SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The European Union's investment arm said Thursday it will stop funding fossil fuel projects from 2022 as part of a new strategy aimed at fighting climate change, in a decision environmental campaigners hailed as a "significant victory".
The European Investment Bank, the world's largest multilateral lender, had been criticised by climate groups for funding gas projects that potentially threatened the EU's commitment to the Paris climate goals.
But despite gas proving a potential sticking point, the EIB's board of directors—composed of state representatives and the European Commission—approved the new energy policy on Thursday.
"We will stop financing fossil fuels, and we will launch the most ambitious climate investment strategy of any public financial institution anywhere," EIB President Werner Hoyer said in a statement.
The EIB said the new energy plan would also "unlock" one trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) of climate action and environmentally sustainable investment over the next decade.
[...] Nineteen EU member states including France and Germany voted for the new policy, according to Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
But three countries—Poland, Romania and Hungary—voted against, wanting more flexibility for gas funding, as did Estonia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Malta, which abstained.
Austria and Luxembourg also abstained, objecting to nuclear power being eligible for funding under the new policy, Greenpeace and the WWF said.
The European Commission said it supported the new policy, and it voted in favour.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Monday November 18 2019, @12:18AM (2 children)
I have no problems whatsoever with a ban on all fossil fuel tomorrow. But if some parts of the world,namely China Africa (a Chinese colony soon) and others do not apply the ban with the same strength, all we have achieved is hurting local industry.
My problem is seeing the very same group of people who gave us the industrial age turning all green and environmentalist. But not in the direction of a pre industrial lifestyle, with little pollution and heavy reuse of goods built to last and be repaired. In the direction of heavy regulations making goods obsolete sooner. See cars. Who the fuck cares if the euro6 has lower emissions when the car weighs two fucking tons and idles looking for parking spots removed to make the city greener? I should have faith in these guys to take the right decisions? Who are the useful idiots? We'll see.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 18 2019, @12:43AM (1 child)
Brought to you from the "what if we create a better world for nothing?" saga - a mixture of "false dichotomy", "nirvana fallacy" and FUD.
Are you saying that if we continue to emit more CO2, China Africa will stop?
Or that if we can't reduce the CO2 emission under a level that triggers global warming then we actually should make the matter worse or get there faster just because we can no longer stop it?
I reckon you have bigger problems, many of which you actually chose to ignore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday November 18 2019, @03:57PM
I am saying that if local industries do not compete FAIRLY, which means taking into account the difference in both worked rights and pollution impact, instead of letting the lower price win, our industries will (but I should use the present tense) die out and you will only have to deal with polluters. If you intervene with regulations and push to remove trade barriers at the same time we have a problem.
Account abandoned.