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

Time to be Scared

November 26, 2018 You've heard by now that the US Global Change Research Program released its Fourth National Climate Assessment last Friday. Scientists are, at last, confident enough to say that climate change is the new reality. How very much I wish they had published this bold assertion many years ago, rather than always being hesitant (" . . . we're 73% sure this could happen . . ."). While I know the politics involved cannot be allowed to sway them, and that scientists are unaccustomed to speaking for the masses, their inability to convince the scientifically uneducated of the value in climate change hypotheses has hurt us all. In any event, they have now spoken up loudly and clearly. According to NOAA, one of the 13 government agencies responsible for the Assessment, we can expect the following, should mitigating actions not be taken immediately: - Human health and safety, quality of life, and economic growth will all suffer.        The 2014 Assessment c...

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...