It all starts with a goal

Political action begins by setting goals. This is something that Europe is especially aware of. Right in the midst of the Cold War, visionaries set themselves the goal of reconciling former arch-enemies and integrating the continent in such a manner as to ensure that war would no longer be possible. Fifty years ago, six nations signed the Treaty of Rome.

The UN has set itself the goal of halving poverty in the world by 2015.

The target defined in the Kyoto Protocol is to cut greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent.And there are plenty of other objectives we could add to the list: social objectives, growth targets, election goals, legislature targets, and so on.

But of course we cannot simply roll up our sleeves and get stuck in: before we start work, we first have to take stock of the situation and decide which direction we want to take. We set ourselves a goal that challenges us, a goal that forces us to do everything possible – and sometimes everything impossible too! When we see that a certain goal has to be reached, we do not ask ourselves whether that goal is realistic. Instead we tell ourselves we can achieve it because we have to achieve it. In this way we enter into a commitment.

Specifying binding targets in the Kyoto Protocol for the reduction of CO2 emissions was a courageous move. But it is thanks to this courage that the increase in CO2 emissions has been checked in Europe and Japan. It is thanks to the setting of targets that CO2 emissions now have their price. Those who produce carbon dioxide and thus contribute to climate warming now pay a price.

But as we all know, targets are easily set, but arduously met. Implementing this process in different countries, from ratification of the protocol through to the introduction of the necessary legislation, was an extremely challenging task. Many an environment minister had to battle against his colleagues in charge of economics or infrastructure. It is a little easier for me in Switzerland, because the environment and infrastructure, as well as energy and transport portfolios, are all under the same ministerial roof. But even in this relatively comfortable situation, I have to acknowledge that it is one thing to set ambitious goals, but achieving them is something else altogether.

In a national referendum, the Swiss people entrusted the federal government with an extremely challenging mandate, namely to halve the volume of transalpine freight transport by road within a few years, from 1.3 million lorries (the annual volume at that time) to 650,000. This mandate was largely based on environmental considerations. Implementing it calls for the co-ordination of various complex aspects with the EU and our close neighbours. Furthermore, there are international commitments and technical trade obstacles to be overcome, and above all, numerous measures are required, which in turn come up against all sorts of political obstacles.

We need to increase the capacity of the country’s railway network. We are constructing two major new railway tunnels – and these have to be paid for.

We therefore collect a heavy vehicle fee that also has to be paid by foreign vehicles. The introduction of this fee met with considerable resistance: the EU feared that it would result in the discrimination of foreign transport companies. And the Swiss transport industry feared it would lose much of its competitiveness. As a consequence, every step had to be approved by the people by referendums.

We still have a long way to go, but the first of the two tunnels will be handed over for operation this year, and each year there are fewer lorries on our roads.

I have taken this example from the area of transport policy in order to emphasise the fact that climate policy, too, has to be implemented in all sectors and in all ministries.

It is only when concrete measures are formulated that conflicts of interest become apparent. It is only then that we become aware of the various dilemmas:

Can we accept gas power plants, even though this means an increase in CO2 emissions? Electricity is produced in Switzerland today without the use of fossil fuels. Doesn’t nuclear energy have at least advantages in terms of climate policy, in spite of its unsolved problems and risk potential?

Should we make maximum use of hydropower, even though this means that flora and fauna have to suffer?

The 2000-watt society

The EU wants to cut CO2 emissions by 20 percent and increase the level of energy efficiency every year by 1 percent.

As the first industrialised nation, Sweden aims to discontinue using oil altogether by 2020 – i.e. within just 14 years. Instead, it wants to substitute all fossil fuels with renewables. Germany wants to increase the share of renewable energy used for electricity production to 20 percent by 2020.

California aims to cut emissions by 25 percent by 2020, and set up a system of trading in CO2 emissions based on certificates.

In Switzerland we also have a goal, but I should clarify: it is a long-term goal, a vision, which is enshrined in the government’s sustainability strategy. There are many – myself included – who have set themselves the goal of making it a binding target. It is called the “2000-watt society”, and was first conceived at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich – i.e. by research scientists.

It is our political responsibility to translate this concept into practice. The idea is to reduce the annual per capita energy consumption by two-thirds, to 2000 watts, which corresponds to the average world wide per capita energy consumption. We want to accomplish this by the end of the century.

In Western Europe we consume around 6,000 watts per person today, compared with 500 watts in Ethiopia, and 12,000 watts in the USA.

At first glance, the objective of a 2000-watt society appears unrealistic.

But the necessary technology already exists. I recently visited a new building designed by a research centre, a building that requires practically no external energy supply – the prototype of a zero-energy building. It looks just like any other building, and was constructed with conventional materials. But it only cools down slightly during the Christmas holiday period, because its main source of heating is people (employees), lamps and computers. It should also be noted that this house did not cost any more to build than any other house.

This example shows that we can certainly turn the concept of a 2000-watt society into reality, without any loss of comfort or mobility, if we always use the most efficient appliances, if we consistently focus on the lowest possible energy consumption when we construct buildings, and if we use the most efficient technologies in the area of transport.

The difficulty in enforcing these standards has nothing to do with technologies. These exist and are already available on the market. But they are often more expensive than conventional products, and this is the problem, since our economic systems are based on the trading of products.

If we try to enforce such standards in Switzerland, players in our economy complain of discrimination versus the EU.

If the EU wants to introduce regulations, its own players complain that they are being placed at a disadvantage versus the USA.

And the USA in its turn has to face competition from Asia or South America. How often do we hear the excuse: “I would like to, but unfortunately the competition forces me to…”.

This attitude is irresponsible. We all depend on one another, it is true, but we cannot always simply flow towards the lowermost point,, like water. We cannot allow ourselves to be content with the lowest common denominator. Instead, we have to look for the greatest shared responsibility.

It is not enough to share the same goals: we also have to pursue them along a common path.

(This is a somewhat bold statement coming from a country that is not a member of the EU … but there are also some Swiss in the audience...)

Global CO2 tax

What is the nature of this shared responsibility?

In order to turn the vision of a 2000-watt society into reality, we need a variety of instruments:Energy consumption needs to be made visible. Consumers can only make the right choice if they can see how much energy the various appliances, vehicles, apartments and buildings consume.

Standards are required for low-energy and passive buildings, and a disclosure requirement should apply for all products.

The necessary political will has to exist in order to ensure that this vision can be turned into reality, i.e. implementation plans, energy-efficiency programmes, promotion of the concept of the zero-energy house, heat pumps, biogas, low-consumption cars, hybrid vehicles, and so on.

The economy is certainly able to meet these criteria. And if it is not willing, then the necessary legislation has to be introduced.

But all this is still not enough. It is unfortunately a fact of life that saving energy has to be financially rewarding, the economy has to benefit from it, otherwise it will always be those who profit from energy consumption who will gain the upper hand. CO2 may already have its price today, but it is not high enough.

A new impulse is required if we are to meet our objectives, and a global CO2 tax would be such an impulse. It would make fossil fuel more expensive throughout the world, and thus create an incentive to save energy wherever and however possible. And it would affect all players equally.

Introducing a global CO2 tax will certainly not be an easy task, as experience in Switzerland has made all too clear: it has taken many years to move from the objective of introducing a CO2 tax to actually coming up with a concrete solution, and even then the tax initially only applies to stationary fuels, whereas it is motor fuels that are the bigger emitters.

There will be numerous objections, but climate change is going to give rise to enormous costs in the next decades. With a global CO2 tax we would be able to accomplish two things: slow down climate change and have funds at our disposal for adaptation against climate change damage that we are no longer able to prevent. We already know that rising sea levels will swallow up entire coastal stretches, most of them in the southern hemisphere which has contributed the least to climate change to date. We all depend on one another. It is not enough to share goals such as the 2000-watt society or the targets laid down in the Kyoto Protocol. We also have to agree on a common path and force ourselves to do everything possible (and indeed, impossible) in our power, including future actions that we are not even aware of today.

We cannot afford to keep asking ourselves whether this or that goal is realistic. If we see that a target has to be reached, we have to tell ourselves we can reach this target because we have to reach it.

Here we can take the EU as a prime example. Fifty years after the conclusion of the Treaty of Rome, the EU has made the impossible possible.

The challenge we now face is even tougher – for it concerns the future of the whole planet.

Setting a goal and getting there: 2000-watt society