On Thursday, 5 March, environment ministers from the twenty-seven Member States of the European Union generally welcomed the European Commission’s proposal for a regulation aimed at anchoring the target of climate neutrality by 2050, known as the ‘climate law’ (see EUROPE 12439/2). However, they were divided over the provision to increase the EU’s climate goal for 2030.
On one hand, a group of countries reiterated its wish, expressed in a letter a few days prior (see EUROPE 12438/3), to aim to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 50% and towards 55% (rather than −40%) by 2030. Some of them—Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Finland, and Luxembourg—even advocate a minimum target of −55%.
While uncertainty remained as to its position on the subject, Germany said that it shared the desire of this group, which consists of the following 12 countries: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
With this in mind, ministers from these countries urged the Commission to expedite its assessment on the feasibility of scaling up the 2030 target so as to present the results by June at the latest.
Given that the actual revision of the 2030 target depends on the conclusions of this impact study and that these conclusions are expected to be published by September, these Member States fear that the EU co-legislators (European Parliament and EU Council) will not have enough time to reach a political agreement on raising the 2030 target before COP26 in Glasgow.
However, according to these countries, if the EU does not increase its climate ambitions, it will be much more difficult to encourage the other major economic powers to strengthen their own commitments at COP26.
On the other hand, some Member States—particularly concerned about the costs of the ‘green transition’ and the consequences on employment—are more or less strongly opposed to raising ambitions for 2030.
Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, and Bulgaria thus recommended waiting for the results of the impact study, while calling for it to be thorough and cover all Member States.
More emphatic, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were clearly opposed to increasing the 2030 target.
In particular, Hungary considered that such ambitions were irreconcilable with the 2021–2027 multiannual financial framework of only 1% of the EU gross national income championed by the frugal countries (Austria, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands) (see EUROPE 12431/1).
Member States want to maintain control. Several member states have moreover criticised the provision in the ‘climate law’ to set the EU’s post-2030 climate goals via delegated acts (see EUROPE 12438/3).
In particular, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, and Cyprus called for heads of state or government to retain the authority to set the EU’s climate goals (under the unanimity rule).
Just Transition Mechanism. In addition, ministers generally welcomed the creation of the Just Transition Mechanism that aims to mobilise 100 billion euros—including 7.5 billion via the Just Transition Fund (see EUROPE 12400/8)—to help the regions most affected by decarbonisation.
Nevertheless, some countries—including Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Poland—have reiterated their fear that the Fund will not be supplied by “fresh funds” but by cuts in funds allotted to the common agricultural policy and the cohesion policy (see EUROPE 12404/12).
Sweden, however, supported such a redistribution, while insisting that the Just Transition Mechanism must not result in investments in fossil fuels.
Cyprus and Malta requested that the Mechanism better take into account their special status as island states.
During their debate, ministers also discussed the Commission’s future plan with regard to the circular economy (see EUROPE 12440/3). (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)