Two environmental groups, Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), sued the European Commission earlier this week over proposed emission targets they labelled “grossly inadequate.”
The two groups claim that targets laid out by the EU for agriculture, transport, waste and small industry are not constructed on the best available science and that proper assessments over their full climate impact were not completed.
These industries, which together make up 57% of the bloc’s greenhouse gas emissions, are not included in the EU Emissions Trading System but instead the EU Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), a key policy for the continent’s climate strategy. The ESR defines annual emissions allocations (AEAs) from 2021 to 2030, defining a specific amount of emissions allowances for each member state, measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide — a figure that decreases each year.
It is these AEAs, strengthened last year to meet emissions targets for 2030, that the lawsuit’s plaintiffs have criticised for still not doing enough to comply with the Paris Agreement and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
“States are obliged to adopt science-based emissions targets consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5C,” said Gerry Liston, a senior lawyer with GLAN. “We have outlined how the EU’s 2030 targets were not derived from best available climate science, a point which the commission has not even contested in its defence of our case. Instead it has tried to have the case struck out on mere technicalities.”
CAN Europe and GLAN do not believe that the current EU policy revisions will meet the aim of the Paris Agreement to keep global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Relating to the EU’s charter, the NGOs argue the proposed policy’s impact assessment did not thoroughly consider the continent’s fundamental rights, including the right to live and environmental protection.
The lawsuit was first filed earlier this year; the NGOs involved submitted their last written statements this month and a hearing is expected in 2025.
Last year, the two groups asked the European Commission to review their emission targets, pushing instead for a 40% cut in total emissions by the end of the decade. The executive director of the commission refused, claiming the request was unfounded and that the 2023 emission targets revision did not need further science-based assessments.
Moreover, in April of last year, Greenpeace and other campaign groups also filed a legal suit against the European Commission. This came after the commission decided to add certain gas and nuclear plants to the EU’s “taxonomy,” a list of projects and investments that can be labelled as sustainable for the environment. This “taxonomy” is designed to help investors find opportunities that help support the EU’s climate goals.
Greenpeace’s legal filing asked the EU General Court to reject the move and exclude gas and nuclear. The argument was that the EU was violating its own climate laws, citing the CO2 emissions produced by gas power plants.
The case is still pending, however, it has set a precedent for more lawsuits against the European Commission, including the newest case brought forward by CAN Europe and GLAN.
These EU regulations have exposed differences between member states over which energy sources are best suited to meeting the continent’s climate change ambitions.
Related Articles: Big Oil Testifies in Court for Decades-Long Climate Denialism | ExxonMobil Sues EU Over Unprecedented Windfall Tax | Energy Injustice: As Fossil Fuel Profits Double, Exxon Sues EU While BP Cuts Climate Targets | Exxon Doubles Down on ‘Advanced Recycling’ Claims That Yield few Results | Groundbreaking Lawsuit: Shell’s Board of Directors Sued for Climate Inaction | Could Biden Really Impose Windfall Tax on Big Oil?
Countries such as Spain and Denmark have argued that it is not credible to define gas as climate-friendly, whereas Poland, Bulgaria and other member states underscore the need for gas investments to phase out more CO2-intensive coal power plants.
Advancements in renewable energies such as solar and wind power have led to more clean energy adoption in Europe, but many member states have been slow to transition from fossil fuels, worrying environmentalists and policymakers alike.
Sven Harmeling, the head of climate at CAN Europe, said: “We have to use all available channels to push the European Commission to bring the EU’s climate ambition on track with its fair share for the 1.5C goal of the Paris agreement. The EU has to ramp up emissions reduction and achieve at least a 65% cut by 2030 if it wants to be a credible actor. The recent acceleration in expanding renewable energies in many countries and related cost reductions provide new momentum for this.”
The hope amongst the NGOs is that their case will be supported by an April case in the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Switzerland’s failure to effectively mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions was a violation of some citizens’ human rights.
With more legal complaints against the EU in the name of climate justice, it remains to be seen how the bloc’s policies will change, and how it will juggle the various capacities each member state has for climate action.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by the authors are their own, not those of Impakter.com — Cover Photo Credit: Guillaume Périgois.
