Europe heads to Cop30 with a deal on emissions cuts by 2040
Environment — di Simone Santi
Europe heads to Cop30 with a deal on a 90 per cent emissions cut by 2040: an agreement balancing ambition and pragmatism.

Europe heads to Cop30 with a deal on a 90 per cent emissions cut by 2040: an agreement balancing ambition and pragmatism.
Ahead of the opening of Cop30 in Belém, the Brazilian gateway to the Amazon, the European Union takes a formal step towards climate neutrality — albeit at a more cautious pace than environmentalists had hoped. The European Council of Environment Ministers reached a political agreement this week to set a binding target of cutting net emissions by 90 per cent by 2040 compared to 1990 levels: a milestone that reinforces Europe's climate commitment, but also reflects the growing economic and social concerns of member states. "We have adopted a climate target of 90 per cent emissions reduction by 2040, with broad support from member states," said Lars Aagaard, Danish Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities. "The target is grounded in science and combines competitiveness with security. It shows that, even in difficult times, Europe can remain united." A message of unity and pragmatism arriving on the eve of the UN climate conference in the heart of the Amazon, where inequality and climate justice will be at the centre of global debate.
The agreement amends the European Climate Law (ECL), adopted in 2021 to make the commitments of the Paris Agreement, established in 2015, legally binding. Following the 55 per cent cut target for 2030, the Commission had proposed an intermediate 2040 objective of a 90 per cent emissions reduction — now confirmed by the Council with certain adjustments that make the transition more "realistic", but also less impactful on the environmental front. The text introduces a broad degree of flexibility for member states:
While these measures support cohesion among countries with differing economies and energy systems, they risk weakening the environmental coherence of the overall package and pushing part of the effort beyond 2040.
The Council's objective is to build a transition defined as "just" and socially balanced — one that leaves no vulnerable sector behind and does not undermine Europe's industrial competitiveness. In practice, the priority is to strengthen energy security, simplify the burden on businesses, and foster innovation in a technology-neutral manner. Yet it is precisely this "balanced" approach that also marks a partial retreat from the climate ambition that had characterised the European Green Deal. Concerns over industry protection, uncertainty around energy costs, and fears of a loss of competitiveness have pushed many governments to call for a more cautious approach. In other words, the compass still points to climate neutrality by 2050, but the route today appears less direct and more conditioned by economic factors.
Among the concrete new elements of the agreement is a one-year delay to the entry into force of the ETS2 system for buildings and road transport, now postponed to 2028. A measure presented as a social safeguard, but one that several analysts warn could delay emissions reductions in the hardest-to-decarbonise sectors. The Council also introduced a biennial review of targets, which will allow the Commission to adjust its strategy in line with scientific, technological and market progress. A useful element of flexibility, but one that some observers read as a potential weakening of the political commitment, leaving room for future downward revisions.
With this compromise, the EU arrives at Cop30 as a bloc that remains a leader in climate diplomacy, yet is not immune to internal hesitation. The agreement reached at Council level comes at a time when Europe is seeking to balance ecological ambition, energy security and domestic political consensus — a triangulation that is growing ever more complex. At the Belém conference, in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, Europe will attempt to defend its credibility as a model for sustainable transition. Perhaps by responding to those more vulnerable countries that are calling for fewer offsets, more real cuts, and a climate policy that does not flinch in the face of the economic costs of change.