Europe has clearly defined its goals to lead the world in terms of green growth. Still, only the most optimistic would say the road has been smooth so far. This is written in Euractiv Sirpa Pietikainen, Finnish MEP from the European People's Party. Here is her full statement:
Initiatives such as the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the Nature Restoration Act have been the subject of unusually contentious debate. While the scientific evidence behind the two initiatives is undisputed, they have fallen victim to the wider political and ideological conflicts that precede the upcoming European Parliament elections and are likely to shape the European Commission's agenda for the next term. The future of European industry seems headed for the same fate. The Zero Net Emissions Industry Act (NZIA), which is about to be voted on, is constrained by the same dynamic.
NZIA aims to strengthen the EU's renewable energy and storage capacity by promoting investment and identifying priority projects essential to strengthening the sustainability and competitiveness of the EU's net zero industry. It was presented as the EU's response to US President Joe Biden's Deflation Act. NZIA's main task is to strengthen Europe's strategic autonomy and global competitiveness.
But like the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which was passed in March – which effectively gave companies carte blanche to start new mining operations across Europe without adequate checks and balances – the NZIA lacks the carefully thought-out planning needed to move towards climate change. neutrality.
A missed opportunity
Both acts are missed opportunities to embed circular economy principles in EU industrial planning and to address the intensive energy needs of the fossil fuel sector.
According to the official targets set out in the Circular Economy Action Plan (2020), we should aim to double the proportion of materials recycled and returned to the economy between 2020 and 2030.
But in a recent briefing, the European Climate Neutrality Observatory (ECNO) warned that progress in the circular use of materials is too slow, with worrying signs of regression in 2021 and 2022 compared to 2020.
CRMA's raw material recycling targets were set at just 15%. The target should have been set at 75%.
Failure to make progress in the circular use of materials not only jeopardizes our climate goals, but also puts human health and the natural world at risk. This dangerous dynamic poses a threat not only to the Global South but also to people across Europe.
Progress in reducing emissions in the industrial sector is also moving too slowly according to ECNO, leading them to warn that the transition to fully decarbonised energy sources has reached a plateau.
ECNO's analysis shows that we have not yet laid the groundwork for the "deep transformation" needed to achieve climate neutrality and are now at risk of locking ourselves into fossil fuel technologies with time horizons that extend beyond what we can let's afford it.
Dangerous side roads
Worse, lobbyists are working hard to push half-hearted solutions like unsustainable biofuels, blue hydrogen and carbon dioxide storage (CCS) that are simply dangerous and expensive side roads.
As the climate crisis and biodiversity loss gather pace with each passing day, we can hardly afford to waste time on such alternative solutions. We can no longer work with half measures when it comes to setting goals or evaluating solutions. We will have to be bold in our thinking but rigorous in our analysis.
Yet such an approach faces significant political obstacles. In February, signatories to the Antwerp Declaration on a European Industrial Deal called on the EU to "allow entrepreneurship to flourish to find the best solutions to the challenges", avoiding "detailed implementation provisions" and "over-reporting" in Green policy deal purposes. Signatories include multinational fossil fuel and chemical giants ExxonMobil and DuPont.
Unfortunately, we see how important climate and environmental goals can be subordinated to the short-term goals of industry in the EU institutions. This kind of myopic thinking is extremely dangerous.
Transforming the industry now will mean we keep pace with innovation and protect ourselves from the volatility and security risks of dependence on international energy and commodity markets. At the same time, we can improve the competitiveness of our industries.
The arguments of science are clear. But the fate of the Green Deal going into the next session of the European Parliament is far from certain.
We must not let climate goals take second place to industry demands. Rather, we must find ways to ensure that the goals of both work together in harmony. Failure to do so is a recipe for disaster.