What’s happening and why does it matter?

The EU is currently committed to a 2030 climate target of -55% greenhouse gas emissions and has pledged to reach climate neutrality by 2050. The forthcoming amendment aims to set a 2040 target as a crucial interim milestone, ensuring the bloc remains on track to deliver on its long-term climate commitments. These targets are supposed to keep the EU on track to achieve its commitment under the Paris Agreement, which is keeping the temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

What does WWF want?

A full and more detailed overview of WWF’s position on the 2040 climate target can be found here.
 

WWF has long argued that an EU target of reducing emissions by 90% by 2040 would be inadequate for pursuing the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C climate goal in an equitable way. Given the EU’s responsibility for historical emissions, WWF argues that the EU should aim for climate neutrality by 2040. The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC), which recently concluded that even a 95% emissions reduction by 2040, itself said that this would fall short of reflecting the EU’s fair share of global mitigation efforts.

With the cost of inaction far outweighing the investment needed for effective climate action, WWF urges the European Commission to follow the science and take the necessary steps to prevent runaway climate change.
 

To ensure the 2040 target is robust and credible, it must be free from loopholes - euphemistically referred to by the Commission as ‘flexibilities’ - that could undermine its effectiveness. One such concern is the inclusion of international carbon credits in the 90% reduction target currently under discussion.

The ESABCC strongly opposes this approach. Their latest report warns that relying on international offsets could divert resources from transforming the EU’s own economy—including investments in clean infrastructure, skills, and innovation. Moreover, from a climate integrity perspective, the evidence is stark: only 16% of credits issued under existing carbon crediting schemes have resulted in real emissions reductions. Another assessment from Carbon Market Watch also concluded that “less than one out of 26 credits is likely to represent real emission reductions”.
 

To avoid weakening the ambition of the 2040 goal, WWF calls for three distinct targets as overreliance on carbon removals risks reducing the urgency to cut emissions at source, which must remain the top priority. Removals can only complement, not substitute, deep and sustained emissions reductions. 

Nature based removals should be prioritised over unproven at scale technological solutions, due to their co-benefits to adaptation, biodiversity, enhanced soil health, improved water quality and management, and ecosystem resilience. Any permanent removals target should be based on an environmental assessment analysing the sustainable scale-up of relevant technologies, balancing risks, benefits, and tradeoffs.