Climate crisis and (towards) the European elections

Instead of introduction

Climate change. Climate crisis. Climate collapse. Every term and worse – every and last year and better. “Climate change is attributable directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the planet’s atmosphere and that is added to natural climate variations observed over comparable time periods.” This is the definition given in 1992 in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to describe a scientific observation: the increase in Earth’s temperature is attributed to the overconcentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases are produced from the industrial revolution until today, exponentially, from almost all human-made activities, which are intertwined with all kinds of development and improvement of living standards.

Even with this introductory observation, it becomes clear how difficult it is to effectively address climate change. Especially since it has become normalized in everyday jargon and most people seem to show little or no real concern for dealing with the effects of climate change. At the same time, the admission that something is happening, which negatively affects our lives, requires a series of fundamental changes, which no one appears ready to make.

When I was asked to write a piece about the climate crisis and the European elections by ETERON, I immediately accepted, believing that I have something to write. In fact, I’ve spent several hours in front of my computer screen, starting paragraphs that I didn’t finish, jotting down various notes of scattered ideas, and trying to decide what it is that I want to say. Unfortunately, with the European elections in front of us, the stakes are overstated, the response weak and the action – to a large extent – ineffective. The climate crisis is not the elephant in the room of the European elections (see Editorial), or any election taking place this year or any other time. The climate crisis is the room and the elephant is us ostriching, believing that the necessary magical solution will be found and the climate will be stabilized at tolerable levels for human existence. 

The scientific data is crystal clear: we are heading into the unknown, which according to calculations, looks worse than now and before. We have indications: extreme storms that lead to extreme floods, unprecedented and long-lasting high temperatures that lead to prolonged fires, extreme snowfalls and a series of other phenomena – some more visible and some more invisible – which altogether contribute to the degradation of the environment. And very often – if not always – we forget that humans are part of this environment and not above it. Unfortunately, to really address the problem, we need a global solution. At the given time, with what is happening internationally, this perspective seems impossible and it is logical, as there are extraordinary circumstances that require an immediate solution. On the contrary, as already implied, climate change seems like something distant and something we can deal with when we are not facing other problems. Although this is the reality we live in today and it is to be expected, climate change is increasing, leading to more extreme situations which, in turn, will lead to even more conflicts, conflicts and disputes.

In the era of multiple crises, climate change was also upgraded to a crisis, so that it falls under its terminology and is given the meaning of urgency. Nevertheless, in essence, nothing changed beyond the term.

I find it very difficult to write about climate change today: it is an all-pervading issue, it is a new situation in which we are called to live and which – if we wish to improve it – we are called to change the way we live. Today’s fragmented and divisive approach to the issue serves nothing more than the status quo and business-as-usual. The solutions that are usually proposed fall within the context in which we live while, normally, we need the implementation of groundbreaking changes that, whether we like it or not, will modify our daily life and routine. In what we call the Western world, almost no one is ready to accept these changes while, in the so-called developing world, the Holy Grail is living as in the Western world.

Instead of an epilogue

The European Union (EU), to which we belong as a state, and for which the European Parliament will vote next June, has the most comprehensive system for dealing with climate change in the world, thus achieving the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in its territory. This does not mean, however, that the situation is improving in Europe. Emissions continue to rise worldwide, with the result that the effects of climate change are intensifying, including Europe.

Today, however, there is also a visible risk: The results of the European elections may lead to a (partial) departure from the strengthening and expansion of climate policies. This will be due to the looming trend of electing MEPs who either do not believe that climate change is a problem or serve different interests, and the international and global reality that is moving away from belief in climate commitments, putting forward “hard” national interests. The EU is part of this world and cannot (cannot) be an exception. Wars on its borders, the ensuing energy crisis, global competition for goods and services, and more, seem to be forcing the EU to partially reconsider its stance on some of its long-standing policy positions, even the fight against climate change.

The EU, which tries to be the actor that determines the global climate agenda by spreading its rules at the international level, is often marginalized and characterized as arrogant and overly optimistic in international negotiations. Although climate change is recognized by the global community as a kind of threat and has adopted policies to deal with it, which based on scientific estimates could have an effect, there is a significant lack of implementation. The causes are many and mainly have to do with reasons mentioned above.

This problem is also found within the EU. At this stage, adaptation policies are at an extremely early stage, both at the level of planning and at the level of implementation. The EU, with the European Green Deal (2019), the European Climate Law (2021) and the accompanying policy initiatives (e.g., Fit for 55), is focusing significantly on extending the policy of reducing emissions from all anthropogenic activities, aiming for a climate-neutral continent by 2050. It does not, however, focus as much as it should on adaptation policies, which will allow the population of the Union to live in a tolerable environment, without endangering their lives, their property, their daily life of.

The big bet, therefore, for the coming five years is to continue the work of climate change in all EU policies, with the aim of changing the model in the whole range of daily activities. The new members of the European Parliament that will emerge from the European elections will be called upon (a) to approve the new composition of the European Commission and (b) to co-legislate with it, and therefore to press for matters concerning the improvement of the quality of life of the European citizens they represent. For this reason, a strong presence of members promoting a feasible and effective climate (or green) agenda will particularly benefit the EU as a whole. 

We must not overlook, after all, that the EU “is us” and improving its policies will have a positive impact on and for us. Also, we must not forget that the EU is an organization – and like all organizations it has its good and its bad: we must recognize what it offers us and strive to reduce its shortcomings and defects. The EU offers us a high standard of living (the comparison is, of course, on a global scale). And the effective fight against climate change, which will be done in parallel with terms of social justice, will contribute to the improvement of all quality indicators of livelihood.