Page 21
EU
American custom and move towards a more patriarchal, intention-reliant view of marriage. All that is left now is to wait for gravity to take effect.
Assessing the European Green Deal Scott Murphy SS Law and Political Science The European Green Deal (EGD) is a framework of legislation, regulations, and targets introduced by the European Commission in response to the increasingly politicised climate crisis. Given that new European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen lauded the Deal as Europe’s “man on the moon moment”, the EGD policy framework deserves scrutiny. The EGD provides a roadmap for the European Union’s (EU) transformation from a carbon-intensive economy to one with net zero emissions - that is, carbon emitted will equal carbon removed from the atmosphere by 2050. Other central aims of the Deal include: achieving a 50-55 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to pre-1990 levels (an increase from the previous aim of 40 per cent); creating an EU carbon border tax for exports from non-EU countries with less ambitious climate targets; establishing 2030 climate and energy targets for member states; and creating a Just Transition Fund worth €100 billion to ensure an equitable transition for workers in the fossil fuel sector. So how should we conceive of the European Green Deal? Firstly, the introduction of a transcontinental, longterm climate plan is a positive step forward. An internationally coordinated response to tackling the climate crisis is essential due to its global nature. The Deal also improves on previous EU climate targets – in good part due to the millions of climate protestors who have demanded greater political ambition on this issue over the past two years. The EU’s intention to reshape every sector of the EU economy in light of environmental concerns is also a welcome development. However, despite these positive steps forward, the content of the Green Deal has many of the same flaws as EU policies of old. These can be grouped into three main categories: climate action, climate justice, and ideological policy approach. 1: Climate action According to the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we must limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, rather than 2°C as previously thought. Failure to do so will likely result in several hundred million more people being exposed to climate catastrophes such as severe droughts, crop failures, and extreme heat. Greenpeace has noted that the Green Deal target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50-55 per cent by 2030, compared to pre-1990 levels, would be insufficient to meet even the 2°C target, let alone the 1.5°C. Rather, a 65 per cent reduction must be achieved by 2030 to meet the IPCC’s 1.5°C target. In light of this information, the EU’s targets seem reckless and portray a complete disregard for human and non-human life. Activist Greta Thunberg notably denounced the Deal’s targets as “surrender.” 2: Climate justice Climate justice refers to the view that climate change is not just an environmental issue but an intersectional one which is inseparable from social justice. Climate justice demands that climate action be taken in a way that protects those vulnerable to the effects of climate change and the transition to a green economy. Two worrying aspects of the Green Deal for climate justice advocates are refugees and the Just Transition Fund. Climate justice necessitates wealthier nations welcoming in refugees who are displaced by climate catastro-
