[ad_1]
Ursula von der Leyen is adjusting the intermediate goal for 2030 on the path to climate neutrality. It is important to be careful with nature. Unfortunately, the president of the EU Commission relies heavily on interventionism and paternalism rather than economic incentives.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen speaks to media representatives about her plans on Wednesday in Brussels.
The Bernese chansonnier Mani Matter once sang about the virtues of inhibitions. The president of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, probably does not understand Berne German and does not know the chanson. It’s a shame, because a little more inhibition on state interventionism would do their projects good. Instead, on Wednesday in Brussels, she called out to EU parliamentarians during her state of the EU speech: “We must put aside our doubts.” And he emphatically added: “We have to act faster.”
Europe will become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. To achieve this goal, the German Commission President wants to strengthen the current provisional target for 2030. If the EU has made efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent compared to 1990, it should now be “at least” 55 percent.
It is important to be careful with the environment. No one would seriously want to say that the branch on which humanity sits is worth cutting off. However, there are several ways to reduce the harmful effects of humans on the environment and climate. Unfortunately, the EU Commission led by von der Leyen is preparing to go down a path marked by interventions in the free market economy and paternalism.
A sober look at the figures recalls the global dimension of the problem. Last year, China accounted for 30 percent of global COtwoEmissions, the US for 13 percent and the EU (including Great Britain) for almost 9 percent. While the US (–2.6 percent) and the EU (–3.8 percent) reduced their emissions compared to 2018, they continued to increase in China (+3.4 percent). So what good is it if the EU Commission has all the houses in Europe renovated in terms of energy at gigantic costs, while at the same time China is building new coal-fired power plants at home and abroad? The Commission would do well to give sufficient weight to the global aspect of the problem. The planet shouldn’t care where greenhouse gases are stored. But from an economic point of view, savings should be made where they can be most economically achieved. That almost never happens in Europe.
The EU Commission is enthusiastically practicing to intervene in all areas of people’s lives and in markets. The President of the Commission not only wants the people of the EU to take better care of nature, but also to produce, consume, live, work, eat, heat, travel and transport goods differently. This is patronizing. This goes hand in hand with being overconfident in knowing the right solutions to all environmental problems. With strong French momentum, the EU now believes it should focus on batteries and hydrogen, for example. But these technology decisions should be left to the market players.
Instead of intervening everywhere, Brussels should focus more on the benefits of market economy mechanisms. The European emissions trading system is an important and successful step in this direction. Price signals can do amazing things, sometimes in places that no one could have guessed before. If the price of heating oil and fuel includes the cost of air pollution, drivers and homeowners think about it and do the math. The revenues from such systems should then go back to the citizens and thus reward those who behave in an environmentally friendly way. That is much more effective than when the public sector tries to act as a kind of green investment fund and relies on certain technologies. Ursula von der Leyen had better leave the planned economy to China when it comes to environmental issues.
