Constantly talking about the institutional aspects of the EU is getting boring, so it made me happy to see a nice, sort of green and European story in European Voice today. By 2021, there will be a requirement for new buildings to have “nearly zero emissions”.

Leaving aside the fact that this only covers new-builds, not existing structures; will be so woefully late in implementation that its impact will be somewhat limited; and doesn’t seem to offer a definition of “nearly”, its nice to hear of a bit of greenery getting close to being passed.

Oh all right, I’ll admit I’m just grasping at the smallest fragment of news to satisfy my self-imposed commitment to blog every day for the next fortnight.

I blame the sheer number of presentations, essays, and exams which have thrust themselves upon me over the past few weeks for the absence of any updates to this blog, but with the final line of a dramatic interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact, I have (briefly) been freed from all that, so I’ll have a go at keeping things a little more updated. What an awful lot has happened since my last post! Lisbon is ratified, a President of the European Council chosen, and a foreign mi…High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy appointed. But my question is, does anyone recognise the man in the photo above?

Obviously, those of us following politics right now know that he is President van Rompuy, but if a more nondescript character who stands for nothing could be thought of, I’d be very impressed. We now have a EU with what will probably amount to a visionless President, more of the same (ie. nothing of any note) from Barosso in the Commission, and a foreign minister who has little foreign policy experience. I know that the consensus way of filling these posts inevitably means that the most bland will rise, but this isn’t what Europe needs! It will ensure that no one outwith the group of politics geeks like myself, and others with EurActiv on our RSS feeds, will really care what is happening in Brussels, and the same old legitimacy arguments can carry on being wheeled out by all the Union’s detractors.

P.S. The title of this post should mean (if my Dutch is up to scratch) “the boring president”.

I’m having a little holiday in Brussels at the moment—hence the lack of posts lately—so I decided to take advantage of the availability of European Voice in print form, and spend a while reading in the Jubelpark, which led me to see the following quote from Barroso on why he should be re-appointed as President of the Commission:

“I am the only candidate. I am the only one who presented before the elections”

Is it just me, or does that just sound like someone with a total lack of vision for what Europe should be, and what the Commission should do for the next four years? He gives the impression that he’s interested in power for power’s sake, and feels entitled to the office. Hardly what is needed to take the EU forward, and tackle the significant things it should be tackling.

The European Greens have had an anti-Barroso campaign going for a little while, as can be seen if you go to 09:50 in the video below (though the whole thing is quite interesting). It seems though that there might actually now be some hope of getting someone other than Barroso into the Presidency of the Commission when the post is elected. If the European United Left/Nordic Green Left can be won ’round, then it seems support from other groups behind Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian PM, could be enough to win the secret ballot in the EP. One to watch, I think.

Apparently the EC is allowing France to offer cheap loans to companies making environmentally friendly products. It certainly sounds like a good way to stimulate eco-business and help the economy back in the direction of something a bit more stable. I’d love to know more detail about it, but “Le serveur EUROPA est temporairement indisponible”, as I was informed when I tried to get through to the Commission media release, so instead I’ll have to make do with the European Voice story. Seeing as France has been authorised to do this, I guess that other member states can probably go ahead as well.

I’ve neglected this blog for far too long, and it’s time to restart regular blogging. So my first topic is one which I followed for a while last year: the Energy and Climate Package. Actually, it isn’t specifically about that, rather it’s about what one of the outcomes of that was meant to be.

The Commission wanted to achieve a moral high-ground with the Package. Essentially, it should have poured icy cold water on the argument that the advanced portions of the developing world shouldn’t have to act on climate change in any strenuous way, as they didn’t make the problem, and the developed world has benefited hugely from emissions of greenhouse gases. Aside from the fact that this argument for non-action can be negated by matters of self-interest for the developing world, it was a fairly good idea of the Commission to try to lead the way.

Unfortunately (or some may say, fortunately), the EU doesn’t just do what the Commission wants. MEPs and national ministers have their say too, and the Package was watered down at every stage, until a very weak piece of legislation was spat out the other end. You could say that the institutions break the legislation down like grass in a cow’s stomach. Take that metaphor where you will.

Anyway, it seems that the Commission hasn’t realised that its proposals were digested in that way, as it has apparently just urged developing nations to cut their emissions, regardless of the EU’s rather limited actions, beholden as it is to commercial interests.

Certainly, the approach to tackling climate change must be global in scale, and stronger nations must help weaker nations, but though this may be initially suggested by the Commission’s media release, it does also go on to say that:

“Up to 2020 the bulk of actions in these countries will have low costs—or even benefits—and should be financed domestically.”

To me this does not seem to be a particularly constructive way of helping very poor states to make the necessary adaptations to their economies and infrastructure that will be needed. After the diluting of the Energy & Climate Package, it seems that the EU is in a bit of a muddle over what to do. A generally pro-action Commission (though clearly not a dream Green Commission) seems held back by the more reluctant views of member states and citizens. I think this is something I’m certainly going to come back to pretty soon.