January 29, 2025 - 10:00am
It is not yet February, but 2025 has so far been marked by a new intensity in the AI arms race. The release of new Chinese AI models from DeepSeek, which can be produced for a fraction of the price and using far less processing power than their American rivals, is being touted as artificial intelligence’s “Sputnik moment”. Is the US capable of achieving a modern-day Apollo 11 in response?
What is most striking, however, about the battle between the superpowers is how inconsequential Europe is in the whole process. For almost 30 years, the European Union has been publishing plans on how to be an equal player on the global stage. It started with the Lisbon Strategy of 2000 that aimed to transform the EU into “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” within 10 years. After failing to achieve this, the Lisbon Strategy was replaced with the Europe 2020 strategy that promised to create “smart, sustainable, inclusive growth”. Alas, after more years of unrealised targets, another strategy will be introduced this year.
While the competitiveness compass admits that too much regulation is killing economic growth, Commission spokesman Stefan De Keersmaecker told reporters that commitments to the Green Deal “remain fully valid”. The Green Deal requirements are, however, coming under sustained criticism. Environmentalism has been a major reason for overregulation and slow growth, a situation that increasingly few national leaders are willing to tolerate.
This was made clear by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who said this month that “if we go bankrupt, no one will care about the world’s environment any more.” He also demanded a “very critical review of all regulations, including those arising from the Green Deal”. This sentiment was seconded by Jordan Bardella of France’s National Rally, who wants to suspend Europe’s Green Deal in the same way Donald Trump has stopped similar programmes in the US.
This shift in attitude also found its way into a document published this month by the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest conservative group in the European Parliament. As Politico reported last week, the Commission is being urged to postpone the implementation of the financial and corporate sustainability regulations, as well as the EU’s new carbon border tax, for a minimum of two years. The leaders expressed opposition to the renewable energy targets, a component of the Green Deal that previously had broad agreement. The EPP now advocates for a “technology-neutral” climate policy, suggesting that no technology, such as heat pumps over gas boilers or renewables over nuclear energy, should be favoured, nor should any, like combustion engines in cars, be prohibited.
Officially, the Commission remains committed to its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, but for how much longer? Any political establishment that wants to survive must address now the growing public discontent which is fuelling the popularity of Right-wing populist parties. If these parties which are specifically anti-Green Deal gain a foothold in the national parliaments of enough EU member countries, the Commission will be under serious pressure to renege. As history shows, missing targets is part and parcel of how the EU operates. This time, it might actually be better off because of it.
Ralph Schoellhammer is assistant professor of International Relations at Webster University, Vienna.
Raphfel
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThank God for Trump and his leaving the Paris Agreement. The Green Hoax will eventually collapse like a card house. Miliband will still be standing like the last Mohican, telling us, that we are all doomed, if we don’t follow his green policies and the BBC and the Guardian will have a collective heart attack..
Remember that the Green indoctrination has been with us for 29 years. Millions have gone to school in this period and been taught that we are destroying the planet and even that the end of the world is nigh. It will take at least another generation to shy away from this view.
Meanwhile, the Polish threat of bankruptcy is not going to scare people because “Big Oil is bound to say that, isn’t it”.
“All of the politicians are in the pay of Big Oil.” “Elon Musk is in cahoots with Big Oil.” “The Boomers have destroyed the planet and it is up to us to fight them.”
Fortunately the kids aren’t stupid enough to believe everything they’re told in school. They’re smart enough to pretend to while they’re at the bottom of the corporate latter, or need grades from some woketard lecturer, but once this junk becomes unfashionable they’ll leave it behind like an old pair of shoes.
Youngsters, who’ve been screwed by uncontrolled immigration, shafted by the lunatic policy responses to COVID and know damn well (because they have a huge range of inputs beyond school and the legacy media) they’ve been lied to by the establishment on a whole range of issues, are the least of our worries. It’s mid-career people who are going to need to find a new trough to feed from that are going to hang on hardest to the Green gravy train.
A little evidence of your claims might useful. Really not a great contribution to the discussion
Future generations will laugh at the hubris and stupidity of ” green” ideas. How a windmills composed composed of steel and anchored in the ground by acres cubed of concrete is seen as superior to even a small , neat coal or gas fired plant by the masses is a function of both mass hypnosis and a lack of critical thinking amongst the general population
They are unlikely to laugh much. They will most likely remove something completely unnecessary, and tourists will look at the little that remains with the same respectful amazement with which we look at the Egyptian pyramids today.
It is no different from religion.
Woke, green idiots are believers, so you can not reason with them.
Most of them are miseducated in non technical subjects, so they can not understand basic concepts.
Just out of interest. Last week there was a longish discussion about Net Zero on TV involving Labour MP Barry Gardiner. He had obviously been prepared before the appearance.
Not once did he mention the climate or the planet or global warming. His argument was only about getting away from fossil fuels for political reasons, to avoid having to deal with foreigners for our energy. Was this just his view or is it a change of direction from HQ? Fracking was mentioned once and he dismissed it as obviously being bad for the environment – nobody argued with him.
There is only one problem with fracking – NIMBYs. In general, the USA is so big that the fracking is mainly out of sight and out of mind. There was a resistance at the beginning but that just died away. Areas for fracking in the UK have included the SE of England, with a population of about 20 million. Not as easy as it sounds.
Imagine if the billions or trillions spent on wind and solar had been spent on nuclear plants.
Progressive ideas don’t depend on reality. Examples – green energy fantasy, denying xy and xx biological facts, national debt and immigration of people from cultures hostile to our own.
Like religious fanatics and Communists they believe in dogma.
Facts, even proven scientific principles don’t matter.
Starmer’s cosying up to the EU, including a desire to align carbon taxes, involves discussions with the Commission which, as described in this article, is still drinking the Kool-Aid. He seems not to have noticed that member state governments are drifting steadily away from the Green religion.
I believe it is a global climate so has anyone explained that China, India and Indonesia are using more coal than ever? They are using coal to power the industry that is moving manufacturing out of the EU…It’s almost mind boggling to watch the EU and UK de-industrialize over the green transition while CO2 emissions from the Global South and China move higher…Just wow as all I can muster
Yes, it has been explained ad nauseum to no avail. Because none of this is about the environment or the planet. It’s about power and control, and it always has been.
I believe it is more about status and demonstrating one’s virtue by adherence to the new state religion of global warming. Scientific papers challenging the doctrine are routinely rejected and speakers are de-platformed, reinforcing the propaganda messages. We are swimming in virtue signalling idiots.
BULLSEYE!
It is so bizarre that Europe buys their “green equipment” from China, which is produced with 80% fossil fuel…
The Green Deal, like ‘Wokism’ is just another religion. It’s hard to dismiss faith even in the face of concrete facts.
The EU clings to the green deal because it’s what politicians do. They are singularly incapable of admitting either fault or flaw in their reasoning, and steadfastly refuse to stop pursuing bad ideas because they never face consequences for their failure.
In a business, Ursula and those around her would have been fired and replaced long ago, the green thing would have been scrapped, and someone would have noticed issues with unfettered immigration. In politics, these people are get re-elected, promoted to an even better job, or rewarded in some element of the private sector because of their contacts.
I am sorry but big business was main player in promotion of woke and green nonsense.
Why not throw young morons few bones of pseudo religion, so they don’t notice their ever declining living standards, inability to buy home and raise family while paying taxes so their countries are flooded with Muslim and African savages.
There are lots of ideas still grasped by the old man Europe as he nears his end. The question is, can he ungrasp the foolish ideas inside the jar, thereby finding new youth and vigor? or will he hold on until the bitter end?
Many people don’t realize that policies never exist in isolation—they are interconnected with other elements. If you remove the core of a policy, you risk unraveling everything attached to it. Policymakers design policies this way to safeguard the main objective, ensuring that even if the central idea becomes outdated, it cannot simply be discarded without significant consequences.
Take trade agreements with the U.S., for example. These often include clauses that prevent partner countries from developing new industries. If a country decides to exit the trade deal, it may find itself economically vulnerable because it has invested entirely in trade rather than building independent industries. Without a fallback, breaking the agreement could trigger a full-scale economic crisis.
This is why policymakers and analysts must look beyond the surface. In the case of Europe’s green energy transition, there is likely a critical underlying factor—whether financial, security-related, or otherwise—that makes it difficult to abandon. While the specifics may not be immediately visible, experience in policy-making suggests that such hidden dependencies always exist.
The EU has realised that it has negligible resources, an ageing demographic, business models incapable of delivering productivity, and capital markets unwilling to or incapable of taking unicorn-sized risks. Since they cannot or will not compete, they have decided to become blockers. Canute-like they impose regulation of all stripes (green, AI, banking, social media, the list is endless) in order to try and stop anyone else competing. Impoverishment of their citizens appears to be a price they will willingly pay. To misquote Larry Summers: Europe is a museum, Japan is a nursing home, China is a jail, and the US is a rollercoaster. Ho hum.
As the UK powers headlong in to net zero oblivion the EU may be backing away from it. How will Labour react to this as in their eyes the EU ca do no wrong and must always be followed.
Labour refuse to take the lead from other countries that are ignoring the green claptrap, if the EU also take the pragmatic, sensible route of ditching the net zero money pit, can Westminster still be able to claim to be a leader?