Lawsuit against taxonomy + TTDPA expert • Table.Briefings

Dear reader,

Roberta Metsola is the new President of the European Parliament. The European People’s Party’s conservative group’s candidate was elected to the top office yesterday with a clear majority. The Maltese presented herself in campaign clips, among other things, as a champion of LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and tolerance for different lifestyles in the EU, but is also considered an opponent of abortion. Stephan Israel explores the question of how this fits together.

The supplementary legal act to the Taxonomy Regulation continues to cause a lot of turmoil. Although Germany is opposed to nuclear power, the new federal government cannot reject the act because it relies on gas production. The Commission must nevertheless prepare for trouble. As soon as it formally adopts its delegated act, under which nuclear power is considered sustainable, Austria and Luxembourg plan to file a lawsuit. Charlotte Wirth analyzes whether such a lawsuit would have any chance of success.

Most of us have been annoyed by those pesky cookie banners at one time or another. In the Telecommunications Telemedia Data Protection Act (TTDPA), the German legislature has provided for a standard in Section 26 that is intended to replace them or at least make them much rarer. A research report commissioned by the German government was to prepare the basis for detailed specifications for the design of this section. Torsten Kleinz analyzes the authors’ findings and what this means for the TTDPA.

People have been researching nuclear fusion for more than 60 years. It promises energy in abundance, without fossil fuels, without climate damage, without long-lived nuclear waste. European scientists are leading the way in fusion research. For now. China is investing large sums in research into the new technology and, according to experts, is catching up fast, as Nico Beckert reports.

Your
Eugenie Ankowitsch

Taxonomy: Does legal action stand a chance?

By

Charlotte Wirth

At the end of the month, the European Commission plans to formally adopt the Taxonomy Delegated Act. The Commission’s proposal is controversial. According to it, investments in gas and nuclear power are to be considered sustainable in the future, provided they meet certain conditions. In this way, President Ursula von der Leyen is accommodating the French Council Presidency in particular, which is hoping for financial injections for nuclear power. On the other hand, Germany is getting into trouble by bundling both energy sources into one act. Although Germany is against nuclear power, the new German government cannot reject the act. After all, it is dependent on the production of gas.

Luxembourg and Austria, in particular, see things differently. Both states have already made it clear: If the delegated act comes into force, they will appeal to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the classification of nuclear power as sustainable. “This taxonomy is a no-go,” said Luxembourg’s Environment Minister Carole Dieschbourg, for example, in an interview with Europe.Table. She spoke of a “clumsy approach” by the European Commission.

But what might such a lawsuit look like? A legal opinion commissioned by the Austrian government several months ago provides a good impression. The lawyers consulted see good chances for an action for annulment before the ECJ. Such action is based on Article 263 TFEU. It allows member states to bring an action for “lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers”.

Nuclear power not included in basic regulation

The lawyers of the law firm Redeker-Sellner-Dahs argue in their evaluation that the European Commission is exceeding its authority. By classifying nuclear power as sustainable, it goes beyond the provisions laid down in the basic act in the delegated act. In fact, the Taxonomy Regulation sets a very clear framework as to which energy sources may be considered green (esp. Articles 10, 16, and 19). Three categories can be distinguished:

Green energy sources that make a significant contribution to climate protection. These include, in particular, renewable energies, technologies to increase energy efficiency or still clean mobility.
Enabling activities that directly allow those activities that make a significant contribution to climate protection. This applies as long as they have a positive impact on the environment and do not lead to a vendor lock-in effect.
Transition technologies, i.e., economic activities for which there are no technologically and economically feasible low-carbon alternatives. However, the regulation stipulates that these must not interfere with the path to the 1.5-degree target.

In its draft delegated act, the Commission classifies nuclear power in the third category. It is thus considered a transitional technology under Article 10(2). “Nuclear and gas do not fit into the other categories,” says a Commission spokesperson, describing the legal act as a “pragmatic and realistic” proposal.

According to the Austrian lawyers, however, nuclear power does not fit into any of the categories and, in particular, cannot be classified as a transitional technology: “By stating that there are no low-carbon alternatives, Article 10(2) implies that low-carbon activities are excluded from the scope of the provision. In other words, Article 10(2) covers only carbon-intensive activities.” So nuclear power simply does not fit into any of the categories defined in the Taxonomy Regulation. If the Commission nevertheless integrates nuclear power, it is therefore exceeding its authority.

Key policy issues or implementation?

The Austrian lawyer for climate and energy law, Florian Stangl, also sees the potential for such a lawsuit. Accordingly, the basis of the lawsuit would have to be the question of whether the Commission has adhered to the specifications that are in the Taxonomy Regulation. “The Commission has gone out on a limb a bit,” says the expert in conversation with the portal “incubator”. It could finally specify in its delegated act only on the basis of the energy technologies and energy sources, which are laid out in the basic act. “Has the Commission overstepped the mark? It is then up to the ECJ to decide.”

However, the lawyer points out that it is usually difficult to bring an action against Union acts. Lena Hornkohl, Senior Research Fellow for Procedural Law in the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law at the Max Planck Institute, takes a similar stance. She considers lawsuits against delegated acts to be unusual. Hornkohl sees the chances of a lawsuit more on a higher level. Delegated acts are actually intended to implement the provisions of the basic act. According to 290 TFEU, they serve to “supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act in question”.

In Hornkohl’s eyes, the question of materiality alone should give cause for complaint: “One can argue that the environmental friendliness of nuclear and gas are essential basic political decisions.” Accordingly, the Commission could not decide these in a delegated act.

The polemics surrounding this piece of legislation alone indicate that there is more at stake here than the simple implementation of a regulation. “The Commission issues delegated acts all the time. A discussion like the one, in this case, is unique,” comments Hornkohl.

Christian Schneider, energy and European law expert, sees it differently. “The French would never have agreed to the basic act on taxonomy if nuclear could not be subsumed under it,” he says, also pointing to Macron’s great influence on the Commission. A lawsuit, he says, is based on an ideological assessment, while the Commission is concerned with physical considerations. For Schneider, it is clear that as long as there are no other viable technical solutions to ensure the baseload in power supply, some member states will need nuclear power – and as long as that is the case, it could be considered a temporary solution. “Austria will probably fail with a lawsuit,” Schneider predicts.

Too narrow a remit for the JRC

However, the question of whether the Commission is exceeding its powers is not the only possible basis for a lawsuit. At least, that is what the Austrian legal opinion thinks. The fact that nuclear power does not meet the sustainability criteria in the sense of “Do No Significant Harm” is also considered problematic by the lawyers. According to them, nuclear power has strong negative effects on people and the environment. In particular, the “non-excludable risk of severe nuclear accidents and the uncertainties extending far into the future due to the necessary final storage of highly radioactive nuclear waste” would speak against “nuclear power as sustainable, even as a transitional technology“.

In its delegated act, the Commission refers in this context to the assessment of experts, in particular the report of the Joint Research Council and two follow-up assessments by the Article 31 Group and the Scheer Group (Europe.Table reported). The legal opinion on which Austria and Luxembourg, among others, intend to rely, on the other hand, argues that the fulfillment of the “Do No Significant Harm” criteria must be examined on the basis of conclusive scientific evidence. For example, Article 24 of the basic act states that: “The Commission shall seek all necessary expertise before adopting and during the preparation of delegated acts.” This, however, the Commission did not do.

The Commission had already formulated the terms of reference for the experts too narrowly. The resilience of nuclear power plants to the effects of climate change, the consequences of uranium mining, or the risk of serious nuclear accidents had not been examined. The Scheer Group also criticized this in its paper. In the draft delegated act, however, the Commission states that uranium mining will not be included in the delegated act for this reason and notes in a footnote that the JRC was not entrusted with the risk assessment of nuclear accidents and nuclear proliferation (pp. 3-4).

EU Court of Justice may be difficult to convince

The Austrian legal opinion accuses the Commission of failing to meet the evidentiary requirements of the Taxonomy Regulation and European primary law. Therefore including nuclear power in the taxonomy is an error of judgment: “Nuclear power is not a sustainable activity in the sense of the Taxonomy Regulation,” the lawyers write.

Incidentally, the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management also criticized the JRC report in its own report. It called the report an “incomplete contribution to evaluate the DNSH criteria” (Europe.Table reported).

However, it is difficult to assert these concerns legally, says Lena Hornkohl. The issue here, she says, is whether the Commission respected its discretion. “The arguments are not implausible, but it is questionable whether the ECJ will declare a legal act null and void on this basis,” she says. Florian Stangl also says the question of sustainability may be difficult to resolve legally. It could be argued that the Commission has failed to substantiate the DNSH. But, “The ECJ will probably only react if the Commission has made very big blunders.”

The Commission seems to have little concern about a lawsuit at the moment. That’s probably also because it will drag on. About a year is to be expected, Hornkohl says, and warns, “Lawsuits have no suspensive effect.”

However, Austria and Luxembourg are not the only players considering legal action. Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace are also considering legal action. This is because the Commission – at least so far – has not held a public consultation. In fact, the Commission’s internal procedural guidelines stipulate that delegated acts undergo such consultation. With exceptions, delegated acts are posted online for four weeks to allow stakeholders to provide feedback – or so it says in the Commission’s working documents on better regulation. The taxonomy act does not fall under the exceptions listed in the document.

High requirements for legal entities

But while an action for annulment is easy for member states to bring, legal persons must prove that they are directly affected by the provisions of the act. “These are very high requirements. So high that there are already legal opinions on whether the Commission is not violating the Aarhus criteria on access to justice in environmental matters here,” says Lena Hornkohl. She also says that the working documents are a self-binding obligation of the administration, which is not necessarily anchored in European law. “It is argued again and again that the Commission must respect its own guidelines, but that is not legally substantiated.”

Deutsche Umwelthilfe sees a further possibility for legal action in its own expert opinion. Among other things, it argues that the inclusion of nuclear (and gas) is incompatible with the recent ruling by the German Constitutional Court to initiate the transition to climate neutrality in good time. In fact, one could file a constitutional challenge in Germany, says Lena Hornkohl. One could argue that the future right to a healthy environment is denied. In this sense, it would then be a matter of the so-called ultra vires question, i.e., does EU law take precedence over German law? After the polemical Karlsruhe ruling of 2020, however, it is very unlikely that the Constitutional Court will rule in favor of the environmentalists.

Ultimately, EU climate law expert Florian Stangl sees the problem of including nuclear power also at the level of competition law. Thanks to Euratom, nuclear power can be subsidized by the state. If investors want to make sustainable investments, it may be more interesting for them to invest in publicly subsidized technology. Nuclear power, therefore, has a competitive advantage. But one could not sue against it. “Since nuclear power is regulated by Euratom, it’s not a competition case.”

TTDPA expert opinion: consent management possible – with many hurdles

In Section 26 of the TTDPA, the German legislature has provided for a standard that is intended to replace unpopular cookie banners or at least make them much rarer. An eagerly awaited research report commissioned by the German government was to prepare the ground for detailed specifications for the design of this section to be made by ordinance. The report was first discussed shortly before Christmas in an initial ministerial expert meeting, and now the authors around Viennese civil law professor Christiane Wendehorst have published it.

The 88-page document contains both good and bad news for the advertising industry, advertisers, and publishers: The authors conclude that it is possible in principle to replace cookie banners with a general consent management system, or at least to supplement it. However, the requirements for this are high, and the legal situation is unclear.

“Recognized services” to bear responsibility for data

One possibility outlined by the authors is for a “recognized service” to manage consent forms on behalf of end users. Achim Schlosser, CTO of the NetID Foundation, is optimistic about being able to provide such a service. But there are still high legal and organizational hurdles here.

The authors of the report suggest, for example, that such a service act as “first controller” and pass on the data collected so that both the requirements of the ePrivacy Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation can be met simultaneously. Under the current circumstances, it seems almost hopeless to find a candidate willing to take substantial responsibility for personalized advertising playout of hundreds of companies.

The Belgian data protection authority wants to hold the online advertising organization IAB partially responsible for data sharing in the course of the Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF 2.0). However, this is likely to hopelessly overburden the organization and could put an end to the previous model. The outcome of this case is open, but in any case is likely to have an impact on the federal TTDPA regulation. After all, to enable server-side consent services without their own accountability, supervisory authorities and probably also the European Court of Justice would first have to clear the way.

BVDW thinks little of German special paths

Another and less legally controversial approach would be to manage consents on the end device alone, as proposed by the data protection organization NOYB, for example. Consent management, also known as Personal Information Management System (PIMS), would thus be completely separated from data and advertising monetization.

The advertising industry fears an imbalance caused by such a construction. “The question is: To what extent will the standard of independence of PIMS lead to purely consumer-oriented solutions that do not take into account the needs of telemedia?” asks the German Association for the Digital Economy (BVDW) Vice President Thomas Duhr. In other words, if the German special way leads to a blanket refusal of data processing by a large proportion of consumers, few companies will want to support the procedure. The “Do not Track” signal designed in 2009 failed for this reason.

The requirements for browser manufacturers such as Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla stipulated in the law are limited, according to the report: The authors consider the existence of an extension interface to be sufficient. However, the pitfall is in the details: Google Chrome, for example, offers a wide selection of extensions on desktop computers, even ad blockers. However, the mobile version of the browser on Android does not allow such extensions. Apps do not appear in the review at all.

TTDPA regulation threatens to lag behind legal developments

The changing European legal situation is also problematic. The TTDPA is Germany’s belated implementation of the actually outdated e-privacy directive. This is to be replaced by the ePrivacy Regulation. But what changes this will have for consent management is unclear. The report refers to a Council negotiating document that solves some problems on the one hand but also raises new ones. For example, the referenced status provides that consent for data processing should be renewed after 12 months at the latest. Another factor of uncertainty is a pending decision by the ECJ on the question of whether citizens must be specifically told who receives their data or whether categories of recipients are sufficient.

In addition, there are other European legislative projects such as the Data Governance Act passed at the end of 2021 and the upcoming Data Act, which also influence the TTDPA regulation. The TTDPA was driven by the hope that functioning consent management in Germany would make an impression on this European legislation, so that the German special path could be smoothly transferred to a European model.

Last year, Rolf Bender from the responsible department in the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology was still optimistic that a draft bill for the regulation would be available in the first quarter of 2022, which could go through both the Bundestag, the Bundesrat, and the EU notification procedure this summer. It remains to be seen whether the newly formed German government will be able to keep to this timetable. The Federal Ministry of Digital Affairs and Transport, which is now in charge, is planning further technical rounds on the next steps. Torsten Kleinz

Hope for climate-neutral energy from nuclear fusion

By

Nico Beckert

Temperatures hotter than the inside of the sun. Hardly imaginable for ordinary people. For fusion scientists, they are part of everyday life. Recently, Chinese scientists successfully raised the plasma in their fusion reactor to 70 million degrees Celsius – and maintained this state for more than 17 minutes. Last May, they even reached a temperature of 120 million degrees, which could be maintained for 101 seconds. That sounds short, but it marks a breakthrough. Because it shows the viability of the new technology.

Like other countries, China wants to finally make the great dream of fusion power come true. This new form of power generation has been researched for more than 60 years. It promises power in abundance, without fossil fuels, without climate damage, without lasting nuclear waste. These are tempting prospects for a country like China, with its high dependence on coal-fired power and growing demand for power. The People’s Republic is therefore operating several experimental fusion reactors.

But so far, no scientific team has successfully extracted more power from a fusion reactor than was previously supplied to set the fusion processes in motion. However, the recent successes of Chinese scientists could soon change that.

Nuclear fusion: China with “impressive” results

European researchers see China on a promising path in fusion research. Sustaining fusion plasma for 1,000 seconds is an “impressive technological achievement,” Dr. Hartmut Zohm, Head of Tokamak Scenario Development at the German Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics.

Volker Naulin, Head of Fusion Science Department in EUROfusion, also says, “Keeping a plasma stable for a longer period of time and at high temperatures is impressive.” EUROfusion is an association of European research bodies to consolidate European cooperation in fusion research.

But as remarkable as the results of the Chinese experiments sound, they should not be overestimated. After all, three conditions must be met to make plasma usable inside fusion reactors to generate power. The three parameters of temperature, plasma density, and confinement time must reach a certain level for the fusion fire to burn self-sustaining. The necessary temperature has already been reached by the Chinese. “For plasma density and confinement time, the Chinese colleagues are still far from the necessary values,” says Dr. Zohm of the Max Planck Institute. European researchers are already much further ahead with the three conditions, he adds.

Europe is leading the way in fusion power

Overall, Europe is still the leader in fusion research, according to the unanimous opinion of European scientists. Chinese colleagues are still “not quite at the level of the best institutes worldwide,” says Hartmut Zohm. The high temperatures and plasma stability that China’s scientists have recently achieved have also already been achieved in European experiments, says Tony Donné, Program Manager (CEO) at EUROfusion.

Europe also has an edge in the best “fuel” for fusion reactors. According to scientists, a mixture of deuterium and tritium holds great promise for powering future power-generating fusion reactors. It provides “the most energy at the easiest conditions,” says a spokesman for EUROfusion. So far, the so-called JET experiment in the United Kingdom is the only fusion experiment so far that uses a deuterium-tritium mixture, Donné said.

The JET experiment, in which more than 30 European research institutes are involved, has also achieved the highest power efficiency in the world. “The fusion energy gain achieved in these devices have not been matched anywhere else to date,” says Eurofusion’s Programme Manager. But even JET researchers have not yet reached the point where more power is gained than invested. This is the goal of ITER, an international test reactor in France, in which China, Russia, and the USA are also involved.

Beijing gives high priority to nuclear fusion

According to Volker Naulin, this also makes Europe “clearly the leader in fusion research“. But “China is catching up fast.” The People’s Republic is investing vast sums in research of the new technology. Unlike the rest of the world, China gives fusion energy “a very high priority for future power supply,” says Zohm of the Max Planck Institute. In Hefei, for example, a dedicated research campus has been established. There, technologies are being developed to “operate fusion machines economically and permanently,” Naulin says.

China is also planning to construct a demonstration reactor to show the technological viability of generating power from nuclear fusion. On the international level, this is planned only after the large-scale experiment ITER, says Zohm. However, the final decision on funding the Chinese demonstration reactor was only recently postponed, Naulin noted.

China would like to generate power from nuclear fusion as early as 2040, says Chinese plasma scientist Song Yuntao. Achieving this ambitious goal is “not ruled out“, says Zohm. After all, China is “investing a lot of money in this technology and is making rapid progress.” Exact predictions, however, are difficult. Especially in the field of nuclear fusion. In the past, scientists were convinced several times that they were on the verge of a major breakthrough. Tony Donné of EUROfusion considers the Chinese 2040 target as “somewhat optimistic“.

No green deal money for fusion research

However, China is investing so massively in fusion research overall that the People’s Republic could soon overtake European researchers. “In three to four years, the research crown could lie elsewhere, namely in China,” says Naulin. In Europe, he says, the necessary political support is lacking. The EUROfusion scientist complains, “If you slack off now and don’t build a demonstration reactor, Europe will lose the necessary know-how.” That’s because while China is investing, funding is being cut in Europe. The budget for EUROfusion has been cut in recent years, Donné says.

In addition, fusion research is regarded as nuclear technology at the political level. As a result, it cannot receive funding from the EU Green Deal. Bureaucratic hurdles also impede research in Europe. Naulin points out that the ITER large-scale experiment was built “in accordance with safety standards that are required for a nuclear power plant.” However, Naulin does not consider this necessary. “It makes it more complicated and costly than it needs to be.” Generating power through fusion is comparatively safe: there is no chance of a meltdown as in a conventional nuclear power plant.

But China’s rise in fusion research is not only based on massive funding. There is an intense exchange in research. China’s excellent capabilities in nuclear fusion are also owed to “open scientific cooperation,” Naulin says.

“Europe and China still have a very active cooperation program,” confirms Tony Donné. For example, many of the fusion experiments have international advisory committees that include participants from China and Western countries. At the meetings, Chinese scientists also present their data openly, Donné says. “Our Chinese colleagues publish all their results and invite us to collaborate in their experiments,” Zohm of the Max Planck Institute also confirms.

“Friendly competition” in research

But China currently seems to benefit more from the partnership. Naulin and Zohm explain that more knowledge is currently flowing to China than the other way around. This is not a cause for concern, however, and is due to Europe’s lead in the state of research. From the political level, however, less money is already provided for the exchange. “Those responsible have the feeling that the exchange is one-sided in favor of China,” says Volker Naulin.

However, a certain degree of competition and caution is definitely present in the Western-Chinese cooperation. “I would describe the relationship as friendly competition,” says Zohm. And Donné of EUROfusion adds that “when it comes to fusion technology in which we are working on technologies and components that might be strategic, we are more careful.” Meanwhile, when intellectual property issues are involved, EUROfusion has become more cautious about sharing details. Donné assumes that “on the Chinese side, they do the same” when it comes to intellectual property.

It is not yet clear whether China or Europe will be the first to successfully build the first commercially viable fusion power plant that will also generate power. The Europeans plan to present new results of a JET experiment on February 9. And the scientific community is eagerly awaiting the large-scale ITER experiment, which also has Chinese participation. After years of construction, the first ITER experiments are scheduled to launch in 2025.

However, almost all experts agree: In the short term, fusion energy will not be able to contribute to climate protection. But by the middle of the century, it could cover a part of the global power demand – if research goes according to plan.

Habeck holds out the prospect of assuming transformation costs

Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection Robert Habeck (Greens) has promised the industry far-reaching concessions in the transformation to climate neutrality. The coalition has agreed that what is needed will be financed, Habeck said at the “Handelsblatt” energy summit in Berlin on Tuesday. “The volume should not be the limit,” Habeck said in response to a question about so-called climate protection differential agreements.

The German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology had already promised a pilot program for Carbon Contracts for Difference in its opening climate protection statement at the beginning of the legislative period. Through CCfD, the government could subsidize not only the investment in climate-neutral production facilities such as direct reduction plants in the steel industry but also the additional costs during operation. Additional costs are incurred, for example, because green hydrogen will remain more expensive than natural gas for the foreseeable future. In its study Climate Paths 2.0, the Federation of German Industries had put the annual additional costs for industry, including capital costs, at €11 billion for 2030.

In the long term, however, the industry will have to pay back some of the government subsidies, according to Habeck. Over time, there will be a tipping point at which climate-neutral production technologies are cheaper than in today’s fossil fuel economy, the minister said. Companies should then pay back part of what they received as an advance. The term of the climate protection differential contracts should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

In light of the current high cost of energy, Habeck’s State Secretary Patrick Graichen called on companies to invest in renewable energy. “When, if not now?” asked Graichen. Electricity from wind and solar farms currently costs €50 to €60 per megawatt-hour. This would allow companies to protect themselves against price spikes on fossil markets. On the EEX energy exchange, a megawatt-hour of electricity for the calendar year 2023 cost over €115 at times on Tuesday, and over €84 for 2026. Manuel Berkel

Draft report on the Social Climate Fund: less climate, more social issues

The EU Commission’s proposal for a Social Climate Fund contains “a lot of climate” but “too little focus on social issues,” judged Esther de Lange (EPP/CDA) on Twitter. The Dutchwoman is the rapporteur of the dossier from the Fit for 55 package for the ENVI Committee. Together with the Maltese rapporteur for the EMPL Committee, David Casa (EPP/PN), she has now presented the first draft of the parliamentary report, which is available to Europe.Table.

The idea for a Social Climate Fund arose in response to the sometimes fierce criticism of the plan to introduce a second emissions trading system (ETS) for buildings and road transport. In order to cushion the additional burden on the population and the social impact of price increases at the gas pump or for heating, the Commission proposed the Social Climate Fund. A quarter of the revenue from ETS 2 should go into the fund, according to the Commission. The rest would go to the member states, which would have to set out in a “social climate plan” what they intend to use the revenue for. The money could be used both for temporary direct payments to citizens and for projects to increase energy efficiency in buildings and expand renewable energies.

Promotion for used car market for EVs

Rapporteur De Lange said her draft offers the possibility to reduce energy taxes for socially disadvantaged groups and thus deliver better protection against energy poverty than the Commission’s proposal. De Lange and Casa propose to finance vouchers for better thermal insulation or other climate-friendly renovations for tenants from the fund.

The fund will also provide financial support or tax incentives to encourage the development of a used car market for zero- and low-emission vehicles. This should also enable less affluent households to move in a more climate-friendly way without being restricted in their mobility. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) should also be able to apply for money from the fund, for example, to receive support for rising transport costs.

However, the money to finance the member states’ climate social plans is not to come from the fund alone. The Commission had already proposed that the EU countries should bear at least half of the costs of implementing the plans themselves. The Parliament’s rapporteurs want to increase this share to 60 percent for direct payments to households or companies. For investments in energy efficiency projects and the expansion of renewables, which are intended to provide long-term solutions, the countries’ own share would remain at 50 percent.

Energy and transport poverty to be clearly defined

Monitoring of energy and transport poverty should be made mandatory in all member states. To this end, the rapporteurs call for both terms to be given a universally applicable definition so that developments can be monitored and data compared. Energy poverty is a situation in which a lack of energy for heating, cooling, lighting and the operation of appliances leads to health restrictions and no adequate standard of living, write de Lange and Casa. Transport poverty results from high fuel prices, limiting mobility, especially in remote and inaccessible regions. Particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe, parts of the population are affected by energy poverty.

Finally, de Lange and Casa also call for money from the fund to be tied to the rule of law. No money should flow to governments that do not adhere to fundamental values, such as freedom of the media and an independent judiciary, de Lange said. luk

CAP: Lemke in favor of phasing out land subsidies

Reorientation of agricultural policy, departure, and closing of ranks between the ministries: This was announced by Federal Environment Minister Steffi Lemke and Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir (both Greens) at the opening of the sixth BMUV Conference on Agriculture on Tuesday. The goal is to better harmonize nature, environmental, and climate protection with agriculture.

One of the key levers here is the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Lemke said at the event. “We need a different use of subsidies. Nature, the environment, and climate protection should be specifically rewarded. This means that it must be worthwhile for farmers to farm in a nature- and environmentally-friendly way. To do this, we need to get out of the current system of flat-rate area payments.”

The Ministry of the Environment wants to be involved in adjustments to the national strategy plan as early as this year, as well as in the evaluation of the CAP in 2024 and the discussion about its further reform. In addition, it will work to significantly increase funding for contract-based nature conservation in the joint task of agricultural structure and coastal protection. In addition, funding for livestock conversion for the benefit of the environment must be linked to a reduction in total animal numbers and a “compatible ratio” of animals to farmland.

Ban on glyphosate at EU level

In addition, Lemke announced that the German government would campaign for a ban on glyphosate at the European level. “That’s why we want to promote alternatives to chemically synthetic agents, take glyphosate off the market by the end of 2023 and make the use of pesticides more compatible with the environment and nature in general,” the Green politician said.

In November, the European Parliament adopted the reform of the common agricultural policy by a clear majority. But the new version of the regulations was controversial. Environmentalists felt that the planned changes did not go far enough, and the Greens and SPD in the Parliament voted against the reform.

Critics are now focusing on implementation in the member states. They had until December 31st to submit the so-called national strategy plans to Brussels. However, nine EU countries, including Germany, failed to meet the deadline. The Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) has since announced that it will submit the plans in February. til

Agora: climate clubs only as a supplement

The new French EU Council Presidency has declared the implementation of the planned CO2 border adjustment (CBAM) for imports as its main priority. However, the CBAM remains one of the most controversial measures in the Fit for 55 climate package.

There is practically no alternative to its introduction. This is the conclusion reached by the authors of a study by the think tank Agora Energiewende, which is to be presented today and thus shortly before the first informal meeting of EU energy and environment ministers under French leadership. In light of the EU’s more ambitious climate targets, the current system of allocating free CO2 allowances to industry is no longer viable to prevent carbon leakage, the paper says. The only credible alternative in the authors’ view: the introduction of a border adjustment.

The establishment of a “climate club” brought into play by Germany could be useful as a supplement, but not as an independent option. There would be too many differences between potential club members in terms of climate goals and policies. Nevertheless, an inclusive climate club could make a valuable contribution to establishing globally agreed principles for CBAM-like policies at the international level.

Allow free certificates to expire more slowly

Alongside this, phasing in the CBAM while phasing out free allowances would accelerate the decarbonization of industry, the authors write. “Provided it is accompanied by support for key low-carbon technologies.” For example, they say, the expected pass-through of carbon costs along the value chain will also create incentives for recycling and switching to lower-carbon materials. CBAM revenues could help the EU raise funds to finance carbon offset contracts, among other things.

However, border adjustments would also have to provide adequate protection for exporters. Agora Energiewende, therefore, proposes that the free allowances be phased out more slowly by 2030 than envisaged by the Commission, coupled with targeted support for emissions reductions. This is opposed by the draft of the CBAM rapporteur of the EU Parliament, Mohammed Chahim (S&D). In it, the Dutch MEP calls for the allocation of free emission allowances to be ended considerably earlier, which caused an outcry among industry representatives in particular. til

Study: driving forward climate partnerships with Africa

The European Union should bring its foreign and trade policy more into line with the goals of the Green Deal and, in particular, get African states on board. Otherwise, it runs the risk of losing influence not only in Africa but also on the world market. This is the result of a study by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which is to be presented today and has been made available to Europe.Table in advance.

As a result, economic relations with Africa will play an increasingly important role in the global economic order. According to the study, by 2025, there will be over 100 cities in Africa with more than one million inhabitants – more than three times as many as in the European Union. Many international companies are already drawn to the continent in search of low-cost production sites and labor. In addition, Africa is the fastest-growing consumer market for an increasingly wide range of products.

Much of the growth will be driven by “green energy ecosystems”, the study says. Combining cutting-edge digital technologies and telecommunications with renewable energy technologies would create new industries and services. The EU could be a key partner in the deployment of 5G networks, off-grid solar power generation, and EV manufacturing. It could also help establish world-class data regulatory measures and support the construction of data centers.

However, it is by no means certain that Europe will actually play such a major role in the new trade structure that is emerging in Africa. Rather, China has overtaken the EU in recent years to become Africa’s most important trading partner.

Combine Global Gateway and Green Deal

Not least because Chinese companies benefit from a large state backstop, Europe needs to deploy its resources in a coordinated, strategic way. “The EU urgently needs to combine the foreign policy aspect of its Green Deal with its nascent Global Gateway Program, which is its response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI),” said the study’s author, Michaël Tanchum.

With a unified approach, the EU has the opportunity to help promote economic growth while strengthening geopolitical ties with the continent’s governments and businesses. To achieve this, however, it would need to provide investment and other assistance that would have a real impact on Africa’s growth trajectory.

The image of European climate protection measures in Africa also needs to be reconsidered. For example, the planned introduction of a Carbon Boundary Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) for imports “looks like an unfair tax on Africa’s economic development path”. In doing so, the EU is mixing potentially punitive measures such as the CBAM with funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation. These approaches lack strategic coherence.

“To address the problem, European policymakers should explicitly recognize the potential of African ecosystems for green energy,” Tanchum said. At the same time, Europe’s external climate and trade policies should be positioned as cooperative rather than protectionist instruments, partnerships and joint ventures should be advanced, and the Global Gateway should be integrated into the Green Deal. This will maximize the EU’s influence on infrastructure and help allay African governments’ concerns about European climate policy. til

Scholz: Nord Stream 2 could be part of the sanctions

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock have issued an urgent warning to Russia against an attack on Ukraine. “We have no choice but to defend our common rules, even if this comes at a high economic price,” Baerbock said in Moscow on Tuesday after a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not rule out that the threatened economic, financial, and political consequences in the event of aggression could also include the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline. Germany stands by its agreement with the US on the pipeline, he said, adding that “it is also clear that there will be high costs, that everything will have to be discussed if there is military intervention against Ukraine,” when asked whether Nord Stream 2 could also be affected by sanctions.

The chancellor said that he was waiting for a de-escalation sign from Russia, such as a reduction in troops. The foreign minister had also criticized in Moscow that Russia had massed 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border, which could only be perceived as a threat against the neighboring country. Baerbock and Lavrov had negotiated with each other for several hours in Moscow. Afterwards, the Russian foreign minister accused NATO, among other things, of not adhering to agreements on eastward expansion. He also criticized the gas pipeline for being “politicized”.

Readiness for further talks with Moscow

Baerbock, in turn, stressed that there were major, fundamental differences of opinion with the Russian government on many issues. But she also pointed to the opportunities for cooperation, both in the implementation of the nuclear agreement with Iran and in the fight against climate change. Germany will also need gas from Russia for some years to come.

Scholz, Baerbock, and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stressed their willingness to engage in dialogue with Moscow. Lavrov also did not rule out further talks. Stoltenberg said in Berlin that he had invited the members of the NATO-Russia Council to further talks. Like the chancellor, he stressed the importance of the various channels of talks with Moscow, such as the Normandy format, the OSCE, and the US-Russian talks.

Scholz and Baerbock also called for renewed talks between Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia on the situation in eastern Ukraine and the implementation of the Minsk peace agreement. Lavrov stressed that talks between the Ukrainian side and the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine were particularly important.

Already on Monday, during her visit to Kiev, Baerbock had agreed with her Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba on a push to revive negotiations in the so-called Normandy format. “Diplomacy is the only viable way to defuse the current highly dangerous situation,” Baerbock had said in Ukraine.

Blinken meets Lavrov

Shuttle diplomacy will continue in the coming days. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will also meet his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov during his trip to Europe. At the talks scheduled for Friday in Geneva, Blinken will urge the Russian government to take immediate steps to ease tensions on the Russian-Ukrainian border, a senior US administration official said Tuesday.

On Thursday, Blinken will meet with Chancellor Scholz and Foreign Minister Baerbock in Berlin. On Wednesday, he plans to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj in Kiev. There is also to be a meeting with counterparts from France and Great Britain.

Scholz again rejected German arms deliveries to Ukraine. The British government, on the other hand, had sent military equipment to Ukraine. After the confusion about the unusual flight path of the British military aircraft around Germany, the British Defense Minister Ben Wallace emphasized that Germany had in no way denied the aircraft overflight permission. A spokesman for the German Defense Ministry had also stressed in the morning that the British government had not made any request for overflight at all. rtr

Roberta Metsola: abortion opponent from the liberal wing

Roberta Metsola was elected president of the EU Parliament on Tuesday.

Can a politician represent a modern image of women and at the same time be against abortion? The new EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola would clearly answer this question in the affirmative, as she embodies this contradiction. The 43-year-old Maltese was elected to the top post on Tuesday as the candidate of the conservative group of the European People’s Party with a clear majority in the first round of voting.

“I am a woman from a small island in the middle of Europe’s southern sea,” Roberta Metsola said on Tuesday, “I know what it means to be the underdog. I know what it means to be pigeonholed.” Roberta Metsola sees herself as a role model for girls and young women in Europe.

In particular, the left-wing and green camp had a hard time deciding in favor of Metsola for a long time. After all, the first woman to head the EU Parliament in 1979 was the Frenchwoman Simone Veil, legendary champion of legal abortion.

Weber: “Modern and progressive woman”

So now, an opponent of abortion. Roberta Metsola defends herself by saying that in her home country, the position is a consensus across party lines. In fact, the arch-Catholic country has the strictest abortion ban in the EU. As Parliament president, she will defend a woman’s right to choose, regardless of her personal convictions, says Roberta Metsola. Moreover, the abortion issue is not an EU competence. She also otherwise belongs to the more liberal wing of the conservatives and makes a point of distinguishing herself from the right-wing fringe, which is not the case for all members of the conservative group.

Roberta Metsola is a “modern and progressive woman”, said parliamentary group leader Manfred Weber, promoting his candidate. In campaign clips, Metsola presented herself as a champion of LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and tolerance for different lifestyles in the EU, an “area of freedom“.

In the conflict over the rule of law with Hungary and Poland, she has tended to push for a hard line in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). When Joseph Muscat’s Social Democratic government became mired in corruption in her home country, she called for the prime minister’s resignation. After the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, she took an active part in the investigation.

The third woman at the head of the Parliament

However, the Social Democrats and the Greens found it difficult to vote for Roberta Metsola, and not only because of the abortion issue. With the election of the Maltese woman, the important top posts in the EU are all in conservative or liberal hands now. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, are without a top job after the death of the previous EU Parliament President, David Sassoli, shortly before the end of his term. The leftists find this unfair because, after the comeback of the Social Democrats in Berlin and other capitals, this no longer reflects the reality in the member states.

Roberta Metsola is only the third woman to head the EU Parliament, eloquent and sometimes sharp-tongued. She belongs to the Erasmus Generation, representing a new generation of female politicians. She campaigned early on for her country’s accession to the EU, earned a doctorate in law, and studied, among other things, at the College of Europe in Bruges, an EU cadre school. Metsola has been a member of the EU Parliament since 2013, is the mother of four sons, and is married to Finn Ukko Metsola, a lobbyist for the cruise industry. Stephan Israel

EUROPE.TABLE EDITORS

Till
Hoppe

Charlotte
Wirth

Falk
Steiner

Timo
Landenberger

Corinna
Visser

Lukas
Knigge

Eric
Bonse

Sarah
Schaefer

Manuel
Berkel

Lisa-Martina
Klein

Markus
Grabitz

Stephan
Israel

Claire
Stam

Dear reader,

Roberta Metsola is the new President of the European Parliament. The European People’s Party’s conservative group’s candidate was elected to the top office yesterday with a clear majority. The Maltese presented herself in campaign clips, among other things, as a champion of LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and tolerance for different lifestyles in the EU, but is also considered an opponent of abortion. Stephan Israel explores the question of how this fits together.

The supplementary legal act to the Taxonomy Regulation continues to cause a lot of turmoil. Although Germany is opposed to nuclear power, the new federal government cannot reject the act because it relies on gas production. The Commission must nevertheless prepare for trouble. As soon as it formally adopts its delegated act, under which nuclear power is considered sustainable, Austria and Luxembourg plan to file a lawsuit. Charlotte Wirth analyzes whether such a lawsuit would have any chance of success.

Most of us have been annoyed by those pesky cookie banners at one time or another. In the Telecommunications Telemedia Data Protection Act (TTDPA), the German legislature has provided for a standard in Section 26 that is intended to replace them or at least make them much rarer. A research report commissioned by the German government was to prepare the basis for detailed specifications for the design of this section. Torsten Kleinz analyzes the authors’ findings and what this means for the TTDPA.

People have been researching nuclear fusion for more than 60 years. It promises energy in abundance, without fossil fuels, without climate damage, without long-lived nuclear waste. European scientists are leading the way in fusion research. For now. China is investing large sums in research into the new technology and, according to experts, is catching up fast, as Nico Beckert reports.

Your
Eugenie Ankowitsch

Taxonomy: Does legal action stand a chance?

By

Charlotte Wirth

At the end of the month, the European Commission plans to formally adopt the Taxonomy Delegated Act. The Commission’s proposal is controversial. According to it, investments in gas and nuclear power are to be considered sustainable in the future, provided they meet certain conditions. In this way, President Ursula von der Leyen is accommodating the French Council Presidency in particular, which is hoping for financial injections for nuclear power. On the other hand, Germany is getting into trouble by bundling both energy sources into one act. Although Germany is against nuclear power, the new German government cannot reject the act. After all, it is dependent on the production of gas.

Luxembourg and Austria, in particular, see things differently. Both states have already made it clear: If the delegated act comes into force, they will appeal to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the classification of nuclear power as sustainable. “This taxonomy is a no-go,” said Luxembourg’s Environment Minister Carole Dieschbourg, for example, in an interview with Europe.Table. She spoke of a “clumsy approach” by the European Commission.

But what might such a lawsuit look like? A legal opinion commissioned by the Austrian government several months ago provides a good impression. The lawyers consulted see good chances for an action for annulment before the ECJ. Such action is based on Article 263 TFEU. It allows member states to bring an action for “lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers”.

Nuclear power not included in basic regulation

The lawyers of the law firm Redeker-Sellner-Dahs argue in their evaluation that the European Commission is exceeding its authority. By classifying nuclear power as sustainable, it goes beyond the provisions laid down in the basic act in the delegated act. In fact, the Taxonomy Regulation sets a very clear framework as to which energy sources may be considered green (esp. Articles 10, 16, and 19). Three categories can be distinguished:

Green energy sources that make a significant contribution to climate protection. These include, in particular, renewable energies, technologies to increase energy efficiency or still clean mobility.
Enabling activities that directly allow those activities that make a significant contribution to climate protection. This applies as long as they have a positive impact on the environment and do not lead to a vendor lock-in effect.
Transition technologies, i.e., economic activities for which there are no technologically and economically feasible low-carbon alternatives. However, the regulation stipulates that these must not interfere with the path to the 1.5-degree target.

In its draft delegated act, the Commission classifies nuclear power in the third category. It is thus considered a transitional technology under Article 10(2). “Nuclear and gas do not fit into the other categories,” says a Commission spokesperson, describing the legal act as a “pragmatic and realistic” proposal.

According to the Austrian lawyers, however, nuclear power does not fit into any of the categories and, in particular, cannot be classified as a transitional technology: “By stating that there are no low-carbon alternatives, Article 10(2) implies that low-carbon activities are excluded from the scope of the provision. In other words, Article 10(2) covers only carbon-intensive activities.” So nuclear power simply does not fit into any of the categories defined in the Taxonomy Regulation. If the Commission nevertheless integrates nuclear power, it is therefore exceeding its authority.

Key policy issues or implementation?

The Austrian lawyer for climate and energy law, Florian Stangl, also sees the potential for such a lawsuit. Accordingly, the basis of the lawsuit would have to be the question of whether the Commission has adhered to the specifications that are in the Taxonomy Regulation. “The Commission has gone out on a limb a bit,” says the expert in conversation with the portal “incubator”. It could finally specify in its delegated act only on the basis of the energy technologies and energy sources, which are laid out in the basic act. “Has the Commission overstepped the mark? It is then up to the ECJ to decide.”

However, the lawyer points out that it is usually difficult to bring an action against Union acts. Lena Hornkohl, Senior Research Fellow for Procedural Law in the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law at the Max Planck Institute, takes a similar stance. She considers lawsuits against delegated acts to be unusual. Hornkohl sees the chances of a lawsuit more on a higher level. Delegated acts are actually intended to implement the provisions of the basic act. According to 290 TFEU, they serve to “supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act in question”.

In Hornkohl’s eyes, the question of materiality alone should give cause for complaint: “One can argue that the environmental friendliness of nuclear and gas are essential basic political decisions.” Accordingly, the Commission could not decide these in a delegated act.

The polemics surrounding this piece of legislation alone indicate that there is more at stake here than the simple implementation of a regulation. “The Commission issues delegated acts all the time. A discussion like the one, in this case, is unique,” comments Hornkohl.

Christian Schneider, energy and European law expert, sees it differently. “The French would never have agreed to the basic act on taxonomy if nuclear could not be subsumed under it,” he says, also pointing to Macron’s great influence on the Commission. A lawsuit, he says, is based on an ideological assessment, while the Commission is concerned with physical considerations. For Schneider, it is clear that as long as there are no other viable technical solutions to ensure the baseload in power supply, some member states will need nuclear power – and as long as that is the case, it could be considered a temporary solution. “Austria will probably fail with a lawsuit,” Schneider predicts.

Too narrow a remit for the JRC

However, the question of whether the Commission is exceeding its powers is not the only possible basis for a lawsuit. At least, that is what the Austrian legal opinion thinks. The fact that nuclear power does not meet the sustainability criteria in the sense of “Do No Significant Harm” is also considered problematic by the lawyers. According to them, nuclear power has strong negative effects on people and the environment. In particular, the “non-excludable risk of severe nuclear accidents and the uncertainties extending far into the future due to the necessary final storage of highly radioactive nuclear waste” would speak against “nuclear power as sustainable, even as a transitional technology“.

In its delegated act, the Commission refers in this context to the assessment of experts, in particular the report of the Joint Research Council and two follow-up assessments by the Article 31 Group and the Scheer Group (Europe.Table reported). The legal opinion on which Austria and Luxembourg, among others, intend to rely, on the other hand, argues that the fulfillment of the “Do No Significant Harm” criteria must be examined on the basis of conclusive scientific evidence. For example, Article 24 of the basic act states that: “The Commission shall seek all necessary expertise before adopting and during the preparation of delegated acts.” This, however, the Commission did not do.

The Commission had already formulated the terms of reference for the experts too narrowly. The resilience of nuclear power plants to the effects of climate change, the consequences of uranium mining, or the risk of serious nuclear accidents had not been examined. The Scheer Group also criticized this in its paper. In the draft delegated act, however, the Commission states that uranium mining will not be included in the delegated act for this reason and notes in a footnote that the JRC was not entrusted with the risk assessment of nuclear accidents and nuclear proliferation (pp. 3-4).

EU Court of Justice may be difficult to convince

The Austrian legal opinion accuses the Commission of failing to meet the evidentiary requirements of the Taxonomy Regulation and European primary law. Therefore including nuclear power in the taxonomy is an error of judgment: “Nuclear power is not a sustainable activity in the sense of the Taxonomy Regulation,” the lawyers write.

Incidentally, the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management also criticized the JRC report in its own report. It called the report an “incomplete contribution to evaluate the DNSH criteria” (Europe.Table reported).

However, it is difficult to assert these concerns legally, says Lena Hornkohl. The issue here, she says, is whether the Commission respected its discretion. “The arguments are not implausible, but it is questionable whether the ECJ will declare a legal act null and void on this basis,” she says. Florian Stangl also says the question of sustainability may be difficult to resolve legally. It could be argued that the Commission has failed to substantiate the DNSH. But, “The ECJ will probably only react if the Commission has made very big blunders.”

The Commission seems to have little concern about a lawsuit at the moment. That’s probably also because it will drag on. About a year is to be expected, Hornkohl says, and warns, “Lawsuits have no suspensive effect.”

However, Austria and Luxembourg are not the only players considering legal action. Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace are also considering legal action. This is because the Commission – at least so far – has not held a public consultation. In fact, the Commission’s internal procedural guidelines stipulate that delegated acts undergo such consultation. With exceptions, delegated acts are posted online for four weeks to allow stakeholders to provide feedback – or so it says in the Commission’s working documents on better regulation. The taxonomy act does not fall under the exceptions listed in the document.

High requirements for legal entities

But while an action for annulment is easy for member states to bring, legal persons must prove that they are directly affected by the provisions of the act. “These are very high requirements. So high that there are already legal opinions on whether the Commission is not violating the Aarhus criteria on access to justice in environmental matters here,” says Lena Hornkohl. She also says that the working documents are a self-binding obligation of the administration, which is not necessarily anchored in European law. “It is argued again and again that the Commission must respect its own guidelines, but that is not legally substantiated.”

Deutsche Umwelthilfe sees a further possibility for legal action in its own expert opinion. Among other things, it argues that the inclusion of nuclear (and gas) is incompatible with the recent ruling by the German Constitutional Court to initiate the transition to climate neutrality in good time. In fact, one could file a constitutional challenge in Germany, says Lena Hornkohl. One could argue that the future right to a healthy environment is denied. In this sense, it would then be a matter of the so-called ultra vires question, i.e., does EU law take precedence over German law? After the polemical Karlsruhe ruling of 2020, however, it is very unlikely that the Constitutional Court will rule in favor of the environmentalists.

Ultimately, EU climate law expert Florian Stangl sees the problem of including nuclear power also at the level of competition law. Thanks to Euratom, nuclear power can be subsidized by the state. If investors want to make sustainable investments, it may be more interesting for them to invest in publicly subsidized technology. Nuclear power, therefore, has a competitive advantage. But one could not sue against it. “Since nuclear power is regulated by Euratom, it’s not a competition case.”

TTDPA expert opinion: consent management possible – with many hurdles

In Section 26 of the TTDPA, the German legislature has provided for a standard that is intended to replace unpopular cookie banners or at least make them much rarer. An eagerly awaited research report commissioned by the German government was to prepare the ground for detailed specifications for the design of this section to be made by ordinance. The report was first discussed shortly before Christmas in an initial ministerial expert meeting, and now the authors around Viennese civil law professor Christiane Wendehorst have published it.

The 88-page document contains both good and bad news for the advertising industry, advertisers, and publishers: The authors conclude that it is possible in principle to replace cookie banners with a general consent management system, or at least to supplement it. However, the requirements for this are high, and the legal situation is unclear.

“Recognized services” to bear responsibility for data

One possibility outlined by the authors is for a “recognized service” to manage consent forms on behalf of end users. Achim Schlosser, CTO of the NetID Foundation, is optimistic about being able to provide such a service. But there are still high legal and organizational hurdles here.

The authors of the report suggest, for example, that such a service act as “first controller” and pass on the data collected so that both the requirements of the ePrivacy Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation can be met simultaneously. Under the current circumstances, it seems almost hopeless to find a candidate willing to take substantial responsibility for personalized advertising playout of hundreds of companies.

The Belgian data protection authority wants to hold the online advertising organization IAB partially responsible for data sharing in the course of the Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF 2.0). However, this is likely to hopelessly overburden the organization and could put an end to the previous model. The outcome of this case is open, but in any case is likely to have an impact on the federal TTDPA regulation. After all, to enable server-side consent services without their own accountability, supervisory authorities and probably also the European Court of Justice would first have to clear the way.

BVDW thinks little of German special paths

Another and less legally controversial approach would be to manage consents on the end device alone, as proposed by the data protection organization NOYB, for example. Consent management, also known as Personal Information Management System (PIMS), would thus be completely separated from data and advertising monetization.

The advertising industry fears an imbalance caused by such a construction. “The question is: To what extent will the standard of independence of PIMS lead to purely consumer-oriented solutions that do not take into account the needs of telemedia?” asks the German Association for the Digital Economy (BVDW) Vice President Thomas Duhr. In other words, if the German special way leads to a blanket refusal of data processing by a large proportion of consumers, few companies will want to support the procedure. The “Do not Track” signal designed in 2009 failed for this reason.

The requirements for browser manufacturers such as Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla stipulated in the law are limited, according to the report: The authors consider the existence of an extension interface to be sufficient. However, the pitfall is in the details: Google Chrome, for example, offers a wide selection of extensions on desktop computers, even ad blockers. However, the mobile version of the browser on Android does not allow such extensions. Apps do not appear in the review at all.

TTDPA regulation threatens to lag behind legal developments

The changing European legal situation is also problematic. The TTDPA is Germany’s belated implementation of the actually outdated e-privacy directive. This is to be replaced by the ePrivacy Regulation. But what changes this will have for consent management is unclear. The report refers to a Council negotiating document that solves some problems on the one hand but also raises new ones. For example, the referenced status provides that consent for data processing should be renewed after 12 months at the latest. Another factor of uncertainty is a pending decision by the ECJ on the question of whether citizens must be specifically told who receives their data or whether categories of recipients are sufficient.

In addition, there are other European legislative projects such as the Data Governance Act passed at the end of 2021 and the upcoming Data Act, which also influence the TTDPA regulation. The TTDPA was driven by the hope that functioning consent management in Germany would make an impression on this European legislation, so that the German special path could be smoothly transferred to a European model.

Last year, Rolf Bender from the responsible department in the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology was still optimistic that a draft bill for the regulation would be available in the first quarter of 2022, which could go through both the Bundestag, the Bundesrat, and the EU notification procedure this summer. It remains to be seen whether the newly formed German government will be able to keep to this timetable. The Federal Ministry of Digital Affairs and Transport, which is now in charge, is planning further technical rounds on the next steps. Torsten Kleinz

Hope for climate-neutral energy from nuclear fusion

By

Nico Beckert

Temperatures hotter than the inside of the sun. Hardly imaginable for ordinary people. For fusion scientists, they are part of everyday life. Recently, Chinese scientists successfully raised the plasma in their fusion reactor to 70 million degrees Celsius – and maintained this state for more than 17 minutes. Last May, they even reached a temperature of 120 million degrees, which could be maintained for 101 seconds. That sounds short, but it marks a breakthrough. Because it shows the viability of the new technology.

Like other countries, China wants to finally make the great dream of fusion power come true. This new form of power generation has been researched for more than 60 years. It promises power in abundance, without fossil fuels, without climate damage, without lasting nuclear waste. These are tempting prospects for a country like China, with its high dependence on coal-fired power and growing demand for power. The People’s Republic is therefore operating several experimental fusion reactors.

But so far, no scientific team has successfully extracted more power from a fusion reactor than was previously supplied to set the fusion processes in motion. However, the recent successes of Chinese scientists could soon change that.

Nuclear fusion: China with “impressive” results

European researchers see China on a promising path in fusion research. Sustaining fusion plasma for 1,000 seconds is an “impressive technological achievement,” Dr. Hartmut Zohm, Head of Tokamak Scenario Development at the German Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics.

Volker Naulin, Head of Fusion Science Department in EUROfusion, also says, “Keeping a plasma stable for a longer period of time and at high temperatures is impressive.” EUROfusion is an association of European research bodies to consolidate European cooperation in fusion research.

But as remarkable as the results of the Chinese experiments sound, they should not be overestimated. After all, three conditions must be met to make plasma usable inside fusion reactors to generate power. The three parameters of temperature, plasma density, and confinement time must reach a certain level for the fusion fire to burn self-sustaining. The necessary temperature has already been reached by the Chinese. “For plasma density and confinement time, the Chinese colleagues are still far from the necessary values,” says Dr. Zohm of the Max Planck Institute. European researchers are already much further ahead with the three conditions, he adds.

Europe is leading the way in fusion power

Overall, Europe is still the leader in fusion research, according to the unanimous opinion of European scientists. Chinese colleagues are still “not quite at the level of the best institutes worldwide,” says Hartmut Zohm. The high temperatures and plasma stability that China’s scientists have recently achieved have also already been achieved in European experiments, says Tony Donné, Program Manager (CEO) at EUROfusion.

Europe also has an edge in the best “fuel” for fusion reactors. According to scientists, a mixture of deuterium and tritium holds great promise for powering future power-generating fusion reactors. It provides “the most energy at the easiest conditions,” says a spokesman for EUROfusion. So far, the so-called JET experiment in the United Kingdom is the only fusion experiment so far that uses a deuterium-tritium mixture, Donné said.

The JET experiment, in which more than 30 European research institutes are involved, has also achieved the highest power efficiency in the world. “The fusion energy gain achieved in these devices have not been matched anywhere else to date,” says Eurofusion’s Programme Manager. But even JET researchers have not yet reached the point where more power is gained than invested. This is the goal of ITER, an international test reactor in France, in which China, Russia, and the USA are also involved.

Beijing gives high priority to nuclear fusion

According to Volker Naulin, this also makes Europe “clearly the leader in fusion research“. But “China is catching up fast.” The People’s Republic is investing vast sums in research of the new technology. Unlike the rest of the world, China gives fusion energy “a very high priority for future power supply,” says Zohm of the Max Planck Institute. In Hefei, for example, a dedicated research campus has been established. There, technologies are being developed to “operate fusion machines economically and permanently,” Naulin says.

China is also planning to construct a demonstration reactor to show the technological viability of generating power from nuclear fusion. On the international level, this is planned only after the large-scale experiment ITER, says Zohm. However, the final decision on funding the Chinese demonstration reactor was only recently postponed, Naulin noted.

China would like to generate power from nuclear fusion as early as 2040, says Chinese plasma scientist Song Yuntao. Achieving this ambitious goal is “not ruled out“, says Zohm. After all, China is “investing a lot of money in this technology and is making rapid progress.” Exact predictions, however, are difficult. Especially in the field of nuclear fusion. In the past, scientists were convinced several times that they were on the verge of a major breakthrough. Tony Donné of EUROfusion considers the Chinese 2040 target as “somewhat optimistic“.

No green deal money for fusion research

However, China is investing so massively in fusion research overall that the People’s Republic could soon overtake European researchers. “In three to four years, the research crown could lie elsewhere, namely in China,” says Naulin. In Europe, he says, the necessary political support is lacking. The EUROfusion scientist complains, “If you slack off now and don’t build a demonstration reactor, Europe will lose the necessary know-how.” That’s because while China is investing, funding is being cut in Europe. The budget for EUROfusion has been cut in recent years, Donné says.

In addition, fusion research is regarded as nuclear technology at the political level. As a result, it cannot receive funding from the EU Green Deal. Bureaucratic hurdles also impede research in Europe. Naulin points out that the ITER large-scale experiment was built “in accordance with safety standards that are required for a nuclear power plant.” However, Naulin does not consider this necessary. “It makes it more complicated and costly than it needs to be.” Generating power through fusion is comparatively safe: there is no chance of a meltdown as in a conventional nuclear power plant.

But China’s rise in fusion research is not only based on massive funding. There is an intense exchange in research. China’s excellent capabilities in nuclear fusion are also owed to “open scientific cooperation,” Naulin says.

“Europe and China still have a very active cooperation program,” confirms Tony Donné. For example, many of the fusion experiments have international advisory committees that include participants from China and Western countries. At the meetings, Chinese scientists also present their data openly, Donné says. “Our Chinese colleagues publish all their results and invite us to collaborate in their experiments,” Zohm of the Max Planck Institute also confirms.

“Friendly competition” in research

But China currently seems to benefit more from the partnership. Naulin and Zohm explain that more knowledge is currently flowing to China than the other way around. This is not a cause for concern, however, and is due to Europe’s lead in the state of research. From the political level, however, less money is already provided for the exchange. “Those responsible have the feeling that the exchange is one-sided in favor of China,” says Volker Naulin.

However, a certain degree of competition and caution is definitely present in the Western-Chinese cooperation. “I would describe the relationship as friendly competition,” says Zohm. And Donné of EUROfusion adds that “when it comes to fusion technology in which we are working on technologies and components that might be strategic, we are more careful.” Meanwhile, when intellectual property issues are involved, EUROfusion has become more cautious about sharing details. Donné assumes that “on the Chinese side, they do the same” when it comes to intellectual property.

It is not yet clear whether China or Europe will be the first to successfully build the first commercially viable fusion power plant that will also generate power. The Europeans plan to present new results of a JET experiment on February 9. And the scientific community is eagerly awaiting the large-scale ITER experiment, which also has Chinese participation. After years of construction, the first ITER experiments are scheduled to launch in 2025.

However, almost all experts agree: In the short term, fusion energy will not be able to contribute to climate protection. But by the middle of the century, it could cover a part of the global power demand – if research goes according to plan.

Habeck holds out the prospect of assuming transformation costs

Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection Robert Habeck (Greens) has promised the industry far-reaching concessions in the transformation to climate neutrality. The coalition has agreed that what is needed will be financed, Habeck said at the “Handelsblatt” energy summit in Berlin on Tuesday. “The volume should not be the limit,” Habeck said in response to a question about so-called climate protection differential agreements.

The German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology had already promised a pilot program for Carbon Contracts for Difference in its opening climate protection statement at the beginning of the legislative period. Through CCfD, the government could subsidize not only the investment in climate-neutral production facilities such as direct reduction plants in the steel industry but also the additional costs during operation. Additional costs are incurred, for example, because green hydrogen will remain more expensive than natural gas for the foreseeable future. In its study Climate Paths 2.0, the Federation of German Industries had put the annual additional costs for industry, including capital costs, at €11 billion for 2030.

In the long term, however, the industry will have to pay back some of the government subsidies, according to Habeck. Over time, there will be a tipping point at which climate-neutral production technologies are cheaper than in today’s fossil fuel economy, the minister said. Companies should then pay back part of what they received as an advance. The term of the climate protection differential contracts should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

In light of the current high cost of energy, Habeck’s State Secretary Patrick Graichen called on companies to invest in renewable energy. “When, if not now?” asked Graichen. Electricity from wind and solar farms currently costs €50 to €60 per megawatt-hour. This would allow companies to protect themselves against price spikes on fossil markets. On the EEX energy exchange, a megawatt-hour of electricity for the calendar year 2023 cost over €115 at times on Tuesday, and over €84 for 2026. Manuel Berkel

Draft report on the Social Climate Fund: less climate, more social issues

The EU Commission’s proposal for a Social Climate Fund contains “a lot of climate” but “too little focus on social issues,” judged Esther de Lange (EPP/CDA) on Twitter. The Dutchwoman is the rapporteur of the dossier from the Fit for 55 package for the ENVI Committee. Together with the Maltese rapporteur for the EMPL Committee, David Casa (EPP/PN), she has now presented the first draft of the parliamentary report, which is available to Europe.Table.

The idea for a Social Climate Fund arose in response to the sometimes fierce criticism of the plan to introduce a second emissions trading system (ETS) for buildings and road transport. In order to cushion the additional burden on the population and the social impact of price increases at the gas pump or for heating, the Commission proposed the Social Climate Fund. A quarter of the revenue from ETS 2 should go into the fund, according to the Commission. The rest would go to the member states, which would have to set out in a “social climate plan” what they intend to use the revenue for. The money could be used both for temporary direct payments to citizens and for projects to increase energy efficiency in buildings and expand renewable energies.

Promotion for used car market for EVs

Rapporteur De Lange said her draft offers the possibility to reduce energy taxes for socially disadvantaged groups and thus deliver better protection against energy poverty than the Commission’s proposal. De Lange and Casa propose to finance vouchers for better thermal insulation or other climate-friendly renovations for tenants from the fund.

The fund will also provide financial support or tax incentives to encourage the development of a used car market for zero- and low-emission vehicles. This should also enable less affluent households to move in a more climate-friendly way without being restricted in their mobility. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) should also be able to apply for money from the fund, for example, to receive support for rising transport costs.

However, the money to finance the member states’ climate social plans is not to come from the fund alone. The Commission had already proposed that the EU countries should bear at least half of the costs of implementing the plans themselves. The Parliament’s rapporteurs want to increase this share to 60 percent for direct payments to households or companies. For investments in energy efficiency projects and the expansion of renewables, which are intended to provide long-term solutions, the countries’ own share would remain at 50 percent.

Energy and transport poverty to be clearly defined

Monitoring of energy and transport poverty should be made mandatory in all member states. To this end, the rapporteurs call for both terms to be given a universally applicable definition so that developments can be monitored and data compared. Energy poverty is a situation in which a lack of energy for heating, cooling, lighting and the operation of appliances leads to health restrictions and no adequate standard of living, write de Lange and Casa. Transport poverty results from high fuel prices, limiting mobility, especially in remote and inaccessible regions. Particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe, parts of the population are affected by energy poverty.

Finally, de Lange and Casa also call for money from the fund to be tied to the rule of law. No money should flow to governments that do not adhere to fundamental values, such as freedom of the media and an independent judiciary, de Lange said. luk

CAP: Lemke in favor of phasing out land subsidies

Reorientation of agricultural policy, departure, and closing of ranks between the ministries: This was announced by Federal Environment Minister Steffi Lemke and Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir (both Greens) at the opening of the sixth BMUV Conference on Agriculture on Tuesday. The goal is to better harmonize nature, environmental, and climate protection with agriculture.

One of the key levers here is the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Lemke said at the event. “We need a different use of subsidies. Nature, the environment, and climate protection should be specifically rewarded. This means that it must be worthwhile for farmers to farm in a nature- and environmentally-friendly way. To do this, we need to get out of the current system of flat-rate area payments.”

The Ministry of the Environment wants to be involved in adjustments to the national strategy plan as early as this year, as well as in the evaluation of the CAP in 2024 and the discussion about its further reform. In addition, it will work to significantly increase funding for contract-based nature conservation in the joint task of agricultural structure and coastal protection. In addition, funding for livestock conversion for the benefit of the environment must be linked to a reduction in total animal numbers and a “compatible ratio” of animals to farmland.

Ban on glyphosate at EU level

In addition, Lemke announced that the German government would campaign for a ban on glyphosate at the European level. “That’s why we want to promote alternatives to chemically synthetic agents, take glyphosate off the market by the end of 2023 and make the use of pesticides more compatible with the environment and nature in general,” the Green politician said.

In November, the European Parliament adopted the reform of the common agricultural policy by a clear majority. But the new version of the regulations was controversial. Environmentalists felt that the planned changes did not go far enough, and the Greens and SPD in the Parliament voted against the reform.

Critics are now focusing on implementation in the member states. They had until December 31st to submit the so-called national strategy plans to Brussels. However, nine EU countries, including Germany, failed to meet the deadline. The Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) has since announced that it will submit the plans in February. til

Agora: climate clubs only as a supplement

The new French EU Council Presidency has declared the implementation of the planned CO2 border adjustment (CBAM) for imports as its main priority. However, the CBAM remains one of the most controversial measures in the Fit for 55 climate package.

There is practically no alternative to its introduction. This is the conclusion reached by the authors of a study by the think tank Agora Energiewende, which is to be presented today and thus shortly before the first informal meeting of EU energy and environment ministers under French leadership. In light of the EU’s more ambitious climate targets, the current system of allocating free CO2 allowances to industry is no longer viable to prevent carbon leakage, the paper says. The only credible alternative in the authors’ view: the introduction of a border adjustment.

The establishment of a “climate club” brought into play by Germany could be useful as a supplement, but not as an independent option. There would be too many differences between potential club members in terms of climate goals and policies. Nevertheless, an inclusive climate club could make a valuable contribution to establishing globally agreed principles for CBAM-like policies at the international level.

Allow free certificates to expire more slowly

Alongside this, phasing in the CBAM while phasing out free allowances would accelerate the decarbonization of industry, the authors write. “Provided it is accompanied by support for key low-carbon technologies.” For example, they say, the expected pass-through of carbon costs along the value chain will also create incentives for recycling and switching to lower-carbon materials. CBAM revenues could help the EU raise funds to finance carbon offset contracts, among other things.

However, border adjustments would also have to provide adequate protection for exporters. Agora Energiewende, therefore, proposes that the free allowances be phased out more slowly by 2030 than envisaged by the Commission, coupled with targeted support for emissions reductions. This is opposed by the draft of the CBAM rapporteur of the EU Parliament, Mohammed Chahim (S&D). In it, the Dutch MEP calls for the allocation of free emission allowances to be ended considerably earlier, which caused an outcry among industry representatives in particular. til

Study: driving forward climate partnerships with Africa

The European Union should bring its foreign and trade policy more into line with the goals of the Green Deal and, in particular, get African states on board. Otherwise, it runs the risk of losing influence not only in Africa but also on the world market. This is the result of a study by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which is to be presented today and has been made available to Europe.Table in advance.

As a result, economic relations with Africa will play an increasingly important role in the global economic order. According to the study, by 2025, there will be over 100 cities in Africa with more than one million inhabitants – more than three times as many as in the European Union. Many international companies are already drawn to the continent in search of low-cost production sites and labor. In addition, Africa is the fastest-growing consumer market for an increasingly wide range of products.

Much of the growth will be driven by “green energy ecosystems”, the study says. Combining cutting-edge digital technologies and telecommunications with renewable energy technologies would create new industries and services. The EU could be a key partner in the deployment of 5G networks, off-grid solar power generation, and EV manufacturing. It could also help establish world-class data regulatory measures and support the construction of data centers.

However, it is by no means certain that Europe will actually play such a major role in the new trade structure that is emerging in Africa. Rather, China has overtaken the EU in recent years to become Africa’s most important trading partner.

Combine Global Gateway and Green Deal

Not least because Chinese companies benefit from a large state backstop, Europe needs to deploy its resources in a coordinated, strategic way. “The EU urgently needs to combine the foreign policy aspect of its Green Deal with its nascent Global Gateway Program, which is its response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI),” said the study’s author, Michaël Tanchum.

With a unified approach, the EU has the opportunity to help promote economic growth while strengthening geopolitical ties with the continent’s governments and businesses. To achieve this, however, it would need to provide investment and other assistance that would have a real impact on Africa’s growth trajectory.

The image of European climate protection measures in Africa also needs to be reconsidered. For example, the planned introduction of a Carbon Boundary Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) for imports “looks like an unfair tax on Africa’s economic development path”. In doing so, the EU is mixing potentially punitive measures such as the CBAM with funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation. These approaches lack strategic coherence.

“To address the problem, European policymakers should explicitly recognize the potential of African ecosystems for green energy,” Tanchum said. At the same time, Europe’s external climate and trade policies should be positioned as cooperative rather than protectionist instruments, partnerships and joint ventures should be advanced, and the Global Gateway should be integrated into the Green Deal. This will maximize the EU’s influence on infrastructure and help allay African governments’ concerns about European climate policy. til

Scholz: Nord Stream 2 could be part of the sanctions

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock have issued an urgent warning to Russia against an attack on Ukraine. “We have no choice but to defend our common rules, even if this comes at a high economic price,” Baerbock said in Moscow on Tuesday after a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not rule out that the threatened economic, financial, and political consequences in the event of aggression could also include the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline. Germany stands by its agreement with the US on the pipeline, he said, adding that “it is also clear that there will be high costs, that everything will have to be discussed if there is military intervention against Ukraine,” when asked whether Nord Stream 2 could also be affected by sanctions.

The chancellor said that he was waiting for a de-escalation sign from Russia, such as a reduction in troops. The foreign minister had also criticized in Moscow that Russia had massed 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border, which could only be perceived as a threat against the neighboring country. Baerbock and Lavrov had negotiated with each other for several hours in Moscow. Afterwards, the Russian foreign minister accused NATO, among other things, of not adhering to agreements on eastward expansion. He also criticized the gas pipeline for being “politicized”.

Readiness for further talks with Moscow

Baerbock, in turn, stressed that there were major, fundamental differences of opinion with the Russian government on many issues. But she also pointed to the opportunities for cooperation, both in the implementation of the nuclear agreement with Iran and in the fight against climate change. Germany will also need gas from Russia for some years to come.

Scholz, Baerbock, and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stressed their willingness to engage in dialogue with Moscow. Lavrov also did not rule out further talks. Stoltenberg said in Berlin that he had invited the members of the NATO-Russia Council to further talks. Like the chancellor, he stressed the importance of the various channels of talks with Moscow, such as the Normandy format, the OSCE, and the US-Russian talks.

Scholz and Baerbock also called for renewed talks between Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia on the situation in eastern Ukraine and the implementation of the Minsk peace agreement. Lavrov stressed that talks between the Ukrainian side and the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine were particularly important.

Already on Monday, during her visit to Kiev, Baerbock had agreed with her Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba on a push to revive negotiations in the so-called Normandy format. “Diplomacy is the only viable way to defuse the current highly dangerous situation,” Baerbock had said in Ukraine.

Blinken meets Lavrov

Shuttle diplomacy will continue in the coming days. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will also meet his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov during his trip to Europe. At the talks scheduled for Friday in Geneva, Blinken will urge the Russian government to take immediate steps to ease tensions on the Russian-Ukrainian border, a senior US administration official said Tuesday.

On Thursday, Blinken will meet with Chancellor Scholz and Foreign Minister Baerbock in Berlin. On Wednesday, he plans to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj in Kiev. There is also to be a meeting with counterparts from France and Great Britain.

Scholz again rejected German arms deliveries to Ukraine. The British government, on the other hand, had sent military equipment to Ukraine. After the confusion about the unusual flight path of the British military aircraft around Germany, the British Defense Minister Ben Wallace emphasized that Germany had in no way denied the aircraft overflight permission. A spokesman for the German Defense Ministry had also stressed in the morning that the British government had not made any request for overflight at all. rtr

Roberta Metsola: abortion opponent from the liberal wing

Can a politician represent a modern image of women and at the same time be against abortion? The new EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola would clearly answer this question in the affirmative, as she embodies this contradiction. The 43-year-old Maltese was elected to the top post on Tuesday as the candidate of the conservative group of the European People’s Party with a clear majority in the first round of voting.

“I am a woman from a small island in the middle of Europe’s southern sea,” Roberta Metsola said on Tuesday, “I know what it means to be the underdog. I know what it means to be pigeonholed.” Roberta Metsola sees herself as a role model for girls and young women in Europe.

In particular, the left-wing and green camp had a hard time deciding in favor of Metsola for a long time. After all, the first woman to head the EU Parliament in 1979 was the Frenchwoman Simone Veil, legendary champion of legal abortion.

Weber: “Modern and progressive woman”

So now, an opponent of abortion. Roberta Metsola defends herself by saying that in her home country, the position is a consensus across party lines. In fact, the arch-Catholic country has the strictest abortion ban in the EU. As Parliament president, she will defend a woman’s right to choose, regardless of her personal convictions, says Roberta Metsola. Moreover, the abortion issue is not an EU competence. She also otherwise belongs to the more liberal wing of the conservatives and makes a point of distinguishing herself from the right-wing fringe, which is not the case for all members of the conservative group.

Roberta Metsola is a “modern and progressive woman”, said parliamentary group leader Manfred Weber, promoting his candidate. In campaign clips, Metsola presented herself as a champion of LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and tolerance for different lifestyles in the EU, an “area of freedom“.

In the conflict over the rule of law with Hungary and Poland, she has tended to push for a hard line in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). When Joseph Muscat’s Social Democratic government became mired in corruption in her home country, she called for the prime minister’s resignation. After the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, she took an active part in the investigation.

The third woman at the head of the Parliament

However, the Social Democrats and the Greens found it difficult to vote for Roberta Metsola, and not only because of the abortion issue. With the election of the Maltese woman, the important top posts in the EU are all in conservative or liberal hands now. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, are without a top job after the death of the previous EU Parliament President, David Sassoli, shortly before the end of his term. The leftists find this unfair because, after the comeback of the Social Democrats in Berlin and other capitals, this no longer reflects the reality in the member states.

Roberta Metsola is only the third woman to head the EU Parliament, eloquent and sometimes sharp-tongued. She belongs to the Erasmus Generation, representing a new generation of female politicians. She campaigned early on for her country’s accession to the EU, earned a doctorate in law, and studied, among other things, at the College of Europe in Bruges, an EU cadre school. Metsola has been a member of the EU Parliament since 2013, is the mother of four sons, and is married to Finn Ukko Metsola, a lobbyist for the cruise industry. Stephan Israel

EUROPE.TABLE EDITORS

Till
Hoppe

Charlotte
Wirth

Falk
Steiner

Timo
Landenberger

Corinna
Visser

Lukas
Knigge

Eric
Bonse

Sarah
Schaefer

Manuel
Berkel

Lisa-Martina
Klein

Markus
Grabitz

Stephan
Israel

Claire
Stam

Lawsuit against taxonomy + TTDPA expert opinion + Roberta Metsola

Feature

Taxonomy: Does legal action stand a chance?

Nuclear power not included in basic regulation

Key policy issues or implementation?

Too narrow a remit for the JRC

EU Court of Justice may be difficult to convince

High requirements for legal entities

TTDPA expert opinion: consent management possible – with many hurdles

“Recognized services” to bear responsibility for data

BVDW thinks little of German special paths

TTDPA regulation threatens to lag behind legal developments

Hope for climate-neutral energy from nuclear fusion

Nuclear fusion: China with “impressive” results

Europe is leading the way in fusion power

Beijing gives high priority to nuclear fusion

No green deal money for fusion research

“Friendly competition” in research

News

Habeck holds out the prospect of assuming transformation costs

Draft report on the Social Climate Fund: less climate, more social issues

Promotion for used car market for EVs

Energy and transport poverty to be clearly defined

CAP: Lemke in favor of phasing out land subsidies

Ban on glyphosate at EU level

Agora: climate clubs only as a supplement

Allow free certificates to expire more slowly

Study: driving forward climate partnerships with Africa

Combine Global Gateway and Green Deal

Scholz: Nord Stream 2 could be part of the sanctions

Readiness for further talks with Moscow

Blinken meets Lavrov

Profile

Roberta Metsola: abortion opponent from the liberal wing

Weber: “Modern and progressive woman”

The third woman at the head of the Parliament

Europe.Table Editorial Office

EUROPE.TABLE EDITORS

Feature

Taxonomy: Does legal action stand a chance?

Nuclear power not included in basic regulation

Key policy issues or implementation?

Too narrow a remit for the JRC

EU Court of Justice may be difficult to convince

High requirements for legal entities

TTDPA expert opinion: consent management possible – with many hurdles

“Recognized services” to bear responsibility for data

BVDW thinks little of German special paths

TTDPA regulation threatens to lag behind legal developments

Hope for climate-neutral energy from nuclear fusion

Nuclear fusion: China with “impressive” results

Europe is leading the way in fusion power

Beijing gives high priority to nuclear fusion

No green deal money for fusion research

“Friendly competition” in research

News

Habeck holds out the prospect of assuming transformation costs

Draft report on the Social Climate Fund: less climate, more social issues

Promotion for used car market for EVs

Energy and transport poverty to be clearly defined

CAP: Lemke in favor of phasing out land subsidies

Ban on glyphosate at EU level

Agora: climate clubs only as a supplement

Allow free certificates to expire more slowly

Study: driving forward climate partnerships with Africa

Combine Global Gateway and Green Deal

Scholz: Nord Stream 2 could be part of the sanctions

Readiness for further talks with Moscow

Blinken meets Lavrov

Profile

Roberta Metsola: abortion opponent from the liberal wing

Weber: “Modern and progressive woman”

The third woman at the head of the Parliament

Europe.Table Editorial Office

EUROPE.TABLE EDITORS

Sign up now and continue reading immediately