At a press conference on Tuesday 8 April, Peter Liese, spokesman for the EPP group in the European Parliament on environment and climate policy, said that a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 could not be considered without flexibilities for industry.
Mr Liese said that discussions were still underway within the Christian Democrat group with a view to finalising a position on the 2040 target. But he would “not be surprised” if his presentation “is the final position of the EPP”.
The European Commission’s impact assessment on the 2040 target published in February 2024 (see EUROPE 13344/1) calculates that the EU could reduce its emissions by 88% based on the implementation of existing legislation alone.
However, Mr Liese criticises the fact that this assessment is based on the end of the Emissions Trading System (ETS) allocations by 2039, which would mean that the sectors covered by the ETS1 would not emit any emissions at all from 2039.
“I haven’t met anyone who has said this is realistic”, he commented, citing in particular the difficulty this represents for the aviation sector.
However, he acknowledged the EU’s duty to present its new nationally determined contribution (NDC) quickly, setting a target for reducing emissions by 2035, since the world was “waiting for Europe”, particularly China and India.
The EU has not yet published its contribution, pending the inclusion of the 2040 target in the Climate Act, from which the 2035 target will be derived (see EUROPE 13609/1).
However, Mr Liese believes that an overly ambitious target for 2040 without flexibility measures could “hamper investment in climate-friendly solutions” for companies subject to the ETS, as they would have no solutions for the potential emissions they would still have to reduce after 2039.
Furthermore, the MEP considers that taking into account international credits to achieve climate objectives, as set out in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (see EUROPE 13430/4), poses the risk that certain countries will not present sufficiently ambitious objectives.
“They can only be a temporary solution because, at the end of the day, every country in the world has to be climate neutral”, he stressed.
Among the flexibility measures, he once again insisted on the inclusion of negative emissions within the ETS system, but also on the full implementation of the European Commission’s ‘Clean Industrial Deal’ and on the need to be more pragmatic regarding the development of hydrogen (see EUROPE 13599/22).
In his view, the EU must do much more than Japan and the United States (under Joe Biden) have already done, which are proposing, respectively, a 60% reduction in emissions in 2035 compared to 2013 levels, and a 61% to 66% reduction below 2005 levels, but it will not be possible to be as ambitious as the United Kingdom (81% below 1990 levels).
Finally, he insists on “stronger and targeted” support for citizens and farmers for carbon elimination and reduction measures. (Original version in French by Pauline Denys)