While the ex-Soviet leader organized the life in his country (including the production of coal) according to 5-year plans, the EU wanted to codify a 50-year plan and prescribe the circulation of carbon in each country through the year 2050, in a modestly called “Energy Road map 2050”, no kidding. ;-)
Poland just doesn't have the money to waste and to make electricity 5 times more expensive than it is now. Why isn't Poland as rich as e.g. Spain? Whose fault is it? It's the fault of the climate alarmists' intellectual predecessors, the Stalinists. The new Stalinists want to harm Poland again.
Their plans through 2020 have been partly incorporated into the legislation. We're talking about extending these insanities beyond 2020. The opposition to these plans came from an expected place, Poland:
Poland blocks EU efforts on carbon limits (Reuters)Poland produces over 90 percent of its electricity from coal and it depends on other fossil fuels, too. So it shouldn't be shocking that it's the country that vetoes the ill-conceived policies.
Poland single-handedly blocks climate talks, again (Warsaw Business Journal)
The post-socialist countries had an advantage in the Kyoto protocol etc. because the useless and redundant communist coal-related industry (an inevitable consequence of the planned system directed by the climate alarmists' predecessors) was largely liquidated in the early 1990s when the invisible hand of the free markets replaced the planned economy. This drop of coal burning and CO2 emissions was counted as an "achivement" according to the Kyoto standards so it's been easy to achieve various arbitrary targets. We didn't have to do anything at all.
However, when we talk beyond 2020, such advantages of course disappear. Attempts to reduce CO2 would mean a genuine blow to the prosperity of the nations and countries such as Poland would suffer a lot. One may estimate that a 50% forced reduction of CO2 emissions in Poland could mean a 30% drop of their GDP if not higher.
It's being said that Czechia and Romania, besides others, are hiding behind Poland. You may think of Czechia as a courageous nation that isn't affraid to oppose the new wave of carbon Marxism and similar pathological ideologies that have largely conquered the European Union at the central level. You may think that we're brave if you look e.g. at our president.
But the reality is that we're not that brave as a nation. Many of our average politicians are eager to join any counterproductive trend in Europe as long as there are many others who will join. The main reason why many of them sometimes behave as moderate climate skeptics etc. is that our president is a climate skeptic and his position is known to be endorsed by a huge percentage of our nation, across the political spectrum. I don't know whether this advantage will survive March 2013 when Václav Klaus leaves the Prague Castle. I am a bit worried about this moment in the future.
At any rate, the material interests were more important in determining the attitudes of the nations than their courage or general pro-EU enthusiasm. Poland is a strongly pro-EU nation but these carbon-reduction plans are clearly way too harmful for Poland so Poland had to defend its interests against the centralized Europe that the Poles like so much. On the other hand, Czechia wasn't such an active player. After all, we produce 1/3 of the electricity in nukes and this percentage may be increased to 1/2 if we decide to build some new reactors (70% odds that we will at this moment). Moreover, we're the 3rd or 4th European "renewable sources" superpower (in absolute numbers) so the relative impact of carbon reductions would be weaker. These are the real reasons why Poland and not e.g. Czechia was the main "disobedient boy" in this particular story. We're already starting to talk about hundreds of wasted billions of dollars so a correlation with the economic interests is bound to appear ever more frequently.
Soylent Greene adds some amusing comments about Commie Hedegaard's Stalinist comment to the Poles that they have no right to disagree if 26 countries agree. Soylent Green wanted to offer a joke about how many Poles it takes to screw a light bulb. His variation is How many Poles one needs to screw the EU? :-)
Heil carbon caps.
As Gene has pointed out, Airbus will probably lose some contracts in China due to the arrogance of the European politicians such as Ms Commie above. We're talking about $12 billion worth of jets which are already being blocked. This is just a breakfast for a few EU AGW sluts before they screw something else, too.