This week, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union began interinstitutional negotiations (‘trilogues’) on the ‘Climate Law’, with a first trilogue on Monday 30 November and technical meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday.
While these discussions allowed the co-legislators to recall their respective positions on this issue, no significant progress is expected before the European Council on 10-11 December, when the 27 Heads of State and Government will try to reach an agreement on an increase in the EU’s climate target for 2030 (see EUROPE 12582/2 et 12613/17).
As expected (see EUROPE 12604/15), none of the political points of the ‘Climate Law’ have been addressed, a source told us.
However, these points are numerous and could prove to be problematic as early as the next trilogue, which should take place on 18 December (provided that the leaders of the Member States reach an agreement on the 2030 objective before that date), in light of the positions adopted by the co-legislators (see EUROPE 12577/12 and 12588/1).
Parliament’s position
Regarding the EU’s climate objectives, Parliament advocates a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and wants the European Commission to assess, by 31 May 2023, the possibility of setting a target for 2040 via legislative proposal.
It also calls for the 2050 climate neutrality target to apply to each Member State individually (and not just to the EU as a whole).
In order to ensure that Member States comply with their specific national GHG emission targets, the text adopted by Parliament provides for a penalty mechanism.
Specifically, MEPs propose amending the EU’s Effort Sharing Regulation (2018/842), which defines these national targets by setting a minimum price of €100 per tonne of CO2 equivalent for emissions trading between Member States.
Thus, when a country’s GHG emissions exceed the limits set for it by Regulation 2018/842, it must pay a ‘fine’ on the excess emissions of €100 per tonne.
MEPs are also calling on the European Commission to ensure that all of its new proposals are aligned with the EU’s climate targets.
They also call for the creation of a ‘European Council on Climate Change’ (ECCC).
Largely modelled on the UK’s Committee on Climate Change and the French ‘Haut Conseil pour le Climat’, it would be an independent advisory body with a scientific committee to provide the EU institutions with annual assessments of the consistency of EU measures to reduce GHG emissions with the EU’s objectives and international climate commitments (see EUROPE 12568/6).
The text adopted by Parliament also provides for a European carbon budget setting the total amount of GHGs (in CO2 equivalent) that could be emitted until 2050 at the latest without jeopardising the Union’s commitments under the Paris Agreement.
As fossil fuel subsidies in the EU continue to rise (see EUROPE 12583/19), Parliament proposes an end to direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels. For MEPs, all Member States should have abolished these subsidies by 2025 at the latest.
The parliamentarians also call for “putting an end to the protection of fossil fuel investments in the context of the modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty, (see EUROPE 12558/9).
In addition, they advocate the mandatory introduction of ‘climate proofing’ for all new infrastructure projects considered particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and financed by EU funds.
Finally, MEPs want the ‘Climate Law’ to improve access to justice so that citizens can sue their governments if they fail to meet their climate commitments.
EU Council’s position
For its part, the EU Council adopted a partial position (leaving the question of the 2030 objective in brackets) very close to the Commission’s initial proposal (see EUROPE 12439/2).
However, Member States have rejected the Commission’s idea of using delegated acts to set climate targets between 2030 and 2050.
Their approach is that the institution should present a proposal to revise the ‘Climate Law’ to incorporate the EU’s climate target for 2040 within six months of the first global review of the Paris Agreement (due in 2023).
Like Parliament, some countries (Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark, Spain, Finland and Latvia) would have liked the partial agreement to have included a provision for applying the 2050 climate neutrality target to each Member State individually.
Luxembourg, Denmark, Latvia, Finland and Sweden would also have liked to add a sentence stating that the EU should target negative emissions after 2050.
Other countries such as France have called for interim climate targets to be set at five-year intervals, rather than ten.
Nevertheless, in order to reach a compromise between States, none of these amendments were retained. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)