The worsening effects of climate change are constantly threatening our society and environment. Not only are environments being transformed by changing ecosystems, warmer temperatures, and rising sea levels, but human health is also at risk through declining air and water quality. In an attempt to mitigate the existential threat to our system, the European Commission implemented a plan to address climate change, promote sustainable development, and conserve biodiversity, coined as the European Green Deal (EGD). At the time of enactment, the deal seemed to be a well-thought-out plan aimed at making Europe the first climate-neutral continent. However, the backlash of the plan wasn’t accounted for until trial and further research, creating concerns about the validity of achieving goals set forth by the EGD.
Research has shown that the motive for Europe to attain carbon neutrality by their goal of 2050 could inadvertently cause an increase in environmental degradation spilling into other countries. In the initial stages of implementation, the European Commission dealt with political backlash in their own borders. Now, with new research and a better understanding of the implications, the deal is seemingly facing more backlash than support.
The negative reaction from the public was completely unexpected. With clear goals and policies, the Commission genuinely believed citizens would be ecstatic about the promise of a modern, resource-efficient, and economically competitive Europe. They hope to accomplish this by adopting new climate, energy, transport, and taxation policies that “guarantee” the reduction of emissions by at least 55%. The issue within the political sphere has led to many voters turning away from Green parties. Voters were discontent with the initiatives, while many politicians faced a dilemma they often must contemplate: whether to present legislation handed off from the national government as their own, or to be transparent in the origins. In practice, the Danish government claimed they had drawn up the initiative. In contrast, German and Italian governments gave little weight to their own responsibility to alleviate the potential backlash reflected back on them. Politico emphasizes the need for Europe to shift its implementation standards to adopt incentives, innovation, and industrial collaboration rather than regulations and directives. This would ease public scrutiny, as well as pave the way for governments to address their country’s specific challenges to personally persuade their citizens.
New data published on September 23, 2024 displays that the EGD needs to call for a complete dietary re-evaluation in order to achieve its goals. Klaus Hubacek, the head of this research, examines how the deal sectors in agriculture and forestry targets could increase land-use emissions globally. Specifically, carbon emissions that are outsourced to non-EU countries could skyrocket by 244.8% with respect to the amount of carbon removed under the Green Deal. They identified dietary change as the most detrimental factor that would alleviate the effects of the projected global emission increase. If there were a shift in Europe to a planetary diet, there is a higher chance that they can preserve their biodiversity and considerably cut their emissions by decreasing the amount of global land-use pressure. This works by reducing the amount of meat and dairy consumption that comes from imported animal feed for the use of agricultural goods.
Scientists concede that a large part of the discontent towards the EGD is the lack of transparency regarding the real reasons for the state of environmental degradation, which is mainly attributed to our lifestyles. André Gonçalves talks about the evolution of humanity and how the European Green Deal has come up with comprehensive plans to solve problems created by our lifestyles. The deal barely stands a fighting chance if the citizens do not understand the implications of daily life consumption and the need for a shift to planetary diets in Europe. The New Bauhaus Strategy is an invitation for Europeans to reflect on their lifestyles and to push the agenda that will help the EGD move along. However, it is still in early development, and it is incredibly difficult for citizens to understand the effects of their lifestyle and how the energy that they put into virtually everything is sacred, used with conscious and cost-reward awareness.
Policy-makers and citizens both play a key role in the success of the European Green Deal. If European citizens don’t become more conscientious and aware of essential production and consumption adjustments, the goals of the EGD will be unattainable. This also begs the question, even if the deal is a success, how can we be sure that the thirst for more won’t bring them right back to square one?
***
This article was edited by Ainsley Coates.
