oh man, so little was achieved and now they are going to roll even that back. With Meloni, the RN in France and the CDU in Germany soon, we‘re completely fucked.
Nah she is just shilling for the high end car builders of Italy. I am fine with gas engines in cars. As long as the fuels are taxed at 5 euro per liter from 2030 adding a euro per liter per year. This goes for bio fuels too.
Hopefully the composition of the EP doesn't change enough in the future to repeal it. Here in Czechia the 'Motorist' party literally won two of our 20 seats.
Only if you're stupid about it and overuse them. My diesel VW runs on 100% biodiesel made from waste fat from chicken processing that would've gotten landfilled or something otherwise.
That's maybe fine for small scale usage. And even then I don't know if this is actually good. In any case your USA case won't scale well. I also don't know if it is even legal in my country.
I more meant large scale biofuel cultivation instead of food and nature. Cause then these companies will start eating up agro subsidies etc while keeping polluting cars on the road.
Not really. Biofuels are better than normal oil-derived fuels in terms of excess CO2 being dispersed in the environment, but they are still overall bad. They still release harmful particulates, they still release lots of NOx, and they are doubly bad in terms of land utilization, where you use huge swaths of land to cultivate plants with the sole goal of making them into fuel, rather than using that land to make food. Moreover, in a lot of places the cultivation of biofuel plants is being done by burning down forests and using that land for farming.
Biofuels are definitely better than normal petrol or diesel, but they are still overall bad, and I'd also argue that if we 100% switched to biofuels we'd have massive issues in terms of land, farming-related emissions, deforesting etc.
Depending on where biofuels are produced, the land use changes can make them worse for climate than fossil fuels. E.g. there was a recent study on US biofuels.
They still release harmful particulates, they still release lots of NOx
Frankly, those are just local problems and thus negligible (compared to greenhouse gas emissions).
they are doubly bad in terms of land utilization, where you use huge swaths of land to cultivate plants with the sole goal of making them into fuel, rather than using that land to make food. Moreover, in a lot of places the cultivation of biofuel plants is being done by burning down forests and using that land for farming.
So don't be stupid about it: make as much of them as you can out of waste fats and oils, then stop. Easy-peasy!
I'd also argue that if we 100% switched to biofuels we'd have massive issues in terms of land, farming-related emissions, deforesting etc.
This isn't wrong, but it's a massive strawman argument because doing that would be idiotic anyway. Biofuels are best used for filling the gaps left over after cities are fixed for bikeability and everything reasonable to electrify is electrified. (In other words, they're the answer to "but what about my [insert special-snowflake reason why I can't ride a damn bike/train/electric car]?" pearl-clutching.)
There is no one solution to sustainability, and pretending there is is a fallacy.
Frankly, those are just local problems and thus negligible (compared to greenhouse gas emissions).
Tell that to those dying because of those toxic emissions.
So don’t be stupid about it: make as much of them as you can out of waste fats and oils, then stop. Easy-peasy!
Sure, I agree, but if you want biofuels to be a significant enough part of the fuel mix, you need to make them at scale, which means you need incentives and by incentives I mean making them profitable enough so that it makes sense to invest billions into making them. At that point it becomes a race towards who can make the most at the lowest price to make the most money, and guess where that brings you. Otherwise, if you limit fuel crops, you'll get a very small production at a high price, since the scalability and possibility for growth will be limited.
Biofuels are best used for filling the gaps left over after cities are fixed for bikeability and everything reasonable to electrify is electrified
This is really what I'd like to see, using the massive taxes on fuels to finance sustainable mobility like trams, rail, bikes etc
Biofuels are great and all to fill that gap, but the moment they become more profitable or cheaper than fossil fuels, it's the moment you're gonna have massive problems.
That doesn't sound fair to the people that just can't afford a new car. The ban is about no new combustion cars getting into the market, not to say nobody can drive on from 2030 onwards.
I don't think a absolute ban is necessary, the phase out already started, most new car models are electric and most car companies for the mass market focus their future on electric. The ban as it currently is should do the job just fine. Most people will see the new electric cars as great, they save a lot of money and the tendency is towards even more.
I think investing in public transport is the most important, especially in Germany...
I'd love to see additional tax increases after a specific year. If you want to drive an Oldtimer or a gas powered supercar.. it should be expensive to operate.
But indeed only once full electrification has reached normal families.
It's so funny because in the article it is even mentioned, that the agricultural minister did the same thing a few weeks ago, but he is from the chancellors party, the People's Party. Also, Nehammer (the chancellor) doesn't dissolve the government because his party is scared shitless of elections right now. They would (and in November at the general elections probably will) be painfully reduced. Sadly in favor of the super right wing FPÖ (fReEdOm party 🤡, as in freedom to be an asshole).
Sources: article and general knowledge as an informed austrian citizen
"the economy" needs to keep destroying nature. Here in France when the farmers went on strike, all the right talked about was how environmental regulations were the main issue and needed to be curbed.
the ecological crisis is fake news pushed by leftists to distract us from the real issue, which is obviously brown people invading the west to replace white people.
I agree with her action, but still have to note that she did work against the law and constitution by ignoring the government's decision to vote against it. In this case it's good, but what if a far right politician does the same? They can now simply refer to this case and talk about how it also had no consequences.
She noted that Austria’s agriculture minister, who hails from Nehammer’s center-right ÖVP party, had previously done exactly what she did: "Just a couple of weeks ago, [he] voted against my explicit will, for lowering environmental standards in [EU] agricultural policy."
Can someone who lives in a system with a parliamentary form of government -- which is nearly all of Europe -- explain how conflicts between ministers and prime ministers from coalitions are resolved? It's something that I really don't get.
In the US, the system is presidential. The President gets to make a call on executive policy. People can cut deals in choosing to support a candidate for president, but once he's in place, the President makes the call. There are some limited checks: departmental secretaries in the cabinet can resign rather than carry out an order, and the Senate must approve a President's nominations for a replacement. The President can dismiss a departmental secretary at will. And the President's formal directives, executive orders, are subject to judicial review, and the Supreme Court can decide that an executive order is unconstitutional. But in general, once a President is in the seat, he gets to make calls.
In parliamentary systems, control of the legislature determines control of the executive. In many electoral systems, it's uncommon for a single party to control the legislature, so it's necessary for a coalition to be formed to get control of the legislature. Those parties in coalition may have views that are significantly at odds with each other. One of the major things that is divvied up among the coalition parties are cabinet seats. Those seats control portions of the executive government. But someone becomes prime minister, and the prime minister is above all the cabinet ministers. And that prime minister is only going to belong to one of the coalition parties, usually the largest.
In parliamentary systems, there are definitely times when cabinet ministers -- who may not belong to the same party as the prime minister -- are not going to agree with the prime minister. In cases where that conflict exists, how is that resolved?
I assume that some degree of horse-trading happens at the coalition-forming time, at least for policy that can be determined at that point in time -- if Party A has a program that mandates that VAT rises 10% and Party B has a program that VAT is to be reduced 5%, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that that is worked out at the time that the coalition is formed, and if it's impossible to come to agreement, then the coalition doesn't get formed, and the dispute between the cabinet minister and the prime minister doesn't come up.
But that can't catch all cases; not all policy decisions are going to be known at the time the coalition is being formed. Some are going to come up down the line. So for those:
Is this entirely up to the individual state, with mechanisms for resolution widely varying? Can a prime minister generally dismiss cabinet ministers? Can he generally annul their actions (as was apparently attempted here)? Who gets to decide on policy prior to the action? What happens if a cabinet minister is dismissed? Does the prime minister get to select a replacement, or the party who was granted the cabinet seat in coalition negotiations? What happens if a cabinet minister dies in office?
I guess that depends a lot on each country's political structure and conventions. In Germany the Bundeskanzler (the chancellor is the equivalent of a prime minister) has the final say. This principle is called Richtlinienkompetenz (directive competence). He or she can basically order members of his cabinet what to do. It has been used only twice since 1949, because it is a harsh instrument which always threatens to end a coalition resulting in the election of a new chancellor or even a full election. On the other hand it allows the coalition party who is against the decision to show it is not willing to give up this position other than by force. This can save a coalition because it allows the government to continue its work even if a decision is necessary that would otherwise result in a breakup of the partnership. In almost all cases these situations are therefore solved by negotiations between the coalition partners.
Yeah, right. environment standards are bad, very bad for economy. Best is, let the crops drown, all the houses crumble, all the bridges been swept away, all the cars explode. It's best for economy. New stuff is coming. BIP will raise. Economy at it's best! Or? /s /s /s
Did you respond to the wrong comment? You're talking to someone who didn't say anything about this particular case or person or about Green policy or even the political system in Austria. He was explaining how Germany's cabinet system worked.
This principle is called Richtlinienkompetenz (directive competence). He or she can basically order members of his cabinet what to do.
It should be noted, that this doesn't allow the Chancellor to micromanage the Ministers.
The Chancellor can set the political agenda and make high level decisions but Ministers have some degree of constitutionally ensured independence in how exactly they implement policies.
how conflicts between ministers and prime ministers from coalitions are resolved?
Usually by ending the coalition (or threatening the move). This leads to expedited elections, which happens a lot in Austria, although usually due to different circumstances like corruption scandals. Alternatively, a different government can be formed, but that is usually very unlikely (though it happened in 2019 when the president appointed a party-neutral interim government that was accepted by the parliament).
The problem Nehammer (the current head of government) is now facing is that regular elections are coming up in September anyways, so it doesn't really matter whether he quits the coalition. Quitting is actually a bad idea, because then he wouldn't go into the election as the government party, which can lead to a worse outcome.
Wearing a dark green suit, Austrian Environment Minister Leonore Gewessler arrived in Luxembourg on Monday ready for a fight.
She had decided at the 11th hour that it was her duty to approve the EU’s Nature Restoration Law, a central pillar of the bloc’s efforts to reverse the major degradation of its landscapes.
Her decision, which defied a stern letter from Nehammer claiming Gewessler couldn’t legally speak for Austria, gave the measure just enough support to pass.
Last month, Irish Environment Minister Eamon Ryan, a Green Party member, spearheaded a letter with 10 other countries calling on EU governments to back the Nature Restoration Law, which requires Europe to revive 20 percent of its land and seas by 2030.
Ryan had an ally in Alain Maron, environment minister for the Brussels-Capital Region and a member of Ecolo, the Belgian Francophone green party.
But at the last minute the region of Vienna changed its mind, breaking the consensus and opening the door for Gewessler to modify Austria's position at the EU level and back the legislation.
The original article contains 1,199 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
A TV scenarist would have written that plot, we would have thought it's not realistic, especially that part on the right wing, with that posh lady (Ms Pecresse, head of the Parisian region) rolling up her sleeve to kick traitor Ciotti out.
Meanwhile, on the left, a co-operation agreement has been struck and parties seem intent on putting their differences behind them — but tensions still crackle between two star figures, in terms of both personality and issues including Ukraine and Gaza.
Opinion polls and analysis of last Sunday’s results suggest a united left and a strengthened far-right National Rally could wipe the pro-Macron coalition off the map — meaning that the president’s only chance of avoiding a crushing defeat is to bet on divisions among his opponents.
Doubling down, Ciotti posted a video of himself in his office set to an epic soundtrack, claiming he was going “back to work for France.” Several French commentators on social media compared his defiance to Al Pacino’s bloody last stand in the movie Scarface.
Two years ago, the four main left-leaning parties — the Communists, Socialists, Greens and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed (LFI) movement — agreed to run a united left-wing front, allowing them to more than double their total in the National Assembly and block Macron from securing a majority.
The coalition imploded after the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attack against Israel, when LFI’s three former partners said they could no longer work with the leftist movement due to its reluctance to label Hamas as a terrorist group.
Unlike the pro-Macron camp, led by Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, and the National Rally, which is backing Bardella to head the government, the left is avoiding the question of leadership for now.
The original article contains 1,106 words, the summary contains 246 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
politico.eu
Heiß