User:Polscidam20/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of Polscidam20. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

The entire Controversies section is my own, while I also added a couple of sentences to the aims section.

Aims

Compared to the proposed

• a circular economy action plan,
• a review and possible revision (where needed) of the all relevant climate-related policy instruments, including the
  Emissions Trading System
  ,
• a Farm to Fork strategy along with a focus shift from compliance to performance (which will reward farmers for managing and storing carbon in the soil, improved nutrient management, reducing emissions, ...),
• a revision of the Energy Taxation Directive which is looking closely at fossil fuel subsidies and tax exemptions (aviation, shipping),
• a sustainable and smart mobility strategy and an EU forest strategy. The latter will have as its key objectives effective afforestation, and forest preservation and restoration in Europe.

It also leans on Horizon Europe, to play a pivotal role in leveraging

The EU plans to finance the policies set out in the Green Deal through an investment plan – InvestEU, which forecasts at least 1 trillion euros in investment. Furthermore, for the EU to reach its goals set out in the deal, it is estimated that approximately 260 billion euros a year from 2020 to 2030[4].

Controversies

It has been found that American oil company ExxonMobil had a significant impact on the early negotiations of the European Green Deal. ExxonMobil attempted to change the deal in a way that puts less emphasis on the importance of reducing transport that emits carbon dioxide. This was only one of many opponents of the deal. ^[5]

The European Green Deal has faced criticism from some EU member states, as well as non-governmental organizations. Greenpeace has argued that the deal is not drastic enough and that it will fail to slow down climate change to an acceptable degree.^[6]. There has been criticism of the deal not doing enough, but also of the deal potentially being destructive to the European Union in its current state. Former Romanian president, Traian Băsescu, has warned that the deal could lead to some EU members to push towards an exit from the union. While some European states are on their way to eliminating the use of coal as a source of energy, many others still rely heavily on it^[7]. This scenario demonstrates how the deal may appeal to some states more than others. The economic impact of the deal is likely to be unevenly spread among EU states. This was highlighted by Polish MEP, Ryszard Legutko, who asked, “is the Commission trying to seize power from the member states?”^[8]. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, three states that depend mostly on coal for energy, were the most opposed to the deal. Young climate activist Greta Thunberg commented on governments opposing the deal, saying "It seems to have turned into some kind of opportunity for countries to negotiate loopholes and to avoid raising their ambition"^[9].

The EU has acknowledged these issues, however, and through the “Just Transition Mechanism”, expects to distribute the burden of transitioning to a greener economy more fairly. This policy means that countries that have more workers in coal and oil shale sectors, as well as those with higher greenhouse emissions, will receive more financial aid.^[10] According to Frans Timmermans, this mechanism will also make investment more accessible for those most affected, as well as offering a support package, which will be worth “at least 100 billion euros”^[11].