Franco-German relations are not the best at the moment, and Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron are still not quite in harmony. A telephone call between the chancellor and the president scheduled for Monday was reportedly canceled by Macron.
However, the chancellery does not consider this an affront by the president: Macron had to postpone the slot several times at short notice because a cameraman had suffered a heart attack during an interview at the Élysée Palace, according to government sources in Berlin. That is why the interview did not occur in the time slot set aside for it.
Macron thus traveled to Washington without having coordinated with Scholz in advance. Most observers doubt that he will be able to extract real concessions from US President Joe Biden on the Inflation Reduction Act. All eyes are on the Trade and Technology Council (TTC) on Monday. Yesterday, however, the EU ambassadors rejected the draft final declaration – the passages on the IRA did not go far enough for them. The Commission must now renegotiate.
Today at the Competitiveness Council in Brussels, ministers discuss European responses to the US clean technology funding program without the public at lunch. Last night, Thierry Breton presented the Clean Tech Europe platform project to them.
The finance ministers in the Ecofin Council must also find an answer by Dec. 19. The issue there is many billions of euros for Hungary, which the EU Commission wants to withhold because the country has not yet reached important milestones. Eric Bonse has the details.
Charlotte Wirth reports on the legislative reform on packaging waste presented by the EU Commission yesterday. Not everyone likes the high requirements for packaging material.
The dispute with Hungary over the rule of law is widening. Having already frozen €7.5 billion from the EU budget in September, the EU Commission now also wants to put the disbursement of €5.8 billion from the European reconstruction fund on hold. Hungary has not or only partially implemented the agreed “milestones” to fight corruption and protect the rule of law, Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn said Wednesday in Brussels.
“While a number of reforms have been implemented or are underway, Hungary has not adequately implemented key aspects of the 17 remedial actions required,” a Commission statement said. It concluded that essential steps were still needed to address remaining risks to the EU budget in Hungary. The disbursement will be linked to 27 new “super milestones,” including the previously agreed 17 measures.
Now all eyes are on the finance ministers. They must approve the Commission’s recommendation by a qualified majority by Dec. 19. This requires 55 percent of the 27 countries representing at least 65 percent of the total EU population. No decision is expected at the next Ecofin meeting next Tuesday, according to Brussels Council circles. It is possible that there will be a special council in December.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock announced that Germany would vote “on the basis of the EU Commission’s recommendation” on the possible freezing of EU funds for Hungary. Germany’s “yes” is considered certain, but other EU countries are hesitating. Some states fear that they, too, could face financial sanctions. Other, more right-wing governments have so far stood by Hungary and now want to avoid a decision. The Council could therefore be playing for time.
In addition, there are concerns that Hungary could block important EU decisions if money is withdrawn. Already, the right-wing nationalist government in Budapest is putting on the brakes. For example, it is blocking the disbursement of €18 billion in new debt-financed financial aid to Ukraine. A global tax agreement that has been planned for years is also on hold because of the veto from Budapest. Head of government Viktor Orbán is trying to blackmail the EU, according to Brussels.
Orbán could go even further. He has announced that he will no longer support further EU sanctions against Russia. Unanimity is required for this. He could also try to take the dispute to the European Council. At the next EU summit on Dec. 15 and 16, an increase in the Peace Facility, which is used for arms deliveries to Ukraine, is on the agenda. A Hungarian veto would call the EU’s ability to act into question.
Hahn tried to separate the suspension of EU payments from Ukraine policy. It looks as if there is a connection from Hungary’s point of view. However, there was no factual justification for this. Hungary would not have to pay anything at all for the planned EU loan to Ukraine. Costs would not be incurred by Budapest until 2024; however, the Hungarian share of €6 million in the interest was “no reason not to participate”.
Hungary showed itself willing to compromise. Chief negotiator Tibor Navracsics pointed out that some reform legislation just needed to be passed. “We are not at the finish line yet.” He said Hungary is in constant dialogue with the Commission and is ready to make concessions. The fact that the Commission approved the reconstruction plan was “significant progress,” he said. He expects the frozen funds to be disbursed next year.
The European Parliament warned against accommodating Hungary too quickly. Orbán needs the money from Brussels, said CSU financial expert Markus Ferber. “The Hungarian economy is on the brink of recession, criticism of Orbán’s economic policy is growing. That’s where a billion-dollar payment from Brussels would come in handy.”
Member states should not let Orbán get away with blocking important decisions in order to continue receiving EU funds in return, commented Green Party co-chair Terry Reintke. It’s not just about Hungary, she said. “If the EU is not able to enforce basic democratic standards and the rule of law in a member state, then it is no longer a community of democracies.”
The Commission is showing its ambition. With the reform of the packaging regulation presented yesterday, it wants to hold producers and member states accountable. Recycling and reuse are to become the norm.
The Commission focuses, in particular, on the recyclability of packaging and sets strict quotas. For example, 90 percent of the packaging of large household appliances must be recyclable from 2030. For hot and cold beverages, targets of 20 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2040 apply; for food containers, the targets are 10 and 40 percent.
Steffi Lemke, Germany’s environment minister, has praised the project. She said that Germany was already implementing some of the requirements but that it was conceivable that retailers would have to offer reusable beverages and that there would be a ban on serving food on disposable tableware.
In an earlier draft, however, the requirements were even stricter. The Commission has significantly scaled back its ambitions, criticizes the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).
The packaging manufacturers’ association Europen, on the other hand, criticizes the strong focus on recycling: The Commission would neglect the importance of recycling in the transformation of waste into important secondary raw materials. The Commission has also neglected the fact that its proposal can only be implemented with the help of investments in the necessary framework infrastructure, Europen regrets.
There is no competition between recycling and reuse, however, the Commission countered yesterday. “We produce more waste and faster than we recycle. This means that 30 tons of waste are lost every year,” said Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius.
According to the Commission’s proposal, manufacturers will have to think about the recyclability, reuse and composition of their products. For each packaging material, it wants to define so-called “design for recycling” criteria.
In the future, there will be specific performance classes for packaging products ranging from A to E. The evaluation criteria will be the recyclability of the product and the amount of recycled plastic. This scale will also be used as a basis for extended producer responsibility, under which producers will have to make financial contributions. Member states can use producer responsibility as a tool to reduce packaging waste per capita.
Manufacturers must also guarantee and demonstrate that their products comply with the new standards. They can organize themselves into collectives for this purpose, but these must be approved by the respective member states. In the future, only producers who register in national registers will be allowed to manufacture packaging.
Twenty-four months after the regulation comes into force, the EU27 will be able to impose penalties if producers, suppliers and manufacturers fail to comply with the regulation’s requirements.
There are also clear requirements on what percentage of the packaging material may consist of recycled plastic in the future. From 2030, minimum values of up to 35 percent will apply, and from 2040, up to 65 percent, as Europe.Table reported on Tuesday.
However, the proposal gives the impression that the Commission itself doubts the feasibility of these requirements: It reserves the right to issue derogations by delegated act if the standards are not feasible to implement, for example, if the technology is not yet ready.
The strict requirements harbor the risk that cardboard and paper will become the packaging materials of choice in the future instead of plastic. However, these are not necessarily more sustainable, warns S&D rapporteur for deforestation-free supply chains, Delara Burkhardt (SPD).
The Commission also wants to influence the size of packaging: Hollow spaces and the use of space fillers are supposed to be reduced. Example: For grouped packaging, transport packaging or e-commerce packaging, a void ratio of 40 percent applies. This refers to the difference between the volume of the sales packaging (grouped packaging) and the individual packaging (sales packaging).
The Commission also counts on harmonized labeling of packaging. No later than 42 months after entry into force, manufacturers must provide information on the composition and recycling of the products, for example. From 2028, the labels must additionally contain information on the collection of each material.
The Commission also plans maximum values for heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, Mercury and hexavalent chromium. In an earlier draft, the Commission also wanted to ban the use of styrofoam, but this has now been dropped.
Stricter requirements will also apply to member states in the future. They must reduce packaging waste per capita by 5 percent by 2030, ten percent by 2035 and 15 percent by 2040.
The Commission also wants to define how much packaging waste the EU27 is allowed to produce each year, as well as how much it must recycle: About 65 percent of the total weight of packaging waste by December 2025, and as much as 70 percent by 2030.
Member states must also set up systems for the collection, deposit and return of bottles and cans by 2029. For countries like Germany, which has long operated a deposit system, this should not be a problem. Countries like Luxembourg, where about 200,000 cross-border commuters generate packaging waste every day in addition to residents, are likely to find it more problematic. The Commission is therefore proposing an opt-out clause for countries that can collect at least 90 percent of bottles individually.
Ultimately, member states must even ensure that the per capita use of plastic bags is reduced to 40 bags per year by 2025. In particular, lightweight plastic bags, such as those used to pack loose food, must be compostable under industrial conditions.
However, this means that member states must ensure that such bags are collected separately and that they have the necessary infrastructure. Precise rules for compostable plastic are laid down in a second draft presented by the Commission yesterday.
If you had to spend €100 to make a ton of CO2 emissions disappear, would you do it? Timo Goeschl asks questions like these of the participants in his studies. Goeschl is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Heidelberg. Among other things, he researches what people are willing to pay for more climate protection.
The 52-year-old studied economics in Innsbruck and at the University of Notre Dame in the USA, and wrote his doctoral thesis in Cambridge. “I was always looking for something where I could combine economics with the natural sciences,” says Goeschl. Today, he works on research projects together with physicists and geographers.
Goeschl has joined forces with around 1200 other European environmental economists in the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE). There, he is involved as a representative for Germany, and as an interface between members in Germany and the European board.
EAERE repeatedly expresses its views on European climate policy; a statement on the EU’s current legislative plans from June was signed by more than 1000 researchers. In it, they support the EU’s plans and, in particular, European emissions trading. With declarations like this, EAERE wants to support politicians who advocate for climate policy in Brussels, says Timo Goeschl: “We want to show that there is a consensus and that politicians can refer to us here.”
Goeschl would like to see more attention from policymakers on the economic dimension of climate issues. For the same reason, EAERE has a Policy Outreach Committee. How the proposals are received depends heavily on the country, Goeschl says: “In Germany, it’s not easy for environmental economists to be heard.”
He himself has already advised the Bundestag on the consequences of geoengineering, i.e., methods designed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, for example. At the University of Heidelberg, Goeschl continues to research how people can be persuaded to do more to protect the climate. One thesis is that if we could see the emissions in our neighborhood directly, we would be more likely to take action ourselves. In another project, Goeschl and a team of psychologists and biologists are conducting research on Lake Victoria in East Africa, looking at the consequences of fishing in the lake.
For realistic results, all these research projects would always need the perspective of an environmental economist, Goeschl says: “We care about efficiency because nobody else cares.” Jana Hemmersmeier
Franco-German relations are not the best at the moment, and Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron are still not quite in harmony. A telephone call between the chancellor and the president scheduled for Monday was reportedly canceled by Macron.
However, the chancellery does not consider this an affront by the president: Macron had to postpone the slot several times at short notice because a cameraman had suffered a heart attack during an interview at the Élysée Palace, according to government sources in Berlin. That is why the interview did not occur in the time slot set aside for it.
Macron thus traveled to Washington without having coordinated with Scholz in advance. Most observers doubt that he will be able to extract real concessions from US President Joe Biden on the Inflation Reduction Act. All eyes are on the Trade and Technology Council (TTC) on Monday. Yesterday, however, the EU ambassadors rejected the draft final declaration – the passages on the IRA did not go far enough for them. The Commission must now renegotiate.
Today at the Competitiveness Council in Brussels, ministers discuss European responses to the US clean technology funding program without the public at lunch. Last night, Thierry Breton presented the Clean Tech Europe platform project to them.
The finance ministers in the Ecofin Council must also find an answer by Dec. 19. The issue there is many billions of euros for Hungary, which the EU Commission wants to withhold because the country has not yet reached important milestones. Eric Bonse has the details.
Charlotte Wirth reports on the legislative reform on packaging waste presented by the EU Commission yesterday. Not everyone likes the high requirements for packaging material.
The dispute with Hungary over the rule of law is widening. Having already frozen €7.5 billion from the EU budget in September, the EU Commission now also wants to put the disbursement of €5.8 billion from the European reconstruction fund on hold. Hungary has not or only partially implemented the agreed “milestones” to fight corruption and protect the rule of law, Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn said Wednesday in Brussels.
“While a number of reforms have been implemented or are underway, Hungary has not adequately implemented key aspects of the 17 remedial actions required,” a Commission statement said. It concluded that essential steps were still needed to address remaining risks to the EU budget in Hungary. The disbursement will be linked to 27 new “super milestones,” including the previously agreed 17 measures.
Now all eyes are on the finance ministers. They must approve the Commission’s recommendation by a qualified majority by Dec. 19. This requires 55 percent of the 27 countries representing at least 65 percent of the total EU population. No decision is expected at the next Ecofin meeting next Tuesday, according to Brussels Council circles. It is possible that there will be a special council in December.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock announced that Germany would vote “on the basis of the EU Commission’s recommendation” on the possible freezing of EU funds for Hungary. Germany’s “yes” is considered certain, but other EU countries are hesitating. Some states fear that they, too, could face financial sanctions. Other, more right-wing governments have so far stood by Hungary and now want to avoid a decision. The Council could therefore be playing for time.
In addition, there are concerns that Hungary could block important EU decisions if money is withdrawn. Already, the right-wing nationalist government in Budapest is putting on the brakes. For example, it is blocking the disbursement of €18 billion in new debt-financed financial aid to Ukraine. A global tax agreement that has been planned for years is also on hold because of the veto from Budapest. Head of government Viktor Orbán is trying to blackmail the EU, according to Brussels.
Orbán could go even further. He has announced that he will no longer support further EU sanctions against Russia. Unanimity is required for this. He could also try to take the dispute to the European Council. At the next EU summit on Dec. 15 and 16, an increase in the Peace Facility, which is used for arms deliveries to Ukraine, is on the agenda. A Hungarian veto would call the EU’s ability to act into question.
Hahn tried to separate the suspension of EU payments from Ukraine policy. It looks as if there is a connection from Hungary’s point of view. However, there was no factual justification for this. Hungary would not have to pay anything at all for the planned EU loan to Ukraine. Costs would not be incurred by Budapest until 2024; however, the Hungarian share of €6 million in the interest was “no reason not to participate”.
Hungary showed itself willing to compromise. Chief negotiator Tibor Navracsics pointed out that some reform legislation just needed to be passed. “We are not at the finish line yet.” He said Hungary is in constant dialogue with the Commission and is ready to make concessions. The fact that the Commission approved the reconstruction plan was “significant progress,” he said. He expects the frozen funds to be disbursed next year.
The European Parliament warned against accommodating Hungary too quickly. Orbán needs the money from Brussels, said CSU financial expert Markus Ferber. “The Hungarian economy is on the brink of recession, criticism of Orbán’s economic policy is growing. That’s where a billion-dollar payment from Brussels would come in handy.”
Member states should not let Orbán get away with blocking important decisions in order to continue receiving EU funds in return, commented Green Party co-chair Terry Reintke. It’s not just about Hungary, she said. “If the EU is not able to enforce basic democratic standards and the rule of law in a member state, then it is no longer a community of democracies.”
The Commission is showing its ambition. With the reform of the packaging regulation presented yesterday, it wants to hold producers and member states accountable. Recycling and reuse are to become the norm.
The Commission focuses, in particular, on the recyclability of packaging and sets strict quotas. For example, 90 percent of the packaging of large household appliances must be recyclable from 2030. For hot and cold beverages, targets of 20 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2040 apply; for food containers, the targets are 10 and 40 percent.
Steffi Lemke, Germany’s environment minister, has praised the project. She said that Germany was already implementing some of the requirements but that it was conceivable that retailers would have to offer reusable beverages and that there would be a ban on serving food on disposable tableware.
In an earlier draft, however, the requirements were even stricter. The Commission has significantly scaled back its ambitions, criticizes the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).
The packaging manufacturers’ association Europen, on the other hand, criticizes the strong focus on recycling: The Commission would neglect the importance of recycling in the transformation of waste into important secondary raw materials. The Commission has also neglected the fact that its proposal can only be implemented with the help of investments in the necessary framework infrastructure, Europen regrets.
There is no competition between recycling and reuse, however, the Commission countered yesterday. “We produce more waste and faster than we recycle. This means that 30 tons of waste are lost every year,” said Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius.
According to the Commission’s proposal, manufacturers will have to think about the recyclability, reuse and composition of their products. For each packaging material, it wants to define so-called “design for recycling” criteria.
In the future, there will be specific performance classes for packaging products ranging from A to E. The evaluation criteria will be the recyclability of the product and the amount of recycled plastic. This scale will also be used as a basis for extended producer responsibility, under which producers will have to make financial contributions. Member states can use producer responsibility as a tool to reduce packaging waste per capita.
Manufacturers must also guarantee and demonstrate that their products comply with the new standards. They can organize themselves into collectives for this purpose, but these must be approved by the respective member states. In the future, only producers who register in national registers will be allowed to manufacture packaging.
Twenty-four months after the regulation comes into force, the EU27 will be able to impose penalties if producers, suppliers and manufacturers fail to comply with the regulation’s requirements.
There are also clear requirements on what percentage of the packaging material may consist of recycled plastic in the future. From 2030, minimum values of up to 35 percent will apply, and from 2040, up to 65 percent, as Europe.Table reported on Tuesday.
However, the proposal gives the impression that the Commission itself doubts the feasibility of these requirements: It reserves the right to issue derogations by delegated act if the standards are not feasible to implement, for example, if the technology is not yet ready.
The strict requirements harbor the risk that cardboard and paper will become the packaging materials of choice in the future instead of plastic. However, these are not necessarily more sustainable, warns S&D rapporteur for deforestation-free supply chains, Delara Burkhardt (SPD).
The Commission also wants to influence the size of packaging: Hollow spaces and the use of space fillers are supposed to be reduced. Example: For grouped packaging, transport packaging or e-commerce packaging, a void ratio of 40 percent applies. This refers to the difference between the volume of the sales packaging (grouped packaging) and the individual packaging (sales packaging).
The Commission also counts on harmonized labeling of packaging. No later than 42 months after entry into force, manufacturers must provide information on the composition and recycling of the products, for example. From 2028, the labels must additionally contain information on the collection of each material.
The Commission also plans maximum values for heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, Mercury and hexavalent chromium. In an earlier draft, the Commission also wanted to ban the use of styrofoam, but this has now been dropped.
Stricter requirements will also apply to member states in the future. They must reduce packaging waste per capita by 5 percent by 2030, ten percent by 2035 and 15 percent by 2040.
The Commission also wants to define how much packaging waste the EU27 is allowed to produce each year, as well as how much it must recycle: About 65 percent of the total weight of packaging waste by December 2025, and as much as 70 percent by 2030.
Member states must also set up systems for the collection, deposit and return of bottles and cans by 2029. For countries like Germany, which has long operated a deposit system, this should not be a problem. Countries like Luxembourg, where about 200,000 cross-border commuters generate packaging waste every day in addition to residents, are likely to find it more problematic. The Commission is therefore proposing an opt-out clause for countries that can collect at least 90 percent of bottles individually.
Ultimately, member states must even ensure that the per capita use of plastic bags is reduced to 40 bags per year by 2025. In particular, lightweight plastic bags, such as those used to pack loose food, must be compostable under industrial conditions.
However, this means that member states must ensure that such bags are collected separately and that they have the necessary infrastructure. Precise rules for compostable plastic are laid down in a second draft presented by the Commission yesterday.
If you had to spend €100 to make a ton of CO2 emissions disappear, would you do it? Timo Goeschl asks questions like these of the participants in his studies. Goeschl is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Heidelberg. Among other things, he researches what people are willing to pay for more climate protection.
The 52-year-old studied economics in Innsbruck and at the University of Notre Dame in the USA, and wrote his doctoral thesis in Cambridge. “I was always looking for something where I could combine economics with the natural sciences,” says Goeschl. Today, he works on research projects together with physicists and geographers.
Goeschl has joined forces with around 1200 other European environmental economists in the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE). There, he is involved as a representative for Germany, and as an interface between members in Germany and the European board.
EAERE repeatedly expresses its views on European climate policy; a statement on the EU’s current legislative plans from June was signed by more than 1000 researchers. In it, they support the EU’s plans and, in particular, European emissions trading. With declarations like this, EAERE wants to support politicians who advocate for climate policy in Brussels, says Timo Goeschl: “We want to show that there is a consensus and that politicians can refer to us here.”
Goeschl would like to see more attention from policymakers on the economic dimension of climate issues. For the same reason, EAERE has a Policy Outreach Committee. How the proposals are received depends heavily on the country, Goeschl says: “In Germany, it’s not easy for environmental economists to be heard.”
He himself has already advised the Bundestag on the consequences of geoengineering, i.e., methods designed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, for example. At the University of Heidelberg, Goeschl continues to research how people can be persuaded to do more to protect the climate. One thesis is that if we could see the emissions in our neighborhood directly, we would be more likely to take action ourselves. In another project, Goeschl and a team of psychologists and biologists are conducting research on Lake Victoria in East Africa, looking at the consequences of fishing in the lake.
For realistic results, all these research projects would always need the perspective of an environmental economist, Goeschl says: “We care about efficiency because nobody else cares.” Jana Hemmersmeier
