What kind of Europe is worth saving?

Last week European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker presented his plan for the future of Europe. Or, more accurately, he presented different scenarios for what that future could look like. It would be easy to dismiss this as another round of Brussels navel gazing but the truth is this debate matters. Especially to environmentalists.

We have often been critical of the EU and the Commission. We have slammed the Commission for its disastrous biofuels policy, its slow development of real-world emission tests for cars, its caving in on the aviation ETS, its constant delaying of almost everything. And yes, what the Commission and the EU are doing is often insufficient and unsatisfactory.

But it’s also true that many of the things we care about are only possible thanks to the EU. Think of climate targets or vehicle safety standards. Or think of vehicle emissions regulations. Sure, they are imperfect. But it’s also clear that German, French or Italian national standards wouldn’t exactly be an improvement. The reality is that the EU has the scale and regulatory instruments to do a much better job than national governments ever would.

Pollution and climate change know no borders. To lose Europe would be to lose many of the things we passionately believe are necessary and right.

Our job as an NGO is not to be the EU’s – and certainly not the Commission’s – cheerleader. We must be an independent and credible watchdog. We need to scrutinise and expose what the Commission does. But at least as important is to check on national governments, which increasingly dominate EU decision making.

Take the example of Dieselgate. As the European Parliament’s investigative committee EMIS concluded: Dieselgate is essentially about national officials and carmakers colluding to skew emission tests and the EU having no authority to intervene.

Dieselgate and how it played out is actually an interesting case study for Europe’s wider problems. Initially when we tried to explain to journalists that this wasn’t about ‘fatcat commission bureaucrats messing up’ they simply didn’t want to hear it. It didn’t fit the narrative. It would have been easy to change tune, which would have given us huge media coverage. But it would have been a major strategic mistake as it plays into the hands of those that seek to destroy not only Europe, but also the environmental and climate safeguards we fight for.

Instead, we spent a lot of time and effort explaining to journalists all around Europe that enforcement of emission standards is a national competence. That all these cars with anti-pollution systems which only work when it’s hotter than 17°C were approved by our own democratically elected governments. And that emissions testing is actually one of the clearest areas where ‘more’ Europe is needed.

President Juncker actually mentions the idea a European vehicle enforcement agency in his future of Europe paper. The European Parliament’s EMIS committee also voted in favour of such an agency last week – not because they are die-hard federalists but because it’s plain common sense that a functioning internal market requires proper oversight. But national governments are opposing better oversight. Why? Because their national constituencies are against an agency that ensures they can breathe cleaner air? Of course not. If asked, they’d probably support it. No, the reason is that many of the people sitting in the Council working groups are trying to cover their tracks. They do so under the aegis of ministers in the national capitals – even though some ministers may not be entirely aware of what’s being cooked up by their experts in Brussels. And ministers will only start caring when journalists start asking questions.


This is our contribution to making the European project work a little better. Because for better or worse, the EU is essential to deliver the cleaner, fairer and more efficient transport system we need.

Comments

Terence Bendixson, President, UK Living Streets 's picture

Comment: 

Surely the most effective way to test emissions is for it to be done nationally on cars in use, under the aegis of national governments, and for the Commission to be the watchdog for national testing systems? The Commission's role would then to be to throw light onto the nasty activities of the nations.

JuliaPoliscanova's picture

Comment: 

The system where emission tests are done nationally is exactly what we have today. And as the continuing Dieselgate scandal shows, such a system has failed and it is time to reform and change it. Currently enforcement lies solely in the hands of national authorities, who - instead of protecting consumers and public health - collude with the car industry and allow them to abuse the emission rules and emit much more pollution when in real use.

The latest Fiat saga where the Italian government is defending the company against cheating accusations, despite evidence in Germany and the US, shows what happens when national authorities are in charge, Addition additional market surveillance, such as tests on vehicles on the road, at EU level would inject independence and rigour, taking it further away from national influences. It can be done in existing state of the art EU facilities, such as JRC VELA emissions lab in Italy.

James Collis's picture

Comment: 

Rather than looking at regulatory solutions, Senior Republicans in the U.S. recently proposed a straightforward economic policy that would credibly double the environmental impact and decarbonize by 90% by 2050. At the same time as repealing the EPA legislation.

Straightforward zero cost policies that would reduce government and transition transport have bi-partisan support as well as economically focussed environmental groups. Does Transport and Environment have a view on challenging EU policy in this area ?

In case you missed it, the plan released from the Climate Leadership Council – which includes, from left, Henry Paulson, George Shultz and James Baker – proposes an upstream tax on carbon dioxide emissions starting at $40 per ton and slowly rising thereafter. All of the revenue would be returned equally to households as quarterly dividends. Border adjustment tariffs would be applied to carbon-intensive imports from nations lacking an equivalent price on carbon. Their plan also calls for elimination of EPA rules governing carbon pollution, including the Clean Power Plan.

James Nix's picture

Comment: 

Yesterday (22 March) the White House ruled out the carbon tax proposed by the CLC (referred to in the above post); http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/22/stories/1060051882

Could such a carbon tax plan be applied in the EU? With its emissions trading scheme (ETS), the EU has something which runs along similar lines to a tax. However, instead of putting of price on carbon which shifts investment - i.e. exceeds 30 euros per tonne - the ETS price is projected to average less than 14 euros for the next 14 to 15 years, i.e. too low to shift investment. There have been, and are, reform attempts. However, even industries that would be protected by border carbon adjustment are split - and sadly the industrialists who (however wrongly) perceive risk have so far largely succeeded in stopping reform that would meaningfully push up the price.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/opinion/split-cement-lobby-forces...

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

About the author

William Todts's picture

Executive Director

Share