“The pressure to achieve quick results is enormous now,” says Markus Pieper. The CDU MEP is the rapporteur for the directive on the expansion of renewable energies and is thus responsible for one of the most important dossiers in the fight against climate change. In an interview with Timo Landenberger, he talks about the EU Commission’s expansion target, the role of nuclear power, and his call for a “Fit-for-55 seal“.
It is one of the most controversial proposals for the Digital Services Act currently being discussed in Parliament: the ban on personalized advertising. The IMCO’s Digital Single Market working group had recently gathered some experts to a hearing. Among other things, they stressed that personalized advertising contradicts the spirit of the General Data Protection Regulation and warned of the risks of a shadow market. Nevertheless, there was no majority in favor of a full ban in the IMCO, reports Torsten Kleinz, who followed the discussion.
Electrification of road traffic, green hydrogen for industry, and heat pumps instead of gas heating: As the Green Deal measures are implemented, power demand in Europe will surge. At the same time, the EU wants to phase out fossil fuels, because 75 percent of EU-wide emissions stem from the generation and consumption of power. A faster transition to a greener energy system is therefore essential to achieving climate targets, which is why the European Commission has also proposed a revision of the Renewable Energy Directive as part of its Fit for 55 package.
Disclaimer: This interview has been translated into English and is not considered an official translation by any party involved in the interview.
Mr. Pieper, the directive on the expansion of renewable energies is the central element of the European energy transition. How great is the pressure?
The pressure to achieve quick results is enormous now. Compared to the CO2 savings since the 1990s, we have set ourselves a target of almost three times the amount. And that within nine years. We cannot afford to lose another year or two to legislative processes. That’s why the pressure from the public, the economy, and the scientific community is already considerable.
Due to the implementation of Green Deal measures, power consumption will surge in the coming years. At the same time, Europe wants to phase out fossil fuels.
That is why we need the massive expansion of renewable energies. We cannot equip houses with heat pumps or only drive electric cars if 50 percent of the power is generated through oil, gas, or coal. The Commission’s proposal provides for an expansion target of 40 percent renewables by 2030 in end consumption.
Is that enough? Some environmental associations are calling for much higher targets.
In the impact assessment for the expansion target of 38 to 40 percent, the Commission already had to make considerable efforts to present the effects on the economy and consumers in a plausible way at all. This was also criticized by Parliament’s scientific service. The consequences, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, have not been sufficiently analyzed. Anything over 40% would be open-heart surgery and highly irresponsible towards our citizens and businesses.
But is it enough?
With this interim target, we are in line with the Paris targets. That is what all the calculations say.
The EU wants to become climate neutral by 2050. Don’t we need 100 percent renewables by then at the latest?
This raises the question: How do we define climate neutrality? Many European countries also see the new generations of nuclear power plants as a climate-neutral solution. What can be generated in Europe, in terms of renewable energies beyond that, is highly overestimated.
In what way?
The import of green power or green hydrogen will play a key role. We also have to consider blue and turquoise hydrogen as a transitional solution, where CO2 is split off and stored during production, and this will still be the case in 2050. Otherwise, the whole thing will become unaffordable, we will notice significant social impacts and migration of companies to other parts of the world, which we want to avoid at all costs.
The same applies to excessive dependence on imports. The expansion of renewables in Europe needs to be stepped up, but it’s progressing at a very slow pace. How can this be changed?
The massive investment in infrastructure is key. We need faster approval procedures. There must be a kind of fit-for-55 seal, so that in Germany, too, the procedures are no longer carried through all instances. This also means, for example, that the focus in questions of biodiversity should not be on each individual Milvus, but on the potential threat to the population as a whole. In addition, we must make much better use of the potential of the single market. We need to create synergies, such as the new energy line between Norway and Germany. We need many more of these projects in Europe, and we need them fast. The RED also sets corresponding requirements that oblige the member states to implement cross-border energy projects so that we can bundle the different natural resource potentials in Europe.
To this end, the renewable energy market has always been characterized by innovations. Which ones will we see in the near future?
Through the Horizon Europe program, we have recently multiplied research efforts in the energy sector. We have great expectations in the area of digitalization. For example, smart blockchain technology can be used to make grids capable of storing a certain amount. There is also a lot of potential in smart metering in the building sector. Promising innovative progress is being made in the production and storage of hydrogen. The same applies to nuclear power and synthetic fuels. We must support all of these areas without banning technologies.
What role should biomass play? Cutting down forests for climate protection sounds contradictory.
Tightening up the sustainability criteria here is also part of the RED. The clearing of rainforests for the production of biomass in Europe will end within a few years. On the other hand, we cannot allow specifications to be too narrow. Green energy must be available in sufficient quantities. If we stipulate that wood from FFH areas [Fauna-Flora-Habitat areas with the requirement of nature-friendly cultivation, editor’s note] is no longer allowed to be used, we will have a quantitative problem.
The most important renewable energy sources continue to be solar and, in particular, wind energy, which, however, can hardly be controlled. Do we have to expect supply bottlenecks?
Absolutely not. Germany is simultaneously phasing out nuclear energy and coal and switching to renewables. This can only succeed if we expand the basic gas infrastructure. But therein also lies a great opportunity. Natural gas power plants and heating systems can already be built to be hydrogen-compatible. Proper gas infrastructure is a locational advantage that we can use for the hydrogen era.
But not everyone sees it that way. As you mentioned, France is backing nuclear energy, Germany gas, and others reject both. How can there be common ground?
It is difficult when the member states criticize each other. But the European Treaties clearly state that each country is responsible for its own power generation infrastructure. We should not interfere in the affairs of the French as long as there are no massive safety concerns. At the same time, countries that see their future in nuclear energy should allow Germany and other countries to install new gas power plants to provide basic security. Of course, conflicts are inevitable. But we can’t afford to be know-it-alls when it comes to the energy transition. Each country has chosen the best solution for itself. That has to be accepted.
But it won’t. The best example is the discussion about the EU taxonomy.
I am optimistic that we will get the taxonomy criteria right, allow nuclear power for those countries that want it, and, on the other hand, accept that natural gas is a stopgap. Anything else would be unreasonable and also has nothing to do with the Paris climate targets. Climate change is more dangerous than nuclear power. So we shouldn’t blow it out of proportion, and approach climate change pragmatically and less ideologically.
For the first time, RED also provides targets for individual sectors, such as transport or industry. But how is a certain amount of green power to be used in road traffic as long as there are not enough charging stations?
This is one of the key issues. That is why the Commission has presented the most important legislative proposals in due time and detailed the impact of each one. It is a huge challenge for us in Parliament to find the answers to these proposals. But we also have scientific services. If there is anything contradictory here, we will put our finger on it. But I am confident that we will be able to come up with a good package during the next year.
Can you be more specific?
We must be given ample time to analyze the impact on society and the economy properly. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater and rush into energy poverty. We have to do this responsibly and fulfill our social responsibility, and that takes time.
Anne Hidalgo, born in 1959 in San Fernando (Spain), already holds the title of first female mayor of Paris. Now she wants to become the first female French President.
Her office is considered one of the most beautiful in the entire city, some even claiming it is more beautiful than that of the head of state in the Élysée Palace: Dark wood paneling and high stucco ceilings frame the view from the 150-square-meter office out onto the Seine, Notre-Dame Cathedral and the famous blue-grey roofs of Paris. Just over half the people of Paris hold Anne Hidalgo in high regard and elected her to her second mandate last year – after her first success in 2014. To her supporters, she is a visionary of sustainable urban planning and equality, to her critics, she is a left-green fool.
In mid-September, Hidalgo announced to run in the 2022 presidential elections and was officially nominated by the Socialist Party as a representative in October. The heart of her policy is to be the fight against “social and territorial inequalities”. But at the moment the odds are stacked against her: in current polls, Hidalgo scores between 4 and 6 percent.
“Politically non-existent”, “pretty brunette” and “token woman” were the media headlines when Anne Hidalgo ended her first career as a labor law inspector in 2001 and was appointed deputy mayor of the capital. But there is not much left of the low-profile newcomer today. Her decision to appoint significantly more women than men to leadership posts led to a lawsuit last year.
Hidalgo’s urban planning also has society divided with its many innovations. The almost city-wide speed limit of 30 km/h, the permanent expansions of street cafés to parking lots, and the expansion of bike lanes are a reason to cheer for the many. But motorists are furious with the mayor. Above all for people from the banlieues, who have few alternatives to the car and are now stuck in long traffic jams every day, these measures have little to do with the promised social justice and equality, but with snobbish and unrealistic environmental policies.
Anne Hidalgo is always close to the people and wants to build bridges with her own life story. In 1962, Hidalgo’s parents left Andalusia, which had been shattered by Franco’s dictatorship, and began a new life with their two daughters in the south of France near Lyon. In 1973, the entire family received French citizenship. The 14-year-old Ana became Anne.
As the first presidential candidate with dual citizenship, Hidalgo is particularly concerned about migration. A rise like hers – from an immigrant child from a precarious background to a high-profile politician – should not remain an isolated case: “I want all the children of France to have the same opportunity that I got.” Giorgia Grimaldi
“The pressure to achieve quick results is enormous now,” says Markus Pieper. The CDU MEP is the rapporteur for the directive on the expansion of renewable energies and is thus responsible for one of the most important dossiers in the fight against climate change. In an interview with Timo Landenberger, he talks about the EU Commission’s expansion target, the role of nuclear power, and his call for a “Fit-for-55 seal“.
It is one of the most controversial proposals for the Digital Services Act currently being discussed in Parliament: the ban on personalized advertising. The IMCO’s Digital Single Market working group had recently gathered some experts to a hearing. Among other things, they stressed that personalized advertising contradicts the spirit of the General Data Protection Regulation and warned of the risks of a shadow market. Nevertheless, there was no majority in favor of a full ban in the IMCO, reports Torsten Kleinz, who followed the discussion.
Electrification of road traffic, green hydrogen for industry, and heat pumps instead of gas heating: As the Green Deal measures are implemented, power demand in Europe will surge. At the same time, the EU wants to phase out fossil fuels, because 75 percent of EU-wide emissions stem from the generation and consumption of power. A faster transition to a greener energy system is therefore essential to achieving climate targets, which is why the European Commission has also proposed a revision of the Renewable Energy Directive as part of its Fit for 55 package.
Disclaimer: This interview has been translated into English and is not considered an official translation by any party involved in the interview.
Mr. Pieper, the directive on the expansion of renewable energies is the central element of the European energy transition. How great is the pressure?
The pressure to achieve quick results is enormous now. Compared to the CO2 savings since the 1990s, we have set ourselves a target of almost three times the amount. And that within nine years. We cannot afford to lose another year or two to legislative processes. That’s why the pressure from the public, the economy, and the scientific community is already considerable.
Due to the implementation of Green Deal measures, power consumption will surge in the coming years. At the same time, Europe wants to phase out fossil fuels.
That is why we need the massive expansion of renewable energies. We cannot equip houses with heat pumps or only drive electric cars if 50 percent of the power is generated through oil, gas, or coal. The Commission’s proposal provides for an expansion target of 40 percent renewables by 2030 in end consumption.
Is that enough? Some environmental associations are calling for much higher targets.
In the impact assessment for the expansion target of 38 to 40 percent, the Commission already had to make considerable efforts to present the effects on the economy and consumers in a plausible way at all. This was also criticized by Parliament’s scientific service. The consequences, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, have not been sufficiently analyzed. Anything over 40% would be open-heart surgery and highly irresponsible towards our citizens and businesses.
But is it enough?
With this interim target, we are in line with the Paris targets. That is what all the calculations say.
The EU wants to become climate neutral by 2050. Don’t we need 100 percent renewables by then at the latest?
This raises the question: How do we define climate neutrality? Many European countries also see the new generations of nuclear power plants as a climate-neutral solution. What can be generated in Europe, in terms of renewable energies beyond that, is highly overestimated.
In what way?
The import of green power or green hydrogen will play a key role. We also have to consider blue and turquoise hydrogen as a transitional solution, where CO2 is split off and stored during production, and this will still be the case in 2050. Otherwise, the whole thing will become unaffordable, we will notice significant social impacts and migration of companies to other parts of the world, which we want to avoid at all costs.
The same applies to excessive dependence on imports. The expansion of renewables in Europe needs to be stepped up, but it’s progressing at a very slow pace. How can this be changed?
The massive investment in infrastructure is key. We need faster approval procedures. There must be a kind of fit-for-55 seal, so that in Germany, too, the procedures are no longer carried through all instances. This also means, for example, that the focus in questions of biodiversity should not be on each individual Milvus, but on the potential threat to the population as a whole. In addition, we must make much better use of the potential of the single market. We need to create synergies, such as the new energy line between Norway and Germany. We need many more of these projects in Europe, and we need them fast. The RED also sets corresponding requirements that oblige the member states to implement cross-border energy projects so that we can bundle the different natural resource potentials in Europe.
To this end, the renewable energy market has always been characterized by innovations. Which ones will we see in the near future?
Through the Horizon Europe program, we have recently multiplied research efforts in the energy sector. We have great expectations in the area of digitalization. For example, smart blockchain technology can be used to make grids capable of storing a certain amount. There is also a lot of potential in smart metering in the building sector. Promising innovative progress is being made in the production and storage of hydrogen. The same applies to nuclear power and synthetic fuels. We must support all of these areas without banning technologies.
What role should biomass play? Cutting down forests for climate protection sounds contradictory.
Tightening up the sustainability criteria here is also part of the RED. The clearing of rainforests for the production of biomass in Europe will end within a few years. On the other hand, we cannot allow specifications to be too narrow. Green energy must be available in sufficient quantities. If we stipulate that wood from FFH areas [Fauna-Flora-Habitat areas with the requirement of nature-friendly cultivation, editor’s note] is no longer allowed to be used, we will have a quantitative problem.
The most important renewable energy sources continue to be solar and, in particular, wind energy, which, however, can hardly be controlled. Do we have to expect supply bottlenecks?
Absolutely not. Germany is simultaneously phasing out nuclear energy and coal and switching to renewables. This can only succeed if we expand the basic gas infrastructure. But therein also lies a great opportunity. Natural gas power plants and heating systems can already be built to be hydrogen-compatible. Proper gas infrastructure is a locational advantage that we can use for the hydrogen era.
But not everyone sees it that way. As you mentioned, France is backing nuclear energy, Germany gas, and others reject both. How can there be common ground?
It is difficult when the member states criticize each other. But the European Treaties clearly state that each country is responsible for its own power generation infrastructure. We should not interfere in the affairs of the French as long as there are no massive safety concerns. At the same time, countries that see their future in nuclear energy should allow Germany and other countries to install new gas power plants to provide basic security. Of course, conflicts are inevitable. But we can’t afford to be know-it-alls when it comes to the energy transition. Each country has chosen the best solution for itself. That has to be accepted.
But it won’t. The best example is the discussion about the EU taxonomy.
I am optimistic that we will get the taxonomy criteria right, allow nuclear power for those countries that want it, and, on the other hand, accept that natural gas is a stopgap. Anything else would be unreasonable and also has nothing to do with the Paris climate targets. Climate change is more dangerous than nuclear power. So we shouldn’t blow it out of proportion, and approach climate change pragmatically and less ideologically.
For the first time, RED also provides targets for individual sectors, such as transport or industry. But how is a certain amount of green power to be used in road traffic as long as there are not enough charging stations?
This is one of the key issues. That is why the Commission has presented the most important legislative proposals in due time and detailed the impact of each one. It is a huge challenge for us in Parliament to find the answers to these proposals. But we also have scientific services. If there is anything contradictory here, we will put our finger on it. But I am confident that we will be able to come up with a good package during the next year.
Can you be more specific?
We must be given ample time to analyze the impact on society and the economy properly. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater and rush into energy poverty. We have to do this responsibly and fulfill our social responsibility, and that takes time.
Anne Hidalgo, born in 1959 in San Fernando (Spain), already holds the title of first female mayor of Paris. Now she wants to become the first female French President.
Her office is considered one of the most beautiful in the entire city, some even claiming it is more beautiful than that of the head of state in the Élysée Palace: Dark wood paneling and high stucco ceilings frame the view from the 150-square-meter office out onto the Seine, Notre-Dame Cathedral and the famous blue-grey roofs of Paris. Just over half the people of Paris hold Anne Hidalgo in high regard and elected her to her second mandate last year – after her first success in 2014. To her supporters, she is a visionary of sustainable urban planning and equality, to her critics, she is a left-green fool.
In mid-September, Hidalgo announced to run in the 2022 presidential elections and was officially nominated by the Socialist Party as a representative in October. The heart of her policy is to be the fight against “social and territorial inequalities”. But at the moment the odds are stacked against her: in current polls, Hidalgo scores between 4 and 6 percent.
“Politically non-existent”, “pretty brunette” and “token woman” were the media headlines when Anne Hidalgo ended her first career as a labor law inspector in 2001 and was appointed deputy mayor of the capital. But there is not much left of the low-profile newcomer today. Her decision to appoint significantly more women than men to leadership posts led to a lawsuit last year.
Hidalgo’s urban planning also has society divided with its many innovations. The almost city-wide speed limit of 30 km/h, the permanent expansions of street cafés to parking lots, and the expansion of bike lanes are a reason to cheer for the many. But motorists are furious with the mayor. Above all for people from the banlieues, who have few alternatives to the car and are now stuck in long traffic jams every day, these measures have little to do with the promised social justice and equality, but with snobbish and unrealistic environmental policies.
Anne Hidalgo is always close to the people and wants to build bridges with her own life story. In 1962, Hidalgo’s parents left Andalusia, which had been shattered by Franco’s dictatorship, and began a new life with their two daughters in the south of France near Lyon. In 1973, the entire family received French citizenship. The 14-year-old Ana became Anne.
As the first presidential candidate with dual citizenship, Hidalgo is particularly concerned about migration. A rise like hers – from an immigrant child from a precarious background to a high-profile politician – should not remain an isolated case: “I want all the children of France to have the same opportunity that I got.” Giorgia Grimaldi
