By Peter De Keyzer, a founding partner of Growth Inc.
The EU’s Industrial Clean Act was announced last month with much fanfare. De facto, the Von der Leyen Commission is admitting that the previous Von der Leyen Commission made a mistake. But don’t worry: this time she has got it right. All I can see is more debt, more rules, sky-high import duties, the prospect of expensive energy and an endless stream of subsidies to force a climate-neutral pipe dream. The richest countries are the biggest energy consumers. Economic development is only possible with abundant and cheap energy – history and all the figures prove this. Those who deliberately make energy more expensive are heading for impoverishment.
The dream of a global climate policy stems from a previous era. Back then, we believed that the global community would solve all the world’s major problems together. We have been cured of that illusion. There is no global governance – the UN is toothless, the World Trade Organisation is dying, the United States is withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and countries are once again making territorial claims.
Yet the climate problem certainly does exist. It will have very serious consequences worldwide – human, financial and economic. But that does not mean you can force citizens or companies to take action today. The further away a problem lies in the future, the less citizens, companies and policy makers are concerned with it. Humans are not long-term planners, humans are procrastinators.
EU Net-zero by 2050:
Cost: €100+ trillion
Benefit: no measurable difference in a generation and trivial 0.08°C in 2100
EU must reconsider its priorities
UN climate model: https://t.co/oZpccwWxST
Cost: https://t.co/A55SJI0rr1 pic.twitter.com/YkVtVLNFjW— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) March 4, 2025
Concepts such as ‘bold and ambitious climate policy’ are often bandied about. That is code for ‘top-down policy, against the will of voters, without a profitable business case and without global buy-in’. Even the people who should know say so. Ineos CEO Jim Ratcliffe predicts the end of the chemical sector in Europe and the National Bank states that opting for green energy means saying goodbye to a large part of our industry.
Of course, the safest choice is to stand firmly behind current policy. Anyone who dares to say that the climate emperor has no clothes is labelled stupid. Over the past decade, it has become de rigueur to profess climate policy. From COPs to local conferences, from climate consultants to special awards. You don’t just turn that around. It is noticeable that the greatest defenders of a ‘bold and ambitious climate policy’ are often people and organisations whose jobs are not at risk. They are rarely, if ever, large entrepreneurs, industrialists, people who work in industry or taxpayers who have to pay for the plans.
The only way to close the gap between unattainable ambitions and unaffordable business cases is with thousands of billions in subsidies. With CBAM, we tax foreign products that are not produced in a green manner. Every European citizen will thus be obliged to buy expensive European products. In addition, citizens will have to subsidise their own industry to keep it competitive. Where will we get the money to pay for all of this? It is like Baron von Münchhausen pulling himself out of the swamp by his own hair: a fantasy.
So should we do nothing? Of course not. Even without a climate policy, our carbon footprint is shrinking. CO2 emissions per capita have decreased in recent decades in almost all European countries – even as prosperity has increased. France is the best example – the country fully committed to nuclear energy during the energy crisis of the seventies. Increasing our energy efficiency is a good idea in any case. Nuclear energy is a good idea. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is a good idea. But the current climate policy is unfeasible and unaffordable. It will drive voters to extreme parties, drive industry out of Europe, delay our rearmament and accelerate our geopolitical irrelevance.
Originally published in Dutch by Trends magazine
Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.
