Exactly!

And regarding 'slow', while I agree, I also might not want them to act any quicker in a lot of situations because some systems are just really big & complex (even w/o counting lobbying from corps & foreign politics). And some systems even need to develop a best practice approach (with help/push of regulation ofc) because some bureaucrats just can't know or predict everything. Multi-tier (eg every couple of years an upgrade to a directive) and decade-long legislation development whilst gathering data to see effects & what makes most sense to develop further ... is actually efficient.

But climate change & other ESG stuff? I would gladly have a faulty over-reaching system sooner (what, worst case some rich ppl will get less rich?) than a mildly better system later. They could easily mandate for like every company over 100 employees to employ a person/department that can perform one job only - to follow & report companies effect on environment, socials, and governance (along with future plans on the subject, owner effects, etc). And by report I mean to the regulators and general public. Would "people" complain about how regulation is only costs? Ofc, ppl like to complain (or just repeat the complains their bosses said). But I'm sure the net benefit for Europe would still be positive because ppl that have a job usually tend to get good at it. And even if not, ppl get jobs, we get statistics, and all for extremely negligible or no effect on economy (one salary lower profits for the owners on one hand, but a development of a whole new industry sector on the other).