The elections will not be the end of the EU’s climate policy. But whether it will be ambitious depends on the results

Julian Wettengel: When you think about the outcome of the European elections, are you worried about the future of EU climate policy?

Philipp Jäger: I’m concerned. We see that there is no longer the same enthusiasm for climate action as we had five years ago. This will translate into the composition of the new European Parliament. In the medium and long term, support for green themes in parliament and society is crucial. I am skeptical that we will achieve climate goals if this support evaporates or weakens.

Where is the European Union today regarding the Green Deal? Can Europe still change its green course?

It is possible, but very unlikely. Is Europe able to change its policy directions at all, and can elections trigger such a change? Yes – I think so (when the Greens gained in the elections, – ed.). The public demanded more climate action and Parliament, the Commission and the Council subsequently delivered. If society said “we no longer want climate action” and voted accordingly, it would ultimately change the course of EU policy. Choices matter.

However, so these choices will not result in a complete change of direction, where the EU is heading in terms of green legislation. Nevertheless, due to less enthusiasm regarding climate protection, we are set on a slightly less ambitious pace of green transformation.

Is withdrawal of the Green Deal not a realistic scenario?

I do not think that the provisions already adopted will be withdrawn to any significant extent. The Fit for 55 package was adopted during the just-ending EU term and contains many important provisions. The ETS emissions trading system was strengthened and a carbon duty mechanism for imports from outside the EU was introduced [CBAM], the Social Climate Fund was also adopted. The parties likely to form a majority after the elections have said they do not want to reverse it.

I’m a bit more concerned about the necessary climate legislation in the future. About the possible negative impact of the elections on ambitions for the coming years. What has been adopted is a good starting point for implementing the Green Deal, but it is not enough. We still need many enabling actions, including legislation, to achieve climate goals. The Green Deal requires constant support.

Some of the adopted regulations contain clauses requiring their review in the coming years. Based on the outcome of these reviews, the EU will decide how to proceed.

Exactly. The most famous example of review clauses is probably the ban on the sale of new cars with combustion engines from 2035. A review of these regulations will be carried out in 2026. If there is a political shift in the European Parliament towards a more skeptical approach to climate action, review clauses could lead to decisions that are harmful to the climate.

It is also possible to change already adopted regulations using the so-called Omnibus Act. The main purpose of the omnibus bill will likely be to cut red tape and reduce administrative burdens, but under this guise it could be used to effectively lower climate ambition. However, it is not clear what exactly to expect.

How important could a shift to the right be in parliament?

We must wait for the election results to draw conclusions. With more far-right parliamentarians, maintaining the center will be crucial. Which parties end up in the majority supporting which legislation may change depending on the topic, and on some issues more seats for climate-skeptical politicians may actually make a difference. We have already seen this in the outgoing parliament, where people were worried that it might

What impact do parliamentary elections actually have, given that member state governments have a strong influence on the EU’s policymaking and legislative processes?

Indeed, policies at Member State level are central to EU legislation, and the influence of individual Member States on what happens in the EU is still quite large. This is particularly evident in areas where unanimity is required. While most Green Deal legislation is passed by majority vote, some documents – such as the Energy Taxation Directive – require unanimity. Moreover, individual countries sometimes try blackmail: blocking unrelated decisions where unanimity is required in order to obtain concessions on other issues. So, in short, Parliament is important, but nothing happens against the will of the governments of the Member States.

This will become very apparent with the Green Deal in the coming years as attention shifts to its implementation, which will require significant public money. It is the member states that can make decisions such as increasing the EU budget. Furthermore, a number of EU rules need to be implemented at national level, and the way in which Member States do this is often quite flexible. If a country is more skeptical about climate action, it can use this freedom to be less stringent.

Ultimately, however, the energy transition is largely based on the economy. Solar and wind energy are becoming cheaper, which is having a huge impact. The economics are in favor of change, which means fewer new regulations are needed, and parties from right to left will tend to support them.

What about the implementation of the Green Deal at the regional and local level if far-right populists who oppose ambitious climate action enter the government?

The local level is very important, and climate skeptics and populist parties at the local level can make it much more difficult to implement the solutions we need. The further we move from lawmaking to implementation, the more important what happens in the regions becomes. This is where, for example, a wave of building renovations, the construction of electric car charging infrastructure and the expansion of the electricity distribution network must take place.

It depends on the country how much freedom the local and regional level has in implementation. There are federal countries, such as Germany, that give their regions quite a lot of autonomy, and there are also more centralized countries, such as France, where freedom is much more limited.