Dr. Dirk Ehnts:

I think the Senator is correct. The way we are addressing the climate emergency right now is that we are muddling through and experiencing crisis. Of course, the argument can be made that the Covid-19 pandemic was man-made, in a way. Scientists have for years been warning in books about this kind of virus emerging at some point in the future, given that land use has increased throughout the planet. If we use land that has never been touched, who knows what kinds of sicknesses and viruses exist that could affect us? That there are billions of us living on this planet means these viruses can be deadly.

We are looking at very large timeframes here. If we want to change the way we interact with nature, recognising we are part of nature and that we cannot overstep the planetary boundaries without threatening our survival on this planet, of course we will need to address it on a longer timeframe. A quarterly report to update on progress will not be enough and, in fact, it will be counterproductive. I agree we need plans that are much longer and a time horizon of perhaps ten years, like the Europe 2020 strategy, for example. That is the way to address those matters. Forcing countries to hit fiscal targets every year, with the policy targets and emission goals becoming a secondary target, is definitely not helpful.

The European Union has to make up its mind. Do we want the European Green Deal, whereby governments are involved more heavily, or should we stay with the old ideology of public finance sustainability and public debt sustainability first? No such definition exists. In a way, you could argue public debt should be zero because in that sense, we could not run out of money. Perhaps in the next crisis, there will again be falling tax revenues, so maybe government debt should be negative.

All these matters are not very scientific. We should try to use the rules to make our world, the European Union and its nations a better place.