The European Union’s drive for ever more intrusive regulations to combat climate change are being met with resistance from member states. Despite the Commission’s best efforts to push the Green Deal, exorbitant economic costs and voter discontent has sparked a renewed interest in nuclear energy.
It speaks well for the UK that it does not follow the EU’s very restrictive approach. Perhaps its recent modest successes will inspire the UK to focus more on the opportunities offered by Brexit.
Fundamentally, the core of the problem is the EU’s adherence to the precautionary principle, which comes with a deeply unscientific intolerance for any risk.
The EU is far from perfect, but there was a time when it at least supported a framework that guaranteed free and fair competition between member states. It is tragic to see the European Commission undermining this very thing.
The West should attempt to compensate for any trade destruction, justified on the basis of geo-security, by opening up trade with parts of the world that are broadly friendly with the West. Southeast Asia is most certainly such a region.
Greenpeace openly supports the ‘climate actions,’ pays the lawyers’ bills, and provides space, materials, and know-how. Direct funding comes from the US-based Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), which has already spent $5 million this year.
To abandon the CRT is not just a bad thing for traditional energy investments, but also for renewable energy investment. Clearly, for many greens, hatred for the private sector trumps their support for renewables.
Trade with hostile nations is always not a bad idea—after all, interdependence can increase the chances of peace. Yet some European countries were perhaps naïve to pursue a normalisation of relations with Iran so eagerly.
The EU wants to reduce its dependence on imported semiconductors and has announced a new major spending programme: the so-called “Chips Act.”