a few weeks ago, one of my neighbors is a question that I haven't been able to stop thinking about since.
It was spring cleaning of the yard and when korvgrillningen got started she wanted to talk with me about the EUROPEAN elections.
She was upset that the parties did not take climate policy more seriously and wondered: Why don't the politicians our concerns and allow climate change to dominate the EUROPEAN elections? She had expected a much more intense climate debate.
that she is not alone. Voters believe that climate is the most powerful electoral factor and it is pretty sad that the parties do not do everything to mobilize the great commitment that actually exists. A EUROPEAN election is also the best possible opportunity for a climate debate that focuses on the future.
The strange thing is that the EUROPEAN union, the dusty old coal - and stålunionens followers, actually is tailor-made to be able to do something about our times-climate change.
”Yesterday's sovereign states can no longer solve today's problems”, wrote Jean Monnet, the man who presented the idea behind the coal and steel community. The decision making procedure as Monnet suggested, therefore involved a completely new way to stick the mandatory laws that would apply across national borders.
It was a startling thought, also in the 1950s. Many of the nation most ardent defenders – from the right to the left – hated Monnet's method, and so it is to this day.
must, of course, be used with moderation, sans, and balance.
Monnet underestimated the democratic deficit was built into the union and therefore the EU-the power not to meddle in everything. But in order to do something about the climate crisis is the EU's decision making procedure very well.
No single country can affect the global climate-changing emissions much on its own. And the UN agreement based on voluntary commitments. But the EU has the power and the ability to push through klimatlagar that the member states must follow. Otherwise, waiting trial in the EUROPEAN court of justice and heavy fines.
It is the only supranational organization in the whole world who works that way. Thanks to the Monnet method, the EU has also managed to do a lot of that goes in the right direction.
Not enough, because the emissions are increasing again slightly, but between 1990 and 2016, the reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide in the EU, with 24 per cent.
, which is to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020, was reached already in 2015.
My neighbor asked a very good question: Why pouring the parties do not proposal of the us on what the EU can do to reduce emissions?
in Part, this is a result of that the european economy has had problems, but not only. There has also been a political will to reduce emissions.
In the climate policy, the EU-parliament, legislative power, and during the past parliamentary term, parliament has been enacting a wide range of new, tougher klimatlagar which will hopefully make the difference.
, emissions trading, and the so-called ansvarsfördelningsförordningen, which indicates how large emissions, member states may have in, for example, traffic and other areas that are not included in the ETS. These stricter EU laws will probably force down emissions in the future. There are also far-reaching plans on how the EU should proceed.
the EUROPEAN commission has presented a very radical approach, which means that the EU will be so-called ”climate neutral” by 2050, which means nettonollutsläpp of greenhouse gases. If the strategy is to become a reality learn it require hard political work in the coming years.
Here, then, are how much at any time to discuss.
r debate is, for example, why so many Swedish parties say no to a carbon tax in the EU.
It is said that the ets is a good option. Tax policy is nationally approved and, therefore, it is difficult to get through a EUROPEAN tax on carbon dioxide, because most member states do not want to have one. As well as that tax on emissions must be valid throughout the world in order to be meaningful.
All of this is true. At the same time, almost all scientists agree that a global tax on carbon would be the single easiest, fastest, and most effective way to reduce emissions in the world.
Why would the EU not be able to walk in the forefront of such a global klimatskatt, even if it takes time to implement?
t understand why not the EU would be able to have a jointly agreed minimum tax on carbon dioxide, when the union already has rules for coordination of, for example, vat.
considering klimatkrisens seriously, it is the right överspänt to consider the taxes as the national självbestämmandets holy grail.
My neighbor put simply a very good question: Why pouring the parties do not proposal of the us on what the EU can do to reduce emissions? If the policy has the task and meaning is the here and now.