Published January 30, 2025
By Silvia Pastorelli, EU Petrochemicals Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law.
As global temperatures soar and the petrochemical industry’s growth trajectory accelerates, the European Union, as well as the world, is at a crossroads. Will new EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s new policies prioritize climate and communities — or bow to the demands of polluters and profit-driven interests?
While national governments keep failing to implement inadequate decarbonization policies, the fossil fuel industry is pushing for major expansion in the production of plastic and other petrochemical products. In recent months, von der Leyen has championed greater EU competitiveness through simplification and deregulation while maintaining existing social and environmental standards. But can these competing goals align? When it comes to petrochemicals, the answer must be clear: it’s essential for the EU to restrict and phase down this harmful industry.
“I came into politics to make a difference for all of society to deliver for the generation of my children and grandchildren, like those who came before us did,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament when reappointed. More than six months later, her new European Commission is poised to publish several strategic documents, among them the Competitiveness Compass, a communication meant to lay out the EU’s plan to revitalize its industry It is the first of a new series of guidelines and measures that aim to become the cornerstone of this Commission’s work and reconcile businesses and industry with the EU’s climate commitments.
Competitiveness means competition — winners and losers. Veteran Italian power player Mario Draghi made a clarion call for greater competitiveness and productivity in his report from last September, mandated by von der Leyen. He named the preferred losers of future EU competitiveness as China and the United States in a competition over industrial productivity. Human history is littered with examples of those losing out due to competition. More often than not, they are the planet and people, in particular, those who are the most marginalized and Indigenous Peoples. There is nothing to hint that it is any different now: only 5 percent of inputs in the Draghi report came from civil society groups.
Von der Leyen’s favorite buzzword, “competitiveness,” was everywhere during her campaign to secure a second mandate, all the way to the College of Commissioners’ confirmation process. But it is still not clear how competition with China and the United States will deliver a better future for Europeans, including her grandchildren.
Many Europeans are not happy; they are angry and afraid of the impending polycrisis. Europeans are increasingly voting for extremist parties because they feel the political mainstream has let them down. And it has. Inequality and injustice are undermining the foundation of representative democracies. Increased competitiveness will not reinforce it. Innovative and remedial action to guide a just transition to fulfill the promise of the Green Deal could.
Competing for What?
Antwerp, Belgium, is home to significant fossil fuel and petrochemical interests, so it was no surprise when a group of industrialists and political leaders, including von der Leyen, planted the seeds of the upcoming strategies, which were subsequently reflected in the new Commission’s priorities. They agreed on the so-called Antwerp Declaration, calling for unfettered support for industrialization to “keep industry in Europe because the industry will deliver the climate solutions Europe needs.”
The Declaration calls on decision-makers “to include actions to eliminate regulatory incoherence, conflicting objectives, unnecessary complexity in legislation and over-reporting.” This has been answered, almost word for word, in the commitments of the new Commission and von der Leyen. What they left out was how those commitments can be delivered without a cost to the health of people and the planet. As Politico observed, “Over the next few years, EU lawmakers and countries will fight over how to make sure a tighter regulatory framework for chemicals doesn’t impede the clean energy transition while still (and, in theory, primarily) keeping the population and environment safe from toxic pollution.”
Draghi’s report champions deregulation as a requirement for increased productivity and innovation, but this tests the EU’s commitment to social, health, and environmental commitments and overlooks or even miscalculates the full cost of chemical pollution. Von der Leyen’s Competitiveness Compass will cheerlead the three pillars of the Draghi report, prioritizing once again corporate profits over people and the planet.
Marrying the Green Deal and the Clean Industrial Deal
A competitiveness narrative and political agenda directed at increased production enabled by a reduced regulatory burden is a recipe that will feed the interests of the few instead of supporting the many. Big polluters and toxic industries should not be the architects of the future of the European Green Deal (the package of measures just agreed during the previous mandate to address the climate emergency), but they want to be. For years, these industry interests, from fossil fuels to chemicals, have been using the tactics of the tobacco industry to influence EU legislation and public debate.
While the new Commissioners, like Valdis Dombrovskis, tried to provide reassurance that the proposals coming from the new Commission would not amount to deregulation, the focus on simplification and streamlining (as highlighted in the Competitiveness Compass) rings alarm bells, especially for those who have seen the impacts of similar policies. Focusing on energy-intensive industries as a whole should be an opportunity to take a step back and look at the bigger picture beyond individual sectors to ensure they are fit for purpose, i.e., truly aligned with climate policies rather than chasing an outdated model of growth at all costs. Instead of keeping polluting industries afloat, this new Commission should shape policies that facilitate a genuine green transition, support real climate solutions, and steer away from supporting — especially with public money — dangerous distractions like carbon capture and storage (CCS) or hydrogen at all costs.
Fulfilling the promise of the Green Deal does not need deregulation or a minority winning at the expense of the many. A Clean Industrial Deal, including a Chemical Industry Package, also on the Commission’s to-do list, must realize von der Leyen’s desire to “deliver for the generation of my children and grandchildren,” given that the threat to fertility from the toxic cocktail of chemicals in use, creates the risk of significantly fewer deliveries of any future generations if the Antwerp path is followed. The Commission should embrace the opportunity of the Green Deal’s Chemicals Strategy — which still contains many delayed promises — and put in place far-reaching restrictions on toxic chemicals and petrochemicals.
The EU can break the cycle that props up destructive and toxic industries without sacrificing the environmental and social standards it prides itself on. Designing for the lives of our children and grandchildren starts with phasing out fossil fuels and dangerous chemicals, paving the way for alternatives that are demonstrably safe and sustainable throughout their life cycle. It means adopting strategies that facilitate production reduction in a way that is just and fair for all.
Global regulation can be a good ally for driving alignment between the Green Deal and a future Industrial Deal. Let’s take plastics as an example. Europe is experiencing the consequences of primary plastic overproduction, with cuts and facility closures already underway. Profits have declined, and further capacity reduction is needed to maintain profitability: building new facilities would not improve the situation as it would lead to further overcapacity. At the same time, stopping more plants from being built would address the increasingly urgent need to achieve global climate goals, a fully, fair, and funded fossil fuel phaseout, and protect human health and human rights.
Civil Society’s Role in Shaping the Clean Industrial Deal
Dombrovskis talked of “engaging in a new type of implementation, simplification, dialogues with stakeholders” as a cornerstone of the Commission’s work. Civil society engagement is a cornerstone of democracy and effective, meaningful climate and environmental policies — that’s why civil society participation must be front and center in the upcoming EU policy developments. Engagement with civil society must be a non-negotiable part of that dialogue to ensure the Clean Industrial Deal does not undermine the EU’s commitments and contributes to the needs of the planet and communities worldwide. This is particularly important at a time when European environmental NGOs’ participation in public debate and policymaking is under direct threat from right-wing forces who want to see their EU funding cut.
As von der Leyen navigates the next five years, her compass must point toward bold climate and environmental action, not industry appeasement. The Clean Industrial Deal’s first draft will set the tone. It cannot be co-opted by toxic interests that prioritize profits over people and the planet.
The EU has a choice: innovate away from toxic industries or risk locking in decades of environmental harm. Civil society stands ready to guide the EU toward a future that prioritizes communities and the environment.