In Defence of Josep Borrell

Josep Borrell, the EU minister for foreign affairs, came under vicious attack for coining the term “Greta syndrome”. International news characterised him as a top diplomat with “a reputation for making undiplomatic comments”. Reinhard Bütikofer, a Green MEP, said in response: “you owe the youth climate movement that you are disparaging in this video a very clear apology. This is not just a case of foot-in-the-mouth; this openly runs counter to the policy of the EU.” Dozens of comments followed, almost none in support of Mr Borrell, eventually resulting in an apology in which he himself described the comments as “inappropriate”.

Before we begin, allow me to establish some foundations. Firstly, I do not reject climate change. Secondly, I believe in the fundamental principle that society consists of interdependent individuals who have the right to certain freedoms, freedom of expression being the most important of them all. As a direct result of the latter, this piece is no attack on Ms Thunberg herself—this article does not aim to silence; in fact, it barely ventures into value judgements. Rather, it notes the effects and contradictions of her actions. This, combined with an analysis of the underlying issue, will be used as a justification to defend Mr Borrell. Finally, by ‘defending’, I do not mean that I wish to defend his personal views, nor do I mean that “Greta syndrome” is a politically astute thing to say (although it might be, you can’t tell nowadays). All I am saying is that (1) Mr Borrell is making a logically valid and sound point that can be justified, (2) in doing so, he has not “run counter to the policy of the EU”, nor has he said anything offensive and disparaging, and hence (3) he did not have to apologise for any reason other than for PR purposes.

In a European Parliament event, Mr Borrell doubted the willingness and ability of youngsters in identifying and tackling issues that may arise with their version of a solution to climate change. The “offending” speech is as quoted: “The idea that young people are seriously committed to fighting climate change — we could call it the 'Greta syndrome' — allow me to doubt that...It is fine to demonstrate against climate change as long as nobody asks you to pay for it. I wonder if young people demonstrating on the streets of Berlin are aware of the costs of these measures… and if they are willing to reduce their living standards to compensate Polish miners.”

The main point he is making is that we would all be much happier if climate change was an isolated issue subsisting within an isolated system, such that a solution to climate would not have any unintended side effects. Unfortunately, the world is more complex. Like the 29-year-old Indonesian architect (who has apparently never heard of the second law of thermodynamics) who wishes to solve climate change by refreezing the Arctic, many are advocating for ridiculous solutions that have no significance because they literally cannot be applied. An interesting point to consider is that if the errors on climate data are propagated properly, the error bars on future projections of climate data are going to be so big such that nothing we do now will have an effect that is statistically significant. Investing in solutions for climate change is a massive commitment that has an incredibly low (perhaps negative) return on investment (returns that you aren’t going to be able to measure anyway, so why would any rational person make this investment?). Money could be spent more productively elsewhere. Countless pressing issues could be solved with Greta’s suggested budget for tackling climate issues. To quote Dr Jordan Peterson, a Canadian professor who worked on a UN panel for climate change: “maybe if you increase child nutrition enough, and you [create] another ten million geniuses as a result, maybe then they will figure out what to do with global warming.”

The current estimated cost to shift to low-carbon production methods by U.S. industries (exclusively those of transport, agriculture, and energy) by 2050 is about USD 1 trillion a year, without taking into account commercial, residential, and forestry sector emissions. Furthermore, that is the number by which we need to slow, not cut, carbon emissions. To reverse climate change as Greta means it (“Cutting emissions by half in ten years? That is not acceptable to us!”), requires not only cutting carbon emissions, but an active solution like sucking carbon out of the air—whose costs will be orders of magnitudes larger. Long story short, there is absolutely no way of achieving Greta’s goals by means of fiscal saving and reallocation. The world will have to pay. This is Mr Borrell’s point. He knows of these costs, illustrates it with the example of Polish miners who will almost certainly lose their jobs, and questions the accountability of the young generation.

Now that we have ruled out the question “will we have to pay?”, the remaining questions are: who will pay? How will they pay?. Change can come from governments or businesses themselves. In fact, it will most certainly have to be a combination of the two. In the former, taxes will have to be raised dramatically; subsidies on certain industries will have to be cut. In the latter, the increases in costs of production and costs due to changes in product lines will be passed on to the consumer. Why? Because businesses are and will continue to be profit-making machines. And who will pay? After proper scrutiny of such a radical proposal (which is, by the way, essential), the older generation will have retired and become dependent. The productive population will be this generation. The only way we can stop climate change is if Greta’s generation dramatically reduces their living standards. Josep Borrell only goes so far as to wonder whether children are aware of the above. Do they have an actual understanding of what that sum means? Will the tree-hugging vegans who expend so many joules growling at us stop going on vacations and taking Ubers? Will they be resilient enough to switch iPhones every five years instead of bi-annually?

Now, I do not doubt that Greta is highly educated on the costs of solving the climate issue. But she urges us to press on anyway, despite all odds, despite minimal chances of success, because “it is an emergency”—in doing so, Greta suggests that there should not be a compromise, that a cost-benefit analysis of the use of radical solutions is irresponsible, that “grown-ups” who do so are just living in their “fairy tales” of “eternal economic growth”. However, it makes no sense to separate the economics from the policies. Spending money on climate solutions is first and foremost an investment. Mr Borrell rightly questions, as I do, the commitment of those who so strongly embrace Greta’s philosophy. How many of those would turn down a free upgrade to business class? Are they going to stop having heat? Are they going to stop driving and taking trains? The moment you actively choose to use anything that produces even one additional gram of carbon emissions is the moment you do a cost-benefit analysis. In this sense, Greta’s approach is entirely hypocritical, and Mr Borrell’s question is not only justified, but necessary.

Mr Borrell’s question does not rule out the possibility that there are some (I’m sure Greta counts as one among them) activists who are genuinely committed (in spirit) to all costs. But the point is that he is questioning whether those on the streets of Berlin are prepared to be consistent with their own philosophy. If anyone would like to bet against me that there is a non-trivial proportion of Greta-supporting climate protestors who are guilty of not putting their money where their mouths are, I’d be happy to oblige. If you wouldn’t, then you effectively agree with me that Mr Borrell’s question was not in the least inappropriate.

Now onto the question of whether it runs counter to EU policy: On its official website, the first sentence under the policy section is “because the European Union started as an economic community, economic policy is still an important area in the EU.” I wonder what prompted them to include that reminder in the first place. Under “economic policy”, it is noted that the objective of the policy, which is by extension an important objective of the EU, is to create a stable and prosperous Euro-zone. That hardly sounds like a call for an all-in approach regarding climate issues. Rather, it seems like a reminder to think rationally in times where alarmist speech poses a threat to this very stability and prosperity. It is a call for sound economic analysis, and by definition, doubt. Isn’t that exactly what Mr Borrell is offering? A perfectly strong case could be made that he is, in effect, adhering strictly to, or even promoting EU policy.

In fact, let’s look at the official EU position on this specific issue. After Mr Borrell’s comments, Eric Mamer, the spokesman for the European Commission noted that all its top officials, including Borrell, “acknowledge and support the ambitions of young and less young people to combat climate change.” There is no evidence in Mr Borrell’s speech that he does not do exactly this. When pressed further on whether Greta syndrome exists, Mr Mamer said: “I don’t believe the ‘Greta syndrome’ has been defined as a medical condition yet.” Do they need to be any clearer? The official EU position is that they recognise the intentions of all climate activists; they acknowledge that there is a problem and appreciate the call for action. That does not mean that they agree with the course of action proposed by activists, nor will they necessarily listen to young activists who claim that world leaders “act like spoiled irresponsible children”.

Josep Borrell could have stood firm, knowing that he effectively has the EU behind him. His comments are not only justified, but one could also make the argument that a voice like his is necessary within the EU to ensure the validity and quality of ideas in a Popperian sense. When asked on a show about how best to defend against being attacked for holding “a counterview to the socialists”, Dr Peterson said: “If you haven’t done anything wrong, do not apologise.” Perhaps Mr Borrell should have taken Jordan’s advice.

Ian Cheung is a first year physicist at Keble College

Photo sourced from AFP