Priorities
The day after the COP30 summit, which was hastily wrapped up and as tense as previous ones, I wanted to know its conclusions. I searched for a while and consulted several reputable media outlets, both local and international. It was difficult, or rather, impossible, to find a concrete list of the agreements reached. Because they're strikes, and because they're no longer of much interest. Pretty wild, huh? Nanda Ramon nails it in her latest article in ARA BalearesWith climate change, the stakes are ever higher, yet paradoxically, we seem to care less and less. I get the impression that even—or perhaps as a starting point—the COP leaders, who have the power and resources to change the course of this race to nowhere, appear weary and apathetic. Could this apparent growing disinterest be induced, and perhaps the initial surge of interest when the climate crisis was the top priority was also deliberately fostered?
The European Commission's regression is noteworthy. In just two years, it has gone from proclaiming the Green Deal Like the mother of all European policies, it's a case of taking a rabbit's leg. How can this be? Wasn't this a non-negotiable commitment, the last chance to save us from the apocalypse? In 2025, the EU broke with the trend of recent years and is once again increasing fossil fuel consumption. The Commission has decided to extend the ban on the manufacture and use of diesel vehicles until 2040 and has postponed other targets that it announced just two days ago as red lines, implying that everyone else who didn't do the same was a bad thing.
These concessions of today clash with yesterday's vehemence. The rise of the far right across Europe certainly plays a role. Its ascent has altered traditional political balances, and its climate change denial now shapes EU policies. But this, instead of justifying these renunciations, only makes them more impertinent: those who start with a pillow, eventually both become pillows, and anyone who cedes even the slightest space to fascism and its offshoots enters, willingly or unwillingly, into its orbit.
Let's be bold: to what extent is the EU's ambition in the face of the climate emergency genuine? Is it possible that beneath the now waning environmental zeal lies a game of less-than-green interests? The resumption of the arms race to defend Europe against hypothetical external aggression is not only a threat to peace. The manufacture of new weapons, the growth of militaries, and the carrying out of tests, maneuvers, and exercises will entail an enormous cost in resources and energy, and a surge in CO2 emissions.
Critical voices accusing the EU of having less noble and undisclosed motives for pushing the energy transition towards renewables are gaining traction. Essentially, it's Germany's need, and by extension the rest of continental Europe's, to reduce its dependence on Russian gas. The massive amount of money injected through European funds to accelerate the installation of solar panels and wind farms undoubtedly has positive climate effects, but it's worth asking who is really benefiting from all this monumental spending.
All of this has repercussions on state, regional, and local policies, which depend in part on European funds. If we compare the Ibavi budget with the amount allocated for grants to install self-consumption solar panels, we'll get our first shock. And let's continue: who has benefited from the millions that the Balearic Islands Government (CAIB) has given in subsidies for installing self-consumption solar panels? The public lists of beneficiaries (oh, BOIB!) help to paint a map that is as interesting as it is shameless. In some resolutions, 50% of the beneficiaries are foreigners, and not exactly from the Global South. You won't find Mohameds or Diops (who is taking what from us?), but you will find the names of famous Spanish and foreigners, whose luxury mansions we have paid for with public funds. Some have received up to €30,000 for installing heat pumps, batteries, and covering the entire roof of a house—which isn't even their primary residence but a second home—with solar panels. But alas, if you're a resident who only owns a small apartment, you'll barely receive a €5,000 subsidy, because you can't cover the entire roof: you have to leave space for drying clothes!
At street level, people feel they have more problems with housing than with CO2 emissions, but even in these times of climate emergency discounts, public institutions are accelerating their efforts to subsidize solar panels for the homes of those who can afford the 70% that isn't subsidized. Conversely, these same institutions are moving at a snail's pace to guarantee decent housing for those who don't have it. No panels, no roof. It's more complicated, they say. It's a matter of priorities, they don't say.
