Agreement on watered-down EU climate policy after marathon meeting

But: in order to reach that agreement, the countries allow each other more flexibility, which weakens climate policy. Countries may now focus more on reducing emissions abroad, agree that they can return to the climate target, and postpone the introduction of ETS2, emissions pricing for citizens and companies, by one year.

It became a hard-fought compromise on the way to climate neutrality by 2050. “Failure has never been an option,” said Lars Aagaard, the Danish climate minister who took the lead in the negotiations. European Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra (Climate) hinted between the lines that it could have been more ambitious: “It takes 27 to tango”he said several times. After the agreement, followed by: “We have managed to make that happen.” The final majority consisted of 21 Member States.

But harmony in Brussels was hard to find for a long time. In complex climate talks, member states’ wish lists varied widely – from green and progressive to gray and conservative. The goat paths in particular were the subject of haggling until late at night.

The target of a 90 percent reduction by 2040 therefore remains intact, but member states will have more room to achieve part of that emission reduction in countries outside the EU, with carbon credits. The plan was initially to allow a maximum of three percent via that route, which has now become five percent. This means that emissions within the EU must be reduced by 85 percent – while the European Scientific Advisory Council on Climate Change advocates 90 to 95 percent on our own territory.

Words such as climate, sustainability and greening were rarely heard during the hours-long negotiation. ‘Competitiveness’, on the other hand, was loudly shouted on the right and left. But where progressives think about the clean industry of the future – clean tech – from the mouth of the conservatives, it means keeping the traditional industry afloat.

Some countries have a lot of industry that they need to decarbonize, emphasizes Petr Hladík, the Czech environment minister. “Think of chemicals, steel, cement and glass. We are concerned about those sectors.” He appealed for a ‘Europe of solidarity’: “We cannot leave Central and Eastern Europe out of this transition.”

That call for solidarity was echoed by obstructionist Poland, which sought the use of carbon credits of up to 10 percent and insisted on ‘not hindering’ defense investments.

An escape path has also been fought for. The feasibility of the 2040 climate target will be re-evaluated every five years – including assessments every two years – with Member States able to deploy an additional 5 percent of carbon credits should the geopolitical situation so require. Countries such as Sweden and Spain were initially strongly against this, because they did not want to “create new uncertainties”, according to Sara Aagesen, the Spanish minister for ecological transition.

Intermediate goal

In addition to the legally binding climate target for 2040, an interim target for 2035 was on the agenda. The EU wanted to present that goal at the international climate summit next week in Belém, Brazil (COP30), but unlike the 2040 goal, this required unanimous agreement. It was therefore important that all member states felt heard, so as not to exert further political pressure on the climate law. Although no specific emissions reductions have been agreed, the EU countries arrived at a range of 62.25 to 72.5 percent of CO₂reduction before 2035.

The so-called ETS2 system, in which citizens and entrepreneurs – just like heavy industry in Europe – indirectly contribute to CO₂will pay for emissions (through invoices by, for example, oil companies and gas companies) postponed by one year to 2028.

While the climate targets in Brussels were slowly but surely being weakened, the UN environment program UNEP presented a new climate report on Tuesday, Off Target. This shows that the importance of ambitious goals is still high. The earth is warming less rapidly than was the case last year (this century by 2.3 to 2.5 degrees, instead of 2.6 to 2.8 as initially thought), but still considerably faster than what was intended during the Climate Agreement in 2015, with a target of 1.5 degrees.

Give a gift





Part





Email the editor