Brussels Wants to Speed Up Polluting Projects, Critics Say That's a Terrible Idea

The European Commission has a problem. It wants to build things quickly. Those things, however, include projects that environmentalists say are actively harmful. And according to a new report, Brussels is quietly rewriting the rules to make sure the digging and drilling face as little resistance as possible.

The report, published Tuesday by the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), claims the Commission is weakening environmental rules to accelerate controversial industrial and energy projects across Europe. The official justification is global energy disruptions. The watchdog's interpretation is rather less charitable: Brussels is using the crisis to benefit fossil fuel companies, mining firms, hydrogen developers, and major tech corporations.

The timing is awkward. Just a day before the report's release, the EU executive announced a nearly €4 billion increase in free polluting allowances for energy-intensive industries under the bloc's carbon market. That is not exactly a signal of green hardline.

According to the CEO analysis, proposed EU legislation would speed up approval processes for projects labelled as "strategic" or of "overriding public interest." In some cases, that label could allow them to bypass standard environmental review requirements and public scrutiny altogether. Pascoe Sabido, a researcher and campaigner at CEO, was quoted as saying that the current energy crisis is finally pushing Europe away from fossil fuel reliance, but successful industry lobbying means measures intended to fast-track renewables are now being used to build polluting infrastructure.

Campaigners warn that the proposed reforms risk undermining environmental protections and limiting the ability of local communities to challenge projects that could affect their health, land, and livelihoods.

The report flags specific concerns. Hydrogen transport and large-scale data centres are singled out for their potential to undermine environmental and social standards. In Sweden, mining developments for critical raw materials — deemed crucial for the bloc's energy transition — are said to threaten Indigenous Sámi communities and local water systems. In Ireland, growing electricity demand from data centres is reportedly increasing pressure on the national grid and contributing to new fossil fuel power generation. The rapid expansion of Irish data centres is also increasing blackout risks, according to CEO.

Then there is fossil gas infrastructure, including carbon dioxide transport pipelines. The report argues these projects are being fast-tracked through permitting loopholes that could prolong fossil fuel dependence. But it also notes a safety angle: as accidents in Yazoo County, United States, have shown, these pipelines pose major health risks. Leaks can lead to asphyxiation, mass hospitalisations, and long-lasting health impacts. Given the much higher population density in Europe, the report warns, a ruptured pipeline could even prove fatal.

The analysis further alleges that industry demands have been incorporated into several upcoming EU legislative proposals. These include the Environmental Omnibus (which brings changes to EU water rules), the Grids Package, and the Industrial Accelerator Act (which features a European preference in public procurement). CEO argues these measures could reduce environmental impact assessments, expand automatic permit approvals, and restrict access to legal appeals.

Not everyone is opposed. MEP Niels Fuglsang (S&D/Denmark), who is in charge of the European Parliament's legislative proposal to accelerate permit-granting procedures, backed the broader use of "overriding public interest" for renewable energy projects and the use of "tacit approval" to prevent projects from dragging on due to delayed administrative procedures. He also supported an exemption from EU water rules for grid projects, arguing the current requirements are highly time-consuming with minimal environmental impact. On LinkedIn, Fuglsang recently wrote that accelerated permit-granting procedures are necessary to gain European independence, increased competitiveness, and to fast-forward the green transition.

The Commission has defended its broader simplification agenda — widely seen in Brussels as a deregulation process — as necessary to speed up Europe's energy transition, strengthen industrial competitiveness, and cut dependence on imported fossil fuels. Environmental groups counter that accelerating permits for polluting infrastructure risks locking Europe into long-term fossil fuel dependence rather than channelling investments into clean power, which would deliver energy more quickly.

So the choice, as Brussels frames it, is between speed and scrutiny. The critics say it is a false choice. The Commission says it is a necessary one. And the pipelines, data centres, and mines are waiting for an answer.