Why climate policy needs clarity and courage

Rolling back clean energy policies to save European industry will backfire. Whilst it may seem attractive in the short term it is poor industrial policy in the long term. The latest attempts of Germany to once again derail European regulation on the phase-out of the internal combustion engine fall into this category. In my remarks at the European Council this week, I emphasised that standing still (or even moving backwards) on climate and clean energy policies is not a path to industrial strength — it’s a risk to Europe’s competitiveness. European industries need stability, clarity, and long-term direction to invest confidently in the technologies of the future. Policy uncertainty discourages innovation and diverts investment to other regions offering clearer signals. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is not standing still. If Europe hesitates now, it risks losing ground in the global race for the industries of tomorrow. Staying the course on climate ambition is not just about reaching net zero — it’s about ensuring Europe remains an industrial leader in the 21st century economy.

𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞'𝐬 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐨 𝐁𝐞 Climate action in Europe faces key tests in 2026, as the Financial Times rightly argues ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/ecjnARNP). The EU's carbon border tax just kicked in. Large-scale solar and wind projects are being commissioned. New disclosure rules force companies to come clean about emissions. And yet, the political narrative remains dominated by fear. Fear of voter backlash. Fear that ambitious climate policy is electoral suicide. That fear is based on a systematic misperception of what citizens actually want. Research published this week ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/eYth6q26 ) shows UK MPs think only 16% of their constituents support local renewable energy projects. The actual figure? 73%. That is not a small error. That is politicians living in a parallel universe. This aligns with a little older academic research on Belgian politicians ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/eb9pADUV), who consistently overestimate how right-wing their voters are by an average of 13 percentage points. On banning polluting cars from cities, they underestimated public support by 12 points. On every left-wing policy proposal tested, politicians assumed less support than actually existed. The pattern holds across all parties. Left, center, right: all suffer from the same bias. Why does this matter? Because perception shapes action. Politicians who believe voters oppose climate measures will water them down or abandon them. We are trapped in what researchers call a "spiral of silence": 𝟖𝟗% of people worldwide want stronger climate action, but most do not know they are part of a majority ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/ewaiRjRY). With the US retreating, European leadership becomes more critical. Not only for a sustainable future, but also for strategic autonomy. The technology exists. Public support is there. What is missing is political courage, based on a misreading of what citizens want. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬: 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲.

As COP29 concludes in Baku, Azerbaijan, it has once again highlighted the glaring contradictions in global climate negotiations. The conference, marred by the influence of the fossil fuel industry, has left activists, particularly youth, questioning whether these gatherings can deliver real solutions or are merely platforms for delay tactics. In my opinion this were the key issues raised during COP29: 1 - Fossil Fuel Industry Influence The appointment of fossil fuel representatives to leadership roles continues to undermine the credibility of the COP process. Over 650 delegates tied to fossil fuel companies were present, representing a larger bloc than any single national delegation. This dominance has raised concerns about conflicts of interest, as critical discussions about reducing oil and gas production were sidelined. 2 - Youth Activism and Public Distrust The growing frustration among young activists was palpable, with Greta Thunberg’s recent arrest in Germany serving as a stark reminder of the resistance climate activists face. At COP29, youth leaders criticized world governments for prioritizing corporate interests over the urgent need for emissions reductions. Their disillusionment reflects a broader crisis of trust in international institutions tasked with addressing the climate crisis. 3 - Lack of Ambitious Commitments While developed nations proposed a $250 billion annual climate fund, this amount falls far short of the demands from developing nations, who called for over $1.3 trillion annually to adapt to and mitigate climate impacts. Without adequate financing, meaningful progress on climate justice remains elusive. 4 - Failure to Tackle Root Causes Discussions around phasing out fossil fuels were effectively blocked, exposing the unwillingness of key players to address the root causes of the climate crisis. This lack of courage perpetuates the reliance on fossil fuels, despite the increasing urgency to transition to renewable energy. To regain public trust and make COP effective, what we urgently need is: - Remove Fossil Fuel Influence: Leadership roles and decision-making processes must be free from the influence of industries with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. - Increase Transparency and Accountability: Governments and corporations must be held accountable for meeting emissions targets, with mechanisms in place to track progress. - Empower Youth and Civil Society: Platforms like YOUNGO should have a more significant role, ensuring that the voices of those who will inherit the planet are central to the decision-making process. - Deliver Meaningful Financial Support: Developed nations must honor their commitments to climate finance, bridging the gap between pledges and actual needs. As one speaker at COP29 succinctly put it: “This is not just a climate crisis, but a crisis of governance and courage.” Will COP30 break this cycle of inaction, or will we see more of the same?

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

An important and timely intervention in the UK as climate experts organise a National Emergency Briefing for more than 1,000 people including politicans, business leaders, senior civil servants and civic leaders to set out the scale of the climate and biodiversity crises and to reset the national conversation on these issues, especially in the face of growing misinformation. Nine experts gave stark assessments of the scale of the changes needed to adapt the country to the rapidly changing climate and ecological situation, and to potentially stave off the worst potential outcomes. The briefing examined critical issues such as food security and inequality, and scientific leaders from security, health, and finance sectors warned that climate and nature breakdown represent compounding, systemic risks, the kind that can fracture markets and exceed the resilience of states. “We are facing a national emergency not only because the climate is changing, but because the living systems that protect the climate are breaking down. This isn’t about choosing between the economy and the environment. It’s about recognising that the economy is embedded within the environment, and that the health of the nation depends on the living systems that sustain us.” Nathalie Seddon, Professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford. It is vital that these conversations happen. Climate targets are not abstract numbers on a page, they are the difference between stable societies and escalating disruption. Without an honest, shared understanding of the risks, the scale of action required is easy to underestimate. Grounding the discussion in evidence turns distant targets into real decisions about how we safeguard society and the environment. https://lnkd.in/e3CXawT8 National Emergency Briefing

From weeks of extreme heat in Perth to storms and bushfires in Victoria, and yet another cyclone headed our way, the ongoing spate of extreme weather across Australia has again demonstrated that the world has become more hazardous as a consequence of global warming. The reshaping of patterns of life in Australia by unnatural disasters has been primarily caused by fossil fuel corporations; the burning of coal, oil and gas is the number one cause of climate change. As climate impacts worsen, the solutions that we’ve had to deal with disasters are rapidly becoming unfit for purpose. A new approach is needed, founded on the best of our national character, taking courage from community response to disasters, and inspiration from the great democratic and economic reforms of Australian history. Increased national resilience should begin with prevention. The malign influence of fossil fuel corporations on our democracy, society and economy must be overcome so that we can rapidly transition away from coal, oil and gas to renewables. But even if we do everything right from here, the world has changed - and Australia must respond to that. We need a new national paradigm to safeguard people, now and in the future. The idea of universalism—that every human life is precious and deserving of the chance of full flourishing, and that this can only be truly guaranteed within a healthy environment—must be at the core of our response. We need a universal safety net response to climate damage. People cannot be left to fend for themselves in the face of worsening storms, fires and floods. And private market mechanisms - principally insurance - are simply not fit for purpose to cope with current and future impacts. Some principles that could underpin this paradigm shift include: 🌏 Stopping the problem at the source: Rapidly transitioning away from coal, oil and gas, and ending deforestation. 🌏 Urgent planning and preparing for climate impacts to get people and vital infrastructure out of harm's way as much as possible. 🌏 Ensuring adequate standalone resources for immediate disaster response. 🌏 Building a national system of environmental protection to give nature the best chance of resilience in a climate damaged world. 🌏 The creation of a universal climate security safety net, to ensure that no Australian is left behind by climate disasters.  🌏 Centering climate resilience within Australian foreign policy with particular focus on supporting the future flourishing of the Pacific family of nations. 🌏 Deepening our democracy and revitalising our public institutions to ensure that the wellbeing and security of people, not the profits of big polluters, determine the priorities of our country. How do you think Australia can ensure care for everyone here in an age of worsening climate disasters? Would love to hear from you in the comments. https://lnkd.in/g4C3Jibs

The climate transition is not à la carte. For companies, the strength of your position depends on the consistency of your commitment. Earlier this month, more than 100 companies and investors across Europe signed an open letter supporting the EU Emissions Trading System. This included major players such as EDF, Ørsted, Vattenfall, Tata Group, Volvo Cars and Ingka Group | IKEA. Their arguments – and their decision to intervene publicly – should give pause, particularly as several member states are pushing to weaken the ETS in response to rising energy prices. The ETS is a highly effective policy. It has cut emissions by around 50% in the sectors it covers, while those sectors have continued to grow significantly over the same period. It works because it provides a credible, stable long-term carbon price that companies can plan and invest against. The ETS is being made a scapegoat for a structural vulnerability it did not create. Weakening it will not solve Europe’s competitiveness challenges, but it will reduce investment certainty and make industrial planning more difficult. The issue is not the carbon price, but Europe’s dependence on imported fossil fuels – the main source of energy price volatility, and precisely what the ETS is helping to reduce. The companies that have spoken out understand what is at stake. They have been planning against this framework for years. It is right that they have intervened – and I commend them for it. But it is not enough to speak out only when the instrument that directly affects your business comes under pressure. The risk for Europe’s climate framework is not that it will be undone in a single moment. It is incremental rollback, as measures are weakened one by one and a narrative takes hold – largely unchallenged – that climate policy is to blame for complex economic challenges. When due diligence requirements or transition planning rules are weakened in the name of simplification, the overall framework becomes less coherent and harder to defend. If your business depends on the successful decarbonisation of the economy, cherry-picking is not an efficient strategy. Defending a particular policy, in this case the ETS, will be harder if the framework in which it sits – and the logic on which it rests – has been undermined elsewhere. If you’re consistently advocating more ambitious climate policies, customers and policymakers will be much more inclined to believe your commitments and listen to your warnings. For businesses, decarbonisation is not about morality but about backing a stabilising force in an increasingly volatile world. Standing on the precipice of another energy crisis, we are reminded again how dangerous our dependence on fossil fuel is. So if you are willing to take on the challenges ahead, you should know it is not à la carte. But it is the best way forward. And please, say it out loud. Paul Polman The B Team We Mean Business Coalition

Yes, sustainability is facing pushback But this is pushback, not pullback 🌍 Interesting and worrying findings from GlobeScan’s latest research. A growing number of sustainability professionals are reporting backlash against the sustainability agenda in their countries. In this year’s global survey, 7 in 10 experts acknowledged significant resistance, a sharp increase from the previous year. The data confirms that the backlash is real and growing. But this trend is not the same everywhere. In North America, more than 90 percent of experts observe backlash, while in Asia Pacific it drops to around 38 percent. Other regions fall in between. These differences show how important it is to understand local political and cultural dynamics when addressing sustainability challenges. Context matters. At the same time, more than half of global experts say the current sustainability agenda needs a complete reset. Only a small minority believe the current path is sufficient. This suggests that many professionals are calling for bold new thinking and deeper, more systemic approaches. None of this means that sustainability is losing its relevance. On the contrary, it highlights the need to evolve and improve. The core value of sustainability remains clear. It is essential to managing long term risks, building trust, and creating lasting business and societal value. There is no alternative. If we plan to protect people, nature, and the economy, sustainability must stay at the center of decision making. The backlash is not a reason to pull back. It is a reason to push forward with clarity and courage. This is a time for leadership. Not just technical expertise, but courageous leadership that stays focused on outcomes, adapts to uncertainty, and resists the temptation to retreat. Leaders need to engage, explain, and lead with purpose. It is also a time to match words with action. Talking the talk is not enough. Companies and institutions will be judged by what they deliver. Clear goals, real progress, and transparent communication are more important than ever. The road ahead will not be easy, but it is necessary. With the right leadership, informed by local context and focused on impact, sustainability can emerge stronger and more effective than before. #sustainability #business #sustainable #esg

I believe Delhi NCR’s air quality challenge calls for calm leadership and long-term policy clarity, not seasonal reactions. Air pollution is a structural issue. And in my experience, structural issues are best addressed through predictable, enforceable transition pathways, ones that give citizens, businesses, and institutions the time and confidence to adapt without disruption. A credible way forward, in my view, would be a clearly articulated two-year transition roadmap, built on three simple principles. First — gradual transition, not abrupt bans. Reducing dependence on high-emission diesel vehicles needs to be phased, supported by clear timelines, incentives, and viable alternatives. Sudden restrictions may appear decisive, but they often create uncertainty without delivering lasting outcomes. Second — cleaner energy at the source. Industrial and commercial establishments can steadily move away from diesel-based backup systems toward solar and battery energy storage solutions (BESS), through defined milestones rather than emergency mandates. This shift also strengthens grid resilience, improves energy reliability, and reduces long-term operating risk for businesses. Third — accountability with stability. Any serious roadmap must be enforceable. Mechanisms such as bank guarantees can ensure commitment, while still giving stakeholders the visibility and time needed to plan investments responsibly. Clean air will not come from short-term measures alone. It requires policy consistency, execution discipline, and shared accountability.

Europe has a narrow window to deliver real, near-term climate impact. The EU Methane Regulation is one of the most consequential climate policies adopted anywhere in the world. At a time of climate overshoot, methane abatement remains the fastest lever we have to slow warming this decade. That is why recent reports of pressure to weaken or delay its application to imported gas are so concerning. The Regulation was designed with full awareness of Europe’s energy security challenges. It already balances ambition with feasibility. Diluting it now would undermine regulatory certainty and risk locking in higher emissions for years. The issue is not capability, but clarity. Strong, science-led implementation, with clear guidance on traceability and monitoring, can strengthen both climate outcomes and energy security. In an open letter published today, I urge the European Commission to hold firm on the Regulation’s intent and provide the clarity needed for effective implementation. Europe’s leadership on methane has global consequences. This is a moment to lead. https://lnkd.in/ec2BdMWb Climate Crisis Advisory Group