EU Europe blinks in its commitment to a great green transition - Governments are starting to blink at the cost — political and economic — needed to power the great transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables.

Europe blinks in its commitment to a great green transition
The Washington Post (archive.ph)
By William Booth and Anthony Faiola
2023-08-06 00:15:05GMT

eu01.jpg
A firefighting helicopter sprays water on a forest fire near an oil refinery in Agioi Theodoroi in western Athens on July 19. (Valerie Gache/AFP/Getty Images)

LONDON — Europe made big, bold promises to slash carbon emissions to slow global warming, but now the bill is coming due, and governments are starting to blink at the cost — political and economic — needed to power the great transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables.

Once far-off goals are getting more real, as Europe wrestles with how to tell Germans which cars they can drive, Italians which stoves are acceptable, Polish miners why they must abandon coal, and Britons why they can’t keep exploiting their country’s massive oil and gas reserves.

Britain and the European Union have pledged to go “net zero” by 2050, with steep cuts by 2030. But across Europe — where this summer has brought brutal heat waves and raging fires in the Mediterranean region — a backlash is simmering against some of the world’s most ambitious green targets.

Last week, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak traveled to Scotland to announce with a big splash his decision to open the North Sea to more oil and gas drilling.
This got Sunak’s private mansion in the Yorkshire countryside draped in “oil-black fabric” by Greenpeace activists who warned that his plan to “max out” fossil fuel reserves could destroy Britain’s chance of meeting its emissions commitments and risk tipping the climate into a danger zone.

Sunak’s gambit to commit to more domestic drilling was inspired in part by the results of a one-off parliamentary election in the London suburbs — for the seat that former prime minister Boris Johnson abandoned when he quit the House of Commons. There, voters signaled they were opposed to the pollution charges ordered up by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, from the opposition Labour Party, to limit the number of petrol cars allowed into the central city.

eu02.jpg
A sign indicates the boundary of London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone ahead of a proposed expansion June 26. (Toby Melville/Reuters)

The E.U., too, has been fighting about cars.

Last fall, the 27-nation bloc reached a world-leading political agreement to effectively end the sale of nonelectric cars by 2035. But this year, a group of countries sought to water down the rules.

The regulations have remained largely intact, though Germany secured an exception for conventional vehicles that would run on carbon-neutral e-fuels. Such fuels are not yet economically viable for mass use.

But the push suggested the rising discontent among auto industry executives and workers across the continent over a total switch to electric vehicles, and the end of cars using internal combustion engines — whose production is linked to tens of thousands of jobs in Germany, Italy and beyond.

Italy and other E.U. nations are also taking aim at “Euro 7” regulations that, by 2025, are meant to tighten vehicle exhaust emissions.

“Italy, with France, Czech Republic, Romania, Portugal, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary, have the numbers to block this leap in the dark,” Italy's hard right Transportation Minister Matteo Salvini told a May car dealer conference in Verona. “We're now a blocking minority, we want to become a majority.”

Despite those claims, analysts say that rolling back already agreed-upon E.U. rules remains a long shot. But new agreements are more vulnerable.

During a speech on how to revive French industry, President Emmanuel Macron in May called for “a European regulatory break.”

“We have already passed lots of environmental regulations at the European level, more than other countries,” Macron said. “Now we should be implementing them, not making new changes in the rules or we are going to lose all our [industrial] players.”

Macron said Europe was doing its part and is “ahead of the Americans, the Chinese and of any other power in the world.”

The E.U. has reduced its per capita emissions by 29 percent since 1990 but still has far to go. Overall, the top emitters today are China, the United States, the E.U., India, Russia and Japan. The prevailing notion of climate justice suggests that wealthy countries that grew their economies while spewing carbon for a century need to do more than poorer, less developed countries that are historically less responsible for climate change.

Surveys show strong support for reducing emissions in Britain and Europe. But the zeal dampens when the pollsters ask more detailed questions about the people’s willingness to make lifestyle changes or spend a lot of money.

Simone Tagliapietra, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, pointed to the new right-wing government of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, which is pushing back on bloc-wide efficiency standards that could require mass renovation of buildings across Europe.

“Meloni and others say, ‘Look, why should we force our citizens to retrofit their buildings? We cannot impose this on ordinary people,’” Tagliapietra said.

He said, “This is the kind of pushback you see when climate policy really enters the daily life of people. And it can be pretty successful.”

Meloni — who is rapidly emerging as a guiding light for the European right — has walked a cautious line on the environment.

She has artfully dodged the toxic label of “climate denier” — arguing instead for “pragmatic” solutions that don’t run Europe’s economies into the ground.

(Her alliance partners in Italy have been far less careful. “I do not know how much climate change is manmade and how much of it is due to the Earth’s [natural] climate change,” her environmental minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin told Britain’s Sky News last week.)

Britain’s prime minister, too, is careful to call his new North Sea oil policy “proportionate and pragmatic.”

As the U.K. transitions away from fossil fuels — toward wind, solar and nuclear power, which it is doing at pace — it will still need oil and gas for decades to come.

So why buy foreign oil, asks Sunak, who says he is still committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. To balance out his oil-and-gas play, he also announced billion-dollar bets on carbon capture technology.

eu03.jpg
The Total Culzean platform is on the North Sea, about 45 miles east of Aberdeen, Europe's self-proclaimed oil capital on Scotland's northeast coast, in 2019. (Andy Buchanan/AFP/Getty Images)

But the right wing of Sunak’s Conservative Party is filled with climate skeptics, who argue that a warmer world will not be so bad for damp, cloudy Britain. They deride climate activists as the “eco-woke” and warn that the costs of the transition to net zero are too high — especially when top polluters like China and Russia are not following the West’s lead.

David Frost, a former government minister and top Brexit negotiator, told the House of Lords last month that rising temperatures “are likely to be beneficial” for Britain, because more people in the United Kingdom die from cold than from heat.

Frost said rather than spend billions on renewable energy, the U.K. should adapt to the warming climate, “so we can adjust to the perfectly manageable consequences of slowly rising temperatures as they emerge.”

“We must put aside the current mood of hysteria and try to assess the choices logically,” he said.

Frost’s go-slow appeal comes against a dizzying streak of record-breaking heat waves in Europe, the United States and Asia, as well as shrinking sea ice at the poles and hot-tub ocean temperatures.

U.N. chief António Guterres pleaded for immediate radical action on climate change, saying that record-shattering July temperatures show the planet has passed from global warming to an “era of global boiling.” He begged governments not to backslide.

“Leaders must lead. No more hesitancy. No more excuses. No more waiting for others to move first,” Guterres said.

But on a grass-roots level, Europeans are thinking about costs.

In Holland, Dutch farmers have staged strikes against government calls to dramatically slash heads of cattle and sell off land to help the country meet its goals to cut nitrogen and ammonia emissions by 2030.

It happens as the Dutch are feeling the impact of climate policy in deeply personal ways, including reductions in highway speeds and new building permits to meet climate goals.

“We’re not going to take it anymore,” said Jos Ubels, a young Dutch cattle farmer and vice president of the Farmers Defense Force, a group formed to promote farmers’ rights.

“We should teach the countries that pollute the most — the poorest countries — ways to reduce emissions,” Ubels said.

“You can’t expect a small country like the Netherlands to make such a difference,” he said. “Here, it’s become some kind of joke, the way they keep using trial and error, and are not sure if any of it really helps.”
 
It's starting to look like agenda 2030 will be pushed back to 2050, then 2070 then...

Just like how the European governments threatened to fire you if you didn't get jabbed, and then backed out at the last minute (Uk govt rescinded the firing policy the month before everyone was going to get fired), the governments are all talk, but when it hits their pocket, everything changes.
 
The UK has just demonstrated that the cost to consumers for energy providers to shift to 80%+ Green Energy is TEN TIMES what we used to pay for burning fossil fuels to heat water to turn magnets. Electricity has gone from £20/mo to £200/mo under the cover of Covid and Ukraine, yet the true culprit behind the scenes is the decade long flip to "renewables" that has to be bolstered by sudden, massive imports of natural gas from time to time anyway. We've created a new billionaire class and redefined energy bills as legal Priority Debts, and at no point along the way were the public consulted or even warned about any of it. Energy is as Green as it gets here now, and it's fucking expensive.
 
Gosh, it's almost like Net Zero was only ever a political ploy designed to shore up progressive support.
Oops... turns out this problem was harder than we thought. Can't solve it within this decade. But if you give us more money, we will totally have the technology ready for gay luxury space communism by the end of the next one. Pls. gib money.
No, they still want green energy. The problem is that the cost of living is going through the roof, and green politicians are worried they'll get shellacked next election cycle. All that's happening is they're trying to keep taxpayer screams below the election-losing threshold.
 
“We should teach the countries that pollute the most — the poorest countries — ways to reduce emissions,” Ubels said.

“You can’t expect a small country like the Netherlands to make such a difference,” he said. “Here, it’s become some kind of joke, the way they keep using trial and error, and are not sure if any of it really helps.”
Man I hate this kind of niggercattle slave mentality. "Stop bullying me, why don't you go bully someone else?"

Fuck off. The message you should be sending is "The government is skullfucking me over made up, fictional bullshit and if they keep pushing im going to fedpost and sneed as many of them as I can into an early grave."
 
Good, it's about time! These plans need to be seriously looked at and exposed for their lack of realistic or scientific logic and practicality! They allowed plans to be created on nothing but the fantasies/demands of green and prog ideologues. No hard numbers or true planning. Just what advocates insisted must work because they said so.
 
Don't forget their descendants who should not escape that.
Given how I am a TRUE AND HONEST Catholic, I do believe that they will suffer some form of generational curses, at least that's what this guy Fr. Chad Ripperger, who my mom listens to, says.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BBJ_4_Ever
The prevailing notion of climate justice suggests that wealthy countries that grew their economies while spewing carbon for a century need to do more than poorer, less developed countries that are historically less responsible for climate change.
I can't believe people still say this unironically and don't see the issue with it, during the industrial revolution western countries didn't burn coal for fun it was because it was the most effecient form of power generation available. Its not the 1800s anymore we have cleaner forms of energy production even using fossil fuels so why is coal-fired plants still accounting for over half of China's energy production?

If you genuinely wanted to reduce CO2 emissions then campaign for subsidies for non-fossil fuel power plants in China or India, leave Europe out of it.
 
Hilarious. When its these 'organizations' who arrest people who try to fix the environment. Ocean pasturization is a no-no word in the UN and the Canadian who actually managed to bring back fish population was raided by SWAT.


Then of course the awful reality of the people who try to develop hydrogen engines seem to die of mysterious causes. Remember, if we get dragged into a Soylent Green reality, which is a setting where the environment is so bad that food had to be heavily regulated, its these assholes who are responsible for sending the world into that state.
 
The farcical green transition is useful in that it will fuel the popularity of far right parties across Europe. This is already happening in Germany.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clipartfan92
The Green Industrial Complex:

Hype up changing weather patterns that have both natural and man made causes.

Propose solution of carbon neutral credits.

Already own the protected forestland that will be used to negate carbon.

Sell said parcels to different companies and generate profit for carbon credits tax.

Fund more extremist activism and politicians pushing more stringent climate laws.

Repeat.
 
Alright so how long until I'm fueling my electronics with a moderately-efficient foot pedal based generator that I have to propel myself, while some cocksucker still expects me to pay them a monthly bill for some reason?

Then of course the awful reality of the people who try to develop hydrogen engines seem to die of mysterious causes. Remember, if we get dragged into a Soylent Green reality, which is a setting where the environment is so bad that food had to be heavily regulated, its these assholes who are responsible for sending the world into that state.

Got it in one. I'm convinced the technology exists, nuclear is the obvious one but geothermal energy is used in tons of places to great effect, but you don't hear much about it compared to wind turbines or fucking solar panels. Economic viability, logistics, and other practical constraints of course do exist, but I think the big obstacle is how ingrained oil is in our economic system - you've got oil traders, prospectors, refiners, distributors, etc. sure, but more to the point, you've got a nice, massive chunk that is just pure profit, governments can tax the shit out of it, and I'm sure we all know that a fair chunk of that profit ends up in the pockets of exactly the right people.

The people beating us over the head with the climate shit are doing so to subjugate the population. I don't believe they want a mass die-off as long as the existence of consoomers is necessary for them to keep making money, but they definitely do want them to increasingly put up with lower wages, owning less, and worse quality of life. They just don't want people to stop grossly overconsuming shitty food, shitty pharmaceuticals, shitty dropshipped Chinese garbage, or replacing every appliance that breaks each year while they're busy self-flagellating and accepting being treated like niggercattle in the name of muh climate, and are counting on the average retard not noticing the contradiction.
 
What they ideally want is a 0.1% chunk of the population that owns everything, 0.9% of the population that manages everything, and a 99% beige mass of human automatons that are consistent and reliable consoomers. Green energy is not just replacing coal with wind, it’s about completely rethinking the way we do energy. Turning energy into another system of control to influence how we live our lives is sociopathic but our benevolent billionaire class has taken it upon themselves to be the stewards of the planet and they feel it is better that they get to decide instead of the public. When you realize that’s the endgame, all of this shit makes much more sense.
 
Gosh, it's almost like Net Zero was only ever a political ploy designed to shore up progressive support.
Net Zero was a ploy to get everyone under control. Emissions for my yacht but not for thee car, goy!
And it's doomed to fail. For example, nobody in the right mind wants to give up wood-and-coal based central heating which is often cited as a major polutant. It's by far the best solution for heating. People have been talking "heat pumps this and that hurr durr", it just isn't going to replace the good ol' boiler. Even the best heat pumps go down only to -30°C, and even then at less efficiency than traditional heating. The only people who prefer heat pumps are folks in buildings where the small apartment size allows a good balance of comfort and efficiency.
 
Let's hope it'll be kicked further down the road, Ì mean the time. :story:

Agenda 2030 was never about the environment; it was about creating a permanent serfdom and fascist dictatorship protocols in place to keep the reduced to serf status lower and middle class firmly under the elite's thumb so that when the economy (kept alive but on life support since 2008 by spam casting cure and life spells and Jewish tricks) finally fucking dies and we get Great Depression 2.0 in 2030, the elite will be safe and secure in a new fascist dark ages where they are the landed gentry and everyone else powerless serfs who are basically slaves to the elite.
 
Back