EU interventionism is jeopardising climate targets – a ‘green EU’ must be both economic and social.
Put an end to the EU’s interventionism!
“The climate is changing; there is no doubt about that. We must act, and act quickly, to preserve our planet for ourselves and future generations. At the same time, however, a sustainable green EU policy must also be socially responsible. Whether this applies to the European Commission’s current proposal is highly questionable,” says Rolf von Hohenhau, President of the European Taxpayers’ Association (TAE).
“Centralised and ideologically driven measures from Brussels, such as the latest ‘Fit for 55’ climate package presented by Commission President von der Leyen, are counterproductive as they disregard sound judgement, proportionality, social balance and the social market economy,” explains the President of the Taxpayers’ Association. “We call for an end to EU dirigisme! When it comes to climate protection, too, measures must be efficient and comply with the principle of subsidiarity. Of course, we in Europe must agree on common goals and set targets that all EU Member States must adhere to. However, implementation on the ground must always take local circumstances and requirements into account, so that the measures make sense and are accepted, and do not lead to social chaos and social and economic upheaval!”
1. Climate-neutral construction and renovation – unaffordable for most people!
The EU’s plan would hit financially vulnerable and average households hardest, affecting both owners and tenants. Tenants would have to expect to bear the costs of refurbishment and the associated rent increases. In expensive urban areas, rent often already accounts for half of disposable household income. And anyone who thinks this is merely about façade renovations is mistaken. Windows, roofs and entire heating systems would have to be replaced to meet the strict EU requirements. Yet hardly anyone can afford to demolish their house and rebuild it as a zero-energy home, or to carry out energy-efficient refurbishment on the old one. To make an old house climate-neutral, owners have to invest a great deal of money. In 2010, the homeowners’ association ‘Haus und Grund’ estimated the cost of an energy-efficiency refurbishment at
€1,000 per square metre. More optimistic estimates put the cost at €60,000 for the energy-efficient refurbishment of an average-sized house. Today, this is certainly no longer possible at that price!
2. Renovation and heating must remain affordable.
The Commission’s proposal carries the risk of heavy fines for oil and gas heating systems. Even in the outskirts of Munich, one of Europe’s economically strongest and most developed regions, there is no comprehensive district heating network. Heating is still only possible using gas, oil, wood (e.g. pellets) or electricity. Heat pumps cannot be installed everywhere and are difficult to retrofit, which is why they are not a viable option for widespread heating. The same applies to solar systems. Even where geothermal energy is already available, the network is not fully developed, as, according to the European Association, it has not yet been profitable for providers.
“Once again, the EU is presenting a plan that only looks good on the surface. But what about the less developed, poorer rural regions? What about countries such as Greece and southern Italy, where buildings are often not even insulated and there are no funds available for energy-efficiency refurbishment? Does the EU really plan to even out these differences through EU transfers? Will taxpayers in rich countries such as Germany be using their taxes to fund subsidies not only in their own country but also in poorer partner countries? The resulting discontent is foreseeable!”
3. The end of the internal combustion engine in 2035 – and what then?
Another aim of the EU’s ‘Fit for 55’ measures is the de facto phasing out of the internal combustion engine by 2035, as new cars will no longer be permitted to emit CO₂ from that date onwards. This constitutes a clear and one-sided favouring of electric mobility and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and stifles innovation. In doing so, the European Commission completely disregards the issue of the energy required to produce batteries and components for electric vehicles, as well as their disposal. And what about the use of synthetic fuels in internal combustion engines, the production of which sequesters just as much CO₂ as is released during combustion? Strictly speaking, these fuels are also CO₂-neutral. And what about possible future alternative powertrains or engines that are also CO₂-neutral but have not yet been taken into account in the European Commission’s proposal?
In our view, the one-sided focus on individual propulsion technologies such as electric mobility is leading to a dangerous trend. “We call on the European Commission to adopt a technology-neutral and innovation-friendly policy that is flexible and offers all Europeans an affordable and stable energy supply – technological and entrepreneurial competition is a fundamental prerequisite for this,” said Rolf von Hohenhau.
4. Ensuring that rising energy demand is met
How are countries without their own stable energy supply or energy planning supposed to meet the increased energy demand resulting from ‘Fit for 55’? Even Germany could find itself in this position in future, as it plans to decommission all its nuclear power stations by 2023 and all fossil fuel power stations (oil and gas) by 2038 – and the resulting supply shortfall will persist. How, then, does the EU intend to guarantee a comprehensive energy supply? This challenge can only be efficiently addressed by the private sector, not by the state. EU requirements for the construction of electric and hydrogen refuelling stations are not sufficient to achieve this.
5. Risk of multiple taxation
Without adjustments, ‘Fit for 55’ and other EU legislative initiatives aimed at minimising and pricing CO₂ in transport will lead to multiple taxation at the expense of all citizens.
6. The end of the social market economy is looming
Should the European Commission’s proposals actually be implemented, we are moving towards the end of the market economy and its principle of ‘prosperity for all’. The planned measures and legislative initiatives will lead to supply bottlenecks and restrictions for the population, coupled with a clear shift in powers towards the EU. There is a risk of a downward spiral of price rises and economic collapse, which will ultimately place a double burden on the population: first as taxpayers and then as consumers. According to the TAE, social upheaval is inevitable and cannot be resolved through support programmes.
Demands of the European Taxpayers’ Association (TAE)
We, the Taxpayers’ Association of Europe, call on the European Commission to do the following:
- The EU and Europe as pioneers in climate policy.
In the long term, global solutions must be sought. - A clear commitment to the social market economy.
- Adherence to the principle of subsidiarity – including in relation to funding.
- A clear commitment to innovation neutrality. Ideology must not take precedence over science-based climate protection measures.
- The creation of investment incentives rather than bans, in
order to achieve climate targets. - We are striving for market-based solutions rather than state control of mobility.
- Sustainable use of existing infrastructure (petrol station network, etc.).
- This does not rule out solutions that are
already environmentally friendly (such as biogas and synthetic fuels). - Recognition of the right to individual mobility.
- Ensuring an affordable and secure energy supply in the EU.
- No multiple CO₂ taxation.
- A comprehensive and transparent impact assessment of the regulation is required.
Only once such an analysis is available can further steps be taken.
“Even from within the European Commission’s own ranks, there is criticism of the ‘Fit for 55’ plans. High-flown and ideologically motivated measures that fail to address the needs of the public, the scientific community and the business sector are of no benefit to anyone, least of all the climate. The European Taxpayers’ Association is therefore calling for a comprehensive review of the European Commission’s proposal,” explains Rolf von Hohenhau.