Reading time: 7 minutes
As European economies grapple with tight regulations, high energy costs and increasing dependence on foreign resources, policymakers, industry leaders, energy and economic experts and analysts gathered at a think tank conference in Brussels to explore alternatives to current EU policies. All three sessions of the MCC Brussels event on Wednesday, entitled New impetus: economic growth beyond the Green Deal, were well-attended. The conference addressed the economic impact of environmental regulations, in particular the Green Deal and its successor, the Clean Industrial Deal. Discussions focused on the deindustrialization of Europe, the challenges of energy affordability and maintaining global competitiveness. With the start of the new mandate of the European Commission, the event critically examined whether a fundamental policy shift is needed to boost economic growth.
Panel 1: Europe’s Economic Reality and the Impact of the Green Deal
Frank Füredi, Executive Director of MCC Brussels, inaugurated the conference by questioning how the European Green Deal and its socio-economic consequences would be evaluated fifteen years from now. He argued that the European Union (EU) employs green ideology as a means to justify its inefficiencies and maintain legitimacy. Füredi introduced a report titled The EU’s Propaganda Machine by Thomas Fazi, which details how the EU funds NGOs to bolster its image, thereby corrupting democracy.
Austrian MEP Roman Haider, a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety, contended that the Green Deal stifles innovation, shrinking the European economy and prompting industrial displacement. He highlighted two primary concerns: rising energy prices and an unstable energy supply.
Haider pointed to three key factors behind the surge in energy costs. First, the European Emission Trading System (ETS), which mandates industrial companies to purchase emission certificates, has seen certificate prices escalate from 5 euros per ton in 2017 to 80 euros per ton in 2025. This cost burden, coupled with varying national CO2 pricing schemes, places European industry at a disadvantage, particularly against the U.S., where no CO2 taxes exist. The chemical industry, he noted, is particularly vulnerable to these escalating costs. Furthermore, ETS Phase 2, slated for implementation in 2027, will extend penalties to buildings and mobility, exacerbating inflation.
Second, Haider discussed the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), originally designed to align the carbon cost of imports with domestic production costs. However, he asserted that CBAM undermines the competitiveness of European exporters by impeding trade agreements with global partners.
Finally, he criticized the ban on combustion engines, arguing that while it minimally reduces CO2 emissions, it significantly harms the automotive industry.
Beyond energy prices, Haider warned that Europe’s alternative energy sources are unreliable, risking power shortages. Meanwhile the increased use of AI inevitably led to an increase in power consumption. As well as EU innovation which is seriously hampered by the power shortages. Additionally, the EU’s proclaimed energy autonomy through the green transition is a myth, as the shift to renewables demands raw materials such as lithium, cobalt, platinum, and copper, which are largely sourced from China—merely replacing one dependency with another.
Ministerial Commissioner for Directly Managed EU Funds in Hungary, Bernadett Petri, examined the origins of the Green Deal, criticizing its ideological underpinnings. She argued that the EU’s ambition to become the first climate-neutral continent was unrealistic and driven by political pressures from left-wing fractions in the European Parliament. Petri raised concerns about lobbying scandals involving Franz Timmermans and questioned the use of taxpayers’ money to promote the Green Deal. She concluded that while environmental policies are essential, they should focus on justice, economic feasibility, and the rule of law.
Nicolas Ravailhe, a lecturer at the Paris School of Economic Warfare, acknowledged the necessity of the Green Deal but emphasized the need for clearer regulations. He stressed that the EU cannot lower energy prices or regain competitiveness without embracing nuclear power. Echoing Haider’s concerns, he lamented Europe’s lack of innovation and called for an EU-wide innovation strategy. Once Europe has set and apply reasonable rules, we could go on the world market and conclude free trade agreements. Furthermore, he advocated for a restructured financing system for both the EU budget and NGOs, promoting greater transparency and efficiency.
During the Q&A session, panelists discussed how energy price regulation will evolve. Haider offered a pessimistic outlook due to European Emission Trading System (ETS) 2’s upcoming implementation, while Petri noted that many member states are seeking ways to opt out of Green Deal provisions. She also called for a budget reform that brings simplification, transparency that stops scandals and misuse of taxpayers’ money. Audience members expressed concerns about the deal’s reliance on economic stagnation, low productivity, and what some described as a “Thunbergist” ideological framework.
Panel 2: Powering European Growth
The second panel, Powering European Growth, addressed Europe’s energy crisis and explored potential solutions. Moderated by Agnieszka Kolek, the panel included Tomasz Cukiernik, Professor James Woudhuysen, and Professor Samuel Furfari.
Tomasz Cukiernik, author of Climate Sabotage: How the Energy Transition is Ruining Our Lives?, discussed Poland’s coal industry, emphasizing that despite the country’s vast reserves, EU policies have led to mine closures and increased energy costs. He argued that Poland must resist the Green Deal to maintain energy sovereignty.
James Woudhuysen, Visiting Professor in Forecasting and Innovation at the University of London South Bank, criticized Europe’s reluctance to embrace nuclear energy, fracking, and advanced energy transmission technologies. He contended that bureaucratic stagnation is hindering Europe’s ability to compete with China and the United States.
Samuel Furfari, professor of energy geopolitics and energy politics at the Free University Brussels and former EU Commision official, condemned Europe’s energy policies, arguing that an overreliance on renewables ignores fundamental energy realities. He asserted that fossil fuels remain crucial for economic stability and growth.
During the open debate the panellists addressed concerns, emphasizing that Europe’s CO2 emissions are minimal on a global scale and that the technological advancements is what should drive change, rather than economic sacrifice. They discussed the often missed environmental impact of renewable energy, argued that large-scale wind and solar farms require substantial land and resources, often harming biodiversity.
The panellists agreed that Europe’s energy strategy must shift from ideological commitments to practical, diversified solutions. They called for investment in nuclear, fossil fuels, and innovative technologies to ensure energy security and economic competitiveness.
Panel 3: Re-energize: Finding an Alternative Vision to the Green Deal
Bill Durodié, visiting researcher at MCC Brussels and Professor at the University of Bath, opened the final panel by criticizing the European Commission for promoting a pessimistic vision of the future. He argued that the EC manipulates public perception by instilling guilt and fear, convincing citizens that prosperity must come at the expense of their living standards. According to Durodié, this ideology transforms individuals from producers and innovators into passive consumers burdened by climate guilt.
Durodié also emphasized the role of language in shaping societal transformation, arguing that today’s environmental discourse blames human action rather than inaction. He criticized European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s characterization of the Green Deal as a “man on the moon” project, dismissing it as pseudo-science and a desperate attempt at self-legitimization by disconnected elites.
Thomas Deichmann, publicist and communications expert in the chemical industry, traced the Green Deal’s roots back three decades, noted that the media and NGOs have systematically shaped public discourse to favor anti-industrial policies. He criticized Germany’s leadership for initiating deindustrialization without securing investment stability. He argued that CO2 reduction policies are meaningless without considering global trends, noting that fossil fuels will still provide 50-60% of energy in 2050.
In the subsequent debate, Durodié and Deichmann discussed the political transformation of green ideology. While originally championed by left-wing movements, the Green Deal has now been embraced across the political spectrum, marginalizing conservative voices in public discourse. The panel also criticized NGOs for their role in propagating climate alarmism while lacking transparency and democratic oversight.
During the Q&A session, Frank Füredi explored the historical origins of green ideology, linking it to the decline of Marxism in the West during the 1970s. He argued that green politics provided a new ideological anchor for the left, while conservatives failed to develop a counter-narrative. Audience questions centered on the performative nature of modern environmental narratives, the evolving role of youth in climate activism, and concerns about the European funding system’s influence on scientific research.
