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’
A bill, newly passed by legislators, will expand the state’s capacity to enforce limits on health-harming emissions in overburdened communities.
After years of fighting to curb toxic pollution in communities of color, Illinois activists are celebrating a step forward.
In a Years-Long Fight, the Illinois Environmental Justice Movement Gets a Win
The lead attorney for the 22 plaintiffs said the court has “slammed the courthouse doors on children fighting for their lives.”
A federal appeals court has sided with the Trump administration and 19 Republican-led states in a constitutional challenge to several of President Donald Trump’s executive orders designed to boost fossil fuels, concluding that the youth plaintiffs failed to bring a viable case against the federal government. In affirming a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, called Lighthiser v. Trump, the appeals court said that it was not the role of the judiciary to supervise government energy policy.
Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Youth Climate Case Against Trump
In 2021, amidst a wave of corporate net-zero targets, a campaign group called Investors for Paris Compliance was set up in British Columbia, aiming to use investor pressure to hold Canadian companies to account on their climate promises.
In the five years since, the group has notched up several wins: pressuring National Bank into providing $20 billion of finance to renewable energy, getting Royal Bank of Canada to improve its green finance labels and persuading 20-25% of investors to regularly back climate proposals at annual general meetings (AGMs) for shareholders.
But last month, the group’s then executive director Matt Price put out a statement saying it was shutting down. Despite some progress, Price explained, his organisation had concluded that “investor accountability has reached its limits”.
Companies and their investors often understand that climate change threatens the economic system, Price said. But, he added, they do not respond adequately because they are worried that, if they do, their competitors will not put in as much effort and could therefore gain a financial advantage.
-
Santa Marta process can confront trade protection for fossil fuels, experts say
Academics at the first fossil fuel phase-out summit urged governments to recognise investor protection treaties as a barrier to the energy transition -
Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
The government has abandoned its plan to shut down a major coal plant, which was a key part of the deal, raising doubts about the donor-backed approach -
After another battery startup bankruptcy, can Europe ever cut reliance on China?
Norway’s Morrow Batteries set out to challenge Chinese producers, but a cash crunch forced it to file for bankruptcy in a setback for European ambitions for clean energy sovereignty
This “tragedy of the commons” situation cannot be fixed by shareholder advocacy, Price said, but instead needs litigation, regulatory action and accountability mechanisms. “Some of our team will take those things on in new initiatives,” he said.
Price’s words echo the findings of a London School of Economics (LSE) report published last month, based on workshops with asset owners and managers in New York, Amsterdam, London and Singapore.
Government policy key
The LSE report noted that “action by investors on climate change is severely constrained by their duties, the limited tools at their disposal and the pathways of technology development”. To be effective, pressure from climate-conscious investors must be coupled with government policy that incentivises green investment and technological innovation, the authors concluded.
An investigation by the Guardian recently found that, despite overwhelming shareholder support for its climate action plan, Australian mining company BHP has carried on buying polluting diesel trucks instead of electric ones. The Australian government subsidises diesel, saving BHP hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
As EU acts to stop greenwash, funds drop climate claims from their names
Lindsey Stewart, director of institutional insights for investment research firm Morningstar, told Climate Home News that investor activism does work but it “doesn’t do everything that people expected it to do towards the beginning of the 2020s”.
“There is a limit to what can be achieved by minority shareholders exercising their votes and engaging with companies. Quite a lot, it does seem, is reliant on the legal and regulatory framework,” he said, adding that the closure of Investors for Paris Compliance shows this “realisation is sinking in a lot more than perhaps it was in 2020, 2021, 2022”.
Decline of investor activism
Stewart said that in the early 2020s, investor activists were pushing companies for “things that were sort of already on the regulatory conveyor belt anyway”, like companies setting targets for their operational (Scope 1 and 2) emissions, disclosing their carbon footprints, and assessing their exposure to risk from climate change.
With this low-hanging fruit picked, green-minded investors have moved on to make demands that are more controversial and have received less support from other investors, he said. He gave examples of just transition reporting, green capital expenditure financing ratios for banks and disclosing emissions from the use of products a company sells, known as Scope 3 emissions.
On top of this, Stewart said, there has been pressure from the “right-wing political establishment in the US” against investors taking climate change into consideration. BlackRock, which manages $9.5 trillion of assets, has walked back its climate commitments after pressure from US Republicans.
More fundamentally, Stewart described the idea that fossil fuel majors would dismantle their oil and gas business and transform into renewables companies as a “pipe dream on the part of environmentalists”. “Why would they have the skill or capability, or even the stakeholder backing, to completely transform a business of that size?” he asked.
Shareholder activism is only possible at privately owned and listed companies, while most investment in oil and gas is now coming from state-owned companies, like Saudi Arabia’s Aramco. In 2025, less than a quarter of investment was from oil majors like BP and Shell.
Business backlash shows power
Yet despite the uphill climb, Mark van Baal defends shareholder activism. He runs an Amsterdam-based campaign group called Follow This, which has tried to get investors to vote for pro-climate resolutions at the AGMs of oil and gas multinationals.
He accepts that success peaked around 2021, but says the effort oil and gas firms are now putting into winning over shareholders and discouraging pro-climate resolutions – which he characterised as “the Empire Strikes Back” – shows the power of shareholder activism, which was previously underestimated.
In January 2024, ExxonMobil sued Follow This, aiming to block the group’s climate resolution. Fearing the case would end up in the Supreme Court, where conservative judges could set an anti-climate precedent, Follow This withdrew the resolution.
But, said van Baal, although the legal battle created a “chilling effect among investors”, it is a “proof point that shareholder pressure works and that they’re really afraid of the shareholders”.
Vote, don’t sell
Stewart and van Baal both agreed that selling, or threatening to sell off shares is not an effective way to change a company’s behaviour.
It allows less climate-conscious investors to buy the shares, they said, adding that there is no evidence that threats to sell shares and therefore lower the valuation over climate concerns have influenced company management.
Van Baal said the share price is set by short-term traders, not long-term shareholders like the pension funds he works with.
How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets
Nonetheless, investors’ engagement should be forceful, van Baal insisted – and not just within their comfort zone of talking to management about sustainability behind closed doors without voting for it at AGMs. “Shareholder democracy is the only democracy where voting is called escalation,” he said.
The Follow This website says that only investors can stop fossil fuel companies destroying the planet. “Marches didn’t change their minds. Lawsuits didn’t stop them. But shareholders can,” it trumpets.
But van Baal told Climate Home News this wording is “too strong” and may have to be revised, adding that shareholder activism just “fits me more than gluing myself to roads” and is a tactic he “stumbled on” 11 years ago.
Legal, political and investor activism can reinforce each other, he added. When Friends of the Earth sued Shell alleging inadequate climate action, for example, the green group’s lawyers cited the company’s rejection of a Follow This resolution as evidence. “The pressure needs to come from all sides,” van Baal said.
The post Investor climate group closes down, blaming “limits” of shareholder activism appeared first on Climate Home News.
Investor climate group closes down, blaming “limits” of shareholder activism
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测