
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 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.
Moreover I believe that it is important to reduce the number of waste produced each year, in particular by developing and improving recycling.
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 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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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, 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".
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.
- 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.
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