German murders in Europe :: Gatestone Institute

In the preliminary impact report, a copy of which financial times Ahead of the official announcement, the European Commission announced that Europe needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 and by 100% by 2050. It is estimated that 1.5 trillion euros will need to be invested. From 2031 to 2050 for him.

1.5 trillion euros per year. This corresponds to his 10% of the entire European Union’s GDP in 2022 each year. Other than the war effort, no purpose of any kind has ever required the diversion of 10% of the continent’s GDP by political edict.

new german utopia

This figure has forced Germany to abandon imposing its hatred of nuclear power on its European partners, while at the same time giving Europe what remains of its environmental utopia, complete decarbonization, even at the cost of economic collapse. It shows that you are determined to impose.freedoms.

You may say that the European Commission is not Germany, but anyone who has worked there will tell you that there are two lobbying forces at this level that are insurmountable. Germany is by far the most powerful country in Europe, followed by environmental NGOs. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have permanent offices in Berlaymont, the headquarters of the European Commission. The fact that the current chairman, Ursula von der Leyen, is German only further emphasizes the Apfelstrudel.

Still, everything in this insane report by the German commission is wrong.

Pseudo-savvy calculations of the commission

The report says the cost of doing nothing would be well over €1.5 trillion a year. Indeed, the report explains that the European Plan: keep Up to 1% of annual GDP. However, it should be noted that this figure contradicts all of the IPCC’s predictions about the costs of global warming. This is 0.03% of annual GDP instead of 1%.

Annex 8 of the Commission’s just-released impact report states:

“The IPCC AR6 Working Group 2 Report (2022) generally confirms that global economic impacts will increase as the degree of global warming increases. However, the estimated range of damage is widespread. , this report does not provide a solid basis due to the lack of comparability between methodologies.”Although estimates vary, the global economic impact is likely to be lower than estimates in previous reports. We recognize that it has the potential to grow. ”

In other words, the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report says that the costs of global warming may actually be greater than those stated in the Fifth Assessment Report.

Unfortunately (due to lack of time, lack of space, lack of ink) the European Commission has dared to repeat what was said in its fifth report, which was both loquacious and accurate on the issue of the costs of global warming. Not yet. Let’s make up for this shortcoming. According to IPCC Report 5 AR5, Chapter 10:

“For most economic sectors, the effects of climate change will be small compared to the effects of other factors… changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices… and many other changes in socio-economic development. The aspects that will affect the supply and demand for economic goods and services are large compared to the effects of climate change.”

In particular, the Paris Agreement, which the European Commission claims to be a part of, aimed to limit global warming to just 1.5°C by 2100. Achieving this goal presupposed a significant global reduction in the human greenhouse effect. global Gas emissions are not limited to Europe. However, since 2015, these global emissions have continued to increase, and there is no realistic scenario in which global emissions will decrease. China and India, which are still building about two new coal-fired power plants a week, continue to squander those predictions.

Of course, climate is a global issue. If Europe cuts its emissions to zero and the rest of the world continues to increase their emissions, the climate impact will be zero. As a result, Germany’s plan will not save a single euro in damage from global warming and extreme events.

Therefore, the investment required each year is not 1.5 trillion euros invested to save 0.03% of GDP per year.For complete change, 30 trillion euros would be invested, or 1.5 trillion euros per year over 20 years. there is nothing in a European climate.

No serious analyst still claims that the objectives of the Paris Agreement will be achieved. The Paris Agreement is outdated and pretending otherwise, as the European Commission is doing, is misleading, irresponsible and even unscientific.

Moreover, the report further states that reducing Europe’s fossil fuel imports could lead to savings of up to €2.8 trillion between 2031 and 2050. At present, there is no technical or scientific way to overcome the intermittent nature of renewable energy. Wind, solar. As a result, Europe’s energy mix will have to continue to rely on fossil fuels in addition to nuclear power, as demonstrated by Germany, a champion of lignite and carbon dioxide.₂ emissions – and emit 10 times more CO2₂ Moreover, this pseudo-sensible calculation assumes that oil and gas prices are known in advance and that shale gas development remains prohibited under them. European soil.

The European Commission’s report shows a frightening rush. The situation in Europe is already dramatic. Since 2008, America’s GDP has doubled her. This means that the American’s income is now double what she was in 2008. Since 2008, European GDP has stagnated. This means that Europeans are increasingly taxed, harassed, and prevented from moving, building, starting, innovating, and starting families as they see fit, while their incomes do not increase. It means that.

The shale revolution means the United States could now become the world’s largest oil and gas producer had President Joe Biden not disrupted domestic energy production on his first day in office. Benefiting from his move were Russia, Iran, and China. China will be able to sell cheaper coal more easily, thereby polluting the climate even more.

“In the meantime,” said Gideon Lachman, the newspaper’s chief foreign affairs commentator. financial times“European energy prices have soared.”

“Due to the Ukraine war and the loss of cheap Russian gas, European industry typically pays three to four times more for energy than its U.S. competitors. They say it is already leading to factory closures in Europe.”

In fact, our entire population is entering a pattern of degrowth, the ultimate dream of environmentalists. In other words, their poverty. Giorgos Kallis, a prominent figure in the field of environmental economics, recently argued for the need to adopt a “degrowth” paradigm rather than the traditional GDP-based model. He argues that economies can and must thrive while simultaneously reducing inequality and increasing overall well-being.

scenario

There are three possible scenarios.

In the first scenario, the EU would cling to Germany’s green utopia, throwing all of Europe even deeper into the recession in which Germany is already languishing. Against the backdrop of the current economic stagnation, Europe cannot afford to allocate her 10% of annual GDP to unaffordable, unreliable and intermittent energy sources. The popular revolt will grow further and the current peasant revolt will resemble “Pat the Bunny.” It should be clear that our democracy cannot withstand deliberately orchestrated impoverishment by “elites” who have gone crazy trying to promote an unproven green ideology.

In the second scenario, the EU would not cancel the European Green Deal, but its entry into force would simply be postponed (i.e. postponed). This scenario condemns Europe to what economists Lawrence Summers and Henri Lepage, modeled on Japan, termed “secular stagnation,” a state of negligible or no economic growth in a market economy.

A third scenario would see a new majority come to power through European elections in June. After all, what good are democratic elections if they don’t allow for policy change? and dismantle (repeal) all European Green Deal legislation that has become irrelevant or economically harmful to the poorest people in the current world climate.

Ironically, if we believe the IPCC’s predictions, global warming may occur, and we will adapt to it through innovation. All the resources that Europe is wasting in fanciful “energy transitions” that have failed, and will continue to fail, will only deplete funds we will never have for innovation. What will Europe do when these false ideologies permanently destroy its economy?

Drieu Godefridi is a legal scholar (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain), philosopher (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain), and PhD in legal theory (University Paris IV Sorbonne). He is an entrepreneur, CEO of the European Private Education Group and Director of PAN Medias Group.he is the author of green empire (2020).