After lengthy negotiations at the Environmental Council Meeting, national governments chose short-term political convenience over scientific integrity, environmental safety, and societal responsibility, by failing to uphold a loophole-free domestic 90% net target – the bare minimum recommended by scientists. 

Without such a commitment, the EU risks missing its climate goals, delaying green investments and losing credibility in the global climate negotiations, warns the European Environmental Bureau (the EU’s largest network of environmental NGOs).

Mathieu Mal, Policy Officer for Agriculture and Climate said: 

“To support global climate action, the EU must lead by example. Today, national governments failed to do so, instead pushing for a watered-down climate target, riddled with debilitating flexibilities and not grounded in scientific advice. Without a robust target of at least 90% net emission reductions, to be implemented within our own borders, the EU not only risks delaying vital investments in the transition at home, but also jeopardises its international credibility at the upcoming COP30 negotiations.”  

Context 

Over the past months, national governments have peddled their 2040 climate target wish lists, pressuring the EU Commission, which resulted in a weak Commission proposal. Now the additional amendments put forward in the Council negotiations deviate further from what should be the leading principles of EU climate policy: scientific and environmental integrity. 

While the 90% target proposed by the Commission – which is the bare minimum put forward by science – survived negotiations, the qualifying language and increased flexibilities put forward by the Council are highly concerning, warns the EEB.  

The EEB regrets that: 

• Policymakers are using ‘simplification’, ‘competitiveness’, ‘defence’, and ‘food security’ as a guise to lower ambition and weaken rules to benefit the corporate interests of a few at the expense of everyone else; 
• The EU seems willing to outsource climate action through international credits which would hamper investment in the transition, delay emission reductions, and send the wrong signal: that the EU is unable and unwilling to take the necessary steps at home; 
• By allowing for on-the-go adjustments to the overarching target during implementation (through the revision clause), and for the continued use of practices and technologies that hamper climate action and a just transition, the EU is setting itself up to fail. Effective climate action needs a clear pathway and swift implementation of proven solutions, not a moving goal post and favours for select industries; 
• Delaying the Emissions Trading Scheme for buildings and transport (ETS2) by even one year would seriously undermine the EU’s ability to meet its 2030 climate targets. ETS2 was designed to curb emissions in heating and transport; two sectors that together account for over one-third of total EU emissions and have been far too slow to decline. The system sets clear responsibilities, creates accountability, and ensures real reductions through carbon pricing. It acts as our climate safety net, kicking in only when emissions exceed agreed limits. Weakening ETS2 means losing one of the few concrete tools we have to cut emissions this decade. 
• The call for increased flexibilities between sectors and policies will mean continued exoneration of particular sectors, such as the land use and agricultural sectors. By permitting parts of the economy to lag behind on climate action, all in the name of ‘flexibility’, the urgently needed transition will be further delayed. With significant potential to reduce emissions across all sectors, it is unacceptable to choose not to make use of it; 
• Our natural land carbon sinks, such as forests and peatlands, are under intense pressure, not only from the impacts of the climate crisis, but also due to the detrimental mismanagement of natural ecosystems. Allowing for the overarching climate target to be adjusted in case land sinks underperform on carbon sequestration will result in less incentive to sustainably manage natural ecosystems; increasing greenhouse gas emissions as land sinks further degrade. This proposed flexibility symbolises the Councils’ overall lack of ambition: overperformance in one sector allows for reduced efforts in others, but underperformance comes has no consequences. 

This is not a time for hesitation and backtracking; it’s time to lead by example. The climate crisis doesn’t wait, nor does it care about accounting tricks.  

We now look to the European Parliament to show its support for an equitable and science-based target, that will keep the EU on track and provide it with credibility at the upcoming COP30 negotiations.  

ENDS

Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash