Skip to content

EU Green Deal’s Risks To Europe’s Prosperity, Economic System and Democracy

January 11, 2021

By Paul Homewood



A reminder, if we needed it, that the EU lemmings are not far behind us in the race over the cliff!




An analysis published by Deutsche Bank sharply criticises the “dishonest debate” with which the EU is selling its “Green Deal” to the people of Europe. The massive risks of the project for prosperity, the economic system and democracy itself should not be concealed, but should be addressed openly.

Eric Heymann, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank Research, warns that Europe’s Green Deal and its goal of climate neutrality by 2050 threatens a European mega-crisis, leading to “noticeable loss of welfare and jobs”. And he warns: It won’t work without “a certain degree of eco-dictatorship”.

The analyst describes it as dubious that the Green Deal is being touted across the board as “a new growth strategy” which would allow the EU to become a “fair and prosperous society.” While this may look good on paper, Heymann writes, in order to achieve carbon neutral by 2050, Europe’s economy and its entire political and legal systems will have to be changed fundamentally.

For the time being, the revolutionary consequences of the EU’s climate agenda for everyday life are “still relatively abstract” and for most households “still acceptable.” Soon, however, the path towards climate neutrality will require drastic interventions in the choice of means of transport, the size of housing, the means of heating, the possession of electronic consumer goods, as well as restrictions in the consumption of meat and tropical fruits.

And he warns these restrictions and infringements will inevitably trigger “massive political resistance.”

Some parties will find arguments against strict climate protection policies if the latter lead to a significant increase in energy prices or to restrictions of personal freedom or ownership rights. And let us not fool ourselves: these parties will find voter support. At the EU level, there will be major conflicts about distribution, which may contribute to (further) divisions within the bloc. Are we ready to deal with this polarisation?

Full story here.


Everything here could have been written about the UK, and vice versa. The lack of any proper debate, concealment of the real costs, damage to jobs and prosperity, free markets, the green growth lie, and clampdowns on consumer choice.

  1. January 11, 2021 6:30 pm

    “EU Green Deal’s Risks To Europe’s Prosperity, Economic System and Democracy”.

    But….isn’t that it’s real intention?

    Some excellent food for thought provided by the GWPF today, in particular Peter Foster’s spot on piece. It should be clear to all that the language and tactics used by the climatistas are identical to those used by the post modernists in their war on Western Society. This is no coincidence because the people behind all of this mayhem are the same and if not the exact same people then they are people with the same marxist/fascist ideological principles, and goals..

  2. Mad Mike permalink
    January 11, 2021 6:31 pm

    Nothing we haven’t been saying on here but it’s very powerful coming from DB. Will this get an airing in MSM? I won’t be looking very hard for it. BTW, the PDF won’t download for me. Anybody else having this problem?

  3. Mad Mike permalink
    January 11, 2021 6:45 pm

    BTW, I’m still looking for a link to long term historical data of rainfall which includes Canterbury. Any help would be appreciated.

  4. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 11, 2021 6:46 pm

    “…and its goal of climate neutrality”
    Say what??!!
    Can anyone define ‘climate neutrality’?

    • Broadlands permalink
      January 11, 2021 7:38 pm

      Harry… Maybe Lord Nicholas Stern? He is Ambassador and leader of the Global CCS Institute…

      “If we are to have any chance of stabilising our global temperature, we must stabilise concentrations and that means net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The lower the emissions, and the faster we can achieve net-zero, the lower the temperature at which we can stabilise. We have already learnt that we must aim to stabilise at 1.5 degrees – any higher and we threaten our way of life. Higher again, the impacts become almost unthinkable.”

      Climate neutrality is climate stabilization…keep the global temperature the same…a global thermostat held in place by massive carbon capture and burial??? Unthinkable and also undoable.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        January 11, 2021 7:55 pm

        Thanks, BL. I remember the IPCC came up with a political – not scientific – 2 Deg target but then realised it would take too long to achieve: they wanted more immediate action so they could keep up the pressure. So it was changed to 1.5 Deg (I know, you know..).
        Point is, Stern is a carpetbagger and, like many warmists, likes to fool people (not you!) that the 1.5 target is a scientifically proven number.

    • January 12, 2021 8:56 am

      Can anyone define ‘climate neutrality’?

      First you have to induce brain neutrality.

  5. Robert Christopher permalink
    January 11, 2021 7:00 pm

    “these parties will find voter support”

    That assumes that they will be permitted.

  6. Patsy Lacey permalink
    January 11, 2021 7:44 pm

    By the time this comes to pass Deben and his crooked cohorts will have made their pile and departed. Boris will be off writing his memoirs in a shepherd’s hut and breeding more little Borises and the country will be bankrupt

  7. It doesn't add up... permalink
    January 11, 2021 9:37 pm

    The National Grid Future Energy Scenarios said:

    All change!
    Societal change – what does that mean exactly?
    It is about how we all change our behaviour to reduce our carbon footprint and support the
    transition of the energy system. It could be change imposed by government or change led
    by consumers.
    In a net zero world, end consumers are likely to consider the impact of their consumption
    beyond their immediate energy usage. The Committee on Climate Change outlines actions for
    people to reduce their emissions in their Speculative net zero scenario. These include choices
    about transport, diet and products.
    For example:
    1. Take public transport or cycle to work
    2. Minimise flying
    3. Eat less beef, lamb and dairy
    4. Buy products which last and repair them, instead of throwing away
    5. Share infrequently used items like power tools.

    Two of their Net Zero scenarios have energy consumption falling from 1400TWh in 2019 to about 600TWh in 2030. That’s like having a 3 day week – but with zero energy consumption on the other 4 days.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      January 11, 2021 9:38 pm

      Oops – not quite as soon as 2030 – at least until Gove makes another of his little announcements – but at least by 2050.

    • January 11, 2021 10:35 pm

      Pity that 1 through 5 won’t come anywhere near the cuts that are required. That is rather disingenuous by the FES.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      January 12, 2021 9:33 am

      In other words all become much, much poorer. And increase unemployment greatly.

      Let’s see government maintain spending on the NHS when the economy is 15% smaller.

      Let’s see 50% of young people still going to university when there are far fewer jobs and no need at all for Sports Studies or Gender Studies. Luxuries like pointless academics will disappear.

    • Fran permalink
      January 12, 2021 8:37 pm

      Sharing tools is linked to having to buy replacements. Same for loaning books.

  8. markl permalink
    January 11, 2021 10:00 pm

    “For the time being, the revolutionary consequences of the EU’s climate agenda for everyday life are “still relatively abstract” and for most households “still acceptable.” Slow and steady is being overtaken by reality. I don’t see people ever accepting reverting to middle age lifestyles. Especially when someone else is choosing the winners and losers based on ideology that necessitates condemnation of those who have earned a successful place in their society.

    • Penda100 permalink
      January 12, 2021 8:41 am

      +1 very well put

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      January 12, 2021 9:28 am

      The vast majority of people do as they are told. It is illegal for us to leave our homes without a reason the state approves of. 12 months ago no ody would have believed such a thing possible in the UK.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        January 12, 2021 11:12 am

        I listened to Cressida Dick being interviewed on R4 this morning talking about laws and regulations and at no point did the interviewer ask her if the ‘regulations’ she was quoting – going into the country to exercise, for instance – was a LAW or a regulation that the police could not legally enforce. And neither did Dick volunteer what the police could actually fine you for. If the police see you sitting alone on a park bench what is wrong with asking them, what LAW am I breaking?

  9. Phoenix44 permalink
    January 12, 2021 9:26 am

    How can anyone say it will require “dictatirship” and not say “and is therefore unacceptable and I oppose it”?

  10. Coeur de Lion permalink
    January 12, 2021 9:34 am

    Doesn’t all this depend on whether CO2 affects the weather? An expression of the Climate Change Committee’s detached, metropolitan, ignorant, contemptuous, careless, unrealistic thinking is all that stuff about not being able to buy, sell, raise a mortgage on your house unless it conforms to some ill-defined ineffectual insulation standard. That’s gonna go down real well with the Red Wall. I’m inboard, Jack, I had cavity wall insulation 45 years ago!

  11. ianprsy permalink
    January 12, 2021 9:47 am

    My council has a laudable policy of helping those with inadequate/no domestic heating by offering a grant for gas central heating. When it comes to 3rd party new build, though, they’re going to start to specify electric-only heating, but then, they’ll not be paying for it.

  12. Gamecock permalink
    January 12, 2021 11:21 am

    ‘warns that Europe’s Green Deal and its goal of climate neutrality by 2050 threatens a European mega-crisis, leading to “noticeable loss of welfare and jobs”.’


    The fossil fuel economy has lifted 80% of the world’s population from extreme poverty. 90% in 1820; 10% today.

    Global net zero will KILL billions. ‘Welfare and jobs’ is trivial when you are dead.

  13. William Birch permalink
    January 12, 2021 12:52 pm

    This is a very interesting article that cuts to the very heart of the matter. At present in the UK the climate net zero has had very little impact on ordinary voters and what impact it has had has been disguised in green stealth taxes like the green levy on electricity. However in future years this net zero green agenda is going to bite harder and harder on ordinary electors. This will inevitably lead to new political groups forming who think the price is way too high and inevitably these groups will get traction with the electorate. Once this starts to happen, it will be interesting to see which of the current main political parties decided to break free from the Climate doomsayers first.

  14. MrGrimNasty permalink
    January 12, 2021 5:49 pm

    NTZ report on cause of European Grid hiccup.

    “with an installed capacity of 57 GW wind energy, the available capacity was less than 1000 MW (as is well known, there is little sun even in January / ignored by politics).”

  15. Douglas Dragonfly permalink
    January 12, 2021 7:40 pm

    For the attention of Paul Homewood. From Bristol, U.K.

  16. David permalink
    January 13, 2021 3:16 pm

    Last time I lent a power tool my neighbour wrecked my electric chainsaw in twenty minutes!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: