2030 CLIMATE COMPACT


#1

ESPN-Quote

For a Europe that fulfills the Paris Climate Agreement and limits rises to no more than 1.5 degrees.

i. The European Union must move faster in order to fulfil the Paris Climate Agreement and protect the planet from uncontrolled climate change. To get there, we must be prepared to implement all the necessary measures to limit the global temperature rise, in this century, to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

ii. For this purpose, we will adopt a more ambitious European climate and energy targets in order to achieve, by 2030, a reduction of 65% in greenhouse gas emissions, the adoption of 45% of energy obtained from renewable energy sources and the saving of 40% of energy use.

iii. We will call for the European Union to phase out environmental and climate damaging subsidies from EU Member States and the EU itself. Today, 11 countries and EU subsidize oil, coal and gas with at least 112 billion euros per year. We propose to develop new procedures allowing the European Budget to be regularly checked regarding its contribution towards the achievement of our climate and environmental goals and the compliance of its spending lines with sustainability, through participatory tools, strong accountability mechanisms, or other available options. Special attention will be paid to coal-depend regions to ensure that there are new jobs in green industries for every one that is left behind in a fuel-reliant industries.

iv. We are calling for a pan-European carbon tax. We propose a progressive carbon price based on the level of a country’s development and emissions. More precisely, we propose a reference carbon price based on the HDI (Human Development Index) and the amount of consumed CO2 emissions. For a given HDI level, countries would thus pay a carbon price based on a reference price set by a multilateral pan-European organisation. Setting such a carbon price would fall in line with the Climate Convention’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”


#2

1ST § - GOING BEYOND THE PARIS AGREEMENT

looking back the Paris Agreement was iniciated by a network of international relationships which experienced its last moments in being led by more or less reasonable actors which ensured the hegemony of western led diplomacy towards a culture of accountability - sounds like a different world to me now to be honest.

to get back on track - and I don’t mean western hegemony but the 2 C°-goal - states (especially USA, Canada and Russia) and fossil-dependent corporations of the western hemisphere have to be brought to heel by severe sanctions or other resounding measures - which were missing in the paris agreement because of the trust in the still existing international order.

For example the investments in security and military services from the european union to the global south to hold back migration could be transferred to a program which enforces full-scale economic embargos to the appropriate actors to ensure climate justice and prevent excessive migration while integrating and expanding the competences of the international court of justice.

3RD § - STRONGER WORDING

instead of “phase out” -> cut down. The momentum brought forward by Ireland should be passed on.

instead of “Special attention will be paid to coal-depend regions” -> Special attention will be paid to fossil-depend regions and sectors.

Furthermore I would be careful to go for the notion to secure jobs because it basically has been the killerargument for capitalists to blackmail politics. There will be jobs lost - even more when the digital revolution kicks in. No way around that. There will be plenty other jobs which will need replacement. By favouring a single sector our agenda gets vulnerable.

How about to add that social integration programms will be built up in job-retreating parts of society? It would serve as a comprehensive measure for a phenomenon which will take place all over society.

CLIMATE JUSTICE

this term doesn’t appear at all. DiEM25 is about strengthening the international solidarity of the left. If there is anything which could convince green voters to vote for us this one comes on top and should have a paragraph which highlights its appropriate importance.


Where is DiEM25's INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY in terms of CLIMATE JUSTICE?!
#3

Climate Change has a variety of reasons. Therefore also the solution need to be diverse. I would really wish to see more diversity in the proposed solutions.

Obviously renewable energies, electric cars (which also need to be enjoyed with caution, when you look at the whole production chain and impact on the environment) are important steps in the right direction. Nonetheless especially two aspect I would like to raise here, are:

i. Gas emission caused by the meat & dairy industry. I’m not saying European Spring should call for everyone to become vegan, however leaving out this topic is fatal (and hypocritic), as it is proven several times to be a bigger contributer than oil & transport industry (one of many studies can be seen at the HP of IATP (.) org (/) emissions-impossible)

ii. Plastic polution - the easiest policy proposal to give an example: Ban single use plastic.

I think it also important to mention, this topic should not be handled to get additional voters from any party, it needs to be tackled thoroughly because it is just the right thing to do.


#4

on your first point: I agree with you. I think that notions like “green” or “ecological measures” are wordings which are very abstract. It would be clearer to get more practical and explaining what it could mean for us.

On your second point: I already proposed to advocate for circular and cradle to cradle economies:

On your last point: I’m thinking more in a long term here when it comes to the training DiEM25 has to put itself through to represent urgent needed policies in the context of international solidarity. Climate Justice is an issue which for example in Germany is very poorly represented in the Green party - which due to its neoliberal agenda in some parts cant be as ambitiously formulated like in an organization which tends more to the left. Additionally the issue climate change is still catastrophically underrepresented in the left as a whole because of weaker international solidarity. But nothing of that changes that this is the bar in the 21st century if the left wants to come to serious terms on international solidarity.


#5

Long post, but I put all my heart’s desires and conscious efforts into it. Please try to understand my desire to shape a better world for us.

If we talk about climate change, we talk about economics. We talk about regulating capitalism to the point where it is not capitalism any more. Post-capitalism therefore. There is no reason to compromise or delay this process. The fossil fuel industry needs to go. Dangerous banks need to cease to exist. Companies that profit on public expenditure or ideas - most of them - need to be un-profit, non-profit only. Capital will need to redistribute - with a cap on short-term growth from profit and a rate for decline under the arbitrary 1 million mark and Consumption, the other side of the capitalist coin, needs to refocus on our needs and happiness.

Now all the time we talk about climate change prevention and attenuation, we talk about all the above between the lines. That’s where all the resistance is coming from. That’s why we are unsure about the right course ourselves. We have an instinct that small gestures won’t cut it, because it will just continue business as usual. That’s also why carbon trade or taxes are disputed and watered down.

Green, shared prosperity

That’s very radical, but that’s our core message in everything. The symbol for it should be a clear plan for where we want to go. We want a carbon tax, that immediately, massively changes our economy. A carbon tax can be very high and still work. Assuming equal redistribution - and I don’t see why I shouldn’t - even a really high, hypothetical, 1000€/t CO2 tax wouldn’t hurt. It would just redistribute money from those whose carbon emissions are above average (“rich”) to those below average (“poor”). And it would present every non-fossil energy, production method or lifestyle decision a lot cheaper than the then fossil-non-alternative. Anyone who needs to save money can earn from the waste of the rich by building a piece of the future. Regardless of country, HDI or total emissions, the redistribution would be clear and just, the green options the way to go and money for the necessary investments would be available from the tax. Perfect.

Carbon is the first of many pollutants to regulate in this way. Methane will be next. And there’s millions of other candidates. And at some point people will ask why all these elaborate rules are made to fix the errors of an economic system that just doesn’t do what economy is supposed to do: fairly produce for demand and distribute goods in short supply. We all dream about prices that are fair. Goods that we want to be available. Neoliberal-capitalist reality is that prices are inherently unfair and goods as we want them always unavailable. Both are dictated more or less. Post-capitalism will be a radical change, but it won’t be a surprise for anyone. It will just be what we all want. Fair prices, wanted goods. Paradise like I picture it, and proof that Utopia is nothing to be afraid of. It needs companies and banks that work for the public profit and what we know today will keep existing as a casino for the non-essentials. Its pretty easy to rewrite a company or bank’s manifest once you rescue it from neoliberal-captialist failure. The failures will come as they are inherent in the way our economy works. Introduce a high and redistributive carbon tax and prepare for the coming bailouts with a clear agenda - that’s really all there is to it.

In my personal opinion, emission targets and the 1.5°C threshold are a symbol for international cooperation, but no help for what we need to do. Therefore, they are not a very good symbol, just the best the world (with governments like from the U.S.) could achieve. We are better than that. We can lead the right way. With or without cooperation, carbon taxation will change imports and thus a big part of the world economy. We think it’s just a carbon tax, but it will hit international trade treaties and pull them from free trade to green trade.

To close my remark. Be aware that carbon taxation is very important for our future. Especially how we do it and how much it redistributes will determine more of our future than most are guessing now.


Build shared, green prosperity
#6

Dear Sebastian, I would very much agree that we need a radical change but I wouldn’t call it post-capitalism. I guess that we are actually talking about Degrowth or Post-growth which would be in contrast to any socialist economical system as well. Most of us, supporters of the European Spring or any of the national member organizations, belong to a highly-educated and privileged urban elite that is responsible for most of our countries’ ecological footprint and serve as an example for the remaining population. We shall be at the forefront of any radical change.


#7

Thanks for the reply. I agree that we are setting an example that will only be mirrored in the wide public if it is convincing and successful. I believe global, sustainable prosperity is very attractive. For me, degrowth, post-growth all attacks the fundamental capitalist maxim - quaterly profit and shareholder value. By definition, they are not capitalism and anything following capitalism is post (=after) -capitalism. Post-capitalsim is quite a vague term and socialism is just one concept of what could come after. There are many, some more flawed than others. Some trigger historically-induced fear. They all have in common that they are not capitalism.

Climate change is impossible to overcome in a capitalist economy. Capital will always seek ways to profit from external or future public assets. Pollution will never go away in capitalism. There is no way to regulate it and sustain its core maxim - profit at all cost. Once it is reduced to public profit or sustainable profit - it’s no longer capitalism. That is where we want to go. Money is useful, banks are useful, stock exchanges are great invention, there are many things about capitalism that are neither good nor bad - tools we can use in a much better way. Social democracy used to fight for it but got corrupted by it. The green movement still has the ideas but is fighting hard to recognize that poverty and economical injustice are the true reasons for ecological damage. We should learn from it and shape the future social-democratic new economic vision.

For the interested:


#8

I surely can agree on most of your ideas. But we should not fall into the trap of antagonizing capitalism in particular. Social democracy or the green movement do not challenge the concept of economic growth. I was myself a member of the Green Party in Germany in the early 80ies of the past century and was actually campaigning in 1978 for the Grüne Liste Umweltschutz (GLU) in Lower Saxony where we obtained a historical result of 3.9% in the first participation of a green party on a state level. Unfortunately, we didn’t manage to get over the 5% to be represented in parliament. In my personal experience, and confirmed during the last 40 years, the green movement, at least in Germany, has not been able to question a system based on economic growth deploring sinks and resources of planet Earth. The real-existing socialism existing until the fall of the Berlin Wall would follow exactly the same vain goal of ever-lasting growth. As such, is doesn’t seem to be a question of capitalism or any other economic system that emerged in the aftermath of the industrial revolution. In my personal opinion, social-democracy cannot be the way to go. We will need something completely new.


#9

hallo all together!
so I came to give my cent to that debate.
I will try to give the progressivest idea I have and leave possible relativations.

I agree @Hans_Eickhoff it has to be sth. new.
I think manys manage to question the system with his destroying economy but until now nowbody found the way how to change it and justify that change on base of democratic statutes…

I would like to talk about that idea(maybe there is already sth. like that?)
you know all that day of the cosumption of ressources, no?
we need to adapt a transparent system of limited consumption and production and ressources surveillence. that is impossible to link that to politics. that is not dealable and influentable…not for sale.
so I would love to have some algoritm which calculates fluently the components earth people, their basic needs costs (food, house, medical care) and available ressources which do not damage(so oil, coal and stuff would not be included in that calculation).
ressources like coal or oil and stuff would be just allowed to ensure logistic or progress studies (until other possibilities found or allowed or developed).
while writing I see I cannot express very good and it sounds absolutely irreal… but I’ll try more:
the legitimation for all that I see also in the human rights. the problem is the interpretation and communication of that. who would really doubt that when you have two persons standing one without house or food, one with enough to call it private proprety that the human imperative should take away so much from that with private property to give the other their basic…
everybody who denies that is not fullfilling human right requirements and is thereby criminal. if we can konsens on that we have a base and everything else is not politics but calculation and logistics.

we know economy globalized the world so thinking global is not much progressive then… we just have to use and improve the structures for the needs of everybody.
it is not possible let destroy rainwoodforests(it is a global resource and elementary important for the earth meteorology… blabla you know better then me I’m sure) and it is not possible to let decide politics and economs about that.
we have to calculate sth. like a emergency generator to be able to run the show when companys like the car industries or similar will be shut down from one moment to another (every step which will be taken in the consequent direction will be seen as revolution, too radical or whatever, so why not making it worth it?)
am I too megaloman?
ciao looking forward to discuss that.


#10

Why don’t you want to antagonize capitalism?

This post is about climate policy and capitalist companies in the fossil fuel industry will need special antagonizing. They need systematic regulation. They need a tax or cap or ban on carbon extraction. Particularly. You will find that a public majority supports that. Heavily.

Just because there has been a lot of lobbying for big energy companies and the non-alternatives to sea-based wind farms and big transmission lines, doesn’t mean that is true. Coal plants need to shut down, gas is not an alternative and oil in all its forms needs a big and quick decline. You will never get a carbon tax with cooperation from the fossil fuel industry. My points about post-capitalism are long term and to be kept in the back of your head, they are not for next year implementation.


#11

You mentioned two really underrated topics here. The plastics industry, which expects the packaging industry to come, can work, because many citizens are involved. It becomes difficult in the meat industry. There are citizens who do not want to reduce their meat consumption. But when I look at the post-war development: vegetarians are on the rise and vegans too … There is a third highly underestimated environmental problem: tourism! Unnecessary holiday flying and unnecessary cruises …


#12

In my opinion, the underlying problem is the fixation on economic growth whether in a capitalist or socialist society. Having in mind that the world’s population is already exceeding the sinks and resources of planet Earth, it is important to focus on degrowth politics.


#13

There are things that can grow - happiness, care, art, science - and things that cant - pollution, consumption of most goods and resources. I don’t like “degrowth”, the term has its root and right because the focus on growth measured by GDP is terribly wrong - but that’s only because the metric is wrong, we as a human species can measure the amount of global prosperity in other ways and grow much much further. Just imagine an economy that produces good, durable products for everyone on earth at only a small, manageable impact on our environment - that could grow for decades to come.


#14

I’ve no idea if this is the right place to contribute this, and can’t find a similar thread elsewhere on these or DiEM25 pages, but reading the European Spring 2019 policy document, I find no direct reference to energy conservation in the section " New Deal for Nature, the Climate - Europe’s Green Transition."

Walking around my town at most times of year is (to me) a constant reminder of how uneducated (I hope it’s this and not simply a complete lack of concern) people are in this regard; many shops have doors permanently open (if they even have doors: some just have a shutter) winter and summer, the energy used for heating or cooling swept straight into the street…

My hope is this is simply a matter of business owners calculating that an extra sale or two a day will pay for the additional energy bill - and the argument that customers are more likely to enter a shop with an open door is easily dealt with if a bye- or national law were enacted to compel all businesses to install automatically functioning and operative doors.

The point of my example (there are many others, but this deals with a “public nuisance” case) is to suggest that a serious public education campaign (as existed in relation to driving in my English childhood) related to matters of daily energy use might be worth the accusations of “bringing back the nanny state”; all laws exist, presumably, because we don’t all make the most socially responsible decisions in our lives.

There is some education on these matters carried out in schools, but I don’t think waiting for the next generation to modify public behaviour - if it was to - is more than a long-term approach to a pressing problem.

Thanks for listening.


#15

I guess that we can agree on the growth of immaterial things like happiness or fulfillment. Growing goods and services that rely on the use of non-renewable resources is not sustainable in the long run, but slowing down is a good start.


#16

Yes Hans, that is for me the basis to start from. We struggle to find a metric for those things that can grow, and we are stuck with one that over-focusses on things that can’t grow - and yet those metrics (like GDP) are made to grow year after year. How can you slow them down? I would very much like to hear your answer to that question.

My answer is that “slow down” is impossible in a “free” or “neoliberal” capitalism, as it’s core tenets are shareholder value and quarterly profit - “more is better”. For me, any economy that departs from this and slows down or stops trying to grow things that can’t grow - so to say accepts the reality we live in - is post-capitalism. We can also call it Keynesian capitalism, but whatever we call it, it means that in order to slow dangerous forms of growth (capital, pollution, resource-extraction, social exploitation) I would suggest a big deal of more government and more regulation on all economic players:

  • Specifically for the climate, we need a carbon tax to slow fossil fuel extraction and energy use. Without this instrument, we have growth in a sector where we don’t want it. The best thing would be to ban coal altogether (replacing it is not a technical or financial problem, only a political one), but a carbon tax would make coal so expensive that it would be a de facto ban.
  • We also need a tax on financial transactions to save our climate - as long as money growth doesn’t slow down, it will look for other ways of pollution than CO2, other ways for exploitation. And it’s no denying that the poorest and the richest have the worst effect on climate. The poor can’t afford to look into the future and the rich suffer from chronic overconsumption of the materials with the highest CO2 emissions - they don’t have to care about it. Financial transaction tax stops the growth that is fastest, most unhealthy and furthest removed from reality. A Piketty-tax on capital assets is also necessary for climate protection or the poor will stay poor and the rich stay rich and the climate will continue to suffer.
  • Women’s rights reduce population growth, another area where a slow down is really helpful. But women’s discrimination is only one of the many forms of discriminations in current capitalism - remnants of a feudal power structure that slowly fades. Any action against discrimination in general and for women’s rights and empowerment in specific, directly leads to less harmful growth and a lot more good growth.

Saving our climate has a wide public support - but the moment people discover what “slowing down” means things get complicated. Slowing down would be good for everyone, even the billionaires, but it’s contrary to the system in place and so it needs a paradigm shift. We need to tell our voters the inconvenient truth, unregulated capitalism will not save them. But the end of unregulated capitalism is not the end of capitalism and not the end of the world, on the contrary, it’s the official start into a system that most of us already live and like: Share and care, grow happiness and de-grow pollution - for “Enough is as good as a feast.”


#17

After all, there is more that we agree on than what separates us! :slightly_smiling_face:


#18

I wrote the following text as an amendment / introduction to the “New Deal for Nature, the Climate, and Europe’s Green Transition”. My amendments are based on the conviction that it is necessary to question the structure of the present economic system based on growth if we want to tackle the ecological catastrophe that is already underway. Proposing approaches that are only cosmetically while keeping the underlying problems intact will surely not suffice.

"During the past 60 years, progress has been measured by GDP growth. However, GDP includes all economic activity, whether good (organic agriculture, construction of cycling paths etc.) or bad (revenues from tobacco sales, healthcare costs due to traffic accidents, cleaning up of environmental pollution etc.). Furthermore, only monetized activity is included whereas everything that is done outside the formal economy such as caring for one’s children or elderly parents, helping a neighbor repairing his roof, or doing household chores of any kind, are not accounted for unless we pay somebody to do them.

Since the beginning of the last century, we have been able to an exponential increase of productivity due to automation, robotization and digitalization of economic activity, and this has permitted a raise in living conditions in Western societies. Ideally, a significant increase in productivity would mean that everybody would have to work less to guarantee an adequate living standard for all. However, at some point, the increase in productivity is leading to high unemployment if not compensated for by ever increasing consumption. Between WW2 and the end of the 1970s, progressive reduction of working hours was used by governments to balance the pressure on the labor market. Since then, the mindset of neoliberal politics has led to a spiral of increased consumption and working hours while boosting inequality.

If we accept the concept of a limited carrying capacity of the Earth, its sinks and resources, all available data shows that humanity is already in overshoot that is accelerating worldwide as countries outside Europe and North America approach living conditions and modes of consumption of industrialized societies. As has been shown by system approaches like the “Limits to Growth” report to the Club of Rome, continued overshoot will lead to collapse, possibly within the next 50 years. The Ecological Footprint of human societies is already exceeding the Earth’s carrying capacity by 1.6 times, and even more so in Europe and North America, according to data from the Global Footprint Network.

Therefore, we should embrace concepts like the “Doughnut Economy” proposed by Kate Raworth to maintain a safe operating space for humanity (“the sweet spot”) with an ecological ceiling and a social foundation. As such, at the same time as we address environmental overshoot like ocean acidification, chemical pollution, biodiversity loss, air pollution or climate change, a stable and sustainable system for future generation will have to secure basic human needs for the Earth’s population like water, food, energy, health, education, and social equity, among others.

Breaking free from the goal of economic growth based on GDP will mean to develop other indicators that include an appraisal of human well-being in an ecologically sustainable world. While using GDP per capita instead of GDP alone (nationally and without considering increasing or declining population) would improve the assessment of the individual economic status, median income and particularly the Gini index could be measured to get a better idea regarding existing inequality. We believe that individual happiness and societal progress are ulterior goals of human activity and its assessment should be included in any type of system analysis. For instance, the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) permits to account for so-called externalities, either environmental or societal.

In summary, our society needs an urgent change of paradigm, departing from a policy based on economic growth (measured in GDP), even if it’s green (-washed), toward a policy founded on a stabilized economy that takes the ecological limits of the planet and the basic necessities of every human being into account. Having in mind that the European ecological footprint would need almost three planets Earth to be sustainable, it becomes obvious that our way of living in society will have to change profoundly to avoid an ever-accelerating degradation of our eco-system. Particularly, the most privileged members of society, mainly educated urban elites, responsible for the largest share of their country’s ecological footprint and serving at the same time as an example for the remainder of the population, will have to assume their role as a leader in this transformative process.

Yet, we can observe evidence that the transformation is already about to happen. The degrowth movement (inspired in Serge Latouche, among others), the transition networks, and ethics and design principles that underlie permaculture (as proposed by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren) reflect the demand for an organization of society based on the human need to live in community and in harmony with nature. At the same time, in a highly industrialized world that requires people to live subject to forces beyond their control, attempts are being made to reconquer the possibility to live autonomously without being the object of “progress” or “development”. Under present circumstances, progress has already started to invert its undoubted benefits into the opposite, from mobility mutated into an increase in distance traveled and lost lifetime in “transportation”, associated with local and planetary environmental deterioration, to labor organization that obliges human beings to compete in an unequal struggle with automated production processes.

Consequently, the reconstruction of our economic and political system requires not only an increase in ecological sustainability or an augmented efficiency in the use of resources, but must also be subordinated to the need of guaranteeing the capacity of autonomous action of every human being in the context of a collaborative lifestyle in a community."

Maybe we can agree on some of this, at least?


#19

Yes, I agree with that. How to get there? I suggest we start with the first step of regulation. We tax CO2-Emissions and redistribute the tax revenue equally - so the poor will actually profit from the tax, get the means to afford renewable energies and there will be huge public support for increasing the tax. We have to prepare for energy, car and other companies to go bust. Some won’t cope with the change and will fail. They will ask for government bailout. We need to have a program for that right away, and right now: Save them, but take control of them. Dictate the terms for their new existence (e.g. non-profit, workforce-owned, public entity, etc.). I think that would be a huge starting step, and more could follow and build on that.


#20

Hello, everyone.

I don’t know if this is the right place to make this suggestion but here it goes.

As Varoufakis claims having proposals that may be applied almost instantly, using the existing structures, is it possible to extend that immediacy to stop the Aljezur oil drill in the Portuguese coast, starting by including it in the Climate Compact with 2019 in view?
It’s a very surgical goal that would serve as an example of immediate action framed by the Green Transition and New Deal ideas until 2030. It would make a difference in believing in DIEM’s set of regulations and taxes.
DIEM must stand officially in this matter. I find no reference to this case of fossil fuel extraction on the verge of happening.
It would be really hopeful if this “green bill” brought some specific ecological concerns in Europe to act upon right now, to come across some Standing Rocks in our way.

I hope we can combine and support, with this proposal, multiple struggles through Europe and beyond on account of climate change and protection of resources.

Thank you for your work. It made me willing to participate.

Best regards from Porto,
Virgínia