All that was said in the Maastricht Debate for Climate Change

By Federico Fo, 6 minutes.

Maastricht set the stage for the 2024 Elections for the European Parliament. Eight Spitzenkandidaten have started their election campaigns for their European parties and faced off in a fierce debate. All eyes lie on the current Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, seeking re-election for another five year term. Yet, candidates from the far left to the far right were convinced that they can halt her quest and swing the vote in their favour. 

First, the candidates presented in the opening statement their general remarks. Then, the moderators had one general question prepared. Candidates challenged the answers of their opponents and topic specific discussions erupted. Lastly, one specific question from the audience was asked.  The candidates who participated in such a debate are: Walter Baier for the European Left Party; Bas Eickhout for the European Green Party; Valeriu Ghilețchi for the European Christian Political Movement; Ursula von der Leyen (former president of the Commission running for a second mandate) for the European People’s Party; Maylis Roßberg for the European Free Alliance; Nicolas Schmit for the Party of the European Socialists; Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmerman for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party; and Anders Vistisen for the Identity and Democracy Party. The political debate proposed the exchange of ideas, between the above-mentioned candidates, on three main topics which were chosen through a survey made by the University of Maastricht. The topics consisted of: “Climate Change”, “Foreign and Security Policy” and “EU Democracy”. The following article will focus on the candidates’ answers and arguments provided by them, regarding the topic of Climate Change.

During the debate, the different candidates provided various ideas when referring to the fight against Climate Change; every single one of these ideas in one way or another mentioned the importance of the European Green Deal. The European Green Deal consists of the evolution of the old Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the latter was the tool used by the EU to support the production of agricultural products by EU farmers. The CAP was then changed into the Green Deal in 2020 in the occurrence of the need to fight climate change. The Green Deal proposed the aim to create an economy that can be said to be neutral from the point of view of environmental pollution by 2050.

Most importantly, the candidates often addressed the problems of the Green-Deal. Particularly when referring to the farmers on which the policies of the Green deal have been very burdensome. Indeed, the farmers have recently protested all over Europe against many policies of the Green Deal, managing to convince the president of the Commission Von der Leyen to get rid of them or to change them. This situation exposed the need of the European population to reform the Green Deal, thus making the Green deal one of the main topics of this debate.

The majority of the candidates have expressed their support when referring to the Green Deal even endorsing an upgrade of this latter. Nonetheless, Vistisen and Ghiletchi have shared visions to fight Climate Change which take distance from the Green Deal.

Firstly, Vistisen claimed that the Green Deal is not the solution to fight Climate Change as among its consequences, there is the loss of job opportunities for many Europeans because of its policies of green transition, such as in the case of the farmers; and as it will also bring to a loss of Economic competitiveness to the EU. Indeed, in his opinion the EU in order to fight Climate Change should not aim to have a green economy; but rather the EU should support technological innovation to find new solutions that are more suitable and less socially burdensome to fight Climate Change.

Secondly, Ghiletchi has expressed the importance of climate protection for his party. Nonetheless, the policies of the Green Deal undertaken until now by the EU have had consequences on the well-being of people, thus he is of the idea that a new kind of balance between climate protection and social well-being shall be found. Regarding of this idea, Ghiletchi expressed that such balance may be found by giving back the sovereignty on agricultural policies to the different Member States. This is because Ghiletchi claims that the EU is driven by a green ideology that has damaged social well-being, especially when referring to the farmers.

Differently, when referring to the candidates pro-Green Deal there are different problems to be discussed. Among these, Von der Leyen and Roßberg have firmly affirmed that the Green Deal shall not be seen as an obstacle to economic competitiveness as claimed by Vistisen. But rather, it shall be seen as a solution to economic competitiveness as economic superpowers, such as China and the US, are investing more and more in an economy that can be said to be Climate neutral. Thus, this opinion tries to show the importance that this industry will have in the future for the worldwide economy. Moreover, Von der Leyen claimed that the Green Deal would be a great economic opportunity as with further investments in Green energy, the energy prices would be lower too. Furthermore, replying to the need of protecting jobs suggested by Vistisen, she also stated that further investments to the European Green Deal, and then in new facilities for green energy, would create further employment among Europeans.

Notwithstanding this, all the candidates agreed on the need to change the Green Deal in order to withstand recent and future challenges. Particularly, Zimmerman, Smith and Eickhout have stressed how these changes shall refer to the need for providing further social fairness in order to help the farming sector.

Firstly, Zimmerman points out the need to provide economic support to farmers in order to allow them to fulfill the objectives of economic transition fixed by the Green Deal. Furthermore, she believes that the main obstacle to providing such economic support consists in the bureaucratic strictness present in the EU, which imposes “too many unnecessary red tapes” on the farmers.

Secondly, Smith expressed the importance in further upgrading the Green Deal rather than slowing it down as seen with the concessions made to the farmers. Nevertheless, he also stressed the necessity to make the different climate policies as socially fair, implying the need of social fairness regarding the financing of climate policies. Such social fairness, in his opinion, can be attained by focusing on the problems for which the farmers actually protested. These problems can be summarised in the presence of unfair prices for the farmers’ products providing unfair income to their working sector. In response, Eickhout highlighted how this kind of unfairness comes from the requirements imposed by the Green Deal on farmers, such as the reduction in the use of pesticides on agricultural goods.

Lastly, Eickhout, mostly agreeing with what was stated by Smith, added that the low income for farmers, though has been exacerbated by the Green Deal, is still due to the agro-industry which takes most of their income. In this way, he criticised Von der Leyen who changed the Green Deal in favor of the farmers when she was rather supposed to focus on reforming this model of market which is disadvantageous to the farmers. Regardless of this, Von der Leyen has promised that climate neutrality will be achieved in 2050, as in her opinion, solutions to ensure economic competitiveness, climate protection and social fairness can be found.

Despite all the pro-Green Deal candidates having agreed on the necessity to reform the Green Deal, such a reform can be considered as expensive and in need of investments in order to be attained. During her mandate, Von der Leyen endorsed policies of austerity, lowering the amount of investments which may be gathered. This kind of economic policy has been heavily criticised by both Baier and Eickhout, who want to increase expenses on climate protection, as in their opinion austerity can be seen as a budget limit to the future upgrades of the Green Deal. Baier to increase the funds for the Green Deal and to ensure the efficiency of Climate protection has proposed to “increase the taxes on the rich people”, as they are responsible for most of the emissions. Although Baier established this aim for the Green Deal during the Maastricht Debate, it is rather unclear whether he truly stands by this aim, as it can be considered as a very populist vision.

Differently, Roßberg is more of the idea that further funds may be taken through the further development of economically depressed areas present within the EU, which may be used to enhance the full economic potential of the internal market, thus increasing EU funds. Lastly, in this regard Von der Leyen replied how there is no need to get rid of austerity policies as already 665 billion euros of investments from the next generation EU fund are ready to be used for the European Green Deal. Moreover, she also stated that further funds will come from the so-called “green bonds” and with the completion of the “capital market union”, with this latter ensuring 470 billion euros per year.

To conclude, this political debate has exposed in my opinion the importance that Climate Change will have in the next European elections. Indeed, the choice of the voters will probably depend on their ideas regarding the Green Deal; especially considering  the plan that looks as the most suitable to ensure the Climate protection demanded by the European citizens as further economic and environmental challenges are arising within the different Member States.