The Dutchman Wopke Hoekstra (Bennekom, 1975) became the face of financial intransigence with his criticism of the lack of budgetary discipline in the southern EU countries during the Covid-19 crisis, when he held the Finance portfolio. in Netherlands.
The Christian Democrat politician has been Commissioner for Climate Action since last October, and speaks of the importance of combining actions to combat the climate crisis with a “just transition” while maintaining competitiveness.
The green agenda has been one of the flags of the European Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen, but in recent months, and about to begin the electoral race for the European Parliament that will also illuminate the next community Executive, Brussels accumulates environmental concessions in the midst of the protests in the agricultural sector, for fear of populism.
On Tuesday, Hoekstra presented the Commission's political recommendation to Member States that they must reduce (collectively) their greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2040, an essential step to reach climate neutrality in 2050. The Brussels guidelines (which are not binding and which a regulatory package must follow) are prudent and do not outline a specific plan to progressively end fossil fuels.
Hoekstra, who will be one of the community leaders in leading this dialogue to listen to all sectors announced by Von der Leyen and calm critics who claim that everything is going too fast, talks about seeking a consensus to walk the green path.
“Citizens see that we need to do more in terms of climate action, but they are also concerned about what that will mean for their way of life.”
Ask.
Do you think that the Community Executive's proposal on emissions reduction, the new climate objectives that they set as a guide for 2040, are ambitious enough?
Is the Commission losing ambition due to misgivings about the green agenda?
Answer.
I don't think it's any less ambitious.
I am absolutely convinced that the key to success is ensuring that, hand in hand, we continue climate action.
And that is why it has been proposed that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by 90% in 2040 [compared to 1990].
It has also been possible to combine this with a just transition and, furthermore, with competitiveness.
The reality is that these two need to be improved because, in any EU Member State, citizens see that we need to do more in terms of climate action, but at the same time they are worried about what that will mean for their way of life, because of the consequences it could have on being able to pay energy bills or for your job.
So you can't have one without the other, you need to have both.
And that is the job of the Commission.
Q.
The climate crisis is a reality, we just need to take a look at the data, and yet, the Community Executive has decided to leave the legal part for the next legislature after the more political communication that sets the tone for the Twenty-Seven.
Is it due to the latest protests in the agricultural sector that join others that cry out against the green agenda, which they perceive as imposed by Brussels?
A.
Since I accepted this position [in October 2023] that has always been the schedule.
We are legally obliged to present the communication, but the legislative part will occur during the next mandate, it is natural, it should not be interpreted as any signal.
Q.
Does it take more time?
A.
We want to do things right and have this be the beginning of the dialogue rather than the final destination point.
We want to have a dialogue with civil society, with politicians at all levels, as well as with companies, with industry, with farmers, to make sure that the next step is carried out and receives the greatest possible support.
The job of politicians is to always make sure plans are ambitious, but also to find public support.
That is the nature of being active in a democratic environment.
Q.
Why has the Commission not set the goal of cutting emissions by 95%, as some environmental groups proposed?
A.
There are different scenarios and 90% is an ambitious goal and does justice to the EU's role as an international leader and also does justice to ensuring that we do what we can in our journey from 2030 to 2050, as long as we can meet the requirements priors that are a just transition and competitiveness.
Q.
They have left out of that guideline a specific requirement for emissions from the agricultural sector.
All this in the midst of protests in several countries.
Is it another concession?
A.
What we always do in this type of process is consult with the different services of the Commission and with the commissioners who handle included or collateral issues, with the president... And make compatible the ambition we have with the articulation of prerequisites.
Hence, in general we have refrained from going into great details, precisely because we want to have this as a starting point for all areas of our society and economy.
We are only at the beginning of the debate that is going to begin.
And what I don't want now is to prescribe or insinuate what the result of the process is going to be, because then I would be prejudging how it is going to go, and I would want it to be the other way around.
Q.
There are many voices that say that, step by step, Brussels is retracing a path that it had decidedly started towards a greener agenda, and they attribute this to fear of populism.
A.
I can only articulate what our objective is as a Commission, and that is to ensure that we combine the ambition of that 90% with competitiveness prerequisites and with the just transition.
It is a balance between the extreme needs that we must do more in terms of climate action and the serious concerns of citizens.
Because we are not talking about citizens who oppose climate action: they are the same ones who have suffered drought, floods, intense rains, who say that all this is fine but who are wondering how they can deal with it.
And in life, as in politics, it's not this or that, it's about doing justice to both sides of the equation.
Q.
How do these two legs of climate ambition, competitiveness and the just transition combine?
A.
It is absolutely necessary to have both, but I cannot precisely articulate yet, at this stage, what the innovation tools will look like or how to further improve that transition.
We already have a great set of instruments in the toolbox, but we may need more and we may also need more of the instruments we already have.
I do not want to prejudge, because this will develop over time and will be seen sector by sector.
There are two things of which I am convinced: firstly, if we manage to unite these two legs we will be very successful, also at an international level;
and the second is that we always underestimate as human beings the scale of technological adaptation.
It's much faster than we anticipated.
If we look at the price of solar panels or the adaptation to electric vehicles... And this will also help not only in the climate transition but in business.
Q.
Do you think that the Commission is moving too quickly on climate policy, as some sectors have claimed?
A.
I am not in the habit of criticizing the past.
I am here to face the challenges of the present and the future.
And I see a clear need to continue climate action and also a clear need to couple that with a just transition and with competitiveness.
All those who are trying to put one thing against the other are simplifying things and not doing justice to the task we have.
Q.
You have said several times that the sooner fossil fuels become history, the better.
However, this has not been clearly reflected in the guidance they have set for the EU.
A.
We are very explicit about what will happen with coal.
By 2040 we will have already reduced fossil fuels by 80%, which is very significant —and that is compared to figures from 2021—.
So we're actually doing exactly what we promised.
This is what we have put on the table.
Now, we still have to convince everyone that this should be the path forward.
Q.
Do you think that citizens of the different sectors are aware of the importance of this?
A.
They are aware of the importance of the combination.
And the goal for us should also be—and electric cars are a great example—to make green choices easy and attractive.
If you look at the adaptation curve for electric cars, it has increased by approximately a third from 2022 to 2023. And in several Member States even faster.
Maybe they don't know that we set a deadline of 2035 [on that date combustion cars will not be sold].
And I am convinced that we will have made most of the progress much sooner, because that is what adaptive growth usually looks like.
The same thing happened with mobile phones and we will see a similar trajectory with solar phones, with electric vehicles and with many other techniques if we set the parameters correctly.
Q.
Environmental groups have criticized the way carbon dioxide capture and storage is addressed in the communication they have issued.
Is the Commission erring on the side of optimism by trusting in a technology that is barely developed?
A.
What I find very important, particularly in the area of carbon capture, is that we go beyond ideology.
And to all those who think that with CCS [carbon dioxide capture and storage] or CCU [carbon dioxide capture and utilization, reconverting carbon into, for example, construction materials] they have a magical way out of the problem, I'll tell you there isn't one.
There is no alternative to reducing fossil fuels.
And there is no magic here.
One cannot remain aloof from the problem.
This is what I say to those who think that if we do carbon dioxide capture and storage we don't need to do everything else.
But to those who are against I also say that they cannot leave that option out of the equation for ideological reasons.
In the case of renewables, for example, the debate has also touched on land use.
So it's not just about capturing and storing carbon dioxide, but also about using nature and our soil as a positive force.
Q.
The Commission also points to the development of mini nuclear reactors.
A.
Regarding nuclear energy: the Commission has made it clear that it is within the spectrum of solutions and the taxonomy.
And it is up to the Member States whether they decide to use it or not.
We all know that these are delicate debates in which some Member States are very much in favor, across the political spectrum.
Others are also openly opposed and some countries are more in the middle.
It is understandable and feasible for countries to follow this path and also to look for other solutions, but we cannot afford to continue leaving nuclear energy out of the solution.
You can follow
Climate and Environment
on
and
X
, or sign up here to receive
our weekly newsletter
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I am already a subscriber
_