Going zero carbon: How Polish businesses can get ahead [INTERVIEW]

Zdjęcie: https://euractiv.pl/section/energia-i-srodowisko/interview/going-zero-carbon-how-polish-businesses-can-get-ahead-interview/

With climate-aware consumers driving request and EU rules raising the bar, decarbonisation has become a pragmatic business choice that lowers costs, mitigates risks and helps companies stay competitive, Dr Bridget Woodman of Zero Carbon Analytics told EURACTIV.pl.

Aleksandra Krzysztoszek, EURACTIV.pl: You’ve authored the fresh Zero Carbon Analytics report, “Decarbonization as a way to Competitive Advantage for Poland.” What would you say is the key takeaway from this study that Polish business leaders should truly pay attention to?

Dr Bridget Woodman: Poland is specified an interesting case survey due to the fact that its economy is rather energy-intensive and carbon-intensive. We are seeing a shift distant from coal, but even so, compared with most another European countries, coal usage and carbon emissions are inactive comparatively high.

That leaves the economy susceptible not only to volatile fossil fuel costs but besides to the costs associated with the EU’s emissions trading scheme. You can view this in 2 ways. In the short term, it increases costs for businesses as they meet regulations and respond to marketplace prices.

On the another hand, it can be an opportunity: if companies take action now to reduce their carbon consumption, they can lower their energy costs, reduce production or service costs, and gain a competitive advantage over another Polish companies that are not taking action.

Could you point to any circumstantial sectors or companies in Poland that are already reaping real benefits from getting an early start on decarbonisation?

The study we produced includes interviews with 5 companies already moving into the decarbonisation space and benefiting from it. For example, Maxpro, a supplier of heavy-duty bicycles for cargo transport, has carved out a niche not only in Poland but across Europe.

They are exploiting both the broader global decarbonisation trend and their own efforts to reduce emissions. This allows them to differentiate their products, appeal to environmentally conscious consumers, and reduce vulnerability to fossil fuel volatility and emissions trading costs.

Which sectors do you think are truly lagging behind in decarbonisation?

The electricity sector is simply a key example. Even though coal usage for electricity generation is declining, the adoption of renewables is inactive lagging behind another European countries. This ties back to why Poland is specified an interesting case study: it is moving towards decarbonisation, for example with the Baltic Power offshore wind farm, recognising that secure, decarbonised electricity is possible without relying on fossil fuels.

With the EU ETS presently costing Polish businesses about 8 billion euros a year – and possibly rising to 40 billion by 2030 – how can companies get ready for this kind of financial pressure?

Projections of a 40 billion increase in emissions trading costs by the 2030s presume that Poland maintains its current policies. If nothing changes, the ETS bill could grow dramatically and have a tangible effect on Poland’s GDP.

Companies can take action individually, for instance by signing power acquisition agreements with renewable generators or improving energy efficiency, which reduces both energy bills and overall costs while boosting productivity.

At the same time, government leadership is critical. The Polish government has not been clear or proactive about its decarbonisation plans, and as far as I know, it has not yet submitted its national energy and climate plan to the European Commission, missing deadlines. This deficiency of clarity makes it harder for businesses to make investment decisions, as they do not have a unchangeable policy framework or assurance that the government is committed to decarbonisation.

How can the national government and EU financial tools aid unlock this economical potential?

Unsurprisingly, businesses are reluctant to take risks without a clear political framework. That means they hesitate to invest in measures that could save costs, improve energy efficiency, and lower carbon emissions in the long run.

This study reflects that reality. It’s not primarily about emissions—it’s about the economical advantages of decarbonisation. Decarbonisation is appealing from a business position due to the fact that it reduces costs and strengthens competitive positioning. In another words, if companies want to save money and compete more effectively, it makes sense to decarbonise alternatively than not.

I think quite a few European actions are geared towards improving the competitiveness of Europe and the EU on the planet stage. So EU-level policy activity is something that Polish businesses and Poland as a country can usage to their advantage—by showing that they can produce high-quality goods and services without carbon.

What kind of risks are companies taking if they put off decarbonization? Could doing nothing actually mean losing export markets or local customers, or even make it harder to get financing?

We are increasingly seeing that consumers globally are more aware of climate issues and are actively choosing to buy lower-carbon products. By leveraging European frameworks, companies can contribute to Poland’s economy by producing the goods and services that environmentally conscious consumers want.

Any businessperson will tell you that business can never stand still. If a company chooses not to act—given the EU legislation, national commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and global pressures to decision distant from fossil fuels—it would be a bad decision.

Many another businesses are already taking action, lowering their costs and vulnerability to volatile fossil fuel prices, and differentiating their products as zero- or low-carbon. Companies that neglect to act hazard being left behind.

So even if a company isn’t primarily focused on climate or environmental issues, decarbonisation is inactive a pragmatic business decision that will benefit them economically.

The EU just set a goal to cut emissions by 90 percent by 2040, but Poland voted against it, saying it’s unrealistic. Are we truly not capable of gathering specified ambitious climate targets?

Technically, the goal of decarbonisation is achievable. We have the technologies to decarbonise our energy systems now. What is missing is political will. In Poland, for example, the government is making any moves toward decarbonisation and promoting renewables, but it has not yet taken a clear position on the country’s decarbonisation pathway. This deficiency of leadership could end up damaging the Polish economy if the country continues to lag behind.

At COP30, the EU mostly stood alone erstwhile it came to climate ambition. There were no White home representatives in Belém, and another global powers are far little ambitious than Europe. Can the EU truly carry the weight of climate leadership on its own?

I wouldn’t say the EU is entirely alone. China, for example, is making crucial strides towards decarbonising its economy and has very ambitious goals for renewables. The same could be said of India. We are inactive waiting for India’s nationally determined contribution paper to see precisely what it plans to do in the run-up to decarbonising its economy.

So yes, the EU is demonstrating climate leadership, but it is not entirely on its own. China is an interesting case in this context. The thought of decarbonisation as a way to accomplish competitive advantage is clearly embedded in China’s industrial strategy. You can see it in how they have invested in zero-carbon industries and are trying to build export markets around fresh zero-carbon technologies—solar PV panels, electrical cars, and so on. China is cornering many of these markets.

Now is the time for the EU and its associate states to seize the chance to capture any of these markets themselves. Unless they proceed to show a strong commitment to decarbonised economies, they hazard missing out on the chance to make the industrial expertise and competitive advantage essential to become exporters.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán late met with Donald Trump in Washington and secured a one-year exemption from U.S. tariffs on Russian natural materials. At the same time, he is threatening to challenge the EU’s ban on importing Russian natural materials at the European Court of Justice. Orbán argues that, as a landlocked country, Hungary lacks access to the sea and alternate supply routes—forcing him both to lobby Trump for concessions and to challenge the EU’s stance. But does this strategy truly benefit Hungary?

Hungary seems to be a country focused on the present alternatively than the future. It is dealing with today’s issues but not reasoning ahead one, two, or 3 years. Good politics involves setting frameworks so that businesses and society know the direction in which they are developing.

Any country, Hungary included, has renewable resources—wind, solar, and so on—and its energy does not gotta stay tied to fossil fuels. Yet there appears to be small knowing in Hungary of how an energy strategy could be fundamentally different from today’s. Within the EU, Hungary is different in its short-term focus alternatively than reasoning strategically and politically about the longer term.