The proposed 2040 climate target, unveiled on Wednesday 2 July, is dividing both Member States within the EU Council and political groups within the European Parliament (see other news). Debates are continuing over the question of the flexibilities added by the European Commission to satisfy certain EU countries who believe the target of a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 compared to 1990 levels to be unrealistic.
The European Commission’s final proposal does therefore include these elements of flexibility and “favourable conditions” set out in a provisional summary that was circulated prior to the presentation (see EUROPE 13671/9).
The European Commissioner for Climate Action, Wopke Hoekstra, admitted to the press that the subject was “sensitive”, but that “constructive” discussions had been held with all the Member States, “and particularly also with France on the various elements of this proposal”. France raised the issue at the European Council on 26 June (see EUROPE 13668/16).
In particular, Mr Hoekstra acknowledged that France had been right to push for the recognition of technology neutrality in future post-2030 legislation to achieve the 2040 objective, and for exports to be taken into account within the CBAM.
An official communication from Germany welcomed the European Commission’s final proposal, which largely reflected the German coalition agreement. However, the proposal is still struggling to convince the most reluctant Member States, such as Poland and the Czech Republic.
Czech Environment Minister Petr Hladík said on X that the proposal was still not “realistic”.
“Reducing emissions is necessary; we support it and thrive on it, but without realistic conditions and fair financing, it is not possible to achieve transformation”, he said.
A difficult majority to find in Parliament. Parliament was quick to react too, in particular to the inclusion of international carbon credits (Article 6 of the Paris Agreement) at a level of 3% in order to achieve the 2040 target.
The S&D and Greens/EFA groups regretted this new flexibility aimed at “externalising climate protection” and shifting the focus away from the EU’s domestic investments.
According to Tiemo Wölken (German), S&D coordinator on the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, this inclusion “has the potential to open a Pandora’s box of loopholes and uncertainties for the EU’s climate target architecture”.
The ECR is also critical of the issue. In the opinion of coordinator Alexandr Vondra (Czech), “large companies will get away with investing in projects abroad, while small countries and SMEs will bear the real burden”.
On the contrary, the EPP welcomes the series of flexibilities introduced by the European Commission, for which it had fought, including the inclusion of negative emissions within the Emissions Trading System (ETS). The group is also calling for the climate objective to be rapidly linked to an ambitious reform and competitiveness agenda (see EUROPE 13670/10).
The Renew Europe group, for its part, officially supports the Commission’s proposal. For the Environment coordinator, Pascal Canfin (French), the outcome of the negotiations will be a moment of truth for the EPP, which should not block a majority at the risk of “tipping over into the camp of climate sceptics”. (Original version in French by Pauline Denys)