Saving the Green Deal: A Climate Justice and Human Rights Imperative
By Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Associate Professor at University of Amsterdam , Annalisa Savaresi, Professor at University of Eastern Finland and Corina Heri, Assistant Professor at Tilburg University
This blogpost was first published at GNHRE blog (February 24, 2025)
Introduction
The European Green Deal — the EU’s flagship strategy to reach climate neutrality by 2050 and halt environmental degradation—launched a significant wave of EU environmental reforms under the von der Leyen I Commission. It set goals including climate neutrality and zero pollution, alongside more stringent enforcement to bolster environmental protection. By the end of the last EU Parliament, 91 legislative initiatives had been adopted. The Green Deal, however, is under mounting threat. In recent months, a coalition of political and economic forces have mobilized to weaken or roll back key Green Deal measures. Conservative and far-right voices are denouncing climate and biodiversity laws as “overreach” or “red tape,” while corporate lobbyists push to dilute regulations under the banner of cutting bureaucracy and boosting competitiveness. This backlash not only jeopardizes Europe’s ability to meet its climate and environmental objectives but also threatens human rights, environmental justice, and the rule of law. In this blog post, we examine the stakes of dismantling the Green Deal, some of the legal obligations that require Europe to stay the course, and the rule-of-law issues at stake.
The Political and Corporate Backlash Against the Green Deal
Across Europe, right-wing and conservative politicians are leading a backlash against the Green Deal. In the European Parliament, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP)–the EU’s largest political group–has shifted from supporting Green Deal legislation to actively sabotaging it. As the 2024 EU elections approached, the EPP was “on the hunt to kill all meaningful greening legislation of the Green Deal” in a bid to court agribusiness and other industries. Elected EPP politicians, allied with far-right and populist MEPs, have since launched concerted attacks on laws protecting biodiversity and sustainable food production.
This political pressure is not limited to Brussels. In several member States, conservative governments are echoing the call to slow down green policies. The French government, for instance, has called for delaying the ‘burden’ of new environmental, human rights rules for businesses. In the Netherlands, a new right-wing agrarian party surged by opposing cuts on farm emissions, emboldening mainstream conservatives to demand a re‑assessment of Green Deal measures. BusinessEurope and other corporate groups have argued that Green Deal regulations burden businesses, urging the EU to scale back climate and biodiversity policies. This has already led to attempts to weaken the EU’s Deforestation Regulation, pesticide reduction targets, and corporate due diligence legislation.
Even European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen– for whom the Green Deal is a hallmark of her first term–has felt compelled to announce measures to substantially reform the Green Deal. Far-right factions have capitalized on this rhetoric: they openly invited the EPP to join forces in suspending the Green Deal altogether. Under pressure, the EU Commission, has introduced deregulation proposals—referred to as “omnibus” packages—rolling back hard-won environmental measures adopted by the last EU legislature. This retreat risks undermining not only environmental protection but also the rule of law, as laws enacted through democratic processes are being eroded through opaque and ad-hoc negotiations.
The Risks of Rolling Back EULaws and Policies
Weakening the Green Deal could significantly compromise the achievement of Europe’s climate and biodiversity goals, as well as environmental justice. The EU’s legally binding commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, enshrined in the European Climate Law, will be derailed if climate policies are loosened. Scientists warn that any delay in emissions reductions will make it impossible to meet the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal, setting the world on track for even more catastrophic climate change, from devastating wildfires to deadly heatwaves. The Copernicus Climate Change Service recently confirmed that 2024 was the warmest year on record globally, and the first calendar year that the average global temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Biodiversity protection is also in jeopardy. The EU’s Nature Restoration Law, which faced significant opposition during its negotiation, aims to reverse the collapse of EU ecosystems and enhance resilience. Rolling back these measures could result in catastrophic outcomes the legislation was intended to prevent, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities who are more vulnerable to environmental degradation and extreme weather events.
Internationally, a retreat from the Green Deal would weaken Europe’s diplomatic credibility. As the United States withdraws from the Paris Agreement, the EU’s commitment to climate action and climate finance for developing countries has become more crucial than ever. If the EU also backtracks, it sends an extremely dangerous signal: that wealthy nations will flinch on climate commitments when faced with adverse political winds. This could dampen ambition in other major emitters and weaken global cooperation, mostly to the detriment of vulnerable nations in the Global South. Overall, it risks compromising the integrity of the entire climate regime at a time when it most needs protection.
A weakened Green Deal may also lead to more environmental harm being exported abroad. For example, if the EU waters down recently introduced rules on agricultural imports, it could spur more deforestation and human rights abuses in producer countries. Indigenous peoples and local communities in Latin America, Africa, and Asia could face intensified land grabs and forest loss as a result of the EU’s lowered standards.
The Legal and Human Rights Framework Protecting the Green Deal
The EU’s legal framework mandates significant climate and environmental action. Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) commits the Union to high environmental protection standards, integrating sustainability into all policy areas. The European Climate Law further binds the EU to achieve at least a 55% emissions reduction by 2030. It requires that the transition to climate neutrality is irreversible (art. 1), and that policies across the Union are coherent with the climate objectives (art. 5). Any backtracking on Green Deal measures risks breaching these legally binding commitments.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has spelled out States’ obligations to address climate change under human rights law. In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen et al. v. Switzerland, the Court ruled that insufficient climate action can violate human rights, and that States have positive obligations to protect vulnerable populations. Specifically, the Court found that Switzerland’s climate policy was insufficient to protect the rights of elderly women facing heatwave risks, violating their right to private or family life (and also denying an effective hearing, violating the right to access justice). Building on this case, which concerns Switzerland and therefore an EU non-Member State, that same Court is currently examining whether EU Member States have met their human rights obligations by adhering to EU climate policies (Müllner v. Austria). Walking these policies back and failing to uphold Green Deal commitments could trigger the international responsibility of EU member states and institutions for violating various obligations. These include setting a specific timeline and quantification for achieving carbon neutrality, establishing and updating intermediate GHG emissions reduction targets, providing compliance evidence, and acting timely and appropriately in devising and implementing relevant legislation (KlimaSeniorinnen, para. 550).
Beyond climate mitigation, the EU has a vast body of environmental law that remains in force and cannot simply be ignored without legal consequence. Member States have binding national targets for renewable energy and energy efficiency, emissions ceilings for air pollutants, and obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directives to prevent the deterioration of protected natural sites. Should governments or EU institutions actively undermine these laws or fail to implement them, they face legal accountability through infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). They may also find themselves being held responsible for human rights violations given that the ECtHR recently issued a decisive new judgment clarifying States’ obligations to deal with pollution. Overall, walking back the Green Deal is likely to push environmental issues towards resolution in the courts, risking piecemeal and non-participatory solutions.
The EU and its member States are also bound by international agreements and human rights norms that require them to maintain robust climate and environmental protections. These include the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, both ratified by the EU and its Member States. Crucially, the Paris Agreement embodies the principle of progression: each country’s successive Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) must represent a “progression” beyond the current one and reflect the highest possible ambition (Article 4.3). There is thus an obligation of no backsliding—once a climate goal is set, future efforts should escalate, not diminish. The EU’s NDC, revised in 2023, mirrors the climate objectives enshrined in the European Climate Law and the Green Deal: at least -55% emissions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050. Weakening the Green Deal endangers the EU’s ability to fulfill the pledges made in its NDC. If the EU were to lower its ambition or fall short of its NDC, it would violate its obligations under the Paris Agreement and undermine the trust among nations that each will honour its commitments.
Another international agreement, the Aarhus Convention, requires governments to inform and involve the public in environmental decision-making and to maintain access to legal remedy for environmental harm. When a public authority reconsiders or updates environmental laws, it should provide an opportunity for public participation (Article 6(10)). A rushed omnibus deregulation that revises multiple environmental laws without proper public consultation conflicts with required standards. Additionally, dismantling Green Deal policies without adequate consultation or limiting citizens’ ability to challenge decisions breaches the EU’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention. Some right-wing MEPs have furthermore proposed to freeze funding for environmental organizations, which hampers public participation and access to justice, contrary to the Convention’s objectives.
Rule of Law and Governance Implications
Attempts to roll back the Green Deal raise serious rule of law concerns. The rule of law encompasses principles of good governance, legal certainty, democratic accountability, and fidelity to commitments. Undermining climate and environmental policies that have been duly enacted through democratic processes would violate these principles in significant ways.
A core tenet of the rule of law is that laws, once adopted, provide a stable and predictable framework that citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders can rely on. The legal instruments adopted under the Green Deal were negotiated and passed through the European Parliament and Council, creating legitimate expectations that these new rules would guide investment and behavior for years to come. If these laws are suddenly weakened or their implementation delayed for political reasons, this would erode legal certainty. For example, companies that spent resources to comply with new sustainability reporting rules or deforestation-free supply chain requirements now see those rules possibly watered down or postponed.
A Green Deal rollback would undermine public trust more broadly. Europeans have increasingly demanded bold climate action – from the record number of citizens who backed initiatives like the Ban Glyphosate ECI and the Save Bees and Farmers campaign, to the youth climate strikes filling city streets. They expect the EU to deliver on its rhetoric and commitments of a green transition. To retreat now would represent a grave breach of faith, undermining trust in governance. The deregulatory push also raises transparency concerns. The European Commission’s fast-tracked “simplification” packages have been prepared with unusual secrecy, with even Members of the European Parliament kept “out of the loop” until the last minute. This undermines democratic accountability, violating principles of good governance and participatory decision-making.
At the global level, failing to uphold international climate commitments would damage Europe’s global reputation and trade relationships. If the EU were to default on climate and environmental commitments (for instance, missing its climate targets or watering down laws that implement those targets), it would constitute a breach of its international obligations. This has diplomatic and legal ramifications: other parties could accuse the EU of bad faith or even trigger international disputes. Internally, Article 216 of the TFEU makes international agreements binding on the EU institutions and Member States – so not honouring the EU’s commitments under the Paris Agreement could be seen as violating EU law too. From a rule-of-law standpoint, consistency between what the EU says on the world stage and what it does at home is essential. Rolling back the Green Deal would break that consistency, raising concerns about EU credibility and integrity.
Protecting and Advancing the European Green Deal
In these challenging times for EU democratic governance and the rule of law, decisive action is essential to protect the progress achieved with the European Green Deal.The European Commission must ensure full implementation of legislative instruments adopted under the Green Deal and take legal action against member States failing to comply with their climate and environmental obligations. The European Parliament and Council should decisively reject omnibus deregulation packages that weaken environmental protections. Some Members of the European Parliament have initiated the Save the Green Deal! campaign, which garnered thousands of signatures within the first few hours of its launch. Supporting this campaign is crucial to highlight public opposition to the rollback of the EU’s climate and environmental ambitions.
Civil society, academics, and progressive businesses must debunk false claims and mobilize support for ongoing climate and environmental initiatives. It is also crucial to clearly communicate the benefits of the Green Deal, such as clean air, job creation, and energy security, and the long-term costs of undermining it. At the same time, addressing socio-economic issues is essential to sustain public support for the Green Deal. Enhancing the Social Climate Fund and ensuring fair support for workers and vulnerable communities can counteract narratives that portray climate action as a burden.
The challenges facing the European Green Deal are not just political; they fundamentally concern the type of society Europe envisions for its future. The debate on the future of the Green Deal is a test of Europe’s commitment to sustainability, human rights, social equity and the rule of law. If abandoned or weakened, it would make a mockery of the EU’s professed global leadership in addressing the climate crisis and erode the foundations of environmental justice. Rather than succumbing to short-term economic pressures and political opportunism, the EU must reaffirm its dedication to a just transition that leaves no one behind. Ensuring the Green Deal’s success is a collective responsibility that demands unwavering political will, legal enforcement, and an engaged citizenry that holds leaders accountable. The path forward requires bold action, not hesitation, in the face of one of the greatest challenges of our time.