logo
EU targets 90% cut in emissions by 2040 as green groups cry foul

EU targets 90% cut in emissions by 2040 as green groups cry foul

The Guardian2 days ago
The EU should slash its planet-heating pollution by 90% by 2040, the European Commission has announced, in a proposed change to its climate law that falls short of what its scientists have advised.
The much-awaited target to cut emissions, which is measured against pollution levels from 1990, is a significant milestone on the EU's path to decarbonise its economy by 2050.
Green groups, however, are furious that it leaves room to count foreign carbon credits, such as planting trees and saving forests, that researchers have often found are ineffective.
The announcement of the legally binding target, which comes as much of the continent swelters in a scorching days-long heatwave, had been delayed by months after pushback from member states that found the headline figure of 90% too ambitious.
Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, said the discussion around the target had been 'politically sensitive' but defended measures introduced to win over national capitals.
The new approach to reaching the target allows the use of domestic carbon removals through the EU's emissions trading system and offers more flexibility across different sectors of the economy. It also opens the door for limited use of carbon offsets from 2036.
Critics, including scientists, have raised fears of junk offsets that are impossible to verify or that claim carbon savings for projects that may have gone ahead anyway, a concept known as 'additionality'.
'If we don't manage to do it in a way that is verifiable, certifiable and additional, then you could raise questions on whether it is actually effective,' Hoekstra said. 'But humanity has done more difficult things than this, and I am absolutely convinced that we will pull it off.'
The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change had recommended the commission aim for slightly steeper cuts of 90-95%. It emphasised it should achieve them through 'domestic action', which would exclude the use of carbon offsets.
The advisers said such a level of ambition was feasible and would increase the fairness of the EU's contribution to global climate action.
Mohammed Chahim, a Dutch lawmaker and climate lead for the centre-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) grouping, said the proposals were little more than window dressing and raised questions about climate justice. 'Europe risks shirking its responsibilities – polluting at home while planting trees abroad to buy a clean conscience,' he said.
An EU official defended the proposal, saying the use of international credits was 'politically pragmatic and economically rational'. The target would allow carbon credits to make a 3% contribution to emission reductions, in line with Germany's position, and would be allowed only in the second half of the next decade.
The official said they would 'strongly advise' against buying credits in the current voluntary carbon market, but new carbon trading rules finalised at the Cop29 climate conference in Baku last year provided a very different context. 'Still, a lot of work is needed to get all this right,' they added.
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 target would need to be agreed by member states and passed by the EU parliament before being translated into a target for 2035 under UN climate treaties. The EU has to submit a new climate action plan before Cop30 in Brazil in November.
Teresa Ribera, the EU's green transition chief, pointed to forces feeding climate scepticism, polarisation and delay to explain the extra flexibility that some member states had asked for. 'The world at the beginning of 2024 is not the world of today,' she said. 'We still had a huge majority – including one of the biggest countries – supporting multilateralism. This is not the case any more.'
The target comes amid a broader rollback of environment policy in the EU, which campaigners say is gaining momentum. The deregulation drive has shocked observers with its scale and speed.
Some industry groups were also dismayed by the proposal. The European federation of industrial energy consumers (IFIEC) said it supported the goal of climate neutrality by 2050 but found the proposed 90% target 'a disproportionate and unrealistic' acceleration of the ambition.
'An overly steep reduction curve ignores this reality and runs the risk of accelerating de-industrialisation in Europe and massively importing CO2 emissions,' said Hans Grünfeld, president of IFIEC.
Green groups said the target fell short of the EU's responsibilities as one of the world's biggest historical emitters of greenhouse gases. 'The European Commission will try to portray this as an ambitious step forward, but the reality is we are fast running out of room to achieve the Paris agreement,' said Colin Roche, climate justice and energy coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe. 'This target is in line neither with climate science nor with climate justice.'
Thomas Gelin, a campaigner at Greenpeace EU, said the EU had a historical responsibility to cut emissions at home. 'The EU's 2040 climate targets should drive a shift away from fossil fuels, starting with an EU ban on new fossil fuel projects, towards renewables and energy saving, to cut people's energy bills, make their homes easier to heat and cool, and clean the air they breathe,' he said. 'Instead, the European Commission relies on dodgy accounting and offshore carbon laundering to pretend to hit the lower bound of what its climate scientists advise.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Should we be concerned about multiple tiers of British justice?
Should we be concerned about multiple tiers of British justice?

Telegraph

time24 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Should we be concerned about multiple tiers of British justice?

Stories about 'two-tier' policing and justice have become a frequent feature in the news. Just this week, there's been yet another 'two-tier' policing row over a pro-Palestine protestor dressed as a holocaust concentration camp inmate and Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, no less, has said allegations of 'two-tier' justice are 'disgusting '. Then there's the ongoing reports about Lucy Connolly. She was sentenced to 31 months in prison for an ill-judged post on X about asylum seekers (which she later deleted). The appeal to reduce her sentence failed, but when serious offences receive lesser sentencing, there are legitimate grounds for concern. Everyone must be treated equally before the law, but public perception as to whether this remains the case is being harmed and presents a crisis of trust in our institutions. So, is the Attorney General wrong to express his criticism of those speaking up on the status quo? My new report for Civitas delves into examples of 'two-tier' policing and justice. My findings indicate public perception around police impartiality and justice have indeed been eroded over the decades. None of this should be taken lightly, given impartiality is central to the police's commitment to discharge their duties, 'without fear or favour' – but there are examples of where policing might be viewed as operating, 'with fear and favour'. Are some groups, like the white working class, treated differently to others? Are they treated equally to Black Lives Matter (who Starmer took the knee for, whilst in opposition), climate protestors or Muslim counter protestors following the Southport tragedy? Last summer's disorder was a focal point, but racial and religious sensitivities have long impacted justice for grooming gang survivors. A hierarchical hate crime policy for Britain's faith groups, plus allegations of two-tier policing since October 7, give rise to further questions about impartiality. The existing policing approach reflects that rather than operating on a colour-blind or community-blind basis, the attempt was made by police to compensate for the allegation stemming from the Macpherson inquiry of 'institutional racism' – by policing different communities in different ways. Although this is well intentioned, it is not without consequence. The Government have pushed back on this framing. In fact in April, the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into the 2024 riots referred to 'unsubstantiated and disgraceful claims of 'two-tier policing''. The state's decisive action to quell disorder, post Southport against so-called 'far-Right thugs' (a narrative later proven to be false) was of course necessary, but it contrasts with the approach to the Roma riots in Harehills (Leeds) where at one point, the police retreated after becoming the target of the mob themselves, or disorder by predominantly Muslim counter-protestors in Bordesley Green (Birmingham) where journalists were targeted and a white man attacked outside a pub. Remarkably, Leeds City Council issued a joint statement (a day after Harehills) praising the Romanian/Roma community contribution to, 'the diversity and richness of the Harehills'. Meanwhile, despite the serious public disorder in Birmingham, reports indicated 'a lack of police presence'. West Midlands Police consulted 'community leaders' prior to the disorder, and Harehills was largely viewed as a community issue. The 'community leader' gatekeeper concept, when applied to some groups, but not others, introduces an element of police bias. Worst still, the Home Office X account referred to the post-Southport protestors as 'criminals' even before they had been tried in court, removing the legal principle of presumption of innocence. Justice for them was indeed swift – the disorder broke out on 30 July, with the first prison sentences announced a week later. Meanwhile, a suspended Labour councillor who pleaded not guilty to encouraging violent disorder last summer is going to trial in August 2025 – a year on. But allegations of impartial policing or policy aren't restricted to how the state deals with public order. Take the recording of hate crime, or Orwellian non-crime-hate-incidents (NCHIs) for religion. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are prioritised. The Government's secretive 'Islamophobia' working group, tasked with putting together a new definition should really pause until completion of the national grooming gang inquiry. That's because allegations of so-called 'Islamophobia' could stifle open discussion. But why does the Government not also define anti-Christian, anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh hatred, whilst they're at it? Or better still – treat them all on one equal footing? After the targeting of a mosque in Southport last summer, the Government announced additional 'emergency' security funding for mosques to build on the existing £29 million fund in place last year, allocated to the standalone Protective Security for Mosques Scheme. But no 'emergency' funding announcement came forth when a Hindu temple in Leicester (and one in Birmingham) was targeted during the Hindu-Muslim disorder back in 2022. Standalone funding schemes dedicated to protecting places of worship exist for some religious groups, but not others. Although the Government will continue to dismiss claims of 'two-tier' justice, in April it was forced to introduce emergency legislation to kibosh guidelines specifying preferential treatment for 'minority' communities to, 'prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council guidelines and avoid any unintended discrimination'. As I discovered, there are many examples of where identity politics and progressivist causes have trumped impartial policing. It is time to reinstate equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of their politics, religion or identity grouping.

The Gaza discourse has been Vylanised – but that diversionary strategy just doesn't work any more
The Gaza discourse has been Vylanised – but that diversionary strategy just doesn't work any more

The Guardian

time38 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

The Gaza discourse has been Vylanised – but that diversionary strategy just doesn't work any more

If you are in the business of anointing monsters, you can see why your eyes would light up at a punk act called Bob Vylan. Until last weekend, sure, it might have been a tough sell to proclaim them as an avatar for Britain's revolting youth: prominent though they might be on the UK's punk scene, they had about about 220,000 monthly listeners on Spotify – a mere 1,000,000 away from a place in the top 10,000. But then, at Glastonbury, they made the most powerful possible case for broad media attention: they said something controversial about Israel's assault on Gaza, and opened up a chance to have a go at the BBC. And so the following morning, on the front page of the Mail on Sunday: 'NOW ARREST PUNK BAND WHO LED 'DEATH TO ISRAELIS' CHANTS AT GLASTONBURY.' Pascal Robinson-Foster, aka Bobby Vylan, had started a round of 'antisemitic chanting' that was broadcast live on the corporation's coverage of the festival, the story explained. Keir Starmer called it 'appalling hate speech'. The calls for the band members' arrest were quickly picked up, and before long the Conservatives were suggesting that the BBC should be prosecuted as well. On Monday, the story splashed in the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express. In fact, Robinson-Foster hadn't chanted 'Death to Israelis', but 'Death to the IDF', a sharply different proposition, and one focused on the military machine attacking Gaza, the Israeli Defense Forces, rather than Israeli civilians. Nonetheless, the Mail on Sunday's headline elision stuck. In much of the coverage, the idea that the chant was inherently antisemitic wasn't even a question. The assertion was barely explained in any of the front page stories; the BBC and even Glastonbury's Emily Eavis went along with it too. If you were looking for a rationale, the closest you got came from Stephen Pollard in the Mail on Sunday: after comparing the scene to the Nuremberg rallies, he added that 'what they meant – because the IDF is the army of the world's only Jewish state – was 'Death, death to the Jews''. Later, Andrew Neil went further: 'I was going to say that they sometimes seem to have more in common with the Nuremberg rally,' he mused. 'But even the Nazis didn't say 'death to the Jews'.' Meanwhile, Yvette Cooper has ordered that Palestine Action should be banned as a terrorist group for its targeting of buildings and businesses in opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza, even though it has no agenda for violence – and after a last-minute legal challenge to the proscription failed on Friday, supporting them is now a criminal offence. In that environment, any uncertainty about the Bob Vylan story would plainly be treated as apologism for hate speech, or worse, and so there wasn't a lot of it about. In truth, though, a lot of people might have been uncertain. The IDF as metonym for any Jew is not a typical trope in the extremist's lexicon, and the circumstances of the Israeli military's assault on Gaza are the obvious, and urgent, locus of the chant's intended force. Nonetheless, Avon and Somerset police have now opened a criminal investigation. There are, to be sure, cogent objections to raise. Robinson-Foster described a record label boss as a 'Zionist', and while he noted that the executive 'would speak very strongly about his support for Israel', it is reasonable to accuse him of playing into a familiar antisemitic trope, particularly about the music industry. Meanwhile, some Jewish people already alert to a rise in racist hostility towards them may well have felt alarmed by the sight of a crowd chanting against the Israeli army. Sensible people will come to a range of conclusions about those points – but there has been no space for that discussion, because the IDF apparently represents Jewish people everywhere, and everything else gets lost in the shuffle. The death toll in Gaza now stands at more than 57,000, according to figures from the Gaza ministry of health; a robust independent survey recently put the count at almost 84,000. Israeli ministers and officials have given weight to allegations that a genocide is under way with assertions that starving two million Palestinians to death might be 'justified and moral' and descriptions of a forced 'deportation plan'. The amount of aid going into the territory remains a fraction of what is needed. At least 400 Palestinians have been killed recently in incidents involving the IDF while approaching food distribution centres; Haaretz reported that soldiers were ordered to fire on them deliberately, a claim denied by Israel as 'vicious lies'. Meanwhile, in the UK, the only adjacent story deemed worthy of front page attention is the conduct of an obscure punk-rap group from Ipswich. On 17 June, at least 59 Palestinians were killed after the IDF fired on a crowd waiting for flour trucks near Khan Younis. The next day's Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Express featured no coverage of that story at all. Perhaps they would have done if the BBC had broadcast it live. It would be understandable, then, to conclude that the obsession with Bob Vylan – and Kneecap, and Palestine Action – matters mainly for its diversionary force. But there is something more at work here. It isn't just that people are angry that the catastrophe in Gaza isn't being given due attention: it is that their encounters with observable reality are being flatly denied. The choice framed by these stories is between being an anti-racist, or even an anti-terrorist, and being horrified by the slaughter of thousands of brown civilians in a military siege. For anyone who routinely sees videos of the aftermath of Israeli violence against civilians in their social media feeds, this is enough to make you feel crazy. Across the UK and the US, there is increasing evidence that people who object to what we might call the Vylanising of the Gaza discourse are finding their voice. In the general election last year, Labour lost five seats to pro-Gaza candidates, and forfeited about a third of its vote in some Muslim majority areas. In New York, Zohran Mamdani won an underdog victory in the Democratic mayoral primary despite attempts to caricature him as an advocate of 'jihad'. Some 55% of the British public opposes Israel's military campaign in Gaza, and 45% view Israel's actions as genocidal; less than half of Americans are now more sympathetic to Israel than to Palestinians, and almost 60% of Democrats are now more supportive of Palestinians. Among people under 40, those numbers only go up. Those people have been told that Gaza protests are hate marches; they can see it's not true. They have been told that US campus protesters are largely motivated by antisemitism; they can see it's not true. They have been told that Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation because it spray painted military aircraft; they can see it's not true. They have been repeatedly told, by Benjamin Netanyahu, that opposition to Israel's war is antisemitic; they can see it's not true. They have been told that the British government finds Israel's actions 'intolerable'; they can see it's not true. Now they are being told that opposing the IDF is antisemitic, that the Glastonbury crowd is more virulent than the one at Nuremberg, and that direct action is a form of terrorism. They can see all that's not true, either, and however far their view is from the front pages, they know that they are far from alone. Archie Bland is the editor of the Guardian's First Edition newsletter Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Kyiv hits Russian airbase after Moscow pounds Ukraine with hundreds of drones
Kyiv hits Russian airbase after Moscow pounds Ukraine with hundreds of drones

BreakingNews.ie

timean hour ago

  • BreakingNews.ie

Kyiv hits Russian airbase after Moscow pounds Ukraine with hundreds of drones

Ukraine said it has struck a Russian airbase, while Russia continued to pound Ukraine with hundreds of drones overnight as part of a stepped-up bombing campaign that has further dashed hopes for a breakthrough in efforts to end the war. Ukraine's military General Staff said Ukrainian forces had struck the Borisoglebsk airbase in Russia's Voronezh region, describing it as the 'home base' of Russia's Su-34, Su-35S and Su-30SM fighter jets. Advertisement Writing on Facebook, the General Staff said it hit a depot containing glide bombs, a training aircraft and 'possibly other aircraft'. It was a rocky start to the day, with more than 500 Russian attack drones and missiles. Difficult, but a significant number were shot down. Interceptor drones demonstrated important performance today and we are scaling this up to the hilt. Today marks an important decision in… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) July 4, 2025 Russian officials did not immediately comment on the attack. Such attacks on Russian airbases aim to dent Russia's military capability and demonstrate Ukraine's capability to hit high-value targets in Russia. Last month, Ukraine said it destroyed more than 40 Russian planes stationed at several airfields deep in Russia's territory in a surprise drone attack. Advertisement Russia fired 322 drones and decoys into Ukraine overnight into Saturday, Ukraine's air force said. Of these, 157 were shot down and 135 were lost, likely having been electronically jammed. Metro stations are used as bomb shelters in Kyiv (AP) According to the air force, Ukraine's western Khmelnytskyi region was the main target of the attack. Regional governor Serhii Tyurin said no damage, injuries or deaths had been reported. Russia has been stepping up its long-range attacks on Ukraine. Waves of drones and missiles targeted Kyiv overnight into Friday in the largest aerial assault since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began, killing one person and wounding at least 26 others. The fresh wave of attacks came after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Friday that he had a 'very important and productive' phone call with US President Donald Trump. Advertisement I had a very important and fruitful conversation with @POTUS . I congratulated President Trump and the entire American people on the US Independence Day. We - in Ukraine - are grateful for all the support provided. It helps us protect lives, safeguard our freedom and… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) July 4, 2025 The two leaders discussed how Ukrainian air defences might be strengthened, possible joint weapons production between the US and Ukraine, and broader U.S-led efforts to end the war with Russia, according to a statement by Mr Zelenksy. Asked on Friday night by reporters about the call, Mr Trump said: 'We had a very good call, I think.' When asked about finding a way to end the fighting, the US leader said: 'I don't know. I can't tell you whether or not that's going to happen.' Strikes have continued on Kyiv (AP) The US has paused some shipments of military aid to Ukraine, including crucial air defence missiles. Advertisement Ukraine's main European backers are considering how they can help pick up the slack. Mr Zelensky says plans are afoot to build up Ukraine's domestic arms industry, but scaling up will take time. Russia's defence ministry said it shot down 94 Ukrainian drones overnight into Saturday, along with 12 further drones on Saturday morning. No casualties were reported.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store