Connect to share and comment

The contradictions of the EU's Strasbourg sessions

Some MEPs find the environmental cost of monthly meetings in France hypocritical.

Strasbourg, France, Deputy Mayor Jean-Jacques Gsell thinks the European Parliament will continue meeting regularly in his city. (Teri Schultz/GlobalPost)

STRASBOURG, France — The European Parliament (EP) is one of the most powerful legislative bodies in the world, responsible for approving the vast majority of regulations governing half a billion people in 27 countries. The joint decisions of the presidents and prime ministers of those countries must pass the EP before they become European Union law.

As influential as that makes these 736 lawmakers, there is one point over which they have no control — and with many, it’s a sore one: where they sit.

The 1992 Treaty of Amsterdam dictates that once a month the parliament must meet in Strasbourg, France, the cozy, cosmopolitan Alsatian gem of a village chosen for its symbolic location on the border with Germany. But that’s 280 miles from Brussels, a long trek for EP members (MEPs) who depart from there, as well as for several thousand assistants, committee staffers, interpreters and an estimated 15 trucks carrying professional necessities. The ponderous pilgrimage has earned itself the nickname of the “traveling circus.”

By comparison, it would be like packing the U.S. Congress (plus 201 more members and their entourages) off to Erie, Penn., Waterbury, Conn., or Akron, Ohio once a month.

The price tag for all this travel, lodging and dual infrastructure is estimated at more than $280 million per year. But perhaps more hurtful than the charges of wasted cash are the accusations of climate-action hypocrisy. The EU prides itself on being the world leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using renewable fuels and clean energy — Strasbourg does not help that case.

A 2007 study commissioned by Green MEPs calculated that the Strasbourg commute emits more than 20,000 tons of CO2 annually. The researchers, from the openly environmentalist British company Eco-Logica, concluded that, besides the “very large climate change burden,” the Strasbourg travel sets a bad environmental example. “Not to change historical operational practice sends a very clear message to millions of citizens and thousands of businesses that they need not try very hard to change behavior if this change is inconvenient. This would be a serious mistake at a critical juncture in the climate change policy debate.”

Eva Lichtenberger, an Austrian member of the Green Party, blasted the Strasbourg arrangement for all these reasons. “It’s a lot of logistics, it’s a lot of extra costs — you don’t always have all the things here that you would need and it’s terrible,” she said during the last Strasbourg session. “And concerning climate change, one can’t defend this anymore!”

But in fact, it only takes one person to defend it — French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Since it would take a unanimous decision by all 27 EU leaders to change the treaty mandating the Strasbourg seat, Sarkozy can singlehandedly maintain the status quo. Pressed on the matter by MEPs during a 2007 attempt to stop Strasbourg meetings, Sarkozy said “I am a flexible politician but on this question there can be no possibility” of change.