• 4 mintues Texas forced to have rolling brown outs. Not from downed power line , but because the wind energy turbines are frozen.
  • 7 minutes Forecasts for oil stocks.
  • 9 minutes Biden's $2 trillion Plan for Insfrastructure and Jobs
  • 13 minutes European gas market to 2040 according to Platts Analitics
  • 1 day Simple question: What is the expected impact in electricity Demand when EV deployment exceeds 10%
  • 1 day America's pandemic dead deserve accountability after Birx disclosure
  • 2 days Biden about to face first real test. Russia building up military on Ukraine border.
  • 1 hour The coming Cyber Attack
  • 3 days Trump punches back at Fauci and Birx's revisionist history (aka lies)
  • 2 days U.S. and Chinese investors to buy Saudi pipelines , $10 Billion deal.
  • 2 days Create a new law "Postericide" to prosecute and imprison Climate Change "Deniers"
  • 6 hours New Chinese Coal Plants Equal All those in U.S.A
  • 13 hours Does .001 of Atmosphere Control Earth's Climate?!
  • 4 days Goldman Betting on Cryptocurrencies
  • 1 day NG spot prices hit triple digits for weekend delivery
  • 5 days New German Study Shocks Electric Cars: “Considerably” Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars, Up To 25% More CO2
Irina Slav

Irina Slav

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

More Info

Premium Content

The EU Doesn’t Need A Green New Deal

When Ursula von der Leyen made her EU President pitch to the European Parliament last month, she made her environmental plan a top priority. Now, von der Leyen is due to take the helm as President of the union in November, and she will have 100 days to start putting her plan into action.

Dubbed the European Green New Deal, the plan, according to Forbes Brussels reporter Dave Keating, envisages a carbon-neutral EU by 2050, with emissions cut in half by 2030. The price tag of the plan: US$1.1 trillion.

Now, compared with Bernie Sanders’ climate change plan and its cost of US$16.3 trillion, the new EU President’s green new deal is modest in terms of costs. However, the eurozone economies are still struggling to return to steady growth after the 2008 crisis and the chances of that happening anytime soon remain remote, with Germany, the pillar of the zone’s economy, slipping into negative territory during the second quarter of the year.

Since this eurozone is where the most money for the EU comes from, the success of von der Leyen’s environmental plan is far from guaranteed even if she manages to beat the U.S. Democrats to implementing one. And then there is another question that Keating addresses in his analysis: does the EU need a green new deal at all?

Proponents are adamant that it does. Leading by example is one argument for it, if it could be called an argument at all. Leading by example is a great strategy in parenting but when it comes to economies, concrete interests would prevail every single time. In other words, if it’s uneconomical for China and India to follow Europe’s example—and it is—they won’t do it, however bright and shiny the example-setter. Related: Trump Scrambles To Win Back Angry Farmers

According to proponents, however, a green new deal and the EU’s decarbonization would be good for the economy. Simone Tagliapietra, an author for Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank, writes that “It is good for Europe because deep decarbonisation represents a historical occasion to modernise its economy, revitalise its industry and ensure long-term growth and jobs.”

Indeed, decarbonisation efforts are already changing industries, but the positive effects from this, economically speaking, have yet to make their presence known. In the meantime, these decarbonisation efforts might pit the business world against politicians.

Here’s one part of von der Leyen’s plan as detailed by Forbes’ Keating:

“One of the plan’s proposals outlined by von der Leyen, to introduce a border tax aimed at preventing carbon leakage from one country to another. This refers to the prospect of carbon-intensive industries leaving the EU to avoid regulation, moving to the rest of the world where they can continue to pollute. But this will encounter fierce resistance from free traders, especially within her own conservative European political family.” Related: New York Times: U.S. Hacked Iran To Prevent Oil Tanker Attacks

While the economic benefits of decarbonisation remain elusive, however, the benefits for the environment are clear: the EU currently accounts for less than a tenth of global emissions and by 2030 this could fall to 5 percent. In other words, what the EU is doing at the moment is already working and, it seems, it is working without harming the economy too much.

Keating also notes that while the new EU President’s climate plan would reduce emissions by as much as 1.5 billion tons by 2030, emissions in other parts of the world will continue to grow. Figures for last year suggest that EU’s emissions are now close to 2014 levels, but emissions in China, for example, are rising, as are emissions in India and the United States.

The idea of leading by example is certainly a noble one. However, as is the case with many noble ideas, the practicality is questionable. There is no way to cut emissions sharply without hurting economies that are already highly vulnerable to all sorts of shocks. There is also absolutely no certainty that the leading-by-example approach would have the expected effects. In fact, chances are it will not. So, the EU may get a green new deal before the U.S., but the question whether it needs one or not remains open.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News