Environment ministers representing the European Union’s 27 member states failed to agree emissions reduction targets for 2035 and 2040 in Brussels on Thursday, instead asking their countries’ leaders to weigh in when they meet next month.
With several primarily Eastern European nations opposed – and others wavering – ministers agreed to ask their leaders to consider the key climate goals at a European Council meeting in October, in the hope of agreeing targets before the COP30 climate summit in November.
This means that the EU will not submit its 2035 target in time for it to factor into the UN’s annual synthesis report of national climate plans, due in late October, which will analyse governments’ climate commitments and estimate how far off the Paris climate agreement’s temperature targets they are.
It also means that EU officials will head to the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week without new targets to offer. Instead, they will just have what the Danish minister chairing the talks called a “statement of intent” to reduce emissions by between 66.25% and 72.5% below 1990 levels by 2035.
Some ministers that want stronger targets warned the delay could lead to the emissions cuts being watered down. A decision by environment ministers on the 2040 target can be made through qualified majority voting. But EU leaders will decide on the basis of unanimity, allowing climate laggards to block ambition. It is not clear if EU leaders will decide on the target at their next meeting or just debate it.
Ahead of today’s Environment Council meeting, the environment minister of Sweden – which supports the European Commission’s proposed target to cut emissions 90% between 1990 and 2040 – walked up to waiting journalists and said unprompted that “hesitation is a luxury that we cannot afford”.
Romina Pourmokhtari added that she was “quite disappointed at recent developments”, adding that her message to “all countries but particularly Germany and France” – which have pushed for a delay so leaders can contribute – is that “I and Sweden do not believe that it will become a better product by prolonging this process. This will not create a better outcome”.
But Elisa Giannelli, E3G lead on climate governance and European politics, was positive. She told Climate Home News that “we’ve heard enough member states being quite positive about the commission’s proposal today”, adding “it will eventually be down to France to swing over to the “supportive camp” once leaders have “provided the reassurance and guidance they are calling for”. France is widely regarded as the swing vote.
At the meeting, representatives from Czechia, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary opposed the 90% proposal. Krzysztof Bolesta, from the Polish environment ministry, said an 83% target is “at very, very high cost, maximum we can do”.
Slovakia’s environment minister Tomáš Taraba said “it would be good to start with a lower target and – if necessary and feasible – we can increase in the next revision”, a position supported by Hungary’s Anikó Raisz.
On the other side, representatives of the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Luxembourg and Austria supported the 90% proposal. Spain’s Sara Aagesen Munoz said it was “science-based” and the Dutch representative called it “feasible” and “the most logical way towards climate neutrality in 2050”.
Missing UN deadlines
Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN convention on climate change, welcomed the EU’s statement of intent despite the bloc’s failure to announce a target in time for the UN systhesis report of climate plans. Stiell urged European leaders to aim for the top of the proposed range.
“If these targets are met with speed and at scale, the EU has so much to gain,” Stiell said in a statement. “It won’t just be a global leader on climate change and clean energy, the more action it takes, the more the continent stands to benefit, with stronger economic growth and thriving new industries powered by cheaper and cleaner energy.”
On his way into the meeting, the German environment ministry’s state secretary Jochen Flasbarth blamed the European Commission for the “loss of time”. “If the Commission would have provided the dossier earlier then we would be in a different situation,” he told reporters.
EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told the ministers that he had hoped the targets would be decided today but the delay “could also be useful to ensure the broadest possible political support”.
Asked ahead of today’s meeting what message missing the UN’s end-of-September deadline for 2035 NDCs will send, Finland’s environment minister Sari Multala said it is “hard for us to require the others – our international partners to do the same if we don’t deliver ourselves”.
According to the UN, 36 nations have already submitted their 2035 targets – known in UN jargon as nationally determined contributions (NDC). Australia today promised to cut emissions 62-70% between 2005 and 2035. China is expected to announce its target this week or next and many other nations will launch their targets at a UN summit in New York on Wednesday.
Losing climate leadership?
Asked if China will take over the EU’s climate leadership on the international stage, Hoekstra said “it would be fantastic if they would outperform our NDC”. Separately, Poland’s Bolesta told a reporter, “I don’t know why you would say we are worse than China” as “it’s not about who is faster, it’s about who is more robust and more credible.”
-
EU’s record wildfire emissions highlight threat to forest carbon sinks
As carbon emissions from forest fires spike in Europe, experts warn that wildfires pose a growing risk to national efforts to meet climate goals -
EU Commission proposes allowing carbon offsets to help meet 2040 climate goal
Campaigners accuse the European Commission of adding “loopholes” and “distractions” to the 90% emissions reduction target -
COP30 president prepares for clash of views on how to respond to NDCs
With most countries yet to submit new emissions-cutting plans due by the end of next month, Brazil will launch consultations on how to tackle an expected shortfall in ambition
Hungary’s environment minister Anikó Raisz said “those from the EU going to New York, we have nothing to hide” as the EU is a “leading example”. Hoekstra said the EU’s NDC would be among the most ambitious in the world along with “our friends from Great Britain and a couple of other places”.
Speaking yesterday, the chair of the Alliance of Small Island States negotiating group, Ilana Seid from Palau, said she was “putting pressure” on the EU to “step up” because “their NDC announcement would really change the momentum and the kind of ambition heading into the COP”.
The timeline for deciding the two official EU targets is now unclear, but is likely to involve a specially-convened European Council leaders’ meeting and then another environment ministers meeting.
Danish environment minister Lars Aagaard said he hoped the targets would be adopted ahead of COP30 “as this would send a strong signal to the world – but ultimately we are, of course, in the hands of states and governments”.
This story was edited to include comments from Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The post EU ministers fail to agree climate targets, raising risk leaders will weaken them appeared first on Climate Home News.
EU ministers fail to agree climate targets, raising risk leaders will weaken them
Stientje van Veldhoven is Minister of Climate and Green Growth for the Netherlands.
When we co-hosted the first-ever conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels (TAFF) this April, the world was reeling from the volatility in oil and gas prices due to the Hormuz blockade. Fossil fuels moved to the centre of the debate as country leaders scrambled to secure supplies for their people.
We saw the very opposite in Santa Marta. Nearly 60 nations came together with 2,600-plus participants from civil society and community organisations, businesses and scientists to discuss concrete solutions on how governments can shift away from fossil fuels. Together, we defined the ‘Santa Marta process’ to serve as an extra engine for the broader process of the UNFCCC.
The Santa Marta process will see expert groups and committed countries develop national roadmaps, chart pathways to overcome financial constraints, and drive economic transformation. We made a multi-year commitment to take this process forward. With Tuvalu and Ireland taking over as co-chairs for 2027, transitioning away from fossil fuels is now moving from words to action.
European nations signal support for fossil fuel roadmap, says COP30 president
Work gets underway
At the opening of the Santa Marta conference, my co-chair Colombia’s then energy minister Irene Veléz Torres and I repeatedly stressed one thing: that the forum was not a space for negotiations, but a forum for countries and other partners to discuss practical steps to move away from fossil fuels.
Since then, we have seen three roadmaps already submitted: by France, Germany and our own. Pacific Island ministers also recently announced their intention to develop a regional roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. And I called on the European Commission to do the same for the European Union.
On top of this, numerous countries are already working on parts of the transition, such as phasing out coal or ending fossil fuel subsidies. More countries are expected to follow soon.
Workstreams were launched in early August, followed by sign-ups from countries willing to take a larger role and lead on organising different activities. Each workstream has an assigned lead organisation (or madrina). Each has its own working structure.
When the oil companies leave, who pays?
Across the world, communities facing the decline of fossil fuel industries are demanding a Just Transition that gives them a say in what comes next. Establishing a strong mechanism at COP31 could help them secure itCOP31 Bulletin Day 1: Agenda settled as COP urged to “supercharge solutions”
An agenda row is averted at the opening session, where the UN climate chief said strong results are needed from the talks to boost “real-world outcomes”
Workstream 1 focuses on supporting countries in developing and implementing flexible, country-owned national roadmaps. It operates as an open, collaborative hub that coordinates partner institutions to provide tailored technical, financial and policy support directly aligned with each country’s specific needs and existing frameworks. The consortium, which functions as a hub, currently consists of the NDC Partnership, the Powering Past Coal Alliance, the World Resources Institute and the newly established Science Panel on the Global Energy Transition.
Workstream 2 focuses on mobilising collective coalition power to tackle national and international financial constraints, debt-related barriers and macroeconomic dependencies that hinder the transition away from fossil fuels. Starting with a scoping phase, it will deliver transparent, actionable recommendations and reform solutions to support countries’ structural fiscal needs at global fora. Its madrinas are the International Institute for Sustainable Development and Transforma, a Latin American think-and-do-tank.
Workstream 3 focuses on driving economic transformation by mapping green partnership potential, decarbonising trade balances and building competitive, mutually beneficial clean markets. It aims to help countries, especially producers, diversify their economies, scale domestic value creation, and unlock collective trade opportunities. The madrina is the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development working together with the South Centre.
Incorporating Santa Marta into COP
What was abundantly clear in Santa Marta is that our coalition’s efforts are a strong support to, rather than a replacement for, the COP process. Over the past decade or so, the focus at COPs was on setting goals. Now we must focus on implementation. The COP31 presidencies have previously indicated their willingness to incorporate elements of the Santa Marta process into COP31 outcomes. We look forward to seeing how we can achieve this together.
The Brazilian COP30 Presidency delivered its global roadmap on the transition away from fossil fuels – a voluntary toolkit for countries that want to move ahead – just before the COP started in Antalya on Monday. During the coming two weeks, it’s critical that we see more concrete, actionable roadmaps for the fossil fuel phase-out. These documents can be crucial for a strong second Global Stocktake of national climate plans in two years’ time.
Brazil’s fossil fuel roadmap sketches out first global timetable
At COP31, a variety of TAFF-related events will be hosted, focusing on next steps within the Santa Marta workstreams. We welcome any leader and expert from around the world to take part as they work to develop their roadmaps, identify the fossil fuel subsidies they need to phase out, or establish green/clean markets at home.
Only by reducing fossil fuel demand and replacing it with clean electricity to run our economies can we all become more economically resilient and sharply cut the pace of climate change.
The post COP31 outcome needs to prioritise transition away from fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP31 outcome needs to prioritise transition away from fossil fuels
An older teaching about land acknowledgement
As I have come to understand the spirit and intention of land acknowledgement, I often return to fond memories of my grandmother and her words of wisdom. She taught that the health of the places we call home comes first, because the wellbeing of the people depends on it.
In her teaching, land acknowledgement began with the land. Long before it became a paragraph read at the start of a meeting, it was a way of recognizing a homeland: its waters, its species, its seasons, and the spirit that revealed whether the place was well.
Her teaching echoes a practice found across many Indigenous Nations. Haudenosaunee gatherings, for example, have long opened with the Ohén:ton Karihwatéhkwen, the Thanksgiving Address, often translated as “the words that come before all else.” The speaker greets and gives thanks to the people, the earth, the waters, the plants, the animals, the winds, the sun, the moon and the stars. Only after everything that sustains life has been acknowledged does the gathering turn to its own business.
That order changes what an acknowledgement is for. Its purpose was to share the story of a place with neighbours and to draw them into the work of tending it. People entered the story second, as the ones responsible for what had just been named.
Understood this way, an acknowledgement does more than open a meeting. It asks us to reconsider where we stand, and what we owe the ground beneath us.
Nations among nations
In her teaching, people are one nation among many. The salmon are a nation. So are the cedars, the bison, the medicine plants, and the pollinators. Each belongs to a place, carries its own responsibilities, and offers gifts no other nation can give.
This idea of kinship runs through many Indigenous philosophies. The phrase “all my relations,” heard in ceremonies and gatherings across Turtle Island, is a reminder that family extends beyond people to the animals, plants, waters and lands that make life possible. Some Indigenous languages carry the same understanding in their grammar, speaking of many plants, animals and natural forces as living beings rather than objects.
Sovereignty, understood through this relationship, is a kind of standing more than a form of control. Each nation belongs fully to its place and carries its share of that place’s life. No nation thrives alone, and none thrives by taking over the whole.
The land is also the source of instruction. Over generations, people watched how a river valley or a stretch of prairie kept itself well: who arrived when, who fed whom, and how much could be taken before the giving stopped. In my grandmother’s telling, those observations became instructions, and those instructions helped shape law and protocol. They guided when to harvest, where to camp, how to enter a neighbour’s territory, and what was owed in return.
Indigenous legal scholars today often describe this as law that comes from the land itself, learned by watching how living systems sustain one another. A plainer name for it is knowing how to live somewhere.
The host and the guest
One of the clearest teachings in this understanding of the world is the relationship between host and guest. My grandmother invited us to recognize that relationship in the lives of plants and animals.
A host prepares the place before anyone arrives. A beaver family dams a stream, and the pond becomes a home for fish, frogs, birds and plants. A fallen tree becomes a nurse log, feeding the next generation of seedlings as it returns to the soil.
A host offers first. A flowering plant sets out nectar. A berry bush ripens fruit. These provisions come in their own season, not whenever a visitor happens to want them.
A host also makes its presence known. Birdsong, scent and the marks left along a trail tell newcomers that a place is already inhabited. The visitor does not arrive in an empty world.
The guest has responsibilities too. A guest attends to the season and to what the place can offer. A guest does not assume that everything within reach is theirs to take. A guest leaves something that helps sustain the relationship.
A bee takes nectar and carries pollen. Read through this teaching, that exchange offers an image of visiting well: receiving a gift while helping the host continue its life.
Many Indigenous harvesting protocols carry the same ethic into daily practice: ask before taking, take only what is needed, offer thanks, and leave enough for others and for the plant or animal to recover.
None of this suggests that every relationship in nature is peaceful or generous. These are ways of seeing responsibilities that people can learn to carry.
Everyone is both
No being is only a host or only a guest.
A tree makes room for other life while depending on soil, water, sunlight, fungi, and relationships beyond itself. People, too, may welcome others into their homes while remaining dependent on the larger homeland that sustains them.
The distinction between host and guest is therefore about roles, not ranks. Everyone receives. Everyone has something to give.
The question is whether the exchange sustains the place.
A visitor who takes without restraint leaves less for those who come next. A host who neglects the place has less to offer. Both have responsibilities, and neither can fulfil them alone.
This is the heart of reciprocity, a principle found across Indigenous philosophies: relationships stay healthy when gifts move in both directions. The Haudenosaunee teaching of the seventh generation extends that exchange across time, asking that decisions made today leave the place well for those not yet born.
Mutual benefit begins here, with the recognition that different beings carry different gifts and obligations.
What people carry forward
My grandmother’s teaching connects these relationships to the ways people meet their neighbours.
The host prepares a place, offers food and rest, and explains where the visitor has arrived. The guest makes themselves known, explains why they have come, listens to the terms of the visit, and brings something in return. The gift may be material. It may also be labour, knowledge, news, or a commitment to help.
Nations around the Great Lakes carried this ethic into treaty. The Dish with One Spoon, an agreement among the Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe and allied Nations, describes shared hunting grounds as a single dish. Everyone eats from it with one spoon, takes only what they need, leaves enough for others, and keeps the dish clean. The Two Row Wampum, between the Haudenosaunee and European newcomers, shows two vessels travelling side by side on the same river, each keeping its own ways and neither steering the other.
In this understanding, acknowledgement is more than naming the people associated with a territory. It is learning enough about a homeland to behave responsibly within it.
Whose home is this? What sustains it? What laws and agreements guide our presence? What can we receive, and what must we return?
These questions make acknowledgement a relationship rather than a recital.
They also make it diplomatic. A guest who recognizes the host’s homeland recognizes that they have entered a place with its own relationships and responsibilities. A host who welcomes the guest makes room for an encounter governed by those relationships.
Neither arrives without standing. Neither arrives without obligations.
Beginning with place
I write from the shores of the Bay of Quinte. Here, the teaching asks me to begin with the water, the shoreline, and the life they sustain. Before I describe myself, I must attend to where I am.
That does not make people or history less important. It places them within the homeland that gives them meaning. The people, their laws, their agreements, and their responsibilities all belong to the place.
In a time of longer fire seasons, troubled waters, and uncertainty about what the next season will bring, this teaching asks something difficult and useful of us: pay attention before you speak.
An acknowledgement cannot tell the story of a place if the speaker has stopped noticing it.
The land came first. Beginning there again means learning to name what sustains us, and accepting that what sustains us also asks something of us.
By Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock
Photo by Andrik Langfield on Unsplash
The post The Land Came First appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.