Climate Obstruction in the European Union: Business Coalitions and the Technocracy of Delay

Plehwe, Dieter; Neujeffski, Moritz; Haas, Tobias Book Part — Published Version Climate Obstruction in the European Union: Business Coalitions and the Technocracy of Delay Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Plehwe, Dieter; Neujeffski, Moritz; Haas, Tobias (2024) : Climate Obstruction in the European Union: Business Coalitions and the Technocracy of Delay, In: Brulle, Robert J. Roberts, J. Timmons Spencer, Miranda C. (Ed.): Climate Obstruction across Europe, ISBN 9780197762080, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 320-346, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197762042.003.0013 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/331323 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 320 Dieter Plehwe, Moritz Neujeffski, and Tobias Haas, Climate Obstruction in the European Union In: Climate Obstruction across Europe. Edited by: Robert J. Brulle, J. Timmons Roberts and Miranda C. Spencer, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/ oso/ 9780197762042.003.0013 13 Climate Obstruction in the European Union Business Coalitions and the Technocracy of Delay DIETER PLEHWE, MORITZ NEUJEFFSKI, AND TOBIAS HAAS INTRODUCTION: BUSINESS EFFORTS TO PREVENT EUROPEAN CLIMATE PROTECTION POLICIES ‘This is Europe’s man on the moon moment’.1 With much fanfare, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the European Green Deal (EGD) on 11 December 2019. The EGD is a major political project that aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Although the analogy to the moon landing is hyperbolic, the EGD does represent an attempt to significantly upgrade climate and environmental policy within the European Union. These are highly contested policy arenas in the European Union, and the achievement of the goals stipulated in the EGD, such as a 55% reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) by 2030 compared with 1990, is by no means a foregone conclusion. The European Union has gained increasing influence in setting climate policy. Its power to determine the general orientation of the integrated body and its weight in multilevel negotiations and decisionmaking gives the European Union a privileged role in the climate policies of the individual member states— and these processes, too, are contested. Unlike in Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 The european union [ 321 ] the United States or Australia, the opposition to ambitious climate policy in the EU arena does not feature influential climate denial networks openly opposed to any form of climate policy regulation. Rather, the main policy obstructors in the European Union are large companies and business associations with a strong vested interest in the fossil economy and neoliberal or conservative think tanks. As such, climate obstruction efforts in the European Union are shaped mainly by efforts to sow doubt about specific climate policy measures and by strategies to weaken their level of ambition. This is what Ekberg and colleagues refer to as ‘secondary obstruction’, which ‘includes all those calls which do not deny the humaninduced nature of the climate crisis (science), but nevertheless delay or forestall meaningful climate action’.2 We count it as obstruction when actors attempt to delay or otherwise shape climate policy in ways that undermine efforts to keep global warming below 1.5°C. Such efforts include, among other things, shirking responsibility, advocating nontransformative solutions, defending the fossil fuel status quo, and climate policy nihilism.3 Interest groups logically pursue their own interests and those of the members they represent. However, groups that are interested in longterm, goodfaith relationships with politicians also need to accept defeat if competing interests prevail and be ready to compromise and adjust. Climate obstruction, however, frequently involves badfaith efforts to push back climate policy goals in favour of other goals, such as profit or otherwise narrow objectives, by claiming adherence to the goals of the Paris Agreement but nevertheless engaging in a range of frequently difficult to recognize efforts to block ambitious policy. The limited appeal of denialism at the EU level is due mostly to the fact that the European integration process is quite technocratic and elite driven, geared primarily toward the establishment or completion of a single European market and Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). European environmental and climate policy approaches, in turn, have supported regulatory cohesion and are strongly oriented toward the guiding principle of ecological modernization (i.e. a depoliticized approach that puts technological innovation and marketbased approaches at its centre4), albeit not exclusively. The limited European public sphere also does not lend itself easily to the type of tabloid press style campaigns known best in the Anglosphere, and Brexit (the United Kingdom’s disengagement from the European Union) considerably weakened the political forces in the European Union that do promote climate change denial. Regardless of the low profile of radical denialism in EU climate politics, climate policy obstruction remains a serious obstacle on the European ‘road to Paris’. The European Union depends on its member Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 [ 322 ] Climate Obstruction across Europe 322 states to secure and police implementation of treaties. While the European Union can put pressure on member states in the case of noncompliance, this process takes time and thus becomes yet another delay mechanism. A SHORT HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION CONTEXT OF CLIMATE POLICY The history of European integration was strongly influenced by both the ideas of German economists from the ‘ordoliberal’ school, such as Walter Eucken, who opposes state interventionism, and by more state planningoriented perspectives prevalent in France in the 1950s (such as those articulated by Jean Monnet). While economic liberalization steps were pursued rather cautiously in Europe until the 1980s, the economic liberalization agenda gained momentum with the introduction of the European Monetary System (EMS) in 1979. In the 1980s and 1990s, the European community took numerous steps to facilitate a European EMU, culminating in in the plan to complete the single market (via the Single European Act of 1986) and the introduction of the euro as a common currency in 1999. Over time, the balance of power between the neoliberal and regulatoryminded forces shifted in favour of the former.5 Until today, the aim to complete the single market is a common narrative used to enforce liberalization and marketbased policies in the European Union. Within the European multilevel governance system, the distribution of regulatory responsibilities and the geographical scale of action are always contested. While the European Commission (EC) and the majorities in the European Parliament (EP) usually try to shift responsibilities to the European level, the European Council (EUCO), composed of the heads of government of the member states and the president of the EC, frequently try to preserve national sovereignty (Box 13.1). As a result, climate policy in the European Union is characterized by a tension between the scalar dimension (i.e. the question of which responsibilities and obligations are located at which governance level) and the substance of proposals. The level of climate policy ambition and orientation are typically contested within the EP as well as the EUCO and EC. Accordingly, lobbying activities are directed at both the European institutions and national governments, the latter of which can exert significant influence through the EUCO.6 This approach was crucial in, for example, the negotiation of the European Green Taxonomy for Sustainable Investments (Green Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 The european union [ 323 ] Box 13.1 KEY INSTITUTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION The European Commission European Parliament is the EU’s executive branch, responsible for proposing and implementing EU laws an d policies. It holds considerable powers, including the authority to initiate legislation, negotiate international agreements on behalf of the EU, and enforce EU laws. is the EU’s directly elected legislative body. It has the ability to pass laws, approve the EU budget, and exercise democratic oversight over other EU institutions. However, it cannot initiate its own legislative proposals. The Council of the European Union represents the Member States' governments. It shares legislative power with the European Parliament, with the ability to adopt EU laws, coordinate policies, and make important decisions on various EU matters, including foreign policy and economic coordination. Taxonomy, discussed later) and in resolving disputes over the ban on internal combustion engines after 2035, which the German government refused to accept in 2023. To create the least distorted competition possible in the single European market, the idea goes, European competition law needs to be developed in such a way that market interventions on a national level may only be made in case of an overriding European interest. An example of such an interest could be meeting binding targets in the fields of energy and climate policy. Nevertheless, climate policy approaches within the EU member states constantly exist in a state of tension with the single market, the EMU, and the corresponding competition and state aid law, which governs the provision of governmental financial support by member states to individual companies or industry sectors.7 In the meantime, however, we argue that environmental and climate policies have become central to the legitimacy of the European integration project. While the total GHG emissions within the European Union decreased overall between 1990 and 2020 (Figure 13.1), EU policies to deal with CO2 emissions have risen in both number and substance. For example, environmental policy was advanced with the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 (effective 1999), which established a duty to integrate environmental protection into all EU sectoral policies to help promote sustainable development.8 The European Union has since established the precautionary Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 Percent Change in Emissions 0% –10% –20% –30% –40% –50% European Union Greenhouse Gas Emissions Total GHG Emissions 5000 4500 4000 3500 MMT CO2e 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Figure 13.1 Total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (in MMT CO2e) and percentage change in emissions in the European Union between 1990 and 2021, inclusive. Source: Total GHG emissions based on data provided by Gütschow and Pflüger (2023) for Kyoto Six Greenhouse Gas Totals. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 The european union [ 325 ] principle (now Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [TFEU]) and required the EC to engage in preventative action to achieve a high level of environmental protection. The precautionary principle requires policymakers to delay innovations with a potential for causing harm if there is not yet sufficient scientific evidence available on its safety. Preventative action also requires the integration of environmental considerations into all European policies. The Amsterdam Treaty also stipulated majority voting in the EC and codecision of the EP. This socalled community method of European lawmaking thereby eliminates the veto power of any single EU member state, which had been a major obstacle to ambitious policymaking. Despite persistent limitations, various environmental regulations have thereby been the result of EU environmental policymaking since the late 1990s.9 Over time, green parties, environmental think tanks, and social movements also became more integrated into European policymaking. Today the Commission consults nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on a regular basis, and Green MEPs are leading members of European Parliament Committees and working groups. Lenschow and Sprungk have argued that the goal and ‘myth of a Green Europe’ has recently been important in driving the European integration process as such. In the academic literature, the European Union is often classified as a leader in global environmental and climate policy. Indeed, in the field of climate policy, numerous goals have been defined and instruments have been developed since 199010 (Table 13.1). For example, under the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the European Union committed itself to reducing its emissions by 8% over the period 2008– 2012 compared with 1990 levels, and, as part of this goal, the EU Emission Trading System (ETS) was introduced in 2005. By 2007, the European Union had already adopted three major climate and energy policy targets: By 2020, (1) GHG emissions were to be reduced by 20%, (2) the share of renewable energy in total energy consumption was to increase to 20%, and (3) energy efficiency was to be increased by 20%. Then, in 2014, the (preliminary) climate and energy policy framework for 2030 was adopted: by then, emissions were to fall by 40%, renewables were to be expanded to 27%, and energy efficiency was to increase to 27%. At the time, this target horizon was already being criticized by environmentalists as extremely unambitious; indeed, it was also not backed up by nationally or sectorally binding targets. The situation changed with the incoming Commission headed by von der Leyen, a German Christian Democrat, in 2019. The Commission president is elected by the EP. Due to the weakening of the conservative faction in the EP following Brexit and Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 [ 326 ] Climate Obstruction across Europe 326 the split of the conservative parliamentary group, von der Leyen had to woo greens and liberals to support her candidacy.11 The strategy of the far rightwing groups in the EP to end centrist cooperation between conservatives and social democrats ultimately achieved the opposite: the EC moved to the left, which allowed for more ambitious European climate policy. (The upcoming European elections are expected to strengthen the right and far right instead, which might lead to a reversal of ambitious European climate policy.) Accordingly, much more ambitious targets were formulated as part of the EGD in 2019, namely, reaching an emissions reduction goal of between 50% and 55% by 2030 for the European Union as a whole and achieving climate neutrality by 2050.12 Torres and Bongard have argued that the EGD substantially enhanced the sustainability dimension within EU economic governance: ‘the EGD may thus be regarded as a third building block in the making of the European economic model, alongside the single market and EMU, and that any crisis would therefore need to be addressed through its framework’.13 In the meantime, agreement was reached on a firm CO2 emissions reduction target of 55% by 2030. In July 2021, the EC then presented the ‘Fit for 55’ package, which was adopted in October 2022.14 This policy package includes a variety of initiatives, directives, and reforms. Among other things, it called for the establishment of the additional EU Table 13.1 EU CLIMATE TARGETS BY YEAR AND STATUS Year adopted (and related UN climate development) GHG emission reduction target (base year 1990) Status 1990 (1992 UNFCCC) Stabilization by 2000 (CO2 only) Achieved 1997– 1998 (1997 Kyoto Protocol) 8% by 20082012 Achieved 2007 (2009 Copenhagen COP 15) 20% by 2020 32% in 2020 2009 (2009 Copenhagen COP 15) 80– 95% by 2050 With the European Green Deal (EGD), by 2050 climate neutrality is the new target 2014 (2015 Paris Agreement) 40% by 2030 With the EGD and the Fitfor 55package, the target was tightened 2019 (2021 Glasgow COP 26) Climate neutrality by 2050 Achievement very uncertain 2020 (2021 Glasgow COP 26) 55% by 2030 Achievement very uncertain Source: Based on von Homeyer et al. 2021, p. 961, reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Ltd, http:// www.tand fonl ine.com). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 The european union [ 327 ] ETS for buildings, road transport, and fuels; the sharpening of reduction targets within the framework of fleet limits for car manufacturers; the introduction of a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to protect European producers of energyintensive materials (such as concrete, aluminium, steel, and fertilizers) from imports that are not subject to carbon pricing; and more ambitious regulations in the areas of energy efficiency, the circular economy, and carbon dioxide removal, all of which are necessary for achieving climate neutrality. The individual member states are also required to make a greater contribution to climate protection. But the climate policy push has also been controversial. Opposition to many of the Fit for 55 package measures was strong among the conservative political parties and almost unanimous in the farright parties. Jacob also reported strong support for the inclusion of nuclear energy and fossil gas in the Green Taxonomy (which classifies economic activities according to their alignment with the net zero strategy to direct investments) from several governments, a position that runs counter to the scientific recommendations of the expert group installed to develop the taxonomy.15 Based on these insights, obstruction to ambitious climate policy can thus be located in the centreright wing of the political party spectrum on the one hand and, on the other, in specific countries dependent on fossil and nuclear paths. To characterize the opposition to ambitious climate policy more completely, we next turn the spotlight on private sector lobbies and their allies. CLIMATE OBSTRUCTION ACTORS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION With each expansion of supranational negotiating and decisionmaking powers in Brussels, the lobbyist landscape has grown, seeking to expand the policy influence capacities of actors previously focused on relevant national jurisdictions. Scholars speak about the coevolution of the EU political system, ‘private interest governments’,16 and a new type of network governance in Europe.17 And, indeed, by 2021, more than 13,300 organizations had been recorded in the European Transparency Register, an official database of organizations that try to influence the policy process of EU institutions.18 Of these groups, 7,000 are business organizations and professional service firms, compared with about 1,000 trade union organizations, about 3,500 NGOs, and nearly 1,000 think tanks and academic institutions.19 Observers and watchdog organizations estimate the number of lobbyists in Brussels to be around 25,000 people, working with a total budget of about €1.5 billion.20 Contrary to efforts to Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 [ 334 ] Climate Obstruction across Europe 334 business studies and lobbying strategies, the CO2 price only cracked the €30 mark for the first time in December 2020 (€30 was targeted when the EU ETS was introduced in 2005). Overall, it is obvious that the EU ETS so far has served mainly to protect the competitiveness of European industry. As a result, the climate policy record of the flagship of European climate policy is unimpressive: ‘Climate policy appears condemned to suffer from having the precautionary principle applied for the benefit of the economy instead of the environment’.47 Only toward the end of the third phase of the EU ETS in 2020 did prices pick up somewhat due to the introduction of the Market Stability Reserve (MSR). And with the new ambition level in the wake of the EGD (a reduction of carbon emissions by 55% by 2030 compared with 1990), the linear reduction factor (LRF) has also been increased, meaning that up to 4.2% fewer allowances will be issued each year until 2030. In addition to the increase in the LRF, the introduction of the CBAM in 2022 (scheduled to take full effect in 2026) was a second key reform project of the ETS. Addressing carbon leakage concerns, the CBAM represents a levy on imported goods produced under less stringent climate regulations outside the European Union. This levy would remove the basis for the free allocation of emission allowances. However, large parts of European industry and neoliberal think tanks such as the Freiburgbased Centre for European Policy (CEP) see this situation differently. An alliance of thirteen associations from energyintensive industries warned in May 2021: ‘The carbon leakage risk is more pressing than ever given the recent evolution of the carbon price reaching unprecedented values in spite of the economic impact of the COVID19 pandemic, and considering the further increase expected in the fourth trading period’.48 BusinessEurope, the umbrella organization of European industry, took the following position in November 2021: The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) could prove to be a tool to fight carbon leakage and level the playing field. Ensuring WTO compatibility and avoiding retaliation from trading partners is key not only for CBAM sectors, but also for the EU industry as a whole. The CBAM should not be considered as an alternative to free allowances, but should complement them, until the mechanism has proven its ability to effectively prevent carbon leakage and level the playing field.49 The CEP also criticized the plan to abolish free allowances through the introduction of a CBAM. Referring to the concept of carbon leakage, the CEP warned: ‘The provisions on reduction of free allowances are misguided because they increase the risk to EU industry of production and emissions Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 The european union [ 335 ] being relocated to third countries (carbon leakage)’.50 In addition, the think tank raised the issue of the growing international trade controversies: ‘In view of current geopolitical tensions, the EU should base its climate policy on global cooperation instead of conflictprone unilateral initiatives like the CBAM’.51 This position resonates with one feature of discourses of delay, namely redirecting responsibility.52 In this respect, the negotiations of the EU ETS and the introduction of the CBAM reveal a longstanding pattern: conjuring up the danger of carbon leakage to maintain existing business models as profitably as possible for as long as possible and thus prevent effective climate protection. Lamb and colleagues have described this as the delay strategy of pursuing nontransformative solutions.53 Various lobbying forces are jointly working on advancing this strategy in policy disputes and thus help the major CO2 emitters to continue to operate in large and diversified business coalitions.54 The EU’s Green Taxonomy for sustainable activities A wide range of corporate actors and think tanks has also attempted to influence the Green Taxonomy. To meet the European Union’s 2030 climate goals of reducing CO2 emissions by 55% compared with 1990 levels, the Brusselsbased think tank Bruegel estimated an annual investment gap of €300 billion.55 The Green Taxonomy was created to steer additional private investments into sustainable assets in addition to the €1.8 trillion earmarked in the EGD. Six objectives are central to this effort: (1) climate change mitigation, (2) climate change adaptation, (3) promoting a circular economy (an economic system minimizing waste and promoting recycling), (4) fighting pollution, (5) protecting water, and (6) protecting biodiversity. From the outset, the question of what types of investments can be classified as sustainable was contested. A technical expert group consisting of thirtyfive members from civil society, academia, business, and the finance sector56 was established in 2018 to assist in the development of the Green Taxonomy. The expert group was committed to a sciencebased approach, which led it to propose the exclusion of fossil gas and nuclear energy from the scope of the Green Taxonomy.57 Contrary to the recommendations derived from the sciencebased findings of the technical expert group, small hydropower projects have been included in the taxonomy due to Scandinavian lobbying efforts. Bioenergy groups also succeeded in removing the requirement to limit bioenergy to Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 [ 336 ] Climate Obstruction across Europe 336 advanced feedstocks, and various agricultural lobby groups managed to remove declining GHG emission standards.58 However, the biggest success was secured by fossil and nuclear interests, which managed to obtain the inclusion of gas and atomic projects in the Green Taxonomy under certain conditions. Nuclear energy had been omitted by the technical expert group because it violates the precautionary principle because of the unresolved issue of securing longterm storage of nuclear waste. Gas does not meet the requirement in principle, either, but has been included for projects that keep CO2 emission low due to plant efficiency and/ or the additional deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, among other exceptions. Yet in contrast to such relatively stringent conditions, fossil gaspowered projects already permitted until 2030 and designed to switch to hydrogen by 2035 can still be funded despite their higher GHG emissions.59 Based on the entries in the Transparency Register, a study by Reclaim Finance identified no fewer than 189 nuclear and gas lobby actors employing 825 lobbyists. The groups were found to spend between €71.4 million and €86.6 million a year to influence European policymaking. The study found a very high frequency of meetings between the lobby groups and the EC, totalling 310 such meetings between 2018 and 2020. The fossil gas lobby accounted for the bulk of the lobbying force involved in the effort.60 The effort to maintain fossil gas dependency in the European Union thus involved many lobby groups working in coalition, including gas companies, the oil majors, turbine producers such as Rolls Royce, and associations of large energy customers such as the European chemical industry.61 Earlier work from InfluenceMap also found that the shadow banking industry had lobbied for less rigid classification criteria for green investments and for soft methods to assess the sustainability of funded projects.62 In addition to the industry lobby groups, think tank allies objected to the Green Taxonomy. For example, the EPICENTER think tank network circulated a policy brief by Carlo Stagnaro and Stefano Verde, the network’s energy policy experts, ‘Only a Sith deals in absolutes: how to nudge the Taxonomy towards the Light Side’. Stagnaro and Verde, who have close relationships with the Italian gas industry, accuse the Commission of actively picking technological winners among the existing clean(er) technologies, to the detriment of other technologies that may well be as clean and even more so to the detriment of technologies that are not yet available. The Taxonomy deals in absolutes: it is founded upon the claim that a bureaucratic document can draw a line between Good and Bad, by attaching a label of Absolute Good Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 The european union [ 337 ] to technologies that have the capability to create an environmental Eden in an imperfect, dirty world.63 The authors thus attempted to include fossil gas in the list of clean industries, arguing that fossil gas is bridging technology— an argument the Commission ultimately adopted. The CEP, mentioned earlier, also attacked the Green Taxonomy in six policy papers published between 2018 and 2020.64 The CEP objected to a single view of sustainability (thus rejecting the sciencebased precautionary approach of the technical expert group), suggesting that the Green Taxonomy stands in contrast to the ‘riskbased’ approach of financial market regulation and declaring the whole effort useless: ‘Detailed measures on how corporate actors should consider sustainability aspects and longtermism are unnecessary. They risk being inefficient and may run counter to the interests of owners, customers and other stakeholders’.65 Think tanks generalize the arguments of lobby groups, which in turn are used to legitimate demands submitted by firms and business associations in the Commission’s policy consultation processes. Regarding the Green Taxonomy, diverse business associations such as BusinessEurope, the European cement association Cembureau, and the European Steel Association Eurofer have insisted on the inadequacy of binding sustainability criteria and demanded a more comprehensive assessment of products such as steel beyond their CO2 emissions records. Meanwhile, Germany’s BDI— the voice of German Industry— demanded Europe wait for a sciencebased method of lifecycle analysis.66 Until such a unified method can be applied, they argued, only direct emissions should be considered in calculations of sustainability. When it comes to delaying ambitious efforts to achieve climate policy objectives, much creativity in the defence of fossil interests can be observed in the lobbying against the Green Taxonomy, ranging from insistence upon technology neutrality (remaining unbiased toward which specific technologies are to be used) and promoting the need for multiple perspectives on sustainability to demanding new and allegedly superior methods of assessing products and advocating the continued use of fossil sources until better technology is available. KEY FRAMES OF EU CLIMATE POLICY OBSTRUCTION The two examples just discussed illustrate that discursive framings are important tools in climate policy disputes. Climate obstructionists typically advance numerous arguments against ambitious climate policy. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 [ 338 ] Climate Obstruction across Europe 338 Since European integration and its climate policy are strongly shaped by the logic of competitiveness and the concept of ecological modernization, respectively, the frames utilized in EU arguments need to resonate with these two points of reference. Three main narratives can be found in the obstructionist’s toolbox: first, that marketbased instruments are preferrable to regulatory ‘command and control’ mechanisms (such as bans and binding commitments) and allow companies maximum flexibility. Second, that climate policy approaches should be technology neutral. Third, that policy instruments should always be designed in such a way that the competitiveness of European companies does not suffer. In terms of promoting marketbased solutions, the CEP claimed as early as 2008 that ‘fixed quota systems for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are inferior to emissions trading on the grounds of efficiency’.67 Similar narratives can be identified in the CEP’s evaluation of the commission’s recent offshore renewable energy strategy, which aims to significantly increase the capacity for offshore wind production by 2030. On the one hand, the legal think tank stated that ‘the Commission is right to pursue the goal of bringing offshore renewable energy into competition and exposing it to market risks’.68 On the other hand, the CEP opposed plans for concrete sector targets. The organization declared that these targets ‘should be rejected as a dirigiste presumption of knowledge ’.69 By associating the commission proposal with a planned economy measure in this way, they tarred it with a socialist stigma. When, in the 2000s, some EU member states, including Germany and Spain, triggered a boom in renewable energy via guaranteed feedin tariffs, the grey spectrum of actors criticized these instruments as incompatible with the European single market. With the reform of state aid guidelines in 2014, the renewable expansion system based on feedin tariff mechanisms was largely undermined.70 Regarding the second narrative, the call for a technologyneutral approach appears in many current efforts to obstruct a stronger EU climate policy. One example is the stance of the umbrella organization of European car manufacturers, ACEA. In January 2020, the association issued a position paper on EGD, with ten recommendations for action. In the first point, the demand for technology neutrality is intertwined with an appeal for undistorted competition. ACEA stated, • Technological neutrality must be maintained in order to reflect the diverse requirements of different vehicle segments and the many use cases of customers. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 The european union [ 339 ] • The Commission should refrain from (directly or implicitly) mandating certain technologies for specific vehicle segments. • It should also maintain the integrity of the European single market by discouraging national and local bans on specific technologies which can deliver further CO2 improvements’.71 In a similar vein, FuelsEurope has repeatedly called for a technologically neutral approach to achieve the EU climate goals in the transportation sector. In so doing, the industry association argued against a ban on combustion engines.72 In addition, after German Minister of Transportation Volker Wissing managed to extend the time frame for an EUwide ban on combustion engines that would run only on CO2neutral fuels, he also stated that this move would ‘ensure the element of technology neutrality’.73 The concept of technology neutrality, or openness, also plays a central role in the arguments advanced by climate obstruction actors such as Shell,74 as well as by the electricity industry.75 These examples illustrate the way in which industry representatives have repeatedly used the narrative of technology neutrality to enable the preservation of climate damaging technologies. Coupled with technological optimism and empirically unsubstantiated and misleading references to the innovative power of humanity in general, the advancement of renewable energy sources and other effective climate solutions can thereby be slowed.76 Turning to the third narrative, climate policy approaches in the European Union are subsumed under the primacy of competitiveness. For example, BusinessEurope’s March 2023 Reform Barometer was titled ‘The EU’s global competitiveness under threat’.77 In this report, the organization concluded, among other things, that stricter climate protection measures are counterproductive because they could lead to a migration of industry to countries with much lower levels of climate protection. This carbon leakage narrative is particularly popular at the EU level because promoting the European Union’s competitiveness has been a key political project of the European Union. As noted earlier, the concept of carbon leakage was particularly prominent in the construction of the EU ETS. However, as shown by the creation, in 2023, of the European Union’s Net Zero Industry Act (in response to the US’s Inflation Reduction Act), climate policies are closely intertwined with global competitiveness in grey as well as in green industries. Apart from these three strands of discourse, which are central to climate obstruction in the European Union, other narratives also delay ambitious climate policies. For example, the belief in new breakthrough technologies Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 [ 340 ] Climate Obstruction across Europe 340 is reflected in the EGD itself, without any certainty that such technological optimism will ever be realized. Such optimistic forecasts regarding the eventual availability of hydrogen, efuels, or carbon dioxide removal systems are often deployed to delegitimize regulatory measures that could contribute immediately to emissions reductions and thus also serve as excuses to shirk responsibility for more appropriate climate action. At the same time, industrial sectors know very well how to position themselves as part of the solution to the climate problem (Tilsted and colleagues have elaborated upon this strategy in for the petrochemical industry).78 In this respect, discourses of delay in the European Union are based on structuring the discursive field in such a way that existing business models can be continued for as long as possible and remain protected from attack. CONCLUSION The European Union’s climate policy is best understood as a contested field. At the European level, denialism is relatively uncommon; secondary obstruction is the dominant form of blocking ambitious climate policy. The grey spectrum of actors relies on different strands of discourse to implement their obstructive goals, emphasizing the European single market, the primacy of competitiveness for European business, and the technocratic concept of ecological modernization. Despite the material superiority of grey companies, their associations, and related think tanks, farreaching climate policy mandates including the precautionary principle and ambitious CO2 reduction goals, such as the EGD, have been set. Nevertheless, the disputes over the EU ETS and the Green Taxonomy show that the achievement of ambitious goals is highly uncertain. Strong forces of delay are at work promulgating discourses and lobbying practices in both the European arena and, via the EUCO, the nationstate arenas. Consequently, the European climate policy picture remains unclear, oscillating between the justifiable claims of global environmental leadership and strong impediments, resulting in a general orientation toward global competitiveness and hardened power relations that continue to protect fossil interests. Although academic research on European lobbying has clarified the relevance of lobby coalitions in impeding climate action,79 more work needs to be done on the ways in which green and grey alliances form and fare in key climate policy conflicts across the European Union. Beyond an assessment of lobbying success and failure with regard to specific legislation, a key research priority will be to learn more about if and how climate proposals Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 The european union [ 341 ] (e.g. a revival of public transportation or a modification of state aid to support policy instruments like the feedin tariff, etc.) have been blocked from entering the European Union’s policy debate in the first place. All the work thus far supporting the pluralist perspective of lobby balance— which holds that asymmetry in lobby power relations is not a problem— fails to address the ‘second face of power’, or ‘nondecision’, namely agendasetting ability.80 Finally, it will be critical to examine the history and mobilization of the ‘innovation principle’ that industry lobbyists and neoliberal think tanks invoke in an effort to counter the impact of the precautionary principle.81 NOTES 1. European Commission (2019, December), ‘President von Der Leyen on the European Green Deal’, December 2019, https:// ec.eur opa.eu/ com miss ion/ pres scor ner/ det ail/ en/ SPE ECH_ 19_ 6 749. 2. Kristoffer Ekberg, et al. (2022), Climate Obstruction: How Denial, Delay and Inaction Are Heating the Planet, New York: Taylor & Francis, p. 12. 3. William F. Lamb, et al. (2020), ‘Discourses of Climate Delay’, Global Sustainability, 3: 1– 5, doi:10.1017/ SUS.2020.13. 4. Amanda Machin (2019), ‘Changing the Story?The x of Ecological Modernisation in the European Union Machin, A.’, Environmental Politics, 28, 2: 208– 227. 5. Dieter Plehwe and Karin Fischer (2022), ‘Tales of Passage from the North to the South and Back: Constitutionalizing (European) Neoliberalism’. In: Fernando LópezCastellano, Carmen Lizárraga, Roser ManzaneraRuiz (eds.) Neoliberalism and Unequal Development: Alternatives and Transitions in Europe, Latin America and SubSaharan Africa, pp. 123– 140. New York: Taylor and Francis, doi:10.4324/ 978100315330611/ TALESPASSAGENORTHSOUTHBACKDIETERPLEHWEKARINFISCHER. 6. Sylvain Laurens (2017), Lobbyists and Bureaucrats in Brussels: Capitalism’s Brokers, Lobbyists and Bureaucrats in Brussels: Capitalism’s Brokers. New York: Taylor and Francis, doi:10.4324/ 9781315267258/ LOBBYISTSBUREAUCRATSBRUSSELSSYLVAINLAURENS. 7. Tobias Haas (2019, February), ‘Struggles in European Union Energy Politics: A Gramscian Perspective on Power in Energy Transitions’, Energy Research & Social Science, 48: 66– 74, doi:10.1016/ J.ERSS.2018.09.011. 8. Hence the moonshot analogy; see Gengnagel, Vincent, Zimmermann, Katharina (2022), ‘The European Green Deal as a Moonshot: Caring for a ClimateNeutral Yet Prospering Continent?’ Historical Social Research, 47,4: 267– 302, doi 10.12759/ hsr.47.2022.47 9. Andrea Lenschow and Carina Sprungk (2010, January), ‘The Myth of a Green Europe’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48, 1: 133– 154, doi:10.1111/ J.14685965.2009.02045.X. 10. Ibid. 11. Alexandra Brzozowski and Claire Stam (2019), ‘Greens Set Conditions to Approve Nominee von Der Leyen – EURACTIV.Com’, Euractiv, https:// www. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 [ 342 ] Climate Obstruction across Europe 342 eurac tiv.com/ sect ion/ fut ureeu/ news/ gre enssetcon diti onstoappr ovenomi neevonderleyen/ . 12. Ingmar von Homeyer, Sebastian Oberthür, and Andrew J. Jordan (2021), ‘EU Climate and Energy Governance in Times of Crisis: Towards a New Agenda’, Journal of European Public Policy, 28, 7: 959– 979, doi:10.1080/ 13501763.2021.1918221. 13. Annette Bongardt and Francisco Torres (2022), ‘The European Green Deal: More than an Exit Strategy to the Pandemic Crisis, a Building Block of a Sustainable European Economic Model’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 60, 1: 170– 185. 14. European Commission (2021), ‘Fit for 55 – The EU’s Plan for a Green Transition’, https:// www.consil ium.eur opa.eu/ en/ polic ies/ greendeal/ fitfor55theeuplanforagreentra nsit ion/ . 15. Jacob, ‘UmweltUnd Klimapolitik’ (2022), in Werner Weidenfeld and Wolfgang Wessels (eds.), Jahrbuch der Europäischen Integration 2022, pp. 308– 309. Baden Baden: Nomos. 16. Volker Eichener and Helmut Voelzkow (1994), Europäische Integration Und Verbandliche Interessenvermittlung. Maburg: Metropolis. 17. Beate KohlerKoch and Rainer Eising (eds.), The Transformation of Governance in the European Union. London: Routledge. 18. Following the US Lobby Disclosure Act of 1995, which requires registered lobbyists to file quarterly activity reports with Congress, the European Union established its own lobby register in 2008 (first joined by the EC, then eventually the EP, although the Council of Ministers has never taken part). Unlike the US register, the European register is voluntary, though some restrictions apply if companies or other organizations involved in lobbying do not register. 19. Transparency Register Management Board (2022), ‘Annual Report on the Functioning of the Transparency Register 2021’. https:// www.europ arl.eur opa. eu/ atyourserv ice/ files/ trans pare ncyandeth ics/ lobbygro ups/ enann ualrep ortontheope rati onsofthetrans pare ncyregis ter2022.pdf 20. Yearly reports by corporate watchdog organizations such as Corporate Europe Observatory or LobbyControl provide details of the shortcomings of the current register, which nevertheless provides a better overview of the lobbying landscape than had previously been available. See Will Dinan (2010), ‘The Battle for Lobbying Transparency’. In: Alter EU (ed.), Bursting the Brussels Bubble, pp. 139– 147. Alter EU, www.altereu.org/ book/ burst ingthebruss elsbub ble. 21. European Union Employment Advisor (2022), ‘How Many People Work for the European Commission?’, https:// euemp loym ent.eu/ europ eancom miss ionemplo yeenum ber/ . 22. Mahoney, ‘Brussels versus the Beltway’; Cornelia Woll (2012), ‘The Brash and the SoftSpoken: Lobbying Styles in a Transatlantic Comparison’. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 1, 2: 193– 214. 23. Beate KohlerKoch and Christine Quittkat (2011), Die Entzauberung Partizipativer Demokratie: Zur Rolle Der Zivilgesellschaft Bei Der Demokratisierung von EUGovernance. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. 24. Heike Klüver (2013), Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions and Policy Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 25. Haas, ‘Struggles in European Union Energy Politics’. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025 The european union [ 343 ] 26. BelénSabido, Pascoe Balanyá (2017, October), ‘The Great Gas LockIn: Industry Lobbying behind the EU Politics for New Gas Infrastructure’, https:// corp orat eeur ope.org/ sites/ defa ult/ files/ the _ gre at_ g as_ l ock_ in_ e ngli sh_ .pdf. 27. Haas, ‘Struggles in European Union Energy Politics’. 28. InfluenceMap (2022, April), ‘Europe: Does Corporate Europe Support Climate Policy?’, https:// eur ope.influ ence map.org/ rep ort/ DoesCorpor ateEur opeSupp ortClim atePol icy#13. 29. In cases where we could not obtain information on lobby expenditure in 2019, we used the year 2018 or the year 2020 instead. The two figures do not include the group of companies that are completely opposed to the European Union’s climate policy (groups E and F) for which we could not identify their expenditure for lobbying at the EU level. 30. Weise, Zia (2022, June). ‘The Lobbying War over Cutting EU Emissions’, Politico, https:// www.polit ico.eu/ arti cle/ eur opeemissi onsclim atecha ngelobby ingwar/ 31. See the overview article Puck, Jonas, Lawton, Thomas, Mohr, Alexander (2018) The Corporate Political Activity of MNCs: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. Manag Int Rev58, 663– 673 (2018). https:// doi.org/ 10.1007/ s11 57501803640 and the Swedish case study Fjelkman, Anton and Rolanda Fromholde (2021) Strategic Management of Public Affairs in Swedish Multinational Corporations— The Recipe for Success. Lund: Lund University (https:// www.lun duni vers ity.lu.se/ lup/ publ icat ion/ 9050 100)’. 32. Corporate Europe Observatory (2017, February), ‘Corporate Interests Continue to Dominate Key Expert Groups’, https:// corp orat eeur ope.org/ en/ exp ertgro ups/ 2017/ 02/ corpor ateintere stsconti nuedomin atekeyexp ertgro ups. 33. Anne Therese Gullberg (2011), ‘Equal Access, Unequal Voice. Business and NGO Lobbying on EU Climate Policy’. In: Transparency International, Global Corruption Report: Climate Change, pp. 39– 44. Transparency International. https:// issuu.com/ transp aren cyin tern atio nal/ docs/ global_ corruption_ re port _ cli mate _ cha nge_ engl ish 34. Klemens Joos (2014), ‘Erfolg Durch Prozesskompetenz. Paradigmenwechsel in Der Interessenvertretung Nach Dem Vertrag von Lissabon’. In: Doris Dialer and Margarete Richter (eds.), Lobbying in Der Europäischen Union. Zwischen Professionalisierung Und Regulierung, pp. 29– 45. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; Andreas Dür and Gemma Mateo (2012, September), ‘Who Lobbies the European Union? National Interest Groups in a Multilevel Polity’, Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 7: 969– 987, doi:10.1080/ 13501763.2012.672103; Christian Lindner (2014), ‘Lobbyismus Und Interessenvertretung Auf Europäischer Ebene. Zwischen Professionalisierung Und Regulierung?’. In: Doris Dialer and Margarete Richter (eds.), Lobbying in Der Europäischen Union. Zwischen Professionalisierung Und Regulierung, pp. 47– 59. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 35. InfluenceMap (2021, November), ‘German Automakers and Climate Policy’, https:// influ ence map.org/ EN/ rep ort/ Ger manAut omak ersAndClim atePol icya3edf 15c6 4b2e 258c 29f8 3beb 9333 7f6. 36. Susanne Götze and Annika Joeres (2020), Die Klimaschmutzlobby. München: Pieper,; Influence Map (2021), ‘Aviation Industry Lobbying and European Climate Change Policy’. https:// influ ence map.org/ rep ort/ Aviat ionIndus tryLobby ingEurop eanClim atePol icy13137 8131 d950 3b4d 32b3 65e5 4756 351 37. Balanyá, ‘The Great Gas LockIn’. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/57571/chapter/469154353 by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung user on 14 November 2025