The European Green Deal seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions and engage citizens and all parts of society to participate in fighting climate change. The goal: Europe shall be the world's first climate-neutral continent. Indeed, the climate emergency has mobilised the EU to commit to a target of climate neutrality across all member states by 2050.
As part of this objective, MEPs voted on 7th October 2020 with a 392 majority to amend the EU’s climate target for 2030, supporting a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade, up from 40% formerly.
Now it’s your turn: How can we resolve the climate emergency before it’s too late? What would a young European Green Deal look like?
- If you built a young European Green Deal against climate change, what would you focus on?
- How can the European Parliament encourage Member States to become climate neutral by 2050?
- Could the EU impose sanctions on Member States who fail to work towards these new targets?
- Can global enterprises be influenced by the EU to accept greater responsibility in the fight to climate neutrality by 2050?
Euroscola Session
Environment and climate change
We have selected some resources to provide young people like you with background information and insights linked to the topic above.
Share your ideas below!
Share your idea
Try to be as concrete as possible when sharing your idea. The more in depth you go the more impactful your answer will be.
In order to act against the global warming I believe that countries should use more/only renewable energies like solar power, wind power and hydropower.
Moreover I believe that it is important to reduce the number of waste produced each year, in particular by developing and improving recycling.
Moreover I believe that it is important to reduce the number of waste produced each year, in particular by developing and improving recycling.
Transports are ranked 2nd most polluting field at the moment. Though we live in a globalised world that enhances the use of planes and boats, the EU should promote local consumption and set goals of improving transports such as cars in an eco-friendly way, with the help of experts.
the EU could impose sanctions on Member States who fail to work towards these new targets, because we all need to fight for a better environment! If we don't respect or fail to improve it, we should be sanctioned, it could motivate people to change their behaviors.
The focus should actually be on facilitating business with the right FRAM work to improve the environment, and also focus on building more sustainable in order to stop the import from countries over an ocean away. Producing more on EU territory. Fewer offices in the EU will improve innovation. We have a lot of good, bright minds here, but they often go to places where it's easier to start businesses because of the boom within the EU. The incentive to innovate should be great. With the aim of making it easier for people to find solutions to our crisis.
Of course, they can succeed. There are many examples of good incentives or rules around the world. Simple and effective. . In addition, citizens / residents could fight climate change by changing our lifestyle, for example by buying reusable products and not just disposable items.
The focus should actually be on facilitating business with the right FRAM work to improve the environment, and also focus on building more sustainable in order to stop the import from countries over an ocean away. Producing more on EU territory. Fewer offices in the EU will improve innovation. We have a lot of good, bright minds here, but they often go to places where it's easier to start businesses because of the boom within the EU. The incentive to innovate should be great. With the aim of making it easier for people to find solutions to our crisis.
Of course, they can succeed. There are many examples of good incentives or rules around the world. Simple and effective. . In addition, citizens / residents could fight climate change by changing our lifestyle, for example by buying reusable products and not just disposable items.
As young people, we are directly concerned by the fashion industry, which is one of the most polluting fields. The idea of a greener and more responsible consumption is developing around the world and it begins to have a real impact. However, big brands use this movement as a trend to improve more and more their profit. What about real regulations in the fashion industry ? Can we stop "green washing" which is not a solution for our planet. Trading, recycling and reusing need to be more developed. Thank you !
To keep our environment clean, we can do following. Our authorities should put pressure on companies and organizations to reduce their waste by taking care of their promotional materials. It would mean reduced production of leaflets (considering most of them end up as waste) and more ads made of recycled materials. Maybe we need to search for alternatives in promotion, such as using QR codes.
In favor of the green deal, perhaps can we increase the surface of protected natural areas (or natural parks). This could reshuffle an ecosystem (protected species, etc.) and reduce CO2 (via photosynthesis of plants, etc.).
The only constraint is to don't impact the environment by humans (except perhaps the regulation of predators). This is easily conceivable (requires however a vast territory).
The only constraint is to don't impact the environment by humans (except perhaps the regulation of predators). This is easily conceivable (requires however a vast territory).
In the future, we would like to see more green spaces in the centers of big cities. Not only is the presence of green areas good for air quality, but also for residents who want to get away from buildings, asphalt, traffic and escape into the nature. Likewise, the destruction of the city's green areas should be banned and it should be determined exactly where in the city should be the areas meant for construction of buildings, and where for parks, forests and nature walks. Our proposal is for the authorities to repeatedly donate seedlings to citizens in order to encourage them to plant. We also believe that it would be desirable to educate citizens on how we can grow our own food (fruits, vegetables, spices) which would result in more greenery on private lands while afforestation actions should be organized to create more green areas in public lands. It would also be useful to plant trees, hedges and ornamental plants near children's playgrounds so that children are surrounded by greenery early in their youth.
Even though Green Deal’s main goal is to achieve environmental benefits, I see Green Deal not only as environmental but primary as an economic plan. It would be naive to rely on altruism and goodwill only; new measures must have economic benefits in addition to ecological ones. Therefore, I consider the circular economy as the economic model of the future. To be specific, I am particularly interested in renting as a way to improve quality of life. Today it is common to rent an apartment or a car, but we need to think beyond that. We could rent anything from clothes to electric devices. Numerous people can use the same product (reuse), and when the product is used up, they can return it to the producer who will use its components for new products (recycle). This model might be appealing to both costumers and producers since it represents a compromise of excessive buying and sustainable waste disposal. Since environmental issues are global and not just local concerns, this approach can give results only if the whole community adopts it. One company is not enough, one person is not enough.
How can government and EU help? Tax breaks for those who use this economic model and raised taxes for those who don’t may encourage switching to the circular economy, just as financial injections for a transition period. Furthermore, there should be educations and campaigns promoting it in order to acknowledge the benefits of this system.
How can government and EU help? Tax breaks for those who use this economic model and raised taxes for those who don’t may encourage switching to the circular economy, just as financial injections for a transition period. Furthermore, there should be educations and campaigns promoting it in order to acknowledge the benefits of this system.
In Spain, we have been producing a lot of energy by using renewable sources.. My idea is using the facilities where indutries have been closed to put renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. Also, we can give unemployed people an oportunity, thanks to the implementation of companies that produce the components of those cells. I got this idea because in my region, there were two thermal power plants that have been closed down. And I saw that this could be an oportunity to use the facilities of those power plants to help the country, because even though we have lots of wind towers and we used to live thanks to the mine coals, we want the best to our region, our country and our planet.
Since the change should always begin from our own community, to reduce the effects of global warming we can change some of our everyday habits and systems. What concerns us the most in Pula is that Kaštijun is the only place specified for the disposal of large waste. Due to wrong estimations and a decreasing budget, Kaštijun's work is based on losses. It is increasing the bills of citizens, that at the same time have no appropriate place for large waste disposal, so it is piling up at the shores of Valelunga, Portić, Zonka and other places around Pula. Modernization of the landfill's system is needed, and also a way to use the fuel and biowaste that is extracted by processing the waste. The money made from that investment should then be invested in promotion of the service. By doing that, we would reduce the emission of the harmful gasses that are currently sky high, which is of course favorable for the environment, the atmosphere and the health of the citizens. Furthermore, the investment into recycling could also solve the problem of heating in our homes, by the example of the waste incinerator in Wien. (Jakov Benčić, Lara Plastić, Mara Kirin, Carla Rosanda, Leonarda Jakovljević, Martina Pahljina i Sara Baračić)
„Guided by a saying of Mahatma Gandhi „ Be the change you want to see in the world“ we think that changes need to come from local commuinty. It's easy to detect problems, but offering solutions is hard and lacking in our society. We suggest to close the traffic in city center of Pula. We to encourage using public transport and bicycles. We appeal to city authorities to close the city center and build a big parking garage at the entrance of the city. By that we would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The problem of coming to town would be solved with electrical buses that would constantly transport people. We want to point out the lack of bike paths in our city. That would be solved by closing city center. It's not ideal solution but every change even a smallest one is a step forward.“
Although we are all aware of the negative effects our actions have on the environment, we don't seem to be willing to change our lifestyles in order to slow down climate change.
In my view, not enough importance is given to the environment and the damage we are doing to it. I live in an area whose main economic activity until the 1990s was mining. When this whole industry closed down, nobody cared about all the rubble and waste that was left at the gates of the mines. Today, our region is surrounded by huge mountains of rubble and the water in our rivers still has a blackish tinge because of the coal.
On the other hand, we are starting to promote the use of renewable energies. Our mountains are being filled with windmills and all those thermal power stations are starting to be dismantled, thus avoiding a great deal of harmful gases for our atmosphere and, consequently, for the environment.
Yet this is not enough. Many members of the European Union, and of the world, should follow the example of countries such as Norway, Sweden and Germany, promoters of responsible development.
The European Union could promote a series of laws or decrees that force its members to change their lifestyles to a more efficient and responsible one. This is a very difficult task and some countries may not comply, in which case, legal methods and sanctions should be used to express the need for this change. We are in a situation of extreme urgency and with the global pandemic we have been involved in for almost a year now, everything to do with the environment has been put on the back burner. We could gradually become more sustainable and environmentally conscious countries.
In my view, not enough importance is given to the environment and the damage we are doing to it. I live in an area whose main economic activity until the 1990s was mining. When this whole industry closed down, nobody cared about all the rubble and waste that was left at the gates of the mines. Today, our region is surrounded by huge mountains of rubble and the water in our rivers still has a blackish tinge because of the coal.
On the other hand, we are starting to promote the use of renewable energies. Our mountains are being filled with windmills and all those thermal power stations are starting to be dismantled, thus avoiding a great deal of harmful gases for our atmosphere and, consequently, for the environment.
Yet this is not enough. Many members of the European Union, and of the world, should follow the example of countries such as Norway, Sweden and Germany, promoters of responsible development.
The European Union could promote a series of laws or decrees that force its members to change their lifestyles to a more efficient and responsible one. This is a very difficult task and some countries may not comply, in which case, legal methods and sanctions should be used to express the need for this change. We are in a situation of extreme urgency and with the global pandemic we have been involved in for almost a year now, everything to do with the environment has been put on the back burner. We could gradually become more sustainable and environmentally conscious countries.
The COVID-19 has been bothering us for almost one year.
Our lives have been interrupted in all aspects. Some global important problems, like global warming or the removal of garbage of the oceans have been forgotten for a while.
I am interested in how Europe is going to act to solve this enviroment questions.
Our lives have been interrupted in all aspects. Some global important problems, like global warming or the removal of garbage of the oceans have been forgotten for a while.
I am interested in how Europe is going to act to solve this enviroment questions.
Start focussing on memberstates like poland who are not doing anything to prevent climate change, instead of focussing on well-willing countries who do do a lot to prevent it. Focus on those where the biggest gain is possible.
Start focussing on nuclear energy instead of solar and wind. Combine everything, but focus in nuclear.
Do not force memberstates to be climate neutral in 2050. Move this to 2070 or 2100 to give memberstates more time to adjust and adjust more efficient, without putting monney in the wrong energy sources.
Do not force memberstates to be climate neutral in 2050. Move this to 2070 or 2100 to give memberstates more time to adjust and adjust more efficient, without putting monney in the wrong energy sources.
Climate change is increasingly affecting our planet. Nevertheless, many people seem to pay no attention to it. To change this, I think we should start by buying products that contain less plastic and above all think about recycling them. To continue, I think we should organize environnemental days in school to raise awareness among students as much as possible. Furthermore, we know that climate change is linked to pollution which is generally caused by smoke and gases produced by factories, cars, businesses, non-renewable energy sources. One of the solution to this problem would be first use the car when it is really necessary or to promote public transport or carpooling in order to limit the number of cars. Secondly, promote the use of renewable energy sources in homes.
The government, let alone a transnational entity, should under no circumstances have such great control over the individual, whether it is through controls on consumption or production.
Manmade climate change is real. Yes, it is a fact that we may have a few more natural disasters in our future, than we would otherwise have, but what has been pretty effective in curbing the effects of those catastrophes on human lives, is industrialization and modern technology.
Any attempt to limit human productivity, which is the only reasonable result of any government action on this matter, can only serve to harm the well being of mankind. Thus one could rightfully claim, that any attempts at stopping climate change, by means of coordinated action against human production, are misanthropic in nature.
In fact technology is at a point where through nuclear energy and electric vehicles, in the near future we will probably be a able to limit our fossil fuel dependance, to the point where it is practically non-existant. Unfortunately the governments of Europe, except that of France, have done a great deal to sabotage the spread of the former. Proving once again that government intervention is the problem, not the solution.
Alas! It is morally right to "save the earth" when it is done voluntarily and for the benefit of mankind. Framing the issue this way, leaves no room for government action, whether it is local, national or transnational.
Manmade climate change is real. Yes, it is a fact that we may have a few more natural disasters in our future, than we would otherwise have, but what has been pretty effective in curbing the effects of those catastrophes on human lives, is industrialization and modern technology.
Any attempt to limit human productivity, which is the only reasonable result of any government action on this matter, can only serve to harm the well being of mankind. Thus one could rightfully claim, that any attempts at stopping climate change, by means of coordinated action against human production, are misanthropic in nature.
In fact technology is at a point where through nuclear energy and electric vehicles, in the near future we will probably be a able to limit our fossil fuel dependance, to the point where it is practically non-existant. Unfortunately the governments of Europe, except that of France, have done a great deal to sabotage the spread of the former. Proving once again that government intervention is the problem, not the solution.
Alas! It is morally right to "save the earth" when it is done voluntarily and for the benefit of mankind. Framing the issue this way, leaves no room for government action, whether it is local, national or transnational.
In my opinion, in order to change the destiny of our planet, it is necessary to reinforce the controls of all industries, farms, and homes, in particular for the disposal of rubbish and use of the renewable energy sources
I think that an important step forward to fight climate change is to organize the administration of waste materials in a better way. More funds for the companies and organizing the work of employees is necessary to reduce pollution.
IN ORDER TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE, WE HAVE TO CHANGE OUR LIFESTYLE. WE SHOULD BEGIN FROM OUR DAILY LIFE, FOR EXAMPLE, BUYING RE-USABLE PRODUCTS AND NOT ONLY DISPOSABLE THINGS. IN ADDITION, WE SHOULD BUY LOCAL AND BIOLOGICAL FOOD. IF WE WANT TO REDUCE POLLUTION, IT IS NECESSARY TO USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTS OR BYCICLES. THESE ARE ALL "SMALL" ADVICES WE ALL SHOULD FOLLOW... BUT THEY CAN BRING "GREAT" RESULTS.
IN ORDER TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE, WE HAVE TO CHANGE OUR LIFESTYLE. WE SHOULD BEGIN FROM OUR DAILY LIFE, FOR EXAMPLE, BUYING RE-USABLE PRODUCTS AND NOT ONLY DISPOSABLE THINGS. IN ADDITION, WE SHOULD BUY LOCAL AND BIOLOGICAL FOOD. IF WE WANT TO REDUCE POLLUTION, IT IS NECESSARY TO USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTS OR BYCICLES. THESE ARE ALL "SMALL" ADVICES WE ALL SHOULD FOLLOW... BUT THEY CAN BRING "GREAT" RESULTS.
Most of us are aware of the negative effects that human activity has on the climate. Despite this, the mentality does not seem to be changing.
In my opinion, we should not only educate about this matter from a very young age but also the elderly in order to change our consumption and lifestyle. Moreover, "low-tech" should be more developed and promoted than high-tech, which does not take into account social and environmental issues. Low-tech, on the other hand, seeks to create "useful", accessible and sustainable objects.
In addition, in the fiel of construction for example, we can turn to eco-design techniques. Such as the use of adobe (earth) which does not require combustion, comes from local ressources and has a good thermal inertia. Futhermore, still in thermal insulation, wood and straw are an effective combination. With the efficient use of bio-sources materials, we can limit the environmental footprint of a building site. Low-tech processes are real assets for the future. However, the help of public authorities is necessary because the obstacles are not only financial and technical but also regulatory and cultural.
Finally, some reseach published in Nature Climate Change, has shown that new technology will not save us, we need to focus more on the cultural, social and political aspects. Michael and Joyce Huesemann emphasis this idea in their book: Techno-Fix: Why Technology Won't Save Us or the Environment. For them, relying on new technologies is a "suicidal mission".
In my opinion, we should not only educate about this matter from a very young age but also the elderly in order to change our consumption and lifestyle. Moreover, "low-tech" should be more developed and promoted than high-tech, which does not take into account social and environmental issues. Low-tech, on the other hand, seeks to create "useful", accessible and sustainable objects.
In addition, in the fiel of construction for example, we can turn to eco-design techniques. Such as the use of adobe (earth) which does not require combustion, comes from local ressources and has a good thermal inertia. Futhermore, still in thermal insulation, wood and straw are an effective combination. With the efficient use of bio-sources materials, we can limit the environmental footprint of a building site. Low-tech processes are real assets for the future. However, the help of public authorities is necessary because the obstacles are not only financial and technical but also regulatory and cultural.
Finally, some reseach published in Nature Climate Change, has shown that new technology will not save us, we need to focus more on the cultural, social and political aspects. Michael and Joyce Huesemann emphasis this idea in their book: Techno-Fix: Why Technology Won't Save Us or the Environment. For them, relying on new technologies is a "suicidal mission".
The idea of using renewable sources of energy is widely thought the best way to have the nature by our side and reduce the level of C02 on our planet. We all have seen the huge wind generators standing on the top of the mountains. It is commonly thought that generators have an important impact on taking advantage of the renewable sources of energy. In fact wind generators are a serious enemy of nature. After several studies results have demonstrated that the price of the machines are massive and overcome the “accepted price” for environmental improvement . Also the generators last from 2 to 4 years. Those "giants" after some time, are getting buried in very big wind generators dump.
It would be a significant improvement in the field of technology and environmental studies if watermills replaced wind generators. From the ancient years (ex. Egypt, Greece) civilizations used watermills with the aim of having water supply in their home. With the pressure of water, watermills will produce electricity. In order to achieve that it would be a good idea if all countries of the world contribute to the “race” of making the planet a better place. Especially countries with powerful economy could take the responsibility of investing on watermills. Seasides would be the perfect spot to build a watermill. The results could be beneficial for everyone .This is a possible solution to avoid spending money and energy . and reduce the emission of carbon. These idea will have a positive impact on our planet. For example greenhouse effect will find a serious “enemy”. Finally all humans will be taking advantage of the beauty of our nature while making the earth better for us and for the upcoming generations.
It would be a significant improvement in the field of technology and environmental studies if watermills replaced wind generators. From the ancient years (ex. Egypt, Greece) civilizations used watermills with the aim of having water supply in their home. With the pressure of water, watermills will produce electricity. In order to achieve that it would be a good idea if all countries of the world contribute to the “race” of making the planet a better place. Especially countries with powerful economy could take the responsibility of investing on watermills. Seasides would be the perfect spot to build a watermill. The results could be beneficial for everyone .This is a possible solution to avoid spending money and energy . and reduce the emission of carbon. These idea will have a positive impact on our planet. For example greenhouse effect will find a serious “enemy”. Finally all humans will be taking advantage of the beauty of our nature while making the earth better for us and for the upcoming generations.
- We should focus on building more sustainable: to stop the import from contries over an ocean away. Producing more on EU teritory. Encurage local business to use local materials, to build their one products more durable and easy to repair, to search for a new recipe with new ingredients.
- Support the adapter, keep helping the one's that chose to reach that level. Is time for action not for point at the rotten apple.
- Depends on how hard they try, if you not even trying. It can be easy money to use in other sectors.
- We are all in the same boat, we are all sinking. We all the help available to repair it.
- Support the adapter, keep helping the one's that chose to reach that level. Is time for action not for point at the rotten apple.
- Depends on how hard they try, if you not even trying. It can be easy money to use in other sectors.
- We are all in the same boat, we are all sinking. We all the help available to repair it.
Focus: The focus should actually be on easing business, with the right fram work for environmental improvement. Less bureacracy within the entire EU will boost innovation. We have a lot of good smart minds here, but often they go to places where it is easier to get companies started because of bureacracy within the EU. The goals should be clear and the process easy. The penalties should also be high. The incentive to innovate here hould be great. With the goal to make it easy for people to find the solutions for our crisis.
Encourage: Reform the EU. When you want the support of the people you have to give the decision to the people. Make the EU for Europeans. E.g. allow paneuropean parties in the EU-parliament elections. This would change the national political discussion to an discussion within the entire EU. You would not see the EU fron a nationalistic lense (with all nationalistic problems, like parties that only use the EU-parliament elecetions to make propaganda for national elections), but establishes a shared political identity. We would agree or disagree with people no matter which country and vote for the (in our opinion) best parties to be in the parliament. To clearify. I mean that the parties can be formed, located and composed of any European citizens. No national parties representing Euroepans anymore. Also, the direct election of the EU-commission president. This would also make people feel directly represented, which in turn encourages all of us to stick to the decided goals. When they don´t feel like they are being imposed on us, but were our choices we try to stick to them and reach them.
Sanctions: See point 2. It depends how the measurements are implemented. Sanctioning of imposed goals will not be taken in a good way. Sanctions for not reaching a goal you agreed yourself to is way mroe accepted and should be done.
Influenced: Of course they can. There are plenty of examples worldwide of good incentives or regulations. Easy and effective.
Encourage: Reform the EU. When you want the support of the people you have to give the decision to the people. Make the EU for Europeans. E.g. allow paneuropean parties in the EU-parliament elections. This would change the national political discussion to an discussion within the entire EU. You would not see the EU fron a nationalistic lense (with all nationalistic problems, like parties that only use the EU-parliament elecetions to make propaganda for national elections), but establishes a shared political identity. We would agree or disagree with people no matter which country and vote for the (in our opinion) best parties to be in the parliament. To clearify. I mean that the parties can be formed, located and composed of any European citizens. No national parties representing Euroepans anymore. Also, the direct election of the EU-commission president. This would also make people feel directly represented, which in turn encourages all of us to stick to the decided goals. When they don´t feel like they are being imposed on us, but were our choices we try to stick to them and reach them.
Sanctions: See point 2. It depends how the measurements are implemented. Sanctioning of imposed goals will not be taken in a good way. Sanctions for not reaching a goal you agreed yourself to is way mroe accepted and should be done.
Influenced: Of course they can. There are plenty of examples worldwide of good incentives or regulations. Easy and effective.
121 COMMENTS