Latest news with #GreenGroups
The Guardian
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
EU targets 90% cut in emissions by 2040 as green groups cry foul
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.'
The Guardian
02-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
EU targets 90% cut in emissions by 2040 as green groups cry foul
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 in 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. 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.'
The Independent
11-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Reeves protects nature-friendly farming budget amid squeeze on environment spend
Green groups have welcomed the Government's decision to protect the nature-friendly farming budget, but concerns remain about the overall squeeze on environmental spending. Ahead of Chancellor Rachel Reeves' spending review on Wednesday, environmentalists warned that cutting the budget for payments that support farmers and landowners to deliver public goods, such as healthy soil, clean water and hedgerows, would threaten the Government's efforts on food security and tackling nature's declines. It comes as farmers face increasingly challenging climate conditions, while being hit by changes to inheritance tax and the abrupt closure of this year's sustainable farming incentive (SFI), the biggest strand of the environmental land management scheme (Elms). In the spending review, the Government confirmed an increase in the budget for Elms from £1.6 billion in 2023/2024 to £2 billion by 2028/29. But the Environment Department's (Defra) overall budget will be reduced by 0.7% in real terms by the end of the spending review period. Green groups also estimate a £130 million a year real-terms cut to day-to-day resource funding. The department will aim to make some savings through efficiency but it is not yet clear which other areas of Defra's spending could be squeezed. After fears that the department would suffer deeper cuts, green groups and farmers largely welcomed the spending review, especially the move to protect Elms. However, they immediately raised concerns about the impact of the overall budget cut, as well as fears that spending for Natural England, the Government's advisers on the environment, and the Environment Agency watchdog, could be reduced. Campaigners said that Defra still remains under-resourced to enforce environmental laws at scale, limiting regulators' ability to hold polluters, including water companies, to account. Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth's head of policy, said: 'Our natural world is also in crisis. 'Despite modest investment in environmental farming, trees and peatland restoration, the reality is that Defra is still underfunded, farmers need more money, and planning reforms that strip away wildlife protections will accelerate nature's decline.' Joan Edwards, director of policy and public affairs at The Wildlife Trusts, said: 'Defra will have an extremely tight budget and, against a backdrop of persistent inflation, there has been a real-terms cut to vital resource funding of around £130 million a year. 'This means that real risks to nature remain. We don't yet have details on how regulatory bodies like Natural England and the Environment Agency will be funded, for example, and any cuts to their work has serious implications for nature recovery.' James Wallace, chief executive of River Action, said: 'We welcome increased funding for Elms. 'At the same time, years of under-funding has whittled away Defra's ability to protect the environment and enforce the law. 'The environment secretary says he is serious about improving water quality, so it is important that Labour gives him the resources he needs to honour the promises made to millions who voted for a government that pledged to clean up our rivers.' Ami McCarthy, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, welcomed the Chancellor's announcement on investing in renewables, energy efficiency and public transport. 'But we desperately need a proper plan for nature-friendly farming to protect the environment and nature to save bees, wildlife and endangered species,' she said. 'The Government won't meet its commitment to protect 30% of our land by the end of the decade without proper investment and a radical transformation of how we restore biodiversity.' Farming payments in England have switched from EU-era subsidies, which were based on the size of land farmed, to funding for measures that boost nature and reduce input costs, such as pesticide use. But the biggest plank of the new approach, the SFI, was abruptly closed to applications in March after the money was all spent, and a reformed scheme will not reopen until early next year. Figures published by the Treasury to accompany the spending review show that while total department budgets are forecast to grow by an annual average of 2.3% across the period of 2023/24 to 2028/29, there are sharp variations between individual departments. The Government allocated £2.7 billion a year in sustainable farming and nature recovery until 2028-29. The farming and countryside programme will receive £2.3 billion, which was the same average spend under the previous Conservative government, and up to £400 million from additional nature schemes. Elsewhere, the Government has committed £4.2 billion over three years, 2026-27 to 2028-29 to build and maintain flood defences. This will average £1.4 billion each year and is a 5% increase compared with the current spending review period, Defra said.
E&E News
06-05-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
Trump team could still target nonprofits' tax-exempt status
Earth Day came and went on April 22 without a White House announcement environmentalists had feared. But while the immediate sense of panic died down, they might not be in the clear. Rumors swirled ahead of Earth Day that the Trump administration might use the occasion to target environmental nonprofits' tax-exempt status. Green groups have emerged as vocal foes of the president's policies, and speculation grew that environmentalists might be next on President Donald Trump's list after he said his administration would be rescinding Harvard University's tax-exempt status. But following the speculation and a scramble to determine what such a move would entail, the White House said on Earth Day that it wasn't drafting or considering any orders to target nonprofits' tax-exempt status 'at this time.' A White House official repeated that statement in an email this week. Advertisement Legally, the president is barred from directing the IRS to revoke tax exemptions from certain groups. But the president's rhetoric and recent reporting about IRS discussions suggest the broader issue of nonprofits' tax-exempt status remains a live one within the Trump administration.
