Skip to main content

The European Green Deal

December 12, 2019

It's important to remember that the European Union (EU) has the world's largest economy. It ranks third, behind China and the United States, in contributions to climate change. What the EU decides to do in order to combat climate change will affect every one of us, existentially and economically. Unveiled yesterday, the EU's Green Deal proposes a target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Regulators will create standards for the manufacturing of goods that force recycling and the phasing out of plastic and other kinds of non-recyclable waste.

Beginning in 2021, 40 percent of the agricultural budget will, assuming adoption of the plan, be devoted to mitigating climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, 30 percent of fisheries subsidies would be used in a similar manner. Air quality standards will be more stringent, an essential element of the plan, given that 400,000 premature deaths a year can be attributed to air pollution in Europe. Higher levels of energy would come from renewable sources (up to 100 percent by 2050). Shipping would increasingly rely on rail and water, with greenhouse gas emissions as a result of air freight being reduced.

There are member states of the EU - Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary - that are very reluctant to end their dependence upon coal as an energy source. To ease their transition to carbon neutrality, the European Commission, which authored the plan, proposes to help them with a gift of 100 billion British pounds, or $111 billion. These countries do not present the only sticking point. Agriculture and fisheries both have powerful lobbies with objections of their own. Car manufacturing and chemical production companies will have plenty to say about new regulations proposed in the Green Deal plan.

The European Green Deal, like the Green New Deal proposed in the United States, places considerable emphasis on innovation and worker protections, making it a social justice document as well as an economic and environmental document. The plan enjoys an oblique endorsement by the World Wildlife Fund, whose Ester Asin says, "The proposed package is comprehensive, identifying the right areas for action, from biodiversity and nature restoration to climate change and stopping deforestation. However, by emphasizing continued economic growth as a key objective, the commission has missed an opportunity to challenge the traditional growth paradigm in favor of an approach that would respect planetary boundaries." We will no doubt be hearing much more in the coming months.



With thanks to Vox, Mother Jones, and the Guardian.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Truly, There's Nothing to be Afraid of

February 26, 2013 – The 1960s scared conservatives worse than I knew – worse than a lot of us knew, I guess.   Certainly I lived through that period.   Certainly young adults found their voices, and had the nerve to object to being put through the meat grinder called Vietnam.   Black Americans continued to seek justice and equality in their adopted homeland.   Change was inevitable.   It’s understandable that conservatives wanted a say in what those changes would be.   Their fearful reaction was – and is - badly overblown.   Others’ happiness is nothing to fear.     These longed-for changes cost conservatives nothing but their unearned, self-satisfied atrophy.   Young people went on dying, even so. It turns out all of that change scared the socks off market fundamentalists.   Determined to return the country to its previous perceived state of inertia, Lewis Powell wrote a memorandum for the US Chamber of Commerce, urging a sh...

A Rock and a Hard Place

October 8, 2012 - Such a pickle: we have the coal, but no longer want to burn it.  China wants the coal, but shouldn't burn it because of the resulting air pollution.  Coal mining companies in the U.S. are ready and waiting to ship their coal to China.  Citizens of the U.S. living on its west coast are adamant they want nothing to do with exporting coal.  That includes Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.  Kitzhaber's April 25 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar expresses his profound skepticism about shipping coal by way of Oregon's ports.  He has requested that a programatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) first be conducted for all five of the export projects currently being considered, as well as a comprehensive policy review.  Here is part of a press release announcing his letter: "I have concerns about proceeding in this direction [exporting coal to China via Oregon ports] in the absence of a full national discussion about the ramif...