As expected, the European Union arrived at the New York climate summit without a concrete plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. What could have been a moment to reclaim global leadership in the fight against climate change, instead became a stage for others to seize attention: China and the US, each showing off different climate narratives.
To understand the stakes, we must look back at the 2015 Paris Agreement. That landmark accord set the goal of keeping the average global temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with an aspirational limit of 1.5°C, a target that now seems increasingly out of reach.
Signatory nations committed to progressively reducing emissions towards net zero and to submitting regular progress plans to the UN. At last week’s summit, member states were expected to outline their strategies for the next decade. The EU, which is negotiating as a bloc, failed to present a concrete roadmap, offering only a vague declaration of intent after internal disagreements over a 2035 target.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen framed this declaration in her summit address, pledging that the EU would mobilise up to €300 billion to support the clean transition worldwide and reiterating the bloc’s broader goals: a 90% emissions reduction by 2040 and full carbon neutrality by 2050. Ambitious on paper, but lacking the urgency that many experts argue the climate crisis demands.
It is here where the European Environment Agency (EEA) shines the spotlight in its latest report. While acknowledging “significant progress” in reducing emissions and air pollution, it warned that Europe’s overall environmental health remains poor, “putting the European way of life at risk.” In particular, the EEA highlighted the dramatic loss of land-based and marine biodiversity, driven by unsustainable production and consumption patterns.
European commissioners appear to recognise the threat. “Delaying or postponing climate targets would only increase costs, deepen inequalities, and weaken our resilience,” said Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera, responsible for competition and the green transition.
In the same line, Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra added: “the costs of inaction are enormous, and climate change poses a direct threat to our competitiveness.”
The report delivered more serious challenges to the EU’s environmental performance: over 80% of protected habitats remain in poor or bad condition; emissions from transport and food have barely changed since 2005; member states are falling behind in adapting to extreme weather as risks intensify; and water stress already affects one in three Europeans, and it will likely worsen as the climate crisis deepens.
China surprises but does not convince
Meanwhile, China’s move caught many observers off guard. In its previous climate plan, Beijing had pledged only to peak its emissions by 2030. The new strategy, however, sets a 7–10% reduction by 2035 and a major ramp-up in renewable energy, a step viewed as a meaningful reinforcement of Paris Agreement goals, although still below the 30% reduction many analysts consider necessary.
By contrast, the United States, under President Trump, has once again withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. In a lengthy UN address, Trump completely rejected climate action, calling it “the greatest hoax in the world,” while encouraging Europe to increase its reliance on fossil fuels from the US.
Within this complex international landscape, Europe risks losing its leadership in climate diplomacy. With a focus on simplification and boosting economic competitiveness, the EU’s climate ambitions may no longer be a top priority, jeopardising its chance to maintain a leading role on the global stage.
Alí El Majjaoui, Communications Consultant