The European Commission has launched a strategy to protect people in the EU from “fossil-fuel price shocks” and accelerate the expansion of “homegrown clean energy”.
The strategy notes that the latest fossil-fuel crisis, triggered by the Iran war, has already cost the EU an additional €24bn for imports of oil and gas.
Carbon Brief has identified 44 specific actions in the AccelerateEU package, ranging from an “ambitious” new electrification target through to filling up the bloc’s depleted gas storage. (See the internative table below.)
The proposals are meant to ensure the EU has enough fuel in the short term, to protect consumers from price rises and – in the longer term – to curb reliance on oil and gas.
Many EU nations are already spending billions to provide immediate relief to their citizens amid the energy crisis, which was sparked by the US-Israeli attack on Iran in February.
With its new 16-page plan, the commission has set out an initial blueprint to shift the bloc towards a more resilient future, including a proposal for tax changes that favour electricity over gas as part of a drive to incentivise clean technologies.
However, much of the plan relies on European governments taking up the proposals and changes to EU-wide taxation will depend on the full support of all member states.
Why has the commission launched AccelerateEU?
On 28 February, the US and Israel launched an attack on Iran, triggering a war and sparking an energy crisis.
Iran is a major oil producer and much of the world’s liquid natural gas (LNG) exports transit through the region.
Shipping through the critical strait of Hormuz has been paralysed and direct attacks by both sides on fossil-fuel infrastructure, including some of the world’s biggest oil and gas facilities, have paused production.
This pushed oil prices over $100 a barrel for much of March. Whilst they have now dipped below that benchmark following a ceasefire agreement, they remain elevated and uncertain – for example, a report of an attack on a ship in the strait earlier this week led them to briefly spike over $100 again.
Moreover, there is a widespread fear that markets are not accurately pricing the level of risk posed by an extended conflict. A 21 April article in the Economist was titled: “Global energy markets are on the verge of a disaster.”
To manage the impact of the surge in prices seen so far, countries around the world have announced a range of measures to protect consumers.
Carbon Brief tracked more than 200 policies from 60 nations over the first month of the war, including cutting fuel taxes, implementing driving bans and fuel rationing, and boosting domestic renewable-energy construction.
Earlier this week, the UK government announced a series of measures to “double down on clean power” in response to the unfolding energy crisis.
AccelerateEU is the European Commission’s proposal to provide “immediate relief to European households and industries, especially the most vulnerable ones, while putting Europe on a steady pathway to energy independence”.
It is a response to a request by EU heads of government at the 19 March European Council meeting to present “targeted temporary measures to address the recent spikes in the prices of imported fossil fuels arising from the crisis in the Middle East”.
The proposal includes both short-term and structural measures with longer-term effects to “further reduce dependency on volatile fossil-fuel markets”.
It highlights that “coordination is key” and proposes a range of “timely, targeted and temporary measures”. AccelerateEU prioritises the shift to homegrown clean energy, “stepping up” the electricity grid and boosting investment.
The strategy stresses that this is the second time in less than five years that such a crisis has hit Europe, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the subsequent ongoing war.
While Europe is less directly exposed to the conflict in Iran than the Ukraine war, its heavy reliance on oil and gas imports still leaves it vulnerable to surging prices.
For example, the commission notes that since the escalation of the conflict in February, the EU has spent an additional €24bn on energy imports due to higher prices.
The European Commission states that this is “a strong reminder of the need to accelerate electrification” as “the current crisis is also a call… to end exposure to fossil-fuel price shocks and import dependencies”.
In a statement, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said:
“The choices we make today will shape our ability to face the challenges of today and the crises of tomorrow. Our AccelerateEU strategy will bring both immediate and more structural relief measures to European citizens and businesses.
“We must accelerate the shift to homegrown, clean energies. This will give us energy independence and security, and mean we are better able to weather geopolitical storms.”
What actions have been proposed?
Carbon Brief has identified 44 distinct actions in the commission’s plan, ranging from affirmations of existing policies to entirely new initiatives. The commission has divided its proposed measures into five key “areas of action”, which are:
- Improving EU-wide coordination;
- Protecting consumers and industry;
- Accelerating the shift to homegrown clean energy and electrification;
- “Stepping up our energy system” through measures such as grid improvements;
- Boosting investment for the energy transition.
Some of the measures, particularly those involving coordination between member states, focus on fossil fuels. Examples include working together to fill gas storage facilities and ensuring the full use of domestic oil refineries.
However, roughly half of the actions set out by the commission focus specifically on scaling up clean energy or boosting electrification across the EU.
The table below includes all of the actions laid out in the AccelerateEU plan, including target dates and descriptions by the commission of what each one would entail.
By summer, the commission says it will set out an electrification action plan, including an “ambitious” electrification target and various measures to “remove barriers to the electrification of the industrial, transport and building sectors”.
Central to the commission’s strategy is a proposal to overhaul the EU’s taxation system so that it favours electricity over gas. It plans to introduce a legal proposal for this change in May, but passing this would require unanimous approval from all member states.
Media coverage of the commission’s proposals noted that it has “stopped short” of introducing a windfall tax on oil and gas company profits, of the kind used during the 2022 energy crisis. However, the commission says it will “assist and provide best practices” for any member states that choose to implement such taxes domestically.
Some of the AccelerateEU measures – such as updating the EU emissions trading system (EUETS) – were already underway prior to the energy crisis, but could contribute to its goal of curbing reliance on fossil fuels.
Some proposals focus on securing aviation fuel, amid warnings that Europe will soon be running low. The commission will map out existing fuel supplies and provide guidance to the aviation industry on how to deal with shortages.
Many of the proposals set out in AccelerateEU involve the commission playing a supportive role, but leaving decisions up to member states.
The commission says it will relax state-aid rules to allow member states to “implement targeted, temporary emergency measures” for sectors that are hit hardest by the energy crisis.
Countries across Europe have already taken domestic actions to protect consumers and industry from energy price rises and an annex document contains various proposals for ideas to provide “immediate relief”.
This includes targeted relief on energy bills for vulnerable households, reducing the costs of public transport and delaying the retirement of nuclear power plants. It will be up to member states which of these policy options they choose to implement.
What happens next?
The majority of the measures outlined by the European Commission are set to come into force in April or May 2026. (See the table above for dates).
On 23-24 April, the measures will be discussed by EU leaders at the informal European Council meeting in Cyprus.
Subsequently, EU energy ministers will receive a catalogue of energy-saving and efficiency measures at a meeting on 13 May. This will be based on an assessment of the most efficient measures taken since the 2022 energy crisis triggered by the Ukraine war. It will set out ways nations can rapidly reduce oil and gas consumption in the short term.
AccelerateEU also includes reference to various pieces of work already being undertaken by the commission to support decarbonisation, for example, updates to the EUETS.
The commission will consult with member states on this update “soon”, before adopting a legislative proposal by 31 July. This will build on changes that have already been proposed to the market stability reserve.
The commission notes that AccelerateEU “is one part of the commission’s dynamic response” and “will evolve as the situation develops”.
Beyond what is already outlined in the proposals, the EU is looking at ways to mitigate the impact of the Iran war on agriculture, aviation and other sectors.
The European Commission will present a fertiliser action plan on 19 May, according to Reuters, to “accelerate decarbonisation and address affordability issues made more urgent by the knock-on effects of the Iran war on an already tight market”.
It is reportedly “mulling jet fuel imports from the US and new minimum reserve quotas as it eyes options amid a supply crunch due to the Iran conflict”, according to Al Jazeera.
Euractiv says the European Commission “is rejecting demands to clamp down on air travel” in response to the crisis.
The post Iran war: EU strategy sets out 44 actions to limit ‘fossil-fuel price shocks’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Iran war: EU strategy sets out 44 actions to limit ‘fossil-fuel price shocks’
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines