The European Union solves best for OTEC – current infrastructure and large-scale funding prove

EU support is critical to sustain offshore renewable revolution

Real time news website tracking the renewable energy market, “EU action ‘key to marine success’,”6/10/14, http://renews.biz/68000/eu-action-key-to-marine-success/

European Union Currently Leads Renewable technology

Europe leading investment in clean tech leadership now, key to their energy independence and economic well being

Space Elevators

The EU solves best for space elevators – most funding being provided

EUSPEC 14, European Space Elevator Challenge, nearest date given is 2014, EUSPEC is an organization that has provided a challenge for who can create the most efficient, effective, and cheap method for establishing a space elevator, “Background Information,” http://euspec.warr.de/background?lang=en, NN

The fundamental idea of the “space elevator” goes back to 1895, when the scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky considered building a tower from the surface of the Earth and reaching into the geostationary orbit of space. The Artsutanov paper – 1960 – proposed a way to build a tensile structure to the geostationary orbit of space. The aim was and still is, among other objectives, to deliver payload – for example equipment, items, satellites etc. - to space in an economically viable way. This idea could be an alternative solution to the expansive use of rockets. The actual concept of the space elevator system includes a tether reaching from the surface of the Earth to the geostationary orbit. To keep the tether taut by means of gravitational and rotational forces, the center of mass of the space elevator has to be kept above this orbit. A climber is attached to the tether, which carries the payload up to the space station or to the satellite. The energy supply is planned to be realized by “power beaming” (such as laser), as well as using solar cells. European Space Elevator Challenge The challenge is to establish a climber structure in compliance with predetermined requirements (see General Rules and Requirements). Our focus is on: the efficiency of the climber the technical implementation of the climber (especially payload systems) aspects which directly impact the development of the “real” space elevator system Our main aims of the European Space Elevator Challenge are: to inspire young engineers and scientists with the idea of the space elevator system and moreover to establish a larger European space elevator community to increase our understanding of the space elevator system by exchanging experiences, -also utilizing these experiences for the development of a real space elevator system to introduce the space elevator concept to the public These aims are considered as long-term goals and cannot be accomplished with one competition. Hence, our goal is to organize the European Space Elevator Challenge annually. The European challenge offers participants the opportunity to participate in two while later competitions will have up to four levels (see also section 3 General Rules and Requirements). The Organizers Space Elevator Team The European Space Elevator Challenge is organized by WARR, the Scientific Workgroup for Rocketry and Spaceflight of the Technische Universität München (TUM). The members are mostly enrolled and alumni students from different institutes of the TUM. WARR was founded in 1962 and is the oldest scientific workgroup of the TUM. The aim of WARR is to provide its members with the opportunity to accomplish scientific work as an addition to their studies.

The EU is leading space elevator development – most funding and infrastructure

Hollingham 12, Richard Hollingham, 8/20/12, Hollingham is a scientific researcher and staff writer for the BBC, “Space elevators: Going up?” http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120817-space-elevators-going-up, NN

The Russians don’t do countdowns. For the final few seconds before launch those of us watching just hold our breath and stand well back. I find several thousand kilometres back at the European Space Agency’s mission control in Germany to be safest. When ignition comes, the launcher is engulfed in clouds of toxic orange smoke before it rises through the inferno and accelerates into the clouds. Many of these Russian rockets, such as the Cosmos and Rockot launchers, are converted from missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads. Given that their launch would originally have signalled the end of the world, I don’t suppose the toxicity of the smoke was a major design consideration. Rockets are dangerous, complicated and relatively unreliable. No-one has yet built a launcher that is guaranteed to work every time. A misaligned switch, loose bolt or programming error can lead to disaster or, with a human crew, a potential tragedy. Rockets are also incredibly expensive - even the cheapest launch will set you back some $12 million, meaning the cost of any cargo costs a staggering $16,700 per kilogram. Although the funky new space planes being developed, such as Britain’s Skylon or Virgin’s SpaceShipTwo, will slash the costs of getting into space, they are still based on rocket technology – using sheer brute force to escape the clutches of gravity. But there is a radical alternative. Science fiction fans have long been familiar with space elevators. Popularised by Arthur C Clarke, the concept of an elevator from the Earth to orbit has been around for more than a century. In the space operas of Iain M Banks or Alastair Reynolds, space elevators are pretty much taken for granted – they’re what advanced civilisations use to leave their planets. These futuristic engineering feats consist of a cable – also known as a ribbon or tether - of material stretching from the Earth’s surface into orbit. An anchor and Earth’s gravity at the lower end, and a counterweight and centrifugal force at the top end keep the elevator’s “cable” taut and stationary over ground station. Robotic ‘climbers’ would then pull themselves up the ribbon from the surface, through the stratosphere and out into space, potentially powered by lasers. The climbers could carry satellites up and bring minerals from the moon, or asteroids, back. They could take tourists into orbit or convey astronauts on the first part of their journey to the stars. No longer would space exploration be held back by gravity or rely on smelly, dangerous and expensive rockets. “You could take a ride for the cost of a first class airline ticket,” exclaims David Horn, the Conferences Chair of the International Space Elevator Consortium (ISEC). Estimates suggest that the cost of sending cargo into space could plummet to around $100 per kilogram. “A primary school could have a bake sale to cover the costs of sending a class science experiment into space.” Or, by selling enough cakes, even the entire class. ISEC has been organising space elevator conferences for the past ten years – the latest will be held in Seattle later this month. They are attended by scientists, engineers and students from around the world, including those from various national space agencies like Nasa. There are also annual conferences in Europe and Japan and technical papers on various aspects of space elevators are published every year. "There’s global interest,” says Horn. “Reducing the cost to access space will change the global economy.” Which would be wonderful, but how much of this interest is just wishful thinking?

Tidal Power

The EU is establishing more infrastructure for tidal power – that solves

EurActiv 14, EurActiv, 4/2/14, EurActiv is a British news source that primarily writes about energy concerns, “Ocean energy chief: Wave and tidal power can boost European industry,” http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/ocean-energy-chief-wave-and-tidal-power-can-boost-european-industry-301314, NN

To commercially deploy ocean energy technology will require €500 million in investment before 2020, grid roll-outs, a common European framework, public-private partnerships and, ideally, feed-in tariffs, Remi Gruet told EurActiv. But its advantages could more than outweigh that. Remi Gruet is the policy and operations director for Ocean Energy Europe What policy progress have we seen since the EU’s Ocean Energy action plan was announced in January? Quite a bit, The Commission and Ocean Energy Europe worked together to design the energy forum [for 2016] in a way that would enable industry, the Commission and member states to identify core issues and solutions for the sector, and implement them. We have two meetings planned - one in Brussels this Friday, 4 April, and one in Dublin on 11 June, and these will gather stakeholders, industry representatives, academics, think tanks, member states and the Commission together. What is the forum’s purpose? The forum was flagged in the EU’s action plan. Its objective is to identify core issues and implement solutions. Deliverables are a market deployment strategy and at the end of the forum, hopefully an industry initiative at the EU level. If we manage to reach that stage, it will be a success. The forum will include three workstreams – technology, markets & finance, and infrastructural and environmental issues. What impact has it had on investment so far? Investment will tend to come towards the end of the forum. At the moment it is driven by member state policies supporting the sector. The Commission’s announcement was not aimed at driving investment so much as raising awareness and putting the right people together so they could work out how to get the investments going. What do you think the industry initiative could look like? It is a bit early to answer that. Our objective is to leverage €500 million by 2020 and the roadmap can deliver part of that objective. We hope that it will get member states together to agree on the framework for supporting ocean energy. That needs to be concerted so that we have a very good result at European level, and we have competition across countries that are interested in the sector. What we need is a consistent framework across different countries so companies are not jumping from one framework to another and have better access to projects than at the moment. The procedural part of the forum is important. There are lots of issues around grid connections and the time it takes to get consent. All of that has an impact on the cost of energy in the end. The more streamlined the procedures are and the easier the access to finance is, then obviously the lower the cost of energy in the end. Which Ocean Energy sectors are likely to benefit the most - tidal, salinity gradient or ocean thermal energy? We expect all technologies to benefit. Solutions currently tend to be focused on tidal and wave as they are closest to market at present, but we want to go beyond those and include all other technologies as well. What sort of targets and timeframe for the industrial development of the sector are you hoping for in 2016? A target of providing 100GW in ocean energy by 2050 is our long term vision but by 2025, we also have a target for the market roll-out of ocean energies. By 2015, we expect to have a few of those technologies being reliable enough to be deployed. By 2020 we expect to have a better cost-confidence and by 2025, we expect to have market rollout beginning with the first cost-competitive commercial farms. You used to work for the European Wind Energy Agency, what similarities and differences do you find with ocean energy? There is a really important similarity in that it is highly likely that these technologies are going to be built in Europe by European companies. If you look at the wind sector, over 90% of turbines installed in Europe are sold by European companies – including 100% of offshore turbines. That is because of similarities in the types of device we are talking about – bulky devices that are heavy and require specific investment and a high level of knowledge to handle. These are not solar panels on the roof. They are big things that you need cranes and ships to move. Because of the similarities, I expect the EU market to be controlled by EU players, which from an economic crisis and industrial developments perspective is a good thing. For me, that is a key parallel to be made between wind and ocean energies. You can see this already in market - Alstom, Siemens, GDF Suez and the utilities involved, and even smaller companies like Aquamarine Power on the wave side, they are EU players testing and installing here. Is work on Ocean Energy public-private partnerships going on beneath the radar? There is lots of discussion around innovative finance in the sector. Historically it has relied on grants but companies have also invested over €600 million euros in the last seven years. We estimate that there has been €80 million of public funds invested in the last few years as well. Private funding is much higher at the moment and one key area the forum will look at is how to leverage private finance using public money - not just in grants but loans but through risk sharing, funds and facilities etcetera.

The EU is leading the tidal power industry – UK developments in the field prove

McGrath 13, Matt McGrath, 1/13/13, McGrath is an environmental consultant for the BBC, “UK tidal power has huge potential, say scientists,” http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20983645, NN

The UK is underestimating the amount of electricity that could be generated from tidal sources, new research says. The analysis says that estuary barrages and tidal streams could provide more than 20% of the nation's demand for electricity. Despite high costs, experts say tidal power is more reliable than wind. The predictable nature of tides makes them an ideal renewable energy source, the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A reports. But finding effective ways of utilising their latent power have proved elusive. Continue reading the main story “ Start Quote Start small, learn quick and build up” Dr Nicholas Yates National Oceanography Centre Essentially, engineers try to tap tides in two ways: one involves building barrages across tidal estuaries that use the ebb and flow of the waters to turn turbines - a major project of this type had been proposed for the River Severn. The other method involves planting turbines underwater in fast flowing tidal streams in areas such as in coastal waters around Cornwall and Scotland. Smaller better In the Royal Society report, researchers say they are "extremely optimistic" that both types of technology can be realised and relatively soon. La Rance tidal station (Getty Images) La Rance in Brittany, France, is the site of the world's first tidal power station "From tidal barrages you can reasonably expect you can get 15% of UK electricity needs, that's a very solid number," co-author Dr Nicholas Yates from the National Oceanography Centre told BBC News. "On top of that there is a 5% tidal stream figure, and with future technological development that is likely to be an underestimate in my view," he said. The massive Severn estuary tidal barrage scheme had been rejected by the coalition government because of its environmental impact, but ministers have indicated they are open to review the idea. Despite his faith in the idea of barrages, Dr Yates, who carried out the research with colleagues at the University of Liverpool, says he is against building one across the Severn. "I think it's unfortunate that attention for tidal range has tended to focus on the Severn, it's the wrong place to start, it's too big," he said. "Start small, it's what the Danes did with wind - start small, learn quick and build up.". Developing power from offshore tidal streams is fraught with difficulty, as the BBC discovered when reporting on the emerging industry in Scotland last year. Better than wind But according to the authors of the latest research, 2013 could see a big breakthrough in tidal stream power. A company called MeyGen is planning to deploy tidal stream technology in the Pentland Firth that will initially generate up to 40MW of electricity, enough to power about 38,000 homes. "This is a crucial milestone for us, it will be the first array of tidal stream turbines," observed report co-author Professor AbuBakr Bahaj from the University of Southampton. "It will be a viable proposition for us in energetic areas of the sea - it will be give us another element in the energy mix that's more reliable than wind." Another key element that researchers have looked at in this research is the quality of the power produced by tidal sources. The SeaGen project in Northern Ireland is the largest grid connected tidal turbine in the world. Analysts have been looking to see if the power produced suffered from flicker, caused by loads that vary. It's an established problem with older wind energy turbines and something that causes consumers great annoyance when it happens to their lights. "In general, the results were very good, the flicker levels were quite low," said Joseph MacEnri from ESB International who assessed SeaGen. "Overall this device behaves like a modern, well-behaved wind turbine." While the report paints a positive future for tidal power, a critical element is money. In the past month ,the EU has announced funding in the region of £30m for two UK tidal projects. Investors in tidal technology are currently rewarded with a payment of £40 per megawatt hour for energy generated from renewables, but this scheme will end in 2017. According to Prof Bahaj, this could have serious implications for the nascent industry. "It depends on the subsidy. Without it, it wouldn't stack up financially."

Warming

EU Success in Clean Tech uniquely key to solve warming, U.S doesn’t have the legitimacy to encourage global action to solve

Parker ’10 [August 12 2010, Charles F Parker is a faculty member of theDepartment of Government at Uppsala University,
“Climate Change and the European Union's Leadership Moment: An Inconvenient Truth?” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02080.x/full]

The EU's goal, as it states in its own words, is nothing short of ‘[l]eading global action’ against climate change ‘to 2020 and beyond’ with the aim of limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (Council, 2007, pp. 10–11). The Union, in its quest to play a leading role in international climate protection, has provided high-profile support for the Kyoto Protocol and is now vigorously throwing its diplomatic weight behind the effort to successfully negotiate a comprehensive successor arrangement. In the late 1980s, the US began to disengage from international environmental governance and under George W. Bush's administration the US completely abdicated its leadership role, particularly in the area of climate change. The EU has stepped into this void and has attempted to shoulder the mantle of leadership. How exactly has the EU attempted to lead the global efforts to combat climate change? An examination of the EU's actions reveals that it has deployed all three modes of leadership in important ways, but it has primarily relied on directional leadership. In terms of structural leadership the EU – the world's largest market, largest exporter, most generous aid donor and largest foreign investor – is well endowed to offer economic, technological and diplomatic incentives. The EU's vast internal market underpins all Union action, provides it with a powerful bargaining chip and gives it an excellent potential to create and alter incentives. The ability to act as a gatekeeper for those who want access to the EU market and the ability to enforce EU standards on trading partners is an extremely valuable power resource. The sheer scale of the internal market also means that the EU can offer and take actions that will have a dramatic environmental impact. Despite these advantages, the EU has struggled to translate its material resources into influence. This difficulty can in part be attributed to the EU's unique characteristics – its status as an intergovernmental actor and the challenges this presents for truly acting as a Union – and highlights how its leadership efforts are enabled and constrained by its complex agency-structure dynamics. As others have demonstrated, the EU's leadership impact has not been commensurate with its structural power (Elgström, 2007). Nonetheless, it was the EU's ability to leverage its structural leadership that played an integral role in its successful mission to salvage the Kyoto Protocol. In 2001 President Bush attempted to scuttle the Kyoto Protocol by announcing that the US was withdrawing from further involvement with it. The EU responded to Bush's gambit by taking on the mission to save the Protocol. In the face of US hostility and opposition, the EU successfully rounded up enough followers for the Protocol to enter into force. It was the EU's support for Russian WTO membership that was the final carrot that induced Russia to ratify the Protocol, which paved the way for Kyoto to enter into force (Vogler, 2005). An EU–Russian energy deal that would nearly double the price of Russian natural gas by 2010 was also a vital sweetener. As President Putin noted at the time: ‘The European Union has made concessions on some points during the negotiations on the WTO. This will inevitably have an impact on our positive attitude to the Kyoto process. We will speed up Russia's movement towards ratifying the Kyoto Protocol’.1 In the run-up to the 2009 Copenhagen conference, the EU once again displayed a willingness to exercise its structural leadership. On the inducement side, it promised funding to developing countries for actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change if a satisfactory post-2012 agreement was reached (Council, 2008b, pp. 6–7). Conversely, the spectre of imposing border tax adjustments on goods from countries with less stringent climate regulations has been raised by the French as well as Commission President Barroso (BBC News, 2008a). The Union's power resources also play a role in the second and historically most important leadership mode: directional leadership or leading by example. The EU, drawing on its capacity and potential to act, has attempted to demonstrate its commitment to fighting climate change by adopting a number of binding measures to reduce its emissions without corresponding reductions in other countries. The EU has also taken unilateral action by making the first move in putting future commitments on the table and putting into place policy instruments, such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS). Under the Kyoto Protocol, the 38 industrialized countries are required to reduce their emissions by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The EU-15 agreed to an even larger target, committing to a collective GHG emissions reduction of 8 per cent. Prior to the start of serious international negotiations for the post-2012 arrangements the Union took autonomous action to drastically reduce its emissions. At its 2007 spring summit the EU launched its 20-20-20 by 2020 plan (Council of the European Union, 2007, pp. 10–23). The EU committed to reduce its emissions by at least 20 per cent by 2020 and it dangled the carrot of increasing that cut up to 30 per cent if a satisfactory global agreement was reached. The EU also committed to increasing its share of renewable energy to 20 per cent and improving its energy efficiency by 20 per cent by 2020. In January 2008 the Commission released a blueprint for implementing and achieving these goals. Eleven months later the work carried out under the co-decision procedure produced a first-reading agreement on an energy and climate package. The EU has also developed and, in 2005, launched the EU-ETS. This established the world's largest company-level market for trading CO2 emissions. The EU, which sees itself as the world leader in this emerging market wants the EU-ETS to serve as the ‘pillar of a global carbon trading network’ (Commission, 2007, p. 2). It further envisions a future framework that enables comparable emission trading arrangements in different regions to be linked together. The EU, which sees the ETS as a vital tool for developed countries to reach GHG reductions in a cost-effective manner, believes the efficacy of the ETS will be further enhanced by the revisions enacted by the 2008 climate package. The revised ETS directive, which will apply from 2013 to 2020, brings new industries into the ETS, covers two additional GHGs, reduces the Community-wide quantity of allowances issued each year, introduces full auctioning from 2013 in the power sector and will phase in auctioning for the manufacturing sector (with exceptions for sectors at risk of ‘carbon leakage’). The EU's promotion of the revised ETS as a model that is ‘fit to go global’ and serve as the ‘nucleus’ for building a global carbon market (Commission, 2008) provides a good example of how the EU's directional leadership dovetails with its policy entrepreneurship activities. Although the idea for emissions trading was originally a US idea initially resisted by the Europeans, the EU has now fully embraced the concept and repackaged it as its own. In fact, the ETS has become a political pet that the EU has aggressively implemented and promoted. The EU's directional leadership in this area has already had an impact as the positive and negative lessons of the EU-ETS have been studied by emission trading initiatives being set up in the US and other countries. By taking the lead in committing to sharp unilateral GHG reductions, adopting an aggressive climate and energy plan, with binding targets for renewable energies and launching the EU-ETS, the EU is attempting to spotlight that building a low-carbon economy is compatible with energy security, economic growth and competitiveness. Finally, it is the Union's view that by taking action itself, demonstrating the utility of that action and by promising to take even more aggressive action in the future, it can credibly ask others to act as well. The hoped for demonstration effects from leading by example are also linked to idea-based leadership. The Union has been an active policy entrepreneur for climate protection. It worked hard to make its voice heard on problem definition, agenda setting, goal setting and promoting policy solutions regarding the climate threat. The Union has embraced the scientific conclusions from the IPCC; already in 1996 the European Council endorsed the goal that global warming must be limited to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. In addition to defining the nature of the problem, the EU has conducted its own analysis and put forward its own proposals for what must be done (Council, 2008a). According to the EU Commission's analysis, GHG emissions must be stabilized by 2020 and then reduced to 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050 if the world is to avert a 2 degrees temperature rise. The Union has also laid out its vision for meeting these goals and how the burden should be shared among the developed and developing countries. The Union argues that the developed countries must shoulder the lion's share of the burden over the coming decades. The Union has called for the EU and other developed countries to enter into a new international agreement requiring collective emission cuts of at least 30 per cent below the 1990 level by 2020. According to the EU, the developed countries should aim for cuts of 60 to 80 per cent by 2050 (Council of the European Union, 2007, p. 12). The Union wants these goals and commitments to be enshrined in a post-2012 international agreement containing binding rules with well-developed monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. The Union also has a timeline in mind and it attempted to get the international community to accept a 2009 deadline for a new agreement. This review of the Union's climate leadership actions and climate protection goals has revealed that the EU has laid out an extensive leadership agenda for itself. It has also demonstrated that the Union's own actions are an integral part of these plans. The EU aspires to show leadership by ‘setting a convincing example’ and demonstrating that actions to reduce GHG emissions are ‘economically and technologically feasible’, which raises the issue of performance

Whales

The EU is the leading force in preventing whaling across the globe – sonar systems prove

EC 14, European Commission, 6/3/14, the European Commission is an environmental agency that works close with the EU, “Underwater Noise: Cetacean disturbance by sonar activities,” http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/whales_dolphins/index_en.htm, NN

The Commission is aware of the current concerns about the impact of sonar on marine mammals. The claim has been that emission of intense, low and medium frequency tone bursts has a disturbing effect on cetaceans. Information has also been forwarded that these sonar sounds might also have an impact on fish and fish behaviour. European legislation (mainly provisions of Directive 92/43/CEE “Habitats”) requires Member States of the European Union to take requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for all cetaceans in European waters. However, in the absence of a comprehensive and authoritative review of the available information concerning the impact of sonar, it is extremely difficult to develop a clear position on this issue. dolphinThis question was raised by the Commission in the Habitats Committee meeting of 20 November 2002. The information obtained thereafter on this complex issue, coming from Member States and regional Marine environmental organisations, has to be completed with more scientific studies. Therefore, on 25 September 2003, the Commission has requested an independent scientific organisation, namely the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES, Demark), to undertake a scientific review and evaluation of all relevant information concerning the impact of sonar on cetaceans and fish, to identify the gaps in our current understanding and to make recommendations for future investigations/research. The Commission would also be interested in advice about possible mitigation measures to reduce or minimise the impact of sonar on cetaceans and fish. It is only on the basis of sound scientific information that it will be possible to determine what actions are needed to avoid cetacean disturbance by sonar activities in a consistent and co-operative manner at EU level, ensuring compliance with the Habitats Directive provisions. However, scientific uncertainties about effects must not justify a failure to take action to address this matter. Given its potential impact on the marine environment, the Commission considers that this type of technology should be used with extreme prudence, and ideally be subject to a prior assessment of its possible effects. The Commission is aware of possible effects of military activities on the Environment, but it is not possible to undertake further Community action to regulate the development of new military technologies, due to lack of EU competencies in this field. This statement has been made by the European Commission to the European Parliament in March 2004. The output of the Study is expected by early 2005. In the meanwhile some EU countries (Spain…) have taken action in peace time, restricting the use of these sonar technologies during military manoeuvres (previous impact assessment studies …)

The EU has the best chance to lead anti-whaling efforts

EUDUN 08, European Union Delegation to the United Nations, 2/8/08, EUDUN is an environmental and political agency that works closely to the UN, “European Commission expresses concern over Japanese scientific whaling,” http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_7712_en.htm, NN

The Member States of the European Union must act in unison to protect whales. The European Commission calls on EU Member States to agree on a common position on the protection of whales before the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission in June 2008 as proposed by the Commission in December 2007. Such a common position would reinforce greatly the European Union's efforts to protect whales. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "The graphic images on our television screens bring home the reality of whale hunting. This shows that more than ever the EU needs to be united in opposing whaling. I call on Member States to reach a common position to reinforce the efforts to protect whales." Commission Borg added: "Whales are protected by the International Whaling Commission and European Union law. Scientific research must not be used as a cover for continued whaling." Japan continues to undermine efforts to protect whales In November 2007 (IP/07/1736) the European Commission expressed its concern over Japanese plans to kill up to 1000 minke, fin and humpback whales in the South Pacific. It is now clear to the world that Japan continues to undermine international efforts to conserve and protect whales despite the International Whaling Commission (IWC) repeatedly urging Japan to refrain from hunting whales. The fin and humpback whales are classified as "endangered" and "vulnerable" species by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). There is a serious risk that Japanese whaling will undermine the long-term viability of these species. The European Commission urges Japan - once again - to reconsider its decision and stop the hunt. The International Community must find a comprehensive solution to whaling. The Commission calls on the members of the International Whaling Commission to fully adhere to the 1986 whaling moratorium. The Commission emphasises that there is no need to use lethal means to obtain scientific information about whales, and that adequate data for management purposes can be obtained using non-lethal techniques. A unified EU position The European Commission is working to coordinate European efforts to protect whales, but as the European Union is not yet a party to the IWC the European Commission cannot negotiate on behalf of EU Member States. European Union law on whaling is very clear. It is not allowed in EU waters. Under EU environmental law all whale species are protected from deliberate disturbance, capture or killing within EU waters and all Member States in the European Union are obliged to observe these laws. The EU is not opposed to aboriginal peoples whaling for their subsistence - as allowed under the IWC Convention - provided it falls within the confines of catch limits based on scientific advice. This is the case for the aboriginal peoples of Greenland which are allowed to hunt fin and minke whales. But the Commission condemns whaling disguised as scientific research as carried out by Japan. Whales are highly migratory species. If whaling is only banned in EU waters but not everywhere else in the world then such a ban can have only a limited effect on the well-being of whale species. This is why the international ban on commercial whaling must stay and why all EU Member States party to the IWC must oppose any move seeking to lift it. We need to move towards more international protection of whales rather than less. Background In December 2007 the Commission presented a Communication designed to establish an effective international regulatory framework on the hunting of whales which would also cover scientific whaling. Accordingly, the Communication states that the moratorium remains of central importance but stresses the need to take a comprehensive approach to address other aspects such as scientific whaling. With this Communication the Commission intends to underline the urgent need for the EU to act as a united major player in international whaling policy. The European Union has not yet been able to use its political weight within the IWC because of the lack of a coordinated and agreed EU position. Together with the Communication the Commission also presented a proposal for a Council Decision in support of continuing the moratorium and to encourage the collection of scientific data on whales using non lethal methods.

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014
2014 -> For want of a nail
2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six
2014 -> United states patent and trademark office
2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus
2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now
2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender

Download 1.09 Mb.

Share with your friends: