The European Union has certainly given the fight against climate change a new direction by approving a compromise agreement binding member countries to environmental goals. Does the attempt hold enough spark to drag the global community towards a converging point or will it remain a tale of two worlds?

By unanimously agreeing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020, and to 30 percent if other major polluters including the United States, China and India follow suit, the 27-member Commission has openly challenged the global community and highlighted the seriousness of the problem. However, the great ‘IF OTHERS FOLLOW’ attitude again dissolves the apparently hollow basis on which the nations are hurling their patched masts.

The accord pays emphasis on more use of renewable energy sources and biofuels. Also, in a significant step, the Commission has finally decided to phase out use of the traditional light bulb within two years and replace it with green low-energy fluorescent bulbs.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has pressed to raise the issue at the June Group 8 summit with the leading industrial nations, however, there are grim chances of other nations reaching a binding accord of this kind.

Groundbreaking but challenging

Meeting the renewable energy goals would certainly be not easy for European nations who cannot afford a sudden switch to more costly environment-friendly alternatives, especially countries of the former Soviet bloc, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, which rely heavily on cheap coal and oil for their energy. According to the accord, backed by Merkel and the European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, the EU countries can implement individual targets, which if not met would invite heavy fines; however, it dilutes the purpose, as in this case all will follow tracks that would never converge to meet the set goals. But there is no other way out considering the prevailing economic disparities amongst countries.

The highly ambitious goals can also harm European industry, but at this point of time, the nations do not have any other choice. Also, the idea of nuclear energy, which though is the most clean viable alternative available and can play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gases, is facing stiff confrontation from countries like Austria, Denmark and Ireland.

Silence of the giants: The cost of doing nothing and the need of a global green democracy

The question here is not that what will be the impact of the EU’s move or how far and how fast other polluting giants will come forward to show their grit. No doubt, for the first time, at last, we’ve shunned the drums we’re beating, but still the question lingers because climate change is a global issue and can never be tackled on an individual front.

Rich industrialized countries sensed the coming meltdown long back and have been devising ways to reduce carbon emissions, however, has done little to assist poor countries to make ends meet. My major concern is ‘percolation of this attitude on global front’.

It would not be prudent, at least to some extent, to shun what US or China are doing with this respect and we should not waste time in doing that either. I would say, these nations are a mere victim of ‘unplanned development’, however, the heavy price we’re paying for it is a different aspect to ponder on. At this platform, it’s beyond anyone’s sane comprehension that why a comprehensive effort has not been made by the international community to reverse the global warming phenomenon. Separate blocks popping up here and there can never make the ends meet in this case and the wrath inflicted has already proved that.

If Europe wants to meet the set targets, it’ll have to move hand-in-hand with America. Of course, after EU’s move, we’ll are geared up and can hope of adoption of some drastic measures by nations at the coming G8 summit in June and at least give the idea of a ‘global green democracy’ a thought...hopefully!