Speaker 1: Welcome to zero, I am Akshatrati. This week, Europe's answer
Speaker 1: to the green backlash. Five years ago, green parties celebrated
Speaker 1: their best ever results in European elections. The headlines called
Speaker 1: it a quiet revolution. It ushered in a new era
Speaker 1: in the European Parliament, one where green issues got a
Speaker 1: real hearing. As a result, the European Green Deal was
Speaker 1: approved in twenty twenty and big policies followed that. Work
Speaker 1: to put all of it in place is still going.
Speaker 1: But today it's not easy being green anymore. With just
Speaker 1: a month until European parliamentary elections, the Greens appeared to
Speaker 1: be polling far behind where they were in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: Farmers protests are stalling the Green Deal, the cost of
Speaker 1: living crisis is making the populist argument more attractive, and
Speaker 1: younger voters who Greens could count on previously are turning
Speaker 1: to the far right in growing numbers. You could argue
Speaker 1: this is how politics goes. It's a pendulum, but the
Speaker 1: climate crisis is not. It only continues to get worse.
Speaker 1: One person trying to fight the anti green tide is
Speaker 1: bas Icut. He's been a Dutch member of European Parliament
Speaker 1: since two thousand and nine. In February, the European Green
Speaker 1: Party picked him to be the party's lead candidate alongside
Speaker 1: Terry reinkeer Germany's Green Map. Their job now is to
Speaker 1: sell voters on the party's vision of a more equal
Speaker 1: and ecological Europe. I caught up with bas in Brussels
Speaker 1: at the European Parliament. He told me that despite the backlash,
Speaker 1: the message that the Greens have about the long term
Speaker 1: is even more important today than it was five years ago.
Speaker 1: So we talked about how exactly it is that he
Speaker 1: can make a convincing case in a much changed political environment.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the show biz. Thank you. Now I know
Speaker 1: a CHEMISTR When I see one. I know you studied
Speaker 1: chemistry and of course you are now leading the Greens
Speaker 1: Party into the European elections. Could you just talk us
Speaker 1: through how do you go from a chemistry degree to
Speaker 1: doing what you do now?
Speaker 2: Well, that has been a long journey, to be very honest.
Speaker 2: So no, I think I've always been interested in environmental issues,
Speaker 2: so to say so back in my youth, already my
Speaker 2: dream job was going into one of these little greenpeace
Speaker 2: votes and then blocking will hunters. Basically, that was my
Speaker 2: first ideal dream. Then it turned out I'm not such
Speaker 2: a hero, so probably I had to drop that idea
Speaker 2: quite quickly, and I noticed that I can do something
Speaker 2: with my head, so to say. So then I studied
Speaker 2: and went into well, into the university, and then I thought, okay,
Speaker 2: what's probably the most complicated thing I can do, because
Speaker 2: if I can manage that, then probably the rest can
Speaker 2: only get easier. So that's when I decided to go
Speaker 2: for chemistry. I sometimes regretted that choice, by the way.
Speaker 2: It was not always a pleasure, but the idea was
Speaker 2: always to end up in a job where I do
Speaker 2: environmental research basically, and in the Netherlands, I ended up
Speaker 2: at an agency doing climate change research. So I really
Speaker 2: was a computer modeler, really nerdy stuff, and I really
Speaker 2: like that. During my well, my research and my working period,
Speaker 2: I got more and more frustrated basically about the inaction
Speaker 2: of politics, and that's led to a certain moment the
Speaker 2: decision maybe I should, instead of getting old and cynical
Speaker 2: and complain about politicians, maybe first tried on that side
Speaker 2: before I get old and cynical. So that's how I
Speaker 2: ended up in politics.
Speaker 1: Basically well, Europe is gearing up for the parliamentary elections
Speaker 1: in June this year, you, along with Terry Renker, are
Speaker 1: set to lead the European Greens. Currently, the Greens hold
Speaker 1: about seventy four seats in a seven hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: seed parliament, and that's helped you push the climate agenda
Speaker 1: to the center of European politics. The European Climate Law
Speaker 1: passed with the majority even though Greens did not support
Speaker 1: because you thought it wasn't going far enough. And so
Speaker 1: you've clearly had a huge amount of success in pushing
Speaker 1: other parties to build up to doing more on climate. Now,
Speaker 1: Poles do suggest that the Greens are set to take
Speaker 1: a beating. What do you think you need to do
Speaker 1: to turn the tide and perhaps even gain seats rather than,
Speaker 1: as the polls say right now, lose them.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, I'm not too pessimistic yet about
Speaker 2: the elections. It's clearly it's going to be much more
Speaker 2: of an uphill battle than it was in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2: I do remember then in twenty nineteen we got questions
Speaker 2: of journalists do you still need Greens for a green agenda?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: So, I think there's always a question whether we are
Speaker 2: required or not. And back then I already said, well,
Speaker 2: you know, it's great to see many parties going for
Speaker 2: green policies. I mean, we can only welcome that, of course,
Speaker 2: but that's usually with a lot of politicians day they
Speaker 2: followed where the wind takes them, right, So and in
Speaker 2: twenty nineteen it was very clear those were climbing elections,
Speaker 2: so everyone was talking about climate and it was everyone's priority.
Speaker 2: But then you already knew that when it's going to
Speaker 2: get tough and the wind might be changing, then of
Speaker 2: course you need also Greens in the parliament that stay
Speaker 2: on the course. So I think that's that's exactly the
Speaker 2: moment where we are now. So the wind has changed,
Speaker 2: there is more resistance, and that requires Greens to maintain
Speaker 2: this political agenda. What we started in twenty nineteen was
Speaker 2: of course a transformation of our entire economy. So basically
Speaker 2: we started the marathon in twenty nineteen and we are
Speaker 2: now probably five kilometers down that marathon. The good news
Speaker 2: is that meanwhile the United States has joined the marathon
Speaker 2: by throwing a lot of money. But so they do
Speaker 2: it in their way, but they joined the race, and
Speaker 2: also China is more and more of course continuing and
Speaker 2: really getting into this global green race. I would say,
Speaker 2: so basically, we have a marathon, we started, we are
Speaker 2: five kilometers down the road, and now some people are saying, oh,
Speaker 2: maybe let's take a break, let's take a pause, let's
Speaker 2: push the pause button. That's a weird way if you
Speaker 2: want to win this race, right, So I think that's
Speaker 2: the moment where we are now, and what I would
Speaker 2: hope and what I also expect is that some company
Speaker 2: are now starting to get nervous as well and start
Speaker 2: to speak out because I think the only future for
Speaker 2: European industry if they really embrace this green innovative agenda.
Speaker 2: So when they are starting this green deal and this race,
Speaker 2: they should get nervous if Europe now after five years
Speaker 2: is saying, oh, now we're going to change course, because
Speaker 2: it's exactly the unpredictability, the unclarity where Europe is going
Speaker 2: that it has been and it still is one of
Speaker 2: the biggest problems for our European industry. So I think
Speaker 2: it needs to become clear this campaign that the green
Speaker 2: agenda and what we Greens are fighting for is probably
Speaker 2: the best agenda for the future. Of our industry, and
Speaker 2: that the Greens are the better ally of industry than
Speaker 2: what conservatives claim to be.
Speaker 1: But let's look at the EU's largest economy, Germany. The
Speaker 1: Green Party was voted in with a big mandate in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. However, given all that has happened since
Speaker 1: the Ukraine War, energy crisis, inflation, it's not been a
Speaker 1: great time to be in power, most recently that showing
Speaker 1: up in large amounts of the industrialization across the country.
Speaker 1: It's not green policies alone that can be blamed, but
Speaker 1: far right parties are certainly using it as ammunition to
Speaker 1: say this is what can happen across the EU if
Speaker 1: climate warriors go too far. So you are saying that
Speaker 1: it is the green agenda that will get European industries
Speaker 1: the future they need in the twenty first century. And yet,
Speaker 1: given we are seeing industry shut down, especially in Germany,
Speaker 1: the powerhouse of European industry, how do you fight against
Speaker 1: that narrative?
Speaker 2: Well, I think by first making very clear that the
Speaker 2: closing down of industry in Germany is exactly because of
Speaker 2: a lack of a green agenda or a very late
Speaker 2: starting of the green agenda. Just too exam First of all,
Speaker 2: why is there such a problem with the German industry.
Speaker 2: It's the energy prices. Where does that come from? The
Speaker 2: energy price? Of course, the inflation that we have seen
Speaker 2: on energy is mainly because of the high reliance of
Speaker 2: the German economy on Russian gas. That was a political
Speaker 2: decision by the Conservatives. I mean, I do remember that
Speaker 2: during the election campaign. It was Anneleina Beerboch who was
Speaker 2: there sitting between two old gray men Lushet and Shoults,
Speaker 2: and she was explaining the problem with nord Stream two,
Speaker 2: and she exactly explained. Basically, she predicted the future. She
Speaker 2: was explaining why nord Stream two was such a problem
Speaker 2: and such a mistake. And you saw those two guys
Speaker 2: looking at her like, ah, little girl, we're going to
Speaker 2: explain your big politics one day, because you're totally wrong.
Speaker 2: So it was the Greens exactly warning for making your
Speaker 2: economy vulnerable independent of a Russian dictator. Right now, that's
Speaker 2: what happened, not in two was canceled. But of course
Speaker 2: when your entire economy is built on Russian cheap gas
Speaker 2: and that suddenly changes, then you need to adjust massively.
Speaker 2: I don't think any German government would have had an
Speaker 2: easy job in doing this transition in a very fast way.
Speaker 2: If Greens would have been in power much longer before
Speaker 2: this transition could have been prepped, could have been phased in.
Speaker 2: Now suddenly you were forced, because of those circumstances to
Speaker 2: do your transition in a very short while, with of
Speaker 2: course big consequences for energy. So that is a big
Speaker 2: problem absolutely, But I wouldn't say that's a problem because
Speaker 2: of green policies. I would say it's a problem because
Speaker 2: of lack of green policies and heavy reliant on a
Speaker 2: fossil economy that turned out to be much more vulnerable
Speaker 2: than the Conservatives said. The other example is the German
Speaker 2: car industry. The German car industry is of course very
Speaker 2: proud of it. It's very strong and reliable cars, but
Speaker 2: has always been built on the combustion engine. They had
Speaker 2: been relying on this combustion engine for a very long while,
Speaker 2: even to the extent that when we were having some
Speaker 2: policies to clean it up, to clean the diesel up,
Speaker 2: they decided to cheat on it instead of cleaning up
Speaker 2: the diesel right diesel gate, and politicians were too weak
Speaker 2: to act on that, so there was a kind of
Speaker 2: a false impression to the German car industry that they
Speaker 2: could do business as usual. For a very long while,
Speaker 2: while the German car industry was basically a sleep in
Speaker 2: its combustion engine, China was heavily investing in electrification, not
Speaker 2: only in their batteries but also the entire supply chain,
Speaker 2: so going to Africa, getting into its supply chain, relations
Speaker 2: with countries in Latin America, et cetera. So really classic
Speaker 2: industrial policy on the electric car. What do we see
Speaker 2: now the biggest increase of exporting national cars China. So
Speaker 2: again a lack of clear policies for innovation within Europe
Speaker 2: is now the price where the German car industry is
Speaker 2: suffering from. So I think what we see now is
Speaker 2: that all these problems are coming together. So it's then,
Speaker 2: of course a very nice narrative to blame the greens,
Speaker 2: but I think you have to go into your analysis
Speaker 2: and in the narrative behind it and see what went wrong,
Speaker 2: and then I think it's quite often a lack of
Speaker 2: green policies that is now hitting the German industry.
Speaker 1: The far right parties have clearly a lot of fodder
Speaker 1: right now to walk against green policies. The most recent
Speaker 1: one that we've seen is farmers and agriculture. Now, let's
Speaker 1: just take the case of your home country, the Netherlands.
Speaker 1: The elections last year led to the far right party
Speaker 1: under Gert Wilders winning the most number of seats, and
Speaker 1: if I compress events just a little bit, because politics
Speaker 1: can be complicated, one big reason for that electoral surprise
Speaker 1: and huge loss for the leading center right party is
Speaker 1: how the government handled deployment of some climate policies, specifically
Speaker 1: those tied to nitrogen emissions, that were brought up with
Speaker 1: little consultation with farmers, with very little time to actually
Speaker 1: get the emissions reductions, leading to huge protests and change
Speaker 1: in the mood of a whole country. Now those protests
Speaker 1: have spread out across the EU. Why do you think
Speaker 1: the far right has been able to capture the narrative
Speaker 1: on the continent that has led the world on climate action. Yeah?
Speaker 2: No, And that's of course the one billion dollar question,
Speaker 2: to be very honest, because I do think that also
Speaker 2: in the agriculture story, there are very clear reasons why
Speaker 2: indeed politics has failed, but quite often it has been
Speaker 2: conservative politics. And if I may just on agriculture, very briefly,
Speaker 2: I think the biggest problem what we see there is
Speaker 2: that on the one hand, in our economic policies, we
Speaker 2: are forcing farmers to go to larger skill farming, partly
Speaker 2: because of our subsidy system. You know, the more acres
Speaker 2: you have, the more money you get, So in that
Speaker 2: subsidy system, they are pushing farmers to make themselves bigger.
Speaker 2: But also in our anti economy model, where are the
Speaker 2: profits in the food chain. The profits are not with
Speaker 2: the farmers. They are with the retailers. They are in
Speaker 2: the financial sector. They are in the inputs right, so
Speaker 2: of chemicals and fertilizer. That's where the profits are so
Speaker 2: the big players. So for a farmer, in order to
Speaker 2: get a little bit of the profit still enough to
Speaker 2: feed their own family, they need to enlarge as well
Speaker 2: because the profits are not enough anymore, So you just
Speaker 2: produce more in order to reap some more profits. So
Speaker 2: economically they are forced in large skilled farming. And then
Speaker 2: comes in the green policies. The green policies are there
Speaker 2: to address you need to deal with climate change, climate extremes,
Speaker 2: so you need more diversified agriculture. Then of course for biodiversity,
Speaker 2: you need more nature inclusive agriculture. So all these kind
Speaker 2: of models are more small skill farming, more diverse, and
Speaker 2: less monocultures. So basically, the economic system is pushing the
Speaker 2: farm in a certain direction and the green policies are
Speaker 2: pulling it in another direction. Then don't be surprised that
Speaker 2: the farmer at a certain moment feels like, but where
Speaker 2: do I need to go now? I don't know anymore.
Speaker 2: You're already with the back against the wall, and then
Speaker 2: you come up with new policies that are only making
Speaker 2: it more complicated. I think then it's very easy for
Speaker 2: a politician that is pretending that there is a simple solution,
Speaker 2: and a simple solution is all those politicians are lying
Speaker 2: to you. We have a simple answer to you. You
Speaker 2: can just stay on your model that your parents worked
Speaker 2: on and you don't have to change anything. That's a
Speaker 2: very appealing story. If I feel the pressure and with
Speaker 2: the back against the wall, I also would love to
Speaker 2: have that story. I don't need to change. But I
Speaker 2: think it's a lie which is not helping any farmer
Speaker 2: for the future either. So I think what our biggest
Speaker 2: challenge is, and here comes the challenges that our answers
Speaker 2: are usually long term future oriented, but also you need
Speaker 2: long answer like I'm giving now, whereas the counterpart is
Speaker 2: just saying it's all nonsense, it's rubbish, and you don't
Speaker 2: need to change anything and you're free. That's so much
Speaker 2: easier and so much more appealing if, certainly, if you
Speaker 2: are uncertain about your own future. And I think this
Speaker 2: is really going to be our biggest challenge, whether we
Speaker 2: can break that simplistic narrative of a false romantic you know,
Speaker 2: back to the future, back to the past, and that
Speaker 2: we as Greens need to be more compelling in selling
Speaker 2: our long term answers.
Speaker 1: Basically, yeah, it is kind of surprising when I looked
Speaker 1: at numbers. A third of the EU's budget is dedicated
Speaker 1: to providing subsidies to farmers. That is a lot of money.
Speaker 1: Of course, if the e succeeds at it's current climate
Speaker 1: plan by twenty forty, agriculture would account for the bulk
Speaker 1: of the block screenous gas emissions. So if they are
Speaker 1: currently believing the lies, and yet they have to be
Speaker 1: part of the solution to reduce emissions because without that
Speaker 1: there is no way to net zero. How do you
Speaker 1: cut agricultural emissions without such a backlash.
Speaker 2: Well, that's not an easy question, right, But I do
Speaker 2: think that the first thing you need to do is
Speaker 2: being honest. I mean, and this is a lesson from
Speaker 2: the Netherlands, right. So our problem was not climate, but
Speaker 2: it was nitrogen. As you said, So we have too
Speaker 2: many nutrients. We are basically importing nutrients from the rest
Speaker 2: of the world through feed, and then we raise the
Speaker 2: cattle and we keep the shit literally in our country,
Speaker 2: and we have an overload of our nutrients. And basically
Speaker 2: that's our biggest problem. We are piling up nutrients in
Speaker 2: our country. This was a model that we build upon
Speaker 2: as Netherlands we have I've had quite some economic successes
Speaker 2: with it, but it was also environmentally unsustainable. We all
Speaker 2: know that for more than twenty years, read all the
Speaker 2: reports that were there. However, politicians kept on promising the farmers, no,
Speaker 2: you'll be fine, we will work on innovation. We will
Speaker 2: you know, all kinds of cleaning technologies. They will solve
Speaker 2: the problem of too many nutrients. Where As, of course,
Speaker 2: in the end you can put it to the left
Speaker 2: to the right. In the end, there are too many
Speaker 2: nutrients in our country. So something needs to give. But
Speaker 2: the politicians never gave that message to the farmers. And
Speaker 2: even worse, the farmers meanwhile were stimulated to get bigger,
Speaker 2: to grow bigger. The banks were giving loans in order
Speaker 2: they would even get into bigger farm settings, etc. So
Speaker 2: increasing debt, more remore stock in this model, and politicians
Speaker 2: promising that there would be no problem until the courts
Speaker 2: stepped in because at a certain moment you just have
Speaker 2: some law that you can't stretch them anymore. And then
Speaker 2: it's the court saying, sorry, but now you're not allowed anymore.
Speaker 2: And suddenly the farmers from one day to the other
Speaker 2: where not their model basically was called bankrupt. Then of
Speaker 2: course all those farmers were like, but sorry, I indebted myself,
Speaker 2: so what do I do now? So basically the lying
Speaker 2: of politicians, the falls pretending that they don't need to change,
Speaker 2: only increase the crisis we are having in the Netherlands,
Speaker 2: not only environmentally, but certainly also for the state of
Speaker 2: where farmers are now in the Netherlands. If now in Europe,
Speaker 2: we're going to make that same mistake on climate and
Speaker 2: basically the Commission, when they are now discussing their twenty
Speaker 2: forty target agriculture is hardly mentioned it's kind of okay,
Speaker 2: don't mention it. That's exactly making the same mistake as
Speaker 2: we did in the Netherlands. By not mentioning it, by
Speaker 2: not talking about it, the problem is not going away.
Speaker 2: And this is my biggest warning also to farmers. You
Speaker 2: may turn against the Greens because they are ready to
Speaker 2: talk to you and say, hey, let's change the model
Speaker 2: and how can we do that. But you probably have
Speaker 2: a better ally with the Greens because they are willing
Speaker 2: to talk about it now, and also put your subsidy
Speaker 2: scheme towards it instead of politicians that are pretending that
Speaker 2: there is no problem. They give you a false hope
Speaker 2: you can continue like it is. But then in five
Speaker 2: ten years time, suddenly you will get the heart message
Speaker 2: and then the change is much more complicated. And this
Speaker 2: is really the biggest lessons for Europe on climate. Don't
Speaker 2: make the same mistake as we did in the Netherlands.
Speaker 1: Europe has a head start in the climate RAITs, but
Speaker 1: the rest of the world is starting to catch up.
Speaker 1: After the break, Baz tells me how Europe can stay competitive.
Speaker 1: And by the way, if you like this episode, please
Speaker 1: take a moment to rate or review the show on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts and Spotify. This is a worry that is
Speaker 1: not just there in agriculture but all kinds of economic
Speaker 1: systems where people want an orderly transition. There is a
Speaker 1: polluting technology and then there's a clean technology, and you
Speaker 1: want to move from the polluting to the clean and
Speaker 1: as smooth away as possible. That requires time. And so
Speaker 1: you're saying, because the Netherlands dragged its feet on trying
Speaker 1: to deploy policies to reduce nitrogen emissions and then the
Speaker 1: courts force them to suddenly bring those policies down, that's
Speaker 1: what led to the Blackclash, and now if you do
Speaker 1: the same thing with the twenty forty targets, the EU
Speaker 1: could be facing a similar tragedy. Absolutely, But talking about
Speaker 1: emissions is the hard part right now. It's the narrative
Speaker 1: that if you fight for just the emissions, then you're
Speaker 1: going to take our earnings away, our income away. It's
Speaker 1: the narrative that is winning. So how do you break
Speaker 1: the gridlock? You're making a logically smart point, but you
Speaker 1: still need to be able to cut through and actually
Speaker 1: have those conversations what will allow you to cut through.
Speaker 2: But I think that's the classic part where if we
Speaker 2: greens would only talk about emissions and reduction percentages, etc.
Speaker 2: Indeed them are not cutting through. I think we also
Speaker 2: need to talk about Okay, but how can we make
Speaker 2: sure that the farmers can have an honors living. And
Speaker 2: this is also by addressing the economic system. This is
Speaker 2: also by addressing the problems in the entire food chain.
Speaker 2: And this is also addressing the power position that retailers
Speaker 2: are having right and until now. And it's those same
Speaker 2: conservative politicians who are claiming I'm on your side. They
Speaker 2: never dare to break the economic power of retailers and banks,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And this is exactly why the Greens are
Speaker 2: also always making it the very clear case a green
Speaker 2: deal can only survive if it's a socially just green deal,
Speaker 2: and for agriculture, I think it's a case in point,
Speaker 2: very clearly.
Speaker 1: So one of the biggest reasons for Europe's success in
Speaker 1: reducing emissions is down to the emissions trading system that's
Speaker 1: provided businesses with certainty about the direction of travel and
Speaker 1: does incentivize them to cut emissions. So far, it's been
Speaker 1: focused on power production, on industries, aviation shipping. Now it's
Speaker 1: set to expand to road transport and buildings. How do
Speaker 1: you think agriculture could be brought into the emissions trading
Speaker 1: system because that could prove to be one way in
Speaker 1: which emissions are reduced in the most economically efficient.
Speaker 2: I challenge you there because this mantra that it's the
Speaker 2: ETS the cornerstone that is providing the success in the clarity.
Speaker 2: This is exactly what I would like to challenge, because
Speaker 2: the only clarity that companies are having on ETS is Okay,
Speaker 2: I will get less allowances in Europe. So yes, probably
Speaker 2: we are going to meet the ETS targets for twenty forty,
Speaker 2: which is zero emissions, because the allowances go to zero
Speaker 2: in twenty thirty nine. So you have that certainty, but
Speaker 2: then you do not know exactly. But what does that
Speaker 2: mean for my business case? I might also leave Europe
Speaker 2: because then within Europe you have zero emissions, but the
Speaker 2: industry is not in Europe anymore. And this is exactly
Speaker 2: the problem by only relying on ETS. So it's very
Speaker 2: good to give carbon pollution a price, but it's insufficient
Speaker 2: to act. And I think the best example is energy,
Speaker 2: because why are we so successful in our energy transition?
Speaker 2: Is that really because of ETS? The big steps in
Speaker 2: the energy transition were being made in the Zeros and
Speaker 2: in the beginning of the twenty tens that's when the
Speaker 2: real transition started and now we are all benefiting from that.
Speaker 2: In that period, the ETS price was close to zero.
Speaker 2: It was not the ETS price that was driving it.
Speaker 2: It was policies on the renewable energy directive. It was
Speaker 2: policies in Germany really, by the way, by Greens in
Speaker 2: government in the nineties, by pushing for the renewable developments
Speaker 2: that really made the price of renewable energy go down
Speaker 2: to the levels we're talking we're seeing now. So it
Speaker 2: was not ETS, it was policies on renewable energy that
Speaker 2: was driving that transition, and that was the most successful
Speaker 2: policy I think we've had in Europe.
Speaker 1: But one other way to argue for the ETS here
Speaker 1: is that the economic sectors that cannot move outside Europe
Speaker 1: are the ones that would benefit most from an emissions
Speaker 1: trading system. Power production has to happen on this continent.
Speaker 1: You can't be producing power in the US and then
Speaker 1: transporting it to Europe. The same thing goes with agriculture. Yes,
Speaker 1: you could import a bunch of food and that happened
Speaker 1: doing that but a lot of the food will have
Speaker 1: to be produced domestically for it to be price competitive,
Speaker 1: And so isn't it a good case for the ads
Speaker 1: to actually be applied to agriculture.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not necessarily saying that we don't need a
Speaker 2: cer two price. My only debate here is if we're
Speaker 2: only going to rely on a heer two price, we
Speaker 2: will be doing insufficient. And that's the same with agriculture
Speaker 2: because also there, yes, I do think that there is
Speaker 2: an economic problem with the incentives we're giving but not
Speaker 2: always giving the right incentives. So yes, a carbon price
Speaker 2: could help there, but it will be insufficient, like it
Speaker 2: is insufficient for our industry. Our industry doesn't only need
Speaker 2: to know what the carbon price is going to be
Speaker 2: in the future, and they also need to know what
Speaker 2: kind of energy will there be, because it matters a
Speaker 2: lot what kind of energy infrastructure will there be in
Speaker 2: order that I know how my production process will look like.
Speaker 2: So I'm very nervous and very negative about the future
Speaker 2: of our industry. But that's because of the lack of
Speaker 2: these kinds of policies, and that's where for me, green
Speaker 2: industrial policy come in.
Speaker 1: Heavy industry does have a challenge in front of it. Right,
Speaker 1: if you're going to reduce emissions from steel or cement,
Speaker 1: you have very few options, and those options are expensive,
Speaker 1: especially where the technology is today. Agriculture is often considered
Speaker 1: as a hard to abate sector, but if you look
Speaker 1: at the solution set, it's actually much easier to try
Speaker 1: and tackle emissions from agriculture, which could even become a
Speaker 1: carbon sync. The very solutions to try and tackle some
Speaker 1: of the biggest challenges that we face around biodiversity, around
Speaker 1: soil are the solutions that will also reduce emissions, not
Speaker 1: just emissions that are produced on the farm, but perhaps
Speaker 1: even make the farm carbon negative. And finally, unlike in
Speaker 1: the industry where subsidies or technology development weren't available, agriculture
Speaker 1: already has so much that is being supported through subsidies
Speaker 1: they could be redirected in a sensible way. So the
Speaker 1: conversation around agriculture, it seems to me, has been made
Speaker 1: to be perhaps considered too difficult, but it isn't. It's
Speaker 1: just that it needs to be done in the right way.
Speaker 1: That there needs to be a deadlock that has to
Speaker 1: be broken, and once you do break it, you could
Speaker 1: actually find solutions much faster.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I still coming back to the points of
Speaker 2: how do farmers feel that they can have an honest
Speaker 2: earning And this is now where subsidies are being seen
Speaker 2: almost as something they have the right to because otherwise
Speaker 2: they don't earn enough. Right, So as long as that
Speaker 2: feeling is there, talking about redirecting subsidies will just cause
Speaker 2: this protest. So I absolutely agree with you. I think
Speaker 2: we can do much better things with our subsidies.
Speaker 1: And if we look into the future, the twenty forty
Speaker 1: climate targets that are not yet in law but are
Speaker 1: proposed to be ninety percent reduction relative to nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: levels are according to science, still on the lower ambition side,
Speaker 1: but according to where we are currently pretty ambitious. And
Speaker 1: yet because of all these protests in Germany and Belgium
Speaker 1: and France and well where or not, the farmer protests
Speaker 1: have caused the European Commission to delete mentions of agriculture
Speaker 1: in those targets. One of those deleted mentions is about
Speaker 1: healthier diets and reducing meat consumption. Of course, it's not
Speaker 1: said reduce meat consumption. It's a euphemistic phrase around alternative proteins.
Speaker 1: But it's not a problem that's going away. So if
Speaker 1: you think about it in the future, what must European
Speaker 1: politicians do to even have a conversation with citizens about
Speaker 1: changing diets.
Speaker 2: Well, I would say this is exactly the discussion you
Speaker 2: need to have. So by deleting it from a document,
Speaker 2: that's one thing, right, And I mean, I think it's
Speaker 2: a mistake, but okay, it's only a document, right. It
Speaker 2: matters now what we're going to do in the next term,
Speaker 2: and that's why these elections in June are so crucial
Speaker 2: because it determines basically how this decade we will steer
Speaker 2: some of the changes that will take shape in the
Speaker 2: thirties and forties, and will determine whether we will reach
Speaker 2: climate neutrality as an economy yes or no. Soing the
Speaker 2: coming five years are very fundamental there, and I think
Speaker 2: in the agriculture system, but this is again also broader.
Speaker 2: Politicians are always afraid to talk about consumption. So we
Speaker 2: have a lot of technocratic politicians who love to talk
Speaker 2: about pricing. That sounds very neutral. You're just price pollution
Speaker 2: and it will all be solved, right, and we don't
Speaker 2: need to do anything. Okay, then maybe on top we
Speaker 2: do a policy for setting some standards, that's probably then
Speaker 2: the max we can go. But we also know, for example,
Speaker 2: in cars, again maybe we need to discuss a bit
Speaker 2: of future on SUVs because otherwise, yes, it's great that
Speaker 2: we are having more and more electric cars, but if
Speaker 2: meanwhile we are going to have big electric cars, we
Speaker 2: have a resource problem. So maybe we should talk about
Speaker 2: the size of the cars. And with food, well, let's
Speaker 2: be honest, we need to talk about our diets, not
Speaker 2: only because of climate, also because of our health. Every
Speaker 2: doctor will tell us that we have a two you know,
Speaker 2: calorie full diet, so that it's not healthy either. So
Speaker 2: maybe the combination of health, environment and our own sustainability,
Speaker 2: we need to have these kind of discussions. But that
Speaker 2: means that politicians need to get out of their comfort zone.
Speaker 2: And probably this is the point where we as Greens
Speaker 2: are more open to have those discussions out of your
Speaker 2: comfort zone. But then, of course, in times when people
Speaker 2: already feel a bit insecure and are not you know,
Speaker 2: so positive about the future, then talking about what you eat,
Speaker 2: how you eat, or get real and this is where
Speaker 2: you know, extreme right is kind of you know, the
Speaker 2: Greens want to take everything away from you. Even how
Speaker 2: you eat well, then of course you get the reaction
Speaker 2: that we're seeing. So I don't think that in this
Speaker 2: campaign we will put consumption at the forefront of our campaign,
Speaker 2: because it's quite suicidal in the current mood. But I
Speaker 2: do think that we cannot escape these of discussions if
Speaker 2: you look into the future, and I think that's something
Speaker 2: where politicians need to be honest about as well.
Speaker 1: Now, if you look at the history of the Greens,
Speaker 1: for the longest time, you stood in the wings pushing
Speaker 1: parties to take climate seriously. Over the past few years,
Speaker 1: finally that case has sunk in, and the EU as
Speaker 1: a whole has done more than most countries and most
Speaker 1: regions to set out clear targets and clear policies, maybe
Speaker 1: not the perfect policies, but at least some concrete policies.
Speaker 1: The rest of the world is starting to catch up.
Speaker 1: You said it's a race. Now, China has already been
Speaker 1: investing a ton in green technologies. The US is the
Speaker 1: most recent entrant, with the US's Inflation Reduction Act. Now
Speaker 1: it comes as hundreds of billions of dollars of tax credits.
Speaker 1: It's all carrots, very little stick. But then the criticism
Speaker 1: is the EU's Green deal is, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: mostly stick very little carrots. That tension is starting to
Speaker 1: play out with some green businesses choosing to go to
Speaker 1: the US rather than scale up here in the EU.
Speaker 1: What do you think EU's response should be to the IRA.
Speaker 2: Well, I do think that. I mean, in general, it's
Speaker 2: going to be difficult to rin this subsidy race, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a bit of a danger that we
Speaker 2: will see a global subsidy race and then who throws
Speaker 2: most of the money at it. But it's absolutely true
Speaker 2: that Europe needs to develop an investment program because that's
Speaker 2: basically the carrot we're talking about. But a European investment
Speaker 2: program can only work if you also really have a
Speaker 2: European industrial program, and that's our biggest problem right now.
Speaker 2: We are still having twenty seven member states who think
Speaker 2: they can have the luxury of looking at their own
Speaker 2: industry and thinking, okay, what can I do now for
Speaker 2: the future, and then you see what's happening right now.
Speaker 2: Germany can throw most of its money at it, but
Speaker 2: it's not helping anyone because we need to have European
Speaker 2: strategy on it. And this is also for me very
Speaker 2: clear that we are only going to develop a credible
Speaker 2: carot for industry if there is a credible European strategy behind.
Speaker 2: So it's not only money, it is also money, but
Speaker 2: it's certainly and it starts much more with a European
Speaker 2: strategy that is absolutely lacking up.
Speaker 1: One place where solutions are being focused on, which is
Speaker 1: to try and move the German auto industry to make
Speaker 1: more electric cars, for example, or to try and figure
Speaker 1: out how to deal with the US Inflation Reduction Act
Speaker 1: and its huge amount of subsidies, is to create policies
Speaker 1: that look to the rest of the world a little
Speaker 1: bit protectionist. One of the ways is to do a
Speaker 1: carbon border adjustment mechanism where you actually tax imports coming
Speaker 1: from say China or India because they have higher carbon
Speaker 1: intensity relative to the same product being produced here in Europe,
Speaker 1: where the European producers as are paying a carbon price.
Speaker 1: How do you think protectionism in a world that is
Speaker 1: trying to deal with the global challenge is going to look?
Speaker 1: And you know what must be done to ensure that
Speaker 1: even as these policies are sensible and required, they're done
Speaker 1: in a way that are politically acceptable around with your allies.
Speaker 2: No I think that's a good question, because I do
Speaker 2: think there needs to be found a new balance here
Speaker 2: in kind of, you know, a global world where we
Speaker 2: as a world are working together and getting to the
Speaker 2: best technologies in the most efficient way wherever you are
Speaker 2: in the world, and you are dependent of each other.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, Europe has been quite naive
Speaker 2: by thinking that the entire world is on its way
Speaker 2: towards this global market, which is not the case. First
Speaker 2: of all, the United States have never been dead. They
Speaker 2: always claim to be this very liberalized country, but America
Speaker 2: is totally not a liberal country. There, it's a very
Speaker 2: protectionist country. But at the same time, also China is
Speaker 2: of course always very very industrial policy, so it's making
Speaker 2: clear that their older policies are kind of in the
Speaker 2: line of creating these production chains where China can profit from.
Speaker 2: And on top of that, you have a Russia who
Speaker 2: is willing to misuse the power once they are having
Speaker 2: power over you, be it with gas. So this shows
Speaker 2: that the world is not a bright place and Europe
Speaker 2: has been maybe a bit too naive and thinking that
Speaker 2: we are in the direction of this globalized economy. I
Speaker 2: think that deserves and requires rebalancing, and that means that
Speaker 2: there will be some reshuring and some more protectionist policies
Speaker 2: of Europe to make sure that the industry that we
Speaker 2: want to maintain within Europe is also protected while we
Speaker 2: are asking them to green and to innovate.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty three, EU countries spent about three hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion dollars on all things energy transition. This
Speaker 1: is every solar panel, winter turbine, electric car, This is
Speaker 1: government spending, private spending. In the next decade, the EU
Speaker 1: targets say that it will have to spend one point
Speaker 1: six trillion dollars on its own between twenty thirty one
Speaker 1: and twenty forty each year. That's how much the world
Speaker 1: as a whole spent on the energy transition in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three. So what do you think that you can
Speaker 1: specifically do over the next few years to increase investments
Speaker 1: at the pace needed.
Speaker 2: Well, I think there are two things. First of all,
Speaker 2: we need a fundamental debate whether our public debt is
Speaker 2: now really our biggest problem, and I tend to say
Speaker 2: it's not our biggest problem. It's also very clear that
Speaker 2: if you look at the debt levels we're seeing in Europe,
Speaker 2: they are still lower than what's there in Japan or
Speaker 2: the United States, and even China is now increasing its
Speaker 2: debt levels. So I think we have a bit of
Speaker 2: an unhealthy obsession with lowering our public debt, which in
Speaker 2: a time when we are basically restructuring our whole economy
Speaker 2: in a couple of decades, and on the top of that,
Speaker 2: we have a security challenge with a neighbor that is
Speaker 2: willing to fight us, and on top of that we
Speaker 2: have a very vulnerable Ukraine next to us that needs
Speaker 2: a lot of money to rebuild the country. Basically, these
Speaker 2: are really indeed trillions of euros that need to be found.
Speaker 2: So if at the same time, then we're going to say, oh,
Speaker 2: but we also need to cut our public debt, and
Speaker 2: we need to we need to have the stability and
Speaker 2: growth back to even tougher. That's one big problem we're
Speaker 2: having which needs to change. That's on the one hand,
Speaker 2: I think we need to reinvent the story on why
Speaker 2: are public investments a good thing and not only a
Speaker 2: bad thing. That's one part. The other part is of
Speaker 2: course redirecting some of the bad spending that we're seeing.
Speaker 2: We're still having hundreds of billions of fossil subsidies. So
Speaker 2: while we are promoting a clean economy that is going
Speaker 2: away from fossils, we are meanwhile still subsidizing fossils. That's
Speaker 2: of course an untenable city cuation. And here we also
Speaker 2: need to look at the redirecting of financial flows, where
Speaker 2: a lot of money is still going in the wrong direction.
Speaker 2: And I think that combination, that's a dual agenda that
Speaker 2: we are needing right now. So in the end, it
Speaker 2: really boils down to political will that is still there insufficiently,
Speaker 2: and that brings me back to the point where maybe
Speaker 2: greens are still needed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, buzz, welcome me. Thank you for listening to Zero.
Speaker 1: If you liked this episode, please take a moment to
Speaker 1: rate or review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Speaker 1: Share this episode with a friend or with a recovering chemist.
Speaker 1: You can get in touch at zero port at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot Net. Zero's producer is Mighty lirau Oarty. Music is
Speaker 1: composed by Wonderly Special Thanks to Kira Bendrim, John Aingeer,
Speaker 1: and Alsia Clinton. I am Akshatrati back soon.