Europe was among the pioneers in the green revolution. Now it may become the leader of the counterrevolution.
Five years ago Europeans demanded action on the threats posed by climate change. They saw the threat as real and the struggle to ameliorate it as existential.
Five years later their tolerance for the disruptions and the economic and social costs of the struggle have led many to resist the green agenda. Even the liberal-leaning New York Times editorial page speaks of the climate backlash that is influencing political campaigning in Europe.
————
Europe’s experience validates Cape May County’s
foresight in rejecting wind turbines off our coast.
————
The European Union (EU), the supranational political and economic organization that unites 27 member states, has been the focus of the continent’s attempted transition from being one of history’s top polluters to a leader in the move away from dependence on fossil fuels. The European Climate Foundation 2023 report speaks of the importance of the green revolution mission while voters take out their frustrations on politicians who seek office under the green umbrella.
In 2019 the European green candidates won 10% of the seats in the EU parliament. Voters demanded action on climate threats. The EU subsequently adopted the European Green Deal in 2021.
What is the Green Deal? Let’s look at a basic outline.
The EU wants a climate neutral economy by 2050, meaning net zero emissions. Since the bill was passed by the EU parliament it is legally binding on the member states.
The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The pact includes a binding renewable energy target of 43.5% also by 2030. Ten years later in 2040 member countries will have to have reduced their consumption of fossil fuels by 80%. There is even a provision for a carbon price to be attached to imports from carbon intensive industries outside the EU – essentially a carbon tariff.
The list could go on but the point is made. The EU’s Green Deal calls for a complete transformation of economic and social life as it has developed over a period of almost two centuries to a newly envisioned world that is climate neutral.
Does such a total transformation in just two decades carry with it the high likelihood of massive disruptions, the expectation of more economic losers than winners, no matter how temporary, and the need for widespread sacrifice and shared commitment to underlie that sacrifice? Of course it does.
But building that consensus in the face of on-the-ground realities that erode a shared sense of purpose is not a responsibility those pushing the green revolution accept. They rely almost solely on the perception of the climate threat as existential, a threat to human existence on the planet. No further explanation necessary.
As Europe moved from position papers and scientific studies to actual laws and regulations, anger, confusion and fear grew. It was a ripe environment for partisan conflict that further erodes a sense of shared purpose. The growing discontent leads to partisan opportunism and culture wars.
Why? Because those who say they are saving the planet and the rule of democracy have ignored the basic commitment that comes with democratic government, the need for building and maintaining public support.
When people are expected to accept personal sacrifices and major behavioral changes, they must be convinced the threat warrants the level of sacrifice they have been asked to absorb.
There is a myth that must be shattered – the myth of a seamless transition from our polluting, fossil-fuel dependent society and the Eden of a zero emissions world of plentiful green economy jobs. The coal miner can wipe the soot from his face and unbend his back for a more lucrative job fitting roof top solar in an exploding market.
Does anyone seriously believe that a seamless transition is possible? There will be losers in the desperate struggle to realign our economies. What is the plan for them? They will not all find high-paying jobs in the Green Revolution.
There will be a period, who knows how long, during which prices and supply shortages will inflict pain on all. How do we expect to deal with it?
There will be changes, as there already are, in the science that underpins the climate agenda. Can we be honest about them even when they may not support the desperate effort to move ahead on the climate agenda at all speed and all costs.
These examples represent just a portion of the transition issues that must be directly confronted and not left to some vision of an Edenic new world.
If we cannot do these things the backlash we are seeing in Europe is likely to grow everywhere. The losers in this transformation will not accept their fate in silence.
The backlash has its roots in the experience people are having during these early years of the effort. In the last few years support for drastic climate action has eroded. The Green Revolution champions seem remarkably unprepared for the moment.
For years those who have campaigned for sweeping and immediate change in the face of climate threats have been unwilling to address the concerns of those most effected by their policies. They have dismissed the anxieties as the result of fearmongering rather than of their failure to build a consensus worthy of the transformation effort they seek. They are, in short, the cause of their own discontent.
More tragically, given that we are experiencing some level of climate-induced threats and sea level is rising, the methods currently employed by those who seek to save the region, the country and even the planet may leave us in a worse position in any effort to ameliorate and adapt to climate-driven changes.
————
From the Bible:
Treat people the same way you want them to treat you. – From Matthew 7:12
