[blackbear_]

> I fail to see why it is a bad thing.

First page of the foreword:

> If Europe cannot become more productive, we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage. We will not be able to finance our social model. We will have to scale back some, if not all, of our ambitions. This is an existential challenge. Europe’s fundamental values are prosperity, equity, freedom, peace and democracy in a sustainable environment. The EU exists to ensure that Europeans can always benefit from these fundamental rights. If Europe can no longer provide them to its people – or has to trade off one against the other – it will have lost its reason for being. The only way to meet this challenge is to grow and become more productive, preserving our values of equity and social inclusion. And the only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.

The report also discusses how to do this while limiting CO2 emissions.

[wiz21c]

From your own citation:

> We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage.

Important words here are "at once" == simultaneously. We'll have to choose. So I choose: "beacon of climate responsibility". In particular, I don't care being a leader in new technologies. Being and independent player is something where I can understand the need to compromise on carbon emission...

[SpicyLemonZest]

But you're dodging one of the big tradeoffs the quote describes. If there comes a time when you have to choose between climate responsibility and funding the European social model, would you cut pensions or medical benefits for the sake of the climate? Or are you working under the implicit assumption that the European economy will remain strong enough to do both?

[pokerface_86]

enjoy being the beacon of climate responsibility in your 35C homes