Although they will decrease in the EU, greenhouse gas emissions will increase outside of it. Aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050, the European Union is implementing the comprehensive Green Deal, which was approved four years ago. Nevertheless, a review of the policy documents detailing the Green Deal’s concrete steps reveals that while it will reduce carbon emissions within the EU, it will also raise them outside of it. The quantity of carbon emissions reduced by the Green Deal has more than doubled due to this increase. An international team of scientists led by Klaus Hubacek, a professor of science, technology, and society at the University of Groningen, published this analysis in Nature Sustainability.
In addition to policies aimed at producing clean energy and restoring the environment, the European Green Deal aims to completely decarbonize Europe by the year 2050. Hubacek and associates from China and the United States conducted comprehensive supply chain evaluations of the policy texts that underpin the Green Deal. In comparison to the Green Deal’s carbon reduction aim in the land, land use change, and forestry sector within EU borders, they conclude that the Green Deal in its current form will result in a 244.8 percent rise in emissions in countries outside the EU.
One such initiative is the three billion trees that will be planted in Europe to boost biodiversity. But growing trees takes up a lot of space that can’t be used for growing food. This implies that food must be produced elsewhere, and the conversion of land to farmland is necessary to do this. This lowers biodiversity and raises carbon dioxide emissions, claims Hubacek. The EU would ‘export’ its reduced carbon emissions to the nations that would grow our food, such as South America or Africa, while simultaneously reducing emissions within its borders.
Of course, there is a clause in the Green Deal prohibiting the importation of goods (such meat or animal feed) that require the conversion of woodland to agriculture. Hubacek is doubtful, saying that “nothing stops these other countries from felling forests to produce for the local market and growing products for Europe on existing farmland.” These kinds of restrictions just include too many unknowns. Increased organic farming is another Green Deal recommendation, but this will need additional farmland in Europe. Hubacek: “Once more, there is a dearth of information regarding the impact on land use.”
The scientists did not, however, limit their findings to the detrimental effects of the Green Deal on the global community. In order to determine whether total carbon reductions could be improved, they also examined several scenarios. Hubacek states, “We found one very effective way to do this: adopting the more plant-based “planetary health diet,” which can save a significant amount of carbon emissions.” A next step would be to gradually phase out food-based biofuels inside the EU, which would cut down on the quantity of farmland required and avert the loss of biodiversity and carbon emissions. In order to decrease land consumption, the EU might also help emerging regions improve the efficiency of their agriculture.
The European Green Deal in its current form may cause a net loss for the environment, as the Nature Sustainability article demonstrates, but scientists believe that it is fixable. “By embracing the comparatively straightforward planetary health diet,” claims Hubacek. He emphasizes, nevertheless, that there is still something that needs to change: “Our analysis highlights that there is no free lunch, despite the program’s techno-optimistic motivation.” Given that resources are needed for everything you produce, I seriously doubt that “Green Growth” is achievable. Thus, we must cut back on our consumption.
Now that it appears that global warming will exceed the 1.5 degrees mentioned in the 1995 Paris Agreement and that numerous other planetary boundaries are also being crossed, there is a great sense of urgency. Hubacek: “It’s time to put effective measures into action.”
