At what point will global warming force lifestyle changes and what will those changes be?

Tim King

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Welcome to what somebody tells me is the Ninth of our Comment debates, organised jointly by European Voice and Euro News in association with Shell. My name is Tim King and I’m the Deputy Editor of European Voice. Those of you who are used to seeing my Editor, Dana Spinant chair these events with more style and grace than I am capable of, may like to know that she’s now halfway through her maternity leave. Her baby is doing well and normal service will be resumed in the autumn. In the meantime, you have to put up with me, partly because those of you who perhaps were expecting my colleague, Simon Taylor, to chair this event - that was the original plan. But even though the French Presidency of the Council of Ministers does not start officially I think until tomorrow, it’s also already making its presence felt here. Simon has had to go to Paris which is the fate which also awaits one member of our panel. Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner’s next appointment is in Paris, and I feel I should make this clear from the start, so she will not be able to stay until the very end of this debate. However, that means that we are all the more grateful to her for the time she has been able to spare. It also means that my challenge is to bring you the audience in before she has to leave, and we’ll see what we can do on that.

As you will see from your programmes, which I hope you picked up at the first desk, the subject of this afternoon’s discussion is future effects of climate change, how they might or might not affect or should affect the European Union’s foreign policy, how they might affect our lifestyles. Let me, because I think it’s helpful at the outset, briefly explain how the rest of the panel fits in. Ged Davis, on my left, has made futurology his business in a variety of roles - for a long time for Shell, more recently I think for the World Economic Forum. Richard Prime, on my near right, has been exploring the boundaries between the developed world and the developing world and their respective attitudes to the environment for many, many years. Alojz Peterle, a Member of the European Parliament, will be known to many of you. The first Prime Minister, I think I’m right in saying, of independent Slovenia, then a Foreign Minister later on, and also I have to say, would we call you an environmentally concerned politician? You’ll probably know what this is - this is a calendar produced by, of all things, the EPP and we’re about to turn over to July, and on July this is what you get. You get the beekeeping Mr Peterle, but on his version you see he would have circled this date here because my understanding is that, is it your 60th birthday on 5th July?

Alojz Peterle

It was yesterday, but nobody believes me.

Tim King

But his next appointment is at the European Parliament where they shall mark these things accordingly. So, appropriately enough, your 60th birthday fell within the Slovenian Presidency rather than in the French Presidency. Enough of this nonsense - Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, the floor is yours.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner

Thank you very much for the words of introduction and, of course, also for European Voice and also Euro News for the invitation to speak to you. And before I start, congratulations, of course, to Alojz Peterle, particularly for his 60th birthday. I was not aware but I think it’s always a good occasion to celebrate.

Today’s focus, ladies and gentlemen, I understand is on predicting the future. I was briefed by my staff that the organisers wanted me to look into the crystal ball of the Commission and tell you what we saw on climate change. So out of curiosity, I had to look in the encyclopaedia to see what I had to say about crystal balls first of all. And apparently, I think Celtic Druids in Britain are the earliest known people to have used crystals in divination. And later, I think during the Central European medieval period, seers, wizards, sorcerers, psychics, gypsies, fortune tellers and other types of diviners also tried their hand. Well, I must say I leave it up to you now to judge how many seers, wizards and sorcerers you’ve come across in your dealings with the Commission, but you’ll be relieved to hear I hope we don’t do much in line with divination; I think we do much more on evidence based analysis and this is pretty good.

So I’ll begin with some remarks about what the Commission’s analysis of climate change has been, before then commenting on what we are doing about it, and then more that we intend to do on the impact of lifestyles, and I think it’s a little bit what you wanted to hear. Now, ladies and gentlemen, first, our vision of the problem in the European Commission is the following. You know in 2007, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the IPCC and Al Gore, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to draw the world’s attention to the dangers of global warming. And for those of you, you’ve seen Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth - I think you’ll agree that his analysis of the current situation is quite striking. Now the planet has a fever, he tells us. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor and if the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it’s not a problem. If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant, you just take action. And I think this is all about taking action. And I think we, as the Commission, are listening to the doctor, or also to the scientific community, and we believe that the planet does have a fever and we have to take action. So what’s the diagnosis on fever?

Together with the High Representative, I presented a joint report to the Spring European Council on the impact of climate change. Its significance, in my view, is indeed the analysis it provides of the implications of climate change for international security. And what is our main findings? It says - and I just quote the main important ones - climate change is a threat multiplier that will have consequences and increased risks for societies in nearly all parts of the globe. Second, it will spread, for instance, water and food scarcity. It might aggravate poverty, worsen health conditions and possibly also generate competition for control of resources. And if the weakest countries cannot adapt, it might lead to more forced migration. It might lead to radicalisation and state failure. And we know that the failure of the international community to effectively address, of course, these tensions might undermine the credibility of the multilateral system and does encourage unilateralism.

But the good news is that the European Union is uniquely well placed to act. And now to immediately turn to our action. I think, as in many other areas, there is a direct link between the level of ambition of the EU’s internal agenda on climate change and energy and also our credibility externally. Our objectives, set out in the new integrated climate change and energy policy, that were agreed at the Spring European Council, are clearly ambitious. And there also the political commitment to delivering them, I can say, is really strong. And you know what our targets include. First, we do think greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union by 20% by 2020, a significant increase on previous commitments by the way, and by even 30% if a comprehensive international agreement is reached. Second, improving energy efficiency by 20% by 2020 and raising the share of renewable energy by 20% by 2020.

Key tools for delivering these objectives are already in place. So to name but a few. The European Climate Change Programme which so far has identified forty areas which can reduce Europe’s emissions by up to 16% compared with 1990 figures. Second, the second great part, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme created already in 2005, which is the largest multi-country, multi-sector emissions trading scheme in the world. Third, a set of measures under the Eco-design Directive and the EU’s Seventh Research Framework Programme, to ensure improvements to the most energy hungry products. And fourth, the Energy Taxation Directive which is discouraging pollutants’ behaviour; aviation is being added to ETS. And last but not least, energy security. The new energy policy for Europe action plan that was adopted in March in the European Council aims indeed to guarantee security of supply. That means energy was, of course, a key theme of our discussions at the EU Russia summit in Siberia last week - I just came back very recently.

So this brings me onto my next point - external action. Climate change is, of course, a global phenomenon and, therefore, requires global action. And, as I’ve said, our international influence depends on the credibility, of course, of our internal agenda, what we are doing. And the environmental standards we are setting will set I think the standard, both for imports and exports, driving more environmental production in other parts of the world. So Europe’s soft power I think is also really here. Just, for instance, look at the way in which the countries have emulated the European Union in creating the possibility for free movement of citizens between countries in the bloc.

And I also mentioned that climate change and energy are part of our dialogue with Russia. That is now the case for all our strategic dialogues - it’s for China, it’s for India and, of course, for the United States of America, for Japan and will be, therefore, a very important theme also at the G8 summit with Japan. Increasingly, we are also directing energy cooperation with countries in the neighbourhood - you know the neighbourhood policy - towards energy efficiency; for instance, thinking of particularly solar and wind energy in our southern neighbourhood countries.

We are, as the European Union, also leading a multilateral response. In Bali last December, the agreement was reached to launch negotiations on a comprehensive agreement for global action after 2012 and, finally, to come to an end of the negotiations in 2009. I think there is a major step forward, both in terms of US engagement, and that also of major emerging countries with whom we have been working during the whole year. And I think it’s also essential that these negotiations are successful. We, therefore, as the Commission, have made climate change one of our main communication priorities. And I’ve also given instructions to key Commission delegations, for instance, around the world to step up political and public diplomacy work.

Now I said at the beginning that I would address the question of lifestyles. I won’t dodge that promise. When you ask me, is global warming going to have an impact on lifestyles? And the answer is now, and increasingly so. The price of petrol, as you know, is already boosting the market in energy efficient cars and bikes. The market for renewable energy, for instance, as I said, wind and solar power, is growing. And, indeed, I think climate change is not all about threats for Europe. There are also opportunities. Just look at the first mover advantage the Danes, for instance, have secured by becoming market leaders in wind power. And I could give you many other examples.

But do our actions have an impact? That is the question. My answer is yes but we need to do more, both collectively and individually, if we are to reach the very ambitious targets we have set ourselves. Scientists warn that our window to achieve a radical reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is only fifteen years. Now the current pattern or patterns of consumption, particularly in the developed world, are not sustainable and they are one of the main drivers behind the environmental problems we face. And, therefore, with over six billion on the planet, our global environmental footprint already exceeds the Earth’s biological capacity by about 25%; and we in Europe are some of the main culprits. If the rest of the world consumed in the way we do, and the indications are that emerging economies like China and India are beginning to, then we’d need more than two planet Earths to cope. Add to that the demographic projections showing that the world’s population will grow to nine billion by 2050 and you can see that we could head for disaster.

So, ladies and gentlemen, if I look into the crystal ball, I don’t see doom and gloom, and I see all of us already much more conscious of the need to save energy and changing our behaviour. I think we are tuning down the heating and air conditioning. We are starting to use a greater range of energy resources and, of course, the high cost of hydrocarbons is one of the factors driving us. And I must tell you, I’m an incorrigible optimist. I’m confident that we will find new technologies to improve the performance of both traditional sources of energy and renewables. I mentioned solar energy earlier. Personally, I’m particularly attached by this untapped potential. If we can get the cost-benefit balance right, I believe that solar energy will offer huge scope in the years to come.

Therefore, tackling climate change and its impact is a major foreign policy challenge of our times. No doubt many of you will have heard Ghandi’s most famous saying, “The future depends on what we do in the present”. Well, I believe it does, with a window of fifteen years to act. So we will need to act all together. Thank you very much.

Tim King

Thank you Commissioner. I think I’m now going to turn to Ged Davis with that cue of incorrigible optimism. Ged Davis, in your scenario planning - you will see from Ged’s mini biography on that sheet that he’s done a fair bit of scenario planning, and I imagine that optimism of certain sorts has featured in your work on scenarios. Take it from there.

Ged Davis

I must admit I’m an incorrigible optimist - they have more fun, to start off with. But let me just put into context - I think it’s a very interesting and I think for any European, an uplifting view of the European situation. I guess one ought to start off with - I hate being labelled a futurologist - but let’s be clear what people who look at the future have to do in my view. They have to be clear about what is going to persist, what is not going to change and focus on what’s likely to change. And if we take the climate change issue, there is absolutely no doubt we have a fundamental phenomenon of importance. The difficult question - and you can see it in the preparations for the G8 and I think the work in the EU, I’ve just come from a place where we discussed this - is at what level do we really have to stabilise the planet? Is it 550 parts per million? Is it 450? Or, as Jim Hanson was saying a couple of weeks ago and where I’ve just come from, it has to be 350?

Now that is extremely important and when you do scenarios, that’s where you want to focus on. And that’s important because it really focuses on the question of when do we have to get this turning point in place? Is it 2015? Is it 2020? Is it 2030? If it’s 350, which is below the present level of 385, we have one big problem. It’s not just about - and I agree with the view that lifestyle changes have to change, we have to internalise the fact we’ve got one big problem here. But if we take seriously the issue, because the evidence that’s available from the climate change scientists is that, if anything, the issue is proceeding more rapidly than the models explain. If I go back to the context for this. As the person who facilitated the last IPCC scenarios with a lot of people over three years, what’s very clear is you could end up with a very large range of futures. Most of those at the top end don’t really mean very much because they take us to six to seven, eight degree centigrade increase and we would be incredibly foolish to have got that far and done nothing.

But what is interesting is the sort of technological options that will come in and how quickly they will come in. I think it’s laudable that the Commission have set the 2020 20-20[? 21:36]. I don’t know how many twenties - I think it was a brilliant communications attempt to have lots of twenties by 2020. But I think the practical question is whether we can build up the renewable industry as quickly. As somebody who dabbles in this, it is quite difficult - an immense challenge. The opportunities are there but I suspect the vision is too limited. That the vision has to, for example, involve large new super-grids, maybe linking desert solar systems in North Africa with, at the top end, the large offshore wind establishments.

But I’m not sure whether the public really understands what both the scientists are implying, the politicians are leading on. And I say that because this is going to be a very testing few years with some real financial issues, with oil at $140, and it isn’t clear that oil and climate change or resolving energy security, particularly oil security and climate change always go in the same direction. For example, it’s a strong argument if you went to go for more security, you put more effort into Oil Sands in Canada - heavy carbon pollutions. You put money into the development if you’re in China, probably even accelerating coal developments if you can, and getting into other areas such as liquids from coal and liquids from gas which are also not particularly efficient. These have benefits.

So I think we have a more interesting situation. I’ll just conclude with one point because I guess any futurologist would do this. It’s to remind us that climate change is one of probably five other fundamental transitions we face. Number one, and most fundamental, is we need to stabilise population. Number two is clearly climate change but it’s other environmental issues. It’s not difficult to see crises in biodiversity around water. There’s energy security issues. So resource constraints become particularly important as China, India and other countries at the moment work on the simple premise, why should my children be treated any differently from your children? Quite a compelling argument and when they say that, they’re talking about the basic things. Why not the idea of a house, a few appliances around, a few cars, maybe a motorbike? So this is still a compelling vision and a much more compelling vision than [??? 24:30].

And then finally, we face, with the technological revolutions in biology in particular, a fundamental new set of ethical issues that will shape us, maybe dramatically. And then, of course, we have the potential of technology, whether it’s Moore’s Law, reaching the point by 2020 that we have the capacity of a human brain sitting on every desk. Think what extraordinarily interesting games you can play then. So I will stop there and hope that that’s assisted in the dialogue.

Tim King

I too hope it has and we’ll explore a bit more in a bit. Mr Peterle, one of the reasons I wanted someone like you here in this room and on this panel is that it was desperately important to me to get an elected politician on this platform. Now you’ve been elected - I shan’t remind you of your last election, the election for the Presidency of Slovenia where you were less successful - but you’ve been elected to national government, you’ve been elected to the European Parliament. And the Commission may say things but one of their difficulties is that they bump up against folk in the Council of Ministers and folk in the European Parliament who are rather anxious to get returned to office later on. What’s your perspective on these remarks?

Alojz Peterle

First of all, my answer to this question is that we are on speaking terms, more or less, with the Commission. Our laws are the same. Maybe we are sometimes different as far as dynamics is concerned but I don’t see major differences here, but I would like to be very personal today and also very practical. I was very attentive to the title of this panel and for me the key word is the lifestyle, and I know what institutions are able to do or are not able to do and what we can do at a personal level. And I think we are all aware of what’s going on. Maybe we are not all sharing the same opinions about the possible consequences of the global warming, and we all know that we are facing also I would say a major unpredictability. I’m pleased that the European Commission and the Council and the Parliament are, I would say, really on speaking terms in many respects and that the European Union, at the moment, is even a leading player.

But now I would like to jump to the personal level. Once, several months ago, I was asked in Spain a very exact question: Mr Peterle, you are a politician, you are a Member of the European Parliament, what is your personal contribution to less carbon? And I would say, fortunately, I was able to answer without any delay. Because I’m a cancer survivor and I can say, together with Lance Armstrong, you know his books about cancer. Lance Armstrong, the famous biker, was able to say that the cancer was the best message in his life. It is an alarming message at the beginning but it could become also the best message if we understand it well. The message is do change something. If you don’t change, then that is the only consequence, it’s not the only solution.

What I did, I decided to change my lifestyle. I first decided to change my eating attitudes and I would say I didn’t invent anything new because all these things are known from our past, for a thousand years I would say. I decided to not eat one day a week. If you multiply, then you will see how less polluted water, how less consumption of energy, 15% a week, and less detergents and so on. And then on the other side, you get more time for yourself. You may count how much time you need for eating. How many working lunches and dinners and breakfasts - everything is working here in Brussels. I prefer to take my bike, as I did today, and I went to the forest there and I come back in one hour and I feel fit. But not only that, I decided to eat more or less, I would say with some exceptions, only raw food, this means that is no cooking. I don’t have refrigerator, I don’t need electricity for cooking, I like to eat vital foods full of [??? 30:25] vitamins and so on, and I eat at least a third less and I feel much better than before. I would say I’m never tired at 8pm - I’m even in the best condition at 8am when I start my working day. And then, of course, I introduce also more moving. I would say also more dealing with myself, with the possible internal causes for my cancer. So I will not describe all my changes I did in order to change my lifestyle but six years afterwards, I feel …… I told you that nobody believes that I was 60, because I was 60 yesterday, and when I was much younger, I remember that many people were buried at 60 already in my region. And I really don’t feel old - my personal feeling is 39½ and I really feel very well.

And I’m sure that this issue, because we like to speak about democratic deficit, about citizens, closeness to the citizens, that the personal question or personal answers will be more and more important. Because institutions can do a lot, but if the citizens will not be fully engaged, if we will continue with the old attitudes also concerning our daily lives, using cars - you see what is going on in European cities. On average, I think that usually the cars are used one or by two, not by four or five people. So we are losing too much energy and so on. You see maybe that in the past also, I used to be an advisor for environmental protection and this is still my love.

I was also a rapporter[? 32:56] for hydrogen for this very good proposal done by the Commission on hydrogen powered. This harmonisation was really needed and so we confirmed this Directive with great pleasure in the European Parliament. So I think this is one of the ways leading us to a better future.

I’m also a rapporter for the European Health Strategy 2008-2013, and their magic or the key work is prevention. And I think that we will not succeed by small changes here and there, but we need a paradigmatic change I think. So we spend for prevention 3% of the health budgets - my idea is to add as soon as possible 3% more, or we need even more in education, agriculture and so on. But I would not give this additional 3% to the Minister for Health. I would give this money to the Minister of Economy, for example. It might be there are better ideas but I think we have to invest in prevention. Without prevention, then we will just follow the very bad plans in health.

So I would also like to say, now back to the daily politics, I met two days ago that gentleman who I think was the first who measured the disappearing of Antarctica, a certain glaciologist from Argentina, by chance from Slovenian descent. Before satellites discovered the changes, he already was able to measure them and, as I understand, Al Gore’s team read those articles in ’94 already. I was with him in Patagonia. I have my own experience with the developments in Patagonia’s glaciers and I saw four kilometres of ice which broke and disappeared or moved to the sea, and that man said that the dynamics of the changes is faster in the last years than it was in the last centuries. And I think that this is the basis for the warning which appeared in the Commission’s papers about flexibility and solidarity. We need flexibility because if we wish to follow the dynamics in the nature, we also have to be very dynamic and flexible in our political decisions and I think that the dynamics at the moment is not predictable. And, as a politician, I would finish with that - that we must be very aware of the dynamics and we need really I would say a truly political attention to those issues. So I think for the beginning, it should be enough from myself. Thank you.

Tim King

Thank you, Mr Peterle. Richard, you were given a cue at the beginning there in some ways with a rather spiritual dimension on change of lifestyle but, as Ged was pointing out, in some ways what we’ve dealt with so far has been a rather Western view on climate change, whether it’s European optimism or something else. What’s your perspective?

Richard Prime

Well, I’m very grateful for Benita telling us about your optimism. I think we have to be optimistic - that’s the human spirit isn’t it? But we are facing the most enormous crisis. I’m really glad too that, Mr Peterle, you gave a personal story of personal transformation because it seems to me that’s what crisis is all about, both on the individual level and also on the wider social level. Crisis means it’s time to change. It seems to me that we’re here specifically talking about climate change. In fact, climate change is only one. As Ged mentioned, it’s one of you say five issues, probably at least five - global issues of crisis which are all pointing to …… well, the image it brings to mind for me is somebody who, shall we say, is suffering from persistent headaches and so you go to the doctor and the doctor says, well, actually you have high blood pressure, you have a weak heart, you’ve got all sorts of problems with your internal workings and you’re going to have to undergo fairly drastic personal change if you’re going to get through this. Now some people, a lot of people I think faced with that, initially they’ll feel very depressed but once they come to terms with that, they might actually see this as an opportunity. So I think the human family in general, we are faced with great crisis but also great opportunity.

In fact, at the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, who I’ve worked with for many years, our journey started over twenty years ago when WWF, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, they had been campaigning to save various species, disappearing species in different habitats around the world, and a lot of their work was educational. And somebody suggested to them, actually of all people it was the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Phillip who suggested it, why don’t you try talking to the religions? Because religions are all involved in education and they hold profoundly environmental views. So why don’t you talk to them?

And I think the expectation was that the religions would basically back up everything that WWF had to say but, in fact, what happened - this was back in 1986, the 25th anniversary of WWF - was that there was a lot of debate and discussion. And it turns out, in fact - you mentioned Mr Peterle about paradigmatic change, change of paradigm - by and large, one doesn’t want to generalise too much, but the world’s religious traditions, which are themselves the keepers you could say of all of our cultural histories, they challenge fundamentally the whole paradigm upon which modern civilisation is based in some senses. Because we hear a lot of talk about economic growth and how absolutely essential economic growth is, but the world religions, they tend to say well, maybe you should consume less? It seems to me that, and this is why I say climate change, fossil fuels, is a symptom of a deeper, much wider issue - it seems to me that we, as a human family, have somehow confused the search for personal fulfilment with increasing consumption. And the two things are not the same. Happiness and fulfilment is not actually anything to do with how much I consume.

So this is really, it seems to me, the task. When we’re talking about change, of course, there is so much action that we have to do and I’m so grateful that there are lot of energetic, visionary, dedicated people who are out there trying to take the actions that are necessary. But another quote from Ghandi, if I could. Ghandi said, I can’t remember the exact words but something like Western civilisation thinks that it would be possible to organise ourselves so well that we no longer have to be good.

So I think that’s the challenge. We can’t stop the crisis. I think the crisis seems to me, inevitably there is going to be crisis and, in a way, I’m grateful because we can’t carry on like this. The real question is how to help people to see the crisis in a positive way and to be able to make the changes that we’re all going to have to make in good spirit. And there are certainly many tools which the human race over thousands of years, we have stored up an awful lot of wisdom how to deal with times of crisis, and we have those resources.

Tim King

Thank you. I’m conscious that I’ve only got the Commissioner with us for another ten minutes. I think the sensible first thing, do you want to respond to anything that you’ve heard from here first?

Benita Ferrero Waldner

Yes, I would like to say it’s interesting that all of us, in the end, have a somewhat optimistic view if we think that lifestyle can really change at the right pace, at the right scope I would say. For that to happen, I think my first element that comes to my mind is that the communication towards the populations all over the world has to be very clear, very focused and very quick, because this is really the first thing that you rightly said - maybe not everybody is already aware of the seriousness of what is happening. And I think that should be one of our common focuses. Even if we might not all come to the same level of engagement and commitment at the next big conferences but we should all at least engage in one thing, that we clearly communicate the challenges that are there and the possibilities. This is number one that I think.

Second, I do believe personally also very strongly in possibilities for new technologies. You also mentioned that but for that, indeed, we also have to invest even more than we do now in all the sorts of innovations that are there, and to come together. You know, for instance, I was in the Gulf Corporation Council - that means I was once in Bahrain and Qatar and Saudi Arabia very recently. And I was really amazed to see that those countries that indeed still have, of course, petrol and oil and gas, they are going very, very strongly now for other things; and that means for technology, for new energy, renewables, for some solar energy, for wind energy, for carbon capture - whatever. And I think that is very interesting that those have started, and I think we should all work on that because some of us will be inventive enough to come up with new solutions. Thank you.

Tim King

If you have questions for the Commissioner, let me do that filter at this stage - we’ll move on to other questions later.

Question - David Zaruk

David Zaruk from Risk Perception Management. The question I’d like to focus on, and the title of the first point I thought was interesting - at what point? At $140 a barrel for oil, we seem to still be using our cars quite a bit as you’ve noticed from the traffic. One thing that policy makers do have as a useful tool to change lifestyle changes is taxation. Whether it’s taxing plastic bags or rubbish bags, you’re able to motivate people to change your behaviour very easily with taxation and probably more than any increase in the price of oil will have because nobody likes to pay a tax. Commissioner, would you agree - and there were whispers last year about this - that it would be a good idea to introduce an EU-wide carbon tax in order to do something to reduce emissions across the European Union?

Question - Jacques de Selliers

I’m Jacques de Selliers, President of the European Association for Battery Electric Vehicles. I have two questions. The first one actually David Zaruk asked it for me but indeed, don’t you think that taxing what we want to reduce and by the way, in compensation, reducing the tax on what we want to increase such as employment would be a sensible thing to do?

In terms of measures, concrete measures that Europe should promote, as you said, we have to concentrate on those that are effective and just a figure that I read somewhere, Denmark and Germany, who are the biggest users of wind turbines, still have the highest CO2 emissions for kilowatt of electricity produced of all European countries, if you exclude some of the countries in the Eastern Bloc like Poland that uses mainly old coal technology to produce electricity.

One measure that has not been promoted is battery electric vehicles. Battery electric vehicles can, with today’s technology or the technology that’s going to be available in six month’s time, can save something like 6% of worldwide CO2 emissions, because they can actually be used for 80% of the transportation which is one person for less than 50kms. Not only that - battery electric vehicles can reduce urban pollution by about 50%, reduce oil consumption by about 20% and, last but not least, suppress the road noise. Isn’t it time that the Commission starts really doing some positive actions for the promotion of this simple but effective measure that’s going to change our lifestyle, not in a worse way but in a better way? Thank you.

Question - Natalie Eckhelt from the European Environmental Bureau

I have a simple question because I really appreciated the interventions on personal changes, and my simple question relates to advertising. I wanted to know whether the Commission should look seriously into measures on advertisement, given the fact that we’ve heard today that consumption and consuming more is perhaps not the way forward, and we have to consume in a smarter way. And I think this will really help to, not only avoid green washing that is happening today, but also promote more sustainable lifestyles. Thank you.

Benita Ferrero Waldner

I will try to answer quickly. The first thing is taxation. Well, taxation is now very fashionable to be mentioned. It is also fashionable to try to bring prices down, particularly with an oil price at $140 a barrel and maybe going up in the future, most probably. Of course, we also have been talking about taxation at the last European Council, but I think you also hear this could have completely different effects on the macro-economic policies and the economy of each and every country. So many countries have spoken totally against that. And I think if you now would add to the taxation that is already there on the national level, you would go for prices that are no more feasible. You might make some changes but, at the same time, you know you have an enormous effects on people’s lives, on people’s food. And not everybody will maybe go for only raw food, which I think is a personal decision for you but maybe it’s not the thing that everybody would like to do. So I think you have to think - and this was just one example - of the effects, and the effects will be enormous already with the high oil prices. Indeed, everything is going to be more costly and for the moment, I don’t think this is the easy solution that we can take.

Battery electric vehicles - yes, I think it’s one of those things that I summarise under technology. For me all those things have to come together and I think it has to be a whole package of ideas. Of course, we also know there is a very important industry of vehicles behind but I think everybody has to look for new solutions. There is hydrogen, it’s a very interesting new technology. These battery electric vehicles, this is another and I’m sure we will find many more of those ideas. I think there is even work already going on, on a solar energy airplane. I have only heard about it, I’m not a scientific person so I cannot go into any detail. But there are many of those solutions and I think this is exactly what I meant. Therefore, I am optimistic.

Finally, advertising. Advertising I would summarise under the whole matter of communication. Why not in the future go for better communication? And that I think will be certainly one of the crucial items in order to change our lifestyles. Please bear with me, I will have to rush. I see my collaborator already nodding - that means it’s high time for me to go. Thank you very much and I’m sorry to have to leave because I think it starts to be interesting now. Thank you very much.