The European Union (EU) preens itself on being the global leader in the fight against climate change. EU politicians scold the USA for ’failing’ to ratify Kyoto Protocol and enact cap-and-trade. Within the EU, the UK champions the most aggressive climate policies. So the UK’s carbon footprint must be shrinking, right?

Not according to a new report by the UK’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra). The UK’s total net carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rose 35% between 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol baseline year) and 2005. Emissions declined by 9% from 2008 to 2009 due to the worldwide recession. Nonetheless, the country’s carbon footprint was 20% bigger in 2009 than in 1990. How can this be?

Defra used a life cycle analysis (LCA) to estimate the UK economy’s net emissions. The agency examined not only the CO2 emitted by households and firms within the UK but also the emissions induced by the UK’s demand for imported goods. Carbon dioxide is emitted when goods are manufactured for export in, say, China, and then again when those goods are transported to the UK.

Emissions “embedded” in UK imports are increasing much faster than emissions from domestic production are declining. From 1990 to 2009, CO2 emitted by UK households and firms decreased by 14%. During the same period, emissions from imports directly used by UK consumers increased by 79% and emissions from imports used by UK businesses increased by 128%.

The Kyoto Protocol does not “cover” (regulate) import-induced emissions. So under Kyoto’s accounting rules, UK emissions are down. In reality, the UK has outsourced a sizeable chunk of its emissions along with its heavy industry. As one blogger commented, “The UK’s outsourced emissions almost double its carbon footprint.”

Source: Defra, UK’s Carbon Footprint 1990-2009

A surprising development from a country not known for backing down from a fight:

In a sign that Paris has little stomach for a fight over global warming, Francois Fillon, the Prime Minister, urged the European Union to retreat over plans to tax airlines for emitting greenhouse gases.

His letter to Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, undermined the EU’s claims to be united in its drive to impose ecological virtue on the aviation industry. The plan to force airlines to buy pollution permits when flying in European airspace has been denounced as illegal by other capitals, notably Beijing, Delhi and Washington.

The so-called coalition of the unwilling is pledging to retaliate unless Europe backtracks. Chinese and Indian airlines have been told by their governments to boycott the scheme.

Their American counterparts filed a lawsuit before withdrawing it last month and calling on the Obama Administration to take the lead in pressuring Europe to drop its aviation pollution package.

In France, concern has been fuelled by Airbus, the European aircraft maker, which said that China had shelved orders worth $US14 billion ($13.5 billion) because of the dispute.

The company said that officials in China, which represents 20 per cent of Airbus sales, were withholding their signature on contracts for 35 long-haul A330s and 10 A380 superjumbo planes.

Air France, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Lufthansa, Air Berlin and Iberia joined MTU Aero Engines and Safran, the enginemakers, and Airbus in writing to European governments last month to warn of the consequences of a trade war. They said that thousands of jobs and billons of dollars of sales were at risk.

In his letter, written last month but made public yesterday, Mr Fillon said that 2000 jobs were under threat at Airbus and its suppliers because of the Chinese boycott.

Globalwarming.org has not blogged extensively about the ongoing airline emissions saga, though it has been covered in our weekly newsletter, which you can sign up for on our home page. The E.U. wants to require foreign airlines which land in the E.U. to purchase carbon credits for a cap-and-trade program the E.U. recently implemented. The airlines, naturally, are opposed. As is the rest of the world, with major countries such as China, the U.S., Russia, and many more signalling opposition.

Up until now, the E.U. spoke as a unified force, stating confidently that they will not back down. In response, China raised the stakes by cancelling orders for aviation equipment which are worth billions of dollars. Numerous other countries are still in the process of planning a response. It seems now that not all of the E.U. agrees with their official stance, which will likely strenghten the resolve of the opposition groups. If the E.U. stays course, expect more punitive retaliatory measures.

1. Ethanol Mandates: In an effort to further “energy independence,”* major agricultural producing countries have enacted Soviet-style production quotas for ethanol, a motor fuel distilled from food.

This year, about a third of the U.S. corn crop will be used to manufacture 13 billion gallons of ethanol. By law, that will increase to 15 billion gallons every year after 2015. The European Union mandates that ethanol distilled primarily from palm oil and wheat, constitute an increasing percentage of the fuel supply, ultimately 10% by 2020.

Global ethanol production is a new and tremendous source of demand for food that has had a significant impact on the price of grains and oilseeds. According to a report commissioned by the World Bank, global demand for fuels made from food accounted for nearly 70% of the historic price spike in wheat, rice, corn, and soy during the summer 2008.

2. Rainforest Protections: Burning rainforests is an important link in the global food supply chain. In Brazil, farmers are clearing the Amazon rainforests to meet rapidly growing global demand for soybeans. In Indonesia, they slash rainforests to harvest palm oil seeds for export to Europe.

Rainforests are an important source of food supply, but they are also revered by environmentalists as symbols of ecological diversity. In late 2009, a group of wealthy countries, including Australia, France, Japan, Norway, Britain and the United States, pledged $3.5 billion over the next three years to stop the destruction of the rainforests. It’s the first installment of a proposed $25 billion.

As I explain here, there will be no Malthusian famine, despite these stupid, anti-human policies

There are tremendous gains in production to be made in the developing world, especially in China and Brazil. And technological advances to improve productivity, such as biotechnology, will mean greater yields-per-acre and enhanced crops that can grow in previously inhospitable regions. In the long term, the world’s farmers will meet demand.

In the short to medium term, however, the global supply chain is going to be a problem. A natural disaster in America or in any other major food-exporting country could send the market price of food spiraling upward.

The most adversely affected by these boneheaded policies are poor people in developing world capitals that are dependent on the global grains and oilseeds market. The developing world has been urbanizing for decades, resulting in unprecedented concentrations of the poor in the world’s cities. There are no sustenance farms in urban areas; Instead, many of these cities depend on international trade for food.

*So-called “Energy Independence” is empty political rhetoric, as my colleague Iain Murray demonstrates in this paper.

If you hate success but love long meetings, and even longer plane trips, then the State Department is looking for you: Become a climate diplomat.

As I explain here, here, and here, negotiations for a legally binding, multilateral treaty to address the supposed problem of “global warming” are futile. According to the International Energy Agency, it would cost $45 trillion to de-carbonize global energy production to the liking of global warming alarmists. There is simply no precedent for international burden sharing of this magnitude, short of war, and the threat of winters gradually warming doesn’t galvanize interstate cooperation quite like the threat of, say, the Nazis.

Because a global response to global warming is impossible, multilateral climate negotiations haven’t budged since they started twenty years ago, with the foundation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Then, as now, there are two stakeholders pushing for action:  Western European nations, who want the world to agree to the carbon standards they set for themselves* so as to avoid a competitive disadvantage on the international market for energy intensive goods, and developing countries, who want to profit from wealth distribution. Then, as now, everyone else—most importantly the U.S. and China—have ZERO interest in sharing trillions of dollars of sacrifice for uncertain gains. As it is and always will be.

Maybe the money’s good, but, in terms of achievement, this climate diplomacy gig is a dead end.

*N.B. I strongly doubt whether these European nations will meet the lofty goals they set for themselves. There, I see a situation akin to that which is going on in our California, whereby green grandstanding politicians has led to the writing of several climate checks that simply will not be cashed. Here’s my detailed take on where the Europeans are headed.