On the Global level – we have a problem.

The EU negotiation technology and language have not yielded expected results. The technology was that we in the EU were stressing our own, European financial commitments while our partners did not accept our position and waited for more financial concessions on our part. Aware of the negotiation technology, they obviously expected some concessions. Being responsible for trade at the Ministry of the Economy I can find some similarities with trade negotiations which we are conducting with developing countries, for example within the framework of the WHO. There too, great expectations are voiced by developing countries, substantial concessions are made by developed countries and as of 2001 basically no progress has been made in these negotiations. Thinking of what happened in Copenhagen, we have to take account not only of the negotiation context but also of the development level and aspirations of our main partners, the developing countries. We have to keep in mind that it was their dream for many generations to achieve the standard of living that we enjoy and for their cities to become as big as the world’s major metropolises. If we take the number of automobiles per one thousand of inhabitants in the United States, it is 461. The corresponding figure is 418 in the European Union, 351 in Poland, 18 in China, and 8 in India. But when we look at last year’s sales, we find that they declined by 20% in the US, 22% in the European Union while a year-to-year growth of 52% was registered in China. And now we come to the negotiating table and tell them that their growth needs to be checked through administrative means. That is how they perceive our negotiating position. Of course, we say that we are ready to share our technologies, that we are prepared contribute financially but the basic reception of our position is just such. Therefore I absolutely agree with the view that a new formula, a new language and new negotiating technology is needed precisely because of the level of aspirations and needs of the developing countries.

In the European Union

We have defined the climate policy target at first on the political level in 2007 and then for up to the year 2020 in the "3x20" package in 2009. Of course there are still a few elements which we are still working on with our partners in the European Commission to reach a common understanding. Common understanding of what the contents of special regulations for some countries, including Poland should be.

The basic guideline in the Polish negotiating position in the European Union is to seek a balance between climate policy targets and securing the competitiveness of the Polish economy. We need not be ashamed when referring to obligations ensuing from the Kyoto Protocol considering how other countries have fulfilled these obligations. Poland undertook to reduce GHG emissions by 6%, but in fact brought them down by 30%. Denmark, meanwhile, declared a 20% reduction yet has done so only but 4%, that is five times less than it declared. Spain said that it would not reduce emissions at all and raise them by 15% instead. In actual fact, it increased its emissions by 50%. Italy undertook to reduce emissions by 6%, but instead increased them by 8.5%. During that same time Poland’s GDP went up by more than 70%. This country succeeded in introducing mechanisms that were not just part of a planned climate policy but were the result of a national and sustainable economic growth policy. We managed to maintain that growth also in this difficult time of crisis.

What shall we do in Poland?
We asked Mc Kinsey/Company, one of the best consultancy firms in this field, to carry out an analysis of Poland’s GHG abatement potential. It has shown that the potential is vast, but in a slightly longer term: up to 2030 rather than 2020. That is due particularly to the situation in power engineering. It is dominated by hard coal and heavy investments need to be made to modernise that industry. Moreover, substantial investments, for instance toward developing nuclear energy plants or putting in place more efficient coal boilers, could take 10-15 years. Interestingly, the Mc Kinsey report also observes that about 35% percent of potential emission reduction could be achieved in Poland by increasing energy efficiency, that application of low emission energy sources would amount to 40% of potential abatement, that 22% percent could be achieved in the building sector and 10% in the waste disposal sector.

In the run up to local government elections, waste disposal is likely to become a subject of public debate. That will give an opportunity to take a closer look at excellent examples in countries such Sweden of how a national policy can be effectively pursued. What we need apart from rational legal regulations is general perception that treatment of waste material could also be most conducive to economic growth.
In terms of economic effectiveness. In this respect our work at the Ministry of the Economy on drafting an energy efficiency law is quite advanced.
We are working intensively in the framework of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). We also joined two CCS related initiatives – the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (the US initiative) and the Global CCS Institute (the Australian initiative).

Early last year the Polish government resolved to start a nuclear programme. Relevant legislation will be drafted this year. I hope that Poland’s first nuclear power plant will come on stream in 2020 and a second one perhaps in 2025. Together with the European Commission we are looking for feasibility of financing CCS pilot projects in Poland, and in particular those in Bełchatów and Kędzierzyn. A debate on that between EU member countries and the Commission is on. The two projects we have surely deserve EU financial support.

We have a quasi-administrative formula in the shape of the Social Council of the National CO2 Emission Reduction Programme (SR NPRE) attached to the deputy prime minister’s office. It is chaired by Professor Jerzy Buzek. Sitting on the Council are Poland’s most outstanding experts. This Council is our formula of debate in which representatives of public administration and industry as well as scientists and NGOs deliberate on how Poland could best fulfill its obligations under the EU Climate and Energy Package. The National GHG Reduction Programme which is to be worked out in this way is to be presented to the Polish government before the end of the year.