The Harry Potter films contain numerous absurd scenes. One from the first film is strongly reminiscent of current world politics. The young Harry Potter is invited to attend the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. An owl delivers the letter. But the content does not suit his narrow-minded uncle Vernon Dursley, with whom Harry grows up after the death of his parents. So Dursley simply throws the letter away. Yet this denial of reality is of course unsuccessful. The school of magic remains persistent and sends letter after letter, while the uncle barricades his house. In one scene, he leans back contentedly because it is Sunday, and on Sundays no letters are delivered. But he is mistaken: hundreds of letters fly through the chimney into the house, forcing Dursley and his family to flee to a lonely and inhospitable island off the English coast. But even there reality catches up with him in the form of the giant Hagrid, who finally delivers the invitation, and takes Harry Potter with him.

The lesson from history is that ignoring problems does not make them go away. And this is a lesson the European Union is now learning the hard way. Industry letters of protest are arriving in Brussels with ever greater frequency. At present, the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) and European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) are sounding the alarm over the EU’s climate requirements. The CO₂ targets for 2030 and 2035 are said to be „simply no longer achievable,“ according to their letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. It is time, they argue, to correct course and adopt a „market-based approach.“ In other words, Brussels should take off its rose-tinted glasses and face reality.

What is collapsing here is nothing less than the entire green house of cards that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen painstakingly built over the past years. The EU was supposed to serve as a model for a green transformation that others would then follow. But the story contained a fundamental flaw from the very beginning. Instead of trusting in the pull effects the EU hoped its Green New Deal would generate in other world regions, it chose not to rely on such forces within its own economic area. Instead, strict rules were imposed on when and how certain interim targets must be achieved. The path to reaching them? The interactions with other economic regions? Details that Brussels chose not to take responsibility for.

It had long been clear that the framework conditions required for a green transformation would have demanded immense investments – and that years ago already. Both financially and in terms of human resources, it was a Herculean task, and from the outset it was obvious that it would have to be financed primarily with private capital. Yet the strategy essentially boiled down to blocking alternative paths through prohibitions rather than enabling the desired one. The only problem was that comparable rules could, of course, not be imposed by Brussels in other regions. Instead, supply chain laws were introduced to exert gentle pressure on companies abroad, nudging them to comply with European requirements on reporting obligations and sustainability.

That worked to some extent, but at the same time it opened Pandora’s box. For U.S. President Donald Trump, who holds a much stronger lever, is now pursuing his interests in exactly the same way – except that he is using it to roll back what were once consensus-based achievements in Europe, such as minority rights in companies, or consumer protection in digital services. This form of blackmail through market power originated in Brussels. Europe should acknowledge this and, going forward, scrutinise much more carefully the methods used to pursue even well-intentioned goals. In the new world shaped by U.S. President Trump, economic strength above all is what counts. Regaining it must be the top priority. The green house of cards cannot be rebuilt anyway.