The French government is working towards implementation of a direct carbon tax by July 2010. France’s Constitutional Council struck down the first version of the carbon tax bill last 29 December. On 21 January 2010, the government proposed a number of amendments to the original legislation, which is aimed at encouraging French consumers to be more energy efficient and conscious of their energy decisions.

The first version of the bill was meant to take effect on 1 January; halting its inception has been greatly embarrassing to Prime Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy. The legislation was deemed unconstitutional due to a large number of sectoral exceptions. The new version of the bill will maintain the originally proposed 17 EUR per tonne of carbon dioxide with compensation for households. There has been a reduction in the number of exemptions. Though, certain “sensitive and energy-intensive sectors” will still receive special exemptions. Farming and fisheries will pay just one-quarter of the normal rate; road transport and shipping, will only pay 65 percent.

French Environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, has begun a series of consultations with companies, trade unions, and environmental non-governmental organizations concerning the specifics of the legislation. “The goal is to develop a new draft, which will be sent to Parliament for approval by spring,” spokesman Luc Chatel told a press conference after the weekly cabinet meeting.

Under the new proposal, the tax level remains at 17 EUR per metric tonne of CO₂ at over 1,000 of the most polluting sites. The main innovation of the amended bill is the inclusion of previously excluded sectors, such as power stations, oil refineries, and cement works. These plants were exempted in the first version of the bill because they are scheduled to be subject to a European Union quota system to be implemented in 2013. EU regulation calls for emissions in those sectors to be reduced by 21% by 2020.

In late January, a poll released by ViaVoice showed 51 % of the French public thought the government should abandon the tax proposal. “The carbon tax should not be an umpteenth tax used for filling up the state coffers,” small business union CGPME said in a statement. The French government is addressing this concern. It continues to stress that for businesses of all sizes, combined with the reform of local business taxes, the carbon tax will merely serve to transfer taxation away from work and investment. Yet, the debate continues to focus on how to compensate low income households,; due to inefficiency, the tend to use relatively more fuel and many work at night before public transport is running.

“The best would be for it to be ready in 2010 but it’s true that all these details … are complicated,” Michel Rocard, a former Socialist prime minister, said in an appearance on Europe 1 radio. “I don’t know if we will be ready in 2010.”

Last July, Rocard headed a review report of the potential tax for the government. At that time, the burden of the tax was presented as being divided roughly equally between households and businesses. There is no clear indication of how this division will change under the most recent tax proposal.

After a first round of consultations, the French government has unveiled two options for introducing the tax system into industrial sectors already subject to the European emissions quota system.

The first option would levy the carbon tax on all industries, but the introduction would be at reduced rates for companies most exposed to international competition, as well as for those that are the largest consumers of energy. A series of quantitative criteria (yet to be fully unveiled) will be used in order determine the particular rate of tax.

Additionally, under this plan, companies would be entitled to receive a tax credit on investments aimed to reduce both energy consumption and emissions and to prevent industrial risks.

The second option for the tax would construct a bonus-penalty system. All industrial installations would be subject to the tax of of 17 EUR per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. Under this second plan, each business would receive a lump sum tax credit, dependant upon its efforts made to reduce emissions.

“This is the beginning of a wider process of reflection and consultation,” Economy Minister Christine Lagarde said after the report was presented.

While most politicians agree emissions must be cut to fight global warming, a key part of the debate is on how to compensate poorer households, workers in certain sectors and those who need to drive because they work at night or live in rural areas.

France aims for an 80% reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2050.

France would be the largest economy to apply a direct carbon tax, mirroring existent measures in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland.

The clock is ticking. The UNFCCC’s Copenhagen summit is just 7 days away, and recent reports have been encouraging. Shortly after China and the US made announcements on commitments to reduce their GHGS, Commonwealth leaders backed a $10bn Climate Change fund. Proposed by UK PM Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the fund seeks to provide immediate financial support to those States most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

UK PM Gordon Brown said on Friday that half of the fund should be aimed at helping the most vulnerable states to adapt to climate change, whilst the other half should be targeted at measures to reduce GHGs in the least developed countries.

The first funding would be made available early next year, before any international agreement could take effect, whilst there are suggestions that funds for the most vulnerable small island states would be fast-tracked and made available immediately.

This agreement by the Commonwealth demonstrates how climate change can unite different countries - small/large, rich or poor to find a resolution; and delivers some promise for next week’s summit.

The Commonwealth leaders also agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, though it is widely believed that “a full legally binding outcome” might have to wait to 2010.

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, added that any commitments they would announce would be “ambitious”, though it is highly likely that will be subject to significant commitments by other influential nations too.  This prisoner’s dilemma characterises the negotiations, and also represents the biggest threat to a global deal.  However, the recent flurry of announcements for GHG reduction commitments from many of the key players has sparked hope that all is not lost yet.

The countdown begins. I will attend the final week of negotiations with a focus on proposals from the developed nations.

On Thursday, 26 November the presidents of France and Brazil came out with a joint statement that rich(er) countries must immediately boost aid for developing nations in efforts towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. They lauded this as an essential key to obtaining a viable agreement in Copenhagen next month.

Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, invited his counterparts in countries straddling the Amazon Basin to meet in Manaus in order to come to a consensus about their views on climate change-related issues in the area (France was also invited since its overseas department of French Guyana is located in the Amazon region). Representatives from Brazil, France, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and Guyana all participated in the summit. President Nicolas Sarkozy came from France for the meeting with the President of Brazil, but the only other South American president to take part in the Manaus Summit was Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana.

Brazil, which has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by between 36.1 and 38.9 percent from projected 2020 levels, has been seeking a growing role in climate talks and wanted to forge a common position of Amazon countries to take to Copenhagen. Brazilian presidential spokesman, Marcelo Baumbach, stated that for Brazil “it is essential that the Amazon region takes part in the December conference with a cooperative and convergent proposal.”

To this point, during the Summit, representatives agreed to the position that “developing countries should also contribute to addressing the global climate change through mitigation actions according to their national conditions, supported by international funds.” This kind of statement moves beyond Kyoto because it tentatively allows for proposals that require binding targets on developing countries, so long as the developed world helps them financially and through technology transfer.

Even though French President Sarkozy was representing French Guyana during the Manaus summit, as the leader of a developed nation, he spoke from that role as well. During a press conference after the meeting, he hailed China’s new proposals on combating global warming as “extremely encouraging.” He welcomed the USA’s target (announced Tuesday, 24 November) to reduce its emissions 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

Sarkozy used the examples of the recent proposals put forth by the United States and China towards binding targets as hallmarks of how nations that had not played a strong role in Kyoto were rising to the challenge in this next round of negotiations and really understanding the threats posed by climate change. “The latest statements by Barack Obama and China’s leaders are extremely encouraging in making Copenhagen a success,” Sarkozy said.

Climate negotiators have made little visible progress in sorting out the mechanisms by which rich countries should help poorer ones fight global warming. The European Union states that the cost to help developing nations fight global warming is about $100 billion annually. But developing countries say rich countries should pay between 0.5 percent and 1 percent of their gross domestic product.

Brazil has opened an investment fund to help conservation in the Amazon rainforest but insisted donor countries would have no say in the details of the use of funds. “The poor need to be supported without any country giving up its sovereignty,” Lula said.

20% of GHG emissions come from forest change and destruction annually. Thus, in this round of negotiations it is key to include specific provisions and mechanisms that address forest preservation (which was left out of Kyoto). Inroads are being made via the REDD (Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries) proposal.

“We need numbers, not only to reduce the temperature. Copenhagen also needs to provide funds from developed countries for developing countries,” said Sarkozy. “That needs to happen now,” he emphasized.

Climatico (Kelly McManus and Jennifer Helgeson) will be reporting on the progress of REDD during the course of the Copenhagen climate negotiations. They will offer an introduction to understanding REDD. Jennifer will also continue reports on French climate policy throughout the negotiations.

The UK’s energy security prospects are once again making the headlines, as Ed Milliband this week announced the top 10 suitable sites for the next generation of nuclear power plants, describing nuclear power as a “proven, reliable source of low carbon energy”.

The announcement comes amidst heightened concerns surrounding the peak oil debate, with the UK ERC claiming that conventionally extracted global oil production could ‘peak’ and go into terminal decline before 2020.

However, the environmentalists have criticised the decision, warning of the “deadly legacy” of radioactive waste, and argued that investment should be focused on renewables instead. Interestingly, one of the oldest and most efficient windfarms in Britain will be dismantled at Kirksanton to make way for the nuclear plant, to the dismay of some locals.

Faced with the prospect of depleting supplies from the North Sea, the UK is now paying the price for its ‘dash for gas’, following the closure of the coal mines in the 1980s. To support the development of this next generation of energy infrastructure, the UK Government has announced a host of measures to reduce the planning constraints that are likely to hamper such large infrastructure projects, and hopes to have the first new nuclear plant operating by 2018.

Professor Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide has welcomed the announcements from the UK government, and encouraged the Australian government to take heed. He highlights that unlike the situation for uranium power, the electricity price is strongly tied to the fuel price for gas and therefore fluctuations in gas prices lead to price spikes in power prices.

Cheap uranium energy, on the other hand, provides a much more secure proposition to meet both energy security and climate change goals; and he adds that

“…there is enough uranium to provide the whole world with zero-carbon power for millions of years.”

Nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating. Along with hydropower from dams, it is the only clean energy technology that has been shown to be scalable.

France is a case in point. It derives nearly 80% of its electricity from 59 nuclear plants and is the world’s biggest electricity exporter. It has the cheapest power rates in Europe, and has the lowest carbon footprint per person.

However, the significance of radioactive wastes and contamination threats should not be underestimated if we really want to promote sustainable development that considers the intergenerational impact and legacy of such technologies. In this vein, it might be argued that the significant funds for these large infrastructure projects would, in fact, be better targeted at scale-up and capacity building for renewable technologies such as wind, solar, tidal and others, which don’t generate such controversial by-products.  For now, the pressure is on in the UK to streamline the planning process to enable the speedy construction required to bridge the expected energy gap.

Mont-Saint-Michel, on the Normandy coast of France, is the sight of new conflict.  The most recent battle is not in a medieval setting, but a modern struggle against two good, but opposed environmental causes.  On one side are those who want to reduce carbon emissions by installing windmills.  On the other side stand ecologists who suggest that windmills churning above the tidal flats of Mont-Saint-Michel would distract from the natural beauty of the medieval monument and potentially destroy the landscape in the future.

France is on an ambitious route to expand its use of windmills in renewable energy.  Currently there are 2500 windmills producing 4500 megawatts per year; the goal is to have 8500 windmills producing 25000 megawatts by 2020.  Windmills are becoming increasingly sought after by EU goals to limit greenhouse gases.  Last week, the EU recommended that it invest $ 70 million in clean energy over the coming decade, tripling windmill construction to produce 20 % of Europe’s electricity.

Those against the windmills near Mont-Saint-Michel have nothing against the quest for clean energy but rather argue that windmills above the ridgeline are not the way to achieve this goal.  Allies have formed across France, and an ambitious campaign to prove the windmills would desecrate the vista has begun.

The mayor of Mont-Saint-Michel, Eric Vannier, has stayed out of the debate for the most part, but 600 locals have pooled finances to hire lawyers to sue local government.  They expect a court ruling in Spring 2010.  If the group wins the lawsuit, “they’ll have to put everything back beyond 30 km (~18.5 miles),” said Corinne Gressier, who runs the group “Windmills: Turbulences.”  But she also realizes, “if we lose, it’s over.”

French law bans windmills closer than 1500 feet from historical monuments.  The current court case in will be on trial in Nantes.  It concerns plans to build 300 foot high windmills on farmland in Argouges, on a plateau a bit more than 10 miles southeast of Mont-Saint-Michel.  The monument attracts about 3 million visitors each year to admire the rock-top monastery.  Andre Antolini, president of renewable Energies Syndicate, told reporters last month that, “at the proposed distance, tourists to the monument would only see tiny blades peeking over the horizon.”

But for protesters like Gressier and the national alliance of environmental groups, the three windmills at Argouges would just be the tip of the iceberg if building is permitted.  There are current plans for an additional 80 towers in farming communities across the entire ridgeline above Mont-Saint-Michel.

The complicating issue is that farmers and village counters tend to embrace proposals to install windmills in their fields because of the payments they receive.  They get stipends for use of the land and villages are provided tax revenue on income from electricity, which is sold to the national grid.  “It’s a flourishing business,” said Jean-Louis Butre, president of the Durable Environmental Federation, based in Paris.

At present France gets about 80 percent of its energy from nuclear reactors and an additional 12 percent from hydraulic generators.  That leaves a balance of 8 percent that must be filled by oil, coal, natural gas, solar, or wind.  Butre explains that if government decided to fill that gap with windmills, it would have so many that they would be part of the scenery in more than a third of the country.

In fact last year, Butre challenged president Sarkozy’s strong push for wind energy in the book “Fraud: why windmills are a danger for France.”  The former President Velery Giscard d’Estaing, a supporter for nuclear power, wrote the preface to the book.  He denounced windmills as an “unacceptable use of public funds, a deceptive public discourse, and often questionable business.”

Now the delegation from Argouges, with support from groups around France, waits to see if they will win the court battle and put atop to the windmill construction near Mont-Saint-Michel.  It remains to be seen how this part of Mont-Saint-Michel’s represents 13 centuries of history will play out.

The French schooner, Tara, set sail from Lorient harbor on 5 September 2009 for a three-year scientific voyage to map the effects of climate change on marine organisms. The 150,000 kilometer (81, 000 nautical mile) journey follows and expands upon the trail of naturalist Charles Darwin’s 1831-1836 trip on the Beagle.

Tara’s trip will produce a study of the clouds of tiny ocean flora and fauna that produce 50 % of the world’s oxygen supply. Marine microorganisms account for 90 percent of the oceans’ biomass and absorb the majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide. “Without these microorganisms man would never have come into being. If they disappear, so do we,” asserted Eric Karsenti, the Tara’s 60-year-old scientific leader, as the crew prepared for their departure.

The journey will take the French boat into all the world oceans and from the ice caps to the tropics. The main aim is to obtain measurements of the impact of warming that these microorganisms are undergoing and to incorporate them into future climate simulation models.

The double-masted yacht, Tara, took a previous climate change related voyage. She charted shrinking ice sheet in the Arctic Ocean between Siberia and Greenland for 18 months between 2006 and 2008. The current mission, dubbed Tara-Oceans, will be divided between the 36-meter yacht and various on-land laboratories. About 100 scientists world-wide will be involved in the process of analyzing and interpreting the gathered samples and data.

The head of Tara Expeditions, Etienne Bourgois, said that “this mission will plunge us into the invisible world of marine ecosystems, one of the least explored realms of oceanography.” Such an expedition has not been undertaken on a global scale in the past. The team will be tracking microorganisms, such as diatoms, as well as more complex organisms, like marine viruses, jelly fish, larvae, fish, and coral, which make up the base of the marine food chain. As ocean species die out it has a potentially huge effect on the entire food chain, which varies significantly from area to area.

To date there is not a good understanding of the effects of climate change on marine organisms. For example, some species of plankton may bloom in warmer waters and others might die out completely.

The Tara-Oceans voyage is largely financed through the fashion house Agnes B. Additionally, Tara Expeditions has signed partnership agreements with Agence France-Presse (AFP) among others.

The mission is being lauded as one that will truly allow people in the mainstream to understand what issues ail the world’s oceans, especially as connected to climate change. The concept behind the voyage is to inform better science, but to also actively involve large companies in France and by extension the public more generally. AFP chairman, Pierre Louette, describes AFP’s heavy investment in the project: “in contributing to science and consciousness by distributing this news across the whole world, AFP is faithful to its own mission.”

Bordeaux vineyards -- might they be found in Scotland in future years?

Leading figures in the French wine producing communities are urging the French government to push for a strong agreement at the United National climate summit in Copenhagen this December.  Their motivation is that failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is estimated to devastate their sector in the coming years.

“As flagships of our common cultural heritage, elegant and refined, French wines are today in danger,” 50 leading names from the world of French wine and food wrote in an open letter in the 12 August in the French newspaper “Le Monde.”  The letter went on to describe that “marked by higher alcohol levels, over-sunned aromatic ranges and denser textures, our wines could lose their unique soul.”  Among the signatories to the letter were: Marc Veyrat, a chef with three Michelin stars and Franck Thomas, who was voted the best sommelier in the world. “We will have new wine-producing regions in zones where one doesn’t normally cultivate vineyards like in Brittany and Normandy,” said Jean-Pierre Chaban, a climatologist at France’s National Institute for Scientific Research. “It will spread to Great Britain. One can imagine vineyards in southern Sweden and Scotland.”

And well…According to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, there are now 416 vineyards in England and there are 2,732 acres of vines under cultivation – an increase of 45 per cent in the past four years.

The “World Conference on Climate Change and Wine” took place in Barcelona during February 2008.  During the conference over 350 wine producers from 36 countries learned that wine production indeed emits large quantities of CO2 gases.  Tony Sharley, a company scientist for Banrock Station Wine in Australia (and lauded for their sustainable techniques), taught the group that “the reforestation of areas close to the vineyards” may also help reduce the carbon footprint.

But many producers are skeptical of how much good reforestation can really do.  “The consequences of global warming are already being felt. Harvest season already comes ten days earlier than before in almost all wine regions,” warned French expert Bernard Seguin.

Fine French wines are produced in small territories and taste depends strongly on factors such as mineral content of the soil. For example, a Burgundy produced in California will not taste nor smell like a Burgundy from Burgundy.  Many of the vines in production are old and will not produce satisfactory wine when they are young.  Thus, replanting the same varieties further north will not produce the same superior product. 

While admitting that some French regions, such as Bordeaux, Alsace and Moselle, were “were making wines near their climactic limit,” wine-maker Jacques Lurton added there was “still room for maneuver.”

Indeed, he predicted a change in style of wine over the next 20 years, with perhaps a Bordeaux Cabernet Sauvignon becoming closer to those wines currently being made in the Napa Valley, California. 

Yes, as the French winemakers and chefs warned in the open letter, “our [French] wines could lose their souls” if action is not taken to halt climate change.

Though much of the letter (original available here) addressed to French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, read poetically, there is a very real call to action. The signatories want the government to push for a global deal to cut industrialized countries’ greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2020 and set up “solid aid mechanisms” for developing countries.

Though this issue has been brought to the forefront in the recent month due to a publication by Greenpeace, the concern and the statistics to back it up are not entirely new. 

Prices up at French Pumps in 2010?

A government panel has suggested that France should aim to tax greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. This tax is lauded as a mechanism to encourage clean and greener habits among the French population. But the big questions remain: how effective will the tax be and who will it affect?

The panel concluded that: “carbon dioxide emissions are a threat to life on this planet…among the many necessary responses, a significant tax on carbon dioxide emissions is one of the most pertinent and efficient.”

France aims to divide its greenhouse gas emissions by 4 by 2050; a tax seems enviable to achieve this level of reduction. Economy Minister, Christine Lagarde, sees implementation of such a tax as “the beginning of a wider process of reflection and consultation [on climate change].”

The carbon tax plan would see France bill 32 € (~$46US) for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2010. The levy would be raised progressively on a yearly basis until it reaches 100 € in 2030. Effectively, this regulation would add 7-8 cents to the cost of a liter of fuel. The tax is proposed to apply to all sectors that are not part of existing emissions trading programs.

The plan is drawing hot opposition from intensive fuel users, especially small-scale farmers and fishers. “We haven’t received any objection to the tax in principle, but there will be lots of fighting over the details of course,” said the Panel’s head, Michel Rocard, on France Info Radio.

Under the proposal, the extra cost per household would be around 300 € per year. There is a strong debate concerning how to compensate low income households; such as those that qualify as “fuel poor.” Rocard recognizes that, “there are whole jobs, farming, fishing, and taxi drivers where we need to find ways to make the jobs economically possible in spite of this tax.”

A key part of the debate is how to compensate poorer households, workers in certain sectors, and those for whom driving is a necessity because they work odd hours or live in rural areas. The small business union, CGPME, said in a statement that “for [the tax] to be accepted by households and companies…it must be compensated by an equivalent fall in taxes elsewhere.” The Panel did suggest that extra costs would vary according to household size and location.

Sweden, which is the current EU presidency, does have a carbon tax in place, as do Denmark and Norway.

The Panel’s report will provide the basis for legislation, due to be debated after the French parliament’s summer break.

Nicolas Sarkozy’s messages have become greener in recent months.  Looking at the record, it appears that this turn may have come about when his time as EU President put him directly in line with the conflicts between member countries concerning climate change issues.  Generally these disagreements center on how to best divide the responsibilities and costs for adaptation and mitigation measures.  As far back as 2007, Sarkozy called for a national “Carbon tax” on “climate change pollutants” and suggested a European tariff on imports from countries falling outside of the Kyoto Protocol.

The head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, recently visited France.  Sarkozy reportedly stated that the ”challenge of a world agreement on climate change must be met.” Following the meeting at the Elysee Palace, Pachauri said the French president was committed to pursuing a green agenda and “really wants to do something in this area.”  “He would like to see that Copenhagen is a success and he is going to work with the others leaders to do that,” said Pachauri.

It is true that Sarkozy has called on President Obama in recent months to follow the EU in the climate change arena.  For example, he scored big with his supporters when indeed the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to the Waxman-Markey (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) Bill.

But critics cite some red flags – Sarkozy recently expressed a strong preference for Claude Allegre to head his cabinet’s Ministry of Science, Industry, and Innovation. Allegre, is a celebrated geophysicist, in the French and American National Academies of Science.  Yet, a former climate change champion, he has recently reversed his opinion and no longer believes that human activity is responsible for any of the climate change modifications at hand.  He at best is seen as an “enemy” to scientists lauding that further exacerbation to climate change can be halted by changes in human behavior and energy consumption specifically.

It will be interesting to see how Sarkozy progresses as we enter the Copenhagen negotiations, after showing some erratic behavior on the climate change front.

The Matterhorn, as seen from Zermatt, Switzerland, March 2009. Skiing in Zermatt, Switzerland this past winter it was obvious that snow levels were decreasing at an unusual rate, as discussed in the Convention report.

A major publication from the EU’s Convention on the Protection of the Alps last week, revealed the dramatic effects of climate change on the Alps region.

The Convention on the Protection of the Alps was established in 1991 and is headquartered out of Bolzano, Italy. The Convention report published on 17 June 2009 is its second magisterial report. It reveals that the northern ranges of the Alps are suffering serious flooding while southern ranges are generally seeing huge reductions in snow fall. Average Precipitation levels have decreased 10 % in the south-east of the region.

Marco Onida, secretary general of the Convention, recognizes that “the European climate is dividing in two…the result will be havoc for the Alps and the communities and wildlife that rely on the area.” The Alps’ most famous peaks, such as Mont Blanc, The Matterhorn, and Monte Rosa, mark the division between the wet north and Italy and Slovenia in the dryer south of the region.

The current analysis of changes to be made to the Swiss-Italian border is a prime example of such geo-political changes driven by climate change. The Italian military has been tracking changes as glaciers on the border melt over the last thirty years. Italian Brig. General, Carlo Colella (Florence) suggests that in some places the border could change up to 100 m. It is also believed that Italy will gain territory as the glaciers in the Southern Alps are melting at a faster rate.

The border in question was last changed in 1861 when Italy became a unified state. Now the Italian government is involved in changing their national legislation to allow such a border change; Switzerland requires no such change to law. Colella acknowledges that “after the border change with Switzerland, the Italian-French border will come under consideration.”

Outside of creating complex border issues, climate change in the Alps has begun to have profound implications for agriculture and tourism. Northern villages already face flooding and water shortages and decreased snowfall in the south have already started to hit the tourism industry. Additionally, Alpine species are being driven further up the mountains; thus, exotic and invasive plant species are starting to take hold lower down in the Alpine system.

The Convention report points to the environmental burden, especially with regards to expediting climate change, from the increased demand for artificial snow by the tourism industry. This is a necessary step in order to sustain the winter sports industry, which is the economic mainstay of the area. But it is a catch-22 scenario, under which generation of artificial snow further burdens already stressed water and energy supplies.

Ultimately, changing patterns of rain and snowfall, shrinking glaciers, and raising temperatures are seen by the Convention report as the greatest challenges to Alpine villages. The Convention report cites Italy’s 178 mile-long Tagliamento (in the northeast of the country) as the only Alpine river to not suffer drastic modifications to date. Dr. Onida said that “the Alps are the water tower of Europe, but much of the water is no longer reaching the places downstream where it is actually needed for ecosystem [stability], agriculture, and energy [generation].” He does acknowledge the very real struggle between agriculture and tourism for scarce water supplies.

Only time will tell how national borders will change and whether climate change will lead to intense battles between tourism and the survival of Alpine villages. The eight Alpine countries – France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Slovenia, and Hungary – are taking action through the Alpine Convention. There may be time and the means to manage and mitigate some of the most extreme effects of climate change in the Alps.