Stay informed of free updates
Just register at Climate change Myft Digest – Delivered directly in your reception box.
The writer was president of the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords in the last parliament
Irrational, unrealistic, impracticable: some of the words used by Tony Blair last week to describe the approach of the governments of climate change. Distant that the strategy should be more pragmatic, the former British Prime Minister called for “solutions that correspond to the scale of the challenge and to a new policy to do them”.
For governments through Western Europe, climate change is only one of the three existential challenges – the other two are the lack of competitiveness and growth, and the threat of Vladimir Putin to peace. But time and money are over. Governments must prioritize. So which one of these is most important?
Growth must pass first. Without this, Europe will not have the resources to defend itself or to decarbonize its savings – and the sums involved will be enormous. The EU Réaroir Plan aims to mobilize 800 billion euros in expenses by 2030; Other estimates suggest that European defense expenses may have to increase by 250 billion euros per year. An additional 477 billion euros is required each year, during the same period, to reach the EU climate objective.
Security must then come, and not only for the obvious reason that the basis of growth is peace and stability. A broader European war would destroy innovation and capital, the engines of decarbonization. Nations must therefore recalibrate their risk analysis.
Rapid reset and strengthening national security is an effort of an entire economy. It requires almost all areas of human effort – labor, food, logistics, infrastructure – to play its role. For this to happen, the governments of London, Paris, Berlin and just through Europe must change their state of mind and Modus Operandi.
The administration was shaped by an era of globalization and peace, in which the EU could take shelter under the protection shield of the United States. Global institutions have forged climatic agreements. The regulators were responsible for fighting climate change. Interest rates at low record – fueled by quantitative relaxation – have helped finance green projects.
This world has gone. However, the processes he created live, generating the regulations and climatic policies that roam today's budgetary realities and scratch with politicians of the need for “urgent action” in defense.
Thus, to generate growth in order to rearore quickly, government agendas must be refocused and comprades confronted. The energy is at the top of the list. Climate and defense programs are, in a way, aligned here: investing in renewable energies improves energy security. The increase in the energy supply of new sources is necessary not only for rearmament but also to fuel digitization and AI, which is vital for defense.
However, a tension exists. The construction of wind and solar farms, not to mention nuclear power plants, takes time. The sun does not always shine, the wind does not always blow. Thus, in the short term, if Europe needs more reliable and affordable energy to rearm, gas will remain essential. Governments – and voters – are they ready to see the emissions increase while the high -intensity of energy factories accelerate the rearmament?
Then, regulatory executives must be examined to ensure that they do not undermine the investment in defense. Politicians should examine the regulators' discounts and ask if they establish the right balance between growth, security and the climate.
And finally, finance. Should nations prioritize defense on green incentives? Which one will do the most to dissuade Putin in the coming years: more electric vehicles or more drones?
In defense and decarbonization, Europe is in a race against time. Recognizing the need to prioritize short -term climate security is not to deny the existential threat. It is a question of understanding that without peace, the green transition of Europe is impossible. Growth and security must pass first. Confronting this difficult choice is something that the leaders of Europe can no longer ignore.
