Paolo Borchia is an Italian MEP for Lega Salvini Premier in the European Parliament. He is a coordinator in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) of the European Parliament’s Identity and Democracy (ID) political grouping. A graduate in political science from the University of Padua, he worked for years as an administrator and consultant in private enterprise.
We spoke with the MEP about the EU’s green policies, the weight of ideology in their implementation, and their political, economic, and social consequences.
What is the European Green Deal and the goal of transforming Europe into the “first climate neutral continent”?
The Green Deal represents an overly ideological and very biased response to the issues surrounding the environment and the future of the planet. In this respect, the Lega Salvini Premier has a different vision: our party is very concerned that the Green Deal represents a wrong answer, as it is a totally ideologically unbalanced initiative—I would say a ‘Taliban’ answer in many respects. It represents a dangerous response that undermines the possibility of European businesses being competitive. It is also very dangerous from the point of view of maintaining the levels of employment we currently have in Europe. It is a response that will not solve the problem but will exacerbate it.
Look at the fact that in Europe we currently emit only 7.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is very low. By applying this type of regulation in the Green Deal, many sectors will be unfairly penalised: for example, agricultural production is one of the sectors most affected. If the Green Deal is implemented, as is likely, the demand for production in Europe will fall—with the economic and social consequences that this entails—and we will have to buy agricultural products from producers outside Europe who, paradoxically, will have lower prices and pollute much more. This is one of the negative consequences as a result of the implementation of this green regulation. We must succeed in reversing these harmful trends that have been imposed by the Ursula von der Leyens and Frans Timmermans of the European Union.
But it is paradoxical that Europe pretends to impose restrictive climate measures of dubious effectiveness on itself as the most environmentally friendly region when countries like China or India pollute much more and indiscriminately.
That is the way it is. The goal of making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 is probably too ambitious a target, and it will be very difficult to achieve without the commitment of other countries. On a general level, I see that here in Europe too much attention is paid to ideology, while outside—and at the geopolitical level—economies and the competitiveness of companies is much more protected. We are therefore very concerned about how the situation is developing from the point of view of climate and energy policies in Europe.
It seems to me that the big problem is that the European Commission is not seeing things clearly. Ursula von der Leyen’s management is wrong and, as well as being responsible for aligning herself with the Left, she is sending out the message that the only problem we have to deal with in Europe is pollution. I think that is a problem, yes, but so is competitiveness, unemployment, the falling birth rate, illegal immigration—those are the big problems. If the European Commission were to commit itself to these issues as intensely as it is doing on the environmental issue, the situation in Europe would be completely different. For us it is very important that citizens are aware of this problem, who is responsible, and what are the alternative solutions.
What are the short- and long-term consequences for our economy of continuing along this path?
Let’s start by looking at the actual figures, because while opinions are always very interesting, it is the numbers that count. When it comes to pesticides, for example, in Europe we use an average of 1.6kg of pesticides per hectare, while in East Asia they use 12kg. As we can see, the difference is overwhelming. In Europe, we have producers who over the years have invested in growing healthier crops by polluting less, and now we find that these same producers have to submit to much more restrictive global regulations than they already had, with the consequences in terms of cost, production, employment, health, and care for the environment. So the point is that with these EU policies we are going nowhere, as they only impose new obstacles for businesses, workers, and consumers. We need to change this direction that, in exchange for theoretically lower prices by importing products from abroad, worsens our net trade balance and our economy. Paradoxically, of course, these imported products do not meet our environmental standards.
Is this obsession with the ecological transition a real necessity or the ideological dogma of climate fanaticism? Why is Europe the prime mover of an ideologised environmentalism?
This would be a very interesting question to ask Frans Timmermans to answer. This is the question we have asked time and time again without getting an answer from the European Commission. For example, they now want to force us to switch from internal combustion engine cars to electric cars from 2035, but nobody explains to us how we are going to generate all the electricity we need to do this. In Italy, we are talking about 32 gigawatts, therefore needing disproportionate amounts of energy, not only in terms of our current capacity, but probably also for the future electricity generating capacity of our country. Renewables are very interesting alternative sources that should certainly be considered, but let us not forget that they are unstable, intermittent, and non-programmable sources with all the consequences that this entails. We have an economy that needs a lot of certainty: it does not need ideology. It needs to generate the conditions to function without obstacles—and that is not what is currently happening in Europe. The opposite is taking place.
So, these European regulations against internal combustion engine cars are a show for the gallery?
We act as if Europe is the main player in global pollution in a disproportionate way. Our parliamentary group is trying to make the European Commission see reason and understand that in order to calculate how much a vehicle pollutes, it is not enough to measure the exhaust emissions: we need to understand that the calculation has to be done over the entire life cycle of that technology. In other words, there are a whole series of reasons why we need to be careful with the electric car. First, batteries clearly present big problems in terms of recycling, and we are talking about a technology chain in which China, at the moment, is able to compete most aggressively in terms of price. I would not want the issue of electric or combustion cars to become a divisive issue that makes the ecological transition a transition only for the rich and that excludes the poorer segments of the population.
The worrying thing is that European car manufacturers can no longer be competitive in terms of the costs they have to bear, leaving the field open globally to Chinese car manufacturers. I give the example of BYD (Be Your Dreams), which almost nobody knows about. It is a Chinese car manufacturer that from 2021 to 2022 has doubled its share globally. The data is there, it is obvious, so it is not that the Lega in Europe is stirring up spectres or creating ghosts: the figures tell us clearly that everyday life is affected by the geopolitics of China, which today has a much greater market share than in the past.
It is also intended to change our eating habits by promoting artificial food and the consumption of insects to the detriment of products such as meat. What is driving their replacement?
I am very concerned about this issue. The issue is that we start from the idea that, in the future, we will have to feed 8 billion people and that, to do this, there are those who tell us that we have to create meat in a laboratory so that there is a cheaper product available in greater quantities for everyone. Obviously, from an ethical or moral point of view, this is a fine justification, but if we look at who is behind it all, who is behind this dynamic, we see something quite different from the purported good intentions. It is clear that this whole orientation of helping humanity is false. In reality, it is instrumental for and functions towards multinationals that have invested in research and development to industrialise and commercialise these products. We are also talking about very influential consultancies linked to the work of the European Commission, and we are talking about products that are then presented as a cheaper alternative to the excellence of our national product, which is natural, healthy, and with a protected and territorial designation of origin. It is clear that a different and pernicious trend is emerging, which in theory is based on a ‘noble purpose,’ but which in reality is not true.
How is the relationship of the popular, conservative, patriotic, and identity-based political groups in the European Parliament with regard to what some call “green euro-crazy”?
The relationship is good, but there are logical differences. Let’s say that in the end it was a pity that we were not able to build a centre-Right majority strong enough to reject the Commission’s proposal. Thanks to the amendments, we were at least able to remove some really very negative issues. In Italy, we have the problem that there is a very serious situation in agriculture, with many young people who would like to enter the sector giving up because of the difficulties imposed by the ideological ‘Talibanism’ that affects the sector from an economic point of view. The EU has turned environmentalism into a substitute religion.
Yet, on too many occasions, the European People’s Party has voted with the Left.
That’s right, and that’s why not only in Italy, but also in Spain and elsewhere, the centre-Right electorate is fed up with centre-Right parties asking people to vote for them and then going on to govern with the centre-Left. This is a dynamic that has unfortunately been ignored or about which there has been silence for too many years, but I am now seeing a growing awareness among voters that this kind of attitude is a fraud and betrays the particular needs of territories and citizens. It is a political attitude aimed at continuing the rule of a caste that has run Europe in recent years and that must end. Someone has to take responsibility when things have not worked as they should. It is time for a change of majorities in the EU: it is time for change, it is time for another Europe.
