by Lorenzo Fioramonti



A recent policy paper published by the EU Commission argues that the costs of moving from a 20% emission reduction target in 2020 to a potential 30% have significantly lowered, mainly due to the current economic crisis. Roughly, it would cost European economies a third of what estimated in 2008, when the initial calculation was made.

But the new Commissioner for Climate Action, Denmark's Connie Hedegaard, has recently clarified that the conditions are not yet met to adopt a unilateral decision by the EU. Hence, the Union will stick to its original 20% and would only move to 30% in the event of a multilateral framework obliging other countries to do the same. We are therefore back to square one. Industrial lobbies are stronger than ever and warn that any unilateral move by Europe (no matter how useful it might be to revive international negotiations) would push firms to relocate overseas. The EU timidly replies that it would only cost us 0.32% of GDP.

This is a wrong argument, as it rests on the tenets of bad economic thinking. Our economies are suffering because they are based on the socially and environmentally unsustainable grounds of GDP growth. The economic and environmental crises are two faces of the same coin, but the GDP reasoning forces us to see them as a trade off: more economic wellbeing, fewer emission cuts; more emission cuts, less economic wellbeing. For as long as we continue referring to GDP as our metric, we will not be able to resolve any of the crises we are currently facing. European citizens are slowly becoming aware of this. Instead of depicting emission cuts in terms of GDP sacrifices, the Commission should start discussing what a post GDP European society would look like. How much more socially united, economically sound and environmentally friendly would that be? Move beyond GDP and, paraphrasing the proverb, you will kill two crises with one reform.