It will be Europe’s “man on the moon moment,” proclaimed the continent’s top politician earlier this month. A bold climate-correcting policy that puts environmentalism at the very heart of the bloc’s future. From the buildings we inhabit, the vehicles we drive, how our food is produced, and even the quality of the air we breathe, every facet of European life is set to change. Ursula Von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, hopes her bold “Green New Deal” will spur the world into a spree of decarbonization. It’s a heady ambition; but at both home and abroad, many remain unconvinced.    

Specific Goals Of Von Der Leyen’s Plan

Perhaps the single largest policy overhaul in the EU’s history, Von der Leyen’s scheme sets a lofty target: continent-wide carbon-neutrality in Europe by 2050. By 2030, a little over a decade from now, Von der Leyen hopes to see current emissions slashed by half. Europe’s transport network will be remodeled, as will member states’ recycling programs, with specific standards replacing existing unregulated targets. The EU’s agriculture and fisheries budgets will also be reformed, with up to 40% of funding dedicated to decarbonization. Europe’s toxic air nightmare will be addressed too, with the imposition of strict new air quality requirements.

Environmental groups have applauded the scope of Von der Leyen’s vision, but not all are convinced. Eastern Europe, desperate to share in their westerly neighbors’ wealth, have been forced to sacrifice environmental standards in the pursuit of post-Soviet prosperity. In Poland, some 80% of electricity comes from coal-fired power stations. In Romania, a mere 14% of waste is recycled, far behind Germany’s two-thirds. Further examples are illustrated by Bulgaria and Estonia, which are saddled with sooty economies, both of which well above the world average in terms of carbon-intensiveness.

Poorer EU Nations Are Worried About Being Left Behind

These nations simply cannot afford to commit to environmental pledges in the way Western Europe can, critics say. In an effort to head off this geographical imbalance, Von der Leyen has proposed a €100 billion inducement for reluctant nations. It’s a sizeable sum, undoubtedly, but the shift toward carbon-neutrality carries grave economic risks. The coal industry alone puts a quarter of a million Europeans to work, mostly in Eastern states. Unnerved at the prospect of mass unemployment, Poland broke ranks last week, refusing to endorse the deal. 

Additionally, Brussels may have to wrestle with a north-south divide too, experts warn. To fund the continent’s eco push, Von der Leyen hopes to stimulate investment in green-minded industries and technology⁠—but not all of Europe is furnished with the financial infrastructure to accommodate such a move. 

“While Germany has a strong state-owned development bank, KfW, significant links between science and industry and excellent vocational training, many of the southern member states do not,” explains Professor Mariana Mazzucato of University College London.

How To Define ‘Greenwashing’ And Put A Stop To It

The classification of low-carbon investments has caused further controversy. So-called “greenwashing”⁠—the act of marketing a product or service as eco-friendly without any independent verification⁠—must be stamped out, EU leaders agree. However, member states disagree on the details. With its negligible production of CO2, the atomic energy sector should be deemed green, France, the Czech Republic, and a number of other nations have argued. Brussels disagreed. Eventually, however, an accommodation was reached, with nuclear power to be recognized as helping the transition towards carbon-neutrality, though not strictly speaking environmentally-friendly itself. 

International Partners Will Be Hard To Convince

Such a tidy compromise will be harder to agree on with Von der Leyen’s international detractors. Under her proposals, no new trade deals will be signed with states failing to fulfill their green commitments. It’s a strident policy that could have seismic consequences. The EU’s largest commercial partner, Donald Trump’s United States, is set to leave the 2016 Paris Agreement on climate change, and China, number two on the bloc’s trading list, is lagging environmentally.   

Nations attempting to honor their eco-pledges, but still struggling with emissions will be subject to a cross-border levy, Von der Leyen’s Green New Deal says. It will, in effect, be a tax on excess carbon production, with importers charged a heightened fee for bringing less green shipments into the EU. More controversial even that her plan to sideline some of Europe’s most lucrative trading partners, Von der Leyen claims the carbon levy is necessary to prevent local businesses being undercut by less expensive (but dirtier) imports of energy-intensive products, like steel.

This justification has fallen flat with many in the developing world. Collectively the planet’s second largest economy, the EU can afford its pursuit of carbon-neutrality. Its poorer partners are less able to indulge in environmental high-mindedness. By erecting trade barriers⁠—however theoretically ethical⁠—Europe edges closer to its protectionist past, and even runs the risk of acting like a “colonist”, says the likes of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and Indonesia’s Joko Widodo.

The Plan Is For The Best

Regardless of these criticisms, Von der Leyen understands that the EU, despite producing just one-tenth of the planet’s greenhouse gases, must lead the world’s war on global warming. By adopting a radical new approach, Europeans can prove that decarbonization need not be financial folly. The climate crisis took shape amid their continent’s breakneck 18th century industrialization. There, a quarter millennia later, they hope it can be brought under control.   

L'articolo The EU’s Plan To Lead The World Away From Climate Catastrophe proviene da InsideOver.

This year’s edition of the UN Climate Change Conference – COP25 – came under threat before it even began. Originally supposed to be held in Santiago, it was initially called off by the host due to the ongoing protests against the Chilean government, before being moved to Madrid on a very short notice. 

Thousands of delegates – including governments, scientists, NGOs and activists – descended to Madrid from Dec 3 onwards to finalise the rulebook of the Paris Agreement and settle all the nitty-gritty details regarding the long-term strategy against climate change once the 2020 deadline, set by the Paris Agreement, takes effect. 

During the two-week negotiations, longest in conference’s 25-year history, that concluded Sunday afternoon, around 190 countries participated and agreed to set more ambitious goals to fight climate change. 

However, the summit failed to see any breakthroughs in terms of clear-cut commitments as major irritants, such as the technicalities of Article 6 – that governs the international carbon markets – couldn’t be resolved and were carried forward to the next meeting of the UN climate process in Bonn in 2020. 

UN Secretary-General wasn’t happy with how things transpired at COP25 and remarked: “I am disappointed with the results of COP25. The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis.”

While not many were expecting any significant developments in terms of emission targets at COP25, it was nonetheless a great opportunity to lay down a clear roadmap before 2020 kicks off, which is when all parties are to submit nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for cutting emissions as per their commitments under the Paris Agreement of 2015.

The summit witnessed a clear divide in terms of the aspirations of member states with the biggest emitters showing a lack of interest while the smaller countries taking a stronger stance. 

On the one hand were the likes of Australia, Brazil and the United States (already pulling out of the Paris Agreement next year) blocking ambitious language in the proposals, while on the other stood smaller states, particularly islands that are more vulnerable to climate change, demanding urgency. 

In fact, the Alliance of Small Island States even lashed out at India, China and Brazil for stalling progress on Article 6. This was specifically regarding the carry forward of Kyoto units (which allowed billions of units of certified emissions reductions) with India, China and Brazil contesting for its inclusion in Article 6.4 as carbon credits while the EU being against this proposal on grounds that it would lower the ambition even further. 

Much of the negotiations were eventually reduced to technicalities regarding Article 6, including the structure of carbon markets and the accounting principles to be applied in order to avoid double-counting among other issues. 

The jointly adopted text at the end recognised the “significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation efforts in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.”

It further mentions the commitment of developed countries to mobilise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help address the needs of developing nations. 

But negotiations on the wider climate finance issue, that deals with access to funds for cutting emissions for developing countries saw major disagreements as the parties concerned wanted a broader interpretation that also covered loss and damages. Eventually, an agreement was reached to form an expert panel to consider aid for loss and damages along with “Santiago network” for facilitating technical support. 

The topic of common metrics, which deals with the reporting and conversion of non-CO2 emissions onto C02 equivalent. At the heart of the issue was methane and the countries that produce it great amounts: namely Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. These three were unable to convince the rest to report conversions using their preferred unit but managed to secure this option as complementing the benchmark. 

Meanwhile, the growing disconnect between the policymakers and the wider population was witnessed when hundreds of thousands of angry protestors gathered in Madrid to demand more urgency in action.  

All wasn’t that gloomy though as the conference saw the unveiling of a five-year gender action plan for supporting the “implementation of gender-related decisions and mandates in the UNFCCC processes.”

While not exactly occurring in Madrid, another glimpse of hope came during the course of the conference from Brussels when the European Commission revealed a European Green Deal, that plans to commit at least 25% of the union’s long-term budget towards climate action while raising its NDC target for 2030. 

The countries will now meet in Bonn the coming June for an inter-sessional meeting but the key issues will have to addressed in Glasgow, which will host COP26 in November. Experts have their eyes fixed on EU-China talks in Leipzig since the bulk of the responsibility falls on them now with the US out of the equation.

L'articolo UN Climate Talks End in a Stalemate proviene da InsideOver.

On Friday (December 13), leaders of the European Union (EU), except Poland, reached a deal for being carbon neutral by 2050 in a summit in Brussels, meaning that the bloc’s 28 member countries must lower their carbon emissions from fossil fuel and seek alternatives to balance the remaining emissions.

The meeting in Brussels is the first summit after the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promoted the “Green Deal” (European Green Deal), a proposal aimed at transforming the EU economy and reaching climate neutrality in the middle of this century.

“Our goal is to reconcile the economy with our planet, to reconcile the way we produce, the way we consume with our planet, and to make it work with our people. The old-growth model is out of date and out of touch with our planet,” Von der Leyen, the former German defence minister, spoke following the adoption of the agreement.

What is in the deal?

The goal includes proposals to slash emission to 50 per cent of 1990 levels, or even lower by 2030. According to the bloc report in 2018, emissions within the organization has significantly dropped in the last two decades. Yet, the EU emissions still contribute 9.6 per cent to the annual global carbon emission.

The deal also introduces a new circular economy action plan which describes more detail on how to manufacture eco-friendly products that can be recycled and reused. The circular economy action plan will focus on carbon-intensive sectors such as cement, textiles, and steel.

Several Eastern nations want assurance

Poland, where 80% of the country’s electricity relies on coal, opposed the plan in a lengthy debate. The country’s Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, announced that his side has been exempt from the 2050 deadline for carbon neutrality.

“This rule that must also be included in the legislative process, the rule that Poland would be reaching climate neutrality at its own pace,” Morawiecki said as BBC quoted, adding that Brussels has provided financial assistance to the most affected region by fossil fuel reduction.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told journalists that Poland would have time until a summit in June 2020 to decide whether it would join the commitment to implementing the climate initiative.

There is no division of Europe into different parts, but there is a member state that still needs a bit more time,” Merkel added

Previously the Czech Republic raised its objection to the 2050 carbon neutrality. However, Prague finally agreed after the EU guaranteed that its member countries could use nuclear energy to curb emissions.

Under the deal, the EU provides a funding platform called €100bn Just Transition Mechanism, targeting the most vulnerable countries in transition to move to eco-friendly energy.

Does the deal show any progress?

As the UN climate talks in Madrid (known as COP 25) ended in disappointment, the EU achievement can be considered a decisive breakthrough.

However, green activists push for a higher emission target to 65 per cent by 2030. The plan will be adopted next summer, ahead of the 2020 Glasgow climate summit.

Timing is everything. Now EU member states have a big responsibility to agree on a much higher 2030 climate target at the European Council in June 2020,” Wendel Trio of the Climate Action Network told The Guardian.

The plan has its flaws too

Nothing is flawless in this world. The green deal is praised for focusing on workers’ protection (to anticipate job losses in the fossil fuel sector) and investment in renewable energy. Yet, the plan does not provide details on what energy mix the EU will count on, types of technologies deployed, and incentives for lowering emissions.

The rise of Green Parties across Europe may push the implementation of the deal. However, it is unlikely that Europe will implement the plant now given the stagnant growth and resistance to the policy that affects citizens’ lives (like the Yellow Vest rally that protested a fuel price hike in France last year and now they are protesting pension reforms). Despite the declining emissions, reaching the target set in the benchmark will be a long way to go.

Helen Mountford, vice president of climate and economics at the World Resources Institute, stated as Vox quoted: “The European Council can demonstrate leadership by adopting a more ambitious national climate commitment next year. This, in turn, would help open the door for more major economies to put forward ambitious climate plans in 2020.”

L'articolo Can the EU Green Deal Solve The Climate Problems? proviene da InsideOver.