Despite several member states, led by France and Poland, pushing for more delays, the European Commission finally presented its new proposal for a 90% CO2 reduction target for 2040 on Wednesday, July 2nd, as an intermediary step between the already agreed-upon 55% target for 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
While Europe’s economies struggle to stay afloat and the bloc has problems adapting to the changing geopolitical realities, one would think that more climate restrictions would be the last thing on Brussels’ mind. Paradoxically, however, that’s exactly why the Commission pushes forward with the proposal.
“There is a huge amount of geopolitical turmoil. There are collective safety and security issues. And on top of that, there are worries about sustainable economic growth in many of our member states,” EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said. “We’re therefore moving forward. And we’re doing it because it makes sense—from an economic, security, and geopolitical standpoint—to stay the course on climate.”
At least, because of the considerable pushback from member states, the Commission decided to propose “soft” targets this time, instead of the “hard” targets member states are obliged to reach in 2030 and 2050 entirely through domestic efforts.
According to the proposal, member states will be given three “flexibilities” to lean on between 2030 and 2040, the most important of which is the option to offset a maximum of 3% of their emissions by buying carbon credits through funding climate projects outside the European Union, meaning they must only reach 87% domestic reduction before the end of the decade.
This will give “breathing space for hard-to-abate sectors” while also opening new markets for carbon removal technologies worldwide, said Hoekstra, adding that the credits bought by member states must come from certifiably “high-quality” sources.
Green NGOs have been opposed to the idea from the start, saying even a few percent’s leeway risks undermining Europe’s decarbonization efforts. Hoekstra dismissed these concerns by saying that “the planet doesn’t discriminate where emissions are being put into the air.”
At the same time, France and others have been pushing for a much higher limit than just 3%, and wanted to delay the proposal to give more time to debate it among member states. The question is highly sensitive in many countries, as governments fear potential public backlash from voters who don’t want to pay more for electric cars or heat pumps, not to mention the accelerated phase-out of non-renewable energy sources.
However, Brussels does not want to waste time because it is also considering coming up with another target for 2035 by September, to be presented at the UN climate conference in Brazil later this year. Delaying the agreement on the 2040 target could allow for a much weaker one for 2035, and that’s what the Commission wants to avoid.
To sweeten the deal, therefore, the Commission also proposes to integrate European carbon removals into the Emission Trading System (ETS), thereby allowing EU companies to profit from storing or capturing CO2, which they hope will attract capital investment—also through newly proposed tax incentives—and help member states lower their emissions sooner.
And third, the Commission promises greater flexibility across different sectors and elements of the legislation, for member states to choose how to fulfill them according to their specific needs. For example, an EU country can compensate for its struggling land use sector by overachieving on reducing emissions from waste and transport, the climate chief explained.
“We have listened to the science—this is the strategically smart thing to do for Europe,” Hoekstra said. “We know why we’re doing it. … For our people and businesses. For our economy. For a stronger and more resilient Europe.”
All these big words, however, may not be enough to convince France, Poland, and possibly others, who have been pushing for more time or further concessions. Difficult negotiations are likely to follow, especially because these countries now feel that the Commission has put them in a difficult spot by moving forward with the plan despite their objections, potentially turning them into the villains of the story if they decide to block it.
