The European Commission presented an interim target for 2040 in July on the path to climate neutrality. By 2040, the EU aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% compared to 1990 levels. “The goal is clear, the journey is pragmatic and realistic,” claimed Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Reporters from the German Welt am Sonntag and Dutch De Telegraaf have revealed how the EU Commission paid millions to non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Previously secret plans have been uncovered, showing organizations contracted to run campaigns - and even initiate legal actions - against European companies. EU officials in Brussels and activists coordinated in detail. For example, support was given to “shift the agricultural debate in a greener direction.” Other groups received funds to influence EU parliamentarians before votes. Lists of politicians to contact were circulated.

The secret documents could initially only be viewed in a special supervised room in Brussels. EU bureaucrats had to leave both notepads and mobile phones outside the door. Pages couldn’t be printed or searched, and documents automatically closed after 30 minutes. Later access was granted on other computers, provided employees signed written assurances not to disseminate the information. Violations would lead to “disciplinary measures.” Thanks to whistleblowers within one of the EU’s (too?) many institutions, the documents were shown to Welt.

The term “self-licking ice cream” - a bizarre yet apt metaphor for systems that sustain themselves - originates from an analysis of weapons systems used during the 1991 Kuwait War. Three decades later, the EU’s funding of activists - who in turn push the bureaucracy toward its own goals - appears as a farcical repeat. By funneling money to organizations that influence populations, parliamentarians, member states, and even internal EU bodies, hasn’t the Brussels bloc itself become the ultimate bureaucratic self-licking ice cream cone? Is this perhaps what they mean by a circular economy?

“Everything was specifically aimed at an even more ambitious green European political program,” wrote De Telegraaf in January. But Welt also revealed that the Directorate-General for Environment (a division of the EU Commission) paid to sabotage what another directorate sought - securing a trade deal with the Mercosur bloc. Around and around go taxpayers’ euros - but to whose benefit?

“As Europeans increasingly feel the impact of climate change, they expect Europe to act,” von der Leyen wrote on X about the new emissions target.

But what would Europeans truly have expected if their own money hadn’t flowed into campaigns to convince both them and their representatives? The recently uncovered examples - is this all there is to say about the EU’s own dark financing? Or is this but the tip of an iceberg?