Recipes for Systemic Change - Helsinki Design Lab

government to make any emission reductions below 1990 levels for its Kyototarget. In other words, Finland would continue “business-as-usual” so longas its emissions levels were consistent with 1990 levels.As with most Kyoto signatories, this commitment has proven difficult.The DBCCA remarked in its detailed assessment that:In 2006, Finland’s emissions were 13% higher than base-year level, wellabove its target for the period. Projections show that with existing policiesemissions will increase to 20% above base-year by 2010. Finland hopes toreach a level 1% below base-year through use of Kyoto Protocol mechanismsand carbon sink activities.The analysis goes on to point out that the European EnvironmentAgency reported in 2008 that Finland was one of six EU states that are furthestfrom reaching their Kyoto targets. The Fichtner table reveals that evenMember States with aggressive climate policy profiles, such as Denmark,are unlikely to meet their targets (by as much as 23).D5.3 SecurityPolitical and business leaders in Finland should question apprehensionabout further loss in its past position of technical leadership. If one looksto China's rapidly rising capacity for technical innovation, than the answeris "yes," especially given the difficulty of regaining leadership once it is lost.China's research and development investment has increased 20% each yearfor twenty years to 70 billion USD. The 863 Program alone has increasedenergy research investment nearly fifty-fold from 1991-2005.To keep this in perspective, Finland is still a world leader in R&Dinvestment: 3.5% of GDP in 2007 compared to 2.7% in the US and 1.3% inChina (UNESCO Institute for Statistics). Investing additional resourceswould probably not be prudent or cost-effective for Finland. But investmentoccurring outside of the dominant states will reduce the impact of internalinvestment. Finland's investments will need to be highly calibrated to thechallenges and opportunities of the time.Finland also faces a significant security risk with regard to its energysupply. The city of Helsinki provides an instructive example. In 2008,83% of Helsinki's electricity, heating and cooling was generated fromfossil fuels, mostly procured from Russia. Finland's indigenous energysources are limited and its current energy production system is not enabledto capitalise on its natural resources such as wind, biofuels andhydropower (to the extent that greater capacity is available). For severaldecades, Finland's energy policies have focused on ensuring securityof supply, but imported fossil fuels continue to be a large energysource, especially in the country's most economically active, urban areas.251