The debate in the EU over the so-called green transition recently tied directly into Europe’s economic future. According to Euractiv,
The co-president of the Greens/EFA European parliamentary group, Philippe Lamberts, rebuked recent warnings by the head of Belgium’s central bank that the green transition will make Europe poorer, saying that anyone who does not see the transition as a matter of survival should give the floor to “more serious people”.
Lamberts also stated that the “green transition” with all it entails “cannot be questioned.”
There are two parts to this issue, the first being the open unwillingness of green transition proponents to even have a conversation with anyone who disagrees with them. This means, plainly, that they elevate their own political agenda above democracy; if there is one continent on Earth that has experience with this political habit, it is Europe.
The second part of the debate over the green transition has to do with the economic consequences that Lamberts wants to ignore. Without going into the details of the remarks by the president of the Belgian central bank, the general problem for the green transitionists is that their statements about economic consequences are based on pure speculation.
As the Euractiv article explains, the argument from the Greens in the European Parliament dichotomizes between two future scenarios: one where the transition does not continue, and one where it does. In the former case, they claim the consequence is “collective suicide” which, if taken literally, would mean the death of billions of humans and the end of civilization.
Such dramatic predictions require substantial evidence. Specifically, that evidence has to rest on climate forecasts that accurately predict the progression of climate change. To meet basic scientific standards, such forecasts would have to have been published at least 30 years ago in order to provide a long enough time series of correct predictions.
Despite extensive searches, I cannot find any forecasts from the early-to-mid 1990s that have turned out to be even remotely accurate. Therefore, I conclude that all the theories about man-made global warming—the gist of what is commonly referred to as ‘climate change’—are incorrect.
Since those theories are incorrect, so are the predictions of existential consequences if the green transition were to stop. By logical extension, we not only can, but must reject the economic disaster scenarios that the transitionists claim will unfold if we stop the green transition.
This still leaves us with the question whether or not the economic transition is sound, but this time we approach the question from a different angle. With the economic disaster dismissed, the continued transition now stands against an economic alternative where, with transition disrupted, our economy continues to grow under normal conditions.
Viewed this way, the green transition becomes the inferior option. It relies on a combination of higher taxes and lower productivity that will make every ‘transitioning’ economy poorer. The higher taxes are needed to fund energy production that cannot survive financially on its own market performance; the higher taxes are also needed to make ‘green’ food, transportation, and electricity affordable for the average European household.
The transition causes a productivity decline because the energy sources that replace oil, coal, and nuclear power are cyclically unreliable; the wind and the sun are not always available to provide for peak demand. Furthermore, when tax subsidies are deducted, the cost of producing the same amount of energy from so-called renewable sources is almost always higher than it is from traditional energy sources.
By weakening productivity and raising taxes, the transitionists cause a permanent reduction in economic growth. This means fewer economic resources available to elevate the standard of living for everyone; it means a weaker tax base, which in turn means less tax revenue for health care, education, and social programs. Not to mention the subsidies needed to put green-transition-based food and transportation within reach for a low-to-middle income family.
In conclusion, the transitionists are not the defenders of economic prosperity. They are the advocates of the worst possible economic outlook at any given point in time. Their insistence on continuing the transition is a call to sink Europe into a state of permanent industrial poverty.
With this in mind, there is a conspicuous timing in the debate over the Belgian central-bank president’s remarks. Germany’s economy minister Robert Habeck recently stated that the economic outlook for his country is “dramatically bad.” His statements follow my analysis a month ago, where I concluded that Germany is in a full-scale recession. Since Germany has been faithfully trying to implement the so-called green transition, it is urgently necessary for Berlin to rethink its current path, both in terms of energy and in terms of the economy.
Britain has similar problems. As I pointed out on January 17th,
recent GDP numbers show an economy in stagnation, with unemployment creeping upward and inflation persistent at way too high levels.
On February 15th, British newspaper The Independent reports:
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed on Thursday a 0.3 per cent decline in gross domestic product (GDP) between October and December 2023. The gloomy official figures mean the economy entered a technical recession, as defined by two or more quarters in a row of falling GDP, for the first time since amid the pandemic in the first half of 202o.
These are quarter-to-quarter numbers, which do not tell us too much about the performance of the economy. The year-to-year numbers show GDP declining by a quarter of a percent in the fourth quarter, while still growing in the third. In other words, the recession is still one quarter out, but the trend of declining economic activity is just as clear in year-to-year numbers as it is in the quarter-to-quarter figures.
Like Germany, Britain should use the recession as an opportunity to seriously reconsider its commitment to the ‘green transition.’ By pushing for a more expensive, less productive energy sector while the entire economy is slowing down, is to pour gasoline on a fire.
