Coping With Turbulence: EU Negotiations on the 2030 and 2050 Climate Targets

Abstract

This article analyses European Union (EU) negotiations on the European Climate Law and the 2030 Climate Target Plan in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. Adopting Ansell and Trondal’s (2018) conceptualisation of turbulence, it argues that the pandemic intensified the environmental turbulence within which European policy makers had been operating following Brexit, the rule of law dispute with Poland and Hungary, and the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States. Organisational turbulence within EU institutions also affected the negotiations, particularly due to the reliance of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on the political support of East-Central European governments that are sceptical of ambitious climate action. Moreover, the Commission, the European Council and the Parliament have taken different positions on the 2030 climate target and on the governance to pursue subsequent targets. Turbulence of scale—reflecting the nature of the EU as a multi-level actor—became relevant too, as the EU found it difficult to agree on its 2030 climate target due to disputes between member states and European institutions. European decision makers responded to turbulence through major policy initiatives, such as the EU Recovery Plan, the Green Deal agenda, and making funds conditional to the respect of the rule of law. They also pursued intra-EU compromises that accommodated different positions—for instance, on the Climate Law. Nonetheless, turbulence continues to pose a formidable challenge to the progress of the EU’s climate agenda.

Sharing the effort of the European Green Deal among countries

“…Approaches such as presented here also need to be embedded in larger policymaking contexts; the communication of the EU Green Deal emphasizes that the combination of the climate neutrality goal by 2050 and ambitious 2030 climate targets together act as a crucial framework to provide long‐term certainty and predictability for investments 49 . Considering the 2050 perspective, we note that for some countries a small subset of negotiation points result in zero emissions reductions compared to 2005 levels, which might imply allowances for increasing emissions until 2030.…”

Understanding the European Green Deal: A narrative policy framework approach

“…According to the Council (2020b, 2020c), the new 2030 target needs to be achieved in a way that preserves the EU's competitiveness, considering Member States' different starting points and specific national circumstances and emission reduction potential, and respecting the right of the Member States to decide on their energy mix (Council of the European Union, 2020a). Some representatives of Eastern European States demanded to downplay climate priorities and delay EU's new agenda as a consequence of the COVID pandemic (Siddi, 2021).…”

Implementing the European Green Deal during the Evolving Energy Crisis

“…Poland has a long history of opposition to ambitious EU climate policy mainly reflecting its still heavy reliance on domestically available coal which has geopolitical (energy supply security), economic (cost of energy transition) and political (weak environmental movement) roots (Bocquillon and Maltby, 2017;IEA, 2022;Szulecki et al, 2016). In line with its reluctance to subscribe to the 2050 climate neutrality target, Poland, supported by Hungary, had delayed agreement on the upgraded 2030 target of 55 per cent for several months until December 2020 as the target had become entangled in the conflict with the EU over democratic backsliding (Eckert, 2021;Siddi, 2021).…”