Climate Policy Across the Atlantic: How Europe’s Green Deal Stacks up Against U.S. Environmental Rollbacks
Source: Machine Design
Introduction
One administration at a time, the United States lurches between climate ambition and crippling environmental retreat, recently marked by current President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and promotion of environmentally harmful fossil fuel industries. Oppositely, Europe races toward an overwhelmingly green future—characterized by the now three-year-old Green Deal, a set of policy initiatives set by the European Union (EU) to make Europe climate-neutral by the year 2050. Aspects of the Green Deal include transitioning to a circular economy (i.e., by implementing legislation across sectors like energy and agriculture), biodiversity protection, and sustainable transportation. Some argue that the environmental goals of the EU, as written in the Green Deal, are too lofty due to its requirement of significant economic investment; however, supporters of the deal claim that its financial costs are essential to combating the harm put forth by climate change.
Source: Sergey Kelin / Adobe Stock
Despite efforts from the United States in favor of an American equivalent to the Green Deal, the future remains uncertain, with anti-environmental legislation continuing to be passed in Washington. This not only sets the United States back in the timeline of resolving climate-related issues, but it also exposes the country’s laissez-faire approach to climate-related issues. This is further exemplified by the U.S. spearheading harmful environmental practices (e.g., exploitation of fossil fuels) aimed at reaping economic benefits. The U.S. remains caught in, what seems like, an infinite regression of progression and its depletion—experiencing frequent rising and falling into the fight to combat climate-related issues.
On the other hand, Europe seeks to advance a structured and legally binding Green Deal to achieve climate neutrality by the year 2050, as a dedicated concern for public health frames the EU; oppositely, the U.S.’ is framed by greed for economic prosperity. Each side offers insight into how global powers confront such pressing issues that affect each society’s citizens immensely.
The European Green Deal: A Structured Approach to Climate Action
Approved in 2020, The EU’s Green Deal is a set of initiatives by the European Commission to make Europe climate-neutral by the year 2050. Initiatives put forth by Europe’s Green Deal may be summarized by the points below:
Climate neutrality
Circular economy
Clean industry
Healthier environment
Sustainable farming
Climate justice
With this, key initiatives exist within the document, such as the Just Transition Mechanism, which helps “make the transition fair and inclusive to help people most affected by the transition [to clean energy].” The US has put forth similar policies, such as the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which provides tax incentives and grants for clean energy projects in former coal communities; however, its impacts have faced many challenges. Even though American investments are being made through the IRA in the clean energy sector, the law also includes oil and gas lease requirements in an effort to gain more widespread political support. Under the IRA, the government still permits new drilling projects on public lands in exchange for the introduction of clean energy projects. A process that appears counterintuitive, it is one of the reasons the US continues to fall behind in the march towards carbon neutrality, as Europe strives to obtain carbon neutrality in less than three decades. The compromises made in the US highlight a critical gap between US and EU approaches to climate policy. The Green Deal’s Just Transition Mechanism ensures that communities are not left behind economically without expanding the exploitation of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, The United States’ IRA concessions directly undermine clean energy policy goals. By relying on the concept of short-term bargaining in search of widespread political support, American climate policy is intrinsically weakened. The US and the EU both largely recognize the state of the environment to be a politically pressing issue; however, each governing body seeks transition in different ways. While the EU moves forward with structured commitments to carbon neutrality, the US remains caught in a tailspin of political inertia.
U.S. Climate Policy: A Pattern of Advancement and Regression
Faced with an inconsistent political structure, US climate policy is shaped by shifting priorities rather than a structured, long-term commitment like that of the European Union (EU). The EU has ensured continuity in the march toward carbon neutrality by ingraining it into the law; the US, not having taken similar action, remains vulnerable to reversals caused by changes in policy values. It is important to note that the structural variability in each government plays a significant role in the progress of each respective government toward combating climate-related issues. Written below is a summary of political leadership in each government as it relates to the success of climate policy.
Source: United States Capitol Police
EU (Parliamentary/Commission System)
The European Commission, not elected by the public but by EU member states and the European Parliament, proposes and enforces laws. Additionally, the European Commission generally maintains consistent stances on climate policymaking, which is a smoother and more stable approach to implementing policy.
a. Climate policy is typically a long-term goal set out by any government; in the EU, such climate policies are long-term and embedded into the law, meaning that there is no way they can be easily undone with each election, as is evident in the United States with the recent election of President Donald Trump.
US (Presidential System)
The Presidential Seat and Congressional Seats are elected separately; this means that all branches of the government can have opposing political agendas on climate policy. A concept of the country’s values is that the government may have multiple ideologies to allow for political freedom. The constant changing in ideology often results in sudden shifts in policy, pausing policies for up to eight years. With a congressional distribution of nearly 50/50, it is clear that difficulty frequently arises when attempting to pass ambitious climate legislation as the EU has done with the Green Deal.
Another aspect and challenge the United States faces when trying to implement climate policy is inconsistency in federal oversight. The divide that exists between the plethora of views that exists in Washington, and the states’ decision to implement climate policy or not demonstrates issues regarding the system of federalism. Moreover, as the US has seen with the recent reelection of President Donald Trump, the nation’s climate policies are capricious as a result of this changing in power every four to eight years. Conversely, the EU enforces policies across all of their member states, leaving no policy up to a particular member state on whether or not they can implement it or not. The United States leaves many decisions revolving around climate policy up to the states. For example, states like New York and California historically operate on more democratic ideals, pushing aggressive climate policies; other states, more conservative in nature, like Texas or Tennessee, expand fossil fuel production.
Ultimately, while the EU moves forward in the realm of climate justice, enforcing legally binding transitions, the United States falls behind, trying to remain ambitious regarding climate policy (only when individuals in power implement such ideals in his or her policies) while remaining incredibly constrained; thus, weakening the nation’s environmental progress on a global scale.