Another scorching summer is coming to an end in Europe, with estimated damages of €43 billion (€11.9 billion in Italy, the country most affected) and 16,500 premature deaths mainly due to the heat (more than 4,500 of which in Italy), but EU governments continue to dig their heels in on the future prospects of the fight against climate change. The bone of contention in recent weeks has been the revision of the Climate Law and, in particular, the Commission's proposal, which, more than a year late, proposed in July a 90% emission reduction target by 2040, more or less in line with the trajectory of zero emissions by 2050. At the Environment Council two days ago, environment ministers agreed on a vague “declaration of intent” and postponed the discussion on 2040 to the European Council on 24 October.

But how did we get to this fiasco?

Approved in 2021, the Climate Law set the net-zero emissions target for 2050 and the interim target of a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030. It was decided to define the 2040 interim target at a later date.

Achieving the 2030 target was the main focus of the legislation adopted in the last parliamentary term, from renewables to energy efficiency, buildings, taxonomy, and substantial resources in the Next Generation EU programme... and... the results are there.

Despite the prophets of doom and those who continue to talk about the “madness” of the Green Deal failing to recognise its importance, the reduction in emissions has also been matched in recent years by significant progress in the growth of renewables, storage, batteries and electrification, as well as new jobs. In short, we are on a virtuous trajectory that would make it completely absurd, even economically, to slow down. It is a fact that in recent years, the national plans, assessed by the Commission in May 2025, taken collectively, indicate that we are on track for a 54% reduction in emissions by 2030, in line with the target of a 42% increase in renewable energy consumption and slightly behind in terms of energy efficiency gains, mainly due to delays and/or discrepancies in the calculation systems of Italy, Spain and Sweden. According to other studies, the figures are less positive, but in any case, the role of legislation and the concentration of subsidies and investments has been indispensable in accelerating the transition.

The definition of the 2040 interim target, which should logically have been derived from the previous one, immediately appeared very complicated, mainly because the Commission made a serious strategic error in deciding to postpone the formal presentation of its proposed revision of the climate law by more than a year, until July this year, in the illusion that it would be able to reach an agreement with the Member States beforehand.

Not only did it fail to do so, but the arrival of Trump and the strengthening of climate change denialist political forces made an agreement that had been practically secured months ago much more complicated.

So, due to the failure to reach an agreement on 2040, the EU is cheerfully heading for a global embarrassment, given that after years of considerable effort and leadership on climate change, it will not be able to present itself in New York on 30 September with its figures in order for the definition of national emission reduction contributions, in accordance with the Paris Agreement that the EU contributed so much to defining.

Right now, with the climate emergency becoming increasingly pressing and Trump's denialist policy, this would open up opportunities for action and even business, which are likely to continue to end up in China.

And so, thanks in particular to Poland, France and Italy, the Danish Presidency was unable to get a binding and definitive agreement approved, but had to settle for a sad “declaration of intent” in which a range of emission reductions for 2035 between -66.25% and -72.5% was defined. These countries insisted that the 2040 target be discussed at the European Council meeting on 24 October. Why? Because the European Council decides unanimously, and well-informed sources tell us that the climate issue is directly linked to the budget, which will also be part of the discussion between heads of government. According to the Commission's proposal, 35% of the next EU budget will have to go towards financing climate and environmental policies, and obviously everyone wants to include their own priorities... nuclear power, gas in all its forms, networks, biofuels, hydrogen (not always green), aid to businesses, etc., etc. Therefore, acceptance of the 2040 target seems to be directly linked to the possibility of loosening the purse strings and unlocking the possibility of a sort of new “NGEU plan” and opening up the possibility of new European debt, and not just for defence.

What can be done? The usual three things. Make our voices heard, demonstrate that not only from a climate perspective but also from an economic and social perspective, putting the brakes on climate policies and ambitions will pose enormous obstacles to competitiveness and development, and build cross-cutting alliances, businesses, civil society, local administrations and good politics to reverse this return to a fossil-fuelled and losing past.