Assessing the European Green Deal

American custom and move towards a more patriarchal, intention-reliant view of marriage. All that is lef now is to wait for gravity to take efect.

Assessing the European Green Deal Scott Murphy SS Law and Political Science

Te European Green Deal (EGD) is a framework of legislation, regulations, and targets introduced by the European Commission in response to the increasingly politicised climate crisis. Given that new European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen lauded the Deal as Europe’s “man on the moon moment”, the EGD policy framework deserves scrutiny.

Te EGD provides a roadmap for the European Union’s (EU) transformation from a carbon-intensive economy to one with net zero emissions - that is, carbon emitted will equal carbon removed from the atmosphere by 2050. Other central aims of the Deal include: achieving a 50-55 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to pre-1990 levels (an increase from the previous aim of 40 per cent); creating an EU carbon border tax for exports from non-EU countries with less ambitious climate targets; establishing 2030 climate and energy targets for member states; and creating a Just Transition Fund worth €100 billion to ensure an equitable transition for workers in the fossil fuel sector. So how should we conceive of the European Green Deal? Firstly, the introduction of a transcontinental, longterm climate plan is a positive step forward. An internationally coordinated response to tackling the climate crisis is essential due to its global nature. Te Deal also improves on previous EU climate targets – in good part due to the millions of climate protestors who have demanded greater political ambition on this issue over the past two years. Te EU’s intention to reshape every sector of the EU economy in light of environmental concerns is also a welcome development. However, despite these positive steps forward, the content of the Green Deal has many of the same faws as EU policies of old. Tese can be grouped into three main categories: climate action, climate justice, and ideological policy approach.

According to the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we must limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, rather than 2°C as previously thought. Failure to do so will likely result in several hundred million more people being exposed to climate catastrophes such as severe droughts, crop failures, and extreme heat. Greenpeace has noted that the Green Deal target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50-55 per cent by 2030, compared to pre-1990 levels, would be insufcient to meet even the 2°C target, let alone the 1.5°C. Rather, a 65 per cent reduction must be achieved by 2030 to meet the IPCC’s 1.5°C target. In light of this information, the EU’s targets seem reckless and portray a complete disregard for human and non-human life. Activist Greta Tunberg notably denounced the Deal’s targets as “surrender.”

Climate justice refers to the view that climate change is not just an environmental issue but an intersectional one which is inseparable from social justice. Climate justice demands that climate action be taken in a way that protects those vulnerable to the efects of climate change and the transition to a green economy. Two worrying aspects of the Green Deal for climate justice advocates are refugees and the Just Transition Fund. Climate justice necessitates wealthier nations welcoming in refugees who are displaced by climate catastro

EU Page 22 phes and other humanitarian disasters. However, the EGD is largely silent on the matter of refugees and fails to challenge the EU’s approach to refugees, which has lef thousands drowned in the Mediterranean Sea due to the EU’s inability to coordinate a compassionate response to the crisis.

Te Deal’s Just Transition Fund is also a cause for concern. Proponents of climate justice argue that workers in the fossil fuel sector should be re-trained in sustainable, green jobs once fossil fuel industries are wound down. While the Deal’s Just Transition Fund purports to set aside funds to do this, the EU’s market-based approach on this issue is worrying. Rather than investing in publicly owned renewable energy, the Green Deal encourages private businesses to decarbonise by allocating them Just Transition Funds. However, as has transpired previously in countries such as Romania, such money ofen never reaches workers in the fossil fuel sector, as it is hoarded by wealthy business owners, and thus new green jobs fail to materialise. Te EU’s market approach leaves it uncertain as to whether fossil fuel workers, such as miners in Poland, will beneft from the Just Transition Fund.

Te EU’s Just Transition strategy highlights a fundamental faw of the Green Deal. Te EU describes the Deal as a “new growth strategy” that will encourage private businesses to create a green, sustainable European economy. Given that the neoliberal fascination with economic growth and the private control of natural resources is the predominant cause of the climate crisis, it is disappointing that the EGD then relies on neoliberal means in attempting to overcome the same crisis.

Despite the inadequacies of the Green Deal, one outstanding question is to what extent the proposals of the Deal will be implemented in practice. A positive aspect of the EGD is that it includes a European Climate Law intended to create legal obligations for member states to comply with relevant targets. Tis law would allow the Commission to pursue Member States in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in cases of noncompliance. A ruling from the ECJ ordering Member States to comply with climate targets would greatly strengthen the likelihood of Member States adhering to these targets.

Tis would mark a signifcant break from previous EU climate targets, which have been all but ignored by some countries, including Ireland, with little retribution. While implementation will always be a challenge for transnational organisations, the European Climate law gives hope that the Deal’s targets will be implemented; however, this depends on how seriously the Commission takes the climate crisis going forward.

What should we make of the European Green Deal? On its face, the introduction of a comprehensive, EU-wide climate plan Te Deal could also The EU’s new European Climate Law should be welcomed. serve as a template for future transnational co- will hopefully facilitate a more operation in addressing the climate emergency. However, core aspects of the Deal are fun- aggressive approach by the European damentally fawed. Te failure of EU targets to warming targets reveals Commission in pursuing member meet either 1.5°C or 2°C the EU’s recklessness and disregard for human and states in cases of noncompliance, but non-human life. Te EU’s refusal to address its ap- proach to refugee crises, as well as its neoliberal, based on previous EU climate market-orientated approach to its Just Transi emissions, will also dis - - targets, it remains unclear whether the tion plan and cutting of appoint proponents of climate justice. Te EU’s Commission will do this with much new European Climate Law will hopefully facili- tate a more aggressive approach by the European vigour. Commission in pursuing member states in cases of noncompliance, but based on previous EU climate targets, it remains unclear whether the Commission will do this with much vigour.