Informative survey of political parties by the Mouvement Ecologique: EU elections 2024: A choice of direction, also from the perspective of climate, nature and the environment
As the level of detail in the election programmes of the various political parties varies greatly in the run-up to the EU elections, the Mouvement Ecologique decided not to carry out a general analysis of the programmes. Instead, specific questions were addressed to the parties in order to recognise different attitudes.
The catalogue of questions was sent to all parties taking part in the EU elections. LSAP, KPL, Déi Lénk, DP, CSV Déi Gréng and Pirates responded.
There was no response from Volt Luxembourg, Fokus, Déi Konservativ-d’Fräiheetspartei, ADR, Zesummen-d’Bréck. As no analysis of the party programmes was carried out, as explained above, the positions of these parties on sustainable development cannot be considered. However, the ADR is briefly mentioned, as it is already represented in the Chamber of Deputies. Numerous statements by this party – on nuclear power, instruments to combat the climate crisis, the internal combustion engine and much more – show that it de facto denies the need for an ecological transition.
The EU elections: Directional elections, also from the perspective of sustainable development
Some decisions at EU level in the area of sustainable development are infuriating and do not stand for a positive future. For example, European agricultural policy is still a long way from setting the right course for sustainable agriculture and more effective protection of biodiversity.
However, despite its weaknesses, the European Community as a democratic union of values – alongside the development of an area without internal borders in which there are no unjustified restrictions on the free movement of people and trade between EU member states – is and remains of outstanding importance, also from the point of view of sustainable development.
The fact is that many regulations can only be sensibly adopted at EU level. An EU is needed to define economic, ecological and social framework conditions in many areas that apply to all member states. Significant achievements in climate protection, biodiversity, the circular economy for everyday things – such as clean drinking water or better air quality, etc. – could only be achieved thanks to the EU and strong (environmental) standards. These are all achievements that would not exist without the EU. It is hard to imagine where Luxembourg would be today in terms of the environment if we did not have to implement legal regulations based on EU requirements and standards.
The fact is that the absolute majority of laws in Luxembourg are also (co-)determined by EU decisions.
A number of important initiatives have also been taken in recent years: The European ‘Green Deal’ with the ‘Fit for 55’ climate package, the ‘Farm-to-Fork Strategy’ in the agricultural and food sector and the ‘nature restoration law’ have set important accents for a climate-neutral, nature-friendly and sustainable Europe.
However, there are numerous tendencies to question this important but still far too timid progress: there is a risk of a ‘roll back’, including in connection with the ‘Green Deal’.
The next six years in particular will be decisive as to whether, for example, the climate protection target of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees can be achieved and the loss of biodiversity contained.
They will be decisive for the direction in which the European Community will develop in the area of sustainable development, among others. For example, will short-term economic (supposed) constraints dominate or will the course be set to preserve our natural resources and ensure fairer trade with the world’s poorer countries?
The Mouvement Ecologique supports the list of demands ‘Naturally Europe – We have a choice’, which was drawn up by over 90 organisations and makes a plea for a sustainable, future-oriented Europe. It states, among other things:
‘(…) the answer to the manifold crises is not less sustainability, less climate, nature, animal and environmental protection or less Europe. Instead, we must invest even more specifically in nature, animal and climate protection, the reduction of resource consumption, sustainable infrastructure, industrial transformation and the preservation of biodiversity as the basis of our existence.
This will save us and future generations far higher costs in the future. (…)’.
Based on this document, among other things, Mouvement Ecologique has crystallised its own experiences at EU level and internal discussions into 24 questions for the political parties, which are representative of directional decisions at EU level for a sustainable future, and provides voters with these as a decision-making aid.
This includes in the areas of democratisation and social justice, ecological transition and its financing, mobility, climate, food and biodiversity policy.
Consensus between the parties on a number of key issues
The parties’ responses to the questionnaire reveal an impressive consensus in many areas:
This, for example, with regard to issues concerning the necessary further development of democratic processes at EU level, the possibility of penalising treaty violations, the abolition of environmentally and climate-damaging subsidies and the introduction of ‘green budgeting’, the increased enforcement of the polluter pays principle in the transport sector (including the taxation of paraffin), the expansion of the rail network to be implemented as a priority, the necessary expansion of organic farming and much more.
It will be interesting to see how these current promises are implemented in Luxembourg law – also independently of the EU level. This applies, for example, to the reduction of environmentally and climate-damaging subsidies or ‘green budgeting’, two measures that could also be implemented immediately at Luxembourg level independently of the EU level (and are also being tackled by a number of other EU countries).
However, there are also relevant differences
However, there are also very revealing differences in a number of areas between the parties. Looking at the ‘yes – no’ answers is not enough. Rather, the parties’ specific comments on different issues are also extremely revealing. It should be noted that the Mouvement Ecologique specifically asked somewhat more detailed questions and in some cases also listed several instruments for achieving a goal in one question. It is not possible to reproduce these questions addressed to the parties and the measures listed in full below. The following analysis is, of necessity, a summarised presentation. The detailed questions and comments of the parties can be found at www.meco.lu.
According to the Mouvement Ecologique, the following interpretation results from the questionnaire:
– Mir d’Vollek is convinced that the catalogue of questions is ‘based on false premises’ and has accordingly not answered the questions. They deny the man-made climate crisis.
– The LSAP agrees with all the questions, but formulates special comments for 13 of them. However, it is not always entirely clear / recognisable to what extent the agreement is somewhat weakened by these comments.
* For example, if the question is ‘Move away from PIB as a growth indicator towards progress indicators’, LSAP is in favour of a ‘PIB du bien-être as a growth indicator’.
* Or, on the question of a reorientation of European agricultural policy with concrete statements, the LSAP agrees, but states in the comments that this ‘must be defined with the farmers concerned’. To date, however, it is well known that some farmers’ organisations have spoken out against certain reforms. What applies to the LSAP if farmers’ organisations continue to oppose innovations to safeguard natural resources? The ‘yes’ or the ‘no’?
* It is revealing that the LSAP also rejects – in its current form – the Mercosur agreement with the South American states and is generally in favour of enforceable sustainability clauses in free trade agreements that take precedence over investor protection. It is also in favour of a supply chain law that goes beyond the current provisions.
Overall, the LSAP is therefore in favour of reforms to protect the climate and biodiversity. Social compatibility is emphasised in this context.
– The KPL agrees with all of the questions, although the comments (8 in total) also include fundamental system-relevant considerations (e.g. militarisation, profit interests of lobbies). In the case of organic farming, reference is made to the fact that its promotion ‘must not have a negative impact on food prices in shops’.
Overall, a commitment to sustainable development with a focus on the protection of low-income earners and a ‘system change’.
– Déi Lénk also answered all questions in the affirmative and formulated 19 comments. Comments regarding the impact on consumers are frequently cited. For example, in the case of the question concerning higher taxation of resource consumption (‘However, consumers should only be taxed more heavily when fully-fledged alternatives are available’) or the promotion of organic farming (‘However, these goals can only be achieved if farmers can improve their income in the process’).
Déi Lénk are committed to the goals of preserving biodiversity and protecting the climate, with specific socio-political references.
– The DP is in favour of 20 questions, rejects one, gives no answer twice, reformulates two comments and one answer option.
* The DP rejects the introduction of a tax on the super-rich;
* The DP does not answer any of the questions:
– on criteria for more social, democratic and ecological free trade agreements;
– on the energy transition – phasing out the use of fossil gas and oil by 2040 and expanding renewables by 30% by 2030 as well as the end of the combustion engine (without explanation) and the CO2 emissions reduction target of -95% by 2040.
* When asked whether she shares the view that the EU should maintain a reduction target of -95% by 2040 with corresponding instruments for the gradual implementation of the target, she states ‘We want ambitious but realistic targets by 2040. We also remain committed to the goal of climate neutrality by 2050’.
* The other comment concerns nuclear power. The DP is in favour of phasing out nuclear power, but believes that ‘research funds should only be invested in nuclear waste and the safety of existing reactors’.
Accordingly: The DP is in favour of a whole range of measures to protect the climate and biodiversity, but less ambitious climate targets than those demanded by environmental organisations and rejects a tax on the rich.
– The CSV is in favour of 15 of the Mouvement Ecologique’s demands, rejects 6 of them and expresses no opinion three times. It formulated eleven comments.
The CSV rejects the following demands:
– The suggestion to define progress indicators instead of gross domestic product as a growth indicator, such as the ‘PIB du bien-être’. According to the CSV, the two are not mutually exclusive.
– The stringent reform of today’s free trade agreements from a sustainability perspective and the rejection of the Mercosur Agreement (the question covered all aspects). This without commenting on this rejection.
– The introduction of a tax on the super-rich was also rejected.
– The CSV rejects the demand for an unconditional ‘no’ to nuclear power and to further research funding, e.g. in the area of fourth-generation nuclear power plants. In its comments, it writes that research into the disposal and reutilisation of nuclear waste must be continued.
– The CSV also rejects the linking of all Common Agricultural Policy funds (from 2034 at the latest) to environmental targets to be achieved, instruments to reduce the import of animal feed from third countries and a binding target to reduce CO2 emissions in the agricultural sector.
– Furthermore, the CSV is against a rejection of carbon capture and storage.
* The CSV does not answer the questions regarding a reduction target for CO2 emissions of -95% by 2040, the phasing out of fossil fuels by 2040, the expansion of electricity production to 100% renewables by 2030 and various measures in the area of biodiversity, such as the restoration of ecosystems on at least 20 per cent of open land.
Overall, the CSV appears to be in favour of climate and biodiversity measures, as it emphasises several times in the special comments. However, it does so in a pragmatic manner and through incentives (e.g. ‘incentives instead of taxation’). It emphasises the openness of technology.
– Déi Gréng are in favour of all demands. For all questions, they formulate additional comments, some of them detailed, which generally reinforce the demands and provide additional information. This applies to all topics addressed.
In their answers to the questionnaire, Déi Gréng consistently advocate reforms and the further development of the EU in terms of sustainable development, while also emphasising the social dimension.
– The Pirates are in favour of 21 of the statements, reject two and remain unanswered once
* The Pirates reject the demand already mentioned several times in this evaluation regarding the climate targets (stop fossil fuels by 2040, 100% renewable electricity supply by 2030) and the rejection of carbon capture. The party refers to its election programme.
* For the non-answer to the question of taxing the super-rich, please refer to the relevant chapter in the election manifesto.
The Pirates are therefore definitely in favour of sustainable policies. However, they are not in favour of more ambitious climate targets, as demanded by the associations, and they are also in favour of purely technical approaches such as carbon capture.
The voting behaviour of Luxembourg MEPs during the last legislative period
The five major European environmental associations have analysed the voting behaviour of MEPs from the various countries during the last legislative period on important issues in the field of sustainable development.
As far as the Luxembourg representatives are concerned, they came to the following conclusion regarding the approval rate for relevant parliamentary decisions in favour of sustainable development:
Christophe Hansen: 28.24 %
Isabel Wiseler-Lima: 32.42 %
Martine Kemp: 35.15 %
Monica Semedo: 55.97 %
Charles Goerens: 64.46 %
Marc Angel: 82.24 %
Tilly Metz: 95.18 %
28.05.2024