On 6 February 2024, rnd.de published the article „Europas großes Klimapaket: Wie grün ist die EU nach vier Jahren Green Deal?“ with statements by politician Jutta Paulus (Grüne/EFA) that the focus of the Commission’s Green Deal has shifted and that laws are only being passed through Parliament in a much weaker form or are failing completely. The claims made prove to be true.
The aim of the Green Deal is to establish sustainability as a key priority for the European Union while pursuing a comprehensive growth strategy that aims to create a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy. The plan envisages Europe becoming the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050, which has been described by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as the “most ambitious roadmap ever”.
To achieve this goal, drastic emission reductions are planned in virtually all sectors of the economy, along with measures to promote natural CO2 storage and the expansion of
renewable energies. The plan is designed to create a green and digital future that strengthens international competitiveness without jeopardising economic stability. Special emphasis is placed on nature conservation, the promotion of environmentally friendly industry and the development of sustainable mobility solutions.
To find out more about the European Green Deal read our Blogpost.
Weakened laws?
Jutta Paulus complains that laws are only passed through parliament in a very watered-down form or not at all. It’s not clear from the article which and how many laws she is referring to. However, examples of such cases can be found. In November 2023, the aim of the draft law on pesticide regulation proposed by the EU Commission was to reduce the use of chemical pesticides in the EU by 2030.
In addition, the Parliament’s Environment Committee (ENVI) proposed banning chemical pesticides in parks, playgrounds or public footpaths and in all Natura 2000 protected areas. Before the final vote, the law was significantly weakened by a large number of amendments on the day of the vote. Among other things, the date for the reduction in use was postponed by five years and the consideration of ecologically sensitive areas was removed from the draft. Finally, the MEPs rejected the EU Commission’s proposal on the pesticide regulation.
Another example is the renaturalisation law, which has still not been finally approved by the Council after a long back and forth. The law on renaturalisation requires that 30% of forests, grasslands, wetlands, rivers, lakes and coral reefs must be renaturalised by 2030. The long-term goal is to bring ecosystems into a self-regulating state in order to make them more resilient to climate change. By 2040, 60% of these areas should be considered healthy and resilient, and by 2050 as much as 90%. Biodiversity is also to be increased in agriculture. Drained moors are also to be gradually rewetted. However, it is possible to suspend the biodiversity requirements in agriculture if food prices are too high in order to have a kind of “emergency brake”. The law was almost on the brink of failure in Parliament, but was adopted in February in a watered-down version including the emergency brake, which did not exist in the first draft of the law. Surprisingly, the European Council is now threatening to scrap the law, although it had previously supported stricter environmental requirements. Hungary withdrew its support in March, which means that the EU Council currently does not have a majority in favour of the law and the vote has been postponed.
Every 5th species on the red list?
With regard to the claim just examined, it is important to check whether every 5th species is really on the red list, as Jutta Paulus claims. The article “A multi-taxon analysis of European Red Lists reveals major threats to biodiversity” reveals that 19% of European species are threatened with extinction. Worryingly, the extinction risk for plants (27%) and invertebrates (24%) is significantly higher than that for vertebrates (18%). These alarming figures even exceed the latest assumptions of the IPBES (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). The main reason for the threat is the loss of habitats due to changes in agricultural practices, overharvesting, pollution and urban development. Maintaining and restoring sustainable land and water use practices is therefore crucial to prevent biodiversity loss.
Collecting data on extinction risk is central to measuring progress towards international biodiversity conservation targets. Since 2006, the European Commission has funded assessments of thousands of species for the European Red List, covering a wide range of taxonomic groups. This data serves as a basis for monitoring progress towards the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 targets.
Have the priorities within the Commission shifted?
To clarify whether the priorities within the Commission have shifted, we spoke to biologist Josef Settele from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. He confirmed that there has been a shift in focus, which can be attributed to various reasons. “The war in Ukraine plays a significant role in this, and the question arises as to how resources should be utilised,” explained Settele. “We are seeing a shift from ecological to economic ways of thinking that do not take sufficient account of ecology.”
We also spoke to Jutta Paulus to gain a better understanding of her statement about the shift in focus within the Commission. One particularly controversial point for her is the planned lowering of the wolf’s protected status. “The Commission has proposed lowering the protection status of the wolf. While the agriculture ministers have agreed to this plan, the environment ministers have rejected it. We are now at an intermediate stage and do not yet know what the final decision will be. However, the pressure from the agricultural lobby is enormous,” explained Paulus.
Are laws only going through parliament in a much weaker form or not at all and have the priorities shifted? All we can say about the laws is: Yes, Jutta Paulus is right, there are laws, particularly in relation to biodiversity, that are not being implemented. The shifted priorities are due to various reasons such as the war in Ukraine or lobbying. Nevertheless, Jutta Paulus’ claim must be categorised as “true”, because regardless of the reasons, it is a fact that some of the priorities have shifted. Overall, we rate the claim as true.
The video summarises the Factcheck
RESEARCH | ARTICLE © Lennart Jannemann and Michelle Ramm, Jade University of Applied Sciences Wilhelmshaven, Germany
Leave your comments, thoughts and suggestions in the box below. Take note: your response is moderated.
