The EU, as the largest bloc of developed countries, faces high expectations at COP31 and often presents itself as a global leader on climate action. But that leadership is harder to sustain when key climate policies are being weakened or delayed at home. To remain credible internationally, the EU needs to match its ambition abroad with stronger action at home and deeper cooperation with its partners.
Around 80 world leaders are expected to attend the COP31 leaders segment on 11/12 November, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is confirmed to be there as well. (However, unfortunately, many national EU leaders are missing). One critical question is how she will present the European Union’s claimed climate leadership role at a time when domestically many flagship climate policies are being fought over, weakened or dismantled. Of course, this is a question not only towards von der Leyen but for the EU and its Member States as a whole.
As the recent UNEP report Limiting overshoot makes clear, every fraction of a degree avoided will save lives, protect ecosystems and reduce economic losses. Keeping the 1.5°C limit within reach therefore requires a rapid shift from commitments towards implementation: delivering real emissions reductions, accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels, scaling up adaptation and climate finance, and addressing the structural barriers that prevent countries from implementing climate action fairly.
Positively, we recently have seen some efforts to gain back momentum in the EU’s fight against the climate crisis based on the evidence and perspective that not doing so undermines the EU’s future economic, social and environmental prospects. When President von der Leyen, in her State of the Union speech in September, labelled Europe's recent record-breaking heatwaves and compounding energy challenges as a "summer of truth", she made attempts to leverage this context to push for faster decarbonization and systemic economic changes.
Hard Economic Facts for Climate Action
The hard economic facts can no longer be ignored. By some estimates, for example from Allianz, Europe faced productivity losses from this summer heatwave in the order of over €100 billion. Average annual climate-related material damages due to the extremes in Europe in recent years have amounted to an order of €50 billion per year. These facts are also at the centre of the recently presented EU Climate Resilience Framework, which aims to step up the EU’s efforts to better prepare for a climate reality that is now a reality that cannot be ignored, and is going to get worse. It proposes a systemic change considering the obvious gaps that this summer - and various other seasons with extreme events - have exposed.
It is also a matter of reducing Europe’s import dependency.
Recent research by CAN Europe and partners has shown, on the other side of the equation, that there is a massive potential climate dividend for Europe which is yet largely untapped. Climate action does not mean only cutting emissions but also brings a whole range of benefits, directly impacting people’s daily lives. The report puts numbers on the benefits of climate action that are often missing from debates focused on the cost of the transition: lower energy expenditure, new jobs, better health, fewer working days lost to illness and avoided global climate damage. For example, stronger energy-saving measures could provide over €826 billion in yearly monetised co-benefits by 2030. This is also a matter of reducing Europe’s import dependency, and this matters beyond cost: heavy reliance on fossil fuels leaves European consumers exposed to geopolitical pressure, price shocks, and supply disruptions largely outside the EU’s control, risks that recent Gulf tensions and the post-2022 scramble to replace Russian gas have both made concrete rather than hypothetical.
Not to forget: Europe has now been hit by two fossil fuel price shocks in four years. Since March, the EU has paid an estimated €100 billion premium for the same imports, and the total bill for 2026 is on track to hit €450 billion.
Lack of Coherent Plan and Backward Dynamics
However, the EU is far from having a consistent and determined strategy to make the right choices now.
Just a few days ago, the European Commission published its annual work plan for 2027. After a “summer of truth” where Europeans’ lives and livelihoods were heavily impacted by climate change, the workplan proposes simplification over climate ambition. There is also no commitment to addressing the root cause of Europe’s fossil fuel crisis. A post-2030 climate and energy framework that doesn’t include an integrated European roadmap to end dependency on fossil fuels at its core, falls far short of what is needed to deliver an affordable and secure energy supply for Europeans and that keeps in line with the EU’s climate commitments.
The proposals for the revision of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS), which covers the bulk of Europe’s energy and industry emissions, risk threatening the investment prospects of those more progressive companies which have banked their strategies on emission-reducing business models, and could release an additional two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by 2040 compared to the current trajectory, a concern also flagged in a recent letter of a multi-stakeholder coalition CAN Europe coordinates. There are clear business voices which do not support a weakening, but they are not yet given enough attention.
There is a big risk that Member States lose themselves in a jungle of unclear and potentially uneven rules.
Yes, the EU managed to put the 90 percent reduction target by 2040 into law, after very intense internal battles and negotiations. However, major bits and pieces of the underpinning legislation are not yet clear, and the Commission’s 2027 work plan no longer mentions clearly the tabling of the legislative files on national targets and tackling land-use emissions, and on the use of international credits. There is a big risk that, in their calls for flexibilities and simplification here and there, Member States lose themselves in a jungle of unclear and potentially uneven rules - some of which would yet have to be developed - potentially leading to a framework which prioritises accounting exercises over real-world emission reductions. Working with the current framework with established rules might even be simpler.
Despite having already received major concessions in the 2040 negotiations, some Member States continue to push for further delay or abolishment of the so-called ETS2 on housing and transport, without putting on the table any proposal on how to ensure the envisaged emission reductions and investment to be financed from the revenues in another way. Some countries want to spend dozens of billions of euros of taxpayers’ money on expensive (and partially unproven) nuclear reactors instead of prioritising a power system based on renewables, energy efficiency and storage technologies.
Much of this pushback reflects the influence of the fossil fuel industry and right-wing or conservative voices, which fail to recognise the fundamental shifts that are needed and already under way. Europe must prepare for a future marked by massive climate impacts, while charting a clear path away from fossil fuels to reduce its energy dependence and improve its competitiveness.
Credibility Test at COP31
The EU struggles to make a convincing case for greater climate ambition internationally while weakening action at home. But the solution cannot be to step away from multilateral cooperation or from efforts to raise global ambition.
Instead, the EU’s diplomacy at COP31 needs to be backed by strong domestic policies aimed at reducing dependency on volatile fossil fuel prices, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening economic resilience, and delivering a fair transition to climate neutrality. That means accelerating the deployment of renewables, electrification and energy savings, while putting Europe on a clear path away from fossil fuels.
The EU should also phase out fossil fuel subsidies, introduce taxation of fossil fuel profits and stop financial institutions from continuing to bankroll fossil fuel expansion. The EU also needs to acknowledge its own shortcomings and be careful not to present itself as if everything were gold and glory, but recognise other countries’ efforts and build alliances.
Governments already agreed on the need for a just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels (TAFF) at the first Global Stocktake at COP28. COP31 must now focus on how to make it happen. The EU should push for practical national roadmaps that accelerate the deployment of renewables, energy savings and electrification while steadily phasing out coal, oil and gas. Countries with the greatest responsibility and resources must move fastest, while developing countries need finance, technology and international support to make the transition possible.
No country is alone in facing the challenge of how to best deliver a just transition . This is why a new just transition mechanism adopted at COP31 could become an important tool to recognise and actively tackle some of the shared challenges involved.
Climate, industrial, trade and finance policies should all point in the same direction.
COP31 should also strengthen international cooperation beyond the negotiations themselves, including efforts to address the economic and legal barriers that can make it harder for countries to leave fossil fuels behind. Europe’s trade and investment policies also matter. They should help partner countries build clean industries and resilient economies, rather than limiting governments’ ability to regulate or locking them into extractive economic models.
Finally, the EU must put sufficient money behind its international commitments, including through its next long-term budget. International leadership at COP31 starts with coherent implementation across the EU’s climate, energy, economic, trade and investment policies. Putting its own house in order will require the EU to develop a clear roadmap to phase out fossil fuels in line with trajectories compatible with the 1.5°C goal. Climate, industrial, trade and finance policies should all point in the same direction rather than locking countries into continued fossil fuel dependence.
