In EU Climate Proposal, 'A Dark Hole Where an End to Fossil Fuels Should Be'

"This is about as meaningful as a target to prevent lung cancer without any plan to end smoking."


Climate activists stage a sit-in protest in The Hague, Netherlands on February 3, 2024.
(Photo: Nikos Oikonomou/Anadolu via Getty Images)


JESSICA CORBETT
Feb 06, 2024

Green campaigners on Tuesday called out the European Commission's new climate targets for 2040 as "inadequate and a betrayal of climate justice."

The commission released an impact assessment on pathways to make the European Union climate-neutral by 2050 and made a related recommendation for a 90% reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 compared with 1990 levels—kicking off a discussion that is supposed to result in legislation only after upcoming elections.

In response, Climate Action Tracker (CAT) highlighted that the proposal from the E.U. executive not only "assumes no update to the 2030 target" but also "doesn't include a phaseout of fossil fuels, and relies heavily on fossil carbon capture and storage (CCS) including in the power sector."

"While a 2040 target is welcome, governments must still remain laser-focussed on improving their climate action within this decade, by strengthening their 2030 targets," said the CAT's E.U. lead Sarah Heck of Climate Analytics. "Without governments taking strong pre-2030 climate action, it's highly unlikely the world will be able to meet anything like net-zero by 2050, let alone a strong 2040 target."

Mia Moisio of CAT partner NewClimate Institute argued that "the E.U. should increase its present 2030 target to at least 65% below 1990 levels, including its land use sink, to meet the minimum requirements of getting its domestic emissions onto a 1.5°C pathway, and it should also increase its 2040 target to at least the recommended 95% reduction."



Colin Roche, climate justice and energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth (FOE) Europe, was also critical of the commission on Tuesday.

"With this proposal, the European Commission fails its historic responsibility to tackle the climate crisis, which is already devastating lives in Europe and beyond, head-on. Instead, it counts on others including the world's most vulnerable people to pick up the tab," he said.

"There is a dark hole where an end to fossil fuels should be," Roche continued. "Europe must define an expiry date for its fossil fuel addiction—long before 2050—and stop pleasing the fossil fuel industry with dangerous loopholes and dodges like CCS."



Greenpeace E.U. climate campaigner Silvia Pastorelli also took aim at the CCS element, declaring that "this is about as meaningful as a target to prevent lung cancer without any plan to end smoking."

"It is blatantly clear that fossil fuels must be brought to a swift end if we want to avoid the worst effects of climate breakdown," Pastorelli said. "The absence of a phaseout plan for fossil fuels, and even for subsidies, not only delays the climate action we urgently need, but will end up hurting people more."

As Reuters reported Tuesday:
While the overall target was within the range recommended by the E.U.'s official climate science advisers, the E.U. executive weakened part of the recommendation concerning agriculture, in response to weeks of protests by farmers angry about E.U. green rules, among other complaints.

A previous draft of the E.U. target, seen by Reuters, had said agriculture would need to cut non-CO2 emissions 30% by 2040 from 2015 levels to comply with the overall climate goal. That was removed from the final draft.

Politico called the cut "an anxious edit made to try and keep the peace ahead of the E.U. election in June," at a time when "the right-wing surge in the polls seems bigger and bolder, with one predicting the nationalist right and far-right could pick up nearly a quarter of seats in the European Parliament."

A right-wing takeover of the 27-member bloc would further complicate its climate action efforts. Other recent concessions to protesting farmers include the European Commission on Tuesday scrapping a bill to reduce pesticide use in agriculture and last week delaying the implementation of a policy intended to help regenerate healthy soil and increase biodiversity.

"To now be using farmers' protests to further backtrack on environmental measures—such as the derogation on fallow land at the E.U.-level and the pause on the plan to cut pesticide use in France—is deeply cynical, to say the least," FOE Europe's Clara Bourgin wrote in an opinion piece for Euronews last week.

Bourgin explained that "we joined farmers, among which our allies from La Via Campesina, on the streets of Brussels to demand an immediate end to negotiations on the E.U.-Mercosur trade agreement and public support for a real transition to more sustainable agricultural models that benefit people and farmers."



Greenpeace E.U. agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said Tuesday that "farmers are on the frontlines of the climate crisis in Europe, dealing with droughts, fires, floods, and landslides."

"But politicians ignoring scientific advice on helping farmers move away from overproduction of meat and dairy makes climate change worse and leaves European farming more exposed to extreme weather," he added. "Farmers are nature's best allies, when the rules, markets, and subsidies don't force them into a desperate choice between industrial production or bankruptcy."

'Bitter Blow' to Biodiversity and Health as EU Pulls Proposed Pesticide Rule


"Those most vulnerable, including children, farmers, and farming communities, will continue to pay the price for the E.U.'s inaction," said one advocate.

With agricultural business owners continuing protests across France, Greece, Spain, and other European countries, European Commission  announced the body would withdraw its proposed law to sharply cut the amount of chemical pesticides used in the European Union—a capitulation, said one journalist, to "landowners."


A farmer sprays a field of no-till corn in Piace, France 
(Photo: Jean-Francoi Monier/AFP via Getty Images)

JULIA CONLEY
Feb 06, 2024

With agricultural business owners continuing protests across France, Greece, Spain, and other European countries, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen angered public health and biodiversity groups Tuesday as she announced the body would withdraw its proposed law to sharply cut the amount of chemical pesticides used in the European Union—a capitulation, said one journalist, to "landowners."

Brussels-based Arthur Neslen, who has reported for The Guardian and Politico, called von der Leyen's announcement "shocking, cowardly, and dishonest" as she withdrew the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR).

The proposal was first introduced in 2022 and was aimed at slashing pesticide use in half by 2030 and banning pesticide products in areas including urban green spaces and protected sites under the Natura 2000 program, as well as promoting the use of sustainable alternatives.

With farmers staging protests across the E.U. in recent days, complaining over the high cost of maintaining agricultural businesses in Europe, von der Leyen said the SUR had become "polarizing."



Last week, the commission provoked an outcry from environmental advocates when it announced it would allow farmers to delay implementation of a rule requiring them to set aside some of their land to promote biodiversity.

Now, said critics on Tuesday, the commission's decision regarding SUR would further contribute to biodiversity loss as well as water and soil pollution and potential health impacts for people and wildlife.

Reducing European farmers' "dependency on pesticides is not only short-sighted, but a major disservice to public health," said Anne Stauffer, deputy director of the Health and Environment Alliance. "Those most vulnerable, including children, farmers, and farming communities, will continue to pay the price for the E.U.'s inaction."

Grace O'Sullivan, a member of European Parliament representing Ireland, noted that pesticides will continue to be permitted "in nature reserves, city parks, even playgrounds."



In her speech, von der Leyen said farmers "deserve to be listened to" as they face drought and other effects of the climate crisis, higher costs of living, and other factors that make agriculture more expensive.

"Only if our farmers can live off the land will they invest in the future. And only if we achieve our climate and environmental goals together, will farmers be able to continue to make a living," the commission president said.

Friends of the Earth said the "translation" of von der Leyen's comments was "farmers will keep on being poisoned and nature degraded, while the pesticide industry reaps massive profits."

"We cannot afford to leave the pesticide issue unresolved," the group said. "We need real solutions now to support farmers in transitioning away from toxic chemicals."

The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) said the commission's decision—which still has to be ratified by the College of Commissioners in the coming weeks—was made to benefit large "agribusiness interests" and not people struggling to run small farms.

"The European Commission just took a decision that is harmful to farmers and their families, as the first victims of pesticide use," said Martin Dermine, PAN Europe executive director. "Pesticide pollution is a huge problem that has to be tackled. It pollutes our waters, harms our health, and destroys the biodiversity that we depend on. It destroys fertile soil and endangers food production in the long run. We have to move towards a healthy and sustainable form of agriculture quickly, doing nothing is not an option in the light of the biodiversity crisis we're in."

"Thousands of scientists and millions of citizens have urged E.U. politicians to take urgent action," he added. "Not answering citizens' demands goes against democracy and only favors agribusiness."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.