July 6, 2023 - 8:00am
When the EU passed its landmark climate policy in April, it was heralded as the bloc’s most ambitious to date. Under the new terms, emissions are to be slashed by 62% from 2005 levels before 2030, paving the way for the EU to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
But since the passage of that deal, cracks in the European alliance have started to emerge. In recent weeks, several countries and alliances have been calling for a pause, while others have been quietly abandoning climate targets altogether. In the past week alone, Austria’s federal environmental agency warned that the country’s climate target for 2030 would not be reached in time — just as leaked documents showed that Britain, a fellow traveller on green policy, dropped its flagship £11.6 billion climate pledge to developing countries (a week earlier, a separate report found that the government was set to miss the majority of its climate targets too).
According to the leak, the UK government has chosen to reorient its development focus away from green policies in order to deal with its post-Covid recovery, Ukraine and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. At the same time, Rishi Sunak has approved the country’s first deep coal mine in 30 years and promised to look into nuclear power as part of his energy security strategy.
Nuclear energy remains a divisive issue in the EU, but some countries are pursuing it nonetheless. Two weeks ago, Sweden’s parliament reformulated its energy target from “100% renewable” to “100% fossil-free electricity”, opening the door to the use of nuclear energy.
Elsewhere, countries have offered varying degrees of resistance or scepticism about the speed of the bloc’s climate agenda. While some leaders, namely Emmanuel Macron, have called for a “pause” in environmental legislation, other countries are taking a more aggressive approach. Last month, Poland’s climate minister promised to take the EU to court over its combustion-engine car ban.
Even Germany, arguably the EU’s biggest cheerleader for ambitious environmental targets, is struggling to stay on track. Earlier this year, the government’s decision to phase out gas and oil heating threw the coalition into a crisis, resulting in Robert Habeck and his Green Party plummeting in the polls. Just before the EU passed its emissions plan, Germany reneged on a deal to ban the sale of new internal combustion engines in the EU by 2035.
Ahead of European elections next year, an ideological split over the bloc’s green policy is taking shape. On the more sceptical side, a constellation of Right-leaning groups, ranging from the centre-Right EPP (which counts European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s CDU as a member) to the far-Right Identity & Democracy, have become increasingly critical of the green agenda. In April, these groups proposed several amendments calling for various aspects of the green agenda to be slashed or removed altogether. Meanwhile, the EU’s Left-leaning alliances are far more divided.
Towards the end of last month, EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition. Next week, there will be a much clearer picture as to whether he is correct when MEPs are set to vote again on a controversial nature restoration law that resulted in a 44-44 tie last month. For now, it seems possible that the EU’s landmark emissions plan in April may come to be viewed as the high watermark for the bloc’s green agenda.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeExcellent news. Reality bites.
Yeah fantastic. Like realising your house is on fire and deciding to have a BBQ and bring out the sausages and beer.
Do you think that cancelling the BBQ would change the weather?
As opposed to your house being on fire, but then deciding you can’t use water hoses (nuclear power) but instead have to rely on thimbles to get water from the next village…
Do you think that cancelling the BBQ would change the weather?
As opposed to your house being on fire, but then deciding you can’t use water hoses (nuclear power) but instead have to rely on thimbles to get water from the next village…
Yeah fantastic. Like realising your house is on fire and deciding to have a BBQ and bring out the sausages and beer.
Excellent news. Reality bites.
“EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition.”
Or reality, as it used to be called when the adults called the shots.
This
This
“EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition.”
Or reality, as it used to be called when the adults called the shots.
Politicians are always going to be swayed by the immediate over the distant (i.e. several elections away). Which is probably just as well in this case as Glorious Futures with no plans of how to get there are just dreams (or nightmares).
Totally agree, and this is the big problem with facing up to the climate crisis – human society is entirely embedded into the use of fossil fuels and to separate it is going to take incredible upheaval. We won’t really wake up to this issue until it becomes a genuine catastrophe – I’d say by that time it will be too late, but it’s too late already. Unless there are technical innovations to reduce CO2.
human chatboti
I’m not normally a spelling fascist but that raised a smile.
I’m not normally a spelling fascist but that raised a smile.
We could have solved the issue 25 years ago by following the French from the 1970s and going all out to replace electricity generation with nuclear power. Carbon-free energy would be done and dusted by now. Instead we have low-performance renewals and have only decarbonised 25-30% of electricity production (let alone all energy), and are still waiting on grid-scale battery technologies to be developed to fill in the sun-free and wind-free days.
Totally agree.
Totally agree.
human chatboti
We could have solved the issue 25 years ago by following the French from the 1970s and going all out to replace electricity generation with nuclear power. Carbon-free energy would be done and dusted by now. Instead we have low-performance renewals and have only decarbonised 25-30% of electricity production (let alone all energy), and are still waiting on grid-scale battery technologies to be developed to fill in the sun-free and wind-free days.
Totally agree, and this is the big problem with facing up to the climate crisis – human society is entirely embedded into the use of fossil fuels and to separate it is going to take incredible upheaval. We won’t really wake up to this issue until it becomes a genuine catastrophe – I’d say by that time it will be too late, but it’s too late already. Unless there are technical innovations to reduce CO2.
Politicians are always going to be swayed by the immediate over the distant (i.e. several elections away). Which is probably just as well in this case as Glorious Futures with no plans of how to get there are just dreams (or nightmares).
the EU’s landmark emissions plan in April may come to be viewed as the high watermark for the bloc’s green agenda
Let’s hope so.
the EU’s landmark emissions plan in April may come to be viewed as the high watermark for the bloc’s green agenda
Let’s hope so.
The incoherent logic of climate alarmists:
Climate change is a threat to food production (even though global crop yields continue to increase), therefore we must eliminate 30% of agricultural output.
The incoherent logic of climate alarmists:
Climate change is a threat to food production (even though global crop yields continue to increase), therefore we must eliminate 30% of agricultural output.
YES .. Thank God!!!
YES .. Thank God!!!
I’ve been avidly watching for years for the first sign that the Alarmists are going to start walking-back their silly theories. (The science is almost worthless, and the spin is much worse. Where did they ever get the idea that the human race is about to go extinct?!?)
I was hoping for something funnier, more Pythonesque. But this will do nicely.
NOAA’s recent data release showed a significant cooling trend since 2015. Before that we had 20 years of temperature plateauing. The media ignore this and instead we hear breathless articles about it being the ‘hottest day ever’ somewhere. Even if temperatures do rise – so what? Europe was 1-4 degrees warmer from 1000-1300 and it was a period of great prosperity. The whole climate narrative is the biggest fraud in history.
There will be many, many studies of this in the future. The growth of the catastrophic narrative would be fascinating if the consequences were not so destructive.
There will be many, many studies of this in the future. The growth of the catastrophic narrative would be fascinating if the consequences were not so destructive.
NOAA’s recent data release showed a significant cooling trend since 2015. Before that we had 20 years of temperature plateauing. The media ignore this and instead we hear breathless articles about it being the ‘hottest day ever’ somewhere. Even if temperatures do rise – so what? Europe was 1-4 degrees warmer from 1000-1300 and it was a period of great prosperity. The whole climate narrative is the biggest fraud in history.
I’ve been avidly watching for years for the first sign that the Alarmists are going to start walking-back their silly theories. (The science is almost worthless, and the spin is much worse. Where did they ever get the idea that the human race is about to go extinct?!?)
I was hoping for something funnier, more Pythonesque. But this will do nicely.
Seimens took a big hit in its stock price because their giant windmills are not performing as planned. In fact the entire industry is having performance problems. Not that the technology made any sense to start with. Not exactly surprising when you think about the size and speed of those blades. Just one more nail in the coffin of ‘green energy.’ If you want net zero you need nuclear – lots of it. The fact that Big Green opposes nuclear demonstrates that they don’t believe the global warming narrative – it is all about something else. I new term I heard was to calling environmentalists’watermelons’ – green on the outside – red on the inside.
Whilst I agree with you, you are a bit behind the times with the “water melon” label. That has been around for years.
I think that “green/red” label was coined by James Dellingpole. I personally disagree with it because to me there’s nothing socialist about the green movement. Authoritarian and draconian, yes, but not remotely interested in the material needs of ordinary, working people. In fact, environmentalism in its current incarnation is a deeply conservative, anti-modern and profoundly elitist movement that actively seeks to make life more expensive and inconvenient for working people: see the Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protests,which are basically about trustfunded toffs stopping people getting to work. It’s fine for the insufferable Emma Thompson to fly back to London first class from LA for an Extinction Rebellion protest, the real problem is apparently those nasty oiks having stag dos and sunning themselves in Spain. So I don’t buy this at all, Mr Dellingpole.
No one seemed bothered by protests either, until JSO targeted posh events like Wimbledon. You can stop workers from getting home, but don’t dare interrupt the entertainment of your superiors.
No one seemed bothered by protests either, until JSO targeted posh events like Wimbledon. You can stop workers from getting home, but don’t dare interrupt the entertainment of your superiors.
Whilst I agree with you, you are a bit behind the times with the “water melon” label. That has been around for years.
I think that “green/red” label was coined by James Dellingpole. I personally disagree with it because to me there’s nothing socialist about the green movement. Authoritarian and draconian, yes, but not remotely interested in the material needs of ordinary, working people. In fact, environmentalism in its current incarnation is a deeply conservative, anti-modern and profoundly elitist movement that actively seeks to make life more expensive and inconvenient for working people: see the Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protests,which are basically about trustfunded toffs stopping people getting to work. It’s fine for the insufferable Emma Thompson to fly back to London first class from LA for an Extinction Rebellion protest, the real problem is apparently those nasty oiks having stag dos and sunning themselves in Spain. So I don’t buy this at all, Mr Dellingpole.
Seimens took a big hit in its stock price because their giant windmills are not performing as planned. In fact the entire industry is having performance problems. Not that the technology made any sense to start with. Not exactly surprising when you think about the size and speed of those blades. Just one more nail in the coffin of ‘green energy.’ If you want net zero you need nuclear – lots of it. The fact that Big Green opposes nuclear demonstrates that they don’t believe the global warming narrative – it is all about something else. I new term I heard was to calling environmentalists’watermelons’ – green on the outside – red on the inside.
“Towards the end of last month, EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition.”
That’s because, Frans, even in the EU, political action is very often the result of confronting reality. The truth is that the technologies to deliver Net Zero do not exist and until they do, the politics will simply act as an expensive way shouting into the void.
The real good news in this article is that – at long bloody last – policymakers seem to be accepting that the right answer all along was nuclear power. Not accepting this was always demented of course, but better late than never.