Connect with us

Published

on

Elections for the European Parliament are taking place between 6-9 June, kicking off a process that will establish a new EU leadership.

Around 360 million EU citizens are eligible to vote. They will choose between representatives of national parties, each of which is affiliated with a broader political grouping at EU level, ranging from communists to the far-right.

The grouping or coalition with the most parliamentary seats will shape the leadership of the next European Commission – the EU’s executive branch – and help to determine the bloc’s overall direction of travel for the 2024-2029 term.

The balance of power in parliament, which is one of the EU’s legislative bodies, will also play a key role in determining whether or not ambitious new climate policies are voted through.

The elections come at a critical time for climate and energy policy across Europe. Amid geopolitical turmoil, EU member states face mounting pressure to provide secure energy supplies and compete with other major powers such as China and the US. 

Meanwhile, there has been widespread reporting of a “green backlash” in many EU countries, exemplified by farmers protesting against perceived injustices that include environmental policies. (Based on recent EU-wide polling, the so-called backlash has been dismissed as “largely overblown”.)

The new European Parliament, the new Commission and member states must also agree in the coming months on an emissions target for 2040, a stepping stone on the bloc’s wider path to “climate neutrality” by 2050.

These decisions will be influenced by which parties triumph in the parliamentary elections.

In the interactive grid below, Carbon Brief tracks the commitments made by each of the main European Parliament groupings in their election manifestos, across a range of issues related to climate and energy. The parties covered are:

Each entry in the grid represents a direct quote from a manifesto document.

Climate targets

When the last European Parliament elections were held in 2019, a “green wave” saw climate-focused politicians winning seats across the continent. This was interpreted as a clear mandate to set ambitious, EU-wide climate targets and policies.

In the years that followed, the EU approved a European Green Deal, with goals to cut emissions by 55% from 1990 levels by 2030, and reach net-zero by 2050. It also passed a package of policies to help member states achieve these goals.

These measures have “significantly improved” the EU’s performance on tackling climate change, according to independent analysis by Climate Action Tracker. However, the group says that the bloc would need to implement further policies to align itself with the goals of the Paris Agreement. 

With the 2024 election looming, forecasters predict a swing to the right in EU politics. A surge in far-right MEPs could result in a right-wing majority coalition within parliament.

This, in turn, could jeopardise the next phase of the EU’s climate ambitions, including negotiations over a European Commission proposal to reduce emissions by 90% by 2040. 

For example, the right-wing ECR’s manifesto says that it will “prioritise the implementation of existing legislative requirements…before considering any new regulations”.

It also refers to “review[ing] the more problematic objectives” and “negative impacts” of “green” policies, implying it might support weakening existing climate goals.

The centre-right EPP says it is “clearly committed” to existing targets – which include the 2030 and 2050 goals – but it does not mention the mooted 2040 ambition.

There have been reports of internal disputes within the EPP over the 2040 target and broader environmental policies. An earlier draft of its manifesto illustrated these disputes, with a commitment to “rejecting” bans on any technologies and “revising” the 2035 ban on petrol and diesel cars. This language is missing from the final manifesto.

In contrast, parties that are further to the left have backed more ambitious emissions targets, as shown in the chart below.

The relatively centrist S&D and Renew Europe Now groupings support the proposed 90% goal for 2040. (While S&D only mentions achieving “strong” 2040 goals in its manifesto, elsewhere the party has voiced support for the target.)

Meanwhile, other parties have gone even further. The European Green Party has proposed a “revised EU climate law” with a 2030 target that goes “beyond” the current 55% goal and achieves net-zero by 2040. The Left specifies a 65% reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2035.

EU emissions, including historical emissions (1990-2022), and targets proposed by a selection of groups running in the European Parliament elections in their manifestos. EPP does not mention a 2040 target in its manifesto, so its goals are indicated with a dotted line. S&D does not mention a specific 2040 target in its manifesto but has expressed support for a 90% reduction, compared to 1990 levels. Greens have called for “beyond” a 55% cut by 2030 but not proposed a figure, so the 55% figure is shown here. Source: Eurostat, party/group manifestos, Carbon Brief analysis.
EU emissions, including historical emissions (1990-2022), and targets proposed by a selection of groups running in the European Parliament elections in their manifestos. EPP does not mention a 2040 target in its manifesto, so its goals are indicated with a dotted line. S&D does not mention a specific 2040 target in its manifesto but has expressed support for a 90% reduction, compared to 1990 levels. Greens have called for “beyond” a 55% cut by 2030 but not proposed a figure, so the 55% figure is shown here. Source: Eurostat, party/group manifestos, Carbon Brief analysis.

All the major parties with manifestos broadly support the European Green Deal, with the ECR stating it backs it “in principle” while noting its concerns about a “centralised top-down approach”. (Identity and Democracy, which has not released a manifesto, broadly opposes the green deal and includes many climate sceptics in its ranks.)

Some groups appear to go further. Both S&D and the Greens mention the creation of a new “Green and Social Deal”, with a greater emphasis on affordable energy, social protections and jobs in low-carbon sectors.

In a piece reflecting on the need for a left-wing vision to combat the growing “anti-green backlash”, Politico argued that, with virtually every party emphasising the need for a “just transition”, it was “not clear” what the S&D’s new deal was “supposed to be”.

Of the major parties, only the Green party includes a target for “phasing out” fossil fuels in its manifesto. (At COP28 last year, the EU and other parties to the Paris climate regime agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels.) The Greens target a 2030 phaseout of coal, with all fossil fuels phases out by 2040.

Farmers’ demands

From France to Romania, EU farmers have been engaging in often dramatic protests in recent months. 

While their demands have been wide-ranging, many have focused on climate and environmental issues. This follows anger from farming communities about cuts to fuel subsidies and efforts to curb the use of fertilisers and pesticides.

All of the manifestos speak directly to these ongoing issues, with some calling for major reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – the EU’s flagship farming policy. Others try to strike a balance between supporting farmers and maintaining strong climate ambitions. 

Agriculture is responsible for one-tenth of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is the only major sector that is expected to see almost no progress in emissions cuts in the coming decades.

The EPP says climate policies can be achieved “only with and not against farmers” and says more funding for agriculture will be vital to support their environmental efforts. Liberals in Renew Europe Now say they have proposals to “simplify farmer’s lives” because they “want to focus on farming, not filling out forms”.

The ECR, meanwhile, says it “reject[s] unfettered green ideology” in agriculture.

S&D says its members “fundamentally disagree with the conservatives’ approach that sustainability is the enemy of farmers”. Like the EPP, it emphasises the need for more financial support to help farmers transition to “environmentally friendly” practices.

Boosting clean energy industries

Many of the manifestos focus on promoting the EU’s economic success and competitiveness, particularly in relation to the US and China, as well as ensuring it is not reliant on other nations for resources.

This comes amid a period of instability, triggered partly by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which threatened the bloc’s energy security due to its reliance on Russian gas.

Often, parties explicitly make the link between these wider geopolitical struggles and the need to scale up low-carbon industries. This is exemplified by the EPP when it states:

“We are developing the home market for our clean-tech industries. We are decarbonising and revitalising our energy-intensive industries to sell clean products worldwide. Thus, we are increasing our energy independence and overall sovereignty and resilience.”

Both S&D and the Greens focus on the need for investment across industrial sectors, in order to maintain the EU’s competitive edge. ALDE, the main party in Renew Europe Now, emphasises “cross-border” public investment in order to “achieve the economies of scale that the single market offers”.

Right-wing and liberal parties stress the need for “technology neutrality” in their plans.

Greens and left-wing parties, on the other hand, either explicitly reject nuclear power or do not mention it. They also place more emphasis on developing public transport options, including improved rail networks, alongside investment in electric vehicle infrastructure.

The post EU election 2024: What the manifestos say on energy and climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.

EU election 2024: What the manifestos say on energy and climate change

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Maine Presses Pause on Large Data Centers. Will Other States Follow Its Lead?

Published

on

The moratorium is the first of its type to pass a legislative chamber, but about a dozen other states have pending proposals.

Maine is now the first state to pass a moratorium on the development of large data centers, and others may follow.

Maine Presses Pause on Large Data Centers. Will Other States Follow Its Lead?

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Climate Activists Stage Mock Funeral for Landmark Climate Rule

Published

on

The Trump EPA’s repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding revokes the agency’s authority to regulate climate pollution. Environmental activists are mourning the loss while vowing to resurrect it.

A procession of mourners representing sea level rise, melting permafrost, ecocide and other climate calamities grieved the demise of a groundbreaking climate rule outside the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 9 headquarters in downtown San Francisco on Tuesday.

Climate Activists Stage Mock Funeral for Landmark Climate Rule

Continue Reading

Climate Change

IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day

Published

on

Global oil demand is expected to be almost one million barrels per day less than was forecast before the Iran war, as shortages and soaring costs prompt drastic cutbacks by consumers and businesses, a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.

With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz choking off supplies and keeping prices high, less oil is being used to make products such as jet fuel, LPG cooking gas and petrochemicals, the Paris-based IEA said in its monthly oil report, forecasting the biggest quarterly demand drop since the COVID pandemic.

The Iran war “upends our global outlook”, the government-backed agency said, adding that it now expects oil demand to shrink by 80,000 barrels per day in 2026 from last year.

Before the conflict began, the IEA said in February it expected oil demand to rise by 850,000 barrels per day this year, meaning the difference between the pre-war and current estimates is 930,000 barrels a day, or 340 million barrels a year.

That could have a significant impact on the outlook for planet-heating carbon emissions this year.

At an intensity of 434 kg of carbon dioxide per barrel of oil – the estimate used by the US Environmental Protection Agency – the annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from oil for 2026, compared with the pre-war forecast, is similar to the amount emitted by the Philippines each year.

Harry Benham, senior advisor at Carbon Tracker, told Climate Home News that he expects at least half of the reduction in oil demand to be permanent because of efficiency gains, behavioural change and faster electrification.

The oil shock is leading to oil being replaced, especially in transport, with electricity and other fuels, just as past oil shocks drove lasting reductions in consumption, he said. “The shock doesn’t delay the transition – it reinforces it,” he added.

Demand takes a hit

While demand for oil has fallen significantly, supplies have fallen even further. Supply in March was 10 million barrels a day less than February, the IEA said, calling it the “largest disruption in history”.

This forecast relies on the assumption that regular deliveries of oil and gas from the Middle East will resume by the middle of the year, the IEA said, although the prospects for this “remain unclear at this stage”.

    Last month, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the CERAWeek oil industry conference that prices were not high enough to lead to permanent reductions in demand for oil, known as demand destruction.

    But the IEA said on Wednesday that “demand destruction will spread as scarcity and higher prices persist”.

    Industries contributing to weaker demand for oil include Asian petrochemical producers, who are cutting production as oil supplies dry up, the report said, while consumers are cutting back on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which is mainly used as a cooking gas in developing countries, the IEA said.

    Flight cancellations caused by the war have dampened demand for oil-based jet fuel, the IEA said. As well as cancellations caused by risk from the conflict itself, airports have warned that fuel shortages could lead to disruption.

    Across the world, governments, businesses and consumers have sought to reduce their oil use after the war. The government of Pakistan has cut the speed limit on its roads, so that people drive at a more fuel-efficient speed, and Laos has encouraged people to work from home to preserve scarce petrol and diesel.

    Nepal’s EV revolution pays off as oil crisis causes pain at the pumps

    Consumers in Bangladesh are seeking electric vehicles (EVs) to avoid fuel queues and, in Nigeria, more people are seeking to replace petrol and diesel generators with solar panels, Climate Home News has reported.

    In the longer term, the European Union is considering cutting taxes on electricity to help it replace fossil fuels and France is promoting EVs and heat pumps.

    IEA urged to help “future-proof” economies

    Meanwhile, the IEA came under fire last week from energy security experts, including former military chiefs, who signed an open letter in which they accused the agency of offering “only a temporary response to turbulent markets”, calling for stronger structural action “to future-proof our economies”.

    They said that besides releasing emergency oil stocks and offering advice on how to reduce oil demand in the short term, the IEA should show countries how to reduce their exposure to volatile oil and gas markets.

    The IEA has also been under pressure from the Trump administration to talk less about the transition away from fossil fuels.

    This article was amended on 15 April 2026 to correct the drop in 2026 forecast oil demand from “nearly a billion” to “nearly a million”

    The post IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day appeared first on Climate Home News.

    IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com