The leaders of the European People's Party published a declaration that practically cancels almost everything set out in the 2019 European Green Deal. Where are we going? Andrey Novakov, MEP from the EPP/GERB, speaks to FACTI.
- Mr. Novakov, is the end of the "Green Deal" coming? You have already come out of the EPP with concrete steps. What made you...
- I am not inclined to speculate whether the end of the "Green Pact" has come specifically. I know for sure that too many things went wrong with it, to the detriment of the European Union, its economy and the Member States. By working on the legislative package, in its previous mandate, the European Parliament learned a hard lesson, and in a sobering way.
The Union tried to introduce prematurely and forcibly rules, restrictions and a worldview for which it had not prepared the ground.
It was precisely the Union that was not prepared either technologically or operationally. You decommission energy facilities, but without providing alternatives. You ban internal combustion engines, but without providing technologically and cost-effective alternatives. You are introducing restrictions on the production of natural essential oils, based on faulty logic and motivation.
There are dozens of examples, the lesson is one - you cannot build a house without first laying the foundations.
You cannot introduce a “Green Deal“ without first creating the conditions for the transition of the economy, competitiveness, energy and employment.
Climate care is certainly not over, because we see reality, but the Union must put an end to forceful methods of introducing rules.
- Why did it take us years to realize that the “Green Deal“ contained extreme solutions that hinder the EU economy?
- A person learns all his life, and so does the European Union. There is nothing wrong with that. You may remember - the idea of an EU constitution collapsed at the time, because even though it was the golden years of the Union, for certain countries it was a goal that went too far. In the same way, the “Green Deal“ was ahead of the technological, geopolitical and economic times we live in. As a result, disappointment, backsliding and Euroscepticism followed. The reaction to ignoring climate problems followed - many people simply do not want to hear about it precisely because of their bad experience with the “Green Deal“. And the latter is a very serious counter-effect. It will take years of proving again that climate problems are real to restore trust in legislation that addresses them.
If I may say so, there were also aggravating circumstances - the regulations under the umbrella of the “Green Deal“ were announced before the pandemic, before Russia's attack on Ukraine, before the energy crisis and geopolitical dislocations. That is, if the process of shaping the “Green Pact“ began in 2019, no one stopped for a moment to think about how this relates to the turbulent world around us. The goal was full speed ahead despite everything. Business and people remained off the board.
- And another thing. Should the President of the United States Donald Trump have taken the country out of the Paris Agreement so that we could look at things more soberly from a purely economic point of view?
- At least in my opinion, the new US president is already playing and will play a positive role in the “awakening“ of the Old Continent. Too many crises and events have bypassed the European Union, affecting it extremely negatively and causing a lot of damage. We reacted to some of the developments and created tools and mechanisms, changed legislation and it had an effect.
However, for the most part, the Union never found the time and courage for a comprehensive regulatory and institutional mobilization in response to what was happening around us. Now we are forced to act quickly and forcefully. The effect of human psychology - if there was no fire, you don't need a fire extinguisher - is also carried over to the ambitions of the member states, which are making significant steps in unifying Europe, but only when the situation is critical.
Wasn't it clear that with the annexation of Crimea it was only a matter of time before the next big step by the aggressor?
Isn't it clear that with the rise of China as an economic power, it is only a matter of time before it really makes claims to the world, starting with Taiwan, for example. Why should we care about claims to Taiwan? Because of the global semiconductor manufacturer TSMC, which is based there and is at the heart of the technological development of the West - from the remote control with which we unlock our cars to the chips in our mobile phones. I don't know if the people walking along “Vitosha“ Boulevard at this moment can imagine what a successful encroachment on Taiwan means.
- Did the EU realize how destructive the impact of this policy is on the union, or...
- The people were at the heart, through the election results by country. Business was at the heart in the various sectors. They made it clear that this is not how it is done.
While rankings such as “Doing Business“ of the World Bank showed how unfriendly the European Union is in terms of doing business, instead of cutting regulatory barriers for investors, innovators and employers, the Union decided to surprise everyone with the “Green Deal“. The latter is the antithesis of simplifying rules and accelerating production and investment. Let me not be misunderstood - of course we do not want industrial chemistry to pollute our drinking water in the conditions of total deregulation and “Wild West“. However, when dozens of large European manufacturers announce that they are considering exporting production to another continent, we must think and take action.
The thinking part came only with the new mandate of the European Commission and more specifically with the “EU Compass for Renewing Competitiveness and Ensuring Sustainable Prosperity“ announced on January 28. Even the long and complicated name suggests the Brussels flavor. There are already qualifications in the corridors that it will be an “attempt to atone for sins“ and to clean up the image. The truth is that if this initiative does not deregulate dozens of regulations and several policies in a sensible way, Europe will have another lost decade of economic growth (after the decade that followed the global financial and economic crisis of 2008).
We need action on the scale of the once-established European Coal and Steel Community, which gave rise to the EU.
- Ending the practice of further complicating environmental regulations at national level. What should this tell us…
- There are at least four levels of bureaucracy. The first is when the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union fail to agree on sufficiently simplified rules. The second level is when the Member States transpose these rules into their national legislation. In order to protect themselves from criticism, punitive procedures and bad audit findings from the EU, countries are introducing an additional layer of bureaucracy - requirements for documents and procedures that the EU never wanted. The latter is being repeated at regional and municipal level in different countries. As a result of this "gold-plating" of rules, the industry on the continent is breathing harder and slower.
If a scientist manages to break this model, he deserves a Nobel Prize in Economics. If a politician manages to implement such a policy, he deserves a permanent place among the creators of the European Union. This is a reform that literally creates the Union anew.
As a start, we can take a real step by reforming the impact assessment process for new EU legislation. We need realistic, comprehensive and transparent impact assessments that put industry and jobs more often at the centre. This will give us an idea of what we need to do to prepare different sectors for any changes without “shock therapy”. Even more importantly, if the impact assessment shows that something is excessive, someone needs to pull the handbrake before the regulations hit the sectors in question.
- What is happening to carbon emissions and how will this affect the Maritsa…
- Those who know the answer to this question the least are the ones who are hardest hit. It is the sector's employees, their families, cities and regions who are on the front lines, and it is they who are the last to learn the answers.
It is this pyramid that we need to invert. The people who are affected should be the first to know about their future and should participate in its formulation and direction. I believe that this is exactly what the new government will do.
- The EU is also commenting that this change is a victory for the countries that are in favor of nuclear energy – Bulgaria is among them, in their ongoing battle with the countries that are in favor of renewable energy…
- Both in the automotive industry and in energy, we must be open to technologically neutral solutions and alternatives. That is why, for example, I voted against the ban on the production of internal combustion engines. Because energy is a matter of a mix of production capacities and a matter of national security - it is not right to put all our eggs in one basket. In other words, let us not cross out opportunities, but increase them.