The European Green Deal (EGD), a comprehensive strategy for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, represents a global first in large-scale climate governance. Its ambitious targets and rapid policy implementation have necessitated substantial political and societal changes within EU member states. The EGD's far-reaching impact extends beyond EU borders, potentially affecting non-member states that cooperate with the EU to varying degrees. This study focuses on the EGD's influence on non-member states, specifically addressing the following research questions: 1. Does the EGD create turbulence in non-member states? 2. If so, what is the nature of this turbulence? 3. Does the extent and nature of turbulence vary with the degree of EU affiliation? To address these questions, the study employs a qualitative comparative approach, focusing on Norway and the UK as case studies. Both countries possess ambitious climate policies mirroring the EU's approach, making them 'least likely' cases. Their contrasting levels of EU affiliation – Norway's close integration through the European Economic Area (EEA) versus the UK's post-Brexit relationship – provide a valuable comparative lens. The analysis draws upon the concept of 'turbulence' in governance, characterized by unpredictable interactions, shifting parameters, and temporal complexity.

Existing literature on EU climate policy turbulence primarily focuses on EU-level politics and member states. This study expands upon this literature by examining the effects of the EGD on non-member states. The concept of turbulence in governance, as defined by Ansell and Trondal, is used as a framework. This framework considers three dimensions of turbulence: shifting parameters (changes in budgets, political support, technology); intercurrence (unexpected interactions between subsystems); and temporal complexity (conflicting timeframes and rapid policy changes).

This study utilizes a qualitative comparative approach, employing a Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) to compare Norway and the UK. Both countries share several similarities, including ambitious climate policies and liberalized energy markets, but differ significantly in their relationship with the EU. The research draws on multiple data sources: extensive document analysis (academic literature, grey literature, consultation responses, media coverage); ten semi-structured elite interviews with key actors in Norway, the UK, and Brussels; and findings from a policy roundtable and two stakeholder workshops. The interviews explored perceptions of the EGD, Brexit's effects, and EGD implications for both countries. Ethical considerations, including informed consent and data anonymization, were rigorously adhered to throughout the research process.

The analysis reveals that both Norway and the UK experience EGD-induced turbulence, but the extent and nature differ significantly. Norway experiences more turbulence across all three dimensions than the UK. Four key reasons explain this: 1. **Administrative Capacity:** The UK possesses a larger and more flexible administration than Norway's comparatively smaller one. 2. **Policy Development Involvement:** The UK had greater involvement in the development of Fit for 55 policies prior to Brexit, improving their preparedness compared to Norway. 3. **Post-Brexit Focus:** The UK's focus on Brexit initially diverted attention from EU developments, contrasting with Norway's continuous struggle to maintain an ‘inside-outside’ relationship with the EU. 4. **Coercive vs. Competitive Pressures:** Norway faces stronger coercive pressures to implement EGD legislation as an EEA member, while the UK primarily faces competitive pressures under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The TCA's non-regression clause, focusing mainly on trade and investment, further distinguishes these pressures. **Shifting Parameters:** Norway faces greater challenges related to budget constraints, administrative capacity, and public support for EU cooperation, particularly concerning forestry policies and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The UK, despite facing funding disadvantages, benefits from a larger administrative capacity. **Intercurrence:** Norway experiences more turbulence due to the EGD's holistic approach, which conflicts with its entrenched administrative silos. Unexpected interactions between policy areas, particularly between forestry and potentially agriculture, create significant challenges. The CBAM presents difficulties for both, but the UK's post-Brexit position and development of its own CBAM illustrate the adaptability of its administration. The UK's focus on autonomy, prioritizing competition with the EU and attraction of investment, also influences the way it handles these issues. **Temporal Complexity:** Norway struggles more with the EGD's rapid pace, highlighting challenges to democratic processes, influence on EU policymaking, and a large backlog of EU legislation to implement. The UK, despite also facing challenges, benefits from a more flexible bureaucracy enabling faster responses.

The findings challenge the initial hypothesis that closer EU affiliation would reduce turbulence. While Norway's closer ties provide access to information and influence, the EGD's scale and speed overwhelm its capacity. The UK, despite weaker affiliation, faces challenges related to reduced access to funds, information, and influence, as well as increased administrative burdens. The study underscores the importance of expanding the analysis of EGD turbulence beyond the EU's immediate neighbors, as the EU increasingly uses the EGD to influence other countries' climate policies. The differing nature of pressures - coercive for Norway, competitive for the UK - further shapes their responses.

This study demonstrates that the EGD generates turbulence not only within EU member states but also in closely affiliated non-members like Norway and, to a lesser extent, the UK. The extent and nature of this turbulence vary depending on the level of EU integration and national administrative capacity. Future research should delve deeper into specific sectors and legislation, conduct more quantitative analyses, and examine the impact of the EGD on the EU itself. The observed turbulence, while potentially disruptive, might be necessary for achieving the transformative goals of the EGD.

This study focuses on only two case studies, Norway and the UK, limiting its generalizability. The qualitative approach, while providing rich insights, may not allow for sweeping generalizations about all non-member states. The reliance on elite interviews and stakeholder workshops provides a specific perspective that might not capture the full range of societal impacts of the EGD. The study is also limited by the time frame which does not capture the full extent of long-term effects.