Key EU lawmaker says 90% emissions cut too ambitious for 2040 climate goal
BRUSSELS, April 7 (Reuters) - A European Union climate target to slash net emissions 90% by 2040 would be overly ambitious, and the bloc should consider lowering the goal for domestic industries, Peter Liese, a senior member of the European Parliament, told Reuters.
Liese, a senior EU lawmaker in the influential European People's Party - the biggest lawmaker group in the European Parliament - said the group was still developing its position, but that he believed a 90% goal would overburden industries.
"Many of us, in particular, in Council and Parliament, we see the 90% as very ambitious, I even would say over-ambitious," he said in an interview.
"We really think when the 90% is implemented without any flexibility, then it will lead to de-industrialisation."
The European Commission is drafting a proposal for the EU's 2040 climate target and is exploring softening its goal from a previous plan to cut EU emissions by 90% to win over skeptical governments and lawmakers concerned about the cost for businesses, Reuters reported earlier on Monday.
Liese is the centre-right EPP group's most senior lawmaker on climate policies. The EPP holds 188 of 720 seats in the European Parliament, crucial to forming the parliamentary majority needed to approve the EU's 2040 climate goal.
The EU's independent climate science advisers have recommended a 90% to 95% emissions-cutting goal as achievable.
However, a topic that has shot up the EU's political agenda this year is helping European industries that are struggling amid cheaper imports and U.S. tariffs.
An overall 90% target which sets a lower emissions-cutting target for domestic industries and allows countries to buy international carbon credits to make up the rest "could be a way out," Liese said. He said the EU would need to ensure these credits have high environmental benefits.
Sources have told Reuters the Commission is looking into this option.
CO2 credits have faced multiple scandals where credit-generating projects were found to not deliver the climate benefits they claimed.
An 85% target would still be ambitious for 2040, Liese added.
Socialist and Green lawmakers support a 90% target, while right-wing lawmaker groups including the European Conservatives and Reformists have opposed it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Pakistan likely to hike defence spending but slash overall budget in 2025-26
ISLAMABAD, June 10 (Reuters) - Pakistan will unveil its annual federal budget for the coming fiscal year later on Tuesday, seeking to kickstart growth while finding resources for an expected hike in defence expenditure following the conflict with India last month. Islamabad will also have to contend with remaining within the discipline of its International Monetary Fund programme and the uncertainty from new trade tariffs being imposed by the United States, its biggest export market. Media reports say the government is likely to present a 17.6 trillion rupee ($62.45 billion) budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, down 6.7% from this fiscal year. It has projected a fiscal deficit of 4.8% of GDP, against a targeted 5.9% deficit in 2024-25, the reports say. Analysts said they expect an increase of around 20% in the defence budget, likely offset by cuts in development spending. Pakistan allocated 2.1 trillion Pakistani rupees($7.45 billion) for defence in the outgoing fiscal year, including $2 billion for equipment and other assets. An additional 563 billion rupees ($1.99 billion) was set aside for military pensions, which are not counted within the official defence budget. India's defence spending in its 2025–26 (April-March) fiscal year was set at $78.7 billion, a 9.5% increase from the previous year, including pensions and $21 billion earmarked for equipment. It has indicated it will step up expenditure following the May conflict with Pakistan. The government of Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has projected 4.2% economic growth in 2025-26, saying it has steadied the economy, which had looked at risk of defaulting on its debts as recently as 2023. Growth this fiscal year is likely to be 2.7%, against an initial target of 3.6% set in the budget last year. Pakistan's growth lags far behind the region. In 2024, South Asian countries grew by an average of 5.8% and 6.0% growth is expected in 2025, according to the Asian Development Bank. Expansion of the economy should be aided by a sharp drop in the cost of borrowing, the government says, after a succession of interest rate cuts by the central bank. But economists warn that monetary policy alone may not be enough, with fiscal constraints and IMF-mandated reforms still weighing on investment. Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb said on Monday that he wanted to avoid Pakistan's boom and bust cycles of the past. 'The macroeconomic stability that we have achieved, we want to absolutely stay the course,' he said. 'This time around we are very, very clear that we do not want to squander the opportunity.' The budget is expected to prioritize expanding the tax base, enforcing agriculture income tax laws, and reducing government subsidies to industry, to meet the terms of a $7 billion IMF bailout signed last summer. Just 1.3% of the population paid income tax in 2024, according to the tax authorities, with agriculture and the retail sector largely outside of the tax net. The IMF has urged Pakistan to widen the tax base through reforms which include taxing agriculture, retail, and real estate. Ahmad Mobeen, senior economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said that he expected the revenue target for 2025-26 will be missed. 'The shortfall will mostly be owing to lack of optimal implementation of announced measures as well as absence of meaningful structural reforms to widen the tax net in general,' said Mobeen. ($1 = 281.8400 Pakistani rupees)
Auto Car
2 hours ago
- Auto Car
Transit vans the key to Ford's European sales growth
Close Ford Pro has been the sector leader in commercial vehicles in Europe for the past 10 years, and so far in 2025 it has achieved a market share of close to 20%. 'And that's just the vehicle business,' said Hans Schep, general manager of Ford Pro Europe, Ford's European commercial vehicle arm. Vehicle sales aside, explained Schep, Ford Pro offers 'servicing, our focus on uptime, charging, telematics, software and everything around productivity'. The upshot is that Ford Pro in Europe is growing across the board – 'really fast and really well', according to Schep.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
How a Luxembourg village divided Europe
I am in the most EU-ish bedroom in the EU. That is to say, I am lying in a refurbished room in the handsome 14th-century Chateau de Schengen, in the little village of Schengen, Luxembourg. From my casements, opened wide onto the sunny Saarland afternoon, I can see the exact stretch of the river Moselle where, on a boat floating between Germany, France and Luxembourg, the Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985. This was the agreement that sealed Free Movement as Europe's defining ideal – one whose consequences are still unfolding. I've been in Luxembourg for a week, on assignment, and this week has given me an insight into why the nations of the EU undertook their bold, remarkable experiment of no more borders. The first and obvious motivator was war. Luxembourg can look oddly new, or newish. Ancient-sounding villages are full of blocky 1960s houses. Supposedly medieval churches are clearly modern, lacking the rich patina of age. This is because they were all flattened in war – especially the last German offensive of the second world war, the Battle of the Bulge – which raged across snowbound Luxembourg from December 1944 to January 1945. As a result, much had to be rebuilt or heavily restored. Reviving international trust took even longer, as the war here was brutal. In little towns like Diekirch, teenage Nazi conscripts casually gunned down innocent civilians in the streets. The angered Allies felt no huge need thereafter to take German prisoners alive. The yearning to overcome this evil trauma – and reconcile – was one big driver of the EEC, which reached its frontierless, post-national apotheosis here in Schengen. But another was sheer practicality. Yesterday, my local guide, Anna, told me how she once had to show her passport every day to cross the Moselle to and from Germany. She can remember the queues and frustration. She recalls a crimped, claustrophobic Europe – like an office with too many cubicles. Nowadays the quaint old customs houses have been turned into tourist bureaux or posh chocolatiers, and everyone breezes between countries with total freedom. The other day I drove a meandering route through the rustling green winelands and must have crossed between Lux and DE half a dozen times, barely noticing. At its best, Schengen is indeed wonderful. But there's the geopolitical rub. Schengen at its Platonic best is magnificent. In practice, it may be turning into a tragic failure. A primary reason is migration – not within Europe, but without. To illustrate my point, Anna told me another story of Luxembourg. She explained how, in the 1970s, the now-prospering little Duchy required workers. As she put it, with bracing candour: 'We chose the Portuguese because they were poor and wanted the work, but also because they are European, Christian, Catholic, like us. We felt they would assimilate.' And so they have. You can see unexpectedly good selections of Douro wines in Luxembourg supermarkets. Otherwise, the 15 per cent of the population that is Portuguese is barely discernible. Schengen might, perhaps, be in much less trouble if every other country had followed those careful Luxembourg policies. But they didn't. France drew people from its old empire – Algeria, Morocco, sub-Saharan Africa. Germany imported millions of Turks, then another million Syrians under Merkel's idealistic Willkommen policy of 2015. Britain turned to the Caribbean, then Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. Combining open internal borders with sovereign external migration policies – inviting millions from far outside Europe – was, in retrospect, bound to create a problem. It's like a flat share where everyone agrees to leave their doors open and split the rent, but each person gets to invite their own guests, who then stay forever, use the bathroom, and host loud parties. Irritation is guaranteed. Some housemates will get seriously annoyed. Take, for example, the Somali migrant population in Holland. Tens of thousands of them moved to the UK under Free Movement. The UK could do nothing to stop this – as Britons duly noted. This is one example of how Free Movement, which peaked with Schengen, led quite directly to Brexit. It was perhaps sheer bad luck that Schengen coincided with one of the most ill-conceived experiments of recent times: multiculturalism plus mass immigration. Or maybe it wasn't coincidence, and they derive from the same well-meaning, liberal universalism – only this time taken too far. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real Whatever the case, as I write this in my room in the Chateau de Schengen, I can also read the daily and unhappy news that springs from Europe's mass immigration experience: of riots and deaths in France following the football victory of Paris Saint-Germain; of another call for an inquiry into rape gangs in the UK; of a hard-right Polish politician becoming president, vowing to keep Poland migrant-free; of once-peaceful Sweden – now 'the bombing capital of the West'. Or I can read about de facto blasphemy laws in Britain and Denmark, introduced to placate militant Islam. And I can read of endless terror shifting across Europe untracked, leading even mainstream politicians in Germany, Austria, Italy to argue for the suspension of Schengen. Yes, of course there are multiple good, successful stories of integration and assimilation across Europe. But for many Europeans, judging by the remarkable electoral shift to the hard right, the good is now majorly outweighed by the bad. Is there any hope for that faded but shimmering Schengen ideal of a borderless Europe? I'd like to think so. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real – even if Robert Frost knew what he was talking about when he said 'good fences make good neighbours'. The day is closing here in the Chateau de Schengen, and the summer sun sets lazily over the Auxerrois vines. They have a nice restaurant in the hotel, which has a classic French menu. I want to eat French food in Luxembourg while looking at Germany. It feels Schengen-y. But as the waitress brings my tranche de foie gras maison, the capricious Luxemburg weather turns. It's been in the forecast for a while – now it has arrived: a cold wind from the Ardennes is sweeping down the Moselle valley. The rain lashes the ancient gardens, and the waiters drift toward the windows, watching as the parasols surrender to the storm.
