The European Commission has set out a proposal to cut EU emissions 90% by 2040, with up to 3% coming via carbon credits purchased from other countries.
In a proposed amendment to EU climate legislation, the commission has laid out what it calls a “new way to get to 2040”, including “flexibilities” to ease the burden on member states.
Besides the limited use of carbon credits, the proposal also gives a potentially larger role to carbon dioxide (CO2) removal technologies and leaves the door open for weaker sectoral goals.
It has drawn criticism from climate NGOs and left-leaning European politicians, who argue that it “waters down” the EU’s climate ambitions and presents “considerable risks”.
Yet, the proposal is seen by many as an acceptable compromise option, following strong pushback from many member states to the 90% target, originally proposed last year.
With all nations expected to come forward with new international climate targets for 2035 by September and ahead of the COP30 climate summit, the 2040 goal will also be crucial in determining where the EU’s pledge lands.
In this Q&A, Carbon Brief outlines what the amendment proposed by the commission includes, why it has proved controversial and what is expected to happen next.
What has the European Commission proposed?
The European Commission has proposed an amendment to the EU Climate Law, which would set a target for a 90% reduction in net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2040, compared to 1990 levels.
It will “give certainty to investors, innovation, strengthen industrial leadership of our businesses and increase Europe’s energy security”, the commission says.
In a statement, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, added:
“As European citizens increasingly feel the impact of climate change, they expect Europe to act. Industry and investors look to us to set a predictable direction of travel. Today we show that we stand firmly by our commitment to decarbonise [the] European economy by 2050. The goal is clear, the journey is pragmatic and realistic.”
The proposal includes new “flexibilities”, such as a limited role for “high-quality international credits” from 2036, the use of domestic permanent emissions removals within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and additional flexibilities across certain hard-to-decarbonise sectors.
These additional flexibilities are designed to allow countries to meet targets in a cost-effective and “socially fair” way, the commission adds. It says they will provide the possibility that a member state could compensate for a struggling land-use sector with overachievement in other areas, such as emissions from waste or transport.
The target will “send a signal to the global community” that the EU will “stay the course on climate change, deliver the Paris Agreement and continue engaging with partner countries to reduce global emissions”, says the commission.
It has been announced ahead of the UN COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil in November.
The European Commission says it will now work with the council presidency – representing EU member state governments – to finalise the EU’s climate pledges for 2035, so that the EU can submit its “nationally determined contribution” (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.
The EU was among the 95% of countries that missed the UN deadline to submit their NDCs by February of this year.
A recent update from the European parliament noted that the EU “needs to update its NDC…by September”, in order to meet an extended deadline from the UN.
In 2023, independent advisory body the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change recommended that the EU should aim for net emissions reductions of 90-95% by 2040, compared to 1990 levels.
As such, the advisory board said that the bloc would need to limit its cumulative emissions from 2030-50 to 11-14bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e), in order to be in line with bringing global warming down to 1.5C by the end of the century.
The 90% emissions reduction figure set out by the EU is on the lower end of guidance.
Why is the commission making this proposal now?
The European Commission’s new proposal builds on previous targets and roadmaps, representing a significant step towards enshrining the 2040 target in law.
In July 2021, the European Climate Law officially entered into force, setting a target of a net GHG reduction of at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, as shown in the chart below.
Rules were introduced governing sectors, such as clean energy, energy efficiency and transport, among others, to help meet this target.
If all were successful in their implementation, they would reduce emissions by roughly 57% by 2030, according to a European parliament assessment in 2022.
Subsequently, the commission has been working on developing a target for 2040, as an interim benchmark between the 2030 target and the EU goal – announced in 2018 – to be “climate neutral” by 2050. At this point, the bloc would reach net-zero emissions overall and would stop adding to global warming.
In 2024, the commission published an impact assessment, detailing the underlying qualitative analysis it had undertaken around emissions reduction targets for 2040.
This, together with the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change’s report (detailed above) and advice from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formed the basis for the 90% target, the commission says.
The headline 90% target for 2040 was announced as part of a roadmap outlined by the commission in February 2024.
The roadmap kicked off a lengthy process in which EU politicians and institutions worked to cement the details of this target, ahead of this week’s proposal on turning it into law.
This process included “substantial engagement” with member states, the European parliament, stakeholders, civil society and citizens, the commission says.
In particular, certain European countries have been placing pressure on the commission to change or adapt the 2040 target, slowing the progress of this week’s proposal, which had been due out in February.
For example, Italy called for the goal to be weakened and France asked for “flexibility” to be introduced (See: Who has supported and opposed the proposed climate target?).
The commission hopes that publishing the proposed target now will allow it to be factored into the EU’s upcoming NDC, in which it will establish an emissions reduction target for 2035.
What does it say about international carbon credits and ‘flexibilities’?
The European Commission’s proposal sets out a “pragmatic” pathway towards the 2040 target, including specific measures to give EU member states “flexibility”.
Of these, the one that has received the most attention is to allow limited use of international carbon credits, under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, starting in 2036.
In effect, this flexibility means that emissions within the EU would only need to fall to 87% below 1990 levels by 2040, with the remaining 3% taking place overseas.
This would mean member states could buy credits generated by emissions-cutting projects in other countries and count those cuts towards their own targets.
Other nations, including Japan and Switzerland, have already welcomed the use of international credits to meet their climate goals.
In an unusual intervention that coincided with the proposal itself, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change stated that the EU should not count such credits towards the 2040 target. It said:
“Using international carbon credits to meet this target, even partially, could undermine domestic value creation by diverting resources from the necessary transformation of the EU’s economy.”
The board also mentioned other concerns that are frequently levelled at “carbon offsetting”, such as credits not resulting in real-world emissions cuts.
The commission’s proposal refers to “high-quality international credits under Article 6”, but does not specify which types of credit. This leaves the door open for lower quality options.
For example, carbon trading under Article 6.2 is subject to far less oversight than trading of Article 6.4 credits.
The proposal also states that: “The origin, quality criteria and other conditions concerning the acquisition and use of any such credits shall be regulated in union law.”
This suggests that the EU would conduct its own assessment of any credits used by member states, beyond the rules that have been negotiated at an international level.
Jonathan Crook, the lead expert on global carbon markets at Carbon Market Watch, tells Carbon Brief that additional safeguards would be “essential”, given outstanding issues with Article 6 carbon credits.
A Q&A accompanying the commission proposal states that credits would be bought from “credible and transformative” projects in nations with Paris-aligned climate goals.
It mentions direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as examples of the kinds of projects that the EU could source credits from.
This could severely limit the pool of available credits, because – as it stands – almost all carbon credits are from tree planting, forest conservation and clean-energy projects.
DACCS and BECCS projects could result in relatively permanent carbon removal. Crook says this would be one of the “many necessary safeguards” needed for credit purchases, although he points to potential issues with such projects. He adds:
“This potential durability criterion is only mentioned in the Q&A, rather than in the actual commission proposal and so currently has very limited standing unless it is introduced [into the legal text] during the co-legislation process.”
There are two additional “new flexibilities” mentioned in the commission’s proposal, to help member states meet the 2040 emissions target more easily.
One is the inclusion of permanent carbon dioxide (CO2) removal in the EU ETS, something that was already being discussed as part of an ETS revision.
This would mean that DACCS and BECCS projects in EU member states could sell credits to help high-emitting companies, such as steel plant operators, stay within their ETS limits.
Paying for such credits could become more appealing as the number of available emissions “allowances” under the overall “cap” for ETS system shrinks and the allowances become more expensive.
The commission says this would help to “compensate for residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors”, referring to those that are expensive or difficult to reduce to zero.
The need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is widely recognised and inclusion in the ETS could help to drive investment into early-stage technologies, such as DACCS.
However, there are concerns that focusing on removals diverts investment from readily available technologies that cut emissions, such as electric-arc furnaces for steel plants.
In its recommendations, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change says there should be separate targets for emissions reductions and removals. This would ensure the removals contribute to EU targets “without deterring emission reductions”, it says.
Finally, the commission’s proposal also includes a vague mention of “enhanced flexibility across sectors, to support the achievement of targets in a cost-effective way”.
Linda Kalcher, executive director of the thinktank Strategic Perspectives, tells Carbon Brief that this is “alluding to the fact that we might see weakening of some laws”.
Michael Forte, a senior policy advisor at thinktank E3G, expands on this, noting that it could mean member states adjusting emissions targets between different parts of the EU climate architecture, depending on where they were over- or underperforming.
“I would infer that this means letting member states transfer a greater share of their mitigation efforts between these different instruments,” Forte tells Carbon Brief.
Kalcher notes that such changes cannot be regulated in this law, but instead would need to be part of the expected 2040 framework or other pieces of law:
“They are more alluding to future changes, instead of making them now. So that…gives confidence to the countries that have concerns [about the 2040 target] that something will happen.”
Who has supported and opposed the proposed climate target?
Climate campaigners and left-leaning politicians were highly critical of the “flexibilities” included in the commission’s proposal, in particular the use of international carbon credits.
The options proposed were described by civil-society groups as “creative accounting” and a “dangerous new precedent” that relies on “outsourcing Europe’s responsibility” to other countries.
The European parliament’s centre-left Socialists and Democrats coalition issued a statement warning that “the inclusion of international carbon credits as a means to meet the target carries considerable risks”.
Critics also noted that using such flexibilities contradicted the official advice offered by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change.
Yet the proposal, presented as a “new way to get to 2040”, is widely viewed as an attempt to find a political compromise against a tricky geopolitical backdrop.
It allows the EU to aim for the target set out by its scientific advisers, albeit at the lower end of the “90-95%” emissions reduction that had been proposed. This is in spite of a strong political pushback from some member states.
A statement released by Peter Liese and Christian Ehler, German members of the European parliament’s centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) group, explained:
“We think it’s very dangerous to criticise the European Commission because they intend to include flexibility in their proposal on the 2040 target. We don’t see a majority in parliament nor council for any 2040 target without flexibility.”
Some member states, including Spain and Denmark, supported the 90% target without asking for major concessions. Others, including Poland and Italy, have argued for a less stringent headline goal.
Meanwhile, others pushed for some kind of compromise during discussions of the new target.
Notably, the newly elected, right-leaning German government gave qualified support for the 90% goal in its coalition agreement, subject to conditions such as the inclusion of international carbon credits. Other influential nations have also increasingly stressed the need for “flexibility” around the target.
Meanwhile, according to Politico, France has been part of a push – alongside “climate laggards” Hungary and Poland – to separate discussions of the EU’s domestic 2040 target from its international 2035 NDC pledge.
According to the news outlet, such decoupling could result in a weaker 2035 target, compared to the 2035 target that is expected to be derived from the 90% reduction 2040 goal.
How does the goal fit with the EU’s industrial growth plans?
The commission says its 2040 proposal goes “hand in hand” with its clean industrial deal strategy, its affordable energy action plan and its “competitiveness compass” plan.
Alongside tabling its 2040 climate goal, the commission issued a new “communication” on “delivering on the clean industrial deal”. (The deal was first announced in February.)
The communication says that “decarbonisation and reindustrialisation are two sides of the same coin” and reaffirms that the aim of the deal is to “enable the EU to lead in
developing the clean-technology markets of the future”.
The commission says delivery of the deal is “already underway”. It points to the adoption of the clean industrial deal state aid framework on 25 June, an €85bn ($100bn) state-aid package for helping member states transition their economies.
Environmental law charity Client Earth said a draft version of the framework risked “entrenching support for fossil gas and fossil based low-carbon gases”.
The clean industrial deal communication also notes that the commission this week published recommendations on tax incentives for speeding up the energy transition.
On 18 June, the European parliament and council agreed on a commission proposal to simplify the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), a policy for taxing carbon-intensive imports at levels equivalent to the EU ETS.
The agreement introduces a new exemption threshold of 50 tonnes for CBAM goods, meaning small and medium-sized companies that do not exceed this weight of imports per year will now be exempt from the measure.
EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra described it as a “win for both climate policy and competitiveness of our companies”, with the new measure meaning 90% of companies will now be exempt from the CBAM, but 99% of emissions will still be covered.
Previous analysis has found that, in isolation, the CBAM will have a limited impact on global emissions.
What comes next?
Before the target can be adopted, it must be agreed by member states and pass through the European parliament.
Once the parliament and national ministers have agreed on their separate positions, three-way “trialogue” negotiations between them and the commission can begin with the aim of finalising the 2040 legislative proposal.
All nations were asked to submit new 2035 climate pledges, known as “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), to the UN by February of this year (see: What has the European Commission proposed?). The EU was among the vast majority of parties to miss the deadline.
UN climate chief Simon Stiell has now asked all parties to submit their NDCs “by September”. This is to allow time for the preparation of a report on the collective ambition of all nations’ pledges before COP30 in November.
The EU’s NDC will include an “indicative 2035 figure” derived from the bloc’s 2040 climate target, according to the commission.
The commission says it will work with the Danish presidency of the EU council and member states to finalise its NDC.
It is expected that the EU will aim to finalise both its 2035 NDC and its 2040 climate goal ahead of the next UN general assembly, which starts on 9 September in New York.
The post Q&A: European Commission’s proposal to cut EU emissions 90% by 2040 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: European Commission’s proposal to cut EU emissions 90% by 2040
Although the department’s overall budget will increase in 2027, the amounts dedicated to environmental management, research and renewable energy infrastructure face significant hits.
Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee have challenged the Department of Energy’s proposal that would divert funds from solar and wind while keeping fossil fuel plants online past their retirement dates.
Cuts to Renewable Energy Research in Energy Department’s Budget Irk Senate Democrats
Climate Change
Cropped 22 April 2026: Global food ‘catastrophe’ | BECCS emissions | UK solar farm controversy
We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter.
Subscribe for free here.
Key developments
Food ‘catastrophe’
FAO WARNING: On Monday, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned that a prolonged closure of the strait of Hormuz could lead to a “global food catastrophe”, reported Al Jazeera. With 20-45% of the world’s key agrifood inputs dependent on the sea passage, the outlet explained, poorer countries would be the “most exposed”, with delays in accessing fertilisers “quickly translating into lower output”. A Financial Times essay detailed how the Gulf region has come to “sit at the centre of modern agriculture” over the past two decades”.
-
Sign up to Carbon Brief’s free “Cropped” email newsletter. A fortnightly digest of food, land and nature news and views. Sent to your inbox every other Wednesday.
‘PERFECT STORM’: The FAO also warned countries to “not limit shipments” of energy and fertilisers, warning that such restrictions have led to food price spikes in the past, wrote Bloomberg. The UN body asked countries to “closely ponder” biofuel mandates, given the choice between high oil prices and curtailing global food supplies. In a statement, FAO chief economist Dr Maximo Torero warned of a “perfect storm”, if the world is also affected by a strong El Niño.
COUNTRIES RESPOND: Sri Lanka, already “burdened with old fertiliser debts”, has promised to provide fertiliser subsidies to farmers, reported Sri Lanka’s Sunday Times. In India, “fear of a fertiliser shortage is particularly heightened”, wrote Scroll.in. In Australia – where 60% of urea comes from the Persian Gulf – the war could herald a fertiliser “manufacturing comeback”, reported ABC News. Reuters looked at how China is “clamping down on fertiliser exports to protect its domestic market”.
Study: Wood vs gas burning
BASHING BECCS: A new study found that “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is unlikely to generate negative emissions within 150 years”. The paper added that BECCS is likely to “produce higher emissions for decades than using natural gas without carbon capture” and to “increase electricity costs by ~3.5-fold”. The Guardian covered the research, stating that its findings “cast doubt” on government plans to offer subsidies for carbon capture attached to wood-burning power, such as the UK’s Drax power station.
INTERPRET WITH CAUTION: Prof Joana Portugal Pereira, an assistant professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, told Carbon Brief that the study is “clearly framed and the modelling approach is transparent”. However, she said the results are “very sensitive to the assumptions made” and advised “caution” in drawing conclusions from the analysis. For example, she noted that the study “focuses on BECCS supplied from existing forests”, which is likely to “emphasise higher emissions outcomes”.
MISLEADING HEADLINE: Dr Isabela Butnar, a lecturer in environmental policy at University College London, praised parts of the methodology and agreed that “forest-based BECCS for electricity is a no-go”. However, she argued that the title of the paper – “Decades of increased emissions from forest-fuelled BECCS” – might be “a bit misleading”. The title should specify that the analysis only applies to BECCS for electricity production, she said.
News and views
- TOO HOT TO FARM: A major new joint report by the FAO and the World Meteorological Organization estimated that extreme heat “currently threatens” the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people, with agricultural workers on the “frontlines…absorbing the greatest impacts”. Farmers in much of south Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and central and South America could find it “simply too hot to work” for up to 250 days a year, the report cautioned.
- PALM READING: Demand for palm oil has “surged as the war in Iran drives countries to build up stockpiles” and “boost” biofuel programmes in response to higher crude oil prices, reported Nikkei Asia. While Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil exports have risen to their “highest level in months”, longer-term supply could be “threatened” by rising fertiliser prices and “high temperatures caused by climate change”, added the outlet.
- RED LIST: Emperor penguins and the Antarctic fur seal “have joined the list of wildlife endangered by global warming”, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List, reported the New York Times. Conversely, “iconic” blue-and-yellow macaws have returned to Rio de Janeiro after a 200-year absence, following an ambitious “refaunation” programme, wrote the Guardian.
- CATTLE CLASS: A new Unearthed investigation found that a major US biofuels producer supplied the UK with “sustainable aviation fuel” derived from “beef fat linked to illegal Amazon deforestation”. Darling Ingredients – the producer’s parent company – denied sourcing tallow from slaughterhouses sourcing cattle from illegal farms in the Amazon. It told the outlet it was “in the process” of requiring suppliers to prove their products were “deforestation-free”.
- FUND OPEN: On 10 April, Ecuador issued its “first call” for grants to protect 1.8m hectares of the Ecuadorian Amazon using the $460m Amazon Biocorridor Fund, reported EFE Verde. The trust fund is linked to what is considered the “largest debt-for-land nature swap”, added the outlet. [For more on debt-for-nature swaps, see Carbon Brief’s 2024 explainer.]
- SUPER EL NIÑO: Scientists expect a strong El Niño event to develop by early autumn, driving up global temperatures, according to Carbon Brief’s latest state of the climate update. The analysis said that if a super El Niño develops this year, it is likely that 2027 will top the charts as the hottest year on record. It added that “the latest climate models give a central estimate of 2.2C warming by September – a scenario which would put the world firmly in ‘super’ El Niño territory”.
Spotlight
Oxford solar farm under fire
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks what the UK’s Botley West solar farm development would mean for farmland and biodiversity in the area.
Planning permission for one of Europe’s largest solar farms has been delayed, after the UK government asked for more time to consider the proposal from the developer.
Oxfordshire’s Botley West solar farm has been under consultation since 2022.
If approved, the site – located 80km north-west of London – will deliver 840m watts (MW) to the UK power grid.
However, the development faces vehement opposition – most notably from the Stop Botley West campaign group, which has said the “vast” solar farm will have “unprecedented” visual impact, drive the loss of “arable farmland” and will “disregard Oxford’s green belt”.
Politicians frequently use solar farms to score points with their supporters, with some MPs describing the developments as hazards for rural communities and food supply.
Farmland loss
Most of the land earmarked for the solar farm belongs to the Blenheim estate – a 12,000-acre expanse surrounding the UNESCO world heritage site of Blenheim Palace.
Dr Jonathan Scurlock – the former chief climate adviser at the National Farmers’ Union, which represents farmers in England and Wales – told Carbon Brief that the estate rents out much of its land to tenant farmers. However, he added, it is “not terribly good quality farmland”.
The UK government has a ranking system for agricultural land that is being considered for large-scale development projects, where five indicates “very poor quality” and one indicates “excellent quality”. Developers are generally encouraged to build on lower-quality land, leaving the high-quality land for farming.
According to the Botley West website, 62% of the land surveyed for the proposed solar farm is agricultural grade 3b – defined as “moderate-quality agricultural land”. The remainder is mostly 3a, defined as “good-quality agricultural land”.
Many opponents of Botley West argue that the farm will take away vital farmland. However, Scurlock said:
“Solar is perceived as very challenging to land use and yet the evidence nationally really doesn’t support that…Solar farms do not really represent lots of agricultural land capacity”.
(A 2025 Carbon Brief factcheck found that golf courses currently take up six times as much land in the UK as solar farms.)
The developers plan for the solar panels to remain on-site for about 40 years, after which the fields will be returned to use for agriculture.
Biodiversity gain
The proposed solar farm has also promised to improve local biodiversity.
New development projects in the UK must deliver a “biodiversity net gain” (BNG) under a 2024 regulation.
Developers must arrange for the “biodiversity value” of the land to be assessed, considering factors including the size, quality, location and type of each habitat. They must then ensure that the final project increases this value by at least 10%.
If the Botley West project is approved, the developers will aim for 70% BNG.
Prof Alona Armstrong, an energy researcher from Lancaster University, told Carbon Brief that around two-thirds of solar farms in the UK are built on “ex-arable lands”.
She explained that biodiversity outcomes on solar farms depend on where the farms are located and how they are designed and managed. Much agricultural land is “intensively managed”, with the use of chemicals and farming machinery. In contrast, there is less chemical and machinery use on solar farms, potentially benefiting biodiversity.
Armstrong added that solar farms are often lined with hedges, which are “really good for biodiversity”, acting as refuges for a wide range of plant and animal species.
The latest BNG statement for Botley West filed with the government featured a “habitat and hedgerows creation and enhancement plan”.
The plan included creating 26.5km of new species-rich hedgerow, enhancing 25km of existing hedgerows and developing a range of grassland types within the solar arrays to be managed for conservation.
Watch, read, listen
EARTH ANGELS: From protecting Nigeria’s rare bats to pushing higher climate targets in South Korea, Mongabay profiled the six women who won this year’s Goldman Prize.
CHERRY (BLOSSOM) PICKING: The Guardian reported on the hunt to find a researcher to continue Japan’s 1,200-year record of cherry-blossom blooming dates.
‘SOYA REPUBLICS’: A Phenomenal World essay argued that global grain traders in South America’s soya supply chains “sowed the seeds of anti-democratic politics”.
ZACH IS BACK: Actor-comedian Zach Galifianakis debuted a new Netflix series, called “This is a gardening show”, meant to be an “oddball celebration of the food we eat”.
New science
- Preventing the loss of intact biomes, ecosystems and species is the “most critical strategy” to achieve the “nature positive” future outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework | Frontiers in Science
- Climate change will lead to “increased pest damage” in North American forests, as “temperature-boosted pest performance” and “climate-induced stress”, such as drought, make trees more susceptible to pests | Nature Ecology and Evolution
- There are 160m “small wetlands” in “non-forested” parts of the world, which together contribute to 24% of total wetland methane emissions | Nature Climate Change
In the diary
- 22-24 April: Eighth meeting of the board for the loss and damage fund | Livingstone, Zambia
- 24 April: Launch of the 2026 global report on food crises | London
- 24-29 April: First conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels | Santa Marta, Colombia
- 5-7 May: Workshop on invasive alien species for Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America and the Caribbean | Panama City
Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne, Orla Dwyerand Yanine Quiroz. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org
The post Cropped 22 April 2026: Global food ‘catastrophe’ | BECCS emissions | UK solar farm controversy appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Cropped 22 April 2026: Global food ‘catastrophe’ | BECCS emissions | UK solar farm controversy
A recent US court ruling restricting President Trump’s ability to impose sweeping tariffs has improved the chances of an international deal to cut emissions from shipping, observers of UN maritime talks have said.
Government officials meeting at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London this week and next are resuming negotiations on a proposed set of measures known as the Net-Zero Framework (NZF), aimed at tackling the sector’s roughly 3% share of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Last October, Trump and his officials threatened any government voting to adopt provisionally agreed green shipping measures, known as the Net-Zero Framework (NZF), with tariffs that would make it harder for their businesses to export to the USA.
The intervention helped derail talks, with governments narrowly voting to postpone for a year the adoption of the NZF.
The framework, provisionally agreed in April 2025 after years of negotiations, would penalise the owners of particularly polluting ships and use the revenues to fund cleaner fuels, support affected workers and help developing countries manage the transition.
The delay plunged the future of the NZF into doubt. Vanuatu’s climate minister said the delay was “unacceptable” given the urgency of tackling climate change. A final decision on the NZF is not expected until November.
-
IMO head: Shipping decarbonisation “has started” despite green deal delay
Arsenio Dominguez said the shipping industry’s net zero emissions goal is not in dispute although countries have stalled on adopting a framework to reach it -
Pacific nations want higher emissions charges if shipping talks reopen
US President Donald Trump and his allies want to weaken the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework, but Pacific island countries say they have compromised enough -
US-led alliance wins a year’s delay in adoption of green shipping deal
The IMO’s Net-Zero Framework will be up for approval again in October 2026, after the US and Saudi Arabia persuaded countries not to vote on it as planned
Tariff threat neutered
Since the last round of negotiations, the political landscape has shifted. In February 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled that Trump had no legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs without approval from Congress.
Rockford Weitz, professor of maritime studies at Tufts University, said that his officials would have “a more challenging time” using tariffs as threats at this month’s shipping talks than they did in October.
University College London professor Tristan Smith, a close observer of IMO talks, agreed that the tariff threat is “not quite as potent as it was last year”. He noted that the US also no longer benefits from the element of surprise. In October, Washington began lobbying governments only shortly before the talks, leaving little time for countries supporting the NZF to coordinate a response.
This time, Smith said supporters of the framework – which include most European countries, Pacific Islands and some African and Latin American states – are “working very closely together” to resist the US’s pressure.
He added that the US’s attempt to promote liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a transition shipping fuel, rather than renewable-electricity-based solutions like ammonia or methanol, by weakening the NZF has been undermined by the spike in the cost of gas triggered by the Iran war.
Attempts to re-negotiate
But divisions remain in the talks scheduled to run until Friday next week. Ahead of this round of negotiations, some governments have proposed re-negotiating the core tenets of the NZF, while others insist it should be adopted in November largely as provisionally agreed in April 2025.
This debate played out last week on a webinar hosted by the African Futures Policies Hub. Liberian diplomat Grace Nuhn said the emissions-reduction requirements included in the NZF are “over-zealous” and “over-ambitious” and do not reflect the limited availability of clean fuels, while penalising “transitional fuels” such as LNG and biofuels.
In a formal submission, Liberia – alongside US ally Argentina and Panama – has proposed weakening emission targets and ditching any funding mechanism for the framework involving “direct revenue collection and disbursement”.
Liberia and Panama host the world’s two biggest ship registries, meaning their governments earn revenue from allowing shipowners from around the world to register vessels in their countries.
The NZF would penalise owners of ships that emit more than certain agreed amounts and use that revenue to clean up the maritime sector, help workers through the green transition and compensate for any negative impacts of the transition on developing economies.
Shipping’s climate deal sets up battle over pollution calculations for gas and biofuels
Japan has also proposed that, in order to reach a compromise with the NZF’s opponents, emissions reduction targets and requirements to pay into the IMO’s Net-Zero Fund are weakened.
Yuki Inoue, a diplomat from Japan’s transport ministry, told the webinar that this would reduce the perception that the NZF is a “carbon tax”. Japan wants to get all governments “back to the discussion table”, he said.
NZF a “fragile compromise”
But Tuvalu’s IMO negotiator Pierre-Jean Bordahandy said that the NZF itself is a “fragile compromise” reached after lengthy discussions and is the “only viable path forward” to meet the sector’s climate targets agreed in 2023.
Tuvalu and six other Pacific nations have vowed to try to make the NZF more ambitious if it is reopened for negotiation. With rising sea levels threatening their survival, “time is not on our side”, Bordahandy told the webinar.
Brazil has also pushed back against attempts to renegotiate. Diplomat Adriana de Medeiros Gabinio warned that it would be unrealistic to expect countries to rewrite a deal in a matter of months after more than two years of negotiations involving over 100 nations culminated in the April 2025 vote in favour of the NZF.
She added that proposed changes to the NZF would not address climate change and food insecurity and “seem aimed at addressing diplomatic pressure imposed by a small group of countries rather than the issue itself”.
Mexico has defended the framework’s funding mechanism. Raul Zepeda Gil, an advisor to the country’s IMO mission, said the net-zero fund is essential to ensure developing countries can access financing for cleaner ships and infrastructure. Without the fund, “then just a few countries will be available to participate in the transition”, he warned
Some countries that previously supported delaying the NZF now appear more aligned with its backers. Kenya was among 16 African nations that voted for postponement last October.
But this month Michael Mbaru, maritime lead for the Kenyan government’s climate envoy office, told journalists that Kenya supports the NZF and hinted that other African and developing countries would follow.
“From the Global South perspective, as you’ve seen from the submissions from Africa, we are moving forward in terms of the framework as is”, he said, adding “we feel like we have compromised enough and we feel like the framework provides the best package.”
“If we are to reopen these discussions, we need to reopen them to strengthen the revenue, not to weaken the revenue”, he said.
Tacit or explicit approval?
Brazil’s Adriana de Medeiros Gabinio warned that even if the NZF is officially adopted in November, its opponents are trying to change the rules by which it comes into force as a “safety net to block” it.
The US and its allies want to shift away from a system of tacit approval where, after the NZF is approved at the IMO talks, its rules are automatically applied unless a certain number of countries object.
They prefer explicit approval instead, meaning it would not come into force unless enough governments – representing a certain percentage of the world’s shipping fleet – actively indicate support for it.
Critics say this change would give a small number of countries with large shipping registries the power to block implementation. Liberia has the world’s biggest shipping registry, which is run by a US-based company, followed by Panama and the Marshall Islands.
The Marshall Islands has long been one of the most vocal supporters of the NZF but, with its officials and its shipping registry income vulnerable to US retaliation, did not sign on to the recent Pacific proposal vowing to strengthen the NZF if it is re-opened.
Commenting on the chances of the NZF being approved, Smith said “there are lots of things which I think generally are much better and stronger than they were last year.”
“I can’t tell you now that that means we’re not going to have a difficult conversation and I can’t put odds on what the outcome is but I think things have improved on the energy transition question,” he said.
The post Prospects for global green shipping deal boosted by US tariff ruling, analysts say appeared first on Climate Home News.
Prospects for global green shipping deal boosted by US tariff ruling, analysts say
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits