Tell EU stories, develop your journalism skills, and make your voice heard!

Article by Giulia Casula

The European Commission has proposed revising EU climate legislation, which aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Specifically, it has suggested setting an interim target for 2040, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90% compared to 1990 levels.

This is another intermediate step after the previously agreed 55% emissions cut by 2035. The Commission intends to accelerate the achievement of the targets while introducing elements of “flexibility,” such as the use of international carbon credits from non-EU countries. Specifically, these countries will be able to contribute up to 3% of the reduction, starting from 2036 onwards. According to the European Commission, this system will offer “certainty to investors and innovation, strengthen the industrial leadership of EU companies, and increase Europe’s energy security.”

Who’s for and who’s against the new EU climate plan?

The proposal will be discussed in the European Parliament and the Council, but it has already attracted criticism and comment. On the one hand, there are those who reject it, such as the League, which called it “yet another act of madness” on the part of Ursula von der Leyen, accusing the Commission President of wanting to “destroy Italian and European industry.” Even within Forza Italia, which in the EU sits within the EPP, of which von der Leyen herself is a member, they consider the 90% emissions cut by 2040 “unrealistic.”

“Combating climate change is a priority, but we also need realistic and sustainable tools, both economically and socially. Such an ambitious goal, without adequate impact assessment, risks accelerating European deindustrialization and penalizing entire strategic sectors without ensuring a proportionate environmental benefit,” argued Salvatore De Meo, MEP for the Italian Socialist Party (CSP). However, the path developed by the EU executive doesn’t seem to satisfy even supporters of the Green Deal.

Among the associations, Legambiente deemed the proposal “not very ambitious” because it “does not take into account the recommendations of the European Scientific Committee on Climate Change.” The latter, in fact, had advised against the use of international credits, the origin and criteria of which the European Commission will need to clarify.

The Greens have also expressed criticism, fearing that the revision of EU legislation conceals exemptions from achieving climate targets. Among the Socialists, Democratic Party MEP Annalisa Corrado warns that the introduction of flexibility mechanisms starting in 2036 could “reopen the door to speculation, uncertainty, and outright fraud, as we’ve seen in the past.”

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.