The policy landscape for environmentalists has always been fast shifting, but ever since the Paris Agreement, the trend until recently has generally been one of positive progress. Annually, in spite of any disappointments from successive COPs, the trajectory was towards improved Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), deepening discussions on further agreements and treaties, and a lingering sense of hope that the 1.5 degree target could somehow be met, one way or another. However, progress on the policy front was accompanied by science providing increasingly dire warnings about the state of the climate.

As climate science improves, so does our awareness increase that we are in a much more dangerous situation than anticipated. In other words, our room for error is narrowly shrinking not only because not enough progress is being made to reduce global emissions, but because we were far too optimistic about how many greenhouse gases we could afford to emit to begin with. Since the end of 2024, however, the global policy direction has shifted dramatically as a result of the federal government of the United States taking an openly antagonistic position on the fight against climate change. In tandem, climate science has only continued to paint an increasingly devastating picture for the planet. This confluence must force urgent conversation amongst activists on how to deal with an ever more desperate reality, given we are currently on track for 2.6°C.

The State of ESG

To be able to take effective action, one must first have a clear understanding of the state of things. From my position working in policy in the corporate world, intersecting with the ESG field, the impact of the global policy shift on the environment is visible in the business world. While ESG is still very much alive, it has lost its sense of inevitability, as many US and global companies shift priorities. The US hosts the world’s largest market for publicly traded equities and serves as the primary venue where most ESG-related shareholder proposals are voted on. As a result, voting outcomes in U.S. proxy seasons have often provided a useful indication of which sustainability and governance issues institutional investors view as materially relevant to corporate performance. Research cited by ShareAction found only about 1.4% of ESG-related shareholder resolutions received majority support, compared with roughly 21% in 2021. 

The number of “significant” environmental and social resolutions dropped to about 30 in 2025, compared with more than 100 annually in previous years. Nonetheless, the same research shows European asset managers maintained support levels around 90–91% over the same period. Before one concludes that the decline of ESG is merely a US phenomenon, however, one must keep in mind that the European Commission has since implemented its Omnibus simplification package. This package includes watering down the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The changes extended implementation timelines and narrowed the scope of companies subject to some reporting and supply-chain obligations, reflecting concerns about administrative burden and economic competitiveness. Separately, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which requires companies to demonstrate that certain imported commodities are not linked to deforestation, was postponed by one year. Separately, the EU’s 2035 phase-out of new combustion-engine cars has been politically contested, with provisions allowing continued sales of vehicles running on certified carbon-neutral e-fuels under discussion as part of the regulatory framework. These developments indicate a degree of recalibration in the EU’s sustainability policy framework, while the broader architecture of disclosure and sustainable finance rules remains in place.

Europe Keeps Calm and Carries On

In spite of the European Union slowing its progress on certain environmental commitments, the overall policy direction under the current Commission remains one focused on upholding its ultimate decarbonisation targets. Within that context, more so than ever, the European Union offers an opportunity for continued climate leadership and trend setting on the global stage, developing and implementing green technologies and policies which may be utilised elsewhere.

While the European Union accounts for less than 8% of current global greenhouse gas emissions, it remains one of the few jurisdictions capable of shaping international regulatory norms through market size and legislative integration. Several EU instruments already function in this way. The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, for example, introduces a carbon price on selected imports such as steel, cement, aluminium, fertilisers and electricity, linking access to the European market with carbon pricing principles. Exporters supplying the EU must now account for the embedded emissions of their products, creating incentives for emissions accounting systems and carbon pricing policies to develop in other jurisdictions. A similar dynamic is visible in financial regulation. The EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation and the EU Taxonomy Regulation.

For every action there is a reaction. While reactionary forces attempt to undo climate progress, electoral cycles are likely to bring environmentalism back to the fore as the impacts of climate change are increasingly felt and experienced. Under different circumstances, a valid strategy for an activist to resist with confidence that the policy pendulum can swing back in their direction after an election cycle or two. Progress sometimes comes in the form of two steps forward, and one step back, for a net gain in the wider policy battle. However, as any environmentalist knows, the urgency around the climate fight, and the path dependence from building more fossil fuel infrastructure, means that time is the one thing that we do not have. 

Practical and Actionable

To maximise efficiency and efficacy, activists should become increasingly strategic in their allocation of resources. Taking stock of the positive legislation already in place in Europe, activists may pivot from macro policy to addressing barriers preventing the full realisation of environmental benefits from legislation and regulations already in place. Grid congestion, lengthy permitting procedures, and supply-chain bottlenecks are now widely identified as the primary barriers slowing renewable expansion. Wind projects in several member states continue to face approval processes exceeding five years, while electricity networks require rapid expansion to integrate variable generation and cross-border power flows. In practical terms, this shifts climate advocacy toward the administrative and infrastructural layers of the transition. Permitting reform, spatial planning for renewable projects, and accelerated grid investment have become central policy battlegrounds. The revised Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2023/2413 already obliges member states to designate “renewables acceleration areas” and shorten approval timelines, yet implementation remains uneven. Monitoring whether national governments translate these requirements into functioning permitting regimes is likely to be as consequential for renewable deployment as the headline targets themselves.

At the same time, adaptation is moving from a secondary concern to a parallel policy track. Under the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, member states are expected to integrate climate risk into infrastructure planning, water management, and urban development. Extreme heat, drought, and flooding are already generating measurable economic costs across southern and central Europe. The policy challenge now lies in translating risk assessments into investment decisions, strengthening flood defences, redesigning urban environments to manage heat, restoring ecosystems that buffer climate impacts, and ensuring that critical infrastructure, from electricity grids to transport corridors, remains resilient under changing climatic conditions.

The path ahead requires both precision and persistence. Activists in Europe have an opportunity to operate within a landscape where the legislative and regulatory scaffolding for decarbonisation and resilience already exists, but where implementation gaps, bottlenecks, and institutional inertia threaten to slow progress. Strategic engagement can take multiple forms, from advocating for accelerated permitting and grid expansion, holding national authorities accountable for timely rollout of renewables, monitoring the allocation of adaptation funds, and influencing industrial and financial actors to internalise sustainability standards. By focusing on these leverage points, climate movements can convert policy frameworks into tangible outcomes, ensuring that the EU’s legislative ambition translates into measurable reductions in emissions and strengthened climate resilience. In a world where political cycles and global setbacks create uncertainty, sustained, technically informed activism is the mechanism through which Europe can continue to lead, not just as a standard-setter, but as a model of actionable climate governance.