Winter School Reflection: Can the EU deliver on its Green Deal promises?

Europaeum’s Seasonal Schools offer a unique opportunity to deepen knowledge about key topics while connecting with like-minded students from different European universities. The latest one was about the future of the European Green Deal (EGD). The more we learned about the EGD through the speakers’ views and backgrounds, the more we were impressed by its complexity. This article intends to unpack and reflect on the key challenges and opportunities of the EGD discussed, as well as our main takeaways from this fruitful Winter School.

Aline Gil, Mathilda Ketunuti, Ana Sánchez

You may have already seen previous articles on Europaeum schools in this blog, which bring together students and experts from academia, government, business, and the third sector to discuss relevant topics. From February 3 to 7,  Europaeum’s 2025 Winter School was held at Complutense Universidad de Madrid. It tackled a particularly urgent matter: the future of the European Green Deal. With a newly elected European Parliament and a changed composition of the European Commission, a critical question emerged: is Europe still on track to meet its climate goals?

To dissect this question, Europaeum assembled a distinguished lineup of speakers - ranging from business leaders to academic researchers and policy advisors from the European Commission, including from DG CLIMA. Yet, what truly made this event unique was not only the expertise and different perspectives of the speakers but also the diversity of its participants. 35 Master’s and PhD students from fields as varied as law, economics, international relations, neuroscience, pharmacy, engineering and natural sciences contributed to a rich, interdisciplinary discussion.

In addition to these expert contributions, students also had the opportunity to present their research. From the EPS program, Ana Sanchez discussed the European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and the EU’s normative power, while Aline Gil examined the impacts of the Farm to Fork Strategy on the EU-Mercosur Agreement negotiations. Beyond these presentations, the future of the European Green Deal was dissected holistically, covering themes such as the rights of nature, circular economy, sustainable food, ecosystem restoration, sustainable mobility, energy transition, and the EU’s competitiveness in the face of a green regulatory tsunami.

Of course, no discussion on the Green Deal is complete without some tension, as many times the proverb "agree to disagree" had to be put into practice—both among the roundtable speakers and within the wider audience. Between complex debates and caffeine-fueled networking, one thing became clear: the future of the Green Deal is as much about political will as it is about practical implementation. Will the EU manage to be at the forefront of climate action, or will it drown in the flood of competing interests and bureaucratic hurdles? The jury is still out. But even though we now have more questions than answers, the Winter School was definitely worth the application.

Energy transition debate

One of the roundtable discussions focused on the energy transition. A key point of debate was whether the EU should adopt a technology-neutral approach or prioritize renewables. Interestingly, a speaker pointed to Germany’s significant investment in green hydrogen, despite its high costs and uncertain feasibility. Others, for example, suggested incorporating natural gas as a transition fuel, while continuing to invest in renewables.

The conversation also delved into structural challenges, such as the high energy costs faced by industrial sectors and the growing competition from overseas—issues that have been extensively addressed in the Draghi and Letta reports. Emphasis was placed on the need for a stronger capital markets union to accelerate green innovation. Additionally, the discussions highlighted the critical importance of clear, consistent policies and regulatory stability to support a comprehensive and industry-wide transformation.

A major concern was carbon leakage—industries relocating to regions with lax regulations, undermining emissions reductions. A key insight was the difference between carbon produced and carbon consumed, highlighting Europe’s rising emissions despite policy efforts. Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), alongside the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS III), was proposed as a solution, though full implementation remains pending.

Overall, this debate highlighted the complexity of the energy transition and fueled questions on how to balance economic competitiveness, environmental goals and social equity.

Who has the responsibility

A key point of discussion was sustainability in food chain production. Speakers from major food industries, including dairy, meat, and fast food sectors, shared their strategies for reducing waste and promoting sustainable agriculture. Some highlighted the use of Science-Based Targets (SBTi) to align emissions reductions with the Paris Agreement. However, they also criticized the lack of impact assessments for the Farm to Fork Strategy, which aims to make food systems more sustainable by reducing environmental impacts, promoting healthy diets, and ensuring fair economic returns across the supply chain.

This led to a tense debate on behavioral changes in the market. While consumer demand for sustainable products is growing, affordability remains a major barrier. If companies struggle with green policies due to high costs and pass these costs to consumers—who often cannot afford them—where does the real change happen? Should regulations be adjusted? Should subsidies support vulnerable consumers? Should retailers prioritize sustainable products? The discussion exposed the complexity of shared responsibility.

Consumer advocacy groups have pointed out additional barriers that hinder consumers' ability to make informed decisions. A key issue is the lack of transparency in food labeling, which often results in misleading labels that impact consumer choices (e.g., Nutri-Score). Many consumers struggle to navigate these labels and to make truly informed decisions. The digital divide further complicates food access, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups—particularly older generations, rural populations, and those with lower levels of digital literacy. These groups often lack access to online platforms that provide crucial information about food origins, traceability, and nutritional content. 

While environmental protection is a shared responsibility, the global economy complicates its distribution, privatizing profits while socializing costs and limiting consumer agency (Eckersley, 2016). If industries hesitate to implement green policies due to high costs, and governments face regulatory trade-offs, the burden falls disproportionately on individuals, especially those least equipped to navigate these challenges. However, by trying to find a single responsible agent for the entire sustainable transformation of food chain production, we risk what Young (2011) warns: the effect of absolving everyone else from their share of responsibility when singling out culpable individuals, deepening systemic inequities. 

EU climate goals and global geopolitics

While most of the discussions at the Winter School focused on the future of the Green Deal within Europe, some presentations also touched upon the framework’s implications beyond the EU’s borders. 

The keynote session by an EU official working in international climate diplomacy detailed the EU’s efforts in this regard, much of which resembled the EU’s traditional approach to governance issues in the international domain. They spoke about the EU’s role model function as expressed by the ambitious EU Climate Law, which enshrines the Paris Agreement of 2015 and legally obliges the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, as well as by the EU’s role as the world’s largest climate finance donor. In this regard, the policymaker also argued that, in light of Trump’s return to the White House and his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the EU could and should assume an even greater leadership role to fill this vacuum. This view was, however, questioned by members of the audience, who pointed out that many EU member states are actually planning to reduce their climate finance resources in the years to come.

Another contested point of this keynote discussion was the EU official’s mention of the EU’s more recent efforts to promote climate action internationally with unilateral legislation externalising EU rules, such as the contested CBAM and EUDR. On the one hand, the new initiatives have drawn considerable criticism from third countries. On the other hand, their potential negative socioeconomic implications for developing countries along with their questionable effectiveness due to circumvention practices were also raised by the audience. This highlights the multifaceted tensions inherent in a more unilateral approach of the EU to international climate action.

The EU policymaker’s presentation of the EU’s current and future role in international climate governance was not only challenged by participants, but it also stood in contrast to an earlier keynote session by a sustainability business consultant. They warned that the EU was well on track to sacrifice its climate ambitions altogether on the altar of economic competitiveness, the new focus of the current European Commission. The consultant pointed to the recently published Competitiveness Compass, a proposal that is officially intended to simplify the EU’s regulatory landscape connected to the Green Deal, but that might actually water down its sustainability efforts, because it could reduce safeguards for environmental protection. Especially in light of the current rise of right-wing forces within the EU, there seems to be indeed a growing threat that its ambitious climate agenda and international climate leadership could be undermined from within.

Overall, the discussions at the Winter School highlighted the discrepancy between the fact that a clear commitment to advancing global climate action is way less certain within the EU compared to only a few years ago but that it is simultaneously more needed than ever. 

Takeaways

The Winter School demonstrated that the European Green Deal faces major challenges ahead, including climate funding, global cooperation, and the return of U.S. unilateralism under Trump. Securing adequate financing and maintaining international partnerships will be crucial for its success in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape.

A key takeaway is the art of framing and its contrast in between businesses, European Commission and civil society. While all speakers acknowledged the necessity of the transition, their perspectives often diverged. Business representatives focused on economic feasibility and industry competitiveness. Academics and civil society, on the other hand, placed strong emphasis on a just transition, ensuring that no one is left behind. Meanwhile, Commission representatives gave an absolute masterclass in diplomacy and, naturally, in “speaking fluent Von der Leyen”. Their speeches seamlessly wove in the new lexicon of the second mandate, where “clean” energy has replaced “green,” and “decarbonization” now outshines “sustainability.” Still, the Commission offered valuable insights, after all, who better to explain regulations than those drafting them, and who better to discuss their impact than the businesses and civil society navigating them?

That said, diplomatic finesse also means knowing when to shy away from certain discussions. Some speakers pointed out the lack of transparency regarding the Omnibus directive, which wasn’t properly addressed, even with straightforward questions regarding it. While “simplification” is framed as a way to improve efficiency and reduce bureaucratic burdens, there is also a valid concern that it could lead to regulatory rollbacks, potentially compromising sustainability efforts and promoting legal uncertainty for investors. Balancing competitiveness with climate ambition remains a delicate act that, judging by the discussions, will require continuous negotiation in the years ahead.

Understanding the consensual and conflicting frames between the different speakers was a great opportunity to gain a better understanding of the European Green Deal. Despite the differences in approaching the topic, most presentations and discussions shared a common message: we are already in the midst of a severe climate crisis, and current EU and international efforts fall far short of what is needed to tackle this challenge. Nevertheless, exchanging thoughts with and hearing innovative ideas of so many motivated young people, policymakers, academics and business representatives was really inspiring. We therefore also left Madrid with a feeling of hope regarding the future of the Green Deal.

All in all, we truly recommend you to apply to the next Europaeum seasonal schools, as they are unique opportunities to learn, network, travel and have fun!