On the second day of their informal meeting in Aalborg (Denmark) on Friday 11 July, the European climate ministers held a debate over the climate policy to be pursued after 2030 in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. This is the first official ministerial-level discussion on the subject since the publication on 2 July of the European Commission’s proposal to revise the ‘Climate Law’, which sets a target of a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 compared to 1990 (see EUROPE 13672/1).
“Clearly, the way forward must take into account industrial competitiveness, security and climate action. The vast majority of Member States are willing to engage constructively in the run-up to the September Council meeting”, stated the Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU in a press release.
The Danish minister, Lars Aagaard, welcomed “a constructive discussion” on an issue that, in his view, “will determine the future not only of Europe, but of the world”.
The Commissioner for Climate, Net Zero and Clean Growth, Wopke Hoekstra, defended the proposed trajectory, which combines climate ambition, competitiveness and strategic independence. He noted that the EU accounts for just 6% of global emissions, and called on the other powers to “do their bit”.
The 90% target should underpin the EU’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) for 2035. Wopke Hoekstra pointed out that the 2040 target must first be set before the resulting NDC can be defined, which would be supported by the “vast majority” of Member States.
One of the most sensitive issues is the inclusion of international carbon credits, in accordance with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The European Commission is proposing limiting the contribution to 3% from 2036.
According to Lars Aagaard, there is general support for this option, which leaves many different technical issues open. He sees it as a way of “helping other countries to make a successful transition”.
Commissioner Hoekstra confirmed that some Member States wish to lower this threshold, while others are asking for it to be increased. He believes that the proposed compromise is “robust”. The postponement to 2036, which excludes these credits from the calculation of the NDC, is fully accepted, since those in favour of limited use would not wish to postpone it, he stressed.
The day before, various differences had already emerged over the timetable, the level of ambition and the use of international funds: France had presented Article 6 as a diplomatic tool; Sweden and Germany had pleaded for a rapid agreement to be reached; Hungary was concerned about the speed of things without a sufficient impact assessment.
Moreover, the European Parliament's rejection of an accelerated procedure (see EUROPE 13677/3) does not prevent the European Commission from hoping for a rapid agreement. When asked about a possible pre-negotiation with the European Parliament before the position is adopted on 18 September, Wopke Hoekstra did not explicitly confirm this possibility, but said that, according to her reading of the debate, the Member States shared a desire to finalise their NDC before COP30 in Belém (Brazil). (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry and Pauline Denys)