EU: backtracking on climate? .... maybe not!

The drumbeat of climate change echoes louder each day, a symphony of extreme heatwaves, torrential rains, and relentless droughts becoming our new, unwelcome norm. The science is unequivocal, affirmed by 98% of climate scientists: a dramatic, rapid reduction in human-caused CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions is not just an option, it's a critical imperative to steer Italy, Europe, and the world away from increasingly perilous climate shifts.

"We know, we know, how tiresome..." one might sigh. But here's the kicker: despite the escalating frequency of climate disasters and their soaring economic costs – with a staggering 57% of global companies already directly impacted, and "nature degradation" now a factor in the ECB's monetary strategy – the collective roar of media and public opinion remains muted. The political arena, unfortunately swayed by climate-sceptic narratives, often dismisses urgent proposals with the tired refrains of "madness" and "ideology."

Yet, glimmers of hope pierce through the gloom! A recent Eurobarometer survey paints a vibrant picture: a resounding 85% of Europeans recognise climate change as a grave concern. Even more impressively, 81% champion climate neutrality by 2050, and a pragmatic 77% acknowledge that inaction would be far costlier than decisive action.¹ This isn't a "luxury for the few"; ordinary citizens intrinsically grasp the necessity and urgency of this transition.

The technological frontier is equally on the move! Renewable energy is up everywhere. Innovations for gas-free home cooling and heating are also popping up, promising lower bills and cleaner air and water. Groundbreaking projects are reimagining energy storage, pioneering recyclable materials, and giving new perspectives to urban planning. Agrivoltaics – seamlessly blending agriculture with solar energy generation – are proving that progress can be symbiotic. Even energy-intensive industries, from steelworks to cement factories, are investing heavily in more efficient, resource-lean processes to stay competitive and sustainable.

But these solutions won't proliferate on their own! They demand robust political leadership, crystal-clear regulations, substantial investments, and unwavering timelines. Without these pillars, in Europe these promising initiatives risk remaining isolated experiments, failing to deliver real impact on people's lives and environment.

Against this dynamic backdrop, on July 2, 2025, the European Commission unveiled a bold proposal to amend the 2021 Climate Law, aiming for 90% reduction in emissions by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. This isn't an arbitrary number plucked from thin air; it's the bare minimum scientifically required to confront the climate crisis head-on and arrive at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025, with undeniable credibility. Every percentage point less means annual emissions equivalent to an entire Denmark, and tragically, thousands of preventable premature deaths.

However, as always, the devil is in the details. To garner support from the more hesitant Member States, the Commission has introduced a suite of proposed flexibilities aiming to make the ambitious 2040 target more palatable to reluctant member states:

Limited Use of International Carbon Credits: For the first time in an EU climate target, Member States will be permitted to offset a capped amount, up to 3% of their emissions, through high-quality international credits starting from 2036. These credits must be generated from projects outside the EU that align with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, ensuring robust integrity and verifiable emission reductions. The Commission will develop stringent rules on their origin, timing, and use, focusing on "credible and transformative activities" like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).
Integration of Domestic Permanent Removals into the EU ETS: The proposal allows for the use of domestic permanent carbon removals within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). This aims to compensate for residual emissions from "hard-to-abate" sectors where complete decarbonisation is currently highly challenging or prohibitively expensive. The Commission anticipates a significant scale-up of both nature-based and industrial carbon removals by 2040. The problem is that a lot of these alleged “solutions” will not be available for a long long time and are very costly. They risk to divert attention from really changing industrial process to waiting for a miracle technology whilst continuing to be dependent from fossil fuels.
Enhanced Sectoral Flexibilities: The Commission proposes greater flexibilities across sectors to support the cost-effective achievement of targets.⁸ This means a Member State could potentially compensate for underperformance in one sector (like land use) by overachieving in another (such as waste or transport), offering a more pragmatic pathway to the overall 90% target.

The inclusion of international credits and the emphasis on removals, without clear distinctions from direct emission cuts, could create "loopholes" and dilute the ambition, potentially shifting valuable resources needed for the EU's own green transition elsewhere. The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, for instance, has stressed that domestic action should remain paramount and cautioned against over-reliance on international offsets.

Now it’s the turn of the European Parliament and the Council. The upcoming weeks are pivotal, as the goal is to finalise this critical legislation before COP30 in Brazil. In an increasingly disinformed and anti-green political and media debate, it is really key that businesses and citizens alike follow this process with unwavering attention. Every backward step, every delay, every diversion of resources towards fossil fuels, nuclear power, or unproven technologies will have a tangible cost – measured in human lives and billions of euros.

This isn't "eco-terrorism." This is the stark reality we witness unfolding on our screens and in our daily lives. It's a future we refuse to accept, but one we still possess the power to prevent.

Absolutely! Here's a livelier version with more emphasis and emojis, perfect for catching attention on LinkedIn while keeping it professional:

???? EU backtracking on climate? Maybe not!
On July 2, the European Commission dropped a game-changer: a 90% emissions cut by 2040. Not a PR stunt – this is the bare scientific minimum to face the climate crisis and show up at COP30 in Brazil with credibility. ????????

???? Europeans are ready – and loud about it!
A massive 85% see climate change as a serious threat, and 81% want climate neutrality by 2050. This isn’t about ideology – it’s about survival, jobs, and fairness. Citizens get it. ????????

⚡ Tech is moving fast – politics needs to catch up.
From agrivoltaics to clean steel, renewables to smart cities, innovation is booming. But without clear rules, serious investment, and political will, these solutions risk staying in the lab instead of changing lives. ????????️????

⚠️ Flexibility or dangerous loopholes?
The new plan includes carbon offsets and removals, but experts warn: don’t let them delay real emissions cuts or drain money from the green transition. Now it’s up to the European Parliament and Council – and we’re all watching. ????????

Ecco un’analisi più approfondita delle **flessibilità o eccezioni** proposte dalla Commissione UE per il target 2040 e i loro pro e contro dal punto di vista ecologista:

## ???? 1. **Crediti di carbonio internazionali (fino al 3%)**

### ✅ Vantaggi percepiti:

* Permette di ridurre i costi complessivi per le aziende e i governi.

* Può incentivare la transizione climatica nei Paesi in via di sviluppo (es. riforestazione, energie rinnovabili).

* Flessibilità utile in caso di difficoltà settoriali gravi (es. acciaio, trasporti pesanti).

### ❌ Critiche e rischi:

* **Qualità bassa** dei crediti: progetti spesso non addizionali (esistevano già), poco trasparenti, doppio conteggio.

* **Mancanza di controllo europeo** su verifiche e impatti reali.

* **Disincentiva l’azione interna** (es. investimenti in efficienza energetica locale).

* Implica una **forma di neocolonialismo climatico**: l’UE “compra” soluzioni altrove anziché cambiare il proprio sistema.

---

## ???? 2. **Uso di tecnologie di rimozione del carbonio (CDR/CCS)**

### ✅ Vantaggi percepiti:

* Potenziale ruolo strategico per settori difficili da decarbonizzare (es. cemento, aviazione).

* Strumenti come DAC (Direct Air Capture) e BECCS (bioenergia con cattura e stoccaggio) potrebbero portare a emissioni nette negative.

### ❌ Critiche e rischi:

* **Tecnologie immature**, costose e ad alta intensità energetica.

* **Rischi ambientali** (es. perdite da stoccaggio sotterraneo, uso del suolo).

* **Rischio moral hazard**: potrebbe spingere settori ad attendere soluzioni future invece di ridurre ora.

* Non sostituisce **azioni immediate** su mobilità, energia e industria.

---

## ???????? 3. **Maggiore elasticità nella condivisione degli sforzi (Effort Sharing Regulation)**

### ✅ Vantaggi percepiti:

* Aiuta gli Stati membri con maggiore difficoltà economica o strutture energetiche basate sui fossili.

* Evita shock economici e sociali.

### ❌ Critiche e rischi:

* **Slittamento di responsabilità** tra Paesi (alcuni possono rallentare la transizione).

* Rende il quadro di governance climatica **meno trasparente e coerente**.

* Penalizza chi ha già investito nella transizione energetica (es. Danimarca, Svezia).

---

## ???? 4. **Eccezioni settoriali per agricoltura e trasporti**

### ✅ Vantaggi percepiti:

* Riconosce le specificità dei settori difficili da elettrificare.

* Protegge il reddito agricolo e i trasportatori a breve termine.

### ❌ Critiche e rischi:

* **Agroindustria** e lobby trasporti possono rallentare le misure strutturali (es. riduzione della zootecnia, elettrificazione logistica).

* Mancata transizione = **problemi ambientali cronici**: nitrati, metano, uso eccessivo del suolo.

* Riduce l’ambizione complessiva, dando il messaggio che “alcuni settori non devono cambiare”.

---

## Conclusione ecologista:

La flessibilità, in teoria, serve ad accompagnare la transizione con equità ed efficienza. Ma senza forti **criteri ambientali vincolanti**, rischia di diventare:

* una **scappatoia per evitare l’azione vera**,

* uno strumento per mantenere lo status quo economico,

* e un modo per diluire la portata del Green Deal.

Il punto chiave per ONG e scienziati: **la flessibilità non deve sostituire la trasformazione strutturale**.

Vuoi che sintetizzi questi elementi in un’infografica visuale?

You're absolutely right! Incorporating the critical insights from ecologists will significantly enrich the discussion around these flexibilities, making the article more accurate and impactful. Here's a revised version with those crucial remarks integrated:

Climate Action: Full Speed Ahead… with a Nuanced Compass!

Yet, glimmers of hope pierce through the gloom! A recent Eurobarometer survey paints a vibrant picture: a resounding 85% of Europeans recognise climate change as a grave concern. Even more impressively, 81% champion climate neutrality by 2050, and a pragmatic 77% acknowledge that inaction would be far costlier than decisive action. This isn't a "luxury for the few"; ordinary citizens intrinsically grasp the necessity and urgency of this transition.

The technological frontier is equally electrifying! Renewable energy is surging forward with unprecedented momentum. Innovations for gas-free home cooling and heating are blossoming, promising lower bills and cleaner air and water. Groundbreaking projects are reimagining energy storage, pioneering recyclable materials, and revolutionising urban planning. Agrivoltaics – seamlessly blending agriculture with solar energy generation – are proving that progress can be symbiotic. Even energy-intensive industries, from steelworks to cement factories, are investing heavily in more efficient, resource-lean processes to stay competitive and sustainable.

But these solutions won't proliferate on their own! They demand robust political leadership, crystal-clear regulations, substantial investments, and unwavering timelines. Without these pillars, these promising initiatives risk remaining isolated experiments, failing to deliver real impact on people's lives or our precious environment.

Against this dynamic backdrop, on July 2, 2025, the European Commission unveiled a bold proposal to amend the 2021 Climate Law, aiming for a staggering 90% reduction in emissions by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. This isn't an arbitrary number plucked from thin air; it's the bare minimum scientifically required to confront the climate crisis head-on and arrive at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025, with undeniable credibility. Every percentage point less means annual emissions equivalent to an entire Denmark, and tragically, thousands of preventable premature deaths.

However, as always, the devil dances in the details. To garner support from the more hesitant Member States, the Commission has introduced a suite of proposed flexibilities, aiming to make the ambitious 2040 target more palatable:

Limited Use of International Carbon Credits: For the first time in an EU climate target, Member States will be permitted to offset a capped amount, up to 3% of their emissions, through high-quality international credits starting from 2036. These credits must be generated from projects outside the EU that align with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, ensuring robust integrity and verifiable emission reductions. The Commission will develop stringent rules on their origin, timing, and use, focusing on "credible and transformative activities" like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).
- Ecologists' Alarm: Environmental groups like Carbon Market Watch and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) have voiced strong concerns, labeling this a dangerous "loophole" and "accounting trick" that risks "outsourcing EU responsibility rather than cutting emissions at home." They highlight the high risk of fraud and unverifiable emission cuts, arguing that it undermines the EU's domestic decarbonisation efforts and diverts crucial investments. Greenpeace went further, calling it "dodgy accounting and offshore carbon laundering" that "pretends to hit the lower bound of what its climate scientists advise." The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change has also cautioned against over-reliance on international offsets, emphasizing that decarbonisation should primarily happen within the EU.
Integration of Domestic Permanent Removals into the EU ETS: The proposal allows for the use of domestic permanent carbon removals within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). This aims to compensate for residual emissions from "hard-to-abate" sectors where complete decarbonisation is currently highly challenging or prohibitively expensive. The Commission anticipates a significant scale-up of both nature-based and industrial carbon removals by 2040.
- Ecologists' Skepticism: While acknowledging the role of removals, ecologists, including Carbon Market Watch, warn that integrating them into the EU ETS risks turning it into an "offsetting mechanism rather than a tool for real emission cuts." They are concerned it might not incentivize high-quality, truly permanent removals, and could lead to relying on "low-quality carbon credits derived from questionable or unproven practices" to offset very real emissions. They advocate for separate targets for gross emissions reductions, industrial removals, and nature-based sequestration to ensure transparency and prevent "hiding behind the net."
Enhanced Sectoral Flexibilities: The Commission proposes greater flexibilities across sectors to support the cost-effective achievement of targets. This means a Member State could potentially compensate for underperformance in one sector (like land use) by overachieving in another (such as waste or transport), offering a more pragmatic pathway to the overall 90% target.
- Ecologists' Caution: Environmental health groups warn that such flexibilities "risk becoming loopholes that delay real decarbonisation – particularly in key sectors that directly impact health, such as transport, agriculture, and housing." They fear this could "weaken incentives for progress" where it's most urgently needed, undermining the core logic of economy-wide decarbonisation.

While presented as pragmatic pathways, these flexibilities have ignited passionate debate. Critics, including environmental NGOs, warn that the inclusion of international credits and the emphasis on removals, without clear distinctions from direct emission cuts, could create "loopholes" and dilute the ambition, potentially shifting valuable resources needed for the EU's own green transition elsewhere. The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, for instance, has stressed that domestic action should remain paramount and cautioned against over-reliance on international offsets.

The spotlight now shines brightly on the European Parliament and the Council. The upcoming weeks are pivotal, as the goal is to finalise this critical legislation before COP30 in Brazil. It is paramount that businesses and citizens alike follow this process with unwavering attention. Every backward step, every slowdown, and every diversion of resources towards fossil fuels, nuclear power, or non-existent technologies will cost human lives and billions.

This is not eco-terrorism. It is what we are beginning to see every day on TV and online. It is a future that we do not want, but one that we can still avoid.

Climate: full speed backwards... or not?

There is good and bad news about the climate every day. Mostly bad. Extreme heatwaves, torrential rain and prolonged droughts are becoming the norm. The situation has been explained and proven by 98% of climate scientists: if we don't drastically and rapidly reduce CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity, Italy, Europe and the rest of the world will continue to slide towards increasingly dangerous and structural climate change.

'We already know this; how boring...' many will think. Precisely. The most disturbing point is that, in the face of increasingly frequent disasters and rising economic costs — 57% of companies globally are already directly affected by climate change, and the ECB has included 'nature degradation' in its monetary strategy — the media and public opinion are not reacting enough. Politics, dominated today by climate-sceptical forces partly due to the opposition's weak action, dismisses any proposal with two words: 'madness' and 'ideology'.

Yet there are positive signs. A recent Eurobarometer survey found that 85% of Europeans consider climate change to be a serious problem. 81% support climate neutrality by 2050 and 77% recognise that inaction would be more costly than taking action. Far from being a 'luxury for the few', ordinary people understand that the transition is necessary and urgent.

There is also good news on the technical front. Renewable energy is growing rapidly. Technologies for cooling and heating homes without gas, reducing bills and improving air and water quality are advancing daily. Innovative projects are focusing on energy storage, recyclable materials, the reorganisation of urban spaces and agrivoltaic systems that integrate agriculture and solar energy. Many energy-intensive industries, such as steelworks and cement factories, are investing in more efficient processes to remain competitive while using fewer resources.

However, these solutions do not spread on their own. Political leadership, clear rules, concrete investments and definite timelines are needed. Otherwise, everything will remain confined to a few isolated experiments with no real impact on people's lives or the environment.

Against this backdrop, the European Commission presented a proposal on 2 July to amend the 2021 Climate Law, aiming to reduce emissions by 90% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. This is not an arbitrary figure; it is the minimum required to address the crisis effectively and arrive at COP30 in Brazil with credibility. Each percentage point less is equivalent to Denmark's annual emissions. It would also prevent thousands of premature deaths.

However, as always, the devil is in the detail. In order to secure the support of the most reluctant governments, the Commission is also proposing 'loopholes', such as permitting Member States to offset 3% of their emissions through projects outside the EU. This trick has already been used and has done little so far to reduce emissions, instead shifting valuable resources needed for the EU's transition elsewhere. Other “flexibilities” proposed touch the ETS

The ball is now in the court of the European Parliament and the Council. The coming weeks will be crucial, as the aim is to be ready for COP30 in Brazil. Businesses and citizens must follow this process closely. Every step backwards, every slowdown and every diversion of resources towards fossil fuels, nuclear power or non-existent technologies will cost human lives and billions.

This is not eco-terrorism. It is what we are beginning to see every day on TV and online. It is a future that we do not want, but one that we can still avoid.