ENVIRONMENT

Concerning environmental policy, Denmark is often seen as a relatively progressive country. Academics, for example, have labeled countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark as the “green states” during the formative years of EU environmental policy. Within the European Union, Denmark has been asking for high environmental standards.
Much of Denmark’s current environmental policy is based on EU directives. Taking EU policy as standard – and it can of course be discussed whether EU standards are good enough – we do have data on implementation. These data suggest that Denmark is doing reasonably well on implementation.
Denmark’s environmental performance review by the OECD in 2008 was somewhat mixed. On one hand it was stated that “the well-balanced environmental policies of Denmark have led to significant environmental progress.” However, it the same time it was stated that “further environmental progress is needed for health and economic reasons,” suggesting that further environmental improvements be reflected in the country’s transport, agriculture, energy sectors as well as fiscal policies. Denmark is below OECD averages for municipal waste generation per capita and in the use of nitrogenous fertilizers. Denmark has some of the highest rates of mortality for some types of cancer, and allergy and respiratory diseases affect about 20% of the population.

The Finnish performance in terms of sustainability has been good, although not excellent. A concern for environmental issues is a part of the public consciousness in Finland, and large-scale efforts since the 1970s at institution-building for the purpose of enhancing environmental policy have in several respects proved to bear fruit. For instance, nature reserves have been established, and the protection of forests is instituted. Furthermore, less-polluting technologies have been introduced in the industrial sector. Still, Finland has, because of climate factors, quite specific problems to tackle and the rather modest achievements in terms of emission and energy spending must partly be seen against this background. Obviously, these geographical factors will create obstacles to pursuing a truly effective environmental policy in the future.
The most influential but also the most contested policy decision in the period under assessment concerns the building of new nuclear energy plants. The current government endorses two new nuclear energy plants within the framework of its energy and climate strategy. Public opinion is divided; nearly half of the population is opposed to building new nuclear plants. Another major policy initiative during the assessment period regards the reform of legislation on waste treatment and responsibilities.

In recent years, there has been a change from traditional regulation policies to new environmental policies such as eco-taxes, tradable permits and environmental agreements. German environmental policy is embedded in and influenced by the European framework, but without doubt, Germany has established itself as a pioneer and leader in the field.
The environmental policy of the former grand coalition primarily focused on issues of climate change. In collaboration with Great Britain, Germany plays a leading role in the European Union, mainly concerned with the reduction of CO2 emissions. On the national level, former governments promoted renewable energy use, offshore-wind farms, cogeneration, and the energy-efficient redevelopment of buildings and the infrastructure.
The government faces a multitude of powerful pressure groups, such as the car and energy industries, which try to influence environmental policies. New pressure groups have also emerged representing interests such as the solar energy industry, which benefits from the massive subsidies for renewable energy sources.
The most important economic interests come from renewable energy sector. Solar technologies and other renewable have long been subsidized by consumers through a subsidy financed by a markup on the price of electricity. In March 2010, the government started reducing these subsidies for solar energy, and wants to revise the renewable-energy law further given the substantial burden on consumers and the disputable ecological benefit provided.
Whether the former SPD-Green Party coalition plan to bring an end to nuclear power generation can be reconciled with the objectives of climate policy remains a controversial question. The new government has discussed changing the deadline for the shutdown of nuclear power stations.
In spite of these disputes, however, there exists a broad consensus within German society and across German political parties that environmental objectives such as fighting climate change have a high priority.

Norwegian public opinion is highly sensitive to environmental issues and the government regularly promotes international cooperation on environmental issues. There is a wide range of laws regulating various aspects of environmental policy and the use of natural resources, including specific laws on building regulations, pollution controls, wildlife and freshwater fish, municipal health, environmental protection and motorized vehicles.
Norway has among the lowest CO2 emissions and highest degree of renewable resource use in the world. Air and water quality is among the best in the world, which is largely due to the country’s low population density and the fact that Norway’s main energy source is hydroelectric power, which is in turn due to the natural abundance of water in the country. Less positively, Norway does not have a good record on waste management, and has also received international criticism for its policy concerning whale hunting. In addition, energy demand and usage per capita is higher in Norway than in the rest of Europe. This is partly attributable to a legacy of inexpensive energy, which however now, with international energy markets, is a thing of the past. The government is committed to energy conservation. To this end, conservation standards for new buildings have been increased, and new taxes have been added to the use of electricity and gasoline. However, there is scope for significant improvement in this area.
Moreover, the government’s plans for achieving its climate goals have sparked national and international controversy. The intention is to rely strongly on the purchase of international CO2 quotas to a degree that appears to be beyond what is acceptable by EU standards (to which Norway is committed despite not being a member itself). Environmental groups have criticized this as a strategy of buying oneself out of the problem rather than enacting appropriate and lasting economic and organizational reforms.
Research in government-owned companies have pioneered technological innovations aimed at reducing and ultimately eliminating CO2 emissions in gas exploitation with the help of undersea bed storage of CO2, initiatives that are in the process of moving from research to large-scale experimentation.

Sweden has had a long and strong commitment to environmental policy, so much so that recent studies in fact show that Sweden has over-implemented the EU policy goals of CO2 emissions. Sweden is in the process of changing towards an environmentally friendly economy, i.e. towards a reduction of the private use of automobiles, sustainable manufacturing processes, curbing the use of fossil and nuclear sources of energy and promoting ecologically friendly consumption. Environmental policy draws on a mix of “sticks and carrots” to attain these goals. By increasing taxes on fossil fuel systems and creating incentives for alternative production and consumption patterns, the government seeks to drive society towards sustainable development.
There is a small but noticeable difference between the two different groups of parties with regard to their commitment to environmental policy. The center-right incumbent “alliance”, while speaking of the necessity to find sustainable strategies of economic development, seems to be less keen to use taxes as a “stick” to discourage non-sustainable production or consumption processes. The center-left group of parties, on the other hand, includes the Green Party, an avid supporter of environmental policy more in favor of using the tax instrument to facilitate change towards sustainable development.
Among the political blocks, the expansion of nuclear energy plants is highly contested. In 1980, a referendum prohibited the construction of new plants, and the social democratic government implemented this decision. The contemporary center-right parties promote the expansion of nuclear power plants (despite the partial resistance of the Center-Party).

Switzerland has made considerable investments in effective environmental protection. For example, it now has about 8,000 jobs related to protection of the environment at the federal level (500), the cantons (1,500) and the municipalities (6,000) combined. Public spending on environmental protection totals 2.5% of total public expenditure (2002). A new article (Article 84.2) was added to the constitution in 1994, stating: “Transalpine freight in border-to-border transit shall be transported by rail. The federal government shall take the necessary measures. Exceptions shall be permitted only if they are inevitable. They shall be specified by statute.” This article has not yet been effectively implemented, but there have been enormous investments in improved railway infrastructure, particularly with regard to transalpine freight. In certain regards the ecological challenges to Swiss policymakers have been much less demanding than in other countries. Switzerland never had smokestack industries, and industrialization took place as a decentralized process; hence, Switzerland has no regions where industries with large emissions are concentrated.
The country’s record is mixed when looking across the broader environmental policy field, as the following items show (Knoepfel/Nahrath 2007: 706-708):
• Switzerland heads the international league in terms of water pollution control;
• Air quality has improved over the past 25 years, but limit values (of ozone or other substances) in various fields are frequently exceeded;
• Considerable success has been achieved in the area of waste policy. For example, Switzerland’s recycling rate is very high in international comparison;
• Noise pollution control has made little progress, with 25% to 30% of the population exposed to high levels of noise from road and rail traffic;
• Soil protection has improved;
• Average to high levels of success have been achieved in the area of chemical policy;
• The policy for the prevention of hazardous incidents has been very successful; and
• There has been little success in terms of nature conservation and landscape protection. The number of animal and plant species that have become extinct or are at the risk of extinction continues to increase.

Environmental issues are nominally a major concern of Czech governments, but key legislation is lacking on many areas outlined in the government’s State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic (2004 – 2010), which is intended to provide a consensual basis for future government actions. During the EU accession process, environmental protection assumed a high priority. However, following accession, spending on environmental protection has stagnated at around €800 million (CZK 20 billion) per year, a level clearly below the EU average. The Green Party was part of the Topolánek government, and placed stress on certain high-profile environmental issues, but its views were opposed by strong lobbies that cast doubt on whether global warming is taking place, and that see environmental rules imposed by the European Union as excessively restrictive. On a number of issues, other parties have effectively been waiting until the passage of elections that were expected to remove the Greens from any position of influence. Thus, no decision was made on the expansion of nuclear power, or on a removal of restrictions on open-pit mining in North Bohemia. The Green Party supported the Fischer government for a time, but the ministers it proposed resigned following a dispute over plans for reducing emission levels from a coal-fired power station, which the Green Party judged inadequate.

Environmental policy has gained further importance in Hungary. The general awareness of environmental issues has increased, not the least because of conflicts with Austria over cross-border pollution. EU requirements and funds have helped to address issues such as waste management, canalization or sewage systems, as well as to formulate and to develop medium-term strategies. A good case in point is the National Energy Saving Programme (Nemzeti Energiatakarékossági Program) within the framework of the National Strategy of Renewable Energy for 2008 – 2020. At the same time, however, environmental policy has suffered from tough fiscal consolidation. The tight public finances have become a strong restraint on any expansion of environmental policy in Hungary.

Japan was a global leader in terms of antipollution policy and energy conservation during the 1970s and 1980s, partially due to research and development and the forceful implementation of its breakthroughs, and partially to the relocation of polluting industries outside of Japan. More recently, Japan has been faced by two major concerns; first, how to contribute successfully to the global reduction of CO2 emissions, and second, how to improve the energy mix of the economy.

With regard to the Kyoto goals set for 2012, by 2005 Japan was already some 8% beyond the base level of 1990, unable to achieve any significant reduction compared to 1990 by the 2008 – 2012 reference period. In June 2009, then-Prime Minister Aso announced a medium-term target for 2020 of a 15% reduction compared to 1990 levels. In September 2009, Yukio Hatoyama received considerable international attention when, as the incoming prime minister, he repeated a pre-election DPJ pledge to achieve a 30% reduction in CO2 levels by 2020 as compared to 2005 (or 25% compared to 1990), on the condition that all major emitters reached a treaty setting fair and realistic reduction levels. Domestically, he faced considerable criticism from industrial associations and trade unions, because it was feared that such an ambitious reduction might only be realized by forsaking growth. Although the DPJ had promised to install a mandatory cap-and-trade regime, which would make industrial adjustment unavoidable, as well as introduce a carbon tax, the draft bill eventually released by the Environment Ministry in February 2010 did not contain a mandatory system; moreover, it was not specified which industries would be subject to the regime.

With respect to energy mix, LDP-led governments for many years supported a growing role for nuclear energy in electricity generation. However, after a number of accidents in power plants, it became more doubtful whether such a strategy would remain politically feasible. In a remarkable policy shift, Japan introduced a feed-in tariff system in November 2009 to support renewable energies; however, this is so far limited to solar power, with a relatively short guaranteed support period of 10 years. As of April 2010, the METI industry ministry was preparing a new framework plan for energy, which was said to aim for a rise in the share of emission-free electricity sources from the current 34% to 70% in 2030.

Sustainable governance has been declared to be one of the priorities of the 2009 government program. One important step in this direction is the creation of a super-ministry called the Ministry for Sustainable Development and Infrastructures. This will combine the former departments for the environment, transport, territorial planning and public works.
Luxembourg’s commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its emissions by 28% has had no real impact up until now. Per-capita CO2 emissions still are the highest in the OECD (three times the European OECD average). According to forecasts, Luxembourg will have to heavily buy pollution credits from the European Union greenhouse gas emissions trading system. Since 2007, and following the “polluters pay” principle, the annual vehicle road tax has been based on CO2 output and a tax on road transport fuel has been introduced, both dedicated to funding the Kyoto penalties. But as fuel prices remain significantly lower than those of neighboring countries, 75% of sales are made to non-residents. This so-called petrol pump tourism is reduced by increasing taxes; too slowly, however, according to environmental groups.
In its “Environmental Performance Review,” the OECD acknowledged the efforts of the government, especially the incentives to purchase cleaner cars and more energy-efficient household appliances, and the encouragement of energy savings and use of renewable energies in the home. It also welcomed the 2009 Action Plan to promote environmental research and the development of green technologies. The OECD report formulated a total of 41 recommendations (foster the “user pays” principle to improve water quality and reduce waste production; encourage sustainable farming, etc). It also pointed out the lack of coherence of some measures. For instance, the aforementioned actions to reduce fuel consumption are counterbalanced by generous deductions on income tax for commuters.

The United Kingdom has long had a very active environmental movement, though this has not been reflected by the emergence of a Green Party in Parliament, as has been the case in many other European countries. This is mostly due to an electoral system which disadvantages smaller parties without regionally concentrated support.

Sustainable development and environmental concerns have been the motive force for high-profile policies over the last decade, with the Brown government emphasizing in particular the international aspects of the former. At home, a number of “New Environmental Policy Instruments” (NEPIs) have been designed and implemented as part of a more general market-oriented approach to regulation. However, assessment of their implementation remains difficult, since successes in terms of environmental outcome indicators may have to do more with Britain’s relatively advanced deindustrialization and shift to a service economy than with environmental policy measures per se. A Sustainable Development Commission designed to monitor and promote environmental policies was established in 2003, and has since published a number of papers and proposals, although it does not have much of a media profile.

A relatively strict planning system has so far been very successful at protecting “green belts” around major conurbations, although this has meant costs in other areas (such as, but not limited to, the dysfunctional housing market and associated price gyrations). It remains to be seen whether recent policy initiatives such as personal carbon budgets, a carbon tax on flying and the construction of new “eco-towns” will survive the change in government and the present economic downturn.

The UK lags behind other countries with respect to its share of renewable energy sources in electricity generation, as was shown when targets were set by the EU in December 2008 for the Energy Policy for Europe. However, the UK is supportive of EU targets in this domain. It has also attracted censure from the EU for doing too little to ensure clean beaches, with water companies (responsible for sewage) appearing to be treated too leniently when they fail to meet obligations. Some progress has been made on recycling of domestic waste, although many policies tried or proposed by local authorities (such as bin taxes or less-frequent waste collections) have attracted hostile comment from segments of the press.

Environmental policy is traditionally given priority in Austria, at least rhetorically. The prohibition by law of the production of nuclear energy in Austria is perceived as a marker of the country’s vanguard role in defining environmental policy. Genetically engineered food is strongly opposed, and climate change is intensely discussed in Austria. Agricultural policy is increasingly considered to be an element of environmental policy. More or less all political parties – again, at least rhetorically– express strong commitment to improving the environment and preventing certain ecological dangers.
In reality, Austria is much less of a pioneer than the outside observer would expect. One example is the Kyoto Protocol: Austria is one of the very few
EU countries that has failed (and significantly so) to meet the goals of this international agreement. The reason is that the costs of environmental policy are less popular than the rhetoric. Progressive energy policies are rare, and green policies often fail once the Austrian public realizes the (personal) cost of such policies.
Austria has far to go to if it is to keep up with European standards (and developments) in environmental policies.

Belgian carbon dioxide (CO2) production has fallen in recent years, but this was primarily caused by a decline in industrial production rather a strong political focus on environmental policies. Car traffic is unlikely to fall in the near future, partly due to the poor management of public transports systems, partly to the state’s inability to internalize the externalities of car and truck transport (a dispute between regions about the best way to make cars pay for road use has not yet been resolved), and also partly to the country’s central location of the country (it serves as a “hub” and transit zone between the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and France). Therefore, the use of highways is still free of charge in the whole country. Moreover, there are plans to increase the highway capacity around Brussels, which would only displace the transportation difficulties (and increase the overall level of pollution).
Electricity production largely hinges on nuclear energy (55% of electricity generation in 2005). The 2003 law proposing a transition away from nuclear-power-derived electricity was struck down in 2009. Accounting methods have rendered this mode of production cost free for the producing firms (through accelerated depreciation of capital), which allows the state to tax this production highly. This budgetary dependence on nuclear energy makes the transition to renewable energy politically sensitive, even though many projects developing wind- and solar-based energy production are underway (private and public-private partnerships). Regarding water treatment, significant improvements have been made, even though Belgium has yet to meet its European obligations. The main improvement has been the opening of a third water-treatment plant near Brussels in 2008, which now allows the city to treat 100% of its waste water.

France shows a mediocre performance with respect to environmental targets. Its good performance on CO2 emissions is due to the importance of nuclear power, whereas other fields, such as isolation, energy economies and so on, have been neglected. Although a national strategy for sustainable development was set up in 2003, environmental policies continued to be subordinated to sectoral policies which are considered as more important.
Things changed when President Sarkozy launched an ambitious plan after his election in 2007 to build consensus between various environmental stakeholders. He took major initiatives at the international, European and national level. After some initial successes, the momentum has been lost in particular after the failure of the Copenhagen summit. On the national level, a carbon tax adopted in December 2008 faced many criticisms both from consumers (supported by the left) and from the business community and farmers (supported behind the scenes by a large percentage of the majority party). The final straw was inflicted by the Constitutional Council which ruled the bill as unconstitutional for not distributing in a fair way the additional costs related to the new tax. The government first declared that a revised version would be applicable in June 2010, but following the bad results in the regional elections it declared that the carbon tax would have to be European or not at all, a way of burying its initial ambitions. This major blow has contributed to downgrade environment from the top of the agenda. The economic crisis and the meager political gains have played their role in this new assessment of priorities.

By the start of the period under review, Ireland had in place a wide range of measures to protect and preserve the environment. These included the banning of smoky fuels from urban areas, a total ban on leaded petrol, a levy on plastic bags that had been a serious litter problem, and the introduction of environmental waste charges levied on households and businesses. The Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1992 as an independent public body dedicated to ensuring that Ireland’s environment is protected, monitoring changes in environmental trends, and detecting early warning signs of neglect or deterioration.
Ireland has signed up to the Gothenburg protocol and the EU national emission ceiling directive, which focuses on improvements in public health, and reductions in acidification and eutrophication. In 2007, a national environment program was released setting out the nation’s plan for compliance with EU goals in these areas.
Ireland is a part of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which will run until 2012 so as to coincide with the first Kyoto commitment period. While recession is not an instrument of environment policy, the severity of the current economic retraction has led to a sharp fall in emissions, waste, congestion and other environment problems.
The Green Party is a junior coalition partner in the government that was formed after the 2007 election, and can claim significant successes in some areas of environmental policy. The 2009 budget introduced a new basis for the annual road tax on cars, graduated according to carbon emissions. The only new tax introduced in the 2010 budget was a carbon tax of €15 per ton. Ambitious targets have been set for further reductions in greenhouse gases and the development of renewable energy. Measures were announced in April 2010 aimed at ensuring that 10% of the Irish automobile fleet will be comprised by electric vehicles by 2020. These incentives include the elimination of vehicle registration tax on these cars, a €5,000 additional incentive to encourage drivers to switch to electric vehicles, and the creation of 3,500 battery-charging points nationwide. This scheme has been criticized for being too costly relative to the environmental or other benefits it is likely to bestow.
The strains on the Irish environment became very evident during the extreme weather conditions during the winter of 2009 – 2010. First, exceptional concentrations of rainfall in parts of the country led to severe and protracted flooding. Controversy has revolved around the responsibility for the problem’s scale. Among the factors blamed were excessive construction on natural flood plains, inadequate management of rivers and other waterways, poor management of hydroelectric programs, and a general lack of environmental protection skills and resources among local authorities.
The second extreme weather event was the cold spell from mid-December 2009 to the end of February 2010, which was the coldest period on record since the early 1960s. In addition to the serious impairment of transport due to the inability to cope with snow and ice, a serious water shortage developed in the Dublin area due to water main damage and households’ practice of leaving water taps running to avert freezing. This highlighted the waste that results from a failure to charge for domestic water consumption. While it is not reasonable to make judgments based only on the experience of historically very rare events, these crises created the impression that Irish environmental policy had failed to protect the environment in certain basic ways.

The performance of New Zealand’s environmental policy is mixed at best. In the latest Environmental Performance Index of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (Yale University) and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) (Columbia University) for 2010 the country ranked fifteenth, while it had been higher placed in earlier reports (although part of the differences result from methodological changes). Particular problems stem from water management. One response has been the reform of the Resource Management Act 2009, which assigns a stronger steering role to the national government and introduces an Environmental Protection Authority. An emission trading scheme that had been established by the former government in fall 2008 has been reformed by the new National-led government to expand the implementation period and to lessen the consequences for industry and consumers.

In Poland, concerns over environmental issues have been relatively low. The Tusk government has placed greater emphasis on environmental protection than its predecessor, not the least because of EU requirements, but it has clearly prioritized economic goals. Since Poland’s energy sector relies strongly on coal, the government has consistently opposed ambitious EU plans to reduce CO2 emissions. Official announcements to invest in “clean energy,” as they were made by Prime Minister Tusk after the December 2008 U.N. climate conference in Poznań, were not followed up by measures taken. The sale of unused emission rights to Spain and Ireland was heavily criticized by the EU. The disregard of environmental issues led to the resignation of environmental minister Maciej Nowicki in 2009.

The period under review was marked by considerable improvement in terms of Portugal’s environmental performance. Portugal had overshot the Kyoto target for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 11% in 2007. In 2008, this excess fell to 5%, and the government estimates that it will fall further, to between 3% and 3.5%, by 2012.
This drop is in part a reflection of the period’s state of economic crisis, which has led to lower levels of polluting activities such as road transport (which was also affected by rising gasoline prices). However, it is also a reflection of policy choices. Prime Minister José Sócrates made the development of renewable energy sources a key priority in this period, and this policy is beginning to show results. Portugal ranked 10th in the Ernst & Young Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Indices of 2009, ahead of Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, among others. Wind power provided 15% of Portugal’s electricity in 2009, and the country has the world’s first commercial wave farm, which officially opened in September 2008. Portugal’s renewable energy policy objectives for the period 2007 – 2020 are particularly ambitious, including the European Union’s most ambitious carbon dioxide emissions target.

The Obama administration came into office pledging to fundamentally reform environmental and energy policies. Together with health care reform, these policies promised the clearest break with those of the Bush administration. First steps were taken in February 2009’s stimulus package, which included roughly $100 billion for environmental and energy efficiency measures, ranging from support for building insulation to incentives for renewable energies and the construction of a smart grid. The Obama administration indicated its intention to push for climate change policy in its first budget message to Congress, but left most specifics to the legislative process. In June 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which mandated the introduction of a cap-and-trade system with a binding ceiling for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The cap would reduce emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83% by 2050. Initially, only 17% of certificates would be auctioned, while the rest would be distributed for free, primarily to regulated public utilities to soften the impact on electricity prices for consumers. By 2030, 70% of certificates would be auctioned. The bill also includes off-setting and other cost containment mechanisms, as well as a border tax adjustment mechanism to deal with carbon leakage and competitiveness issues. In addition, the law requires new targets for the use of renewables by utilities. The bill would impact most significantly the energy sector, which would comprise 80% of GHG reductions, but the final effect would depend on the efficacy of carbon capture and sequestration, and the extent to which atomic energy use can be expanded.
In the Senate, there are various bills in discussion which need to be consolidated in one measure. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009, which draws heavily from the ACES Act and establishes a cap-and-trade system, has been reported out of committee, but final passage is uncertain as Republican support is dwindling and 14 Democratic senators from coal and industrial states are pushing for much weaker GHG-reduction levels and special treatment for coal through CCS-support. The Senate bill, introduced by Senators John Kerry and Joe Liebermann in early May 2010, is also based on reductions of 17% and 80% for 2020 and 2050 respectively, but seeks carbon reductions from separate sectors of the economy rather than imposing a nationwide limit. It also provides greater support for nuclear energy (regulatory insurance) and for off-shore drilling, with an opt-out for states. The measure died in the Senate in July 2010.
In international climate diplomacy, the Obama administration has made it clear that it will not sign the Kyoto Protocol, but will look for a new treaty architecture that entails legally binding commitments for emerging market countries. The administration is also not wholly wedded to the U.N. process, but would consider alternatives such as a forum of the largest 18-20 emitters. This represents a continuation of Bush administration policies.

Environmental policy in Australia has focused very much in recent years on climate change. Climate change has had particular consequences for Australia, producing longer, dryer summers, with associated droughts and bushfires. During the prolonged drought that affected most of eastern Australia between 2003 and 2009, much attention was directed towards water security. In order to preserve water in urban areas, legislation has been passed to mandate gray water recycling in new homes, impose restrictions on the use of water for washing cars and watering gardens, and several states have invested in desalination plants. The use of water for agriculture has been severely restricted, particularly for water-intensive industries such as cotton, rice, fruit and vegetables. An attempt to establish an authority to oversee water use on the Murray-Darling Basin was only partially successful, due to opposition from several of the states who feared reduced water licenses would impact on their water-dependent industries.

A federal Department of Climate Change was established in 2007, and charged with mitigating the effects of climate change. A report was commissioned from an economist, Ross Garnaut, and its 2008 report, The Garnaut Climate Change Review, recommended the introduction of an emissions-trading scheme that included transportation but not agriculture, and recommended that emissions permits should be sold competitively and not allocated free to carbon polluters. Following the release of a white paper in December 2008, the government proposed legislation to introduce a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a cap and trade system. The bill was defeated in the upper house, the Senate, in December 2009 and has not been reintroduced.

A case can be made that the biggest environmental policy failure lies in the area of greenhouse gas emissions, which have continued to rise Canada from a high base. At the national level, a carbon tax does not appear to be in serious consideration at this time. The electorate rejected such a tax when it was put forward by Liberal leader Stephane Dion during the 2008 federal election. The environmental risks associated with the massive development of the Alberta oil sands have also been ignored, much to Canada’s embarrassment on the world stage. A classic example of government neglect of the issue of natural resource sustainability was the depletion of the cod stocks off the coast of Newfoundland, which resulted in a moratorium of cod fishing in 1992, still in effect today.

Chile has environmental legislation and regulations in place that operate haphazardly and bureaucratically in practice. Beginning in 2010, the country will introduce a modern system of environmental institutions. For example, the former National Commission for Environmental Issues (Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente) will be transformed into a ministry. However, Chile’s environmental policy is basically designed to comply with standards required by international markets, and thus does not necessarily focus on aspects such as ecological sustainability. Chile’s environmental policy-making process is also exposed to domestic political pressure from private sector interests (mining, power generation, industry, fishing, forestry and agriculture), which often block the protection and preservation of ecosystems and attempts to preserve environmental quality.

Italy’s environmental record is mixed. With regards to CO2 emissions in comparison to GDP, and the percentage of renewable sources in its overall energy mix, Italy ranks among the best performers. On other dimensions, such as water efficiency and waste management, it fares less well. In general, environmental policies were not a strong priority for the government during the period of evaluation. However, the government did devote substantial energy to solving the waste emergency that had developed in the region of Campania and in the city of Naples under the previous government. Particularly in the field of waste management, disparities between northern and central Italy on one side and southern Italy on the other remain significant. In the field of renewable energies, where Italy traditionally fares well thanks to its large hydroelectric (and geothermic) plants, promotion of new sources such as solar or eolic energy has been limited. The government has provided some incentives for sustainable house building, and has started to discuss a return to nuclear energy with the purpose of further reducing CO2 emissions. However, this policy remains in the very early stages of implementation.
A highly motorized nation (worldwide, Italy has among the highest numbers of cars per capita) and poor short-, medium- and long-haul public transport make life in Italian cities very difficult, as well as the transport of goods and persons across Italy. Smog, particulate matter, poor air quality, traffic jams and car-crowded city centers undermine the quality of life significantly in Italian towns. In many parts of Italy, waste water flows unfiltered into rivers or the sea. Erosion is even more a danger in many parts of Italy than in the last period under review. Soil sealing continues in an excessive way across the country. Perhaps more so than any other policy area, the environment demands an immediate strategy and corresponding political action.

Mexico does have an awareness of environmental policy. It has signed up to the Kyoto agreement, and explicitly addresses the issue of sustainable development in its 2007 – 2012 development plan. The Mexican national environmental agency has a fairly sophisticated understanding of the major issues. Calderón himself has made protection of the environment one of his government’s priorities, and may be leading public opinion at this point. However, Mexico has some real environmental problems. There is a rural population under economic pressure, and soil erosion is a real problem. Mexico City is very large, and has potential problems with air quality –though it must be said that the more extreme forecasts made a generation ago have not been borne out. The provision of clean water to Mexico City is a problem, and there is a small proportion of rural Mexico that lacks access to clean water altogether. It can also be difficult for the authorities to provide sufficient financial resources to invest sufficiently in the supply of clean water. Even though a regime of charging for water is in place, it is often difficult to collect on bills, and there are political pressures keeping water prices low (sometimes too low). There has been some attempt to privatize the provision of water supply, with mixed results. Moreover, in more general terms, there are issues of enforcement and jurisdiction that create problems. Municipalities have been given some environmental responsibilities as part of a process of decentralization, but without sufficient training at the municipal level. Inspection regimes therefore vary in quality depending on the locality. It is also difficult to regulate powerful state companies such as PEMEX.

In the Netherlands, 90% of environmental improvements derive from the application of clean technologies in production and transportation. This will not change in the future. In the short term, the environment will benefit from the economic recession, especially with regard to emissions and air quality. In the long run, the crisis will have negative effects on the environment as it will slow the development of environmentally friendly techniques. The environmental policy goals set for 2015 will be partially met. Most 2020 goals, however, are not within reach and require a readjustment of current policy strategies. Readjustment will render short-term goals concerning emissions of greenhouse gasses and other air polluters feasible. The same applies to noise reduction. Fundamental policy change is needed, however, in the fields of energy conservation, renewable energy alternatives, surface water quality, soil protection, biodiversity and odor pollution in order to meet long term goals. In most cases, this demands that new green technologies – many of which are applied only in protected experimental arenas – be implemented.

Spain’s environmental policy outcomes are at best mixed. Despite a positive trend in the use of renewable energy, Spanish and European targets have not yet been achieved. Indeed, clean energy use remained under 8% of total energy supply in 2008, while the 2020 target of 22.7%, as proposed by the National Renewable Energy Action Plan 2011 – 2020 currently under discussion, seems far too ambitious. The decrease in CO2 emissions in 2008 and 2009 not only reflects a change in the national energy model, but also the effects of the economic crisis.

The government’s concerns over a high level of energy dependency (Spain currently imports 100% of its oil, and approximately 81% of its total primary energy consumption) have led to the Energy Efficiency and Saving Action Plan 2008 – 2012. Among other provisions, this encourages the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with florescent ones, and holds financial incentives such as the Plan VIVE to promote innovative and environmentally friendly vehicles. The Spanish government is pioneering support for electric vehicles at the European level, as the Comprehensive National Strategy to Promote Electric Vehicles suggests. Moreover, it has shown itself to be seriously committed to adapting national policy to European directives in this field. As a result, the National River Restoration Strategy and the National Integrated Plan for Solid Waste Management 2008 – 2015 were recently approved, and a draft law to transpose the 2009 European Commission directive to enable environmentally safe capture and geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) is currently under discussion.

On the negative side, it is not clear how effective the country’s 2007 air quality strategy has been to date, and the interbasin water transfers between the Tajo and Segura rivers can be seen as a step backward in terms of water treatment policy, desalination and the “AGUA” program. All in all, important problems concerning water scarcity, deforestation and air pollution remain unresolved. Moreover, a pricing policy aimed at encouraging energy saving has not been sufficiently exploited. Environmental organizations have raised concerns that economic stimulus measures launched in 2008 and 2009 did not always take environmental impact into consideration.

Environmental policy has not been a high priority on Iceland’s political agenda. The Ministry of the Environment was established only in 1990. The present government has decided to rename the ministry the Ministry of Environment and Resources. Icelandic law does not say much about or guarantee the protection, preservation and sustainability of natural resources. The country is rich in energy and water resources on land, and has substantial sea fisheries. There has been little discussion over the years about ways to preserve these energy and water resources, reflecting an apparently rather widespread belief that these resources are more or less unlimited. However, since the mid-1980s, the government has taken action to limit overfishing by setting quotas. Environmentalists’ opposition to using geothermal or hydropower to drive large aluminum smelters has grown rapidly since the controversial Kárahnjúkar power plant project of 2003 – 2008. Since entering the government in early 2009, the Left Green Movement (Vinstri hreyfingin grænt framboð) has been in charge at the Ministry of the Environment, exercising or at least expressing a more careful approach to nature as well as a reluctance to grant permission to new energy projects.

The Fico government’s record in environmental policy is mixed. On the one hand, it adopted some much-awaited measures such as an amendment to the Law on Waste (2008), a new Law on Packaging Waste (2008) or an Action Plan for Biomass Use for the period 2008-2013. On the other hand, the implementation of environmental programs in Slovakia has remained patchy. The number of infringements on EU environmental legislation doubled from 8 in 2007 to 15 in 2008. Moreover, the high dependence on Russian gas and the resulting shortages in the wake of the Russian-Ukrainian gas war in winter 2008/2009 led the government to consider some controversial measures in order to improve Slovakia’s energy security. Prime Minister Fico pushed for restarting the Jaslovské Bohunice nuclear plant, which had been shut down at the end of 2008 for security reasons within the framework of EU accession. While this plan eventually fell victim to broad domestic and international protest, the government approved the building of a new coal-fired power plant, which will increase total greenhouse gas emissions considerably and is thus difficult to reconcile with the country’s international commitments to limiting climate change.

Environmental policies are currently insufficient to protect the environment or to preserve the sustainability of resources. In the last two years, contradictory trends concerning environmental policies have emerged. On the one hand, the current Lee administration has put “green growth” at the center of its agenda, and environmental policies have entered the political mainstream. The government is strongly supporting new technologies and is helping Korean companies to develop “green” products such as hybrid and electrical vehicles and LED-based lighting and displays. The Seoul government has also promised to drastically expand bike paths, although most of these paths are planned for recreational use and will thus reduce commuter traffic only marginally. Public transportation is also steadily improving, with new subway lines and an airport railway under construction.
On the other hand, much of this so-called green growth can be seen as simply a new name for industrial and infrastructure policies. A considerable amount of the investment associated with the drive has been earmarked for the environmentally very controversial Four Rivers Project, which includes the construction of artificial waterways and dams. Huge amounts of public funds are also being used to develop, build and export new nuclear power plants. Furthermore, whenever environmental policies have conflicted with business interests, the environment has clearly taken a back seat.
Despite the need to account for the costs of environmental degradation in energy prices, the Korean government actually lowered the gasoline tax in 2008 following the international rise in oil prices. Korea has shown the OECD’s largest increase in CO2 emissions since the 1990s. In 2009, Korea announced that it plans to reduce or at least slow the increase in the country’s CO2 emissions; however, there has been little appetite shown for moving Korea from its developing country status in the Kyoto protocol into the Annex 1 category.

The 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranks Turkey 77th of 163 countries. Industrialization and unplanned urbanization, combined with a high birth rate, has led to a number of environmental issues. Total public sector environmental expenditures increased from TRY 4 million to TRY 9 million, 47.5% of which represented investment costs. The country’s greenhouse gas production increased from 170.1 million tons of CO2 to 372.6 million tons. Emissions originate basically from the energy sector, with an increasing trend line. Due to climate change, a significant part of the country is threatened by drought and desertification. Consequently these lands are faced with a very severe danger of erosion. Water resources are rapidly decreasing and deteriorating. Each year, between 20,000 and 25,000 acres of forest are damaged due to fires and 1-2 a cres of forest are opened to farming. Although thermal power stations in Turkey are the third largest source of carbon emissions there, new thermal power stations are planned. The sustainability of water dams are questioned due to their negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts. The environmental impact of gold mining and health concerns about genetically modified seeds are other issues of public concern.
Turkey has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and the 2009 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Environmental impact assessments have not yet been fully implemented. Transposition of the EU’s strategic environmental assessment policies has not yet taken place. Municipalities in particular have invested highly in drinking water and domestic waste collection systems. However, air quality, water quality, industrial solid waste, medical waste management and the public’s concerns with genetically modified organisms have received limited attention from the government.
Although Turkey signed the Kyoto Protocol in February 2009, it emerged only two months later that planning for 46 new thermal power stations was continuing. A number of the already existing 15 plants have a long history of environmental scandal, and court cases on the issue are pending, partially at the European Court of Human Rights. Turkey also favors hydroelectric power stations. However, at the time of writing, none of the three biggest current dam construction projects – the Yusufeli dam, the Konaktepe dam, and the Ilısu dam – had yet drafted their mandatory environmental impact reports. For other branches of renewable energy, particularly wind power and solar energy, an amendment to the Renewable Energy Law expected to enhance government support was long ago announce, but appears to have been forgotten.

The fact that Greece was never an advanced industrial economy has probably protected the quality of its environment, at least in comparison with the more industrialized OECD countries. Even to this day, close to 13% of the Greek workforce works in the agricultural sector.
Although Greece is not a heavily industrialized country, it produces a relatively large quantity of CO2 emissions. It ranks 21st among the 31 OECD countries according to the size of CO2 emissions in proportion to GDP. The contribution of renewable energy sources to Greece’s energy mix is low, at approximately one-third of the OECD average.
These patterns are probably related to the fast economic growth (4% annually in 2003 –2007), which has meant increased consumption and waste. In the largest urban centers in particular, namely Athens and Thessaloniki, where more than 50% of the population lives, the deterioration of environmental quality is visible in the low air quality and the large quantities of waste left in the streets. The latter is a problem related not only to the overproduction of waste, but also to inefficient waste management on the part of municipal authorities. Along the Greek coastline, the intensification of construction for tourism and private leisure purposes (such as second homes built and owned by the upper social strata), has also had a negative impact on the environment.
The recurrence of forest fires across Greece during the summer months is related to the conflicting interests of prospective builders and landowners on the one hand, and the state’s struggle to protect the environment during periods of considerable heat and dryness on the other. Illegal building and profit-seeking highlight the ineffectiveness of state actions.
Until 2009, environmental policy was a secondary government policy priority. Environmental protection was subsumed under the authority of the Minister for Public Works and Town Planning. After the October 2009 government turnover, a new Ministry of Environment was founded by PASOK. During the fall 2009 electoral campaign, PASOK’s electoral program emphasized the creation of a “Green Economy.” The dire financial situation, which became clear in the winter of 2009 – 2010, has of course limited the prospects for an economically sustainable new environmental policy.