"Move to net zero 'inevitably means more mining''' reads a BBC headline from last week. But do we all need to own an electric car? Or can we opt for more communal solutions that drive down the need for mining? There are basic questions to ask about how much extraction we really need, who gets to decide, how extraction is carried out and for whose benefit.
3) It's funding big polluters
The European Investment Bank is tipped to drive the financing of the Green Deal. But the bank doesn't have binding environmental criteria. Neither do the EU's 'cohesion' and 'just transition' funds exclude fossil fuel investments. Poland is one of the biggest recipients of these funds, yet is counting on coal to power its energy needs for decades to come. Instead, the money could go to community-driven solutions to move the region away from fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, when COVID hit, the European Central Bank cranked up its quantitative easing programme, buying government and corporate bonds up to EUR1,850bn. Corporate beneficiaries of this programme include Repsol, Airbus, BMW, Total Capital, E.ON, and Shell--some of the biggest polluters on the continent.
4) It buys into false solutions
"Hydrogen rocks," said Frans Timmermans, vice-president of the European Commission and the beard in charge of the European Green Deal. In theory, hydrogen can be produced in a 'green' way, with the electricity used in the process coming from renewable sources like wind and solar. But in Europe, only 0.1% of hydrogen is made in this way; 90% of it is 'grey', made using fossil fuels like gas.
The move to hydrogen basically means switching from one fossil fuel (oil or coal) to another--gas. The gas industry is touting hydrogen as a 'bridge fuel' playing a key part in the green transition. But a study by Energy Watch showed that a switch from coal to gas could actually increase the greenhouse effect by 40%.
Estimates suggest that EUR430bn will be needed by 2030 to scale up hydrogen--one-third of which could be public money, going to fossil fuels as part of the 'green' transition. See what I mean about Kafka and Orwell?
5) It's being hijacked by corporate lobbyists
Why have Timmermans and other EU suits embraced hydrogen? The fossil fuel industry spent nearly EUR60m in 2019 lobbying for hydrogen. Since 2010, the big five fossil fuel companies alone--Shell, BP, Total, ExxonMobil and Chevron--have spent more than EUR250m lobbying the EU.
The hydrogen stitch up is one result of these efforts. Another is the watering down of the Climate Law, proposed in March last year. Once approved, the law will set legally binding targets for carbon emission reductions. So withered has it become that Greta Thunberg called it a "surrender".
It's not just the energy lobby. Europe's farming lobby has already succeeded in squishing goals for ecological agriculture. And trade lobbyists have managed to get the EU to water down rules on importing palm oil, a major driver of deforestation.
6) It's kneecapped by the Energy Charter Treaty
You may never have heard of this obscure treaty binding 50 countries. But it allows energy corporations to sue governments for policies that might negatively affect their profits--including climate policies. In February this year, energy giant RWE announced it was suing the Netherlands for EUR1.4bn for planning to phase out coal.
Investigate Europe calculates that the EU, UK and Switzerland could be forced to pay EUR345bn over climate action in the coming years. The UK, which was the first major country to pass a net zero emissions law, is the most vulnerable to possible lawsuits, with ECT-covered assets worth EUR141bn.
The European Commission has itself called the treaty 'outdated' and is calling for its modernisation. But scientists and lawmakers from across Europe say the treaty is unreformable--the only feasible way forward is to get out now.
