What they said – groups respond to the EU’s climate targets

The EU Council has reaffirmed the bloc’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040, compared to 1990 levels, in what the EU described as a ‘crucial step’ towards achieving climate neutrality by 2050.

“The target is rooted in science and at the same time, it combines our competitiveness and security,” commented Lars Aagaard, Denmark’s minister for climate, energy and utilities. “This is important for the future of Europe – and it shows that even in challenging times, we can stand united.”

Critics of the agreed framework have pointed out, however, that as much as 5% of the reductions are expected to come from carbon offsets outside the EU, while an agreement is also in place to periodically review the plans.

Just in time for COP30, EU ministers have also backed the European Commission’s 2035 nationally determined contribution (NDC) to reduce emissions by between 66.25% and 72.5%, compared to 1990 levels. However, here too, the devil is in the detail.

Here’s how various representative groups greeted the news.

Stientje van Veldhoven, vice president and regional director for Europe, World Resources Institute

“The EU’s 90% target reflects the level of ambition this moment demands and stands out as one of the most ambitious commitments in the world. Finalising it just ahead of COP30 shows that the bloc is determined to arrive at the summit with a serious contribution to tackling the climate crisis, and signals that it recognises climate action as central to Europe’s economic future.

“Europe’s climate competitiveness and energy independence will not be secured through hesitation or outsourcing. Keeping the door open to revising climate measures creates uncertainty for businesses that need long-term investment security. The announcement to revise and postpone the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS2), while leaving open the possibility of allowing additional offsets, adds to this unpredictability. The exact way these provisions will be applied will determine the EU’s actual speed of transition.”

“The EU’s 2035 target is a solid step toward reaching its longer-term climate goals, but only if the bloc strives for the highest end of its target. WRI analysis shows the EU must cut emissions by 72.5% to stay on track for 1.5°C. It would also allow for a smoother emissions reduction towards the 90% goal, rather than relying on steeps cuts after 2035. Falling short would create an unmanageable gap and would undermine investor confidence in Europe’s long-term transition.” Read more here.

Thomas Gelin, EU climate campaigner, Greenpeace

“Cutting climate pollution by 90% was never enough for the EU to make a fair contribution to global climate action, but at least with an honest target the shortfall would be clear. The use of offshore carbon laundering to meet this nominal target means the EU’s own commitment is much lower, and that commitment means even less with a baked-in clause to dilute the target every two years.

“It’s like promising to run a marathon by only training 10km, taking the bus for the last kilometre of that, and reserving the right to just stay home if it rains. Warnings from scientists of climate tipping points, heatwave deaths, crop losses and economic chaos are becoming more dire – half-assing climate action is deeply irresponsible and will mean more people lose their lives, homes and livelihoods.” Read more here.

Vula Tsetsi, co-chair, European Green Party

“The Council’s deal shows a lack of leadership and ambition. It undermines real domestic decarbonisation and weakens Europe’s just transition. The EU has a major responsibility to cut emissions faster domestically, rather than relying on external offsets.

“As Greens, we will continue to work to secure a robust and credible 2040 climate target at COP30. Europe cannot afford to play climate arithmetic while the people are confronted with heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and devastating floods”.

Federico Terreni, climate policy manager, Transport & Environment

“A weakening of the EU’s 2040 target and particularly a delay to ETS2 not only puts Europe’s climate leadership at risk, but undermines the clear pathway towards increased energy security.

“If we don’t uphold the near-term implementation of ETS2 and car CO2 standards, the signal to consumers and businesses is of continued reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets. The Parliament needs to push back against the delay to ETS2 and maintain car CO2 standards.” Read more here.

Michael Sicaud-Clyet, climate policy officer at WWF EU

“Member States are claiming they have agreed on a 90% target, but that’s just sleight of hand. Once you strip off the offsets and the potential emergency break for carbon sinks, the real figure will be lower than 85%. The EU should lead by example, not by loophole.

“Adding a review clause after five years only exacerbates the problem. It turns what should be a clear, stable path for investors and industries into a moving target. Targets are meant to set long-term direction, not to be constantly revised.” Read more here.

Sven Harmeling, head of climate, CAN Europe

“This long-awaited deal is far weaker than the 90 per cent headline suggests. By bowing to pressure of obstructing Member States, ministers have dangerously opened the door to up to 5 per cent of foreign carbon credits. This level of ambition fails to live up to the EU’s responsibility and ability to seriously confront the climate crisis.” Read more here.

Ciarán Cuffe, co-chair, European Green Party

“This agreement reflects hesitation, not ambition. Kicking the can down the road by purchasing carbon credits overseas prolongs the actions needed to make European industries more competitive and create European jobs. It is a missed opportunity.

“The European People’s Party and conservative governments must stop treating the green transition as a burden and start seeing it as Europe’s greatest opportunity for innovation and fairness. True solidarity means building the green transition at home while standing shoulder to shoulder with countries most affected by the climate crisis.”

Fanny Petitbon, France team lead, 350.org

“The EU won’t be going to Belém empty-handed, but their target falls short of what the climate crisis requires and is well below Europe’s historic responsibility. If the bloc wants to keep its credibility, on the global stage and with its own citizens, this target should be treated as the floor not the ceiling.

The EU cannot ignore its climate debt to the world’s most impacted populations. In Belém, the EU must come prepared to discuss the need to scale up debt-free public finance, to support communities to accelerate their clean energy transition, and adapt to the climate crises. This is not about charity or solidarity, but responsibility.” Read more here.