This week’s European parliamentary election results saw parties on the populist right making big gains in France and Germany, while the historic “green wave” of 2019 receded.
Despite polling showing a large majority of EU voters are in favour of continued or strengthened climate action, the results have “raised concerns” over the future of the bloc’s climate ambition.
The Green Deal package of EU laws passed during the past five years are expected to be “hard to undo”. However, these laws will need to be fully implemented in order to meet EU climate targets.
Moreover, while centrist parties continue to hold a majority in the new European parliament, the stronger presence of right-wing parties could make ambitious new laws harder to pass.
Carbon Brief has asked a range of policy experts what they think the European election results will mean for EU climate action over the next five years.
These are their responses, first as sample quotes, then, below, in full:
- Prof Federica Genovese: “[W]e should expect a rhetorical downscaling of the relevance of climate action. Whether this also means a substantive downscaling of the Green Deal depends on whether the EU will be looking at climate as a social redistributive agenda or a geopolitical security one.”
- Simone Tagliapietra: “[T]he pro-European centre has retained its majority of seats in the European Parliament, [sd] Europe is not going to reverse course on the green transition.”
- Luca Bergamaschi: “The results are a strong wake up call for climate action compared to the euphoria of 2019…The politics of climate action needs to be reengineered and reconnected with the needs of society.”
- Linda Kalcher: “While the threat from Moscow lingers we can expect Brussels to back its Green Deal – even if it’s sold as a weapon against Putin.”
- Vincent Hurkens: “The upcoming negotiations on the next European Commission president and her/his policy agenda will be decisive for Europe’s capacity to address the severe impacts and risks of climate change for Europe and EU’s global climate leadership.”
- Nils Redeker: “The results will complicate EU climate politics…the overall shift is likely to dampen enthusiasm for ambitious climate policies in [the European] parliament and could deter member states in the European Council from adopting new measures.”
Prof Federica Genovese
Professor of political science and international relations
University of Oxford
At least two results of the European Parliament (EP) elections will have important implications for Europe’s climate policy.
The first one is the self-evident main election outcome at the aggregate level. The right and far-right European party families – the governing European People’s Party and the European Conservatives and Reformists, plus the NI group – visibly increased their vote share, while the more progressive Renew Europe liberal party and, in particular, the Greens lost significantly.
[See Carbon Brief’s EU elections manifesto tracker for more on the party groupings.]
Whereas this is less of a gain of extreme-right populism as some had predicted, it is still a clear ideological shift from left to right. This is climate news because more progressive left-leaning parties have so far championed the urgency of climate change mitigation and adaptation, so the composition of the new EP will threaten the political momentum of the EU climate policy agenda.
Some expression of continuity with past policies will remain, both because the historical EPP-S&D balance remains relatively strong, and also because [current European Commission president Ursula] Von Der Leyen will probably continue heading the commission.
However, we should expect a rhetorical downscaling of the relevance of climate action. Whether this also means a substantive downscaling of the Green Deal depends on whether the EU will be looking at climate as a social redistributive agenda or a geopolitical security one.
There is also another electoral result that deeply affects the future of Europe’s climate policy, namely that this shift is particularly determined by the French and German EP elections. This is important as it is not a result observed in other comparably large countries.
In the short term, this result could have some negative impacts. France and Germany are the largest European economies, where much of decarbonisation should take place. Despite their controversial policies, political leaders from both countries – Emmanuel Macron in France and Robert Habeck in Germany – have championed climate action in the past, and these voices are being traded with more ambiguous – if not openly sceptical – views.
At the same time, this could be the opportunity to rethink how climate issues can enter the heart of mainstream parties – in France and Germany, but also across Europe – that want to distinguish themselves and credibly compete with the far right. The Socialists and Democrats (S&D) from across the board now have a big chance to appropriate the climate issue and push the EP towards more progressive climate action.
Simone Tagliapietra
Senior fellow
Bruegel
In the run up to the European elections there has been substantial speculation about the future of the Green Deal, with some pointing at its potential being dismantled following an eventual dramatic surge in far-right parties.
The good news for Europe, and for the world, is that this scenario has been avoided: as the pro-European centre has retained its majority of seats in the European Parliament, Europe is not going to reverse course on the green transition.
However, business-as-usual is not an option, either. The elections have unveiled an important sense of unease in our societies – and in the case of Germany and France, even more than largely anticipated – that must be taken seriously and duly addressed, also when it comes to climate policy.
The Green Deal has come a long way since it was conceived five years ago, and these elections mark a new beginning for this agenda rather than its dismissal. It must now restart with a new agenda focused on green investments, green social support and green industrial policy. Decarbonisation is the only route for Europe to get to resilience and competitiveness. The new majority in the European Parliament has the responsibility to drive it, by avoiding futile shortcuts.
Linda Kalcher
Executive director
Strategic Perspectives
While it’s correct that the European Parliament elections hit Green parties hard, it’s simply not the case that this means EU climate legislation and plans will be undone. We’ve seen a lot of – quite frankly – lazy analysis to this effect, but what matters here are the numbers across parliament and capitals in the European Council.
One: the European Green Deal still has a majority in the house. The appetite for any roll-backs of laws is really low, especially given the uncertainty of how the French parliamentary elections will affect majorities in Council. European industry knows it risks losing ground to China and the US in the clean energy transition and investors crave policy certainty.
Two: while climate may be less explicitly referenced by the Commission it will still be central. We can expect that many new initiatives under the next Commission will be about strengthening industrial competitiveness and energy security. The high geopolitical and economic cost of being dependent on gas, oil and coal imports remains a major challenge for the competitiveness of the economy and energy bills.
Three: energy prices are still two times higher in the EU than in the US. The answer to this is to invest in resilient and secure clean energy and storage systems that can offer the continent long term security and lower risks of Russia exerting leverage over gas-dependent members. While the threat from Moscow lingers we can expect Brussels to back its Green Deal – even if it’s sold as a weapon against Putin.
Luca Bergamaschi
Co-founding director
ECCO
The results are a strong wake up call for climate action compared to the euphoria of 2019. The low turnout and the increasing dissatisfaction with established parties in many countries are yet a further symptom of the distrust of many towards the current political offer – both in terms of representatives and policy.
The politics of climate action needs to be reengineered and reconnected with the needs of society. While the desirability of the transition remains high, politics is failing to make it more accessible and tangible for the most.
At citizens’ level, one of the main tasks should be to design and offer concrete solutions for different social classes. At the economic level, we need to see bolder plans for mobilising the capital needed and directing it to the industrial players that want to invest in innovation.
European leaders and ministers now need to work together to build an agenda and design policy that can bridge the gap between long-term targets and everyday needs and desires.
Vincent Hurkens
Programme lead
EU politics and climate governance at E3G
Although far-right gains have garnered significant attention, a large majority of Europeans supported centrist parties that have committed to continuing the green transition.
It depends on the largest pro-democracy political forces of social democrats, liberals – and particularly the centre-right – how much influence they allow the far right to have on the EU’s climate agenda for the next five years.
Sustained climate action and a predictable regulatory framework towards climate neutrality are crucial to deliver on electoral promises made by pro-European political families for more security, competitiveness and strategic autonomy.
The upcoming negotiations on the next European Commission president and her/his policy agenda will be decisive for Europe’s capacity to address the severe impacts and risks of climate change for Europe and EU’s global climate leadership.
The European Council and political groups in the European Parliament should prioritise a science-based green transition, integrating a strong and global dimension to ensure Europeans feel the benefits of it domestically and to increase the EU’s trust and credibility internationally.
Nils Redeker
Deputy director
Jacques Delors Centre thinktank
The results will complicate EU climate politics, primarily due to developments in a few major countries. In France and Germany, Green parties suffered losses, which will substantially reduce the number of Green lawmakers in the European Parliament. Additionally, these countries, along with Italy, contributed to a strengthening of far-right groups.
Although left-wing and green parties did unexpectedly well in Denmark and Sweden, the overall shift is likely to dampen enthusiasm for ambitious climate policies in parliament and could deter member states in the European Council from adopting new measures.
However, the next phase of the Green Deal will focus on implementation. The key question is, therefore, whether the EU will stick to its existing policies or unravel its landmark green legislation. The latter option seems unlikely. To secure a second term, Ursula von der Leyen will need the support of the Social Democrats. To avoid risks in her confirmation vote, she may also seek backing from the remaining Green forces. This will limit the scope for a big and official role-back.
But still, there is plenty of room to throw sand in the wheels of execution. Two key aspects are therefore crucial to watch. First, how the European People’s Party (EPP) will interpret its mandate on climate. The party may seek to dilute implementation by forming issue-specific alliances with the far-right. Our research suggests that this would be at odds with its electorate’s preferences, but recent months have already shown a willingness to pursue this approach. Second, it will be crucial to see how the next Commission integrates climate goals into less controversial areas where progress is still possible such as industrial policy, competitiveness and economic resilience.
The post Experts: What do the European elections mean for EU climate action? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Experts: What do the European elections mean for EU climate action?
Brazil’s environment minister says he is “very optimistic” that the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) – a new rainforest fund to channel private and public finance to developing nations – can meet a key $10 billion funding target this year, and is not at risk from his country’s elections next month.
The TFFF, launched by Brazil at COP30 in the Amazon last November and co-led by Norway, is intended as an alternative to traditional grant-based forest finance. The fund aims to raise $125bn in public and private capital, invest it in bond markets, and then pay countries that keep their forests standing from the annual returns. Donor contributions needed to get it going have tailed off after an initial burst.
Speaking to Climate Home News on the sidelines of Climate Week in New York, Brazilian environment minister João Paulo Capobianco pointed out that in less than a year since its official launch, the TFFF has already secured $7.3bn from governments.
“How many other initiatives can say that?” he asked. “Of course, if you have $7 billion, it’s easier for more countries to consider their own contribution. And not just countries – non-governmental organisations also. We are expecting even more support.”
-
As El Niño intensifies, we should be investing more in the world’s farmers
Finance to help agriculture adapt to a hotter world and more extreme weather is vital for food security – but new data shows it’s on a downward trend -
COP31 attendees told not to interfere in Türkiye’s “internal affairs”
Amnesty International says the provision in the hosting agreement could have a “chilling effect” on free expression in Antalya -
Threatened by rising seas, small islands secure right to keep their statehood
Efforts to protect marine ecosystems and coastal communities have risen up the political agenda at the UN General Assembly in New York
As its initial target, the TFFF aims to raise $10bn in seed capital from governments by the end of 2026, and still needs to fill a gap of $2.7bn. Its backers say that for each dollar in public funding, they can secure $4 from the private sector. Critics say the $10bn goal barely covers the fund’s expenses and would not allow it to make any significant payments to forest countries.
Because setting up its financial architecture, raising the starting capital and making the first investments will take time, experts say the TFFF is unlikely to generate any payments for developing countries before 2028.
Seeking new pledges
Capobianco told Climate Home News that Brazil is still in talks with potential new contributors to the fund, among them China, Korea and Japan, and said he hoped to see more pledges announced at the upcoming biodiversity and climate COPs in October and November. The Netherlands is expected to up its first small contribution and Canada may also come in, according to other sources close to the TFFF.
Because the fund was not created as part of the UN climate talks and is hosted by the World Bank, developing countries can contribute without taking on wider donor responsibilities for climate finance. Brazil and Indonesia – both large emerging rainforest nations – have each pledged $1bn to the TFFF.
Earlier in September, the UK became the latest country to pledge funding – promising a loan of £400 million (about $540 million). Capobianco welcomed the contribution and noted that Britain has also said it will keep “under review” the possibility of putting in more.
Currently the largest donor is Norway, which announced a $3bn pledge last year at COP30 in Belém. However, that pledge came with conditions, among them that the fund must reach $10bn in sponsor capital by 2026, and that Norway’s contribution can’t make up more than 20% of that total. Over the longer term, this means the fund must raise $15bn from governments to unlock Norway’s full investment.
Comment: UK’s budget juggling trick with rainforest loan for bus-fare cap needs transparency
Speaking at a forest finance event in New York, Norway’s environment minister Sigrun Aasland said the country’s pledge was made not “only out of solidarity but because of shared interests”, adding that protecting rainforests is critical for climate and biodiversity goals as well as for national security.
“Tropical deforestation matters to people in the Amazon and in the Congo. But let’s not forget that it also matters to global food production and to the cost of living in Oslo or in London,” she said.
At the event, Guyana’s minister of natural resources Vickram Bharrat said the TFFF is “one in a menu of options” to finance forest protection in developing countries. He added that to boost its capital “maybe we should put some amount of pressure on oil companies to contribute to the fund”.
Upcoming election “not a risk”
Brazil, which has been pivotal to getting the fund off the ground, is now heading into a national election that could see the country swing back to an anti-climate stance if right-wing candidate Flávio Bolsonaro beats current left-wing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Capobianco, however, said the election result does not pose a risk to the TFFF.
“It’s a global initiative, not a Brazilian initiative. We proposed the first idea, but nowadays it’s a global initiative,” he said. “We believe the investor countries and the tropical countries together have the possibility to continue this process.”
In Brazil, the first round of voting is scheduled for Sunday, October 4. If no candidate wins more than 50% of valid votes, a run-off ballot will take place on October 25.
COP30 roadmap to end deforestation will invite countries to draft domestic plans
In July, the TFFF board adopted a charter, which outlines the instrument’s objectives and values, including that 20% of the payments made to tropical countries will go directly to Indigenous people and local communities.
The charter also says the TFFF board may comprise up to 12 member countries during the initial phase. Currently, seven seats are filled by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Germany, Brazil, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Indonesia.
The board has also formally incorporated the Tropical Forest Investment Fund (TFIF) – the TFFF’s investment arm that will trade bonds in financial markets – hosted in Luxembourg.
The post Brazil confident new rainforest fund will reach $10bn donor milestone appeared first on Climate Home News.
Brazil confident new rainforest fund will reach $10bn donor milestone
Patrick Schröder is a senior research fellow at Chatham House’s Environment and Society Centre.
A climate summit serious about implementation cannot afford to leave major emissions reductions off the table. Yet, that is the risk COP31 faces unless it makes reducing raw material use central to the way countries decarbonise their economies.
On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York last week, COP31 host Türkiye laid out proposals to accelerate emissions cuts in the next decade. Its plans include global goals to increase the share of recycled products in material use to at least 15% (up from 6.9% in 2025) and halve waste generation by 2035.
COP31 offers an opportunity to connect efforts to improve material circularity with stronger national climate commitments and mitigation pathways. But these targets could be a lot more ambitious.
The case for circularity
The Paris Agreement cannot be delivered through cleaner electricity alone. We must also reduce the emissions that are embedded in the way we extract resources, manufacture products, build infrastructure and dispose of waste.
Circularity principles are pivotal to credible mitigation pathways: designing technologies and products to last, repairing and reusing them, and reducing demand for virgin resources.
The scale of the opportunity is striking. A recent European Environment Agency review found that adopting such principles could deliver average global emissions reductions potential of 52% in the waste sector against a business-as-usual scenario, 48% in construction and buildings, 28% in transport and mobility, 26% in industry and 24% in agriculture.
-
Recycling could meet half of Europe’s critical mineral needs by 2050
A new report by an EU-funded research project says the bloc could harness its “urban mines” to reduce its dependence on China for energy transition minerals -
China maximises battery recycling to shore up critical mineral supplies
Beijing is bracing for a tsunami of spent EV batteries by taking steps to boost recycling – a strategy that could also cut its reliance on imports of clean energy minerals -
The Canadian city betting on recycling rare earths for the energy transition
As countries scramble to secure critical minerals, Kingston’s burgeoning clean tech ecosystem is attracting startups to create circular supply chains and reduce reliance on China
These figures make a compelling case for raising circularity ambitions across the economy, offering the promise of far more than better recycling bins.
In fact, recycling minerals used in cleantech equipment, for example, illustrate the extent of the emissions savings available. The carbon footprint of minerals and metals recovered from secondary sources is up to 80% lower than those produced from new mining and processing, according to the International Energy Agency.
A major EU-funded project estimates that recovered materials could substitute up to 56% of Europe’s primary critical raw material requirements by 2050, provided they achieve the necessary quality. The main takeaway goes beyond Europe: yesterday’s products can become tomorrow’s strategic resources while mitigating climate change.
In this light, a target to increase the share of recovered material use to 15% isn’t enough.
The evidence-based Circularity Gap Report found a 17% target by 2032 is possible and could unlock additional emissions reductions amounting to several gigatonnes of CO2.
Reducing material demand
A higher circularity metric is only part of the answer, however. An economy can increase its recycling rate at the same time as extracting more primary materials if total material demand keeps growing.
The tougher issue governments need to address is identifying what reductions in primary material use are needed.
The Circularity Gap Report uses an indicative benchmark of eight tonnes of virgin materials consumed per person annually. This is already being translated into policy: Germany’s 2024 circular economy strategy aims to reduce primary resource consumption, with the German Federal Environment Agency identifying six to eight tonnes per person as an ambitious target.
Reducing primary material demand will require a closer integration of energy and resource policies. Efficient EVs charged with solar power can complement better public transport and walkable cities, while batteries designed to be repaired and reused for stationary energy storage before being recycled will reduce the materials footprint of transport and clean energy services.
Coordinated infrastructure development and urban planning can prevent unnecessary overbuild, while renovating existing building stock reduces demand for new steel, cement and aluminium, which are emissions-intensive to produce. Connecting industrial waste heat to district heating networks can further reduce energy demand and emissions.
What governments should agree at COP31
COP31 can translate this approach into three concrete commitments.
First, governments should agree a stronger circularity ambition, supported by material-footprint indicators and milestones. The presidency should seek recognition of these priorities in negotiated outcomes, alongside concrete delivery partnerships under its COP31 Action Agenda.
Second, countries should include quantified circular economy measures in their updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and implementation plans. Such measures should include reuse, material efficiency and circularity targets, as well as transparent estimates of emissions savings that avoid double counting across sectors. By the end of 2025, countries had developed 101 national circular economy roadmaps and action plans, yet these often remained disconnected from their NDCs.
-
Self-taught mechanics give second life to Jordan’s glut of spent EV batteries
As EV sales boom in Jordan, a lack of formal infrastructure for dealing with end-of-life batteries is leading to some innovative solutions -
Indian start-ups mine e-waste for battery minerals but growing industry has a dark side
Recycling e-waste can unlock a vast and sustainable supply of transition minerals but in India the sector relies on a neglected informal economy
Third, climate finance should support the delivery of circular solutions such as material recovery at scale, investments into circular critical mineral value chains beyond mining, developing a circular plastics economy, and designing buildings and cities that support material reuse. Developing countries need technology, affordable finance and support to deliver these ambitions, including for the informal workers whose livelihoods depend on recovering and recycling materials.
The test for COP31 is to reach an agreement that can start the transformation of our production and consumption systems and how they are financed.
A headline circularity target will achieve little without policies that address absolute resource demand and deliver measurable emissions cuts. But COP31 offers an opportunity to make circularity a central element of climate policy, with targets strong enough to matter and institutions equipped to deliver them.
The post COP31 must aim higher to cut emissions from the use of materials appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP31 must aim higher to cut emissions from the use of materials
An exceptional El Niño is building. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says it has intensified to very strong levels and is likely to last at least through February 2027. If its current trajectory holds, it could become stronger than anything seen since WMO monitoring began four decades ago.
That is bad news for agriculture. El Niño – a naturally occurring weather phenomenon – can scramble rainfall patterns across the world, bringing drought to some regions and floods to others. And this time it is unfolding against the backdrop of a significantly hotter climate, with farmers already contending with unreliable growing seasons, extreme heat and less predictable rainfall because of global warming.
El Niño expected to bring next record-hot year as soon as 2027
We are seeing the consequences already. In Sri Lanka, drought linked to El Niño has dried wells and reservoirs and cut into crops and farmer incomes. Indonesia is experiencing its worst wildfire season in 11 years, with prolonged drought and extreme heat exacerbated by El Niño. And in Peru, authorities are preparing for the opposite extreme: intense rains, flooding and landslides which the national civil-defence agency says could affect around 1.2 million people.
These impacts will multiply as El Niño intensifies.
And yet, just as the risks to food production are rising, the money available to help farmers withstand them is shrinking.
10% funding decline in 2024
A forthcoming analysis from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows that climate-related development finance for agrifood systems is moving in the wrong direction. In 2024, the latest year for which data is available, it fell by 10 percent compared with a 2 percent overall decline. The sectors that put food on our tables — crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries — received just 5 percent.
Yet this is precisely the moment when climate investment in agriculture needs to grow, not shrink. It can help communities adapt, build resilience and protect food security, while unlocking larger flows of public and private finance. Agriculture feeds us, supports the livelihoods of well over a billion people, and is often the first sector hit by drought, floods and extreme heat. Cutting that investment now is a false economy.
One failed harvest can plant the seed for the next crisis, forcing farmers to eat the seed they have saved for planting, sell livestock or tools, or take on debt. It can also deepen food insecurity, disrupt supply chains and drive up prices, showing up months later in supermarket aisles far away.
The Central American Dry Corridor, stretching through much of the region, shows both how exposed farmers are, and what investment can do. Based on an analysis of 41 years of satellite observations, FAO finds that some crop and pasture areas there face more than a 50 percent chance of agricultural drought over the coming months.
About half of Central America’s 1.9 million producers of maize, beans and other basic grains live in the Dry Corridor. Many grow food both for sale and for their own families. When a harvest fails, they lose both income and dinner.
El Salvador project conserves water and soil
In El Salvador, which lies within the Dry Corridor, more than 50,000 farmers have adopted practices to better withstand drought and increasingly unreliable rainfall through RECLIMA, a project financed by the Green Climate Fund and implemented by FAO in partnership with the government of El Salvador. It has substantial national co-financing, including from the country’s Environmental Investment Fund.
El Niño can intensify El Salvador’s annual mid-season dry spell, known as the canícula, turning it into a longer, harsher drought just as maize needs water most.
For María Cristina Corvera de López, a second-generation farmer in rural Nahualapa, adapting means changing how every drop of rain is captured and used. She plants trees alongside her crops to provide shade and minimise evaporation and uses simple irrigation channels and a homemade drip system to conserve water. Instead of burning stalks, leaves and husks after harvest, as generations before her did, she turns them into mulch to hold moisture in the soil.
“The effects of climate change are a constant challenge,” she says. But the new techniques have made her farm more resilient to El Niño as well. Where she once harvested about 50 bags of maize per acre, she now gets around 80, even during droughts. It’s enough to feed her family and sell the surplus.
Managing risk now cuts future costs
Together, these adaptations can mean the difference between losing a crop and getting through a dry season with enough food, seed and income to plant again. They are also the result of climate finance invested before disaster strikes.
RECLIMA shows what that kind of adaptation investment can buy. Adaptation accounted for 45 percent of climate-related development finance to agrifood systems in 2024, and multilateral development banks are directing more agricultural finance towards resilience. That shift reflects a growing recognition that adaptation is a form of risk management, not just a development cost.
We need much more of it. The same investments that help farmers withstand El Niño also enable them to adapt to a hotter, more unpredictable future. Cutting investment in the people who produce our food just as climate risks intensify does not save money. It simply pushes a much larger bill into the next harvest, the next food crisis, and the next El Niño.
The post As El Niño intensifies, we should be investing more in the world’s farmers appeared first on Climate Home News.
As El Niño intensifies, we should be investing more in the world’s farmers
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19