Radical new climate targets will save EU economy, Timmermans claims 

Posted: September 2, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, government, ideology
Tags: , ,

credit: b3regions.eu

EU climate fantasy is about to move up a gear, it seems. Should ‘save’ in the headline read ‘sink’, or can the EU surprise us with evidence that spending big on offshore wind turbines is somehow going to deliver economic benefits?
– – –
If the European Green Deal made economic sense before the COVID-19 crisis, “it makes even more sense now” because it will help reboot the economy, said Frans Timmermans, the EU Commission vice-president in charge of climate action.

In a speech on Tuesday (1 September), Timmermans confirmed that Brussels will forge ahead with proposals for new climate targets this month, saying the objective will be to align the EU’s 2030 objectives with the bloc’s long-term goal of becoming climate neutral by 2050.

“Very soon we will propose new emissions targets for 2030,” Timmermans said, announcing a raft of new policy proposals to come out in the autumn, including a building renovation wave and an offshore energy strategy to boost the uptake of renewables such as offshore wind, reports The Times (via The GWPF).

The proposal will be accompanied by a detailed economic analysis to evaluate the costs and benefits of reducing the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50 or 55% below 1990 levels by 2030, up from 40% currently.

This cost-benefit analysis – or “impact assessment” in EU jargon – is eagerly awaited by EU countries, some of which have grown wary about the cost of climate action at a time when the economy is entering a recession caused by the COVID-19 health crisis.

In July, a group of six eastern EU countries sent a letter to the Commission warning about the extra costs this will entail for regions that are heavily dependent on polluting industries such as coal.

“Above all, the impact assessment should be realistic,” said the environment ministers of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

“We are experiencing a global pandemic that will not end soon and there might be others to come. This is no longer business as usual, so neither the IA should be,” the six ministers wrote in a letter dated 13 July.

The European Commission will table proposals next month to raise the EU’s climate target for 2030, amid warnings from Eastern countries to safeguard jobs and growth from the coronavirus fallout.

But Timmermans seemed to push back on those claims. “The cost of climate action may be high but it is dwarfed by the cost of inaction,” the Dutchman said in reference to storms, floods and heatwaves which are becoming more frequent and taking a heavy toll on the economy.

“The Green Deal is Europe’s new growth strategy,” the Commission vice-president underlined, repeating the EU executive’s new mantra that economic growth and environmental policies “go hand in hand”.

Continued here.

  1. JB says:

    In all my forays into human history, I’ve not encountered a single incidence of government spending producing a ROI.

    Timmermans is an echo of the “logic” Peter G Peterson used in his publications. Its as if these people are permanently miswired, lacking any ability to comprehend consequences.

  2. spetzer86 says:

    I wonder how much the EU pays these people to imagine things can be made better by always increasing the targets and devil take the hindmost? You could just say “every 5 years we’ll increase the target by 10%” and have accomplished essentially the same thing.

  3. Stephen Richards says:

    These people are just the most stupid possible. How did they get to be senior politicians

  4. tom0mason says:

    More bureaucratic excess to force people and industry into the box marked ‘sustainability’. A box that ensures unsustainable expenditure (from taxpayers), unreliability that looses industry, jobs, markets and trade, and will waste so much talent and money.

  5. Curious George says:

    His strong point is French Literature. He should stick to it.

  6. cognog2 says:

    How can you have a cost-beneficial analysis if there aren’t any benefits?

  7. Phoenix44 says:

    He’s obviously never heard of either a discount rate or opportunity cost, so hes the right person to be in charge of an analysis like this. Frankly I don’t know why they keep pretending they do analysis. Its completely fake, from current costs to future avoided costs to the methodology. They know it, we know it, the media know it. They are going to do this no matter what because they think – with no evidence or reason to – that this should be done. Opinion trumps knowledge now, on every issue.

  8. oldbrew says:

    03 Sep 2020
    German politicians call to halt Nord Stream 2 following Navalny poisoning

    The Greens’ parliamentary group head Katrin Göring-Eckardt said the “obvious attempted murder” calls for a “very clear response” from Germany and the EU. “Such a response, for example, would be to make it very clear: Nord Stream 2 is no longer something that we can drive forward together with Russia.”
    . . .
    In a new study, the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) also questioned the pipeline’s usefulness from an economic perspective. “The energy demand analyses on which the project is based clearly overestimate German and European natural gas consumption,” the DIW study said. “On the supply side, there is no indication a gap will occur in case Nord Stream 2 is not built,” it added.

    – – –
    If renewables are so great they won’t need it anyway, surely? 🙄
    A big if — unless you’re ultra ‘green’.

  9. oldbrew says:

    German Industry Warns Of Bankruptcies & Relocations Over EU Climate Plans
    Date: 03/09/20 Die Welt

    – – –
    The pointless economic pain is becoming ever more obvious to the people who create the country’s wealth, or try to.