Climate: why Macron spoke of a “regulatory break” – Economy

Does the European Union need, as Emmanuel Macron has suggested, a “regulatory break” on environmental legislation? The right of the European Parliament and the group Les Républicains, which for months has denounced an excess of standards, are in any case of this opinion. Earlier this week, Belgian Prime Minister Alexander de Croo also called for a break. With more than 50 key texts and as many secondary legislations since 2019, has the EU done too much? And above all, has it legislated well?

Texts all over the place

The Green Deal must reduce CO2 emissions in the EU by 55% by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Some of the texts have already been voted on or are in the process of being adopted, between new objectives for pesticides, for renewable energies, the reform of the carbon market with new obligations on household heating, or even new emission obligations for cattle and pig farms. The Commission still has an overhaul of the rules on chemicals or microplastics in its drawers and climate commissioner Frans Timmermans intends to see it through. The Dutchman has become the bane of farmers and fishermen who accuse him of ignoring their SOS.

Heat engines, bottom trawling: ill-prepared laws?

The end of sales of new cars with heat engines in 2035 and the ban on bottom trawling, deemed to be out of step with what is being done on the ground, have caused real psychodramas. In recent days, attention has focused on the nature restoration law which wants to sanctuary 10% of agricultural land for non-productive purposes but would then, according to LR, increase the EU’s food dependency. The elected officials also want to postpone the objective of restoring 30% of marine habitats from 2030 to 2035. It was rejected by the elected representatives of the agriculture and fishing commissions.

Pierre Karleskind acknowledges that the Commission is moving a bit too quickly. While he supports the law, he believes miscommunication about bottom trawling has caused doubt. He also recognizes that the implementation of the texts could raise new problems: “To produce the electricity of the transport of tomorrow, it will be necessary an enormous quantity of energy low carbon and thus of new nuclear power stations and renewable energies. And it cannot be ruled out that inconsistencies will arise. This week, Paris thus rejected the “Euro 7” car standard for CO2 emissions for 2025, which would precisely prevent manufacturers from investing in all-electric vehicles.

Absorption problem

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged the need to ensure the “absorption capacity” of the industry. For Pierre Karleskind, the extreme technicality of these texts can also explain a certain feeling of “unhooking”. “But there are also a large number of people who want even more action” on the climate. The EU therefore certainly does “a lot” but certainly “not too much”.

For MEP Caroline Roose, the most regrettable would be above all that crucial laws such as that on the restoration of nature bear the brunt of other projects, in particular electoral ones, the EPP playing first, according to her, the obstruction against Ursula von der Leyen whom he wants to replace after the next European elections.