Link: https://www.epochtimes.fr/samuel-furfari-%E2%80%89lesactivistes-ecologiques-sont-parvenus-a-tetaniser-les-politiques %E2%80%89-2552969.html
Please see link above
INTERVIEWS EPOCH TIMES
Samuel Furfari: “Ecological activists have managed to paralyze politicians”
Or how the European Union sacrificed its energy policy in favor of a climate policy that heavily penalizes European citizens
BY JULIAN HERREROFebruary 27, 2024
INTERVIEW – Samuel Furfari is a chemical engineer and former senior official at the Directorate-General for Energy of the European Commission. For Epoch Times, he discusses his latest book: “ Energy, state lies, the organized destruction of EU competitiveness ” published by L'Artilleur in which he tells how the European Union sacrificed its energy policy for the benefit of a climate policy which heavily penalizes European citizens.
Epoch Times – In your book, you explain how the European Union, in recent years, has self-scuttled in terms of energy policy, in particular by submitting energy policy to climate policy. You repeatedly mention the date of 2016 as the tipping point for energy policy. For what ?
Samuel Furfari – For one simple reason. Until 2016, Commission documents on energy policy emphasized security of supply and the need to have energy available to everyone: industry, the economic world and citizens. This had been going on since 1950. This last document focused on the importance of liquid natural gas, including the importance of natural gas in transportation and that of shale gas production.
Nowadays, we can very well replace thermal vehicles that run on diesel or gasoline with natural gas. This happens a lot around the world. Until that time, we were really in the old paradigm of energy policy, but the Paris Agreement gradually won over mentalities and we subordinated energy policy to climate policy.
You emphasize that from its origins, Europe, thanks in particular to its founding fathers, was at the forefront in terms of energy policy. “Access to abundant and cheap energy was one of the major objectives of the European Community,” you write. You even add that for “two thirds of a century, the European Community implemented far-sighted, insightful and long-term strategies which enabled Europe to win the battle against Soviet obscurantism”. And today, you say “we are paying very dearly for the unilateral abandonment of our security of energy supply”. Do you mean that, in a way, the current European executive has abandoned the initial European project?
The initial European project was to unite European countries by creating a common market for coal and steel. And then came the idea of also doing it for energy in general. But above all, we were aware that we needed to have abundant and cheap energy. This was why the Euratom treaty was created
in 1957 to develop nuclear energy. And I insist, the first article of the Euratom Treaty says that it is for “raising the standard of living in the Member States”.
So the goal of European policy was the prosperity of citizens, based on energy. And then with decarbonization came this new paradigm in which we began to disseminate a negative image of energy, linking it to pollution.
We overturned the old policy, that's why we had around sixty years of prosperity in Europe thanks to the European Union, whereas now we have entered into recession, into decline because of of the EU. Which means that it is not the institutions that are in question, but the executive and the current European Parliament.
You devote part of your book to Germany, which you consider partly responsible for the current energy crisis that Europe is going through, in particular by having imposed its vision of environmental policy on other EU member states in recent decades. How do you explain that there has never been a reaction to this German environmentalist narrative? Particularly from France or the United Kingdom, at least at the time when the United Kingdom was still a member of the European Union?
Politicians have been paralyzed by ecology. Of course, everyone wants to live in a clean world. Nobody wants to live in pollution. I remind you that the environmental protection policy dates from the 1970s. We have been talking about this for 50 years now.
There is nothing new in saying that we must protect the environment. Quite simply, active environmentalists have managed to paralyze politicians who have all become green in turn. That is the problem. This is what I call “greenies of all parties”.
François Hollande, for example, became an environmentalist to be able to form a government and be elected president, but also because he was
convinced that nuclear power was bad.
Same thing, with Emmanuel Macron; he opposed nuclear power for five and a half years. It should be remembered that he still closed Fessenheim; It was Germany who whistled and the others obeyed. It is not entirely the fault of Germany, but of the member states who failed to react and oppose the German dictatorship. Note that some countries were against it, but they were obviously no match.
In the chapter entitled “The destructive ecologism of the EU”, you denounce ecologists who have “succeeded in offering an idyllic world to those frustrated by the failure of Marxism”. In your opinion, can we qualify current environmentalism as the new Marxism?
It is certain that Marxism was important in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. In France, Spain and Italy, the Communist Party represented about 30% of the vote and all of these people were fundamentally anti-market. With the failure of Sovietism, the left found itself obliged to look for a new warhorse and Marxism was transformed into green. In addition to Marxism, other elements were added: the 'New Age', de-Christianization, etc. Moreover, I quote in my book a Brazilian trade unionist – Chico Mendes – who said that ecology without class struggle is gardening.
At the end of your book, you write: “The sooner the European Union puts an end to its stubbornness, the better. "Ruining one's own economy to achieve unattainable climate goals could go down in history as one of the causes of China and India's domination of the continent that invented modernity, technology." But in addition to putting an end to this stubbornness, is there not a problem of influence, of environmental pressure groups and NGOs? Perhaps some leaders act under duress and in fear of these NGOs?
There are two parts to your question. I would first like to respond to the
geopolitical aspect. If we look at what is happening in China, India and what happened at COP 28, it is clear that we are isolated in Europe in the fight for decarbonization. There is of course the American President, Joe Biden, who is trying to do something to be re-elected, but frankly the United States is not a big supporter of degrowth.
In reality, all developing countries only think of one thing: to draw inspiration from what we have done for 60 years, to have growth with abundant and cheap energy.
The world has never invested so much in the production of oil, gas, coal and nuclear power. This is exactly the opposite of what Europe is currently doing. This is why I say that it is dangerous because we will end up with a utopia which leads us to decline while the rest of the world is developing.
Secondly, the situation is very worrying, because we do not realize that over the last 20 years we have created a monster in Brussels and Strasbourg; a monster formed by NGOs of all types who live in an Ivory Tower.
There is a form of endogamy between NGOs, the European executive and the European Parliament: we convince ourselves by repeating the same thing and money flows freely for all these NGO lobbyists. The European Commission funds these organizations, not directly, since that is prohibited, but through projects, studies and all these studies amplify the dogma that exists in Brussels and Strasbourg.
This ideology is then transmitted to parliamentarians who swallow all these studies and who ask the Commission to continue along this path. There is no longer any resistance in Brussels and Strasbourg, the NGOs have taken power.