Let's check in on EU's green energy policy and how countries meet green investment targets.
The EU mandates that that 30% of all EU expenditures be allocated to green projects. Eurointelligence discusses the Green Smokescreen and some amusing math as to how those targets are met.
If you took this target seriously, you would have to reform the Common Agricultural Policy. But the EU failed to do precisely that when they had an opportunity last year. Instead, the EU resorts to cheating.
The European Commission classifies investment in terms of 0%, 40% and 100% green content, and rounds up the numbers to the next higher target. So 1% becomes 40%. 41% becomes 100%.
You can always rely on EU leaders to put appearances ahead of content.
Reform of fiscal rules, a capital markets union, and changes in tax rules would produce more environmental investments and employment than a senseless competition for numerical climate change targets.
I also don’t believe this charade will work politically. When the mendacity of the EU’s climate policy becomes apparent, the centre will not only have lost the victims of the economic crisis, but an entire generation of young voters.
This is the thing with smoke and mirrors: when the smoke lifts, you see clearly.
The above article was published on March 13, 2021.
Eurointelligence reports today in "Greenwashed Out" that lobbyists consider the above demands as too strict.
The Commission has been working to update its green finance taxonomy because the most recent set of guidelines, published in 2019, were deemed too strict by some member states and industry lobbyists.
In layman’s terms, projects that are not green will still be labelled green, which defeats the purpose of the entire endeavor.
Nine members of the 57-strong group have threatened to quit over the latest proposal because it would allow companies that are not currently considered green to claim investments, such as highly efficient steel production, and classify them as taxonomy-aligned.
This means that the proposal will maintain a longstanding practice of mislabeling green investments. Under a previous set of guidelines, a system called the Rio markers was used to round up the green content of investments and projects. A project with even a tiny amount of green content would qualify as 40% green, and anything with more than 40% green content was rounded up to 100% green.
Clearly there is a need to round 1% up to 49% and 50% up to 120% or whatever.
In addition, let's label steel production as green-aligned.
You may love or hate Trump's approach to green projects but at least he was honest about what he was doing.
Global Net Zero Climate Change Targets are 'Pie in the Sky'
By 2050 the world population is forecast to grow 9.8 billion, up from 7.9 billion in 2021.
That's a huge increase in carbon demand even if we reduce per capita demand.
Cherry Picking?— Mike "Mish" Shedlock (@MishGEA) February 15, 2021
What the hell do you think is going to happen when everyone in China and India using mostly coal want higher standards of living?
You reaffirm the big problem ahead is totally outside US control.
Yet, Biden, AOC, etc. think the US can solve this with dollars
Even if the US footprint fell to zero (it won't) it's possible the net effect would be meaningless.
For discussion, please consider Global Net Zero Climate Change Targets are 'Pie in the Sky'