Europe’s answer to the green backlash

But today it's not easy being green anymore. With just a month until European parliamentary elections, the Greens appeared to be polling far behind where they were in twenty nineteen. Farmers protests are stalling the Green Deal, the cost of living crisis is making the populist argument more attractive, and younger voters who Greens could count on previously are turning to the far right in growing numbers. You could argue this is how politics goes. It's a pendulum, but the

climate crisis is not. It only continues to get worse. One person trying to fight the anti green tide is bas Icut. He's been a Dutch member of European Parliament since two thousand and nine. In February, the European Green Party picked him to be the party's lead candidate alongside Terry reinkeer Germany's Green Map. Their job now is to sell voters on the party's vision of a more equal and ecological Europe. I caught up with bas in Brussels

at the European Parliament. He told me that despite the backlash, the message that the Greens have about the long term is even more important today than it was five years ago. So we talked about how exactly it is that he can make a convincing case in a much changed political environment. Welcome to the show biz. Thank you. Now I know a CHEMISTR When I see one. I know you studied chemistry and of course you are now leading the Greens

Party into the European elections. Could you just talk us through how do you go from a chemistry degree to doing what you do now?

with my head, so to say. So then I studied and went into well, into the university, and then I thought, okay, what's probably the most complicated thing I can do, because if I can manage that, then probably the rest can only get easier. So that's when I decided to go for chemistry. I sometimes regretted that choice, by the way. It was not always a pleasure, but the idea was always to end up in a job where I do environmental research basically, and in the Netherlands, I ended up

at an agency doing climate change research. So I really was a computer modeler, really nerdy stuff, and I really like that. During my well, my research and my working period, I got more and more frustrated basically about the inaction of politics, and that's led to a certain moment the decision maybe I should, instead of getting old and cynical and complain about politicians, maybe first tried on that side before I get old and cynical. So that's how I ended up in politics.

because you thought it wasn't going far enough. And so you've clearly had a huge amount of success in pushing other parties to build up to doing more on climate. Now, Poles do suggest that the Greens are set to take a beating. What do you think you need to do to turn the tide and perhaps even gain seats rather than, as the polls say right now, lose them.

But then you already knew that when it's going to get tough and the wind might be changing, then of course you need also Greens in the parliament that stay on the course. So I think that's that's exactly the moment where we are now. So the wind has changed, there is more resistance, and that requires Greens to maintain this political agenda. What we started in twenty nineteen was of course a transformation of our entire economy. So basically we started the marathon in twenty nineteen and we are

now probably five kilometers down that marathon. The good news is that meanwhile the United States has joined the marathon by throwing a lot of money. But so they do it in their way, but they joined the race, and also China is more and more of course continuing and really getting into this global green race. I would say, so basically, we have a marathon, we started, we are five kilometers down the road, and now some people are saying, oh, maybe let's take a break, let's take a pause, let's

push the pause button. That's a weird way if you want to win this race, right, So I think that's the moment where we are now, and what I would hope and what I also expect is that some company are now starting to get nervous as well and start to speak out because I think the only future for European industry if they really embrace this green innovative agenda.

So when they are starting this green deal and this race, they should get nervous if Europe now after five years is saying, oh, now we're going to change course, because it's exactly the unpredictability, the unclarity where Europe is going that it has been and it still is one of the biggest problems for our European industry. So I think it needs to become clear this campaign that the green agenda and what we Greens are fighting for is probably

the best agenda for the future. Of our industry, and that the Greens are the better ally of industry than what conservatives claim to be.

climate warriors go too far. So you are saying that it is the green agenda that will get European industries the future they need in the twenty first century. And yet, given we are seeing industry shut down, especially in Germany, the powerhouse of European industry, how do you fight against that narrative?

decision by the Conservatives. I mean, I do remember that during the election campaign. It was Anneleina Beerboch who was there sitting between two old gray men Lushet and Shoults, and she was explaining the problem with nord Stream two, and she exactly explained. Basically, she predicted the future. She was explaining why nord Stream two was such a problem

and such a mistake. And you saw those two guys looking at her like, ah, little girl, we're going to explain your big politics one day, because you're totally wrong. So it was the Greens exactly warning for making your economy vulnerable independent of a Russian dictator. Right now, that's what happened, not in two was canceled. But of course when your entire economy is built on Russian cheap gas and that suddenly changes, then you need to adjust massively.

I don't think any German government would have had an easy job in doing this transition in a very fast way. If Greens would have been in power much longer before this transition could have been prepped, could have been phased in. Now suddenly you were forced, because of those circumstances to do your transition in a very short while, with of course big consequences for energy. So that is a big problem absolutely, But I wouldn't say that's a problem because

of green policies. I would say it's a problem because of lack of green policies and heavy reliant on a fossil economy that turned out to be much more vulnerable than the Conservatives said. The other example is the German car industry. The German car industry is of course very proud of it. It's very strong and reliable cars, but

has always been built on the combustion engine. They had been relying on this combustion engine for a very long while, even to the extent that when we were having some policies to clean it up, to clean the diesel up, they decided to cheat on it instead of cleaning up the diesel right diesel gate, and politicians were too weak to act on that, so there was a kind of a false impression to the German car industry that they

could do business as usual. For a very long while, while the German car industry was basically a sleep in its combustion engine, China was heavily investing in electrification, not only in their batteries but also the entire supply chain, so going to Africa, getting into its supply chain, relations with countries in Latin America, et cetera. So really classic industrial policy on the electric car. What do we see

now the biggest increase of exporting national cars China. So again a lack of clear policies for innovation within Europe is now the price where the German car industry is suffering from. So I think what we see now is

that all these problems are coming together. So it's then, of course a very nice narrative to blame the greens, but I think you have to go into your analysis and in the narrative behind it and see what went wrong, and then I think it's quite often a lack of green policies that is now hitting the German industry.

The elections last year led to the far right party under Gert Wilders winning the most number of seats, and if I compress events just a little bit, because politics can be complicated, one big reason for that electoral surprise and huge loss for the leading center right party is how the government handled deployment of some climate policies, specifically those tied to nitrogen emissions, that were brought up with little consultation with farmers, with very little time to actually

get the emissions reductions, leading to huge protests and change in the mood of a whole country. Now those protests have spread out across the EU. Why do you think the far right has been able to capture the narrative on the continent that has led the world on climate action. Yeah?

because of our subsidy system. You know, the more acres you have, the more money you get, So in that subsidy system, they are pushing farmers to make themselves bigger. But also in our anti economy model, where are the profits in the food chain. The profits are not with the farmers. They are with the retailers. They are in the financial sector. They are in the inputs right, so of chemicals and fertilizer. That's where the profits are so

the big players. So for a farmer, in order to get a little bit of the profit still enough to feed their own family, they need to enlarge as well because the profits are not enough anymore, So you just produce more in order to reap some more profits. So economically they are forced in large skilled farming. And then comes in the green policies. The green policies are there to address you need to deal with climate change, climate extremes,

so you need more diversified agriculture. Then of course for biodiversity, you need more nature inclusive agriculture. So all these kind of models are more small skill farming, more diverse, and less monocultures. So basically, the economic system is pushing the farm in a certain direction and the green policies are pulling it in another direction. Then don't be surprised that the farmer at a certain moment feels like, but where do I need to go now? I don't know anymore.

You're already with the back against the wall, and then you come up with new policies that are only making it more complicated. I think then it's very easy for a politician that is pretending that there is a simple solution, and a simple solution is all those politicians are lying to you. We have a simple answer to you. You can just stay on your model that your parents worked on and you don't have to change anything. That's a

very appealing story. If I feel the pressure and with the back against the wall, I also would love to have that story. I don't need to change. But I think it's a lie which is not helping any farmer for the future either. So I think what our biggest challenge is, and here comes the challenges that our answers are usually long term future oriented, but also you need long answer like I'm giving now, whereas the counterpart is just saying it's all nonsense, it's rubbish, and you don't

need to change anything and you're free. That's so much easier and so much more appealing if, certainly, if you are uncertain about your own future. And I think this is really going to be our biggest challenge, whether we can break that simplistic narrative of a false romantic you know, back to the future, back to the past, and that we as Greens need to be more compelling in selling our long term answers.

there is no way to net zero. How do you cut agricultural emissions without such a backlash.

that's our biggest problem. We are piling up nutrients in our country. This was a model that we build upon as Netherlands we have I've had quite some economic successes with it, but it was also environmentally unsustainable. We all know that for more than twenty years, read all the reports that were there. However, politicians kept on promising the farmers, no, you'll be fine, we will work on innovation. We will you know, all kinds of cleaning technologies. They will solve

the problem of too many nutrients. Where As, of course, in the end you can put it to the left to the right. In the end, there are too many nutrients in our country. So something needs to give. But the politicians never gave that message to the farmers. And even worse, the farmers meanwhile were stimulated to get bigger,

to grow bigger. The banks were giving loans in order they would even get into bigger farm settings, etc. So increasing debt, more remore stock in this model, and politicians promising that there would be no problem until the courts stepped in because at a certain moment you just have some law that you can't stretch them anymore. And then it's the court saying, sorry, but now you're not allowed anymore. And suddenly the farmers from one day to the other

where not their model basically was called bankrupt. Then of course all those farmers were like, but sorry, I indebted myself, so what do I do now? So basically the lying of politicians, the falls pretending that they don't need to change, only increase the crisis we are having in the Netherlands, not only environmentally, but certainly also for the state of

where farmers are now in the Netherlands. If now in Europe, we're going to make that same mistake on climate and basically the Commission, when they are now discussing their twenty forty target agriculture is hardly mentioned it's kind of okay, don't mention it. That's exactly making the same mistake as we did in the Netherlands. By not mentioning it, by not talking about it, the problem is not going away.

And this is my biggest warning also to farmers. You may turn against the Greens because they are ready to talk to you and say, hey, let's change the model and how can we do that. But you probably have a better ally with the Greens because they are willing to talk about it now, and also put your subsidy scheme towards it instead of politicians that are pretending that there is no problem. They give you a false hope

you can continue like it is. But then in five ten years time, suddenly you will get the heart message and then the change is much more complicated. And this is really the biggest lessons for Europe on climate. Don't make the same mistake as we did in the Netherlands.

systems where people want an orderly transition. There is a polluting technology and then there's a clean technology, and you want to move from the polluting to the clean and

as smooth away as possible. That requires time. And so you're saying, because the Netherlands dragged its feet on trying to deploy policies to reduce nitrogen emissions and then the courts force them to suddenly bring those policies down, that's what led to the Blackclash, and now if you do the same thing with the twenty forty targets, the EU could be facing a similar tragedy. Absolutely, But talking about

emissions is the hard part right now. It's the narrative that if you fight for just the emissions, then you're going to take our earnings away, our income away. It's the narrative that is winning. So how do you break the gridlock? You're making a logically smart point, but you still need to be able to cut through and actually have those conversations what will allow you to cut through.

conservative politicians who are claiming I'm on your side. They never dare to break the economic power of retailers and banks, et cetera. And this is exactly why the Greens are also always making it the very clear case a green deal can only survive if it's a socially just green deal, and for agriculture, I think it's a case in point, very clearly.

set to expand to road transport and buildings. How do you think agriculture could be brought into the emissions trading system because that could prove to be one way in which emissions are reduced in the most economically efficient.

then you do not know exactly. But what does that mean for my business case? I might also leave Europe because then within Europe you have zero emissions, but the industry is not in Europe anymore. And this is exactly the problem by only relying on ETS. So it's very good to give carbon pollution a price, but it's insufficient to act. And I think the best example is energy, because why are we so successful in our energy transition?

Is that really because of ETS? The big steps in the energy transition were being made in the Zeros and in the beginning of the twenty tens that's when the real transition started and now we are all benefiting from that. In that period, the ETS price was close to zero. It was not the ETS price that was driving it.

It was policies on the renewable energy directive. It was policies in Germany really, by the way, by Greens in government in the nineties, by pushing for the renewable developments that really made the price of renewable energy go down to the levels we're talking we're seeing now. So it was not ETS, it was policies on renewable energy that was driving that transition, and that was the most successful policy I think we've had in Europe.

transporting it to Europe. The same thing goes with agriculture. Yes, you could import a bunch of food and that happened doing that but a lot of the food will have to be produced domestically for it to be price competitive, And so isn't it a good case for the ads to actually be applied to agriculture.

is insufficient for our industry. Our industry doesn't only need to know what the carbon price is going to be in the future, and they also need to know what kind of energy will there be, because it matters a lot what kind of energy infrastructure will there be in order that I know how my production process will look like. So I'm very nervous and very negative about the future

of our industry. But that's because of the lack of these kinds of policies, and that's where for me, green industrial policy come in.

carbon sync. The very solutions to try and tackle some of the biggest challenges that we face around biodiversity, around soil are the solutions that will also reduce emissions, not just emissions that are produced on the farm, but perhaps even make the farm carbon negative. And finally, unlike in the industry where subsidies or technology development weren't available, agriculture already has so much that is being supported through subsidies

they could be redirected in a sensible way. So the conversation around agriculture, it seems to me, has been made to be perhaps considered too difficult, but it isn't. It's just that it needs to be done in the right way. That there needs to be a deadlock that has to be broken, and once you do break it, you could actually find solutions much faster.

in those targets. One of those deleted mentions is about healthier diets and reducing meat consumption. Of course, it's not said reduce meat consumption. It's a euphemistic phrase around alternative proteins. But it's not a problem that's going away. So if you think about it in the future, what must European politicians do to even have a conversation with citizens about changing diets.

a mistake, but okay, it's only a document, right. It matters now what we're going to do in the next term, and that's why these elections in June are so crucial because it determines basically how this decade we will steer some of the changes that will take shape in the thirties and forties, and will determine whether we will reach climate neutrality as an economy yes or no. Soing the coming five years are very fundamental there, and I think

in the agriculture system, but this is again also broader. Politicians are always afraid to talk about consumption. So we have a lot of technocratic politicians who love to talk about pricing. That sounds very neutral. You're just price pollution and it will all be solved, right, and we don't need to do anything. Okay, then maybe on top we do a policy for setting some standards, that's probably then

the max we can go. But we also know, for example, in cars, again maybe we need to discuss a bit of future on SUVs because otherwise, yes, it's great that we are having more and more electric cars, but if meanwhile we are going to have big electric cars, we have a resource problem. So maybe we should talk about the size of the cars. And with food, well, let's be honest, we need to talk about our diets, not

only because of climate, also because of our health. Every doctor will tell us that we have a two you know, calorie full diet, so that it's not healthy either. So maybe the combination of health, environment and our own sustainability, we need to have these kind of discussions. But that means that politicians need to get out of their comfort zone. And probably this is the point where we as Greens are more open to have those discussions out of your

comfort zone. But then, of course, in times when people already feel a bit insecure and are not you know, so positive about the future, then talking about what you eat, how you eat, or get real and this is where you know, extreme right is kind of you know, the Greens want to take everything away from you. Even how you eat well, then of course you get the reaction that we're seeing. So I don't think that in this campaign we will put consumption at the forefront of our campaign,

because it's quite suicidal in the current mood. But I do think that we cannot escape these of discussions if you look into the future, and I think that's something where politicians need to be honest about as well.

investing a ton in green technologies. The US is the most recent entrant, with the US's Inflation Reduction Act. Now it comes as hundreds of billions of dollars of tax credits. It's all carrots, very little stick. But then the criticism is the EU's Green deal is, on the other hand, mostly stick very little carrots. That tension is starting to play out with some green businesses choosing to go to the US rather than scale up here in the EU. What do you think EU's response should be to the IRA.

We are still having twenty seven member states who think they can have the luxury of looking at their own industry and thinking, okay, what can I do now for the future, and then you see what's happening right now. Germany can throw most of its money at it, but it's not helping anyone because we need to have European strategy on it. And this is also for me very clear that we are only going to develop a credible carot for industry if there is a credible European strategy behind.

So it's not only money, it is also money, but it's certainly and it starts much more with a European strategy that is absolutely lacking up.

bit protectionist. One of the ways is to do a carbon border adjustment mechanism where you actually tax imports coming from say China or India because they have higher carbon intensity relative to the same product being produced here in Europe, where the European producers as are paying a carbon price. How do you think protectionism in a world that is trying to deal with the global challenge is going to look?

And you know what must be done to ensure that even as these policies are sensible and required, they're done in a way that are politically acceptable around with your allies.

of all, the United States have never been dead. They always claim to be this very liberalized country, but America is totally not a liberal country. There, it's a very protectionist country. But at the same time, also China is of course always very very industrial policy, so it's making clear that their older policies are kind of in the line of creating these production chains where China can profit from.

And on top of that, you have a Russia who is willing to misuse the power once they are having power over you, be it with gas. So this shows that the world is not a bright place and Europe has been maybe a bit too naive and thinking that

we are in the direction of this globalized economy. I think that deserves and requires rebalancing, and that means that there will be some reshuring and some more protectionist policies of Europe to make sure that the industry that we want to maintain within Europe is also protected while we are asking them to green and to innovate.

twenty three. So what do you think that you can specifically do over the next few years to increase investments at the pace needed.

debt levels. So I think we have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with lowering our public debt, which in a time when we are basically restructuring our whole economy in a couple of decades, and on the top of that, we have a security challenge with a neighbor that is willing to fight us, and on top of that we have a very vulnerable Ukraine next to us that needs a lot of money to rebuild the country. Basically, these are really indeed trillions of euros that need to be found.

So if at the same time, then we're going to say, oh, but we also need to cut our public debt, and we need to we need to have the stability and growth back to even tougher. That's one big problem we're having which needs to change. That's on the one hand, I think we need to reinvent the story on why are public investments a good thing and not only a bad thing. That's one part. The other part is of course redirecting some of the bad spending that we're seeing.

We're still having hundreds of billions of fossil subsidies. So while we are promoting a clean economy that is going away from fossils, we are meanwhile still subsidizing fossils. That's of course an untenable city cuation. And here we also need to look at the redirecting of financial flows, where a lot of money is still going in the wrong direction. And I think that combination, that's a dual agenda that

we are needing right now. So in the end, it really boils down to political will that is still there insufficiently, and that brings me back to the point where maybe greens are still needed.