EU climate targets: weaken them or stick to them?
The EU environment ministers have agreed to stick to the goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 90 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2040. However, member states can use international carbon credits to account for up to five percent of their reduction targets. Europe's press sees this as a watering down of climate targets, and discusses the outcome with an eye to the COP30 World Climate Conference starting next week in Belém, Brazil.
The losers are the next generations
Geologist Mario Tozzi criticises the EU decision in La Stampa:
“This is a capitulation on the ambitious goals that the EU had set itself with the previous political majority. ... A concession to the countries that demanded a softening of the Old Continent's positions, those that were most opposed to the Green Deal, mainly Poland and Italy (but also France). And a defeat for Spain and Germany, which were pushing for a 'stricter' lower limit than the proposed range. But above all this is also a defeat for our children and grandchildren.”
No longer affordable
Postimees argues that the economies of the member states can no longer cope with the costs of an ambitious climate policy:
“In the view of several countries, the target is looking more and more like a political ritual that has little to do with economic and ecological reality. Estonia has traditionally supported the EU's climate targets – our government wants to show that we are responsible and forward-looking. However, our companies have had to contend with high energy prices, strict regulations and frequently changing rules. Climate policy is increasingly becoming a luxury that only those whose economies are already functioning can afford. For Estonia - as well as several other countries in our region - the most pressing issue right now is our security, not the climate situation a few decades from now.”
Environmental protection is not an ideology
Eesti Päevaleht takes critics who dismiss climate policy as left-wing ideology to task:
“The target is in line with scientific recommendations on the pace of emissions reduction. More importantly, however, it is in the interests of both Europe and Estonia. There is nothing ideological, unreasonable or unfeasible about it. Unfortunately, a competition has developed in Estonia over nature conservation, environmental and climate issues, with people vying to see who can voice the most invalid, fierce and sometimes absurd criticism. This is ideologically driven and contrary to Estonia's interests in both the long and short term.”
No point in going it alone
Die Welt calls for a new EU strategy:
“Since the EU is responsible for only six percent of global emissions, its expensive energy transformation has virtually no impact on the climate. Yet it is running the risk of industrial relocation and social upheaval. The climate targets of the EU's two biggest competitors, China and the US, are laxer - and energy is already significantly cheaper there than here. ... As long as there is no international 'climate club' that creates economic incentives to avoid CO2 emissions beyond the EU, the bloc will need a different strategy: at the UN Climate Change Conference in Brazil, it should make it clear that it only intends to implement its targets if other major emitters such as the US, China, India and Russia follow suit.”
The economy needs a clear direction
The EU must stop vacillating, the Süddeutsche Zeitung stresses:
“Yes, it's true: surrounded by the blind, those who don't want to see, and the timid of this world, Europe's contribution is still outstanding. But from now on it's flanked by question marks that will puzzle not only the United Nations in Belém, but also Europe's own economy. Because what the Brussels compromise fails to recognise is that clarity in climate protection has always been an end in itself: it served as a compass for Europe's economy on its path to climate neutrality. Now the needle is wobbling as if there were a magnet next to it. The EU Parliament can still iron out some issues, and so it should. ... With every tenth of a degree of warming, every flood and every drought, the transition becomes more urgent. Even those blind in one eye should be able to see that.”
Don't let up now
Climate protection needs fresh momentum, urges Jean-Christophe Ploquin, editor-in-chief of La Croix:
“There is no reason to be optimistic. Most countries may have taken action over the past decade but climate scepticism is on the rise, fuelled by Donald Trump's boycott of Belém. Since Cop21 in Paris in 2015, the world has become increasingly fragmented. The rich countries have lost momentum and are stumbling over the North-South solidarity needed to finance the transition. The efforts already made have not been in vain, and should help to avert disaster by 2100. But widespread mobilisation remains vital.”
Sweden giving up
Aftonbladet takes a critical view of the fact that Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is sending EU Minister Jessica Rosencrantz to the climate conference rather than attending himself:
“Even though recent years have been marked by disappointment, government leaders showing up has an important symbolic value, also for the sake of preserving fragile international cooperation. ... In 2022, the countries of the world agreed to set up a compensation fund for those hardest hit by climate change. In 2023, fossil fuels were named for the first time as the main cause of the climate crisis. In 2025, when it comes to implementing decisions, Sweden gives up. Just like the United States. If Kristersson is re-elected in 2026, he will probably also abandon the Paris Agreement.”