As he enters his last term in office, Philippe Lamberts, Co-President of the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, spoke to EUROPE about his feelings and concerns about the new European Commission and its Green Deal project, but also how difficult it has been for the Greens to bring about a societal transformation equal to the environmental challenge given current political power relations [interview by Damien Genicot and Pascal Hansens].
Agence Europe - The new Commission doesn’t have a single ‘green’ commissioner. Can it lead a real environmental transition?
Philippe Lamberts - It would be arrogant to tell you that it’s not possible, because it would mean that we have exclusive rights to the subject. But, frankly, can we expect real societal transformation from people who, until last Thursday’s climate emergency was declared, happily fed the fire that’s burning our house down? No, because they’re not wired for the transition.
What do you mean by “not wired”?
They have production-driven, consumerist DNA. They only swear by growth.
I don’t question Mrs von der Leyen’s sincerity when she says that we are facing an existential challenge, but I don’t think she appreciates the depth of the changes that are necessary to respond to it.
Warnings about the need for change began to be given in the 1960s. If we haven’t acted, it’s not because we didn’t know. It’s because the stakes are huge, and the EPP, Mrs von der Leyen’s political family, is the group at the heart of defending established interests.
And Frans Timmermans? Does he realise the depth of the changes that are necessary?
We must not forget his past. Frans Timmermans was identified by the Third Way Blairists as one of the promising young social democratic leaders who would bring the Third Way to the continent, essentially by rallying the social democratic family to neoliberal globalisation.
Now, my belief is that Timmermans is first and foremost an opportunist and that, therefore, if he sees an opportunity emerging in the Green Deal, he will seize it. If, in the end, the work is done, so much the better, no matter the motivation.
The Green Deal seems to be part of a green growth approach. Do you believe in this idea?
It is clear that we must reduce our global environmental footprint, not in a relative but in an absolute way, while at the same time part of humanity lacks access to the basic amenities that allow a life of human dignity. We therefore need economic growth in certain regions of the world, while simultaneously reducing our overall environmental footprint.
Secondly, energy is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. It can’t be produced however we want. However, we have never seen economic growth without growth in energy demand and production, leading to resource consumption and waste emissions, including CO2.
So, believing in green growth means believing in miracles, believing that we can free ourselves from the laws of physics that govern our world.
Internally, is the Greens/EFA group on the same page politically on this point?
No, there are still some in the family who think that green growth is possible, but it is changing. The ideological debate on green growth is being avoided. Some think it might frighten the regulars.
I know of Greens who have written books on green growth. In general, they are not people who have a background in the exact sciences and specifically in physics. The world is structured by unsurpassable limits. Wanting to cross them is a denial of reality.
Do you think that this questioning of the dogma of growth is also taking place within the S&D group?
It is true that there are people within the S&D group who have really incorporated environmental constraints. But they do not represent their political family. The traditional left remains essentially a producer-driven, consumerist left.
Recently, you said that the progress of the Greens/EFA in Parliament in terms of seats would not change the situation. Does this mean that you no longer believe in a green revolution from within Parliament?
Seventy-five Members is fine, but it’s only 10% of Parliament. The Greens are therefore not essential. But we can make a difference without a majority. This presupposes that politics is based on civil society.
It’s a pincer strategy. By articulating their actions, politicians and civil society create a tool whose leverage is stronger the longer the lever. There were 52 of us in Parliament. So our lever has lengthened considerably. And, in society, mobilisations are multiplying. The other lever is also getting longer.
In relation to the role of civil society, Manon Aubry was recently sanctioned by Parliament for calling on environmental activists to occupy the institution. Do you think that this sanction was justified?
I don't think this sanction is justified, but I have a major disagreement with Manon Aubry. In my opinion, it is not up to politicians to point out or to dictate the conduct of organised civil society, and vice versa. The two arms of the pincers are linked, but independent. That’s how they can be strong. If there is any suspicion that one is instrumentalising the other somehow, then both are weakened.
Do you think that the permanent consensus that characterises Parliament can work against the environmental transition that you support?
It’s complicated. Indeed, if you favour the democratic path, you need majorities to bring about change. And, of course, it can lead you to make compromises that, in the end, do not affect the system’s DNA. We have to deal with the power relations we have and, unfortunately, they do not always allow us to do what we want.
I don’t believe in the Grand Soir, in the revolution. The revolution generally brings the opposite of what it heralds and often ends in blood.
I am an apostle for the transition. Power relations are more favourable today than in the past, but the forces resisting the transition are still holding down the fort.
As such, are S&D and Renew Europe serious partners in establishing a balance of power in favour of transition?
I am obliged to work with the partners that European citizens give us. I know that the S&D has twice as many seats as we do and that the liberals have 1.5 times as many seats as we do, not to mention the EPP, which has 2.5 times as many.
But, fundamentally, the major balances in Parliament have not been disrupted. Why are we talking about a fragmented, unstable Parliament? In my opinion, it’s less fragmented than the previous one. There were eight groups, and now there are only seven. Unstable? It is true that it was certainly easier to have an EPP and S&D duopoly before, but the EPP continues to set the course and, in exchange for positions, the S&D acquiesces.
Is this still really the case?
During the negotiations on international trade between the presidents of the four major political groups, I spent an hour alone with the EPP and Renew Europe to ensure that social and environmental standards were binding and accompanied by sanctions in the free trade agreements. Iratxe Garcia, the chair of the S&D group, did not say a word. This shows me that on international trade, the socialists are still not on the same page as us…
But let me add that I don’t put all the socialists in the same bag. Concerning the small French delegation, for example, I think they would feel more at home in our group. A group of 75 has more weight than 5 dissidents in a group of 150.
In addition to the parliamentary majority, what is lacking to really redirect European policies towards transition?
The first problem is that we are only playing on part of the field. Greens/EFA MEPs come from 12 out of 28 countries, including the United Kingdom.
The second problem is the corollary of the first: around the European Council table, there is not a single Green. We can say that we play in D1 when we have at least one of our own around the table.
Certainly, we play in D1 in some countries: in the Benelux, in Germany, in Austria undoubtedly. In France, we are slowly getting there. But we still play too often in D2 or on friendly teams.
And in the East?
In the East, we’re not on the field. During my last term in office, I want to focus a lot of my energy on strengthening the green family. In 2024, we must be in the game in all the countries of the Union, if possible in D1 or at least in D2.