Woke European leaders scolded Trump for championing fossil fuels over green energy… now they’re all copying him
A Daily Mail report says European leaders who criticised Donald Trump for prioritising fossil fuels over green energy are now rolling back their own climate commitments, moves the White House has hailed as "common sense making a comeback". Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump scrapped the EPA Endangerment Finding, withdrew from the Paris Agreement and paused Inflation Reduction Act clean energy funding, drawing criticism from figures such as Germany's Robert Habeck and EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. Less than two years on, energy historian Daniel Yergin says European governments are now shifting focus towards economic competitiveness instead.
The EU is proposing to relax its carbon-pricing system, effectively giving car manufacturers longer to keep producing petrol vehicles, while Germany has cut renewable subsidies and dropped plans to mandate green home heating systems amid slowing economic growth. In the UK, new Prime Minister Andy Burnham is reportedly preparing to permit fresh North Sea oil production and is reviewing electric vehicle sales targets, having told Trump he intends to be "pragmatic" on drilling. INEOS Group had previously warned that Europe's green targets risked "industrial suicide", closing several plants, while a White House spokesman said Trump had "delivered" on rolling back climate goals in favour of affordable energy.
- European leaders are reversing climate policies after once criticising Trump's fossil fuel stance
- EU weakening carbon pricing; Germany cutting renewable subsidies and heating mandates
- UK's Burnham considering new North Sea drilling and reviewing EV targets
New here? Start with this
Since 2025, Donald Trump's administration has rolled back several US climate policies, scrapping a key finding that underpinned environmental regulation, pulling America out of the Paris climate agreement, and pausing clean energy funding. This drew criticism from senior European figures, including Germany's Robert Habeck and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, who accused Trump of favouring fossil fuels over the shift to renewable energy.
Now, less than two years later, several European governments are adjusting their own climate policies in ways that echo Trump's approach. The European Union is looking at loosening rules on vehicle emissions, Germany has reduced support for renewable energy schemes, and the United Kingdom is reportedly reconsidering aspects of its electric vehicle and oil drilling policies under new Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
These shifts matter because they touch on jobs, energy costs and industrial competitiveness across Europe, as well as the wider international effort to tackle climate change. Businesses such as INEOS have argued that strict green targets put European industry at a disadvantage, while supporters of the original climate commitments warn that scaling them back could slow progress on emissions reduction.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the shift towards energy pragmatism argue that governments have a duty to protect jobs, industrial competitiveness and household budgets, and that rigid decarbonisation targets set years ago no longer match today's economic reality of high energy costs, sluggish growth and industries such as chemicals and carmaking warning of closures. They see a longer runway for petrol vehicles, continued North Sea extraction and eased carbon pricing as sensible recalibration rather than abandonment of climate goals, allowing time for cleaner technologies to mature without imposing costs that drive manufacturing and investment overseas. On this view, energy security and affordability are not opposed to environmental responsibility but preconditions for sustaining public support for it.
The case against
Advocates for maintaining ambitious climate commitments argue that the scientific case for rapid decarbonisation has not changed, and that delaying targets now risks locking in fossil fuel infrastructure, missing legally binding emissions goals, and ceding leadership in clean technology industries to competitors such as China. They contend that framing green policy as an economic burden ignores the costs of climate inaction and the long-term opportunities in renewables, and worry that political leaders are prioritising short-term electoral pressures and industry lobbying over the wellbeing of future generations. For this camp, consistency and resolve on climate policy, even amid economic headwinds, are essential to preserving both credibility on the world stage and a liveable environment.