The European Parliament are as of today backing EU's new climate change package which is meant to enable that the EU will live up to its climate targets by 2020:
"a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, and a 20% share for renewables in the EU energy mix."
Looks good on paper but, isn't this rather unrealistic?
A majority of the parliament voted for this package, however, some swedish politicians are critical concerning the fact that the percentage of the greenhouse gas emission reductions are going to be greater "outside" the European Union, than "inside".
Bear in mind that a lot of the economic heavyweights within the European Union are responsible for a lot of industrial emissions. Backing a package like this should mean that the restrictions and regressive actions should concern the European Union and solely members of this political and economical construct.
The parliament are thereby favouring a proposition that means that other countries outside the European Union will be affected more than countries within the European Union itself. This means that poorly developed countries are threatened to reduce their emissions, leading to industrial regression rather than economical progression.
The package also includes new restrictions for automobile emissions. However, these restrictions are less restricting than the guidelines prior to the climate package. They are actually backing something that is more fair than before. We might see an increase of emissions caused by automobile industry due to this package! It is not that unlikely.
Politicians are saying something, but in reality they are doing something completely foreign as to what they are telling us.