logo
EU targets 90% cut in emissions by 2040 as green groups cry foul

EU targets 90% cut in emissions by 2040 as green groups cry foul

The Guardian14 hours ago
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.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Budapest's young people are joining the ranks of generation rent
Budapest's young people are joining the ranks of generation rent

The Guardian

time26 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Budapest's young people are joining the ranks of generation rent

When I left my family home to study at university in 2007 and moved to downtown Budapest, housing costs were hardly a topic of conversation among my friends. I rented rooms in centrally located flats for £80-£100 per month. Fast forward to 2025 and a similar room in a shared flat would set you back at least £200 – double the price of 15 years ago. Talk to anyone in their 20s in Budapest today, and the deepening housing crisis will inevitably come up as one of the defining struggles of their lives. The statistics paint an equally grim picture. Between 2010 and 2024, Hungary saw the largest increase of the housing price index among EU member states. While the EU average rose by 55.4%, Hungary's housing price index rocketed by 234%. Meanwhile, per capita net income only grew by 86% in the 2010s. Budapest, the capital, is the centre of this crisis. According to the Hungarian National Bank, residential property prices are overvalued by 5-19%. This is partly explained with the high proportion of investment-driven purchases: these accounted for 30-50% of all transactions in the last five years in Hungary. Unlike in many other EU capitals, property investors in Budapest are not primarily foreign nationals – who accounted for just 7.3% of transactions between 2016 and 2022 – nor are they institutional players. Instead, they are typically individual Hungarian citizens. As real estate has become an increasingly appealing investment for upper- and middle-class households amid growing economic uncertainty, the result has been a deepening polarisation within Hungarian society. The problem has become so glaring that, after a decade of silence, even the ruling rightwing Fidesz government has begun to acknowledge it in recent months. Since coming to power in 2010 with a constitutional majority, Fidesz's housing policies have focused mainly on subsidising home purchases for middle-class families. Only about 10% of all housing-related government spending has targeted lower-income groups. Meanwhile, Hungary's public housing sector has shrunk dramatically, from covering 20% of the housing stock in 1990 to a mere 2% today. The government's longstanding neglect of the housing issue is no accident. It stems from a deeply rooted ideological narrative. In 2014, the prime minister, Viktor Orbán, declared in an interview: 'My basic principle is that my house is my castle – I am a believer in owner-occupancy and family homes.' This narrative – common across former eastern bloc countries – paints home ownership as a kind of cultural destiny, portraying the state socialist era's large-scale public housing programmes as historical aberrations. But this view is neither historically accurate nor economically realistic. In fact, socialist-era housing policies bore strong similarities to public housing systems in western Europe. Affordable housing developments helped the upward social mobility of millions, creating opportunities that had previously been unimaginable. Yet after 1990, anti-communist sentiment combined with 'shock therapy' reforms – including the rapid privatisation of half a million dwellings – forged a political imagination that has sidelined rental and public housing, replacing it with the dream of universal home ownership. Today, however, that dream is slipping further out of reach. Over the past decade, the proportion of households living in rented housing in Budapest has grown from 12.7% to 17.5%, with young people overrepresented: 35% of this group lived in rented accommodation in 2022. In the past year alone, rents climbed by roughly 10%. Although Hungary's national home ownership rate remains around 90%, a 'generation rent' is clearly emerging in the capital. Young people without family financial support increasingly see home ownership as an unattainable goal. A recent survey found that 38% of the adult population of Budapest would consider renting – if affordable and secure options were available. As the myth of full-home ownership becomes more visibly unworkable, demand for affordable rental housing is growing. Despite the lack of systematic government support for affordable housing in Budapest, a few hopeful initiatives are beginning to take shape. The municipality of Budapest recently launched a social housing agency, inspired by successful models from the civil sector. With 16.7% of the city's dwellings being unoccupied in 2022, the agency works to connect vacant properties with households in need, offering secure management services to owners and affordable rents to tenants. Another promising move is that the municipality was recently able to use a legal loophole to buy an 85-hectare (210-acre) brownfield site from the government. Initial plans for the site envision a large-scale sustainable development that could include thousands of affordable housing units. These local government-led interventions, while promising, face constant obstruction from the Fidesz national government, which opposes initiatives led by the green opposition mayor of Budapest. In the meantime, residents and civil society groups are trying to create bottom-up solutions. The Alliance for Collaborative Real Estate Development, for example, is experimenting with community-led housing models. Inspired by Germany's Mietshäuser Syndikat, the Zugló Collective House Association bought a residential unit in 2018 and has managed it according to cooperative principles, ensuring affordable rents for seven tenants. Without access to public support or ethical financing, the project was funded by direct loans from friends and activists. Similar efforts are being taken on in other capital cities of the region, and the network of these pioneering housing cooperatives – Moba, meaning 'self-build through mutual help' in Serbo-Croatian – is already set up. These grassroots initiatives could offer some hope for a generation otherwise facing increasing hardships. However, the systematic transformation of these housing regimes can only be imagined if these governments change course – and if the EU starts to channel more direct funding towards affordable housing in Hungarian and other eastern European cities. Csaba Jelinek is an urban sociologist based in Budapest, focusing on housing and urban development. He is co-founder of Periféria Policy and Research Center and board member of the Alliance for Collaborative Real Estate Development

Minister demands overhaul of UK's leading AI institute
Minister demands overhaul of UK's leading AI institute

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Minister demands overhaul of UK's leading AI institute

The technology secretary has demanded an overhaul of the UK's leading artificial intelligence institute in a wide-ranging letter that calls for a switch in focus to defence and national security, as well as leadership changes. Peter Kyle said it was clear further action was needed to ensure the government-backed Alan Turing Institute met its full potential. In a letter to ATI's chair, seen by the Guardian, Kyle said the institute should be changed to prioritise defence, national security and 'sovereign capabilities' – a reference to nation states being able to control their own AI technology. The call for new priorities implies a downgrading of ATI's focus on health and the environment, which are two of three core subjects for the institute, alongside defence and security, under its 'Turing 2.0' strategy. 'Moving forward, defence and national security projects should form a core of ATI's activities, and relationships with the UK's security, defence, and intelligence communities should be strengthened accordingly,' Kyle wrote. Making clear that the Turing 2.0 strategy did not meet government requirements, Kyle indicated that he expected leadership changes at ATI. 'To realise this vision, it is imperative that the ATI's leadership reflects the institute's reformed focus,' he wrote. 'While we acknowledge the success of the current leadership in delivering reform at the institute during a difficult period, careful consideration should be given to the importance of an executive team who possesses a relevant background and sector knowledge to lead this transition.' ATI is chaired by Doug Gurr, the former head of Amazon's UK operations and interim chair of the UK's competition watchdog. The institute is going through a restructuring under the chief executive, Jean Innes,which one in five staff have said puts ATI's credibility in 'serious jeopardy'. At the end of last year, ATI employed 440 staff, but it has since launched a redundancy process. Although the institute is nominally independent, it recently secured £100m from the government in a five-year funding deal. The letter said ATI's 'longer-term funding arrangement' could be reviewed next year. The government would maintain its current level of research and development from national security and defence for the next three years, Kyle wrote, and would increase the number of defence and national security staff embedded in the institute. Dame Wendy Hall, a professor of computer science at the University of Southampton and the co-chair of a 2017 government AI review, said ATI would cease to be a national institute under the government's proposed changes. Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion 'If the institute focuses on defence and security it ceases to be a national institute on AI,' Hall said. 'It's not broad enough. If the government wants an AI institute that does defence and security then it should just call it that.' In February, the government indicated a focus on national security with its AI strategy by renaming its AI Safety Institute, established under the premiership of Rishi Sunak, the AI Security Institute. Kyle's letter also referred to the government's 50-point AI action plan as a 'testament' to the UK's AI ambitions, The plan's targets include a 20-fold increase in the amount of AI computing power under public control by 2030, and embedding AI in the public sector. ATI has been approached for comment.

What Rod Stewart has said about his split from ex-wife
What Rod Stewart has said about his split from ex-wife

The Independent

time2 hours ago

  • The Independent

What Rod Stewart has said about his split from ex-wife

Rod Stewart reflected on his marriage to Rachel Hunter, admitting their 24-year age gap ultimately caused their relationship to end. Stewart met Hunter in 1990 when she was 21 and he was 45, marrying three months later before separating in 1999 and officially divorcing in 2006. Despite his heartbreak, Stewart met his current wife, Penny Lancaster, the day after his split from Hunter in 1999. Stewart and Lancaster married in 2007 and have two children, with Stewart noting Lancaster has become 'more bossy' since becoming a special constable. The musician has recently drawn attention for his public support of the Reform party and its leader, Nigel Farage.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store