
EU's proposed 2040 emissions target signals its retreat as leader on climate action
At times when other major countries – the US, Japan, Canada, China and India at various points – have stepped back, the EU has often stepped forward. There would be no Paris accord had the bloc not won a key battle at the Durban climate summit in 2011 that paved the way.
For Wopke Hoekstra, the EU's climate commissioner, that era is over. Europe would still lead, he said, but other countries must come forward too.
'[We should be] looking forward to contributions from more than just the EU, given that we're responsible for 6% of global emissions, so without others we're not going to solve this,' he said in an interview before the publication of the commission's proposal for a 2040 emissions target on Wednesday. 'Much as I appreciate the high expectations [of EU leadership], it is extremely important to contextualise this. We will continue with clearly ambitious yet also pragmatic climate policies.'
The commission has proposed a 90% reduction on greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, compared with 1990 levels. The figure is at the bottom of the 90-95% range that the bloc's scientific advisers said was possible, and to the consternation of many green campaigners includes a provision for up to 3% of the reductions to come from buying carbon credits overseas, from 2036.
Mohamed Adow, the director of the Nairobi-based thinktank Power Shift Africa, said: 'The EU using carbon credits in its 2040 target is a huge concern and will undermine trust at a time [when] we need Europe to be stepping into the void left by the US. Carbon credits are a mirage, an accounting trick to let the rich world keep on burning fossil fuels whilst pretending climate change is being tackled somewhere else in the world.'
The idea also has some support, however. Rebecca Humphries, the head of climate policy for Europe at the Nature Conservancy, said: 'Carbon markets, when done right, can lead to faster and more effective climate progress.'
The proposal must still pass key hurdles: it could face opposition in the EU parliament, and some member states have signalled they may try to maul it. Those include the predictably climate-sceptic Hungary, but also – astoundingly, on the 10th anniversary of the Paris agreement – France.
Emmanuel Macron has suggested the 2040 target could be delayed, by separating it from the EU's discussions on a fresh target on emissions under the Paris agreement, called a nationally determined contribution (NDC), covering the next decade. The UN secretary general has asked all countries to submit NDCs in September, after most missed a February deadline, to allow them to be presented at a crunch climate summit, Cop30, this November in Brazil.
The EU's NDC, pegged to 2035, is supposed to be derived from the 2040 proposal. Allowing them to be separated would give more time for debate on the later goal – debate demanded mainly by those who wish to weaken it.
European centrist leaders face a populist threat, and backlash against green policy. Macron's stance, and Hoekstra's comments on EU leadership, must be seen in that context.
But giving in to populist rhetoric may be counterproductive. Polls show that most people in the EU remain firmly in favour of strong climate measures. Amélie Laurent, policy adviser at the Bellona Europe thinktank, said: 'With most Europeans recognising climate change as a serious threat and supporting climate neutrality by 2050, it is crystal clear that citizens demand meaningful climate action. EU policymakers must listen to their citizens and deliver the targets needed to meet this mandate.'
Sign up to Down to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
The EU's policies will also have an effect internationally. Cosima Cassel, programme lead for climate diplomacy and geopolitics at the E3G thinktank in Berlin, said the EU's NDC would be crucial in galvanising other economic heavyweights to play their part. 'A timely NDC submission would send a clear signal to other major emitters including China, India, Japan, Australia and Mexico to step up their own ambition ahead of Cop30.'
China, the world's biggest emitter, will be critical – whether Beijing goes for a 10% cut in emissions by 2035, as some have suggested, or the 30% to 50% cut that others calculate is feasible, will be the biggest determinant of success at Cop30 in Belém.
The EU is holding key meetings with China in the coming weeks, and Hoekstra has criticised the Chinese for building new coal-fired power plants. But at least China is helping to drive global takeup of clean technology at a rapid rate. India is also surging ahead in renewable energy, and is now the world's third-biggest producer of solar and wind energy.
By contrast, there are very large emitters and exporters of fossil fuels – Russia, Saudi Arabia and now the US – that take little action or have gone backwards on climate commitments.
The key question for the EU, and the planet, will be what can be done to bring recalcitrant countries on board at Cop30. Allowing them to exploit the impression that the EU is backing down might prove a boon to the wreckers.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
European second-quarter corporate profits expected to fall 0.3%
July 22 (Reuters) - The outlook for European corporate health has slightly improved, the latest earnings forecasts showed on Tuesday, despite continued uncertainty over global trade and the European Union preparing for counter-measures against any major U.S. tariffs. European companies are expected to report a drop of 0.3% in second-quarter earnings, on average, according to LSEG I/B/E/S data. That is slightly above the 0.7% fall analysts expected a week ago. Forecasts for Europe-wide STOXX 600 (.STOXX), opens new tab company earnings have steadily worsened since U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans for "reciprocal" tariffs in February. Analysts expected second-quarter earnings to increase 9.1% year-on-year right before the announcement, according to the data. The consensus forecast for second-quarter revenue, on the other hand, has continued to weaken, the LSEG report showed, with analysts now expecting a 3.1% fall versus a 3.0% drop last week. That would be the worst quarterly performance in more than a year. A year ago, STOXX 600 companies on average delivered a 3.0% increase in second-quarter earnings and a 0.8% drop in revenues. This earnings season will highlight how Trump's tariff threats are affecting European companies, as many of them scramble to minimise risks and prepare strategies to counter uncertainty. Italian-listed Stellantis ( opens new tab said on Monday tariffs had already cost the auto group 300 million euros ($351 million) and pharma firm AstraZeneca (AZN.L), opens new tab announced plans to spend $50 billion expanding in the U.S. by 2030. Among sectors, the earnings of STOXX 600 technology firms are expected to increase 26.5% in the second quarter, while those of consumer cyclicals - auto, retail and entertainment companies - are forecast to shrink 23.6%, the LSEG data showed. ($1 = 0.8545 euros)


The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Water companies reveal why they haven't issued a single hosepipe ban fine
Major water companies in England, including Southern Water and Thames Water, have not issued any fines for breaches of hosepipe bans over the last five years. Despite having the legal power to fine up to £1,000, companies say they have relied on public goodwill for compliance during multiple bans imposed since 2020. Campaigners argue that water companies' own failings, such as leaking pipes and underinvestment, pose a greater threat to supplies than household water use. The water sector faces scrutiny over a 60 per cent rise in serious pollution incidents in 2024, prompting government plans to overhaul regulation and scrap Ofwat. Experts warn that the UK is running out of water, stressing the need for broader solutions beyond hosepipe bans, including everyone reducing water waste.


The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Can no one silence Nigel Farage's latest populist dogwhistle?
Apparently, there's a debate going on in the upper echelons of the Labour government about what to do about Nigel Farage. Not a moment too soon, you might say. The choice, as it's been posited by Labour insiders, is whether to 'confront' or 'deflect' Reform UK. Farage's populist insurgency has picked up lots of local councils, won a by-election – just – and settled in the opinion polls around 25 to 30 per cent ahead of Labour. Not so long ago, it was an unthinkable situation. Something similar has been going on in the Conservative camp since they lost the general election, and, as we see, it seems the immediate answer to their version of the Farage-ist challenge is to reshuffle the shadow cabinet, bring back James Cleverly, and let Kemi Badenoch have some more time. They can't work out if they want to collaborate with Farage, or confront him. Both parties actually show signs of appeasing him and aping his policies, from welfare to refugees. It's not good. It's worth reminding the mainstream parties what happened last time they were too fastidious to take an ascendant Farage down, which was the Brexit referendum campaign. It was, as it still is, incredibly time-consuming and tiresome to have to fact-check every vague promise and extravagant claim Farage comes out with, and the easiest thing is just to call him an extremist/populist/fascist/xenophobe/racist or whatever and try to ignore him. Well, we all know what happens. As Farage himself might say: 'They're not laughing now!' Much the same – less forgivably – goes for the media. Not that it's an easy job trying to verify whatever casual claims Farage comes out with in real-time, but it means he tends to go unchallenged. Take his appearance on the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show. He claimed, off the top of his head, that cancelling net zero – an amorphous concept, in any case – would save some £30bn a year, and said that 'even' the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), 'a tool of the Establishment,' said so. Kuenssberg had neither the time nor the evidence in front of her to cite Section 4 of the OBR report on long-term fiscal risks that showed that £20bn of the £30bn is due to the loss of fuel duty in the transition to electric cars. If some new levy on electric vehicles was introduce to replace the lost revenues in petrol and diesel sales, the additional cost to the taxpayer would be down to £10bn a year. The OBR has said in 2021 and apparently endorsed again now that 'the costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero.' Which happens to be true. I'm definitely not criticising Kuenssberg here, because no interviewer – even with a researcher in her earpiece – could counter that in time, nor make the argument about how the UK has indeed helped big polluters like China and India at least sign up to CO2 reduction targets – and China is now leading the world in green tech and electric vehicles. We had the same sort of thing at the press conference where Farage said he'd cut crime in half in five years. The £30bn net zero thing came up again, but the Q&A session wasn't well suited to pinning him down over it. Asked how he'd pay for his sketchily costed plans to hire another 30,000 police, build 'Nightingale prisons', new 'custody suites', restore the magistrates courts, send 'Britain's worst offenders' to jail in El Salvador, and bang up an unknown number of serious offenders for life, he tossed out a figure of £50bn to £70bn that could be found from scrapping HS2 – even though it's pretty much been run down and the money diverted to other road and rail projects by Rishi Sunak. No one thought to ask exactly how Farage would halve crime, how the plan would work in practice, and why, if he could achieve that improbable outcome, that he couldn't abolish crime completely in 10 years. When Farage does get cornered, as when Kuenssberg pressed him on whether he believes in climate science, and the antics of Reform UK councillors, he has some stock get-outs, and, like so much else he does, they're straight out of the Trump playbook. Tactic one is to say he doesn't know anything about some story so he can't answer and doesn't know if what's referred to is true. Second, he can just say that no party's numbers ever add up anyway – the 'experts' are always wrong and it's not worth bothering about. Third, is the superficially plausible line that if he gets more people 'with real business experience' into government they'll sort things out, just like Trump and Musk did in America – and Reform's pretend DOGE team is trying and thus far failing to do in Britain's skint county councils. Like Trump in the US, Farage is inviting a public more than usually disillusioned with politicians to turn to brilliant business people such as, erm, Zia Yusuf and Richard Tice, and perhaps even the former commodities trader: Farage himself. I suppose I'm just stating the obvious, really, which is that Farage's Trumpian brand of populism and its amplification in the right-wing client press and social media presents a challenge to the mainstream parties, and real independent journalism that they have not been able to cope with. A lot of that failure is, frankly, down to something like laziness, and a reluctance to do the hard graft of countering the lies and busting the myths about economics, immigration, crime and the rest that Reform constantly pump to 'flood the zone', as they say in the states. It is tedious to get your head around, say, carbon budgets and remember all the key crime stats for London, because no one carries that much stuff around in their heads. But our leaders could confront Farage a little harder and with a bit more effect than they've managed so far. We could, let's say, push him much harder on why getting the Royal Navy to take irregular migrants back to Calais is a violation of French sovereignty, and would threaten a Cold War with France and the rest of the European Union in retaliation, with huge damage to trade and the economy. He's been getting away with this sort of nonsense for far too long, and now it's getting dangerous. He needs to be confronted – but who is going to do it?