NEW YORK hosted last week, in addition to the UN General Assembly (UNGA),  the Climate Week. This event was organised by Secretary-General António Guterres to review the climate commitments of various countries and regions.

Held a few weeks before COP30 in Belém, it was attended by experts, activists and companies from all over the world. The context was more tragic than ever, with increasingly intractable wars and conflicts that directly threaten the lives of millions of people and any positive ambition to combat climate change.

For example, the military sector is estimated to be responsible for 5.5% of global emissions; if it were a country, it would be the fourth largest emitter. NATO rearmament alone could lead to an increase in annual greenhouse gas emissions of between 87 and 194 million tonnes if implemented as planned. The Gaza war's ecological footprint, in terms of carbon dioxide released in the first 15 months, exceeded the annual emissions of over a hundred countries.

Therefore, there is a close link between the drums of war and Trump's harsh attack on the fight against climate change. The logic of war as an increasingly accepted method of relations between states is also the deadliest threat to the fight against climate change. This is partly because, by definition, everyone must be involved in taking action on climate change. Climate conferences are among the few opportunities for global dialogue involving all countries. However, with the current conflicts and wars, we are witnessing a return to the law of the strongest and the progressive dismantling of international law and cooperation based on shared rules. Safeguarding this method also depends on the success of climate negotiations.

Following the summit, around one third of countries (63) have now announced or submitted their climate commitments for 2030, known as 'nationally determined contributions' (NDCs). These commitments represent around half of global emissions. However, the US and the EU are not included: the US has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and the EU has not yet reached an agreement. NDCs are a five-yearly formal requirement under the 'ratchet mechanism' of the Paris Agreement — the historic agreement to keep temperatures well below 2°C, with the aim of keeping them to 1.5°C by the end of this century.

I would now like to share three observations on the Climate Summit in New York and how we can move forward.

Firstly, for the first time, China has made a series of concrete, quantifiable commitments for 2035. This is a crucial period for understanding whether humanity will succeed in radically reducing climate-changing emissions. At the same time as Trump urged everyone to abandon the 'fraudulent' path of reducing fossil fuel use, Xi Jinping announced plans to create a climate-adapted society. These plans include reducing net greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy by 7-10% from peak levels, seeking to achieve even better results; increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in total energy consumption to over 30%; expanding installed wind and solar energy capacity to over six times 2020 levels and seeking to bring the total to 3,600 gigawatts; increasing the total volume of forest reserves to over 24 billion cubic metres; and making 'new energy vehicles' dominant in new vehicle sales; and expanding the national carbon emissions market to cover the main high-emission sectors (exactly what Confindustria wants to dismantle).

These figures remain well below what China should be doing to sufficiently contribute to maintaining the target of a 1.5°/2° temperature increase by the end of the century and avoiding global catastrophe. Experts have calculated this to be around a 30% reduction by 2035. Furthermore, the targets for installing renewable energy correspond to a slowdown in the current growth rate, from over 300 GW to around 200 GW per year. Additionally, the share of renewable energy in China's energy consumption has lagged behind record installed capacity, primarily due to challenges in upgrading network infrastructure and economic incentives that still favour coal-fired power. However, optimists argue that China has only ever committed to reducing emissions growth, not emissions themselves, and that this represents a useful 'leap', at least in psychological terms. Furthermore, CarbonBrief explains that, given the combination of extraordinary growth in renewables and investments in energy efficiency, China is likely to exceed its targets, as it has done in the past. Some also argue that peak emissions have already been reached, five years ahead of schedule. The direction is therefore clear and will undoubtedly impact global climate policies. Furthermore, in the face of the United States' noisy withdrawal, China is showing ambition for leadership. It will easily succeed on its own terms, without any reaction — especially from the European Union.

But what about Europe? European Commissioner Hoekstra criticised China for not being ambitious enough. However, he arrived in New York with divisions aplenty, little determination regarding the next commitments for 2040 and a weak 'declaration of intent' on the 2035 targets, and left Brussels in a political context of persistent threats to the proper implementation of the Green Deal's commitment to zero emissions by 2050. These threats are driven by lobbies and the populist right. For example, we risk completely counterproductive steps backwards on the ban on selling internal combustion cars by 2035. This will not help, but will hinder the development of electric mobility in Europe. The reopening of the environmental reporting directives (Omnibus) has created a situation of great confusion. Instead of simplifying matters, it has penalised those who had already decided to organise themselves to apply the directives. Most importantly, however, it is calling into question rules that have already been adopted. are being implemented makes the entire legislative framework uncertain. This is not least because of the constant demands from the fossil fuel industry and the right wing to question the transition itself and its timing. Such a dramatic reversal would not only marginalise the EU in the global climate arena, starting with the negotiations at the next COP in Belém, but also: It would also put us at a disadvantage in the competition for innovation and clean technology, an area in which we are already lagging far behind. It would halt investments and ongoing transformations, and squander precious resources, with obvious economic and social repercussions. This is not just a technological or commercial issue; it is a real political game that must be played by focusing on mobilising green businesses and civil society, and their desire to participate. It must also involve mounting direct and competent opposition to the disinformation campaigns of the fossil fuel lobbies and the populist right. These groups have so far been able to count on the fact that climate change and the transition have not been among the priority issues for building consensus, even among progressive parties.

This is exactly what needs to be done in Italy. This must be done urgently and patiently, by organising an effective campaign to overturn the lies that dominate public debate and by utilising the enormous expertise that already exists, but which is still too scattered. In her speech to the UN General Assembly, Giorgia Meloni — who did not attend the Climate Summit — confirmed her adherence to Trump's logic on climate, migration and rights, as Virgilio Dastoli points out in his article in the European Movement Newsletter. Meloni spoke of 'unsustainable production models' leading to 'deindustrialisation'; she reiterated the populist right's and rich fossil fuel lobbies' most false and effective argument, namely that 'green plans' do not take the needs of weaker social classes into account and lead to deindustrialisation; and she returned to the narrative of the destruction of the European automotive industry due to the Green Deal rather than wrong strategic choices.

In the same period, the President of Confindustria, Emanuele Orsini, echoed her sentiments, continuing to speak out against the Green Deal as the 'biggest mistake made by Europe', without providing any figures. His intention is to benefit those sectors that have not wanted to change their outdated production model. Defending it instead of demanding support to help with the transition is the confusion in which a significant and influential part of Italian corporate representation finds itself. This means they remain dependent on companies such as ENI and SNAM, which are holding Italy back by nailing it to an energy and industrial model that will never be competitive again if it does not change.

As many delegates reiterated in New York, a fair and proper transition away from dependence on fossil fuels, coupled with adequate investment in adapting to its devastating effects, is the key to responding to the needs of vulnerable sectors and addressing the anxiety of many individuals facing an uncertain and volatile future.

Furthermore, opposition to the Green Deal overlooks the significant results Italy has achieved in recent years. In the energy efficiency sector alone, 28 million tonnes of oil equivalent were saved between 2000 and 2023 (source: Odyssee-Mure), which equates to €50 billion less being paid on business and household bills, and avoiding investments and operating costs for 30–40 GW of new electricity capacity (thermoelectric, wind and solar plants). Furthermore, 60–70 million tonnes of CO₂ were not emitted into the atmosphere. (Odyssee data based on Eurostat). Not to mention the health benefits and reduction in pollution.

The truth is that the transition is not 'nonsense', as Confindustria president Emanuele Orsini says: it is the only way to ensure competitiveness, employment and security. The future is being decided now, between the imperative to stop wars and the need for cooperation and climate action. We cannot afford to take the wrong path.

Monica Frassoni

30 September 2025