fbpx

Day: December 5, 2023

Deutschland belegt (mal wieder) den ersten Platz: Das sind die schlechtesten Bahnhöfe Europas

Bahnfahren ist in Deutschland nicht selten mit Einschränkungen verbunden. Die Probleme betreffen allerdings nicht nur die Züge der Deutschen Bahn, sondern auch die Bahnhöfe im Land, wie ein aktuelles Ranking zeigt.

Die Deutsche Bahn ist nicht unbedingt für ihre Pünktlichkeit bekannt, erst im November hat sie ihren eigenen Unpünktlichkeitsrekord gebrochen: Jeder zweite Zug war verspätet. Damit erreicht das Unternehmen den schlechtesten Wert in Sachen Zuverlässigkeit seit acht Jahren. Leider wirkt sich das nicht nur auf den Konzern und auf die Reise von etlichen Pendlern aus, sondern auch auf das Image deutscher Bahnhöfe, wie der aktuelle “European Railway Station Index 2023” zeigt. Demnach belegen deutsche Bahnhöfe im europäischen Vergleich die letzten Plätze, wenn es um die Passagierzufriedenheit geht.

Für die Analyse, die bereits zum vierten Mal stattgefunden hat, wurden die nach Passagieraufkommen größten 50 Bahnhöfe in Europa nach bestimmten Kriterien genauer untersucht. Dazu zählen unter anderem die Öffnungszeiten der Ticketschalter, die Versorgungsmöglichkeiten vor Ort, der Zustand der Sanitäranlagen – und die Wartezeiten am Gleis. Vor allem im letzten Punkt schnitten deutsche Bahnhöfe deutlich schlechter ab, als ihre Konkurrenz in anderen Ländern. Obwohl insgesamt 21 der analysierten Bahnhöfe in Deutschland liegen, stellt Deutschland trotzdem das Schlusslicht des Rankings dar.

Read the full text here

UNE RENAISSANCE NUCLÉAIRE EN EUROPE

Il est temps que nous reconnaissions le rôle vital de l’énergie nucléaire et que nous la défendions en tant que force du bien dans notre monde.

Pendant des décennies, les fruits de la révolution du gaz de schiste, ainsi que leur nouveau statut de premier exportateur net de gaz naturel au monde, ont démontré que les consommateurs américains bénéficiaient d’une énergie abondante.

Mais alors que les effets de la pandémie, des pénuries de la chaîne d’approvisionnement, la guerre en Ukraine et l’augmentation des dépenses publiques ont fait place à une hausse de l’inflation, tous les regards se sont soudain tournés vers les factures des services publics. En 2021, les Américains ont dépensé jusquà 25% de plus en énergie que l’année précédente.

Le problème pour les consommateurs d’énergie est continuellement aggravé par les engagements politiques visant à « tout électrifier », notamment les subventions massives pour les véhicules électriques, les pompes à chaleur domestiques et les panneaux solaires dans la poursuite d’un avenir neutre en carbone.

Aujourd’hui, les politiques des Etats accélèrent ce processus, puisqu’au moins 22 Etats – plus Porto Rico et Washington, D.C. – se sont engagés à produire de l’électricité 100% zéro carbone d’ici à 2050.

Mais plutôt que de subventionner nos objectifs politiques en matière de climat avec des panneaux solaires, des batteries et des éoliennes fabriqués à l’étranger, pourquoi ne pas nous tourner vers la nouvelle génération d’une technologie sûre, qui est déjà la source d’électricité la plus dense et la plus exempte de carbone au monde ? Et s’il était temps de défendre à nouveau l’énergie ?

Le même défi se présente notamment pour l’Europe, qui a été trop ambigüe sur le nucléaire. L’Union européenne a même débattu de la question du nucléaire étant vert ou non, bien que nous sachions depuis longtemps qu’il est considéré comme une énergie verte.

Les investisseurs dans le secteur de l’énergie, les clients et même les politiciens écologistes ont toutes les raisons de vouloir se tourner vers le nucléaire. L’énergie nucléaire est sûre, propre et fiable. Elle ne produit pas d’émissions et crée des dizaines de milliers d’emplois de qualité, sur plusieurs générations. Ce n’est pas pour rien que les centrales nucléaires disposent de plus grands parkings que les éoliennes ou les parcs solaires.

Cela dit, l’énergie nucléaire traditionnelle se heurte à plusieurs obstacles. Les préoccupations en matière d’environnement et de radiations sont invoquées, bien que de nouvelles innovations telles que les combustibles tolérants aux accidents aient réduit les risques. Les restrictions réglementaires et les autorisations peuvent retarder les approbations et les renouvellements jusqu’à une décennie. Plus important encore, les projets nucléaires nécessitent beaucoup de main-d’œuvre et de capitaux, ce qui met à l’épreuve les limites financières des investisseurs privés et des services publics, qui puisent dans les subventions pour rester à flot.

Mais l’ère des tours de refroidissement en béton brutal et du contrôle étatique hautement centralisé comme seules caractéristiques de l’énergie nucléaire est peut-être déjà révolue.

La technologie de l’énergie nucléaire de la prochaine génération – telle que les petits réacteurs modulaires (SMR) – peut partager la fission de l’atome avec son prédécesseur, mais sa forme moderne est tout à fait différente.

Les SMR peuvent être aussi petits qu’un véhicule utilitaire sport, mais ils produisent néanmoins beaucoup de mégawatts d’énergie. Ils peuvent fournir plus rapidement et de manière plus fiable de l’énergie au réseau électrique ou à l’industrie et, dans certains cas, le combustible usé peut être réutilisé. Les SMR pourraient devenir la principale source d’énergie sans carbone pour une grande usine de fabrication qui emploierait des milliers de personnes et soulagerait les réseaux résidentiels.

Par exemple, le développeur de SMR X-energy collabore avec le géant de la chimie Dow pour installer une centrale nucléaire SMR avancée sur le site de fabrication de Dow à Seadrift, au Texas. Le projet de Dow vise à fournir à son site de Seadrift de l’électricité et de la vapeur industrielle sûres, fiables et sans émissions de carbone, alors que les actifs existants en matière d’énergie et de vapeur approchent la fin de leur durée de vie.

Le projet dépend de l’obtention de divers examens et approbations, car les entreprises comme Dow doivent respecter des délais stricts pour assurer la poursuite de l’exploitation de son site. X-energy a d’abord lancé les activités de pré-demande de la NRC pour son réacteur Xe-100 en 2018.

Si nous souhaitons fournir de l’énergie à grande échelle et à faible coût à des millions de consommateurs d’énergie, le rythme de création de petits réacteurs nucléaires, tel que le président Macron a annoncé que la France en construirait, doit être étendu à d’autres pays européens.

Il existe des solutions simples qui pourraient nous faire gagner du temps. Chaque Etat dont la licence nucléaire expire devrait envisager de soutenir la prolongation de la durée de vie des centrales. Les Etats dotés de lois antinucléaires devraient revoir leurs implications. Dans la mesure du possible, les Etats devraient inclure les technologies nucléaires et de fusion dans les définitions des « énergies propres », comme la Caroline du Nord semble prête à le faire. La NRC devrait poursuivre ses efforts constants pour réduire les charges réglementaires afin d’accélérer les examens et les autorisations pour les nouvelles centrales nucléaires, tout en continuant à se concentrer sur la sécurité.

Plutôt que de fermer les centrales au charbon sans alternative, les Etats européens devraient rapidement permettre aux promoteurs de projets expérimentés de convertir ces installations en centrales nucléaires.

Cela représenterait des milliards d’euros d’économies pour les consommateurs d’énergie, des centaines de milliers d’emplois bien rémunérés et des possibilités illimitées pour les innovateurs de mettre en œuvre la prochaine génération de technologies nucléaires, tant au niveau national qu’au niveau mondial.

Les politiciens et les régulateurs ont créé le paradigme d’un monde sans émissions de gaz à effet de serre. L’énergie nucléaire permettra d’atteindre cet objectif et apportera la prospérité, la résilience et la durabilité qui nous permettront de rester indépendants sur le plan énergétique.

Il est temps que nous reconnaissions le rôle vital de l’énergie nucléaire et que nous la défendions en tant que force du bien dans notre monde.

Originally published here

Das sind Europas beste und schlechteste Bahnhöfe

Spoiler: Zürich macht wieder einmal alles richtig. Das zeigt das neuste Ranking einer internationalen Verbraucherschutzorganisation. In Deutschland sieht die Lage etwas anders aus.

«Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.» Wer das sagt, meint, dass er etwas nicht versteht. Das Sprichwort stammt laut Duden möglicherweise aus dem Ersten Weltkrieg. Deutsche Soldaten wollten demnach nur noch nach Hause und würgten Gespräche, die sich nicht um einen Fronturlaub drehten, mit dieser Redewendung ab.

Wer heute an europäischen Bahnhöfen wartet, will oft auch nur nach Hause. Wie schnell und unproblematisch das geht, hängt von vielerlei Faktoren ab. Die internationale Verbraucherschutzorganisation Consumer Choice Center (CCC) hat bereits zum vierten Mal ein Ranking der passagierfreundlichsten Bahnhöfe Europas erstellt. Dabei wurden die nach Fahrgastaufkommen grössten Bahnhöfe Europas bewertet. 

Verschiedene Kriterien flossen in den European-Railway-Station-Index ein: der Prozentsatz der verspäteten Züge, Wartezeiten, die Direktverbindungen, die Qualität der Apps, die Sauberkeit der Toiletten oder die Erreichbarkeit und Überfüllung der Bahnsteige.

Read the full text here

Sustainable aviation cannot take off without eco-pragmatism

In the global search for greener pastures, regulators worldwide are grappling with the challenge of making aviation fuels more sustainable. The European Union has taken a leading role and introduced legislation known as ReFuelEU, which mandates a gradual increase in the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs). The journey towards sustainable aviation faces obstacles, notably the current cost of SAFs, which remains more than twice the amount of traditional kerosene. However, price is not the only barrier to making our airplanes greener.

In a recent development, the Department for Transport has committed to introducing a revenue certainty mechanism to support SAF production and boost its uptake. This initiative aims to provide producers with greater assurance about earnings from the SAF they produce. The UK’s SAF program, already one of the most comprehensive globally, is set to benefit from this scheme, coupled with the introduction of a SAF mandate in 2025.

A global approach which avoids protectionism is vital to the SAF revolution. The promotion of SAFs should extend beyond borders and encourage collaboration among nations, regulators, and other stakeholders. While the EU advocates for stringent standards, it must overcome historical reservations and embrace technology neutrality.

A significant dimension of this challenge is the role of palm oil-derived SAFs, particularly in Southeast Asia. The EU has traditionally taken a protectionist stance on biofuels from this region, and has banned the use of palm oil in the production of SAFs, a move which has been met with protests from Malaysia and Indonesia. Although well-intentioned, they must reconsider this position. Derivatives like Palm Oil Mill Effluent and Palm Oil Fatty Acid Distillate offer a viable feedstock for SAFs, and Southeast Asian and West African exporters can potentially reduce aviation emissions by supplying these waste products consistently.

A paradox arises when you consider that the same voices calling for the abolition of fossil fuels have historically opposed the use of palm oil. The EU’s approach to palm oil then appears contradictory and emphases the need for a more nuanced and coherent strategy. For SAFs to thrive, policymakers must reconcile environmental objectives with the potential of innovative feedstocks.

Drawing parallels with Germany’s energy policy, which inadvertently increased coal usage and electricity prices in its fervor to decarbonise and denuclearise, the EU must exercise caution. Striking the right balance is crucial to ensure that sustainability goals do not unintentionally result in adverse economic and environmental outcomes.

The global landscape further complicates matters, with various countries adopting their own approaches. The UK’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate and the US Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge Roadmap exemplify diverse strategies. However, the harmonisation of standards will prove essential for the widespread acceptance of SAFs.

The regulatory frameworks in the EU and the UK underline the issue’s complexity. The criteria for defining SAFs are also central to the debate, with differing standards and certifications complicating the global push for sustainability.

Fundamentally, the journey towards affordable and sustainable aviation fuels demands a collaborative and global effort. The EU must relinquish any protectionist views on palm oil-derived SAFs and adopt a more balanced approach. As the aviation industry flies toward a greener future, policymakers, regulators, and activists must shed old mantras and prioritize pragmatic solutions over ideological debates. Smart and pragmatic approaches are imperative to making sustainable jet fuels a viable mass-market alternative.

Originally published here

Das ist der schlechteste Bahnhof Europas

Achtung, eine Durchsage: Die Rangliste der kundenfreundlichsten europäischen Bahnhöfe fährt in diesem Jahr in umgekehrter Wagenreihung. Deutschland belegt die letzten sechs Plätze.

Sinnvoll beschilderte Bahnsteige, saubere Toiletten oder der bestens sortierte Buchladen: Was Reisende an Bahnhöfen am meisten schätzen, variiert nach persönlichen Vorlieben. Was aber alle hassen: unpünktliche Züge, schlechte Verbindungen – und mangelnden Komfort.

Im Ranking der passagierfreundlichsten Bahnhöfe Europas wurde nun deutlich, wo die Reisenden sich besonders wohlfühlen – und wo sie vermutlich froh sind, wenn der Zug sich in Bewegung setzt. An der Spitze des European Railway Station Index 2023  steht der Hauptbahnhof von Zürich. Er erreichte 102 Punkte in der Gesamtwertung, die sich aus diversen Aspekten zusammensetzt.

Zu den Kriterien zählen unter anderem Wartezeiten, der Zugang zu den Gleisen, der Zustand von Sanitäranlagen und Lounges und die Öffnungszeiten der Ticketschalter. Aber auch der Anschluss an andere Bahnhöfe spielte eine Rolle sowie das Ausmaß an »Scherereien, um in andere Länder zu reisen «. Analysiert wurden 50 der nach Passagiervolumen größten Bahnhöfe Europas.

Read the full text here

How politicians are using fake news to crack down on digital currency

In war, the Greek poet Aeschylus said, the first casualty is truth.

In the war between Israel and Hamas, there have been plenty of opportunities for lies to achieve political ends. In the United States, we’re seeing the demonization of and crackdown on cryptocurrencies and stablecoins like Bitcoin and Tether.

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) stirred crypto-skeptic politicians in Washington into a frenzy last month, alleging that Hamas funded its heinous attacks on Israeli civilians with cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. This followed an initial report in the Wall Street Journal, which detailed a significant crypto fundraising operation by Hamas across various platforms.

There were congressional hearings, press releases, and letters dispatched to various elements of the national security establishment and to the Biden administration itself, seeking to understand Hamas’ use of cryptocurrency and how it could move money undetected.

Warren penned a letter with 28 other senators and 76 House members demanding answers on the alleged $130 million in crypto used by Hamas, relying on the Wall Street Journal’s story.

The only problem is that the story was false. Or at least it was way overblown.

Just days after publishing its exposé, the Journal was forced to correct its report after a simple analysis revealed that the multimillion figures were wrong.

Evidence produced by the blockchain analytics firm Elliptic showed most of these funds were not sitting in Hamas-linked accounts but were likely brokerage and crypto exchange accounts where the funds originated.

As any user of technologies like Bitcoin and other crypto exchanges knows, every transaction is publicly viewable on the blockchain using a block explorer. When those funds are purchased at regulated exchanges, authorities can trace and subpoena identifying information that these entities must collect from their customers.

If Hamas and its agents were legally able to acquire thousands of dollars’ worth of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies — not to mention hundreds of millions’ worth — any user of a block explorer would easily have detected this.

In fact, Hamas militants reportedly stopped accepting cryptocurrency donations once they realized how quickly those transactions would be flagged and ultimately halted by Israeli authorities. The same cannot be said for the rumored billions of dollars held by Hamas operatives in traditional bank accounts in countries throughout the world.

With billions of dollars in Hamas funding in the global banking system and perhaps just a few thousand in various cryptocurrency wallets, one would think that political ire would be raised at banks that have aided and abetted Hamas funding.

Instead, Warren and her anti-innovation colleagues continue to cite this fake news in their efforts to make open blockchain technology inaccessible to American consumers.

Rather than an indictment against Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency, this episode reveals that many American progressive legislators are getting hoodwinked into banning or restricting a technology that offers tremendous social benefits.

Technologies like Bitcoin offer sound digital money that can be sent to any computer or connected device worldwide. With a limited supply and a proof of work protocol that is both honest and fair, it’s a world of difference from the unlimited printing and ongoing debasement of the U.S. dollar.

It is a revolution that many of us have only begun to grasp.

Unfortunately, rather than embrace the positive effects such technologies could have on American society, too many tech-skeptical politicians are hooked on fake news and unable to resist advancing their goal of banning cryptocurrency for Americans.

For Warren, it was never about Hamas’ barbaric attack on Israel. It was about seizing an opportunity for more control, regardless of the truth.

Originally published here

Drei Berliner Bahnhöfe unter europäischen Schlusslichtern

Während ein Berliner Bahnhof überzeugt, landen drei andere unter den Schlusslichtern: Der aktuelle „Europäische Bahnhofsindex“ kommt für die großen Stationen in der Hauptstadt zu ganz unterschiedlichen Ergebnissen. Für den Index hat das Consumer Choice Center, eine internationale Verbraucherschutz-Organisation, bereits zum vierten Mal die 50 europäischen Bahnhöfe mit den meisten Reisenden miteinander verglichen. Wie schon im letzten Ranking landet der Berliner Hauptbahnhofunter den am besten bewerteten Stationen.

In die Auswertung eingeflossen sind Faktoren wie die Barrierefreiheit, die Verfügbarkeit von kostenlosem Wlan, die Anzahl an Geschäften und Restaurants im Bahnhof, die Möglichkeit, auf direktem Weg ins Ausland zu reisen, oder die Umsteigeoptionen auf andere Verkehrsmittel wie Straßen- und U-Bahnen. Obwohl unter den 50 betrachteten Bahnhöfen 21 aus Deutschland stammen, hat es allein Berlins Hauptbahnhof unter die Top 5 geschafft: Nur die Hauptbahnhöfe in Zürich und Wien wurden noch besser bewertet. Als einzige weitere deutsche Station unter den besten Zehn ist Frankfurts Hauptbahnhof.

Read the full text here

Navigating the turbulent skies of sustainable aviation fuels

Sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) are a commendable aim for policymakers, however the push for SAFs should transcend borders, fostering collaboration among nations, regulators, and other stakeholders.

In the pursuit of greener skies, regulators worldwide are grappling with the challenge of making aviation fuels more sustainable. The European Union (EU) has taken the lead with its ReFuelEU legislation, mandating a gradual increase in the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs). However, the path to sustainable aviation is not without hurdles, as SAFs currently remain three to four times more expensive than conventional kerosene. Moreover, the potential increase in consumer prices adds another layer of complexity to the already intricate debate.

In November 2023 the EU Council adopted the ‘ReFuelEU aviation’ initiative, a key component of the ‘Fit for 55’ package, aimed at reducing the aviation sector’s carbon footprint. The legislation mandates aviation fuel suppliers to include a minimum share of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) in their products, starting at 2% in 2025 and reaching 70% by 2050. Synthetic fuels are also required, with a progressively increasing share. The law aims to align air transport with EU climate targets, addressing issues of low supply and high prices hindering SAF development. The regulation is set to enter into force on January 1, 2024, with certain provisions applicable from 2025.

A key concern in this discourse is the need for a global approach rather than succumbing to protectionist measures. The push for SAFs should transcend borders, fostering collaboration among nations, regulators, and other stakeholders. As the EU pushes for stringent standards, it must also overcome historical reservations and embrace technology neutrality.

One notable aspect of this challenge is the role of palm oil-derived SAFs, particularly in Southeast Asia. The EU’s protectionist stance on biofuels from this region needs reconsideration. Palm oil derivatives, such as Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) and Palm Oil Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD), present a viable circular-economy feedstock for SAFs. South-East Asian and West African exporters have the potential to reduce aviation emissions by providing a consistent supply of these waste products.

However, a paradox emerges when we consider that the same voices advocating for the phase-out of fossil fuels have historically opposed the use of palm oil. The EU’s approach to palm oil as a feedstock for SAFs appears contradictory and highlights the need for a more nuanced and coherent strategy. If SAFs are to succeed, policymakers must reconcile environmental objectives with the potential of innovative feedstocks.

Drawing a parallel with Germany’s energy policy, which, in its zeal to decarbonize and denuclearize, led to unintended consequences like increased coal usage and higher electricity prices, the EU must exercise caution. Striking the right balance is crucial, ensuring that sustainability goals do not inadvertently result in adverse economic and environmental outcomes.

The global landscape further complicates matters, with various countries adopting their own approaches. The UK’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate and the US Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge Roadmap showcase diverse strategies. Still, harmonization of standards is essential for the widespread acceptance of SAFs.

The regulatory frameworks in the EU, UK, and the US underscore the complexity of the issue. The criteria for what constitutes a SAF are central to the debate, with differing standards and certifications complicating the global push for sustainability.

In conclusion, the journey towards affordable and sustainable aviation fuels demands a collaborative and global effort. The EU must abandon any protectionist views on palm oil-derived SAFs and embrace a more balanced approach. As the aviation industry takes strides toward a greener future, policymakers, regulators, and activists must shed old mantras and prioritize pragmatic solutions over ideological debates. If sustainable jet fuels should ever become an economically viable mass-market alternative, smart and pragmatic approaches are needed.

Originally published here

How the Green New Deal Met Its Demise In Europe

In a stunning upset, the European Parliament voted down the “Sustainable Use of Pesticides” bill, which marked the cornerstone of the European Green Deal and the so-called “Farm to Fork” strategy. In 2020, the European Union planned a fundamental reform of the bloc’s agricultural sector, slashing pesticide use, cutting down fertilizer use, and boosting organic agriculture. And while some proposals remain on the tale, lawmakers have all but reverted the views they had three years ago, and there’s good reason for that.

When the EU initially unveiled its plans for reforms, COVID was in its initial phases, believed to be beaten by the stringent lockdowns, and Ukraine had not yet been invaded by Russia. Interest rates were close to being negative, so from within the echo chamber that is the EU’s executive, it seemed opportune to turn the entire food and farming system on its head.

After some initial, rather meek, political pushback, the commissioners of the EU persisted. It’s all for the good of the environment, they said. However, it quickly became apparent that the plans were going to be very expensive, according to the USDA, with agricultural production dropping between seven and twelve percent, and a significant impact on the overall GDP of the continent. Yet, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, persisted: chemical pesticides, even if approved by the independent regulator, should be reduced.

Cracks started to appear in the sincerity of the EU’s executive when French president Emmanuel Macron, then other European heads of state, began to doubt whether implementation of these rules was even possible. Farmer representatives had indicated they rejected the objectives of the EU’s strategies. 

The Dutch provincial election, in which a farmer’s party that campaigned against government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with EU law, won, marked the beginning of the end. The BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB), also known as the Farmer-Citizen Movement, achieved a significant victory in provincial elections in the Netherlands; with an impressive 15 out of 75 seats in the Senate, it now holds the position of the most influential party in the country’s upper chamber. The BBB was established in 2019, but it gained widespread support following the government’s decision to reduce nitrogen emissions by shutting down approximately one-third of Dutch farms.

It turned out that cutting European farm land, all while depriving farmers of the right to adequately prevent pests from spreading, did not fare well with voters. Since then, the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest party in the European Parliament – which is expected to remain in the case after the upcoming election – has now coined itself as the farmer’s party, has struck down piece after piece of the European Green Deal. Many of its leftover components are likely not to make it to voting before the European elections in June next year.

Incidentally, Frans Timmermans, the Dutch architect of the European Green Deal, has already left his post in an attempt to become the Prime Minister in his home country, a gamble that has yet to materialize following the recent elections.

In a time span of just three years, the European Union went from stating that it was about to realize an unprecedented climate change reform to killing its own ambitions.

This abrupt reversal in the European Union’s stance on agricultural reform serves as a cautionary tale for the United States, highlighting the delicate balance between environmental ambitions and the economic realities faced by farmers. The EU’s ambitious plans, aimed at significantly reducing pesticide and fertilizer use while promoting organic agriculture, initially seemed like a bold step towards a more sustainable future. However, the practical implications of these proposals, particularly the potential negative impacts on agricultural production and GDP, led to a swift and decisive backlash.

For the United States, which also faces the challenge of balancing environmental conservation with agricultural productivity, the EU’s experience serves as a reminder that well-intentioned policies must be carefully crafted and thoroughly evaluated to avoid unintended consequences. The sway of public opinion, as demonstrated by the BBB’s success, emphasizes the need for inclusive decision-making processes that consider the interests of all stakeholders. As the U.S. explores its own agricultural and environmental policies, it should take a look at Europe and not repeat its mistakes.

Originally published here

Europe tried it green and failed

Nearly 300 votes against, only 207 in favor: Those were the final results of a vote in the European Parliament on the “Sustainable Use of Pesticides” directive, the landmark legislation of the European Union’sagriculture reforms. The plans would have cut back on pesticide and fertilizer use, as well as shifted a major part of Europe’s farmland use to organic. Now, the plans are all but dead, the architect of the European Green Deal has resigned, and next year’s EU elections are announcing a shift away from environmentalistideas.

The name “European Green Deal” was modeled after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) Green New Deal, and it promises cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and healthier lifestyles for consumers. But it does so at a significant expense to taxpayers and the economy. With an implementation price tag of $285 billion, the EU did not account for the ripple effects of the policy, ignoring its impact assessments.

In the majority of models presented in the assessment, it is anticipated that GDP will contract. This contraction is closely linked to the decline in employment, consumption, and exports. The impact on countries heavily dependent on export industries will be especially severe, as these industries employ people who have limited options for reemployment. While service sectors such as the financial industry will experience less impact, this will result in a widening disparity of opportunities within the labor market.

Another weight on existing inequalities will be rising energy prices for consumers. As the German energy shift has shown already, a quick change to renewable energy sources, arrived through subsidization programs, sharply increases consumer energy prices. Prices of energy, housing, and water are all projected to rise. Some energy sources could see price rises of over 70%. Employment in key energy sectors, including gas and coal, could drop by more than 15%, affecting hundreds of thousands of jobs.

As cuts to greenhouse gas emissions have become mandatory, the Dutch government sought to buy out livestock farmers from their professions, causing the now famous Dutch farmer protests last year. These protests not only caused a farmer’s party to win the Senate elections in the Netherlands, but they also contributed to the resignation of the government this year. The pushback against Brussels’s green policies has many parliamentarians in fear for their reelection for next year’s European Parliament vote in June 2024. Overall, polls show that the EU’s legislative body is expected to see a right-wing shift, with losses for social democrats and environmentalists alike.

The architect of the European Green Deal, Dutch politician Frans Timmermans, resigned recently to try his luck at national politics; French President Emmanuel Macron believes that agricultural reform should not be on the table as the war continues in Ukraine; and Central and Eastern European countries consider many of the planned reforms as discriminatory feel-good policy for the sake of the West’s good conscience. 

The EU’s green reforms have been driven into a ditch because voters have woken up to the reality of dwindling purchasing power and the real costs of the green policies, which sounded better on paper than in practice.

Originally published here

Scroll to top
en_USEN