Shipping continues to be the problem child of decarbonization. The maritime sector is lagging behind, and the Commission’s proposal for the Fit for 55 dossier on sustainable marine fuels is considered too unambitious. Now the EP rapporteur for the dossier is causing friction with his colleagues, as Lukas Scheid has learned.
Is it going to be tight? How close will it be? Five years ago, Emmanuel Macron became president by a clear margin, while far-right Marine Le Pen lost the runoff. However, this time around this is not a foregone conclusion, as Tanja Kuchenbecker analyzes.
Yesterday, at the EU foreign minister meeting, there was no decision on an oil embargo for the time being. But: “Nothing is off the table, including sanctions against oil and gas,” said High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell.
Minister of Economic Affairs Habeck pulls out a chair: The round table “Expansion of production capacities for the energy turnaround” with solar and wind energy industry is supposed to clear the way for renewables.
A huge scandal under normal circumstances: the espionage attack on EU Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders. Last year, his and Commission employees’ telephones were tapped – software from a manufacturer whose services were also used by Poland and Hungary was suspected. A case with political explosive power.
Carole Dieschbourg, Minister of Environment, Climate and Sustainable Development of Luxembourg, is being hailed by the press as the “voice of Europe” today. Read the Profile to find out about her political principles.
75 percent of the EU’s external trade and 31 percent of its internal trade in terms of volume are conducted by water. In addition, according to the EU Commission, there are 400 million ship passengers in the member states each year, including around 14 million on cruise ships. Ships were responsible for 13.5 percent of all transport-related greenhouse gas emissions in the EU in 2018. The potential for saving emissions is correspondingly large – although not as large as for road traffic (71 percent) or aviation (14.4 percent).
Nevertheless, the maritime sector is lagging behind in decarbonization compared to road or air. The UN World Shipping Organization (IMO) is not exactly known for its progressiveness in this regard. And so, there are huge expectations for Europe to lead the way. However, the Commission’s proposal has already fallen short of these expectations.
The Fit for 55 FuelEU Maritime dossier calls for the average annual carbon intensity of ships to fall by 2 percent by 2025, 6 percent by 2030, and 75 percent by 2050 (compared to 2020). The targets are to be achieved through the use of more sustainable fuels. However, there are significant limitations to this proposal: It only applies to commercial vessels with a total tonnage of more than 5,000 metric tons. The scheme also covers 100 percent of voyages within the EU, but only 50 percent of voyages between EU ports and ports in third countries.
Jörgen Warborn (EPP), Swedish MEP and rapporteur for the dossier in the lead transport committee, does not want to change this. He published his draft report in the middle of last week. Warborn is sticking to the Commission’s level of ambition, which is causing incomprehension among other parliamentarians and environmental organizations.
The Commission and the majority of EU member states have endorsed the assessment at IMO level that international shipping must become greenhouse gas free by 2050 to meet the Paris targets, says Tiemo Wölken (S&D), rapporteur for the opinion in the associated ENVI committee. He points to the final report of a meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in December 2021, where numerous countries supported a statement by Tonga to that effect.
“So I really wonder why the rapporteur doesn’t revise the Commission’s target to achieve 100 percent zero-emission fuels by 2050.” Wölken’s draft opinion had proposed both a 100 percent reduction in carbon intensity by 2050 and the inclusion of all inter-European travel.
Furthermore, the Social Democrat is seeking more incentives for fuel suppliers and ship operators to use green hydrogen. This has been classified as particularly important for shipping in the EU hydrogen strategy, Wölken said. However, shipping has to compete with other sectors for scarce supplies of green hydrogen, which is why he favors direct electrification in areas where it is possible.
After all, the economy also benefits from this: “The impact assessment carried out by the Commission has confirmed that the development of technologies can benefit both employees and existing companies and attract new investments.” According to Wölken, raising the targets is therefore not only a climate policy necessity, but also an economic policy imperative. There is no mention of hydrogen in Warborn’s draft report.
Instead, Warborn is focusing on the use of plant-based biofuels. The Commission had ruled out their use for shipping due to land competition in the agricultural sector. In doing so, it also wanted to prevent a shift of biofuels from the road to the maritime sector. Warborn wants biofuels not to be excluded in the future and to be used at sea.
Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA), shadow rapporteur for the dossier in the Transport Committee, considers this “irresponsible” given the current looming food crisis. It is appalling that the Commission proposal is to be weakened so much by the parliamentary proposal.
The transport and environment umbrella organization Transport & Environment (T&E) is particularly critical of Warborn’s provision for LNG as an alternative fuel for marine diesel until 2046. By doing so, he is giving a gift to the fossil fuel industry, says Faïg Abbasov, T&E’s program director for shipping. “The latest IPCC report last week made it very clear that gas-based fuels will not be able to adequately decarbonize shipping.”
This is particularly problematic because Europe is currently trying to reduce gas consumption to become less dependent on Russia, while Mr. Warborn is producing fossil gas in shipping, Abbasov said. This is because, unlike other sectors such as households, energy and industry, shipping does not currently consume significant amounts of gas. A switch to LNG would thus spread already scarce resources across even more uses.
Marine Le Pen has achieved her goal. For the second time in her political career, the 53-year-old extreme right-winger has reached the second round of the presidential election in France. This means a duel with Emmanuel Macron (44) on April 24. Le Pen achieved 23.41 percent of the vote this time, slightly more than in 2017, but more than four points behind the president with 27.6 percent. The second ballot could be just as close as the first.
Polls were banned during the election weekend, but the first polls on Sunday already made clear what is at stake for Europe in France: European unity and relations between Germany and France. Macron could subsequently win the runoff with 51 to 54 percent against Le Pen with 46 to 49 percent. Pollsters Ifop saw this duel as particularly close, with 51 percent against 49 percent, much tighter than five years ago, when Macron won with 66.1 percent against 33.9 percent for Le Pen. Le Pen’s voter potential is larger this time, with far-right leader Éric Zemmour in the background.
Macron immediately called for a “bulwark against the extreme right“. Le Pen, on the other hand, encouraged “all those who did not vote for Emmanuel Macron today” to support her. In the past, there has always been a front against the far right when it became too strong. But supporters of Le Pen are hoping for an anti-Macron front because he is unpopular with many in France and is perceived as the “president of the rich”.
There is also the hope of voters from the camp of the leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who, with 21.7 percent of the vote, did much better than expected and was only slightly behind Le Pen. On election night, Mélenchon called on voters not to vote for right-wing extremists and thus took a stronger stance than in 2017, but the left-wing candidate did not want to make a clear election recommendation in favor of Macron.
The French can now choose between two completely opposite ideas for their country and Europe. Macron stands for a pro-European line and is socially and economically liberal. It is a France of the upper classes versus a France of white-collar and blue-collar workers, of cities versus suburbs, of European integration versus national sovereignty, interpreted the daily newspaper “Le Monde”. Macron was banking on his international stature, Le Pen on buying power at home. “The French did not want this duel; they were hoping for new and innovative candidates,” analyzed political scientist Bruno Cautrès.
Especially outside France, voices were raised that Le Pen would be a threat to Europe. The French people must prevent that, Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said Monday: “I’m very worried, I hope we won’t have Le Pen as French president.” That would be a break with EU values and would completely change the direction of the EU.
In her speech after the first round of voting, Le Pen made it clear what she was about: “A decision for society, a decision for civilization.” In doing so, she repeatedly referred to France: “I want to be president of all French people.” Macron, on the other hand, also addressed Europe: “The debate we will have is crucial for our country and Europe.”
Macron’s glowing speech for Europe at Paris’ Sorbonne University in his first year in office has long been part of European history – as has the lack of responses to Macron’s proposals from Berlin. In the first half of this year, France is holding the EU presidency and is showing a lot of commitment. With Macron, the EU would not be weakened but further strengthened, and the Franco-German axis would be able to continue working. Projects such as common defense, European economic projects, or environmental protection projects could be further developed in continuity with the first term in office. Macron stands for a sovereign, strong Europe, which should become more independent in future technologies in industry and in security policy. These are priorities that would almost automatically give France an important role in the future of Europe.
Marine Le Pen’s ideas are quite different. She has changed her stance compared to 2017 and no longer wants to leave the EU, the euro, or the Schengen area because this could cost her votes. But she rejects the “dictatorship from Brussels”, advocates a “Europe of nations”, and wants to renegotiate EU treaties. Above all, she demands more sovereignty for France.
Experts believe that with Le Pen, a period of uncertainty would begin for France and Europe. Confidence in her economic expertise is low, in contrast to Macron’s image. France would retreat to itself under Le Pen. Le Pen plans a “national and social project” aimed at ordinary people. Closing ranks with the other far-right in Europe could soften the EU from within, even without a Frexit. She also wants to cut France’s share of the EU budget, thereby supporting France’s farmers. Macron, on the other hand, presented himself as the defender of a “project of progress, of French and European openness”.
Le Pen had shown herself to be an admirer of Vladmir Putin in 2017 but quickly condemned his attack on Ukraine. Should she be elected, France’s position on the Ukraine war or respect for human rights in Hungary could change, likewise on the Green Deal, the European climate change package. And should France join Le Pen in opposing the use of the rule-of-law mechanism against Hungary, it would be almost impossible to enforce.
Her election would not only be a threat to the EU but also to NATO, and this at a moment when Europe is experiencing the greatest military threat since World War II. Le Pen shares Russia’s criticism of NATO and believes that, despite everything, Russia could once again become a good partner for the EU. She has repeatedly called for an exit from NATO, which is a particular problem in the current situation because it could mean the withdrawal of French troops protecting NATO territory in Eastern Europe.
Before the first round of elections, Europe was not yet a major campaign issue, but that could now change. In France, Macron is expected to increasingly use Le Pen’s far-right attitude and her anti-Europe ideas as campaign themes in the coming days.
As a child, Carole Dieschbourg accompanied her parents to anti-nuclear protests. In adulthood, she joined the family mill business, which offers organically produced flour and fair trade coffee from its own roastery. Today, the minister has a beehive in her garden, but Carole Dieschbourg is not a naïve country bumpkin – far from it.
At the age of 36, Dieschbourg’s political career gains momentum. When the still inexperienced and unknown leader of the Green Party ( “déi gréng”) surprisingly became a member of the government as environment minister in 2013, the Luxembourg media headlined her as “Catholic climate fighter”, “risk for the Greens”, and “quota minister”, among other things. But the tide turns for Dieschbourg in December 2015 at the latest, when she negotiates the historic Paris climate agreement together with more than 150 heads of state under Luxembourg’s EU Council presidency. Now the press is celebrating her as the “voice of Europe”.
Since then, the environment minister has not let off the gas pedal when it comes to climate protection. By 2030, Luxembourg wants to reduce the emission rate of greenhouse gases by 55 percent, while renewable energies are to take over 23 percent of total consumption. The “climate pact” is to help with implementation. This is an instrument with which Carole Dieschbourg is tackling many of the building sites of the climate and biodiversity crisis at the same time, for example, deforestation, the use of pesticides, and the pollution of water and soil, as well as the introduction of CO2 prices.
The Luxembourg government wants to help its municipalities to implement the ecological transition by providing financial support and know-how. There is also no shortage of personnel. For example, each municipality will be assigned a climate officer to oversee developments.
Carole Dieschbourg prefers to use light language rather than highfalutin vocabulary, but that doesn’t stop her from speaking plainly. “No-go” and “greenwashing” come up in an interview with the minister in early January about the EU Commission’s draft taxonomy. But when she paid a courtesy call on the new German government in February and appeared at the “Europe 2022” panel discussion, it was about more.
Climate and social justice go hand in hand for Dieschbourg. She wants to “get the ecological transition done” quickly, but in doing so, keep the costs for the most vulnerable and future generations as low as possible. She clarifies, “Rising energy prices are not a consequence of climate policies.”
On the contrary, climate-friendly policies are the key to independence from economic and geopolitical factors. Carole Dieschbourg seems to have found an ally in Federal Environment MinisterSteffi Lemke. Both on the podium and over joint lunches, the two Greens discussed the democratization of energy, bottlenecks in global supply chains, and “a Europe of citizens, where discussion is possible, and discussion does not mean conflict”. Giorgia Grimaldi
Shipping continues to be the problem child of decarbonization. The maritime sector is lagging behind, and the Commission’s proposal for the Fit for 55 dossier on sustainable marine fuels is considered too unambitious. Now the EP rapporteur for the dossier is causing friction with his colleagues, as Lukas Scheid has learned.
Is it going to be tight? How close will it be? Five years ago, Emmanuel Macron became president by a clear margin, while far-right Marine Le Pen lost the runoff. However, this time around this is not a foregone conclusion, as Tanja Kuchenbecker analyzes.
Yesterday, at the EU foreign minister meeting, there was no decision on an oil embargo for the time being. But: “Nothing is off the table, including sanctions against oil and gas,” said High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell.
Minister of Economic Affairs Habeck pulls out a chair: The round table “Expansion of production capacities for the energy turnaround” with solar and wind energy industry is supposed to clear the way for renewables.
A huge scandal under normal circumstances: the espionage attack on EU Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders. Last year, his and Commission employees’ telephones were tapped – software from a manufacturer whose services were also used by Poland and Hungary was suspected. A case with political explosive power.
Carole Dieschbourg, Minister of Environment, Climate and Sustainable Development of Luxembourg, is being hailed by the press as the “voice of Europe” today. Read the Profile to find out about her political principles.
75 percent of the EU’s external trade and 31 percent of its internal trade in terms of volume are conducted by water. In addition, according to the EU Commission, there are 400 million ship passengers in the member states each year, including around 14 million on cruise ships. Ships were responsible for 13.5 percent of all transport-related greenhouse gas emissions in the EU in 2018. The potential for saving emissions is correspondingly large – although not as large as for road traffic (71 percent) or aviation (14.4 percent).
Nevertheless, the maritime sector is lagging behind in decarbonization compared to road or air. The UN World Shipping Organization (IMO) is not exactly known for its progressiveness in this regard. And so, there are huge expectations for Europe to lead the way. However, the Commission’s proposal has already fallen short of these expectations.
The Fit for 55 FuelEU Maritime dossier calls for the average annual carbon intensity of ships to fall by 2 percent by 2025, 6 percent by 2030, and 75 percent by 2050 (compared to 2020). The targets are to be achieved through the use of more sustainable fuels. However, there are significant limitations to this proposal: It only applies to commercial vessels with a total tonnage of more than 5,000 metric tons. The scheme also covers 100 percent of voyages within the EU, but only 50 percent of voyages between EU ports and ports in third countries.
Jörgen Warborn (EPP), Swedish MEP and rapporteur for the dossier in the lead transport committee, does not want to change this. He published his draft report in the middle of last week. Warborn is sticking to the Commission’s level of ambition, which is causing incomprehension among other parliamentarians and environmental organizations.
The Commission and the majority of EU member states have endorsed the assessment at IMO level that international shipping must become greenhouse gas free by 2050 to meet the Paris targets, says Tiemo Wölken (S&D), rapporteur for the opinion in the associated ENVI committee. He points to the final report of a meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in December 2021, where numerous countries supported a statement by Tonga to that effect.
“So I really wonder why the rapporteur doesn’t revise the Commission’s target to achieve 100 percent zero-emission fuels by 2050.” Wölken’s draft opinion had proposed both a 100 percent reduction in carbon intensity by 2050 and the inclusion of all inter-European travel.
Furthermore, the Social Democrat is seeking more incentives for fuel suppliers and ship operators to use green hydrogen. This has been classified as particularly important for shipping in the EU hydrogen strategy, Wölken said. However, shipping has to compete with other sectors for scarce supplies of green hydrogen, which is why he favors direct electrification in areas where it is possible.
After all, the economy also benefits from this: “The impact assessment carried out by the Commission has confirmed that the development of technologies can benefit both employees and existing companies and attract new investments.” According to Wölken, raising the targets is therefore not only a climate policy necessity, but also an economic policy imperative. There is no mention of hydrogen in Warborn’s draft report.
Instead, Warborn is focusing on the use of plant-based biofuels. The Commission had ruled out their use for shipping due to land competition in the agricultural sector. In doing so, it also wanted to prevent a shift of biofuels from the road to the maritime sector. Warborn wants biofuels not to be excluded in the future and to be used at sea.
Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA), shadow rapporteur for the dossier in the Transport Committee, considers this “irresponsible” given the current looming food crisis. It is appalling that the Commission proposal is to be weakened so much by the parliamentary proposal.
The transport and environment umbrella organization Transport & Environment (T&E) is particularly critical of Warborn’s provision for LNG as an alternative fuel for marine diesel until 2046. By doing so, he is giving a gift to the fossil fuel industry, says Faïg Abbasov, T&E’s program director for shipping. “The latest IPCC report last week made it very clear that gas-based fuels will not be able to adequately decarbonize shipping.”
This is particularly problematic because Europe is currently trying to reduce gas consumption to become less dependent on Russia, while Mr. Warborn is producing fossil gas in shipping, Abbasov said. This is because, unlike other sectors such as households, energy and industry, shipping does not currently consume significant amounts of gas. A switch to LNG would thus spread already scarce resources across even more uses.
Marine Le Pen has achieved her goal. For the second time in her political career, the 53-year-old extreme right-winger has reached the second round of the presidential election in France. This means a duel with Emmanuel Macron (44) on April 24. Le Pen achieved 23.41 percent of the vote this time, slightly more than in 2017, but more than four points behind the president with 27.6 percent. The second ballot could be just as close as the first.
Polls were banned during the election weekend, but the first polls on Sunday already made clear what is at stake for Europe in France: European unity and relations between Germany and France. Macron could subsequently win the runoff with 51 to 54 percent against Le Pen with 46 to 49 percent. Pollsters Ifop saw this duel as particularly close, with 51 percent against 49 percent, much tighter than five years ago, when Macron won with 66.1 percent against 33.9 percent for Le Pen. Le Pen’s voter potential is larger this time, with far-right leader Éric Zemmour in the background.
Macron immediately called for a “bulwark against the extreme right“. Le Pen, on the other hand, encouraged “all those who did not vote for Emmanuel Macron today” to support her. In the past, there has always been a front against the far right when it became too strong. But supporters of Le Pen are hoping for an anti-Macron front because he is unpopular with many in France and is perceived as the “president of the rich”.
There is also the hope of voters from the camp of the leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who, with 21.7 percent of the vote, did much better than expected and was only slightly behind Le Pen. On election night, Mélenchon called on voters not to vote for right-wing extremists and thus took a stronger stance than in 2017, but the left-wing candidate did not want to make a clear election recommendation in favor of Macron.
The French can now choose between two completely opposite ideas for their country and Europe. Macron stands for a pro-European line and is socially and economically liberal. It is a France of the upper classes versus a France of white-collar and blue-collar workers, of cities versus suburbs, of European integration versus national sovereignty, interpreted the daily newspaper “Le Monde”. Macron was banking on his international stature, Le Pen on buying power at home. “The French did not want this duel; they were hoping for new and innovative candidates,” analyzed political scientist Bruno Cautrès.
Especially outside France, voices were raised that Le Pen would be a threat to Europe. The French people must prevent that, Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said Monday: “I’m very worried, I hope we won’t have Le Pen as French president.” That would be a break with EU values and would completely change the direction of the EU.
In her speech after the first round of voting, Le Pen made it clear what she was about: “A decision for society, a decision for civilization.” In doing so, she repeatedly referred to France: “I want to be president of all French people.” Macron, on the other hand, also addressed Europe: “The debate we will have is crucial for our country and Europe.”
Macron’s glowing speech for Europe at Paris’ Sorbonne University in his first year in office has long been part of European history – as has the lack of responses to Macron’s proposals from Berlin. In the first half of this year, France is holding the EU presidency and is showing a lot of commitment. With Macron, the EU would not be weakened but further strengthened, and the Franco-German axis would be able to continue working. Projects such as common defense, European economic projects, or environmental protection projects could be further developed in continuity with the first term in office. Macron stands for a sovereign, strong Europe, which should become more independent in future technologies in industry and in security policy. These are priorities that would almost automatically give France an important role in the future of Europe.
Marine Le Pen’s ideas are quite different. She has changed her stance compared to 2017 and no longer wants to leave the EU, the euro, or the Schengen area because this could cost her votes. But she rejects the “dictatorship from Brussels”, advocates a “Europe of nations”, and wants to renegotiate EU treaties. Above all, she demands more sovereignty for France.
Experts believe that with Le Pen, a period of uncertainty would begin for France and Europe. Confidence in her economic expertise is low, in contrast to Macron’s image. France would retreat to itself under Le Pen. Le Pen plans a “national and social project” aimed at ordinary people. Closing ranks with the other far-right in Europe could soften the EU from within, even without a Frexit. She also wants to cut France’s share of the EU budget, thereby supporting France’s farmers. Macron, on the other hand, presented himself as the defender of a “project of progress, of French and European openness”.
Le Pen had shown herself to be an admirer of Vladmir Putin in 2017 but quickly condemned his attack on Ukraine. Should she be elected, France’s position on the Ukraine war or respect for human rights in Hungary could change, likewise on the Green Deal, the European climate change package. And should France join Le Pen in opposing the use of the rule-of-law mechanism against Hungary, it would be almost impossible to enforce.
Her election would not only be a threat to the EU but also to NATO, and this at a moment when Europe is experiencing the greatest military threat since World War II. Le Pen shares Russia’s criticism of NATO and believes that, despite everything, Russia could once again become a good partner for the EU. She has repeatedly called for an exit from NATO, which is a particular problem in the current situation because it could mean the withdrawal of French troops protecting NATO territory in Eastern Europe.
Before the first round of elections, Europe was not yet a major campaign issue, but that could now change. In France, Macron is expected to increasingly use Le Pen’s far-right attitude and her anti-Europe ideas as campaign themes in the coming days.
As a child, Carole Dieschbourg accompanied her parents to anti-nuclear protests. In adulthood, she joined the family mill business, which offers organically produced flour and fair trade coffee from its own roastery. Today, the minister has a beehive in her garden, but Carole Dieschbourg is not a naïve country bumpkin – far from it.
At the age of 36, Dieschbourg’s political career gains momentum. When the still inexperienced and unknown leader of the Green Party ( “déi gréng”) surprisingly became a member of the government as environment minister in 2013, the Luxembourg media headlined her as “Catholic climate fighter”, “risk for the Greens”, and “quota minister”, among other things. But the tide turns for Dieschbourg in December 2015 at the latest, when she negotiates the historic Paris climate agreement together with more than 150 heads of state under Luxembourg’s EU Council presidency. Now the press is celebrating her as the “voice of Europe”.
Since then, the environment minister has not let off the gas pedal when it comes to climate protection. By 2030, Luxembourg wants to reduce the emission rate of greenhouse gases by 55 percent, while renewable energies are to take over 23 percent of total consumption. The “climate pact” is to help with implementation. This is an instrument with which Carole Dieschbourg is tackling many of the building sites of the climate and biodiversity crisis at the same time, for example, deforestation, the use of pesticides, and the pollution of water and soil, as well as the introduction of CO2 prices.
The Luxembourg government wants to help its municipalities to implement the ecological transition by providing financial support and know-how. There is also no shortage of personnel. For example, each municipality will be assigned a climate officer to oversee developments.
Carole Dieschbourg prefers to use light language rather than highfalutin vocabulary, but that doesn’t stop her from speaking plainly. “No-go” and “greenwashing” come up in an interview with the minister in early January about the EU Commission’s draft taxonomy. But when she paid a courtesy call on the new German government in February and appeared at the “Europe 2022” panel discussion, it was about more.
Climate and social justice go hand in hand for Dieschbourg. She wants to “get the ecological transition done” quickly, but in doing so, keep the costs for the most vulnerable and future generations as low as possible. She clarifies, “Rising energy prices are not a consequence of climate policies.”
On the contrary, climate-friendly policies are the key to independence from economic and geopolitical factors. Carole Dieschbourg seems to have found an ally in Federal Environment MinisterSteffi Lemke. Both on the podium and over joint lunches, the two Greens discussed the democratization of energy, bottlenecks in global supply chains, and “a Europe of citizens, where discussion is possible, and discussion does not mean conflict”. Giorgia Grimaldi
