The EU thread

[Grey Fox]

I still cannot believe Merkel de-nuclearized Germany. That was such a fucking stupid thing to do. Right when we are trying to fight global warming. Just a bizarre decision.

I have always wondered if it wasn't some corrupt deal with Gazprom, like something Gerhard Schröder would champion.

She grew up in the RDA. 20/20 hindsight of today's seems to show that those that did in that are in the current German government have a soft spot for Russia. Eye test shows she did too.

[Sheilbh]

I mentioned the weird position British policy on net zero, industrial strategy and China had got into on cars. Glad/alarmed to see it's not just us - but I hope someone somewhere in Europe is trying to work out if the goal of policy is to prioritise energy transition (in which case we need cheap Chinese EVs), protect jobs, have European sovereignty technologically or to just keep European automakers competitive? Because I feel like those are competing, contradictory goals and we're getting the worst of all worlds - protection and strategy that isn't enough to help industry, but high enough to slow energy transition:

Europe's carmakers risk hefty bill for carbon credits from Chinese rivals
Groups failing to meet EU climate targets face a choice of paying fines, discounting EVs or buying credits
Kenza Bryan and Kana Inagaki in London and Alice Hancock in Brussels 15 hours ago

European carmakers led by Volkswagen could be forced to pay hundreds of millions of euros to Chinese electric-vehicle rivals to buy carbon credits, as the auto sector tries to avoid potential fines for failing to meet 2025 pollution rules set by Brussels.

Under EU rules requiring carmakers to cut emissions, manufacturers lagging behind in the electric transition face the choice of paying billions of euros in fines, boosting EV sales by slashing prices or buying credits from less polluting competitors.

Europe is the fastest warming continent on earth, estimated at twice the global average since the 1980s, in large part because of its proximity to the melting Arctic where exposed dark ground amplifies the effect.

The European Commission plans to fine carmakers €95 per car for every gramme of CO₂ per km above a 93.6g limit, based on average emissions across a company's vehicle sales in 2025.

Many carmakers in the EU are looking to use the "pooling" option, where manufacturers average out the greenhouse gas emissions of their fleets with other companies that sell in the bloc.

Analysts estimate that some European groups may be forced to buy hundreds of millions of euros worth of carbon credits from Chinese rivals such as BYD, which has one of the largest pools of credits to sell thanks to high EV sales in the EU.

According to recent EU filings, Tesla expects to pool credits with companies including Stellantis, Ford and Toyota. The US EV maker has already made more than $2bn in the first nine months of last year from selling credits into emission pooling systems globally. In another pool, Mercedes-Benz has teamed up with Polestar and Volvo — both owned by China's Geely.

Geely's founder Li Shufu holds about 10 per cent of Mercedes, while Beijing owned BAIC holds another 10 per cent.

Mercedes said it continued to "invest billions into electric vehicles". "However, the pace of the transformation of our industry is determined by market conditions and our customers," it added.

VW and Renault, which analysts say look likely to struggle to meet targets through their own sales, have few pooling alternatives other than Chinese manufacturers MG-SAIC and BYD. Renault could potentially also pool with strategic partners Nissan and Mitsubishi. 

Pooling is controversial. Some executives warn that the arrangement will make the European industry less competitive by empowering rivals in China at a time when Brussels has imposed higher tariffs on Chinese EVs to protect the continent's carmakers.

Jens Gieseke, a centre-right lawmaker in the European parliament, said the EU had made a "mistake" in allowing pooling with US and Chinese carmakers as this could benefit European carmakers' rivals.

Industry players are reluctant to put numbers on expected payments publicly, as carmakers trade credits behind closed doors in groupings based on a web of alliances linked to their equity stakes and brand tie-ups.

The German state of Lower Saxony holds a 20 per cent stake in VW while Renault is 15 per cent government owned, making the groups' pooling with Chinese carmakers a politically sensitive topic, according to UBS analyst Patrick Hummel.

He added that if VW chose to pool, it would probably need to do so with a number of Chinese companies, as BYD might not have enough EV sales in Europe to fill the German group's gap alone.

The German group would need to almost double its EV sales in just one year if it were to meet EU targets itself, according to UBS. The company does not have a new mass-model EV launch planned in 2025. Renault is hoping to boost its EV sales with the launch of a €25,000 model.

VW said it would aim to avoid the penalties through "its own efforts", pointing to a series of fully-electric models that were launched last year.

"Only in a second step would other measures such as pooling come into play, naturally weighing up costs and benefits," the company said. "Every euro invested in possible penalties would be a poorly invested euro."

Renault has said that it was too early to decide on pooling, but added the arrangements with Chinese manufacturers risked weakening the European car industry further.

Brussels is under pressure from the sector to make emissions rules more flexible as sales of electric vehicles in Germany and France fell last year after governments pulled back purchase subsidies for EVs.

The bloc's climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra met car industry representatives on Wednesday and a "strategic dialogue" between officials and the sector is due to start this month.

Additional reporting by Ian Johnston and Patricia Nilsson

[Legbiter]

At this point I wish the European elite had never, ever even heard of carbon dioxide, much less global warming, or if they had, by some mysterious inexplicable misfortune, heard of such an awful, grubby thing, they had just put French nuclear policy in charge of solving it on their end. There, all done, no need to turn into a childless Green-voting Star Wars superfan or a drunk Canadian corporate lawyer. 

[Barrister]

At this point I wish the European elite had never, ever even heard of carbon dioxide, much less global warming, or if they had, by some mysterious inexplicable misfortune, heard of such an awful, grubby thing, they had just put French nuclear policy in charge of solving it on their end. There, all done, no need to turn into a childless Green-voting Star Wars superfan or a drunk Canadian corporate lawyer. 

But - global warming is a real thing.  Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased dramatically, which will have ongoing effects on our climate for decades top come.

We've just, as a society, never been able to really, meaningfully, grapple with what that means or what it requires.

The biggest problem is apolitical - it's the "tragedy of the commons"/  It's someone else's problem to solve.  US says China is the biggest emitter, so it's up to China to solve.  China says US is the biggest per capita emitter, so it's the US's problem to solve (and you can keep going).

Politically though - the left can't resist thinking "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste", and wants to solve global warming by doing all the things the left wants to do anyways - whether it be banning nuclear, destroying capitalism, banning meat, you name it.

The right though of course - just denies it's a problem.  "How can global warming be an issue if it's so cold in January!".

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I think that's more a North American thing.

Britain's net zero targets were put into law by Theresa May. They were then brought forward by Boris Johnson. Certainly in Britain both right and left have pinned a lot of hopes (like Biden) on energy transition as a way of reducing regional inequality/re-industrialising (I'm not convinced that's possible for Britain but could be for America).

The EU's Fit for 55/European Green Deal package was 2019 and basically part of a grand bargain between the main political families under a Christian Democrat led Commission.

I think in Europe I think the problem is that there's very strong support for the principle of meeting net zero and everyone gets the need to do that. But there is basically just "???" between those high level commitments (some of which are legally binding) and getting there in a way that is politically sustainable (so just and perceived to be just), preserves Europe's industrial base or some form of technological/industrial sovereignty. I think Britain's an extreme example (because I'm not sure the latter two are even possible) but I think you have to choose between speed of energy transition, supporting domestic industry and cost (through subsidising either demand for the former or supply for the latter). And I don't think anyone's seriously engaging with those choices.

I think it's a huge historic moment that climate is possibly the first time in centuries when Europe (and America) are not the agents of history. We will just experience the impact of other countries' decisions - I don't think China's current position is to blame the US. They absolutely get and are committed to energy transition. I think we may well achieve it and, if that's the case, it will be because of China as a historic force (good for the planet, perhaps not great for the west...) - it's a bit like Trump's presidency in Gideon Rachman's list of possibilities, I think there's a non-zero chance it works and I'm not sure how I feel about that

[Legbiter]

'Come off it Leggy, it's Friday, you're just a few pints in, malding'

Well...yes to that, but I just got back from Norway (father-in-law funeral) and it surprised me that the major hot button political issue I got quizzed on by in-laws was the difference between Iceland and Norway and whether our energy grid connected to Europe or not (it does not)

Norwegian politicians are promising to stop the flow of hydropower to bumfuck Germany (common EU energy market), because this and the last winter it has been experiencing a lot of Dunkelflaute days (days without wind)...

Which has lead to insane electricity prices in Norways for the last few years (coupled with the Ukraine war).

[Legbiter]

But - global warming is a real thing.  Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased dramatically, which will have ongoing effects on our climate for decades top come.

Canada will be -13% less of a winter hellscape...

But sure, switch over to nuclear and renewables where it makes sense ( not Germany, aside from gramps summer cottage having solar panels) purely out of precaution.

[Syt]

In order to balance their budget to conform to EU rules, the new Austrian government will cut many subsidies to greener energies. While leaving Diesel subsidies e.g. for farmers in place.

Meanwhile ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c30dn5dn53jo

Planet-warming gas levels rose more than ever in 2024

Levels of the most significant planet-warming gas in our atmosphere rose more quickly than ever previously recorded last year, scientists say, leaving a key global climate target hanging by a thread.

Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) are now more than 50% higher than before humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels.

Last year, fossil fuel emissions were at record highs, while the natural world struggled to absorb as much CO2 due to factors including wildfires and drought, so more accumulated in the atmosphere.

The rapid increase in CO2 is "incompatible" with the international pledge to try to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, the Met Office says.

This was the ambitious goal agreed by nearly 200 countries at a landmark UN meeting in Paris in 2015, with the hope of avoiding some of the worst impacts of climate change.

Last week it was confirmed that 2024 was the hottest year on record, and the first calendar year in which annual average temperatures were higher than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

This did not break the Paris goal, which refers to a longer-term average over decades, but continued increases to atmospheric CO2 effectively consign the world to doing so.

"Limiting global warming to 1.5C would require the CO2 rise to be slowing, but in reality the opposite is happening," says Richard Betts of the Met Office.

The long-term CO2 increase is unquestionably due to human activities, mainly through burning coal, oil and gas, and cutting down forests.

Records of the Earth's climate in the distant past from ice cores and marine sediments show that CO2 levels are currently at their highest in at least two million years, according to the UN.

But the rise varies from year to year, thanks to differences in how the natural world absorbs carbon, as well as fluctuations in humanity's emissions.

Last year, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels reached new highs, according to preliminary data from the Global Carbon Project team.

There were also the effects of the natural El Niño phenomenon - where surface waters in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean become unusually warm, affecting weather patterns.

The natural world has absorbed roughly half of humanity's CO2 emissions, for example through extra plant growth and more of the gas being dissolved in the ocean.

But that extra blast of heat from El Niño against the background of climate change meant natural carbon sinks on land did not take up as much CO2 as usual last year.

Rampant wildfires, including in regions not usually affected by El Niño, also released extra CO2.

"Even without the boost from El Niño last year, the CO2 rise driven by fossil fuel burning and deforestation would now be outpacing the [UN climate body] IPCC's 1.5C scenarios," says Prof Betts.

These factors meant that between 2023 and 2024 CO2 levels increased by nearly 3.6 parts per million (ppm) molecules of air to a new high of more than 424ppm.

This is a record yearly increase since atmospheric measurements were first taken at the remote Mauna Loa research station in Hawaii in 1958. Perched high on the side of a volcano in the Pacific Ocean, the station's remote location away from major pollution sources makes it ideally suited to monitoring global CO2 levels.

"These latest results further confirm that we are moving into uncharted territory faster than ever as the rise continues to accelerate," says Prof Ralph Keeling, who leads the measurement programme at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the US.

The record increase adds to concerns that the natural world may become less able to absorb planet-warming gases in the long-term.

The Arctic tundra is being transformed into an overall source of CO2, thanks to warming and frequent fires, according to the US science group NOAA.

The ability of the Amazon rainforest to absorb CO2 is also being hit by drought, wildfires and deliberate deforestation.

"It's an open question, but it's something we need to keep a close eye on and look at very carefully," Prof Betts tells the BBC.

The Met Office predicts the increase in CO2 concentration in 2025 will be less extreme than 2024, but still significantly off-track to meet the 1.5C target.

La Niña conditions – where surface waters in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean are cooler than normal - have replaced El Niño, which tends to allow the natural world to take up more CO2.

"While there may be a temporary respite with slightly cooler temperatures, warming will resume because CO2 is still building up in the atmosphere," Prof Betts says.

[crazy canuck]

We have already reached 1.5, earlier than the models predicted.  We are in mitigation mode now.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

erst das fressen, dann die moral...

First order of the day is reducing the energy prices, massively, so that at least there the EU is competitive once more with the US.
Also needed is taking measures to strenghten what's left of our industries and entire reshoring as much as possible as well as (re-)starting extraction of certain resources (especially those where China can fuck over the world).
While we're at at it: investing more, much more in the technologies of the future*. That includes, and probably should emphasise, military technology since advances there more often than not have commercial applications down the line.
Ditch the Green Deal. It puts us at a severe disadvantage and pisses off far too many people (which has significant repercussions on politics). The EU shouldn't be trying to be holier than the pope. Invest in mitigation, which will include quite a bit of construction (jobs) and technological development. focus on improvements that repay them in less than a decade. Longer is beyond most people's, including politicians, cognitive horizon.
Stop making ever declarations on increasingly absurd goals with ditto deadlines. It's not going to come from Europe (we represent too little of the global emissions) so there's no nead to ruin ourselves over it. Slow but steady will be soon enough since the rest of the world is industrialising fast. Meaning that emissions will continue to rise and environment will continue to degrade regardless of our efforts real and virtue-signalled.

So in other words: cheap energy, slow but steady, mitigation, European interests first, tech tech tech.
And to make it really clear: lose too much of the electorate and the Green Deal is off regardless, and the Russians are in.

* that certainly includes recycling. We should get to a point where we can basically get the trash from elsewhere and break it down for a near-100% recuperation of the atoms that make up the stuff (as it where). It also includes energy- and resource-efficient tech, which has a direct effect on the bottom-line and strategic (in)dependence.

[Admiral Yi]

What does the Green Deal mean in the EU context?

[Iormlund]

Fining companies when their EVs won't sell is incredibly stupid in the first place.

A much better approach would be to fine them for each segment where they have ICE products but no EV alternative.

[Sheilbh]

In order to balance their budget to conform to EU rules, the new Austrian government will cut many subsidies to greener energies. While leaving Diesel subsidies e.g. for farmers in place.

Meanwhile ...

The other side of this for sure - you can see the Eurozone crisis and austerity in any chart on adoption and manufacturing of renewals (it's also the moment when you see Chinese renewal industry accelerating). Draghi has done a really big report on all this with some solutions - but that won't happen

What does the Green Deal mean in the EU context?

It was the big legislative program agreed for the 2019-24 VdL Commission:
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en

At a European level it's always grand coalition politics so this was a big chunk of their priorities to bring together the centre-right, centre-left, Greens and liberals behind VdL's Commission. It didn't survive as a standalone strand after the 2024 European elections. VdL's latest Commission scraped through Parliament in part because of the relative success of the radical right, but more importantly a significant decline for the centre-left, Greens and liberals. It's still there, but it's not the centrepiece now and is framed more around competitiveness with the US and China