The Environment Council on Thursday 18 September is unlikely to reach an agreement on the EU’s 2040 climate target. Faced with the blockage of a qualified majority of Member States in Coreper I, which met on Tuesday 16 September (see other news), the Danish Presidency opted for an intermediate solution, namely to forward to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change a letter of intent proposing a range of reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions of between 65% and 72.5% by 2035.
This solution makes it possible both to maintain the trajectory towards a 90% reduction in emissions by 2040 compared to 1990 as a benchmark and to ensure that the European Union has a provisional contribution before the autumn deadlines on the international stage.
For the environmentalists, this compromise illustrates above all a loss of international credibility for the EU. “Anyone who continues to claim that we are leaders at international level is, I’m sorry to say, in reality talking rubbish”, declared the Co-President of the Greens/EFA Group, Bas Eickhout (Dutch), during a briefing held on Tuesday, pointing out that the United Kingdom and Brazil had already submitted their new national contributions.
In his view, the absence of a rapid decision leaves the EU in a weak position in the run-up to COP30 in Belém in November.
The Green MEPs placed the blame on France and Germany. Lena Schilling (Austria) felt that referring the matter to the European Council was tantamount to saying “Now put it in the hands of Viktor Orbán” (The Prime Minister of Hungary, Editor’s note).
Michael Bloss (German) denounced “a frontal attack on climate ambition”, orchestrated by Germany, accused of aligning itself with the French position in favour of postponement.
Despite the inclusion of numerous demands on “technological neutrality” in the European Commission’s proposal, France now wants the debate to take place at Head of State level. French President Emmanuel Macron is reportedly seeking to link the climate agreement to concessions on nuclear power and on the financing of the transition. As for Germany, its position is surprising.
“Germany needs a European position in 2040, because it still has to achieve climate neutrality by 2045”, said Mr Eickhout.
Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, French), for his part, told the press that the Parliament should not pre-empt the Council. The vote in the Committee on Environment, scheduled for 23 September, is likely to be postponed “to fit in with the Council’s timetable”.
There are two possible options: either a discussion at the European Council on 1 October, which is devoted to defence and therefore unlikely, or a debate on 24 October. The French MEP argued that this referral to the Heads of State, pushed in particular by France to tighten up discussions on nuclear and technological neutrality, entails the risk of opening up a much broader negotiation.
In the event of an agreement of around -90%, he nevertheless believes that a rapid vote in parliamentary committee, then in plenary, even after the start of COP30, would validate the European position. (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)