targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions even if it launches new policies on boosting cleaner energy. According to forecasts from the likes of the International Energy Agency (IEA), the European Union could boost the share of renewable power like wind and solar in its electricity generation to 30 percent by 2030, but even that would not cut enough emissions to meet climate change targets.
The same also goes for the EU commitment to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. Last year during Green Week, a note of urgency mingled with pessimism was sounded about the rapid loss of biodiversity in Europe, and the uncertain likelihood of halting this loss by the targeted date of 2010.
Little concern has in general been given to biodiversity by European governments - especially those from Central and Eastern Europe. Instead, public attention has repeatedly been drawn to the impact of the energy sector on, for example, pristine areas where drilling for oil and gas or a pipeline was planned. Yet, biodiversity is rarely a factor that is genuinely integrated into environmental policy or decision making.
Without doubt, energy security will be a major topic for the Europe Union within the coming years. Consequently, an important challenge will be to ensure adequate considerations for biodiversity in the support mechanisms for bio-energy production. Extensively used or marginal areas are prone to a conversion to energy-crops, such as monocultures of maize, potentially causing further loss and fragmentation of endangered habitats. This, in turn, does more harm to the environment than good.
Levels of Commitment
Although leaders from Central and Eastern Europe may have made some compelling and valid arguments on why they are unable to meet EU targets for renewable energy, it's still questionable as to how committed these governments - and the public at large - really are to environmental issues.
In some cases, views toward environmentalism reflect those that were prevalent in many western democracies a quarter of a century ago during the Reagan years of the cold war. Then, environmentalism was equated with communism and feminism, subversive movements intent on destabilising the west. A case in point was the cold war film "Amerika", in which the US becomes a Soviet puppet state thanks in large part to environmentalism.
It would be assumed that such cold war paranoia belongs to the past. Yet in Central and Eastern Europe, this isn't so. In a recent speech to the Cato Institute, a public policy think-tank, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, noted that environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science. As far as he is concerned, it should belong in the social sciences along with the other failed "-ism" ideologies of the past century, such as communism and feminism. He goes on to add that investments in the environment are a "waste of money". Ironically, not all his ideas were so conservative, as when he pointed out that those seeking to protect the environment could do a great deal under the existing political framework and with existing technologies, such as importing fewer goods from far-flung regions that require enormous use of jet fuel.
Naturally, these views of President Klaus are an extreme example, albeit a worrying one as there are many who harbour such views. Yet for the majority of leaders and policy makers within Central and Eastern Europe, their views toward the environment aren't as intransigent. Nevertheless, they are in many cases just as dangerous, for their real intentions are carefully veiled.
For the most part, people within Central and Eastern Europe are environmentally-aware. In terms of renewable energy, for example, there is a huge interest in adopting such technologies in private homes. In Hungary, where huge reserves of thermal energy exist, such energy sources are increasingly viewed as a viable alternative.
Although at present there appears to be much interest in the application of renewable energy technologies, much of this interest actually has little to do with concern for the environment. Rather, it's foremost a question of economics: as the cost of energy continues to grow, people are looking for ways to reduce their energy bills.
In addition to this, there is the question of independence. The promises of a market economy and competition which would bring down prices and increase in the quality of service haven't been fulfilled. For many, it has been the other way around: prices have gone up, whilst the quality of service has gone down. Most market segments are dominated by one service provider; in other words, customers are at the mercy of a monopoly. As with the nervousness of European governments during the Russian oil crisis with the Ukraine in 2006 and Byelorussia in 2007, consumers are likewise looking for ways to secure an alternative energy supply, instead of relying on a monopolistic - and usually foreign owned - energy company.
Finally, for most young people, environmentalism is a fashion statement. Yet when it comes to their personal lifestyles and habits, the concept seems to fade in the background. Conspicuous consumerism, and the garbage it usually entails, doesn't seem to conflict with those who consider themselves environmentally conscious.
Of course, government policy doesn't help much either. In some cases, conservation is frowned upon. For instance, at the beginning of this year Budapest raised its water rates. The reason for the higher rates was because less water was being used. One would think that instead of penalising people for conserving the use of water, the mayor of Budapest would lower rates, not raise them. Then again, in a corporate society in where the profits of multinationals are guaranteed by the state, this should come as no surprise.
In Hungary, it is no secret that the environment takes second place to government policy. Prime Minister Gyurcsany made this clear last year when he talked of turning Hungary into a logistics center and travel hub for the region. Meanwhile, urban and suburban sprawl is allowed to advanced unchecked, destroying valuable habitats. The Minister of the Environment is almost invisible, and is only seen and heard when a major calamity occurs.
By far the biggest concern in Central and Eastern Europe is the number of cars on the road, which is increasing rapidly each year. The negative effects of the explosion in car use over the past two decades (i.e., since the fall of communism) can be clearly seen in cities like Budapest. In the Hungarian capital alone, there has been a threefold rise in lung cancer and asthma has risen by ten times. About half of the children in Budapest suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases. On top of all this, increased traffic congestion and declining air quality are a daily, common occurrence.
Unfortunately, governments seem more interested in building new highways and expanding existing road networks rather than investing in public transport and utilising alternative modes of transport, such as rivers and rail. This was made quite apparent at the beginning of this year when the cost of rail travel was raised twice that of bus travel, making for the first time travel by train more expensive than travel by bus. As if to add insult to injury, rail service to many small rural communities were taken out of commission, thereby forcing people to travel by bus instead of the train.
Unfortunately, this isn't something limited to Central and Eastern Europe, but is a problem throughout the EU. The western world's love affair with cars is only certain to make a bad situation worse. In many ways, it highlights a paradox in where an overwhelming majority of Europeans is concerned at the threat energy consumption poses to the climate. Most also say they favour renewable energy and research in this field. At the same time, however, most Europeans don't feel that their own behaviour needs to be called into question. Industry is seen as the main culprit; although many are aware of the importance of saving energy (through insulation and devices that are more energy-efficient) they underestimate the role of personal transport in the energy equation. In short, Europeans show little inclination to change their habits.
Likewise, the "information society" and e-commerce are putting additional strains on existing infrastructure. The demand for energy is such that it has brought power grids to the point of near collapse. Indeed, the need for energy is such that public recharge boxes are making their appearance so that people will be able to conveniently recharge their mobile devices wherever they are.
Climate Change: A Change from Within
According to a recent Eurobarometer survey (2005), almost nine out of 10 Europeans believe that policy makers should consider the environment to be just as important as economic and social policies. Furthermore, they consider that the EU is the most appropriate forum to legislate in this field.
Unfortunately, governments and the mass media throughout the EU have adopted a rather narrow view of environmentalism. This is especially so in the new member states of Central and Eastern Europe. For instance, the use of bio-energy is seen as a major answer to combat climate change. This, in turn, constitutes an unprecedented challenge for biodiversity.
Although bio-energy may provide a possible answer to combat climate change, the improper and unsustainable production of such energy sources defeats the whole purpose. True, climate change may be limited somewhat in this way, but what use is combating climate change when such activities will only lead to similar damage, but in another way -- for example, desertification through improper land management. Indeed, desertification in itself only adds to the enigma of climate change, as the latter isn't merely the result of pollution from industrial activities.
But above all this, what is needed is a change in attitude. In Central and Eastern Europe, it's questionable how deep the commitment toward environmental protection really is - both in terms of government policy and civic discourse. Some views are openly hostile to the concept of environmentalism, regarding it as a religion or something which belongs on the scrap heap of history, along with communism and feminism. Most others see it as a means to an end with which to save money and carve out for oneself a little independence from the growing dominance of multinationals.
Yet it's the underlying notion of a market economy and consumerism which comes into direct conflict with notions of environmentalism. Conservation and the mantra of growth are diametrically opposed ideals. For the people of Central and Eastern Europe, this is an especially difficult dualism to reconcile.