The Way Forward May Be Backwards: The EU’s 2040 Climate Target

With the creation of the Paris Agreement in 2015, States took on the responsibility of limiting global warming and combating the effects of climate change. Scientists, activists, and environmental organizations raised their voices, arguing that these obligations needed to be binding and adopt more ambitious goals. 

Organizations such as Climate Action Tracker (CAT) have regularly reviewed States’ commitments under the Paris Regime, with alarming results, warning that the international community is nowhere close to limiting warming to 1.5°C. As a result, the need for an ambitious target emerged and the EU’s 2040 climate target was set alongside the Paris Agreement’s obligations on 5 March 2026.

The new target requires States to reduce their net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040, with the broader aim of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. The legislation introduces several new mechanisms intended to make the EU’s climate framework more flexible and realistic. 

One of the most debated additions is the limited use of high-quality international carbon credits toward the 2040 target beginning in 2036. Critics argue that allowing international credits risks shifting the focus away from domestic reductions and weakens the overall effectiveness of the target. Supporters, however, view the measure as a practical compromise easing economic pressure on Member States.

Another development is the planned inclusion of permanent carbon removals within the EU Emissions Trading System. Technologies such as BioCCS and direct air carbon capture are expected to provide a way to offset residual emissions from industries where complete decarbonization remains difficult. The legislation introduces biennial assessments of the Climate Law’s implementation, allowing the EU to periodically review technological, scientific, and economic developments.

Together, these measures demonstrate an important shift in European climate governance. Rather than relying solely on increasingly ambitious reduction targets, the EU appears to be moving toward a more adaptable and flexible model. Whether this represents necessary pragmatism or a weakening of climate ambition remains one of the central questions surrounding the 2040 target.

Nonetheless, the future does not look particularly bright. Although the 2040 target is ambitious, many argue that it is still not ambitious enough. Due to the weak enforceability of the Paris Agreement and its wider regime, meaningful change may remain difficult to achieve in practice, even if all States formally commit themselves to these goals. CAT’s recent reports clearly demonstrate that States are still far from meeting the standards required for compatibility with the 1.5°C target, and this situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.

One of the main weaknesses of the Paris framework lies in the structure of its commitments. While States are encouraged to submit increasingly ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), there are very few real consequences for failing to meet them. In practice, climate governance relies heavily on political goodwill, international pressure, and public image rather than binding enforcement. This creates a system in which ambitious declarations are often easier to make than meaningful domestic reforms. 

Economic concerns, energy dependence, and political instability continue to shape national climate policies, particularly in States that rely heavily on traditional energy industries. As a result, the gap between climate promises and climate action remains one of the greatest challenges facing the international community today.

Countries responded to the new directive in significantly different ways, ranging from optimistic support to outright rejection of the new target. Irish minister O’Brien, declared that “This represents an important milestone in shaping Europe's long-term response to the climate crisis and in setting a clear direction for our collective efforts beyond 2030. It also means that EU Member States will arrive at COP with a credible and ambitious commitment for emissions reductions in our NDC.” 

Spanish Minister for the Ecological Transition, Sara Aagesen, has been vocal about her support for the EU to adopt the CO2 reduction target, refering to it as a “strong objective”. At the same time, Spain’s current ecological transformation framework aims for a 55% reduction by 2030, which raises questions about how realistic Spain’s commitments to the 2040 target truly are.

French President Emmanuel Macron, while speaking in favour of the climate targets, also emphasized the need for “flexibility”, a term that remains vague, yet politically powerful, as it is the promise of flexibility that makes the Paris Agreement’s NDCs so tempting. 

Other States, such as Poland, have openly rejected the newly proposed targets, calling them unrealistic and costly. This issue is closely connected to the lack of renewable energy infrastructure across Eastern Europe, which has entered the energy transition much later, in turn delaying meeting the desired goals. 

The lack of clearly defined and enforceable objectives within the EU remains the central issue underlying modern climate litigation. Currently, CAT’s rating of European effort is considered "insufficient", with predictions based on current domestic pathways suggest a world heading toward more than 3°C of warming, even before 2030.

In many ways, this is where the title of this article becomes relevant. Perhaps the way forward may, in fact, be backwards. Not in abandoning climate ambitions, but in reconsidering the foundations of the current climate regime itself. The reactions of different States to the EU’s 2040 target demonstrate that increasingly ambitious goals alone may no longer be enough.

For real progress to occur, stronger enforcement mechanism are needed. At the same time, climate targets must remain realistic not only for highly developed States, but for countries that still lack broad access to renewable and environmentally sustainable energy sources. Perhaps, in order to see the kind of change that younger generations continue to demand and fight for, the entire climate regime itself needs to evolve. The international community should learn from its previous attempts and continue trying because, after all, there is only one Earth, and it is still worth trying for again. 

This article was written by Maja Winsche, a student currently enrolled in the LLM programme ‘International Human Rights’ at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway.