Why are the environmental issues common, trendy topic nowadays? Pollution of the environment, demolishing and deteriorating the lands, forests, rivers, wildlife is as old as the civilized humanity. The moment when the human became civilized, was the leaving of wildlife, the humanity stepped out from the animals, and made steps towards a civilized future. It was the moment when the harmony between nature and humanity reached to an end, the human was not part of the wildlife anymore. Overhunting, overfishing, polluting, changing of environment by deforestation were the small first steps of environmental problems, even if they only happened in the microenvironment, and the effects were relatively small. Which are the biggest environmental issues of the world today? According to the list of WWF, the biggest environmental threats are as follows, bycatch, deforestation and forest degradation, effects of climate change, illegal fishing, illegal wildlife trade, oil and gas development, overfishing, pollution (generally), soil erosion and degradation, water scarcity.[1] To be honest it is a complete, long list. Common slogan of the 2020s is the „green”. Let us start with a deeper understanding of the word “green”, in the context of our nowadays. “A green economy is defined as low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive.”[2] UNEP gives further explanation, that the green economy is supporting the growth in employment and in income, supporting private and public investments into economic activities, infrastructure, resource efficiency, prevention of the loss off biodiversity. Based on this declaration, some controversial thoughts could be found. This is the point where we could make a connection between EU -future- goals, and UNEP.

Is it possible to reach economical sustainability, while the personal income[3] (PI) is increasing? According to the statistics of Federal Reserve Bank, in 1959 January the PI was 391.8 USD, in 2024 March it was 23,826 USD, meanwhile the peak point was in 2021 march with a symbolical 24,471.8 USD. A steady, constant growing trend can be recognized based on this statistical data. According to the Statista in 1940 the CO2 emissions 4.86 billion metric tons, while in 2022 it reached 37.15 billion metric tons. The trends here are also steady, constant, raising. On the Second World War and the Covid 19 had decreasing effect on the emission.[4] Despite of the fact that the in the first statistic the base is USA (because of the size of the economy and the long term historical data), and in the second it is the World, the comparing is reliable. Moreover, if we take a look on the only USA CO2 emission between 1983 and 2005 it shows a growing tendency, while between 2005 and 2023 the tendency is decreasing.[5] The main problem with the decreasing of the CO2 emissions is that it doesn’t mean that the USA was able to press it down globally. It is seeable on the statistics that regionally the county could have reached the goal, so the USA efforts, let us to say, although laboratory successful, but in the worldwide context, the efforts failed. The solution of the environmental problems cannot be reached without global efforts and common interests. It is a common trend that the developed countries transport the environmentally not acceptable production bases to the Third world, we can accept it as an axiom. Although these countries can be far-far away from each other, so the negative externalities are happening somewhere else, but the global effects are at least the same, plus, the transport externalities of the lengthened export-import and productional routes.

Based on the Harvard Business School Insights, Cross-border Pollution is a significant problem of the air, water pollution, really difficult to resolve the negative effects.[6] Famous international case is the Chile vs. Bolivia, which also emphasize the hardens of cross border pollution and relations.[7] The Court reiterated the customary international law obligation to prevent significant transboundary harm. This principle is vital for environmental protection as it obligates states to ensure that their actions do not cause significant environmental damage to other states. The Court discussed the obligations of states to notify and consult with each other about any plans that might have a significant adverse impact on an international watercourse. This decision is important for environmental management as it promotes transparency and cooperation, which are essential for the prevention of ecological damage and for fostering mutual trust between countries. These decisions reflect the ICJ’s role in reinforcing legal norms that support sustainable environmental practices and international cooperation in the management of shared natural resources. It is important to take it into deep consideration, communication between countries, regional and international cooperation is the minimum and the most important starting point of the global environmental problems.

The revised Guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection, and energy (CEEAG) represent a significant overhaul to support the European Green Deal’s objectives effectively while minimizing competition distortions. The updates expand the range of investments and technologies eligible for support, extending into new areas such as clean mobility infrastructure, resource efficiency, and biodiversity, alongside all technologies that advance the Green Deal, like renewable hydrogen and electricity storage. This includes a provision for aid amounts to cover up to 100% of the funding gap in scenarios where awards are based on competitive bidding, alongside the introduction of innovative aid instruments such as Contracts for Difference. To streamline the administrative processes, the revised guidelines simplify the assessment of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions under a unified section. This change eliminates the need for individual notifications of large green projects within previously approved aid schemes, enhancing procedural efficiency. Additionally, the introduction of stringent safeguards, including mandatory public consultation for significant aid measures, ensures that the aids are targeted and limited to what is necessary for environmental enhancements without disproportionately distorting competition or the integrity of the Single Market. Furthermore, the guidelines have been aligned with relevant EU legislation and policies in the environmental and energy domains, notably through the phased elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels. These comprehensive updates to the CEEAG aim to facilitate a more flexible, targeted approach to state aid, fostering the achievement of environmental and energy objectives in line with the EU’s broader sustainability and climate goals. The CEEAG are crafted to assist Member States in achieving the ambitious objectives of the European Green Deal efficiently, ensuring minimal financial burden on taxpayers and limited distortions in competition. Key features of the CEEAG include a technology-neutral stance towards all innovations capable of reducing greenhouse gases. This approach supports a broad spectrum of technologies, from renewable energy to energy efficiency, while still allowing for technology-specific tenders in sectors where the EU has set precise targets, such as those outlined in the Renewable Energy Directive. Additionally, the guidelines for the first time address the Renovation Wave initiative, incorporating a dedicated section to enhance the energy and environmental performance of buildings. This allows Member States to merge aid for building energy efficiency improvements with other investments that bolster a building’s overall energy or environmental profile. The guidelines also establish clear protocols for supporting clean mobility, in accordance with the Clean Mobility Package. This includes specific sections on aid for acquiring clean vehicles and retrofitting existing ones, along with the expansion of recharging and refueling infrastructure. Furthermore, the CEEAG enhance support for business resource efficiency and the transition to a circular economy, reflecting the objectives of the Circular Economy Action Plan. In a significant expansion, the CEEAG now also set out specific rules to aid Member States in supporting biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration, and the use of nature-based solutions, areas previously lacking detailed State aid guidance. The CEEAG actively support the development of renewable energy communities (RECs) and other smaller actors within the EU’s energy sector. The CEEAG specifically provides additional flexibility for these smaller actors by allowing Member States to exempt projects owned by renewable energy communities and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from the competitive bidding requirements, under certain conditions. For instance, renewable energy community projects and SME-owned projects with up to 6 Megawatts (MW) of installed capacity are exempt from these requirements. This exemption extends to wind projects developed by these groups up to 18 MW. Moreover, the CEEAG facilitates the inclusion of RECs in tender designs by allowing Member States to lower pre-qualification requirements, which helps these smaller players participate more actively in the market. The guidelines also permit enhanced aid intensities for small and mid-sized enterprises engaging in various energy improvement activities. SMEs and small mid-caps are eligible for increased aid intensities by up to 20 percentage points for small undertakings and 10 percentage points for medium-sized undertakings across various categories, including energy performance improvements in buildings, the acquisition of zero-emission vehicles, and the deployment of recharging and refueling infrastructure. The CEEAG adhere to the precedents set by the 2014 Energy and Environmental Aid Guidelines (EEAG), particularly in their approach to nuclear energy. Due to the complex nature of nuclear energy projects, which often involve significant security concerns, large-scale investments, and specific legal mandates under the EURATOM Treaty, the CEEAG excludes direct support for nuclear energy. This is because these projects require individual assessments to navigate the intricate safety and legal issues associated with nuclear facilities.[8]

In summary, my private opinion, the CEEAG is a good starting point towards a cleaner future. The major sources of problems can be the only regional goals. For example, the EUROATOM Treaty is also only a regional act, just as the CEEAG. What is missing from the goals is the list of other problems introduced by the WWF as, bycatch, deforestation and forest degradation, effects of climate change, illegal fishing, illegal wildlife trade, oil and gas development, overfishing, pollution (generally), soil erosion and degradation, water scarcity. The other main risk factor is the lack of EU based company, production protection. The protection of the regional economy should be on of the most important points among the goals, it is only a regional regulation and further regulation plans, which have a negative effect on the competitiveness of the EU companies, these environmental goals are reachable, but the local businesses need strong and effective support and assistance. It is important to take into consideration the strict ruling of the trading with other countries and regions, cause the environmentally unfriendly trading partners can easily gain competitive advantage, demolish the local business, and increasing the negative externalities of the lengthened trading routes. It is important to focus on the competitiveness, first should be the EU inner market and inner production protection, development and capacity increasing. If the EU is only focusing on the Green Economy, without empowering and protecting the interests of inner producers, then the far less greener economies, for instance, the BRICS, will win the competition, moreover, both EU economy, and the Global Environment will lose the fight for a greener future.

Tamas Matyas

BSc Economist, ELTE

MA Law student, PPKE

[1] (WWF, 2024)

[2] (UNEP, 2024)

[3] Personal income is equal to national income minus corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, taxes on production and imports less subsidies, contributions for government social insurance, net interest and miscellaneous payments on assets, business current transfer payments (net), current surplus of government enterprises, and wage accruals less disbursements, plus personal income receipts on assets and personal current transfer receipts.

[4] (Tiseo, Emissions, 2024)

[5] (Tiseo, 2024)

[6] (Boyles, 2022)

[7] (Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia), 2022)

[8] (Comission, 2022)