Subscribe
Between 10 and 13 June, the conservative parliamentary group ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists) held a meeting in Stockholm where they organized three “study days” in order to discuss and develop their policy.
One of the topics discussed was the EU’s energy policy. And the question for the working session that concluded the entire conference was “How does Climate and Energy Policy Affect the Cost of Living in Europe”.
If we take the background first, it is well known that conservative parties across Europe are skeptical when it comes to climate alarmism. This can be understood in different ways. It is partly about an anti-intellectual vein that exists within all conservatism, where they distrust the ability of researchers and thinkers to use their intellect to calculate and describe how we should best live. Conservatives like to rely on tradition and culture, on intuition and habits. And conservatives think they know from experience that left-wing thinkers – whether they are pure liberals or Marxists of various stripes – believe they can shape society with the help of their intellectual power. What liberals and Marxists present as objective and scientifically based knowledge is often in reality colored by their ideological preferences.
But it is also about what is reasonable to do from a political perspective. The major emitting nations, the USA, China, India, may not change their policies regarding carbon dioxide emissions just because the EU does so. Instead, they can benefit from Europe’s deteriorating competitiveness when electricity becomes more expensive and when emission restrictions hamper industry. The solution to this, according to the EU elites and according to the political left in a broad sense, is for growth to occur with the help of the green transition. But we may not have really seen this happening yet, or it must be allowed to happen by itself. It may not be possible to force a green transition before the technology and the economy are ready, many conservatives think.
And here, the ambitious climate goals that the EU has set could become an obstacle to Europe’s industry and growth and thus also to our security. A secure Europe that can afford to invest in the rearmament of our common defense must be a rich Europe that can afford to make the military investments that are required. And then it may not be appropriate to impose a green transition on the EU that our economies are not ready for yet.
The moderator of the discussion on climate and energy policy was the Swedish researcher and economist Christian Sandström. Sandström has made himself known in Sweden for being a sharp critic of what he calls green bubbles. This concerns industrial investments where large public funds are invested in accordance with politicians’ wishes to accelerate environmentally friendly social development. But politicians are often too optimistic. And since there are large public funds to be obtained, cynics from the business community will also jump in and try to milk the money out as long as possible.
In an interview with the YouTube channel Riks Europe that was conducted in connection with the conference in Stockholm, Christan Sandström said that the phenomenon of green bubbles does not only exist in Sweden, although it has been remarkably common there (the latest known example is the breakdown at the Northvolt battery factory). Increasingly, says Sandström, the reality is that green bubbles are also emerging and bursting in the rest of Europe. He mentions the crashed electricity system in Spain, the German Energiewende, failed hydrogen projects in Germany and in other countries. “This is definitely a European dilemma,” says Sandström, and a dilemma for the EU because it originated in Brussels.
It is about the large-scale projects that the EU is co-financing with the aim of accelerating the green transition. Money comes from the EU’s Innovation Fund, from the Corona Fund and the European Investment Bank. This is the fuel that has now created and risks creating green bubbles because wishful thinking takes precedence over realism and because cynical people in the business community may try to access the public funds that the EU is investing in.
Sandström believes that the green bubbles are created by an ideological mindset that says that we must constantly develop, create new jobs, a green export industry and a so-called sustainable future. Sandström refers to his own research and his own books and believes that if an industrial project sounds too good to be true, it often is and too good to be true and that is what we have seen, for example, in the case of Northvolt in Sweden.
Sandström also says that the thinking around the forced green transition is based on the idea that the state, the public sector, should function like a company. It is a thinking that currently dominates the entire EU. The only problem is that it does not work. Politicians are often attracted by this thinking. Now they are entrepreneurs and visionaries. Now they are the ones who lead not only politics but also economic and technological development. They are the ones who lead us into the future, and it is a bright future where sustainability, climate smartness and green growth go hand in hand. The idea that large public investments should be followed by an economic upswing is behind the idea of the green deal. By investing in large-scale green projects, the EU will not only save the climate but also the economy and growth. Ursula von der Leyen and the elites in Europe seem to believe that the green transition is the man on the moon moment for Europe, but it appears more like a crash landing right now.
When asked if he can see any awakening to the problems that exist with a forced green transition and with the green bubbles, Sandström replies that he is cautiously optimistic. There are political forces in Europe that have been skeptical all along. Sandström says that he and his like-minded people in the scientific community have said all along that they have a strong ally on their side, and that is reality. When it catches up with the green dreams, it will turn out to be stronger than the dream world. It really is catching up now in the form of bankruptcies and rising electricity prices. And in the next phase, this will gradually force a change in policy in the various member states and in the EU. We are not there yet, says Sandström, but everything that he and his colleagues have predicted has come true. Therefore, a changed view within politics on the green transition will also soon become a reality.
One of the speakers at the working session in Stockholm led by Christian Sandström was Professor Samuel Furfari, who has a long background in the European university world as an energy researcher. In an interview with Riks Europe, he said that the forced use of renewable energy (wind power, solar power) is destroying the European energy system and making our energy much more expensive. This will be a problem above all for our industry, which has historically been able to benefit from a secure and cheap supply of electricity. When nuclear power disappears and coal power is no longer politically possible, our industry will have to pay. And thus, our prosperity will suffer.
When asked if he is not worried about climate change, Professor Furfari replied that that question should be asked of China and India. They continue to increase their carbon dioxide emissions at the same time as strong forces in the EU want the EU countries to take the lead and make drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, which on a global level do not have any major effect.
More people are starting to see the problems with the forced green transition. Europe risks deindustrialization, Europe risks weakening. This at a time when we say we need to become stronger because the geopolitical situation is more unstable than it has been in a long time.