Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

The EU is an environmental enemy

There are two environmental arguments for the EU. One is a bankruptcy statement. The second is weakened by enlargement. The environmental arguments against the EU, on the other hand, have been stronger since 1994. The EU has not been able to promote measures that curb this negative development, nor measures that are substantially able to remedy the damage, Heidi Sørensen writes in this post. (photo: Jógvan H. Gardar)




(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

“The EU has changed since 1994, but the environmental movement's arguments against Norwegian membership are strengthened. ” This is how Nature and Youth ends its unanimous national meeting statement, in which the organization affirms its no to Norwegian membership of the EU.

The organization addressed the EU case at its national meeting in January 2004. Among the questions Nature and Youth have raised before the new EU debate are the following: Will Norwegian environmental policy be better if the country becomes a member of the EU? Will Norway be able to make the EU an environmental project? Will Norway be able to work actively to improve international environmental cooperation if it becomes a member of the EU? The answer to all these questions is no, which is why Norway should refrain from joining the Union.

EU and international environmental cooperation

Most people agree that we need international cooperation to solve environmental problems. If international environmental agreements are to become more effective in the future, they must be prioritized as free trade agreements, such as the WTO. That's not it today. During the environmental conference in Johannesburg (Rio + 10), proposals were made that the environmental agreements should subordinated free trade agreements such as the WTO. If this had become a reality, it would have been a major step back for international environmental efforts.

The European Commission, which negotiated on behalf of all EU countries, supported the proposal, although several EU countries, including Sweden, were opponents. The proposal was rejected because Norway and Ethiopia, among others, managed to get so many developing countries on their side that the proposal was withdrawn. Both the World Natural Fund (WWF), Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth thanks Norway and Ethiopia for their efforts during the environmental summit in Johannesburg.

There is a need for countries from the rich part of the world that stand outside the major blocs of power and thus can more easily ally with poor countries. Norway has an opportunity to play such a role. My vision is for Norway to become an environmental nation, and use its voice in international environmental cooperation to be a driving force for environmental protection. A Norwegian membership in the EU will make it almost impossible to be such a driver.

In many important environmental areas, it has been crucial that individual countries were willing to take the first steps in an environmentally friendly direction. When it came to reducing emissions that led to acid rainfall, Norway undertook relatively heavy obligations early on, and other countries followed suit.

In the late 80s and early 90s, Norway was in many areas a pioneer in environmental policy. In 1989, Norway was the first country in the world to adopt a national climate goal. The goal from that time was that emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2 should be stabilized at the 1989 level by the year 2000. During the 1990s, the Labor Party government and Minister of the Environment Thorbjørn Berntsen deviated from the goal, and Norwegian climate emissions are now sky-high above the 1989 level.

The main reason why Norwegian climate policy has become so bad is that the oil industry has great power. But if we become a member of the EU, the environmental movement and everyone who works for a more environmentally friendly development must fight against car manufacturers and coal power producers as well.

EU and safe food

The EU's agricultural policy has led to major damage to the environment, and weakened food security in Europe. Pollution of groundwater, over-fertilization of rivers and the North Sea are examples of damage caused by the EU's very intensive agricultural policy. Food scandals such as salmonella outbreaks and mad cow disease are also the result of an agricultural policy across nature's limits. About half of the EU's total budget goes to agricultural policy.

The EU's largest democratic environmental organization, Friends of the Earth Europe, has long campaigned against EU agricultural policy. Friends of the Earth describes the EU's agricultural policy as follows:

"Food and food production in the EU must change: current food and agricultural policies fail to deliver safe food to consumers. Our soil, air and water are polluted by intensive agriculture. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should support farmers and subsidize quality food.

The EU spends about 45 billion euros on CAP each year. This has led to over-intensive agriculture and strong environmental pollution. 80 percent of the EU's agricultural subsidies go to 20 percent of farmers. Industrial agriculture and the agro-industry benefit most from the subsidies. ”

Work has been underway in the EU to reform CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) in a more environmentally friendly direction. So far, the countries have not agreed on any radical changes. The 1650 largest farmers in the EU receive NOK 2,5 million each year in subsidies from the EU. This will also continue with the reforms that have been implemented.

For nature and the environment in Norway, it has been a great advantage that Norway has not been a member of the EU. Norwegian agriculture is not as industrialized as the main part of agriculture in the EU. This means that we make better use of food resources in Norway and that agriculture pollutes less. This does not mean that everything is good in Norway. There is a need for an ecologisation of agriculture so that food can be produced with significantly less damage to nature. This is most easily done by Norway not being covered by the EU's agricultural policy.

EU and transport

The EU's internal market has led to a tremendous growth in transport in Western Europe, and car and air traffic is growing fastest. The strong growth in transport is the main reason why the EU is having difficulty meeting its international climate commitments from Kyoto.

The European Environment Agency writes in the report "Europe's environment – the third assessment": "Transport patterns in Central and Eastern Europe are currently more sustainable than in Western Europe, but developments are moving in the wrong direction."

Local air pollution related to transport is one of the environmental problems that most countries in Europe have managed to limit. However, local air pollution is still a major health and environmental problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that in France, Switzerland and Austria, air pollution is responsible for six percent of deaths. According to the WHO, traffic pollution also led to 25 new cases of chronic bronchitis, 000 episodes of bronchitis in children, and half a million asthma attacks.

The EU has not been able to promote measures that slow down this negative development, nor measures that are significantly able to remedy the damage. The EU has adopted an offensive railway policy, but even after this change, more EU funds are spent on the construction of motorways (48 per cent) than on the construction of railways (40,5 per cent).

Two environmental arguments for the EU

Several actors on the yes side emphasize that several EEA directives have sharpened Norwegian environmental policy, and believe these are arguments for Norwegian membership of the EU. I do not share this view. We do not need more directives from the EU to sharpen environmental policy in Norway, we need a majority in the Storting that wants it.

As I see it, there are two internally contradictory environmental arguments for a Norwegian EU membership:

  • Norway must join the EU so that the EU can impose environmental rules on Norway. The Storting will not adopt.
  • Norway must step in to change the EU in a more environmentally friendly direction.

The first argument I hear more and more often performed in different variants. This argument is a declaration of bankruptcy, and can undermine basic democratic decision-making processes. I also believe that a more environmentally friendly policy must be developed through democratic decision-making processes. Nature and environmental protection that is worn down over people's heads creates counter-reactions that cause environmental protection to lose in the long run.

The second argument was the central environmental argument on the yes side in 1994. In my opinion, this is an argument that in some areas had something to offer. After the EU is enlarged by 10 countries, this argument has weakened. Norway's share of the votes in the EU's decision-making bodies will be significantly smaller if Norway became a member now, than the small influence Norway would have had if we had become a member in 1995. I believe Norway has more left in international environmental cooperation, outside the EU.

You may also like