Not science, nor facts, but blind ideology guides the EU Commission in its aim to bring the entire bloc into the ‘net zero’ era.
This was the sobering conclusion reached by MEP Paolo Borchia and energy expert Samuel Furfari at this week’s event on “Emissions: Will Net Zero Crash Europe’s Cars?” hosted by The European Conservative.
Significantly reducing and, finally, wholly doing away with car emissions is one important part of that aim.
Indeed, one piece of EU legislation, already approved, would ban outright the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035. In anticipation of that ban’s implementation, the so-called Euro 7 standards proposal, which would reduce air pollution from new motor vehicles sold in the bloc, has already been submitted to the EU Parliament for review.
With fossil fuel-powered cars being phased out, and electric ones being brought in, several questions emerge: can the average European afford it, or will he be priced out?
Borchia, who is also coordinator of the Parliament’s transportation committee for the Identity and Democracy group, well-illustrates the absurd situation Europe currently finds itself in.
According to the Global Carbon Project, Borchia notes, Europe accounts for only 7,5% of global greenhouse emissions, while China, India, and the United States are by far the greatest offenders.
By the EU’s own admission, road transport within the bloc accounts for only one fifth of its emissions, making the whole exercise of cracking down on vehicles a futile one.
“There is a strong ideological approach to this transition [to renewable energy],” Borchia observed.
He urged that we “should be more pragmatic, more concrete, and more focused on the societal consequences and in terms of our competitiveness.”
He pointed out that, according to figures disclosed by EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, Europe’s ‘green’ transition could put 600,000 jobs in jeopardy. In Italy alone, the livelihoods of 70, 000 people would be at risk.
Borchia went on to broaden the scope of the panel discussion, commenting on its geopolitical dimension.
After the EU imposed sanctions on Russia following the latter’s invasion of Ukraine, the bloc (thereby losing much of its oil and gas imports as a result) pivoted to China for its raw materials, which increased the EU’s dependence on China.
It is a strategy, Borchia remarked, which is “confused, very ideological.”
If we do make the transition [to renewables], he added, it must happen in a “more pragmatic way.” He expressed the hope that, after the 2024 European Parliament election, enough MEPs might be convinced of this imperative.
After all, “dreams are dreams, but reality is going in a different direction,” he added.
Samuel Furfari, professor of geopolitics of energy at various universities, who has served at the European Commission’s DG Energy for almost four decades, described how he observed the Commission slowly losing sight of the facts, as it became possessed by ideology.
Following the 1970s energy crisis, when the Western world faced substantial petroleum shortages, what started out as a pragmatic aim to find alternative, locally sourced, energy sources for the bloc slowly morphed into a renewables-focused energy policy which is lacking a scientific foundation.
After 50 years, and having spent over 1 trillion euros in taxpayer money, Furfari noted, renewable energy (such as wind and solar) meets a meager 3% of the EU’s primary energy demand.
“This is just based on political wishful thinking, science is not compatible with the [EU’s] energy position.”
Furfari also called attention to how isolated the EU will soon find itself in terms of its approach to domestic energy policy.
The rest of the world does not care, as it is pushing for oil energies, nuclear, coal, and gas. The gap between the ‘nice, green’ energies and ‘bad’ fossil fuels is increasing, as the use of fossil fuels around the world is increasing fivefold compared to that of renewables.
The EU will be totally isolated in the future, because we will destroy our economy, but more than that, it will be the other side of the world that will benefit.
To this, Borchia added the rejoinder: “The European people will pay, while the rest of the world pollutes.”
During a later Q&A session, Furfari agreed that, since climate change has been caught up in the wider culture war, it has become difficult to present facts—especially with the younger generations, who for years have been heavily brainwashed into accepting the EU’s position.
It is therefore incumbent on us, he went on, to explain to them how massive the rest of the world’s investment in fossil fuels is and will likely remain. “Is it likely the entire rest of the world is so stupid, and we are so clever?,” Furfari mused.
As the EU is set for a headlong plunge into poverty, he added, this will affect not only them but the next generations. It is therefore right to debate the EU’s energy policy, since “without cheap and abundant energy, there is no future.”
