Tag Archives: environment

JibberJabber Logo tround transparent 2 1.png

Homeopathy To Cure Global Warming

Capture carbon engineering 300x147

I sometimes ask myself at the age of 92 why I have such a keen interest in the future? Electric cars, driverless cars, space travel, financial systems. energy innovation, artificial intelligence.

Because, come on, be realistic. As realistic as Warren Buffet, who, when asked by a young salesman to make an investment that would double in price in 12 months said – ‘Listen sonny, at my age I don’t even buy green bananas’.

But I can’t help it, and when I read in an energy newsletter that the future is carbon fuelled cars it has me excited.

Yes, carbon, one of the main villains of global warming could be the saviour. It reminds me of the homeopathic principle – (What causes – Cures) or ( Like cures Like)

Both President Trump and the book ‘Abundance’ are relaxed about the carbon CO2 threat because they either believe it’s cyclical or say technology will save the day – could they be right? – read on -.

Back in 2004, the film ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ depicted the end of the world, as we know it, through extreme changes in weather that plunge us into another Ice Age.

In the film the cause of these extremes in weather was global warming and while the science is wildly inaccurate, there has been something ominously truthful in its predictions.

This year in the UK alone, we had record heatwaves, forest fires and snow in March. In the US it’s been even more extreme – as shown by the tragic California wildfires.

In order to prevent further warming, drastic changes need to happen, with the UN stating the world will require a transformation in society that is “unprecedented in scale”.

Even with an apocalyptic warning, such as the fire in Paradise, California, people still hope global warming is a weather pattern that will pass.

For most people the resistance to global warming is less an objection of the science, and more an objection to the lifestyle changes needed if they accept it as true.

As cited above, the transformation in society would be unprecedented, it would affect all walks of life, and people are resistant to change.

They are rejecting the solution to climate change because it does not offer any choice.

The automotive industry is a prime example; the only viable solution offered up is electric vehicles. But, for people who already own combustion cars the move to expensive electric vehicles is not an easy option.

Some bought themselves a diesel car to get cheaper tax. Now they are being told that was the wrong decision. Diesel is worse, and they must purchase an electric vehicle. Unsurprisingly, they are frustrated by the prospect.

Moreover, despite their benefits to the climate, electric vehicles are not without flaws. The infrastructure for electric vehicles, for example, is expensive. It’s currently costing the tax payers £400 million for a charging network.

Yes, electric vehicles will play a crucial role in the development of our society. They are inherently a good thing. They create cleaner, less polluted environments, they are on the whole carbon neutral and it is a step away from fossil fuel reliance.

But what about offering a choice? Giving people an option to be climate change aware without a dependence on electric vehicles.

There is a company out in Squamish, Canada, that offers this option. It is called Carbon Engineering and it is using carbon to create fuel. What is so clever about its approach to climate change is that it has succeeded in making the problem part of the solution. Remember – The Homeopathic Principle!

By using its DAC (direct air capture technology) Carbon Engineering sucks air out of the atmosphere and refines it, removing the carbon. It then combines the carbon with hydrogen and water to create a fuel that is chemically identical to the fuel used by vehicles today.

Not only is it chemically identical but it is high performance, it burns clean and it is carbon neutral. What this means is it has created a fuel that is great for your car (better than the petrol or diesel we use today), it is less pollutant – making our air cleaner – and it doesn’t contribute to global warming.

For most people, going “green”, is difficult because it results in changes to everyday life and takes away the things they enjoy.With this technology, they don’t have to do that (at least from the automotive sense). They have the choice either to go electric or to carry on as they are.

As with everything, Carbon Engineering does have its drawbacks. Unfortunately, it has similar pitfalls to electric vehicles. The plants use a lot of energy to operate and if this energy is not supplied by a renewable source then, like charging your vehicle that gets its electricity from the oil-powered plant, it is no longer a completely emissions-free endeavour.

However, this is not a finished project, it is still a private company looking for investors and if you compare it to other carbon capture companies such as the European company Climeworks, which is using CO2 to boost plants photosynthesis, its running costs last year was $600 per tonne of CO2.

Carbon Engineering has not only developed a fuel that is carbon neutral but it goes one step further. It actively removes carbon from the air. Using the same DAC technology, which refines carbon for fuel, it can remove the carbon and store it underground.

Therefore, when using the carbon neutral fuel that Carbon Engineering produces, plus the safe removal and storage of carbon underground, one can contribute negative emissions.

What this means is that while driving, you could be actively contributing to the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, rather than its production.

Unfortunately, the company is still private, but its potential is massive. Its current investors include Bill Gates, so you can be sure that it will be making headlines in the future.
Acknowledged – Extracts from ‘The Exponential Investor’-DONOVAN MATTHEWS.

Comment
[-]kenny-crane (64)
The idea of taking carbon out of the air and using it for fuel is fascinating and it could really solve some problems if it works. I had not heard about this so thanks for letting me know!

[-]ijavee (59) · last month
Hi Kenny.Thank you.My enthusiasm for new breakthrough energy discoveries is being tempered somewhat by nothing being heard of these great sounding ideas afterwards.

Off the top of my head I think I’ve written about half a dozen posts on Steemit relating to energy breakthroughs.I.E. -June 6th 2018.’Infinite Energy within our Grasp’- October 29th 2018 -‘Energy Revolution Close’says Eoin Tracy.

Again from memory, because I’m too lazy to look up my articles this Sunday morning,the breakthroughs have involved magnets,fusion,home nuclear reactors,super batteries storing solar source energy,etc. Usually the initiatives have Bill Gates as an investor which adds credibility.

The doubts arise because nothing seems to be heard of afterwards.I receive Bill Gates newsletter,but I cannot recall any mention of energy inventions. You would think that when governments are proposing to invest millions in nuclear power plants,someone would query the neeed if there are so many new technologies near to success?

Did anyone at the recent climate change conference in Katowice,Poland,where 200 countries were represented, mention new technology?.Aparently not,and I believe Bill Gates attended.

Nicaragua canal – environment fears ignored as construction work begins Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Since it was completed 100 years ago, the Panama Canal has been the only shipping route through the land mass of the Americas.

Controlled by the US for most of its history, it allows ships to navigate between Pacific and Atlantic oceans without having to sail all the way to the tip of South America, through the infamous Magellan Strait. This makes it one of the world’s most important economic arteries.

But on December 22nd, work began on a new canal route in the region, in what is one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects of our time.

The Interoceanic Grand Canal of Nicaragua will take five years to build over some 278 miles, traversing several major rivers and also Lake Nicaragua, the largest freshwater reserve in Central America. Having been discussed for some 200 years, it is expected to cost $50bn (£32bn), nearly five times the country’s annual GDP.

The project resulted from the Nicaraguan national assembly agreeing a 50-year concession with the Chinese company Hong Kong Nicaragua Development (HKND) – with the potential for a 50-year renewal thereafter.

The canal will allow the passage of the world’s largest ships, some of which will be too big for the Panama Canal even after its current expansion project has completed.

Revolutionaries no more

The project is supported by Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan president. Ortega is the former commander of the Sandinista revolution and head of state in the 1980s, who returned to the helm after the 2006 election and has had a history of difficult relations with the US.

His party, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), has become an authoritarian political machine that is particularly effective at controlling the population. It is difficult to get a job in government without belonging to the FSLN, and hard to have any power without being close to the Ortega clan.

The president’s son, Laureano Ortega, handled the negotiations with Wang Jing, the chairman/CEO of HKND, on the conditions of the concession. The project is managed directly by the president.

The canal budget does not appear in the draft government budget, and the finance minister himself has complained about the lack of information around project costs.

The China dimension

There are also a number of important questions about the project that have never been answered. We know that HKND is a sprawling Beijing-based operation with 15 subsidiaries, but despite strenuous efforts, the Nicaraguan media has so far failed to find out where its leader’s personal fortune comes from.

Wang Jing has announced that he has gathered enough investors for the project, but despite several public presentations and insistent questions, the details about project finance remain unknown.

There has been speculation about the links between Wang Jing and the Chinese military. It is seen by some as the main provider of canal project funds, even though the project is officially private and China has made no official statement.

The nation’s growing commercial interests in Latin America certainly make it easy to imagine that it might like to have an alternative to the Panama Canal, now run by a Panamanian government agency.

The US has not made any statement about the project either. Different specialists who I have interviewed have variously argued that the US is waiting to see if the project is serious; is too busy elsewhere, notably in the Middle East; and has not taken the measure of the project and its possible consequences. Whatever the case, the silence is surprising.

The enviro-threat

The environmental lobby has been more forthcoming. One of the most active has been the Centro Alexander von Humboldt, which has released the only environmental impact report to date.

It has said that the impact of construction through the lake would be irreversible, affecting the nearly one million people who depend on it for drinking water.

Dredging the lake at a depth of more than 30m, displacing millions of tons of sediment, could also radically alter and potentially destroy the biodiversity of the lake.

Also controversial is the work that is currently starting on two deep-water ports on either side of the country and a highway to transport equipment and concrete-manufacturing plants. The environmental impact study for these parts of the project, by the English company ERM, is not due to complete until April 2015.

Land redistribution – but not as we know it

The Grand Canal Act meanwhile authorises HKND to expropriate any land in Nicaragua for the needs of the project. It will displace thousands of peasants and indigenous peoples.

Yet unlike the Panama project, there was no referendum on whether it should go ahead. In the face of the government’s promises about taking the country “out of poverty“ and providing thousands of jobs, farmers’ property rights seem to weigh little.

The farmers likely to be affected by land expropriation have been holding demonstrations in numerous localities since last September. They have been told nothing about how and under what conditions this will happen.

In El Tule in the western part of the country, farmers have been blocking the Managua-San Carlos highway for several days to prevent the entry of Chinese workers and vehicles of the Nicaraguan army.

With the Chinese beginning to install their first settlements, protesters have been complaining about the increasing militarisation that is accompanying the project.

Neither has anything been said about how the country will manage the future economic impact of the canal. I have heard concerns among Nicaraguan economists that the country could become little more than an enclave economy with little in common with the rest of the region.

In short, it is long overdue that the spotlight be shone properly on this huge project. The environmental, social and geopolitical implications could cast a shadow over the region for decades to come.

 

 

Maya Collombon is Lecturer in Latin-American Politics at Sciences-Po, Lyon.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




388390

Alfred Nobel would have wanted an environment prize Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




It’s Nobel Prize week, with awards for Medicine and Physiology, Physics, Chemistry, Peace and Economics all being announced. We will discover who will win the literature prize later in the month.

While a Nobel is not the most lucrative accolade in academia – it ‘only’ awards US$1.2m whereas since 2012 the Fundamental Physics Prize has paid out US$3m per recipient – it is easily the most recognisable and prestigious.

You may be the most highly cited scholar in your field, have a small army of postdocs and a shelf full of books discussing your theories, but adding ‘Nobel Laureate’ to your CV reaches the parts other accolades can’t.

The first prizes were awarded in 1901, five years after the death of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, who in his final will bequeathed the majority of his considerable fortune to the establishment of the a foundation that would award prizes to “those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.“

The Nobel Foundation has previously made awards within the area of sustainability – most famously the 2007 peace prize jointly awarded to Al Gore and The IPCC.

The new challenge is making human existence sustainable

But if the foundation is primarily tasked with rewarding those individuals and organisations that have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind, then a Nobel Prize for Sustainability should be central to that aim.

Recently the WWF and the Zoological Society of London reported that the number of wild animals on Earth has halved over the past 40 years.

This dramatic decline in the abundance of fauna has been associated with an equally dramatic decline in the diversity of all species such that we are currently in the middle of what may prove to be one of the great mass extinctions in the history of life on Earth.

Our global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise and we are currently on course towards dangerous climate change within decades.

So why not add the names Edmond Becquerel, Rachel Carson, Dian Fossey, James Lovelock, the Penan people in Malaysia and others that have done the most to promote ways to live sustainably on our home planet to the 876 other recipients of a Nobel Prize?

New times, new necessities

It was Nobel’s wish that the foundation would award five prizes (the economics prize was created much later, after an endowment from the Swedish central bank in 1968 “in memory of Alfred Nobel“). As he never explained why he chose those particular themes, we can only speculate as to his reasoning.

Arguably physics was the foremost science in the late 1800s, as it was in the process of transforming our understanding of the universe with new theories on the atom, electricity, magnetism and cosmology.

Great advances were also being made in medicine and the physiology and what is man without an understanding of literature? Promoting peace is clearly a laudable aim. Perhaps easiest to understand is the prize for chemistry, given that Nobel was a gifted chemist and made his fortune largely by building an industrial chemicals empire.

For example, in 1867 Nobel invented dynamite and in 1875 gelignite. These easy to handle and very powerful high explosives greatly aided mining and the extraction of natural resources such as coal and iron that was needed to continue to drive the industrial revolution.

Nobel’s 1887 invention of ballistite, which he sold to the Italian military, made rifles and cannons significantly more reliable and lethal. Nobel was more directly involved in armaments through his 1894 purchase of the steel producing company Bofors which he put on course to become one of the world’s leading weapons manufacturers.

Whatever his motivation, today the name Alfred Nobel is firmly associated with his eponymous prizes and a celebration of those reasons to be optimistic about humanity’s achievements and future.

In many ways, Nobel was entitled to feel optimistic about the positive impacts that could arise from the age of great acceleration in knowledge and development in which he lived.

At the start of the 20th century, the global average life expectancy was 31. It is now 67. People live longer, healthier lives thanks to better medicine, sanitation and diets. The significant reduction in death rates is an important reason why there has been such a significant increase in the total number of humans.

Limits to growth on a finite planet

In the past 45 years the world’s population has doubled. This exponential increase in the numbers of people is eclipsed by the intensity of consumption. In the past 20 years our global civilisation consumed more energy than it did in the previous 2000.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that there are limits to this trajectory and that the processes of industrialisation are at risk of tipping the Earth system into a state that would not accommodate our global civilisation.

Would awarding a Nobel Prize for Sustainability change any of that? In isolation, of course not.

But I like to think that Nobel himself would understand that in the 21st century ‘conferring the greatest benefit to mankind’ means looking beyond ourselves and considering how we interact and affect the other species with which we share planet Earth.

 

 

James Dyke is Lecturer in Complex Systems Simulation at University of Southampton. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




385161

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 

 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 

 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 

 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 

 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682