2024-03-10 19:14:27
The war in Ukraine and migration worries more the people of the Old continent than climate change
The European Green Deal, known as the Green Deal, the EU’s most ambitious package of reforms, investment and research, is in danger of failing, or at least partially.
As June’s European elections approach, so do questions about the future direction of the Green Deal and its ability to meet its climate goals while promoting innovation, the economy and social welfare.
The Green Deal
collided and with a lot challenges
– compromises in the adoption of laws, often leading to the weakening of already adopted ones, blocking during voting, dissatisfaction on the part of various sectors – from industry to agriculture (more on the farmers’ protests on page 39). With the introduction of the first measures to combat climate change, it has also become clear that it does not come cheap for the EU to be green.
However, so far 62 of the Green Deal bills have been passed, 27 are close to being passed and 33 have been tabled in the EP, a parliamentary reference shows. 36 laws have been submitted and are expected to be introduced, but in the meantime 4 are blocked and another 4 are cancelled. According to a report by the European Environment Agency, some of the interim targets of the Green Deal by 2030 will not be met on time.
When presented in December 2019 by Ursula von der Leyen, then newly appointed EC president, the Green Deal looked like the main course the EU would take. As her term began amid protests across Europe that put climate goals at the top of the agenda, the presentation of the Green Deal was timely.
Shortly afterwards, however, the EU faced one of its worst crises – that of COVID-19. The pandemic was followed by an increase in illegal migration, the war in Ukraine, disruption of energy supplies, record inflation and an overall slowdown of the economy. All this shifted the focus of the EU significantly, which proved to be a problem. Even Von der Leyen herself apparently
pulled away from your green legacy,
now placing more emphasis on topics such as competitiveness, migration and defence.
Since 2019, the union has undergone quite a few changes. Instead of angry eco-activists on the streets, there are now angry farmers, implacable against Brussels’ increasing green regulations. And this is not unique to the agricultural sector – most Europeans are more concerned about economic and geopolitical instability, migration, the rising cost of living and war than climate change.
However, the Green Deal remains the EU’s strongest tool, which, unlike other measures or crisis packages, aims to prevent a future crisis rather than a current one.
But if we take for example the floods, fires and other natural cataclysms such as abnormally high temperatures, which in recent years have become more frequent phenomena on the Old Continent, we can actually call the crisis present, even if in a more primitive form.
The 30-year strategy focuses on the transition to clean energy, promoting the circular economy, protecting biodiversity and limiting pollution. Even before the introduction of the Green Deal, however, the EU had ambitious climate plans. Brussels called for a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. With its introduction, the mid-century target became the so-called net zero – reducing the amount of emitted harmful emissions to values as close as possible to 0%.
Net zero is nothing new – back in 2015 the Paris Agreement laid out in black and white that it is
the only one way to restriction on the global warming up
below the critical threshold of 1.5°. In addition to the ultimate goal, the EU also has an intermediate goal – to reduce emissions by 55% compared to the levels from 2005 to 2030, as this is presented in the package of legislative initiatives “Ready for 55”. It outlines the concrete actions needed to achieve a range of targets by the end of the decade, covering the energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture and biodiversity sectors. “Ready for 55” emphasizes the rapid transition to renewable energy, aiming for 40% of Europe’s energy to be produced from renewable sources by 2030. It should also promote energy efficiency, accelerate the introduction of zero-emission vehicles and improve the circular economy.
An adequate budget is also needed to finance the ambitious goals. Therefore, in January 2020, the EC presented the investment plan for the Green Deal, with which committed to investment in sustainable development of at least €1 trillion over the next decade. In addition, the Just Transition Mechanism worth 100 billion euros was created to support the regions most affected by the transition to cleaner energy sources, including Bulgaria.
Despite the bloc’s efforts at transformation, obstacles to a Green Deal appear to be mounting. The EU, for example, is still dependent on fossil fuels, particularly coal, and countries such as Germany, Romania and Croatia plan to expand their use well beyond 2030. Despite significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in recent years, the EU
risk to did not achieve your goal
to reduce emissions by 55% if it makes no further efforts.
In addition, the continued subsidization of fossil fuels represents a significant obstacle to the transition to clean energy, as highlighted by the EC. Despite efforts to phase out these subsidies, the Environment Agency’s report says it is highly unlikely the EU will meet its target of eliminating them by 2030.
However, maintaining the momentum of the green transition remains crucial, otherwise there is a risk of undermining the EU’s influence on the world stage. But the biggest danger is that the EU will not deal with the consequences of the climate, and this will lead to irreversible consequences for everyone.
Given the growing opposition to the measures, the fate of Europe’s green transition hangs in the balance in the upcoming European elections.
“If there is no longer any democratic support for the Green Deal, it will end. This is one of the main issues at stake in the elections”, Pascal Canfin, Chairman of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament, confirmed this thesis in the correct text.
Brussels gives way to the wrath of the tractors
The EC approves the BG scheme of 120 mln. the left aid to producers of grain and oil crops
Green policies angered farmers and Europe saw protests and tractor blockades in dozens of member states. Some of the provisions in the Green Deal are cited as the main reasons for the plight of farmers. But how much is the Green Deal to blame?
Farmers want more financial and technical support to comply with some of the green requirements, which they say raise their costs, burden them with bureaucracy and put them at risk of breaking the rules.
At the same time, other factors have weighed on farmers’ incomes in recent years, from the COVID-19 pandemic to the fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The war, in addition to driving up the price of fuel and fertilizer, also led to increased competition for Ukrainian grain imports, another pain, especially for Eastern European farmers.
However, Green Deal initiatives are aimed at helping, not harming, farmers. With climate change – higher temperatures, drought, floods, etc., their future production will also be affected. Strategies such as Farm to Fork, which underpins the Green Deal, were created to make food systems more sustainable, fair and green. But the EC failed to deliver on two key components – the pesticide reduction law and the framework for a sustainable food system. A month ago, the EC withdrew its proposal on the reduction of pesticides, which was supposed to halve their use in the EU by 2030 and provided for a complete ban on pesticides in sensitive natural areas. This was described by some as a victory for the agricultural sector. Furthermore, the Sustainable Food System Framework, which was supposed to accelerate and facilitate the transition to sustainable food for consumers, was never proposed.
As June’s European elections approach, support among farmers for far-right parties has grown. They seek to capitalize on the protests while running anti-EU campaigns, including criticism of climate change policies.
However, in the shadows there is someone who is really hurting farmers – the outdated agricultural model. The Common Agricultural Policy was created in 1962 after the world wars to increase production in Europe. Alas, the concept is now outdated and works on the principle of “the bigger your farm, the bigger your subsidy”. As a result, the number of farms in the EU fell by almost 40% between 2005 and 2020, forcing around 5.3 million farmers out of business.
1/3 of the EU budget – taxpayers’ money – is given for the subsidies in question. This policy forces farmers to intensify their production by using synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and excessive amounts of water. Agribusiness lobbies fiercely defend this system as it generates huge profits for them. It is they who spread the thesis that the removal of green measures will solve the problems of farmers, when in fact they think first of their own profit. Copa-Cogeca – the most powerful farming lobby in Europe – has been a vocal critic of Farm to Fork. It also puts the interests of industrial farmers ahead of small and medium-sized ones. They don’t hide it from there. Some time ago, in a conversation with Politico, Pekka Pessonen, the head of the organization, which defines itself as the “united voice” of farmers in the EU, said that although he wants to see how small farmers manage to survive, it is “not realistic.” , because “the market does not reward him”.
At the same time, on Thursday, the European Commission approved a Bulgarian scheme in the amount of approximately 61.3 million euros (120 million leva) to support farmers, producers of grain and oil crops, in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The aid will be provided in the form of a limited amount of direct payments. It will be open to producers of wheat, barley, canola, corn and sunflower.
The scheme cannot exceed 280 thousand euros per recipient and can be granted until June 30 at the latest.