Reckless Risk-taking

ClientEarth argues that the European Commission's December 2025 proposals to accelerate environmental assessments and permit-granting for infrastructure projects will lead to irreversible environmental harm and human health risks. The report claims these measures undermine the Birds and Habitats Directives, restrict access to justice, and violate the precautionary and proportionality principles of EU law. Specifically, it warns that the proposals normalize the killing of protected species, create a biased 'strategic sector' permitting regime, and restrict the ability of Member States to exclude ecologically sensitive areas from Renewable Acceleration Areas (RAAs).

• The proposed Regulation on speeding up environmental assessments is criticized for lacking an impact assessment, which ClientEarth claims makes it incompatible with the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making and the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines.
• Article 8 of the proposed Regulation would weaken the strict protection of species under the Birds and Habitats Directives by allowing the killing or disturbance of protected species to be considered non-deliberate if population-level impacts are avoided and best available technologies are used.
• The introduction of a 'strategic sectors' permitting regime (Article 14 and Annex) allows certain projects, including data centres, AI factories, and airports, to be presumed as serving the overriding public interest, potentially bypassing strict environmental safeguards.
• The proposed Regulation risks restricting access to justice by allowing Member States to preclude legal arguments in court that were not raised during the administrative stage, which ClientEarth argues violates the Aarhus Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
• The Energy Infrastructure Acceleration Directive discourages Member States from excluding 'large areas' from Renewable Acceleration Areas (RAAs) for environmental reasons unless irreversible damage is proven, which the report claims contradicts the precautionary principle and restricts national spatial planning.
• The proposed changes to the 'no alternative satisfactory solutions' test under the Energy Infrastructure Acceleration Directive significantly narrow the criteria for what constitutes a satisfactory alternative, potentially allowing damaging projects to proceed even when less harmful options exist.

APA

ClientEarth (n.d.). Reckless Risk-taking. https://www.clientearth.org/media/dakpmm5w/envomn_grids_permitting_analysis.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Reckless Risk-taking. n.d. https://www.clientearth.org/media/dakpmm5w/envomn_grids_permitting_analysis.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Reckless Risk-taking |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/dakpmm5w/envomn_grids_permitting_analysis.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearthndreckless, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Reckless Risk-taking}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/dakpmm5w/envomn_grids_permitting_analysis.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }