SUPERVISOR: Melanie PICHLER

PROJECT ASSIGNED TO: Danyal MANEKA

The contested backsliding of the decarbonisation state in the European Union amidst a new authoritarian and geopolitical conjuncture 

In the wake of the Paris Agreement, decarbonisation, i.e. a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy and related technologies, emerged as the dominant approach by OECD states to mitigate climate change. In the EU, the European Green Deal (EGD) and various associated policy initiatives constitute a state project, which cautiously but nevertheless intervenes into the fossil energy system (Brand et al., 2025). For the first time, EU climate policy, while still committed to green growth and ecological modernization, incorporated concrete fossil phaseout plans and actually brought about a slow decline of fossil energy in the EU energy mix, in relative as well as absolute terms (European Commission, 2025).

After years of expansion, the EGD is today confronted with growing political, popular and corporate opposition (Patterson, 2023). Pushback against EU decarbonisation efforts is not new, as numerous studies on climate obstruction have pointed out (Plehwe et al., 2024). However, the political balance of forces has significantly shifted in recent years as right-wing authoritarian parties with climate sceptic policy stances have electorally succeeded at the EU level and in numerous member states. As a reaction, many mainstream parties—especially, but not exclusively on the centre-right—have drifted towards more reactionary climate policy positions (Abnett, 2024). In addition, intensifying geopolitical rivalries put pressure on the EGD, either directly, by Trump’s attacks on international climate policy, or indirectly, as security issues have sidelined climate concerns (Bocquillon, 2024). In this context, a comprehensive fossil rollback is becoming an increasingly likely trajectory in the European Union (Sander, 2022). Marc Blyth and Daniel Driscoll (2025) even speak of a danger of global “refossilization”. In the EU, signs of refossilization are indeed mounting. Efforts to delegitimize and slow-down decarbonisation have increasingly materialised, as adopted policies are being partially or completely reversed (Burns and Tobin, 2020). The European Commission has changed its priorities away from decarbonization and towards international competitiveness. Far beyond mere rhetoric, this includes a hard deregulation agenda targeting many “green policies” (Gros, 2025). This often quiet paradigm shift is becoming visible when conflicts arise in public, as in the case EU-wide ban of new fossil drives by 2035, fostered by a coalition of car producers and right-wing political forces, is an emblematic example (Blenkinsop, 2025). 

Why is it, that as the level of ambition of EU climate policy increases, so does opposition against it? This is the basic conundrum I want to address in my doctoral theses. I do this by investigating the nascent politics of climate policy backsliding and refossilization from a novel approach to critical policy analysis, integrating concepts from social-metabolism (Fischer-Kowalski, 2011) and social-ecological transformation theory (Pichler, 2023) with concepts from materialist state theory and conjunctural analysis (Clarke, 2010; Jessop, 2008). The analysis proceeds in two large steps, which also constitute the publications of my cumulative dissertation. 

In the first step I aim to outline fossil backsliding as a “metabolic conjuncture”, by identifying and systematizing backsliding conflicts at the EU-level. This will result in a typology based on Eric Pineault’s concept of a biophysical understanding of fossil capitalism as an expanded socio-economic process (Pineault, 2023) as well as on different types and elements of social-ecological transformation, from the introduction to the discontinuation of new practices (Pichler et al, forth.). The typology is complemented by a preliminary analysis, identifying typical actor constellations in the various conflicts. 

In the second step, I deep dive into selected backsliding conflicts in Germany and Austria (two cases selected because of their specific political configurations), focussing on actor constellations, strategies, opportunity structures as well as institutional dynamics and policy selection mechanisms (Brand et al., 2022), to understand how actors interact with state organizations to bring about or avert climate policy backsliding. The cases will be selected based on the typology developed in step 1, representing specific types of interventions into fossil metabolism.  

Methodically, both steps rely on semi-structured interviews  with various experts from organized interests, civil society and state organizations, complemented by an analysis of publicly available documents such as position papers, roadmaps and press releases. 


Abnett, K., 2024. EU climate policies could be slowed in future after rightward shift in election. Reuters.

Beach, D., 2018. Process Tracing Methods, in: Handbuch Methoden der Politikwissenschaft. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 1–21. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16937-4_43-1

Blenkinsop, P., 2025. EU drops 2035 combustion engine ban as global EV shift faces reset. Reuters.

Bocquillon, P., 2024. Climate and Energy Transitions in Times of Environmental Backlash? The European Union ‘Green Deal’ From Adoption to Implementation. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 62, 124–134. doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13675

Brand, U., Krams ,Mathias, Lenikus ,Valerie, and Schneider, E., 2022. Contours of historical-materialist policy analysis. Critical Policy Studies 16, 279–296. doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2021.1947864

Brand, U., Pichler, M., Brad, A., Eyselein, G., Hausknost, D., Krams, M., Maneka, D., Schneider, E., 2025. Structural limitations of the decarbonisation state. Nature Cliamte Change (Accepted).

Burns, C., Tobin, P., 2020. Crisis, Climate Change and Comitology: Policy Dismantling Via the Backdoor? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 58, 527–544. doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12996

Clarke, J., 2010. Of Crises and Conjunctures: The Problem of the Present. Journal of Communication Inquiry 34, 337–354. doi.org/10.1177/0196859910382451

European Commission, 2025. Energy statistics - an overview [WWW Document]. URL ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php (accessed 1.9.26).

Fischer-Kowalski, M., 2011. Analyzing sustainability transitions as a shift between socio-metabolic regimes. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1, 152–159. doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.04.004

Gros, M., 2025. EU closes deal to slash green rules in major win for von der Leyen’s deregulation drive [WWW Document]. POLITICO. URL www.politico.eu/article/eu-strikes-deal-green-rules-cut-major-ursula-von-der-leyen-deregulation-drive/ (accessed 1.9.26).

Jessop, B., 2008. State Power, 1st ed. Polity, Cambridge.

Patterson, J.J., 2023. Backlash to Climate Policy. Global Environmental Politics 23, 68–90. doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00684

Pichler, M., 2023. Political dimensions of social-ecological transformations: polity, politics, policy. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 19, 2222612. doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2222612

Pineault, É., 2023. A Social Ecology of Capital. Pluto Books. doi.org/10.2307/jj.168342

Plehwe, D., Neujeffski, M., Haas, T., 2024. Climate Obstruction in the European Union: Business Coalitions and the Technocracy of Delay, in: Brulle, R.J., Roberts, J.T., Spencer, M.C. (Eds.), Climate Obstruction across Europe. Oxford University Press, p. 0. doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197762042.003.0013

Sander, H., 2022. An der Schwelle zum grünen Kapitalismus? Sozial-ökologische Hegemonieprojekte in Deutschland (ONLINE-Publikation 4/2022). Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, Berlin.