Ep.127: One Energy Shock After Another

Summary

EU Scream – Episode 127: One Energy Shock After Another
Aired April 19, 2026
Host: James Kanter
Guest: Bas Eickhout (Co-leader of the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament)

---

Episode Overview

Faced with the war in Iran and its knock-on effects on global energy markets, this episode examines how Europe grapples with recurring energy shocks largely induced by geopolitical turmoil. James Kanter interviews Bas Eickhout, prominent Dutch MEP for the Greens, on the structural challenges and political stakes of fossil fuel dependency. They discuss the resulting inflation, food and energy insecurity, the EU’s slow transition to clean energy, the political maneuvering of EU leaders, and the electoral outlook for Green and progressive politics in Europe.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. New Energy Crisis: The Iran War’s Market Fallout

[00:02–00:56]

• War in Iran leads to near-standstill traffic in the vital Strait of Hormuz, choking off a fifth of global LNG and a quarter of seaborne oil supplies.
• Knock-on effects: Petrol prices soar, jet fuel shortages paralyze airlines, fertilizer scarcity threatens food prices and inflation.
• This is the second energy shock for Europe in a decade, following Russia-Ukraine (2022).

2. Lessons from the Russia-Ukraine Energy Shock

[00:54–03:55]

• 2022 shock from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused unprecedented electricity price hikes due to gas dependency.
• Europe diversified gas sources (notably U.S. LNG), but global pricing still leaves EU exposed to new shocks.
• Oil blockades via Hormuz could have bigger impacts since Russian oil could still reach global markets during the Ukraine conflict.

3. Structural Dependency: Calls for an Accelerated Transition

[04:34]

• Bas Eickhout argues current and previous shocks show: “How many signals do we need to really come to the message we need to get rid of fossils very fast because it's not only bad for the climate, but it's bad for our economy and it's bad for our security.” (Bas Eickhout, 04:42)

4. Role of Economic Experts & Far Right Attacks

[05:14–07:47]

• ECB’s Frank Elderson (Dutch) pushes for “an orderly shift to homegrown clean energy” for economic stability; is a frequent far-right target:
  • “The far right voted against him because the guy is knowledgeable. They never like that.” (Bas Eickhout, 06:13)
• Elderson’s argument: Climate change and fossil fuel shocks threaten financial/economic stability, fundamental ECB objectives.

5. Political Changes in Eastern Europe: Hungary’s Shift

[07:47–09:57]

• Orban’s defeat brings Peter Magyar, less likely to block or veto pro-EU/pro-NATO efforts, but still profoundly conservative on migration and climate.
• EU should maintain established leverage tools (“don’t throw away all our tools,” 10:07) since Magyar is “more open to being pushed,” but won’t drive climate action without pressure.

6. International Efforts: Santa Marta Conference

[10:09–12:53]

• Santa Marta, Colombia (April 2026): First global conference to transition away from fossil fuels, co-led by Colombia and the Netherlands.
• Eickhout: “Unfortunately, the timing is not right now… current global developments are snowing under this event, unfortunately.” (11:17, 12:53)
• Global focus remains on short-term oil supply, not structural energy transition.

7. National Responses: Consumer Subsidies & Windfall Taxes

[13:14–17:28]

• Most EU states roll out broad tax breaks on fossil fuels to shield consumers—but these benefit high-consumption (wealthier) groups: “In the end, it’s a subsidy for the rich.” (Bas Eickhout, 14:42)
• Lack of targeted policies; “non-smart ideas.”
• EU Commissioner Dabrowskis resists EU-level windfall tax on energy companies, leaving a patchwork rather than coordinated strategy: “I don't really understand why the Commission is not putting forward such a proposal… it can be the best compensating measure you have.” (Bas Eickhout, 15:58)

8. Threats to EU Climate Policy Tools

[17:28–21:17]

• Italy, under PM Meloni, and industrial lobbies try to suspend or weaken the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) during crisis.
• “Populists don’t listen to facts.” (Bas Eickhout, 19:45)
• Carbon price is not the chief driver of current high energy costs (accounts for only ~10%); the dirty energy mix is.

9. Resurgence of Coal and Nuclear Debates

[20:47–29:22]

• Countries like Germany and Italy extend coal plants’ life; more coal is now imported (often from Russia), challenging both climate and energy sovereignty: “Coal is not cheap anymore… If you have a dirty energy mix, you pay more for CO2. The best way to have a lower impact… clean up your energy mix.” (Bas Eickhout, 21:17, 20:47)
• Von der Leyen’s new embrace of nuclear (despite past opposition post-Fukushima) is discussed. Eickhout maintains renewables are the economic and practical priority: “Nuclear is standing in the way of renewables. And France is the best example.” (Bas Eickhout, 27:00)
• Nuclear dependency creates knowledge and material dependencies (notably on Russia and China).

10. Policy Mechanisms: Electrification & Efficiency Targets

[22:23–24:54]

• Upcoming legislative package may set binding electrification targets to accelerate the shift to clean, homegrown energy.
• Only binding targets have driven EU-wide progress: “Guess which of the three targets had totally not been met? The non-binding target.” (Bas Eickhout, 23:33)
• Eickhout calls for ambitious policies, e.g., a German highway speed limit for energy efficiency.

11. Responsibility & Missed Opportunities: Who Owns the Crisis?

[31:28–49:28]
Major ‘Villains’ Named:

• Kadri Simson (Estonia/Ex-Energy Commissioner): Repower EU plan replaced Russian gas with global LNG, but kept gas dependence and left EU exposed to U.S./Trump and market shocks.
• Jörgen Warborn (Swedish EPP MEP): Pushed deregulation aligned with U.S. fossil interests, sabotaging EU sustainability/climate legislation (“Stupid competitive battle… serving an American agenda,” 35:56).
• Manfred Weber (EPP leader): Called EU combustion engine ban a mistake, promoting car industry conservatism at Europe’s long-term expense (“Maybe it’s even more stupid,” 39:00).
• Ursula von der Leyen: Not showing the same leadership on climate as on Ukraine; signed $800 billion LNG deal with Trump, watered down Green Deal via ‘omnibus’ legislation (“I am disappointed that the Commission… is not saying, 'we now need to accelerate the Green Deal,'" 41:28).
• The Far Right: Figures like Fernand Kartheiser propagate anti-renewable myths, turning climate action into a culture war (“They are Putin's idiots… making us poorer, more dependent, and in a poorer environment,” 45:00).
• Mark Rutte (NATO Secretary General/Ex-Dutch PM): Exemplifies “technology neutrality” rhetoric that’s just a plea for the fossil status quo (“Technology neutrality is a myth,” 47:53).

12. Greens’ Political Strategy & Future

[49:28–61:26]

• Despite public concern for climate, Green parties have struggled at the ballot box due to right-wing culture wars: “The Greens are the most clear kind of opponent for the far right. And this is where the Greens are suffering.”
• Dutch Greens and Social Democrats merge to form "Progressive Netherlands"—a tactical response to fragmentation, but not widely replicable in other EU countries yet.
• Eickhout’s closing message: The Greens must combine visionary (fundi) transformation with practical (realo) politics—“Being realistic is being fundamental… we have to put the fundamental agenda out because we have fundamental problems in our capitalistic system, but at the same time we also know that it will not change overnight.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On fossil dependency:

  “How many signals do we need to really come to the message we need to get rid of fossils very fast because it’s not only bad for the climate, but it’s bad for our economy and it’s bad for our security.” (Bas Eickhout, 04:42)

• On far-right political tactics:

  “The far right voted against him [Elderson] because the guy is knowledgeable. They never like that.” (Bas Eickhout, 06:13)

• On fuel subsidies:

  “In the end, it’s a subsidy for the rich.” (Bas Eickhout, 14:42)

• On populist politics:

  “Populists don’t listen to facts.” (Bas Eickhout, 19:45)

• On nuclear vs renewables:

  “Nuclear is standing in the way of renewables. And France is the best example.” (Bas Eickhout, 27:00)

• On political realism:

  “Being realistic is being fundamental… we have fundamental problems in our capitalistic system that need to be addressed.” (Bas Eickhout, 58:36)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:02–03:55: Setting the stage – the Iran war’s energy shock and Russia-Ukraine’s legacy.
• 04:34–06:29: Bas Eickhout on recurring energy shocks and need for systemic change.
• 10:09–12:53: Santa Marta conference – opportunity missed.
• 13:14–15:13: Fuel subsidies and regressive policy pitfalls.
• 15:58–17:28: Pushback on EU-level windfall taxes.
• 17:28–21:17: Attacks on Emissions Trading; threats from populism.
• 22:23–24:54: Electrification and the importance of binding targets.
• 31:28–49:28: Assigning responsibility—Simson, Warborn, Weber, von der Leyen, Far Right, Rutte.
• 49:28–56:22: Greens’ electoral strategy, alliances, and party merger in the Netherlands.
• 58:21–61:26: Realo vs Fundi debate; Green vision for structural change and political pragmatism.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers an urgent, inside look at how Europe’s energy crises—past and present—have exposed deep vulnerabilities tied to fossil fuel dependency. As Bas Eickhout and James Kanter dissect political failings, policy battles, and opportunities for change, one theme persists: the need for bold, binding leadership (akin to the Ukraine response) that finally commits the EU to a clean, secure energy future—if only the right lessons are learned, and the Green voice can cut through the political noise.

Transcript

[James Kanter]

The war in Iran has set in motion one of the largest supply shortages in global energy market history since the Trump administration started its attacks on Iran in late February. Traffic through a critical waterway, the Strait of Hormuz, has been at a near standstill. Flows of about a fifth of the global supply of lng, liquefied natural gas and a quarter of global seaborne oil have been choked off. Prices have exploded at the petrol pumps. Airlines are cutting roots amid concerns about supplies of jet fuel. And a shortage of fertilizer derived from petrochemicals could drive food prices higher and help feed a jump in inflation for Europe. It's the second energy shock this decade as a result of a war started by others.

[Interviewer]

The earlier shock hit four years ago

[James Kanter]

when Russia curtailed gas supplies to Europe following Vladimir Putin's full scale invasion of Ukraine. Because gas is frequently used to generate power, electricity bills went through the roof. Supplies of gas to Europe are now far more diversified. That includes large quantities of LNG delivered by boat, much of that from the United States. But LNG is priced globally, and that could mean another painful spike in electricity prices in countries like Italy that are still heavily reliant on on gas fired power. As for petrol and diesel, prices may go higher still. That's because a continued block on oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz could have a much larger impact than the shock four years ago. The difference then was that Russia was still able to redirect oil exports to non European countries, which helped keep prices in check. So Europe what to do? In this episode, a conversation with Bas Eickhout, the prominent Dutch lawmaker. Bas trained in the sciences and previously worked at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and at the ipcc, the UN organization that keeps governments informed about climate change. Since winning a seat at the European Parliament for the first time in 2009, he's played a key role in passing laws controlling greenhouse gases and in helping steer the EU on a path to climate neutrality by 2050. He's now co leader of the Greens group, and as a member of the parliament's governing body, the Conference of Presidents, he's among the chamber's dozen most influential figures. Bas describes how he'll push European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to make sure the current crisis doesn't go to waste. He also discusses the European politicians who partly own this current situation because of ways they've held up the transition away from fossil dependencies. But there's also the question of how the Greens themselves should play this moment for years, the Greens have been a punching bag for the far right's culture wars. And although polls consistently show voters favor climate friendly policies, that's not translated into widespread victories at the ballot box to improve their electoral performance. Boss's own Green Left party is forming a new party, Progressive Netherlands, which with the Dutch Social Democrats. But Bas says similar tie ups are unlikely, at least for now, in other EU countries. Besides, he says the tide may once again be turning in favor of the Greens.

[Bas Eickhout]

No migrants, more in. No Europe without Christianity. An alliance also with Russia.

[James Kanter]

Welcome to EU Scream, the podcast that guides you through stories coming from the eu. We talk about the news a bit differently and with people who really know

[Interviewer]

what they're talking about.

[James Kanter]

I'm James Kantor. This is episode 127, one energy shock after another with Bas Eichout, the co leader of the Greens in the European Parliament.

[Interviewer]

So, Bas, what a moment for Europe to really get the hell out of fossil fuels, exit oil, get shot of gas again.

[Bas Eickhout]

Right. Again, we've seen this before. The big other moment we had was of course, in 2022, right when Russia was invading Ukraine and where Putin was also just playing, you know, playing politics with the gas supply to Europe. And yeah, you would say, how many signals do we need to really come to the message we need to get rid of fossils very fast because it's not only bad for the climate, but it's bad for our economy and it's bad for our security. So, yep, we're there.

[Interviewer]

Again, one of the most compelling messengers in favor of using this moment for a structural shift is a guy called Frank Elderson. He's a board member at the European Central Bank. He's very concerned because energy shocks create the stagflation problem where increasing or lowering interest rates both have bad outcomes. Stagflation. Elderson is one of the four members of the executive board of the ECB calling, quote, for an orderly shift to homegrown clean energy. Elderson is Dutch, so he must be on your radar.

[Bas Eickhout]

He's well known. Yeah, he did this work first at the national bank in the Netherlands and then he wanted to move to do this work at the European level. So we were, are very much welcoming it also because he's really looking at it from an economic stability point of view. Right. And that's also the task of the ecb. He's also being singled out by the far right. The far right hates him.

[Interviewer]

The far right in the Netherlands, but

[Bas Eickhout]

also in Europe, in the European Parliament. He has been reappointed very recently. And the far right voted against him because the guy is knowledgeable. They never like that. But he also understands how climate change.

[Interviewer]

When did expertise become a disqualifier for any job?

[Bas Eickhout]

I don't know. I don't know. That's somewhere. We took that turn in politics, which is quite problematic, I would say. But he made very clear that climate change is not only, you know, disrupting food supply, whatever, but it's also a big threat for the stability of our economic system, of our financial system. And he has compelling arguments and he shows that. So time and time and again, he's making the case we as an ECB need to look at climate change because our task is price stability. And price stability is being hit by climate change and of course, also by what is causing climate change, the fossil supply. And now he made that point, of course, before he was proven right with Russia. He's proven right now again. So basically, Frank Alderson is not changing his tune. It's now that finally people start listening to him. And I'm quite happy he's on that position because it's very important that we have an ECB that is a very neutral, independent organization making these points. Because if I, as a green politician say that maybe some politicians don't listen to him, but when the ECB is saying it, it's more difficult to ignore. Although some of the conservatives still would love to ignore him, but it's more difficult.

[Interviewer]

In addition to the Iran war, when we think about this being a moment, there's also the massive electoral defeat for Viktor Orban. This removes a pro fossil, anti progressive voice in the European Council, although it's too early to tell what the victor, who's another European conservative, Peter Magyar, intents. He says that landlocked Hungary still needs to continue to buy Russian hydrocarbons via pipelines. What are your observations on Magyar from the European Parliament where he has been serving as an mep?

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah. So he is still a conservative politician. Right. What we will see as a massive change is that he is pro Europe and pro NATO much more than Viktor Orban. So that is a massive change. He really seems to be sincere in fighting corruption and restoring rule of law. So also his first announcement, he still has to do it, but his first announcements on, for example, limiting the number of terms for a prime minister, which I think is a healthy thing to do. Let's see whether he will do it once he is prime minister. But he at least said it after he got elected.

[Interviewer]

Amazing that we have to now put these kinds of things in our constitutions in order to.

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah, it's a good idea, isn't it?

[Interviewer]

Yeah. Guarantee that.

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah. So there he is really. Yeah, there he's really on the better side than Orban. And I also think towards Ukraine we can expect less of the vetoes. It's not that he's loving Ukraine right away, but at least he will obstruct less than Orban. But to be very honest, on some of his migration policies, but certainly also on climate policies, he's still a conservative. So I think he is more open to negotiations with the European Commission because he wants the money and for that money he needs to, you know, for example, the next generation. The idea is to also put it into an energy transition. So I think he's more open to that, but he will not come himself with it. So probably Europe needs to push him in that direction and he is more open to being pushed in that direction. I have not heard him on climate that often.

[Interviewer]

The kind of leverage that we've been trying to use with Viktor Orban should probably be kept in place. It might be necessary to use those. In the case of Maggie, I wouldn't

[Bas Eickhout]

throw away all our tools to them

[Interviewer]

now, another indication we're in a moment for questioning fossil fuel dependency is the upcoming Santa Marta conference to transition away from fossil fuels. This conference 2429 April in Santa Marta, Colombia, it's the first of its kind. Its very existence is kind of challenging the consensus based approach that got us the Paris climate agreement, but still hasn't gotten us to the kind of carbon reductions sufficient to stop warming of up to 3 degrees Celsius this century or over the course of the century. This Santa Marta conference is being co led by Colombia and the Netherlands, your

[Bas Eickhout]

country, even the previous government, which was not the most progressive government either, they called for this conference. So the new government is now profiting from it to lead in this.

[Interviewer]

So I mean this is kind of a marker. Can anything come out of this, given the way that the global agenda is so hijacked at the moment by such epic events like wars in the Middle east, wars in Ukraine.

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah, I think unfortunately the timing is not right now. So when it was decided, it was announced in the previous cop, right when we were there in Brazil, in Belem there, we got stuck on the transitioning away of fossil fuels and then there were a couple of countries saying, okay, we will organize a conference anyhow. So it's also not an official UN conference because so it's really an initiative of countries, but it's a coalition of countries that want to transition away of fossil fuels. Of course, the idea was that this coalition of the willing, so to say, will move on it and that that brings momentum to the next cop when we go to Turkey. Cop 31 unfortunately, I think what's happening now in Iran, it's probably the best reason why now transitioning away of fossil fuels should be high on the political agenda. Right? But it comes a bit too early and that's, that's, that's cynical to say because I mean, this is an agenda we should be having for many years already, for decades. But I think a lot of the countries are now more just looking to Iran. And how can we keep this war to have as small impact on our global economy as possible?

[Interviewer]

How can we get our oil?

[Bas Eickhout]

It's a short term agenda that is now dominating, which is also logical, right, because it's now the peaking oil prices that is impacting all the people and they want a solution right away. And if you now as a politician come, well, I will have a solution for you that will have an impact in 10 years. I think it's very important to do that. But I can also understand that people are a bit like, well, I have a problem now.

[Interviewer]

Right, so that's why you're not going.

[Bas Eickhout]

I'm not going because it's also just busy and there's a lot of good reasons, but it's a pity because it is an important moment in time. But I feel that the current global developments are snowing under this event, unfortunately.

[Interviewer]

So some optimistic developments since this fossil fuel price shock, but we are at risk of spoiling it. And first of all, a majority of EU member states are frantically offering tax breaks to enable consumers to keep up their purchases, in particular of diesel and petrol for their cars. Governments have introduced several dozen measures costing billions of euros in revenues. So these are tax breaks since the Iran conflict began. So it seems an appeal by the EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen to focus attention on consuming less is for the moment falling on deaf ears, at least at the member state level. So much for drive less and fly less.

[Bas Eickhout]

I can understand the political situation where you're at, right? I mean the petrol prices, diesel prices at the gas station have never been this high. So a lot of people are worried about that and we see the direct impact. But unfortunately, I think it's also the task of a politician to tell to the people any kind of general measure. In the end, those who are driving the most and have the biggest cars are profiting the most from the tax breaks. Exactly. From the tax breaks.

[Interviewer]

That's right. There is statistical evidence to show that the richer you are, the more fossil fuels you consume and therefore the more favorable the tax breaks are for you.

[Bas Eickhout]

In the end, it's a subsidy for the rich. So I do understand that there needs to be measures being taken for those people are really suffering to pay the energy bill or to pay the bill for their car. But at the same time then you need to do it much more targeted, much more time limited and more precise. And now these general tax breaks that they are proposing, it's in the end not a smart idea. But unfortunately you see a lot of national governments coming up with non smart ideas.

[Interviewer]

Then there's EU economy Commissioner Valdis Dabrowskis, who has not responded particularly positively to a push for an EU level windfall tax on energy companies. Energy companies that are making millions per day, massive at the moment. Really quite remarkable. So they're kind of being rewarded for being fossil fuel companies at the moment. So he's not really responded well to those propositions for a windfall tax, let alone some sort of permanent annual tax on fossil fuel companies. There is a push for just such a tax from some countries and certainly from a lot of environmental groups for more formal measures at the level of the eu. But there is this resistance. Do they stand a chance of prevailing?

[Bas Eickhout]

There is quite some resistance within the European Commission. And of course, if you talk to them, they come up with, it's complicated, it's difficult, it's kind of okay, yeah, policy making is difficult. I don't really understand why the Commission is not putting forward such a proposal. Because it is true, and we've seen it again in 22 as well, when the gas prices were peaking. We've seen that a lot of gas companies majorly profited from those peaking prices. They made excessive profits and it was the shareholders in the end profiting from it. And so there is a lot of money going around. And if there is one measure where you can really say, take this from the companies with excessive profits and use that to compensate for the people who really need it, this can be the best compensating measure you have. And it can create a lot of money for that so that the commission seems not to come forward with this plan. I don't understand. I really don't understand.

[Interviewer]

Yeah, because Dan Brovskas sort of says, oh, that can be left to the national level. But I think what the NGOs are saying and what some member states are saying is, come on, it's time to do this in a really coordinated way so everyone's on board.

[Bas Eickhout]

Exactly, yeah. I mean, of course countries can do it, but it's important that all the countries are doing that. They're not pointing at each other. I'm not doing it because the other one is not doing it. The chicken game that we always see,

[Interviewer]

that's supposed to be the magic of the European.

[Bas Eickhout]

Exactly. So I would say the European Commission, they still have a good chance to put it in.

[Interviewer]

And then there's Italy that tried to use this moment, right, this moment of the Iran war and the exploding fossil fuel prices for a further weakening. In fact, it almost looked like a killing of the emissions trading system. And I'll just explain that a little bit. The emissions trading system, the ETS being the market based tool for climate change mitigation that sets a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Just to remind people, this system requires companies to hold allowances for every ton of carbon emitted. It's meant to make polluting more expensive and to incentivize investment in clean technology. But there was this moment a few weeks ago where the ETS was kind of in play because Prime Minister Giorgio Meloni of Italy and the business lobby confindustria seized this moment to say, you know what, it's time to suspend this, it's time to roll it back. I mean, the EU's carbon market is basically the biggest in the world. It's essentially the infrastructure for the entirety of EU climate policy. How worried were you?

[Bas Eickhout]

And I still am worried because I think the first attacks have been shielded off, but they promised to come up with a revision in summer. So now from here until the summer, you will see these attacks on ets. And this is what Maloney is a populist. Right. So what does a populist do? First, blame Brussels. So an ETS is a Brussels based mechanism. So instead of talking about your own energy, mix your own taxation on gasoline, etc. It's easier to talk about an instrument that comes from Brussels. So that's the first thing you do. It's lesson one in the playbook of the populist play Brussels. Second, let's go to the facts. Since January, the ETS price went down from being over 90 per ton CO2 to being around now 70. So it's a major decrease of the price. So where the energy price went up, the CO2 price went down. I think it's the best proof that it's not the CO2 price that is causing our problem. But you know, populists don't listen to facts.

[Interviewer]

Yes. I mean, presumably the carbon price is

[Bas Eickhout]

responding to demand and uncertainty on the policymaking. So if there is uncertainty, when you have politicians like Meloni saying, I want to get rid of ETFs, then also of course, investors are a bit like, okay, is this still something to invest in so the prices drop? And here I have to say the European Commission, until now, they are defending ETFs. Oslo on the line is defending ETFs. And she's also making very clear that in total, around 10% of the energy price is being determined by the carbon price. So 90% is coming from the energy mix, from taxation, from the grid costs, etc. Only 10%. There are some countries where they need to pay relatively more. You know why? For example, Poland, because they have a dirty energy mix. If you have a dirty energy mix, you pay more for CO2. So the best way to have a lower impact of the CO2 price, clean up your energy mix. And it also makes you less dependent on Iran.

[Interviewer]

Talking about clean and dirty energy mixes, some member states are using this moment to envisage burning more coal. Again, you've got Chancellor Marz of Germany saying coal fired power might have to be connected to the grid for longer. In Italy, again, the government has opted to keep key coal units on standby rather than shutting them down outright. And all of this threatens to keep these countries locked into the most polluting fossil fuel far longer than promised, which

[Bas Eickhout]

is not cheap anymore. Coal is not cheap anymore. And what we have also seen is that more and more coal we are importing. So again, it's also not homegrown. You still have some homegrown. Absolutely. But it's not always. For example, in Poland, they are importing a lot of coal from Russia. So again, it's not, if you really want to be clean, homegrown and, you know, economically viable. Now, going back to coal. Yeah. I have to say that Meloni is doing this. Okay. But Friedrich Mech, he pretends to be a smart economic guy, but I have to say, since he is in government, he is very eloquently proving he's not.

[Interviewer]

It seems we need a war for Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to act on energy. She did a little bit of that in the Ukraine crisis in 2022. And now we're back to a situation where we have a fossil fuel shock as a result of a conflict.

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah. What is important is what do we want to see now? Right.

[Interviewer]

And the two prongs to that that it seems like are Top of mind, at least in Brussels are. Well, one of them is electrification.

[Bas Eickhout]

Sure.

[Interviewer]

So what do those targets look like? How do you make them effective?

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah, that's a good question. So in May there will be a legislative energy package coming and then it also will look like how this electrification target will look like. Like. But I think it is important because if you talk about the homegrown alternatives, then it's almost all electrifying. It's electrons. So basically we need to kick the molecules out and get the electrons in electrifying and transport. We're talking about housing there. We have the heat pumps instead of gas boilers and industry, of course. And an electrification target would help in those sectors to speed up that electrification.

[Interviewer]

But does a target look like a sort of binding gigawatt target? Does it create tax breaks?

[Bas Eickhout]

That still needs to be seen how it will look like. Right, but I think it's going to be more a percentage kind of this amount of our total energy demand needs to come from the electrons, basically.

[Interviewer]

Are you going to fight to make that binding or.

[Bas Eickhout]

Well, until now we unfortunately have seen that the only targets that are being met are binding targets. Because again, what have we seen in energy policies over the last couple of years? We had a binding target on CO2, right. So that's CO2 and that's ETS. We had a binding target on renewables. Quite some countries made it and those who didn't had to pay for some allowances for it. The third target which is the most important target, it's energy efficiency. Just using energy less was not a binding target. Guess which of the three targets had totally not been met? The non binding target. So of course if you propose a target it needs to be binding because countries just don't move on. Nice paper and nice communications.

[Interviewer]

That's a really important bit of the agenda for the coming weeks and months.

[Bas Eickhout]

And that still remains the question. How forcefully and forthcoming will the commission be? Because it's time to use less energy. It's time that Germany starts talking about a speed limit on their highways. If there is the most polluting is that you don't have a speed limit Germany and it's very easy. Put a speed limit there and you are having a massive energy efficiency gain. But will it come from Germany? Maybe not. Certainly not from Friedrich Metz because he doesn't understand economics. So therefore maybe Brussels need to come with it.

[Interviewer]

He also understands the AfD in Germany would jump on a speed limit.

[Bas Eickhout]

Oh, they will make it a cultural fight. But in the end, if you look at your Energy bill. And that's of course now important. I mean, people are just burning their wallets at this moment on the German highway. And I think it's a very important thing to do as a politician is to help people not to burn their money. But you're right, AFD will have a field day.

[Interviewer]

So the other aspect of what von der Leyen has been talking about is championing nuclear energy all over again, which is interesting because she was in the German government of Angela Merkel when Merkel was the chancellor of Germany that ordered the shutdown of nuclear generation in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Now, von der Leyen says abandoning nuclear was a strategic mistake. Now, the Greens have opposed nuclear pretty consistently. And at the same time we see that in countries like France that have a lot of nuclear. I think France is between 70 and 80% nuclear generation. They're the least exposed to energy shocks.

[Bas Eickhout]

I wouldn't say the least. For example, Spain also is far less because they invested very much in renewables. So I wouldn't say the least exposed, right?

[Interviewer]

So France says it's among the least exposed. That's an important addition, therefore justifying its vast fleet which you occasionally on hot days in summertime have to hose down with water to cool these plants down. They're all kind of of questions there. But what bas more seriously, what about the nuclear question? Is opposition to nuclear a scientific position for you these days or kind of an inherited cultural one and sort of political one for the Greens? Where are you in 2026?

[Bas Eickhout]

I think what you have seen already with some of the Greens in government, for example in Belgium, they really compromised also in a lower phasing out of existence existing nuclear. So I think that at this moment, with all the energy crisis we are having now for a lot of years, you have to be a bit more careful in now saying and now we have to get rid of our entire nuclear dependency, right? I mean, if France would stop with their nuclear now entire Europe would have a problem. So I think and also the Greens are very much realizing that I think the big question is of course about new nuclear, right? And I have to say one thing. France y is having their nuclear park, but let's be very honest that at a certain moment needs to be replaced and just replacing their entire nuclear park with again, nuclear is going to be one of the most expensive operations in time for France. And I think their investments in renewables are probably a wiser use of their money because which country is going too slow in the energy transition to renewables? It's France. So this is exactly where the Greens have been warning for. I think what you see is that the Greens are not that adamant. Again, like all the nuclear needs to stop now, but still what we're saying is the better alternative are renewables. And nuclear is standing in the way of renewables. And France is the best example. They really are not meeting their renewable targets because they are so damn stuck in their nuclear dream.

[Interviewer]

They're building up a very expensive problem for the future.

[Bas Eickhout]

Exactly.

[Interviewer]

It is so much money to build a French EPR reactor and they don't

[Bas Eickhout]

have the knowledge anymore. And here also comes the question. We're talking about homegrown energy. And Ursula von der Leye will say homegrown energy, renewables and nuclear. I will put a question mark on nuclear because a lot of the nuclear that is now being built in Europe and it's not so much at the moment, but there are plans for it. It's quite often with Russian and Chinese knowledge. So there goes your dependency again. We still need uranium also not homegrown. So there is on knowledge base, there is on the, on the. Where the money comes from. It's where the uranium comes from. It's not homegrown.

[Interviewer]

And there's also fuel rod reprocessing which Russia has had traditionally quite a large part of that market.

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah. So in that sense, yeah, I understand the nuclear debate has shifted slightly, but really nuclear, I would still say go for renewables.

[Interviewer]

You know, you have a scientific background. Sure. Has nuclear ever shifted in terms of the way that you look at it as safe, desirable, rational?

[Bas Eickhout]

I think, as said, I think I'm not a green that is immediately saying I will block everything if there is a nuclear plant. But to be very honest, if I look at, at the future energy mix and if I just look at it from a climate, safety and also an economic perspective, I don't understand why the right is so much still promoting nuclear. I mean there might be some elements of nuclear in your energy mix in the future. So I, you know, if you now say it needs to be zero, let's, let's have that discussion. But the vast majority will be renewables just because economically it makes sense. And even I would say the other way around. Nuclear over time has become more expensive and where renewable is getting cheaper and cheaper. So you know, the competitiveness is getting more and more in the advantage of renewable.

[Interviewer]

And now we have the pro nuclear lobby talking about these small modular reactors as being kind of the solution to the cost problem because these are going to be Somehow cheaper to install and, and they can be more distributed. Is that something that you're going to have to think about in terms of policy positioning?

[Bas Eickhout]

Well, until now, what we see is that this promise of small nuclear reactors, these modular reactors, is there for many years already and it's always there in 10 to 20 years. Well, again, we need to invest in alternatives now. And If I have €1 to spend, do I spend it in hoping that it will come, or do I just spend it in something that is there now? And again, then it's renewables, it's there, it's here, it's cheap and we need to damn invest fast in it. So this pipe dream of mainly the French and the nuclear lobby, it's a way of buying time and we don't have time.

[Interviewer]

Let's run through the question of who owns this situation. Who is responsible for the absence, the lack of more safeguards in Europe against energy shocks from global conflicts such as Iran? I'll go through a few of the potential villains of the peace. You tell me your thoughts. I'm going to start with Kadri Simpson of Estonia and her repower plan. Kadri Simpson is the former EU energy commissioner. This was the plan swapping Russian pipeline gas for Qatari and American liquefied natural gas. Europe is now classified as the world's largest LNG importer. You know what, what if Trump suddenly decides to keep energy supplies for US domestic consumption only? What if he does what his friend Vladimir Putin does and uses energy as a political weapon? The repower plan?

[Bas Eickhout]

Kadri Simpson, I do understand that you need some change of the Russian gas. And Kadri Simpson, coming from Estonia, she of course was very much focused on moving away from Russian gas. So politically I understand. And you had to take that step. I think Repower EU was not grasping the momentum to say we now also just need to get rid of our gas entirely. So this, this second transition away from gas in total has not been made and now we are still having a gas problem. It's a bit less linked to one country. Right. Because LNG can come from more countries. We don't have a pipeline anymore. But nevertheless, and that's what we are seeing now, LNG prices are being determined by fossil prices and they are staggering. As soon as there's a problem in the world, and with Trump being there and all these global, I would say dictators, we will see energy crisis more. So this dependency of fossil prices is still a big problem. And Kari Simpson did one thing right, is making us less Dependent of Russian gas, but she failed to work on getting us rid of gas entirely.

[Interviewer]

Swedish center right lawmaker, Jurgen Warburn.

[Bas Eickhout]

Oh dear.

[Interviewer]

He's with the EPP group in the European Parliament. He has been coordinating with figures from companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, the American Chamber of Commerce to rein in sustainability legislation that penalizes polluters. We can think about legislation that would have had a harmonized civil liability regime and climate transition plans linked with something called the Due Diligence Directive. What Warburn has been doing at the EU level, it looks very much like a continuation of what fossil fuel interests have done for years. Climate slowdowns, even a form of climate denial.

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah, the latter he will deny. Right? He will say we still, and this is what all the conservative politicians are still saying, we are still in favor of the climate targets. Then they put policies in place that makes it impossible to meet those targets. I always find that fascinating, but the narrative is still a bit. No, no, no, we still do climate policy. I think this entire simplification agenda, because that's where Warburn was of course, an element in it's kind of pushing for we need to simplify our legislation, deregulate

[Interviewer]

Europe, and we'll do it in this thing called the omnibuses. And Warburn was very, very central to something called omnibus one, which really defanged due diligence.

[Bas Eickhout]

And that was really, they said it's simplification, but it was deregulation. Absolutely. And it was basically just, just, just killing the due diligence. So kind of the responsibility of policies for industries for their entire production chain, which surprisingly enough, who was attacking the most debt regulation? American fossil companies, because they know our fossil business is dirty and this is just not good for fossil business. And En Vaborn was even going to the US quite often to get in all the information and basically is following a US agenda. Also, just before the vote on this in the European Parliament, the American ambassador in the EU gave an interview in the Financial Times and was very much pushing for further deregulation of the due diligence. So basically we are serving an American agenda. And that's logical because Trump, he wants a fossil based economy that has not too much of this green deal nonsense because that's just derailing his selling fossils. And of course he's pushing Europe in that direction. That Trump is doing that. Okay, that the fossil companies from the US are doing that, I understand, but that then European policymakers think it's a good idea to compete with the US on deregulation. Sorry, then we are Trying to compete with our industry on their turf, on their territory, because America will always excel in deregulation. Compared to Europe, it's the most stupid competitive battle. You start with the us And Warbun went there. Yeah, stupid.

[Interviewer]

Manfred Weber, the head of the center right EPP group. This is Forburn's group in the European Parliament. Manfred Weber, he said immediately after the last elections to the European Parliament in June 2024, where his group had the strongest showing, again, not as strong as it has been in the past, but strongest showing that the. The EU's combustion engine ban was a mistake.

[Bas Eickhout]

To be very honest, this is a broader German discussion, right? And I have to say I always appreciate Germany a lot. But the moment we go into cars, rationality seems to disappear in Germany. And here I'm really puzzled that from. Not even from a climate perspective, but just from an energy perspective, the most efficient car you can build is an electric vehicle. So we all know the future will be electric. So Europe, you have two options. You can lay back, enjoy your combustion engine, because, yes, there you were excelling in the beginning of the 20th century, there we started with it, and there we are still leaders. So you can enjoy it and think you will keep on enjoying that until the electric vehicle has become so competitive, and then others will take over, mainly China. That's one option. Or you can say, maybe we need to act fast now because otherwise we will lose out in the future on electric vehicles. So we need to get our act together now in order to invest the money that the company still have, because they're big. German companies are still big, they still have good investment money. Use that to do this transition to the future as fast as possible, because otherwise you will lose out on the future. Well, Manfred Weber is a conservative politician, so he's not looking to the future that much. And that is a pity, because, you know, I want European cars, I want the German car industry to survive. But then you need to be part of this electric future fast. And you cannot see sit just sitting doing nothing. And unfortunately, Manfred Weber is giving a signal that they can rest and can take a pause. Well, that was already stupid a year ago. Now, looking at the gas prices at the petrol stations, maybe it's even more stupid.

[Interviewer]

And what about Ursula von der Leyen in your book Bas? It's in Dutch, but I, you know,

[Bas Eickhout]

you know, ways to translate.

[Interviewer]

There are ways. In your book Green Fighting for a Green Economy, it was published in 2024, you make a plea to Ursula von der Leyen to lead on climate, the way that she has led on Ukraine. Yet what we got was this so called omnibus process, this welter of legislation that decimates an earlier package of legislation that was called the Green Deal. And what we also got was what we saw in Scotland when she met with Donald Trump at the Turnberry Golf Course. This deal she signed with Donald Trump obliged Europe to buy something like $800 billion worth of American energy, mostly LNG. Now, she has not heeded your call to lead on the climate in this second term, the way that she has been leading on Ukraine to get Ukraine to join the European Union.

[Bas Eickhout]

Now, maybe I should have written the book in German, so maybe that was a stupid mistake of me. But no, I mean, to the defense of Oslo von der Leyen, she of course is always, I mean, the European Commission can only do something that in the end member states are agreeing with, right? So we should not oversell the power of the European Commission. However, the European Commission, and this is also of course what they always say, right? The European Commission always say, well, we need to listen to the countries where they want to go and then find a bit of the middle ground where they move. However, on Ukraine, their Ursula von der Leyen took the lead in just promising Ukraine, you will get access to the eu, you will be part of the eu.

[Interviewer]

She really made a difference.

[Bas Eickhout]

She made a difference because a lot of member states were not ready. They were a bit like, oh wait, what is she promising? But in the end they all came on board and it was a unanimous decision to get to promise accession of Ukraine to the eu. And that was possible because Ursula on the line made that call, took that initiative and the member states were not happy. But in the end they followed.

[Interviewer]

And you're talking in your book about the importance of changing that conversation, the important role that somebody like a von der Leyen can play in normalizing the idea to transition away from fossil fuels.

[Bas Eickhout]

She did in the Green deal era around 2019. But of course there the wind was in our backs to push for climate policies. What you then expect is that if the wind turns that you keep on, you know, pleading for that leading role of the Green Deal. She did not listen to all the calls to demolish the Green Deal. So the Green Deal is still there. Yes, there are attacks on it and there are hits being taken, but it could have been far worse. But I am disappointed that the Commission and Oslav von Alayi is not saying, wait, we now need to accelerate the Green Deal because all this fossil dependency from the US is really our biggest problem. And there she could be more putting that urgency out as she did for Ukraine. And no, she didn't do that. I hope she will do it now with Iran. This is now again a moment where you can do it, but it's a bit sad that we every time need these urgencies, whereas a good policymaker is trying to put policies in place to avoid urgencies. But okay.

[Interviewer]

And you saw her, I think this week I did. Did you convince her to. I think she is bring the urgency.

[Bas Eickhout]

She is convinced of homegrown energy. So the narrative will be very much on homegrown energy. I think there she really has always been on the good line. But the point is, of course, putting policies in place. Looking at the current energy crisis, if we need one thing, it's energy efficiency. We need renewables and we need a strong and forceful commission to push for the.

[Interviewer]

But I would imagine that I can link this to the call for a really meaningful electrification target, and that is

[Bas Eickhout]

also partly a meaningful binding electrification target. Absolutely, yeah.

[Interviewer]

As we go through our list, there's the activity of far right figures. I'll take one. There are plenty of them. But let me take Fernand Kartheiser. He's a Luxembourgish MEP Karthizer, notoriously visited Russia. He was kicked out of his conservatives group last year for doing so. But he's still in the European Parliament where he's been using his perch to propagate anti wind power messages, such as in his recent conference on the supposed harms from the ultrasound effects of windmills. To what degree should we hold the far right responsible? To what degree do they kind of own the situation that we're in to a large level?

[Bas Eickhout]

They made the fight against climate change. They made it a cultural fight. Right. So they made it as if, as if, you know, fighting climate change, as if that is something only for woke people. Well, sorry, climate action is core economics. It's core security policies. It's really at the core of where Europe is going. And the only ones who are against that are Trump and Putin. And you must wonder why, because they are both fossil autocrats and they just want to sell their fossil fuel. So all that far right, that is playing this kind of nationalistic theme, that they are doing this for the people. The only thing they're doing is making us poorer, more dependent and in a poorer environment, living in the favor of Russia and a bit of the US that's an agenda serving which has nothing to do with the European or national or Luxembourgish interest, and that they're now attacking Wind power, which is one of the most efficient homegrown options we have. They are Putin's idiots. They are Putin's useful idiots. And they are absolutely to blame for partly this narrative in Europe that we have become too complex. No, we have become too slow. Oh, we're losing out the global competition for renewables because of the useful idiots of Putin.

[Interviewer]

And finally, what about Mark Rutte? He's a former liberal conservative Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

[Bas Eickhout]

He's still liberal and conservative.

[Interviewer]

Indeed. And now he's the NATO Secretary General. In your book Green Fighting for a Green Economy, the book published in 2024, you essentially accuse him of a cop out because he was saying that the business community should be the ones primarily deciding for themselves what the transition will look like, which is also sort of the neoliberal dominant thinking.

[Bas Eickhout]

Leave it to the markets.

[Interviewer]

Leave it to the markets that we have in Brussels. Now, what's one of the most resonant things about your book is that you say that this kind of stance of neutrality, let the market decide, advocated by the likes of Rutte, sets the bar way too low for what society, science and the climate crisis and indeed affordability demands.

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah, to me this is. I don't know where it got wrong. There's this kind of technology neutrality that is going around right in German. Technologie often hides technology neutrality in German, but it's also very dominant in German politics. This is also why on the combustion engine we need to be technology neutral. And policy makers should never say anything about technology. First of all, in history, any government, I don't know any government that has ever been technology neutral. How do you think all the nuclear got into France? Because the French government was technology neutral? Not at all. How do you think that the gas that we found in the north of the Netherlands was being distributed throughout a massive gas infrastructure to all the households in the Netherlands? Was that possible because the government stayed technology neutral? Governments have never been technology neutral, particularly

[Interviewer]

when it comes to energy.

[Bas Eickhout]

Particularly when it comes to energy, particularly when you want to create something new. Then always the governments have been in the lead and of course companies have railed in and have profited from it, but the governments took the initiative. So we have never been technology neutral and no government has ever been. And it's by the way, funny that those governments, those liberal politicians who are the most calling for technology neutral are now pleading for nuclear energy. How technology neutral are you? So it's hypocrite, it's not consistent, it's not coherent, but okay, nobody can build

[Interviewer]

a Nuclear power plant without state aid.

[Bas Eickhout]

Exactly.

[Interviewer]

It is a state sponsored endeavor to do.

[Bas Eickhout]

Exactly. So technology neutrality is a myth. That's I think the first part. But then secondly, we have built a fossil economy, right? And it has brought us also good things. I mean, if you can talk about all the economic growth we have been seeing since the Second World War, it was on the basis of a fossil economy. We did that because we didn't know about climate change. And at that moment fossils was the cheapest available. So. So I can all understand history, but if you now plea for technology neutrality, you basically plea for keeping this fossil industry, this fossil economy, because that's the track where we are living in. We need to get out of that track. You can only do that if policies really push you out of it. Some pricing can do that, but it will not only be pricing. If we would have had only ets, we would not have had the renewables in Europe as we have now. They are there because of the renewable targets which were there on top of the ETS price Shell was fighting against. They were always saying we only need ets, we don't need a renewable target. Thank God we didn't listen to Shell because that's why we have renewable targets and renewables. You need policy that is putting new technologies in place. And the plea for technology neutrality is just a plea for the status quo. And the status quo is the worst off for Europe.

[Interviewer]

Bas how to play this moment politically for the European Greens? For the Greens in the European Parliament, there's plenty of evidence that citizens are very concerned about climate change. Poll after poll shows this. Yet that is not necessarily translating into Green votes. And yes, there have been victories fairly recently for Greens, notably in the UK and in Baden Wurttemberg in Denmark. Germany, Denmark, Denmark. But more widely there's an issue. Could it be that voters are giving up on the idea of decarbonization in any reasonable period of time? Is there a sense that voters have that Greens are in denial of how hard it is to undo those 250 years of fossil fuel based infrastructure?

[Bas Eickhout]

I think, I mean, it's clear that the tides have been turning and we saw that compared to 2019 to 2024. So it's clear that the tide has been turning, but also we also know that the tide will be turning again. And, and to be very honest, I see that a bit now. So I have the feeling that we've seen a very right wing wave where basically the full attacks were on the Greens. I mean, just look, go to Germany. We had a government of Liberals, Greens and Social Democrats had a traffic light government. Somehow the far right picked out the Greens as the biggest enemy. Why? Because they were the most outspoken in that coalition. The Liberals were all over the place and. Well, they're also almost dead now in Germany. Social Democrats were not very clear. I mean, Scholz, where. Where does Scholz want to go?

[Interviewer]

Former Chancellor Schultz.

[Bas Eickhout]

Exactly. So. So no one knew what he was thinking. So the only one who was a bit dominant in that, because they had an idea of changing things, were the Greens. So the Greens are the most clear kind of opponent for the far right. And this is where the Greens are suffering from this kind of. This clash, this polarized clash between the far right attacking the Greens, that everything the Greens stand for. That was the situation in 24, and we see that in some national elections. I think the wind is turning a bit again, but I think we as Greens have been, you know, have been taking that hit. And it, it's. It. We have been overwhelmed by it as well.

[Interviewer]

Sure. The far right took the Greens

[Bas Eickhout]

to

[Interviewer]

use for their culture war.

[Bas Eickhout]

Exactly. We are the favorite enemy.

[Interviewer]

One of the favorite enemies, if not the favorite one. So the response to this electoral dilemma, if you like, in the Netherlands, where there is a lot of sentiment in favor of doing something about climate, but somehow people are not voting is very interesting. In your country, there's a formal merger between your Green Left party, Grenling, and the social democrats, the PvdA.

[Bas Eickhout]

But Dave von Aarbeck Party of the Labor, Party of Labour, Party of Labour.

[Interviewer]

And it's to form a new party called Progressive Netherlands or pro. The leader will be, from your side of the story, the Green Left. Jesse Klaber. The big day is June.

[Bas Eickhout]

Yes. Then we will have the congress where the two parties will disappear and a new party will be founded.

[Interviewer]

So the PRO party, this new party, it's kind of born of these bad results over recent years, where the former EU commissioner Franz Timmermans was the leader of the PVDA and he didn't do so well. And the Greens also suffered some major election losses. Now, are these Green Social Democrat alliances what the future holds more widely?

[Bas Eickhout]

I think there, the Netherlands is a particular case because we also have a very fragmented political landscape. So I think the reaction of progressive politicians and political parties will be very nationally determined. In the Netherlands, we have an electoral system where a lot of parties can get into the parliament. We have 20 quite often. So it's a very fragmented landscape. And that was really problematic for the progress message. We didn't get through anymore because we were just being snowed under by too many right wing parties. By joining forces as Greens and Social Democrats, we have become a pivotal player again also in the national debates. So in the Dutch situation, this merger was necessary to keep the progressive message, the narrative back. Also on the higher platforms right away that is less needed. For example, in Germany they have a totally different electoral system, mainly because of their threshold of 5%. Look at their parliament now, the Bundestag, only five parties, and that's the left, it's the greens, it's the AfD, so the FAR right and then the coalition of Social Democrats and Christian Democrats there. The Greens, I would say, are the only kind of logical rational opposition, because the opposition is being shaped by the AFD screaming far right. You have the left, who is a bit kind of screaming on the left side there. The German Greens are the only ones that are in doing responsible opposition by giving alternatives, but by also calling out the current government. That role is pretty unique in Germany. And you see in the polls the German Greens are going up again. So for the German Greens now, thinking of a merger with the Social Democrats is totally out of touch. So it's not needed in that system. I think what we need in general is a better cooperation between progressive politicians.

[Interviewer]

We sort of see that in France.

[Bas Eickhout]

Right, we see that in France, but also again, in their way, again, I think we see that all over. You also see it, for example, in Denmark. It's now also quite clear that it's going to be very difficult for the Social Democrats and Greens not to be in one government. So because they first and second. So maybe it's good now to end up in one government, which they didn't do the previous time. So in that sense, I think the cooperation of the progressive politicians becomes essential in order to form one strong voice against the far right. And I think what you will see in Europe is more and more a formation of conservatives, progressives and the far right. I think those are the big, big, big voices you will hear. And how the progressive voice will be then being channeled and being strengthened in the different countries there. I think it's the national context that is determining it. And in the Netherlands we do it by a merger of a party. I don't see that approach in many other countries right away. Maybe in 10 years time, you never know. But not very fast.

[Interviewer]

Last question. Bas is your realloc stance, and this is the German jargon, for being a sort of a Green realist. That's the title of your book. Is it really the right One in these circumstances, sort of doubling down on electoral politics. We can see this in the merger in the Netherlands with the Social Democrats kind of going all in with the Social Democrats. I mean, yes, the transition, the Green transition. It's indeed a labor relations question in as much as it's a climate one. I get the transition concept, but

[James Kanter]

climate

[Interviewer]

policy must redistribute costs rather than just impose them on working people. So there's a logic to this alliance. But to what degree does the reallo stance that you're taking, the electoral politics stance, to what degree does that approach really defang the far right's exploitation of grievance, where the far right replaces the climate catastrophe with the drama economic catastrophe as a result of Green policies, where they shift all the blame onto the Greens and call Green policies elitists. And if I may, given that deregulation is the order of the day, especially here in Brussels, and given that the conservative center is far more responsive to the far right than to the Greens these days, doesn't the fundi wing of the movement, Fundi F U N D I again, German jargon for a more fundamentalist Green approach as opposed to the reallo approach? Doesn't that sort of make a little bit more sense right now to spend this in opposition, really build a policy architecture with civil society groups, activists and citizen assemblies that a future left of center government in a future world could inherit?

[Bas Eickhout]

I think you missed the tongue in cheek of the title of my book because Green Realism. And then in the book I'm pleading for a fundamental shift of our economy. So what I'm saying is that you're

[Interviewer]

both a reallo and a fundi.

[Bas Eickhout]

What I'm saying is being realistic is being fundamental because you need to be. I mean, now just pleading for a kind of a slow change of our slow. Of our economic system is not bringing us anywhere. So this is why it's really a tongue in cheek title where I'm saying being realistic is being fundamental. So I think that's. That's already giving you a bit of an indication on where I stand.

[Interviewer]

I knew you were going to wriggle out of it, but I didn't know it was going to.

[Bas Eickhout]

Yeah, it was even. Even in the title already. It's really. It was a. But probably in the translation that. That got a bit lost. So fair enough. But then, because now we're talking about political strategy, right? Almost. I think where the Greens have always been strong is combining the two and that is really what where the Greens stand for. We are quite fundamental in our vision on where the society should go. We have fundamental criticism on a capitalistic system. And that's also why I'm fighting technology neutrality. That is kind of this neoliberal concept that is totally bogus. So we have a fundamental vision on where the economy should go, but at the same time we are also Democrats and know that we have to make our ways in this democratic system. And whether we like it or not, we will have to form majorities in this House. If I then turn very concretely to the European Parliament, there is unfortunately no majority possible without the Christian Democrats, without the Conservatives. Where it goes wrong, if it's deregulation and taking us away from on the path towards renewables and the green economic future, it's sometimes easier to just be against. But I think the Greens have always tried to be both. And that is to me also our eternal kind of object to be there in politics. We have to put the fundamental agenda out because we have fundamental problems in our capitalistic system that need to be addressed. But at the same time we also know that it will not change overnight. So we also need to be part of the political play that is there. And at this moment it's unfortunately rather right wing, so it's more difficult. So we are in a more difficult position than five years ago because of the differences in a society. But this combination of reallo and fundi I dearly believe in. And I also feel that more of the fundi changes that are needed, there will be room for it again. And for example, what we discussed on energy now, thanks to Donald Trump, I think in Europe they are now more and more people are coming up with a green agenda that we have been fighting for, for decades thanks to Donald Trump. So maybe he might be also a blessing in disguise, but that's the only positive thing I will say about that guy.

[Interviewer]

That's it for this episode.

[James Kanter]

EU Scream is non profit journalism and is produced in association with the Brussels Times. It's your support and your feedback that helps us delve into this new darker era in our politics, into how the EU should be responding and into the thoughts and experiences of people who really

[Interviewer]

know what they're talking about.

[James Kanter]

Small donations to large ones, that's all incredibly appreciated. It also helps when we get a five star rating at Spotify or a review at Apple. Podcasts and passing on episodes to family, colleagues, friends, that's yet another great way to show support. For more details and for more EU Scream, do please visit Brusselstimes.com and look for the podcast. Thanks for listening.