“The direction is good, not the speed”
For Greenpeace Luxembourg, the government is committed to objectives for the protection of the environment. But the NGO encourages Bettel and his ministers to ensure that everyone in society keeps the commitments made, including the state.
Climate commitment
For Greenpeace Luxembourg, the government is committed to objectives for the protection of the environment. But the NGO encourages Bettel and his ministers to ensure that everyone in society keeps the commitments made, including the state.
In Glasgow, the COP-26 will end on November 12. Will the Earth come out of it saved? Nothing less certain … All that remains is fine speeches in major discussions, the states most convinced of the need to act to contain the coming warming over the weeks of training in their wake of other countries less ” virtuous”. And in this global hubbub, is Luxembourg’s voice credible? The director of Greenpeace Luxembourg tries to debrief the messages passed by the Grand Duchy, between accents of sincerity and forgetfulness.
In your opinion, does Luxembourg deserve the green laurels that it is weaving and with which it adorned itself at COP26?
Raymond Aendekerk : “In any case, it is not the will to do well that it lacks. Have made the choice, for example, to want to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions at least 55% by 2030 (against -40% previously) is a strong act. If we can always regret that we did not go even further to avoid, on our scale, the threat that hangs over the global rise in temperatures on the globe.
The fact remains that a Climate law has been voted, that an ambitious National Plan (the PNEC) has been approved, that a carbon tax is applied, that each sector of our economy now says what efforts it must make for the years to come and that a monitoring committee will be set up. The State will be around the table when the first assessments of climate action fall, but also the country’s environmental NGOs, municipalities, civil society and industrialists. It took a little while, but we’re getting there.
But…? You don’t seem to be happy with all of these features, right?
“Let’s say that there are some points that are still disturbing. Like this system of compensation that systematically emerges. If such and such a sector does not meet its objectives, such other or such action could cancel out the lack. We need more firmness. It is not because agriculture does better a year in environmental matters that this must clear transport, for example. Or it is not because we are going to plant a thousand trees on one side that it will cancel our harmful emissions to the environment. The harm done to nature cannot be erased with a calculator.
We must be aware of this all the more since Luxembourg remains one of the the strongest carbon footprint. Not in Europe, but in the world. Yes, even if the solar part has doubled in a few years, even if wind power is developing well, even if the country is catching up with a considerable delay in public transport, it is in dire need of it.
What did you not hear enough in the speeches of Xavier Bettel, Carole Dieschbourg or Pierre Gramegna at COP-26?
“Greenpeace would have liked to hear the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Finance and Environment make a strong announcement to reduce tourism at the pump. However, given its profile as a major financial center, Luxembourg could also embark on a specific approach in terms of green funds. Even though the country prides itself on being a leading player in green funds what do they really represent on (over) 5,000 billion euros in funds managed from the Grand Duchy? From 2 to 4% of the total. This therefore means that for at least 96% of the money brewed here, we still bathe in the “ gray funds ” those who still bet on fossil and polluting energies.
Greenpeace did the math: the activity of only the 100 largest funds in the Square pollutes more than the country as a whole. It is not all to tax the small motorist, the craftsman or the inhabitant if we do not also attack these “big fish”.
What would be the strong gesture that the Luxembourg government could make at the end of this 26th Climate Conference?
“Lead by example in green finance. Starting with the funds that the State administers by itself. For several years, Greenpeace has thus denounced the Sovereign Pension Fund which is purely climaticide in its choices. This product, the Compensation Fund, has no sustainable investment strategy. It is based on many polluting companies or companies with a high carbon content, on the pretext that it brings in more. It is untruth: one night to the planet, two there are green or socially respectful investments that offer interest rates as or more interesting.
The government could give this a good example of commitment, at its level. The burden of responsibility for climate change does not lie with the inhabitants, the state – which has broader shoulders – can also act. Announcing that the administration is offsetting the CO2 balance of the car trips of its officials is microscopic compared to the effects of what could be done on the financial sector alone. In summary then: overall in Luxembourg, the (environmental) direction is good, not the speed. ”
follow us on Facebook, Twitter and subscribe to our 5 p.m. newsletter.
