Europeans, overwhelmingly, believe in the importance of environmental sustainability. In a 2015 Eurobarometer poll, 97% of people in the 28 EU Member States agreed that we have a responsibility to look after nature. Yet Europeans also want jobs, prosperity, and economic growth. Can both of these goals be met, or are they in conflict with one another?
To be truly “sustainable” would mean (among other things) reducing Europe’s over-dependence on fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal, thereby cutting CO2 emissions and achieving the climate change goals agreed at the Paris summit in 2015. But green activists argue that it would also mean changing our lifestyles, something difficult to countenance given how used we are to cheap mass consumption.
What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from Marcel, arguing that it was not possible to grow an economy in an environmentally sustainable manner because: “Sustainable growth doesn’t exist. There is no economic growth without population growth.”
In other words, Marcel believes we have to choose between a sustainable environment on the one hand, or economic (and population) growth on the other. Is he right, or is there a way to promote sustainable economic growth?
How would YOU grow Europe’s economy sustainably? We asked Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from all sides of the political spectrum to stake out their positions on this question, and it’s up to YOU to vote for the policies you favour. See what the different MEPs have to say, then vote at the bottom of this debate for the one you most agree with! Take part in the vote below and tell us who you support in the European Parliament!
Radical Left
Stelios Kouloglou (Radical Left), Member of the European Parliament:
Well, let’s take for instance the question of renewable energy sources. If we promote these kinds of alternative sources of energy then we can produce new opportunities for people to work at the same time as preserving the environment. In fact, there are countries that have already done this, such as Denmark, which prove that you can have economic growth and protect the environment at the same time.
Social Democrats
Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), Member of the European Parliament (NOTE: We contacted the S&D for comment but they did not reply in time for publication. The below is from a statement made by Kathleen Van Brempt MEP, Vice-President of the S&D):
There is no contradiction between growth and sustainability. Until now, the EU 20/20/20 policy delivered quite well. We will manage to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in the EU by more than 20% by 2020, achieving this while the European economy has grown by 45% since 1990.
The 20/20/20 targets for emissions, renewable energy and energy savings have played a key role in driving this progress and sustaining the employment of more than 4.2 million people in various eco-industries, with continuous growth during the economic crisis. A more ambitious EU policy on climate, renewables and energy efficiency will keep European companies in the avant-garde of the clean tech industries worldwide…
Greens
Benedek Jávor (Group of the Greens), Member of the European Parliament:
We need massive investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency in order to boost Europe’s green economy… I’m completely convinced that sustainability and economic prosperity are not in conflict with one another. The only way to sustain the wealth of the continent is to turn our economy into a low-carbon, very efficient economy, particularly as Europe has few natural resources.
Where we have real competitiveness is technology, innovation, and efficiency in energy and resource use. That’s the way for Europe. We have to be the most innovative, most forward-looking, and the greenest economy globally to be successful. If we cannot do that, it will not only be bad news for the environment, but it will make it impossible for us to be globally economically competitive.
Liberal Democrats
Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), Member of the European Parliament:
There is a big challenge ahead of us in order to make the shift from where we are today to a green economy. And we need to invest huge amounts into the green sustainable sector so that we can phase out things like petrol-powered automobiles… It will cost a lot of effort, money, and investment. I think we should have done a lot already, and if we wait too long it will be too late. But this is a golden opportunity, inspired by the Paris conference in 2015, to take decisions that might be difficult now but, in the long run, will be beneficial and will foster growth and prosperity for all EU Member States.
Centre Right
Peter Liese (EPP), Member of the European Parliament:
I think it’s possible to achieve both, because we have the technology available to produce goods and services with less energy. I think energy efficiency is a key point, and it would create jobs. The money that is now being sent to the oil producers in Saudi Arabia and to Mr. Putin could instead be spent on the European economy, which would serve both the environment and economic growth.
Conservatives
Marek Gróbarczyk (ECR), Member of the European Parliament
(NOTE: We contacted the ECR for comment but they did not reply in time for publication. The below is from a statement made by Marek Gróbarczyk MEP):
EU climate policy has in the past been too confrontational with industry – emissions reduction has come at the expense of competitiveness. Proposed safeguards to help firms and investment from being forced to move abroad are particularly welcome… The future EU energy market design must ensure fair and open competition via an internal energy market. Competition is starting to take root and Member States’ internal energy systems must adapt to this new reality and be capable of fully integrating all market players.
Eurosceptics
Roger Helmer (EFD), Member of the European Parliament (NOTE: We contacted the EFD for comment but they did not reply in time for publication. The below is from a statement made by Roger Helmer MEP):
We should remember that there is still a great deal of uncertainty about theory. It is not clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, or that atmospheric CO2 has anything like the effects postulated by the IPCC. Nor is it clear that the climate policies we are pursuing will have any material affect on levels of atmospheric CO2, or indeed on the climate. But it is absolutely clear that we are utterly unable to predict future changes; all the predictions so far have been falsified by the data. And it is clear that our climate policies will do far more economic damage than anything that could be conceived as a result of climate change. It is time to question our hysterical obsession with the new religion of climate alarmism.
Curious to know more about sustainable growth in Europe? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).
IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Activ Solar
With the support of:
46 comments Post a commentcomment
ΕU is wealthy enough to sustain a good life for every european citizen.Tales of growth are used only to hide the policies of unfair distribution of wealth that causes poverty and all related problems.
Save our environment or suicide
Debating Europe; Marcel seems to suggest that growing an economy is not possible without an environmental casualty. But the question I ask to Marcel and others who think like him, is; whose economy should we grow by scarifying whose environment? If monarchies, royalty and market manipulators are amassing the wealth of the world by paying scanty salaries, slave labor, polluting our air, waters, lands, minds and provoking wars and misery for profit and greed, he may be correct if he belongs to that “special” group of people manufacturing scarcity, supply and demand. Today, we have negative oil prices, which are not being passed on to the consumer, at tax payers’ expense. We have engines capable of running on water, electromechanical, thermal/solar and waste management for energy production efficient for homes, business and transportation, plastics that can be made from hemp, Aqua/hydroponic agricultural production to feed all of humanity. And resources to provide free education to inspire innovation world wide. If only, we didn’t have slave masters threatened by our emancipation and a truly free market.
per crescere in modo sostenibile prima di tutto serve una banca centrale pubblica , che finanzi senza speculare , poi una buona politica ONESTA che aiuti i progetti e la realizzazione di buone idee per il benessere e la salute della gente e dell’ambiente , senza businnes che spinge anche se un prodotto non è buono. Non serve niente altro ( praticamente non è la UE che col businnes e la speculazione fa la sua ragione di esistere )
The first thing I would do to improve Europe is to get rid of the Famous Troika!!!
None.Close EE.
.
Your’e unelected president Juncker does not agree.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/12144060/EU-Force-One-Juncker-commutes-to-Strasbourg-by-private-jet.html
.
Like everything else to do with your EU its a load of very expensive rubbish.
http://www.thelocal.es/20160301/spanish-renewable-energy-giant-posts-12-billion-loss-abengoa
The EU doesn’t need a bunch of different parties with different views, it needs an ethical code to make decisions by. Oil and gas obviously causes damage to the earth, harmful and toxic emissions, blackmail from producers, lobbying from suppliers, subsidies in the billions from taxpayers money and wars over pipelines. It’s time to put people and sustainability at the heart of the EU. Boost the economy by using taxpayers oil subsidy money for a universal income, green energy and green jobs instead.
Article: “Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF: $14.5bn per day, $600m per hour, $10m per minute, $168,000 per second”. This money is taxpayers money.
source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf
Vladimir Putin the rest sold out 😭
But, subventions sepulcro go away in Europe, I think.
EU IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED
Amintiri..
What about educating new generations in schools on how to avoid becoming what many are today – cheap mass consumers, teach them about how to see beyond all these marketing strategies and look for the real value in products.
And, tax business practices which generates a lot of waste – to name a few, there are thousands of different types of power convertors, all doing the same thing but on purpose build with a different connector, in many case even for the type of device, same brand, just a new model.
Or excessive packaging, in many case is obvious that the company put way more thought and effort in the packaging itself than in the product itself.
Modernizing infrastructure with technology can also cut down much of the power waste, subsequently emissions. Incentives for development and integration of smart technologies could go a long way to help.
Jobs or otherwise said things to do, doubt it will run out any time soon. Think about it, not long ago there was no demand for gadgets, apps, games etc. – now there is an entire industry out there hiring millions. As long as we exist, there will always be demand for new and better and there are plenty of problems to solve and many other places to explore.
By ousting the whole team that make the rules and enforces them causing pain, poverty and despair, with a self-destructive policy blindly applied in the weakest countries.
This isn’t a debate, all the views are still under the assumption that it is possible to restore the environment in a competitive system based on growth… I studied environmental management and I can tell you they require a level of self-discipline that a competitive system just doesn’t allow.
The idea of needing a job to survive also seems impossible in the future since there isn’t a way to avoid automation.
This isn’t a debate because the majority of the public isn’t informed, all mainstream media have economic interests behind them, the news rarely comment on structural issues because it’s like a taboo. Even the political sphere avoids talking on the long term, or in controversial ideas.
So we still have this silly discussions about some policies in country A or B while the structure maintains the same.
What’s even more stupid is that we even have the internet. It doesn’t seem so hard to use a global web based collaborative economy, or just some type of economy that is aware and responsive to the crisis that humanity has to eventually deal with. Because we’re just avoiding dealing with the major issue which is capitalism, or the tendency our institutions and organizations have to act on profit instead of long-term sustainability.
If we really want to deal with so many crisis, we need to do it in a responsive way and with educated people , not in a system where a kid is taught that consuming is great and that he shouldn’t study biology if he wants a job, in the meanwhile the oceans are dying, and we’re here debating these policies,
The only way I could see this going is that if we really followed through with the digital revolution.
A social network to volunteer in projects, in urban and rural communities accompanied with a global open source research on the projects one should participate to live sustainably, we could allocate talent much better and if we strive for automation the only repetitive jobs could be standardized and shared amongst people in a neighborhood or community. If we grow it by community, we could literally connect the whole world to a system like this, if we tried and for me this seems is the most viable path to sustainability.
Also if we changed education to this: (http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education) we would have an education based on cooperation.
I don’t know, this seems by far the most logical step for EU, we could be the pioneers of a new thing, instead of just disintegrating because of speculative economies…
This isn’t a debate, all the views are still under the assumption that it is possible to restore the environment in a competitive system based on growth… I studied environmental management and I can tell you they require a level of self-discipline that a competitive system just doesn’t allow.
The idea of needing a job to survive also seems impossible in the future since there isn’t a way to avoid automation.
This isn’t a debate because the majority of the public isn’t informed, all mainstream media have economic interests behind them, the news rarely comment on structural issues because it’s like a taboo. Even the political sphere avoids talking on the long term, or in controversial ideas.
So we still have this silly discussions about some policies in country A or B while the structure maintains the same.
What’s even more stupid is that we even have the internet. It doesn’t seem so hard to use a global web based collaborative economy, or just some type of economy that is aware and responsive to the crisis that humanity has to eventually deal with. Because we’re just avoiding dealing with the major issue which is capitalism, or the tendency our institutions and organizations have to act on profit instead of long-term sustainability.
If we really want to deal with so many crisis, we need to do it in a responsive way and with educated people , not in a system where a kid is taught that consuming is great and that he shouldn’t study biology if he wants a job, in the meanwhile the oceans are dying, and we’re here debating these policies,
The only way I could see this going is that if we really followed through with the digital revolution.
A social network to volunteer in projects, in urban and rural communities accompanied with a global open source research on the projects one should participate to live sustainably, we could allocate talent much better and if we strive for automation the only repetitive jobs could be standardized and shared amongst people in a neighborhood or community. If we grow it macroeconomically, we could literally connect the whole world to a system like this if we just tried. I don’t know… for me this seems is the most viable path to sustainability.
Also if we changed education to this: (http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education) we would have an education based on cooperation.
I don’t know, this seems by far the most logical step for EU, we could be the pioneers of a new thing, instead of just disintegrating because of the system we created to bring progress…
The EU is a corrupt insanity. The sooner its desolved the better
Interestingly , eurosceptics also don’t think climate change is real…
Nuclear energy. Clean, efficient, safe (if properly managed).
We don’t need growth without end. We nedd a Statu Quo where all people can live a good live as equals!
By eliminating waste
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6539184/EU-wastes-millions-on-bizarre-projects.html
http://en.euabc.com/word/814
What about educating new generations in schools on how to avoid becoming what many are today – cheap mass consumers, teach them about how to see beyond all these marketing strategies and look for the real value in products.
And, tax business practices which generates a lot of waste – to name a few, there are thousands of different types of power convertors, all doing the same thing, but with a different adapter.
Or excessive packaging, in many case is obvious that the company put way more thought and effort in the packaging than in the product itself.
Modernizing infrastructure with technology can also cut down much of the power waste, subsequently emissions. Incentives for development and integration of smart technologies could go a long way to help.
Jobs or otherwise said things to do, doubt it will run out any time soon. Think about it, not long ago there was no demand for gadgets, apps, games etc. – now there is an entire industry out there hiring millions. As long as we exist, there will always be demand for new and better, and there are plenty of problems to solve and many unknowns to explore.
THIS IS NOT EUROPE EVERY COUNTRY DIFFERENT TAXES , HEALTH , LEGUAGE , LOAN FROM EU BANK SYSTEM F….,,K OFF IT IS TIME TO CHANGE BEFORE WE START OUR REVOLUTION
It`s gonna costs the European taxpayers app 15 years to get the EC back on track again
Fraud and other political “moves” not included.
First re install the European Community.
Grab the bankers who have proven not to have learned one financial thing from the crisis.
Re install the nations coins again. Each and every government controls their own currency again
And then bit by bit, close deals again with countries etc outside the EC.
I`ve have no believe that the industrials and bankers who haven proven to earn money any way they like, will improve their commitment towards national governments or citizens. Money first and always
I`am a realist.
To be complete: It is worth mentioning that sustainability comprises of the pillars: Economy, Ecology and Society (including policy). Whilst Ecology is important, narrowing one’s focus only on that aspect would not be sustainable (a green economy that is not competitive and not backed by society won’t last long – thus it won’t be sustainable).
we can fight climate change, pollution,poverty etc by introducing rooftop plantation all over the world.Roof top plantation should be in govt buildings ,buses,taxi and other vehicles having roof.This will help us to create a fresh, pollution free environment especially in cites all over the world.Laws can be implemented to make rooftop plantation mandatory for each and every building in cities.Birds,butterflies and various insects have become perish in cities.Rooftop plantation will bring back the beautiful birds,bees,butterflies etc which are no longer seen in polluted cities of the world.
we can reverse the process of global warming by reforestation of deserts.This will help us to eradicate poverty ,pollution,global warming and climate change.This is very much essential for survival living beings in this planet.
The afforestation of deserts had already been started in some parts of the world like Gobi desert in China ,desert in Israel etc.In India It can be started in Rajasthan. Desert greening is the process of man-made reclamation of deserts for ecological reasons (biodiversity), farming and forestry, but also for reclamation of natural water systems and other Life support systems.Plantation in deserts will result in equal distribution of rainfall all over the world and when the dry deserts will be turned into forest ,it will serve itself as the habitat of a large number of species.
Reversing the process of global warming by reforestation of deserts will require a huge fund. The world bank , United Nations and the billionaires of the world can come together to reverse the climate change .
Diptanu, you have too much faith in Adam Smith invisible hand. Human action is driven by profit not purpose. If you expect to solve the climate crisis with capitalism, I think you’re mistaken.
There is no tangible reward for helping the environment so there’s a real problem there and I think you’re mistaken about where we are in history.
If you see the levels of inequality, rising nationalism, austerity, crazy amounts of debt. You can see that we will be facing plenty of crisis. Capitalism reacts slowly to crisis because the majority of citizens are uninformed and not engaged in politics. So this leaves money driven organizations to deal with problems, and as you’ve seen with the refugee crisis there isn’t a motivation to help.
We need a new mass information system that question our day-to-day ideologies and social constructs. If we don’t do this, how can you expect to solve all the other man made problems that will also affect us that aren’t driven by profit. Our view of waste, that if you put stuff in the garbage it disappears, it’s ridicullous. There’s a lot of unsustainable mass ideologies and behaviours that we’ll need to confront in the future, and if we don’t do it soon these crisis will only get worse and harder to solve.
You’ve got to stop looking to the “big man” (profit driven organizations) to solve our problems. It needs to be people, informed and collaborating.
“Europeans, overwhelmingly, believe in the importance of environmental sustainability”. Yes this seems to be true. It’s written into the EU Constitution. But so too is the principle of freedom of movement of people and goods. The problem is that the two are incompatible. In general terms, net migration is from east to west. As it happens, this means that countries which have the potential to produce a surplus of food, in other words more food than they need to feed their populations, are losing people to countries in the west of Europe which do not have the potential to produce enough food even to feed their existing populations. Germany has the potential agricultural land to feed only 80% of its population. The UK is in a worse situation – only enough land to feed 60% of its population. Italy, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, and others all without enough land to sustain their populations. France, with 110% food self sufficiency, is the only western European country which is able to sustain its population. Please correct me if my information is incorrect. The net result of all this is that these countries more and more are having to transport food in by ship, plane, train and truck every single day. This is not sustainable. The principle of freedom of movement of people is creating the wrong trend. The Constitution needs to have a system of checks and balances to ensure that things like this do not happen. Member-state countries should have the right to refuse immigration in order to preserve their ability to produce a reasonable proportion of the food they need to feed their own populations. Food security is becoming a bigger and bigger issue all the time.
Massive public investments into renewables, autonomous logistics and vertical farming infrastructure, demonetizing food energy and transportation (and later other things) and using the excess income to be spent on microcreators engaged in this highly decentralized economy who create their own content, microproduce their own goods with 3D printers and also services online and in future virtual worlds
What public investment ? you do know most of the EU is flat broke don’t you ?
With a fiat currency? You do know basic macroeconomics don’t you?
Jovan I look forward to seeing the response from the tax payers in Southern & Eastern Europe when you tell them they have to pay more while earning less. I do indeed understand macroeconomics, which is why asked the question..
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/24/finland-warns-eu-will-not-help-fill-15bn-brexit-budget-black/
No, you don’t. If you think an entity that prints its own fiat currency and borrows in it can go “broke” then you don’t understand it in the least
Heavy industry, transport, power supply, etc cannot be supplied with enough energy from windmills and solar. But go for it, the EU’s competitiveness & jobs will be destroyed and the rest of the world will say thank you.
Power supply cannot be supplied with enough energy…?
You’re not even trying to make sense, are you?
Oliver Power supply as in ‘National power Grid’, ie that thing that makes your pc work.
We still have hydropower for the rest. And yes it can cause we just have to stop wasting so much
Björn In your dreams maybe comrade. .
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/11/germany-takes-steps-to-roll-back-renewable-energy-revolution
Nuclear power is clean and doesn’t force a major lifestyle change. Electric cars charged by consistent and efficient nuclear power plants is the way forward.
Yes. Too bad the fearmongers and neo-luddites are in control of the public opinion.
Product standardisation with reusable/refundable packaging.
We could also issue concessions for international brands.. there’s no need to have 50 different cornflakes.
GMI to boost economy. I don’t see how anything else will work. If people don’t have spending money how are they going to boost anything except the corporations that serve their basic needs?
Nuclear power. Remove the idiotic restrictions on GMO. Deregulate housing zoning. In short – Invest in infrastructure, remove market restrictions, and the rest will follow.