The European Commission has recommended that the EU should cut its emissions by 90% by 2040, compared to levels in 1990, Politico reports. The target proposed by the EU’s executive branch is “meant to serve as a stepping stone between the bloc’s 2050 climate neutrality goal and its 2030 emissions reduction target of 55%”, the article explains. It initiates a lengthy process that will see the European parliament and EU member states come to an agreement on a 2040 target, the article continues. It will eventually be enshrined in law by the next iteration of the commission, following European elections in June, it adds. The Guardian says the proposal is “at the bottom end” of the 90-95% net emissions reductions that the EU’s scientific watchdog recently recommended, adding that “meeting it would require a much faster shift to a clean economy”. The newspaper notes that, under the new proposal, the EU would use 80% less fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2040 than it did in 2021. However, it notes that so far the bloc “has made little progress in cleaning up sectors like food and transport”, adding that climate campaigners were concerned by the reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the new plan. A news article in Nature cites scientists who say the new 2040 target “while admirable, risks relying too much on technologies such as carbon removal – which is largely unproven”. According to EurActiv, the new proposal is based on a detailed cost-benefit analysis. It explains that while the commission says “close to €660bn” (£563bn) will be needed annually in energy investments in the 2031-50 period – equivalent to 3.2% of the EU’s GDP – the cost of inaction will also involve billions of euros in climate-related damage. Moreover, it points out that switching to renewables will help end the EU’s dependence on fossil fuels, which the commission said “accounted for over 4% of GDP in 2022”.

Much of the coverage focuses on the farmers’ protests that have been taking place across Europe and the perceived impact they had on the commission’s recommendations. The Financial Times says the commission “left out” emissions targets for the agricultural sector from its 2040 “road map”, alongside scrapping another plan to halve EU pesticide use. It frames the decision as a move by commission president Ursula von der Leyen to “placate” farmers – seen as a critical constituency for her centre-right European People’s party. The newspaper notes that this comes as her party seeks to remain the most dominant parliamentary group in upcoming European parliament elections, and Von der Leyen herself considers another bid for commission president later this year. An article in Politico says Von der Leyen delaying the dispute with farmers over climate policies simply means leaving this fight to the next commission president – which is “widely tipped to be Ursula von der Leyen”. The Times reports that the farmers have “forced Brussels to abandon its most demanding emissions targets” – referencing a proposal to cut agricultural methane and nitrous oxide by 30% that appeared in an earlier draft of the commission’s proposal. According to the Daily Telegraph, in an article heralding “victory for Europe’s farmers”, a recommendation “urging EU citizens to eat less meat was also removed from the plan”. Agence France-Presse reports that “far-right and anti-establishment parties have latched onto the farmers’ movement and are predicted to make big gains in June elections”. The protests are “a harbinger of the next big political challenge in global climate action” – how to grow food without contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss, the New York Times says. [To understand more about why farmers have been protesting across Europe, see Carbon Brief’s recent analysis of their motivations.]

According to Bloomberg, the EU is also facing pressure from “energy-intensive industries”, with concerns that high energy prices in Europe and “subsidies handed out abroad” will undermine their transition. Clean Energy Wire highlights a call from the commission, within its new proposal, to make the EU’s overarching green deal an “industrial decarbonisation deal”. It also emphasises the need for a “just transition” for everyone involved, the article says. Taking a more positive tone, the Washington Post acknowledges the “greenlash” against climate policies in some European countries, but says the commission’s “aggressive timeline” demonstrates that “much of Europe remains committed to ambitious climate regulations even as other major economies, including the US, have yet to take binding action”. Finally, Politico has an interview with UK net-zero and energy security secretary Claire Coutinho, who says the UK will be “careful” to ensure net-zero policies command public support and avoid what she calls “clumsy” policy making of the kind causing unrest in Europe.

In more EU news, Agence France-Presse reports that EU member states and lawmakers have “clinched a deal” to expand the European production of low-carbon technology production “as the bloc faces off with China and the US”. The new net-zero industry act, which was first proposed last year, will prioritise permitting and funding for technologies required for the EU’s clean-energy transition, the article explains. Politico reports that the act includes a goal for the EU to “supply 40% of its own demand for clean tech by 2030, mainly by accelerating typically cumbersome permitting procedures and protecting local firms from unfair foreign competition”. However, the article adds that the bill “comes nowhere close to matching America’s $369bn IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] splurge”. Other measures include some measures to favour locally produced technologies in government contracts and environmental standards that foreign companies seeking such contracts should meet, the article continues. Reuters says the 40% target covers the equipment needed for eight “strategic technologies” – namely, solar power, wind power, batteries, heat pumps, electrolysers and fuel cells, biogas, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and electricity grids. According to Bloomberg, “there are concerns the EU has put no fresh money behind the plan”. It adds that the European parliament and the EU’s 27 member states all need to sign off on the final deal before it becomes law.

Relatedly, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that the commission has “rebuffed” the European solar industry’s plea for urgent measures to address a rise in “cheap imports from China”. The Hong Kong-based news outlet quotes Mairead McGuinness, the European commissioner for financial service, who says that any use of trade weapons must be “weighted against” the EU’s climate goals. Politico says that European solar manufacturers are warning that there are only weeks left before a collapse occurs in the industry, which they assert is due to extensive Chinese subsidies “distorting” the market, rendering EU manufacturers “unable to compete”. Reuters reports that Europe’s transition to solar energy faces a dilemma where a “flood of cheap Chinese solar panel imports is driving record…installations” while the “same imports are crushing Europe’s few local solar manufacturers”. It adds that while the solar industry is calling for support, the “broader green energy industry is opposed to import curbs”. At the same time, Bloomberg reports that China’s solar manufacturers are using share buybacks to halt a decline in market valuations, but that this is expected to have “only a limited impact”. The state-run industry newspaper China Energy News quotes PwC China’s Ma Long as suggesting that relevant exporting enterprises should “promptly establish and improve their carbon emission accounting systems, accurately measure carbon emissions…and precisely track carbon footprints” in response to the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that wind power generation exceeded fossil gas power in Europe for the first time last year “as fossil-fuel electricity generation plummeted”, according to new analysis from the thinktank Ember. It notes that “Europe is ramping up its renewable electricity generation as part of efforts to wean the bloc off Russian fuels and to help meet its climate goal of net zero emissions by 2050”, adding that its fossil-fuel power generation fell by a record 19% year-on-year in 2023.

BP’s new chief executive Murray Auchincloss has said BP’s “aim” to reduce oil-and-gas emissions by between 20-30% from 2019 levels by the end of the decade was not confirmed as a “target”, the Guardian reports. Instead, the oil executive said it would only become a target depending on various final investment decisions ahead, the newspaper adds. It notes that Auchincloss states he can maintain the “green” goals set by his predecessor, Bernard Looney, without risking shareholder returns by adopting a “more pragmatic” approach. These statements come as the oil company reports that profits halved last year to nearly $14bn (£11bn) amid weaker oil-and-gas market prices, but the article notes that “better than expected annual profits were still the second-highest reported by BP since 2012”. Reuters reports that Auchincloss has “vowed to stick to a strategy aimed at reducing oil-and-gas output and sharply growing renewables and low-carbon businesses by the end of the decade”. However, it also adds that the chief executive said BP has “12 to 16 oil-and-gas projects that could potentially get the green light for development over the next two years”. The Times notes that BP “has not been rewarded by investors for its strategic pivot” away from oil and gas, adding that a goal to reduce fossil-fuel output by 40%, compared with 2019 levels, by the end of the decade, has already been scaled back to 25%. “Another loosening in the target has not been ruled out” by Auchincloss, the article adds. The Daily Telegraph, in a story trailed on its frontpage, quotes Auchincloss saying that demand for gas – as well as renewables – will be very high in the future due to the rise of AI, which requires a lot of power.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that Shell is trying to sell part of its stake in a windfarm it has built off the coast of the Netherlands “as the company aims to drive more value for shareholders”. The article notes that this comes amid a “change in tactics for [Shell’s] renewable energy business”, with the company seeking to focus on areas such as power trading, “which requires less investment and plays to its strengths”. Separately, the Financial Times has an article about ExxonMobil suing activist shareholder groups that have tried to encourage the oil major to cut its emissions.

China was “home to the vast majority of the world’s new coal power plant” in 2023, according to Bloomberg, in a bid to strengthen energy security. China accounted for “96% of new coal power construction, 81% of newly announced projects and 68% of generators coming online”, the newswire cites data released Tuesday by Global Energy Monitor as revealing. Another Bloomberg article says that more stringent regulation of Chinese coal mines to decrease fatalities could lead to lower coal production in 2024, with “potential supply-side disruptions from suppressed production brought on by this policy in the second half of 2024” according to one analyst. China Energy News says that industry players generally believe that China’s coal-electricity capacity pricing mechanism, established last November, is a “transitional policy” that will ultimately help the development of a capacity market. China Energy Net reports that recently, “extreme weather” phenomena including snowstorms, fog and high winds has led to a “high daily coal consumption rate”.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that US and Chinese officials will “hold talks on economic issues” in Beijing this week, which will include “frank conversations around China’s use of non-market economic practices and industrial overcapacity” according to an unnamed treasury official. Bloomberg also says that India’s largest solar producer “has sent millions of panels to the US” made with Chinese solar panel components, despite a US ban. The Wall Street Journal says that the largest solar companies in China are “expanding in the US” and are developing “nearly a quarter of the roughly 80 gigawatts in new solar-panel capacity that has been announced” since the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act, from which they will benefit from subsidies. The SCMP reports that China belt and road initiative (BRI) investments will focus on “mining and energy developments” this year, according to a report by Fudan University’s Green Finance and Development Centre.

During a press conference marking the fifth anniversary of their Green New Deal resolution, US Democratic lawmakers have “warned of negative consequences for the climate if former president Donald Trump is reelected”, the Hill reports. It quotes senator Richard Blumenthal, who warns of the consequences of having “a climate denier in the White House” once again. [See Carbon Brief’s explainer on the Green New Deal from 2019.] The Guardian has a piece in which it interviews “multiple Trump allies and advisers” about the likely Republican presidential candidate’s plans for climate action if he becomes president again. “In contrast to a sometimes chaotic first White House term, they outlined a far more methodical second presidency: driving forward fossil fuel production, sidelining mainstream climate scientists and overturning rules that curb planet-heating emissions,” the article says.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that a House energy, climate and grid security subcommittee has held the first of two hearings on president Joe Biden’s pause on approvals of exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) – a move that has drawn criticism from Republican and some Democratic lawmakers. [For more on the implications of the pause, see Carbon Brief’s Q&A.]

There is another wave of op-eds and editorials in the UK press speculating on whether the opposition Labour party will stick with its plan to reach £28bn in annual “green” investments – should they win the next general election – and whether this is a good idea or not. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, world economy editor at the Daily Telegraph, points to the investment being mobilised for the low-carbon transition in the US, China and the EU, as proof that – if anything – Labour’s plans do not go far enough. He writes: “Sir Keir Starmer’s £28bn plan looked ambitious on a per-capita basis when first unveiled in 2022. At this stage it is barely enough to keep Britain in the global game of post-carbon technology, let alone to turn this country into a ‘clean energy superpower’.” Evans-Pritchard concludes that “the debate we should be having is whether Labour will invest its £28bn in the best way, not whether it is affordable”. Also, referencing an oft-repeated phrase from Labour politicians about the conditions under which it will make these investments, he adds “please, let us expunge the term ‘fiscal headroom”’ from the lexicon. It is economic nonsense”. 

In contrast, an op-ed by fellow Daily Telegraph columnist Jeremy Warner is headlined, “Labour’s green prosperity plan is a monumental waste of money”. Despite the headline, Warner appears to agree with Evans-Pritchard to some extent, noting that “Labour’s £28bn ‘green prosperity’ plan was in truth never any more than a poor man’s copy of America’s confusingly named Inflation Reduction Act”. Warner continues, noting that “unless radically beefed up…the plan is no more than PR bluster, and would certainly struggle to add significantly to growth. No doubt about it; well-targeted investment in infrastructure increases long-term growth potential, but it takes a long time to show through”. Ultimately, however, he concludes that rather than investing more the UK should simply do nothing. “Britain would do better, and save itself an awful lot of money, by standing back, letting others blaze the trail, and then following in their wake once we see what works and what doesn’t,” Warner says.

An article by Politics.co.uk editor Josh Self says it is “no secret” that senior Labour figure would like to see the £28bn goal “comprehensively ditched”, and that it is also “no secret that the £28bn features centrally in the Conservative party’s pre-election messaging on the dangers of a Labour government”. However, he concludes: “If [Labour leader Keir] Starmer holds firm on the £28bn and ceases any overbearing concessions to Conservative criticism, it would signal a newfound intent – ending the humming din of media briefings and allowing the party, simply, to move on.” New Statesman political editor Andrew Marr says shadow net-zero secretary Ed Miliband, who is “in charge” of the green prosperity plan, “has been remarkably silent” on the topic. He adds that “if anything, Starmer is more instinctively radical on green jobs than his shadow chancellor [Rachel Reeves]” – noting that Reeves has been behind much of the Labour pushback against the £28bn. 

An Evening Standard editorial says Starmer recently re-committing to the £28bn pledge in an interview is “unlikely to dispel the confusion or the idea that as far as Labour is concerned, the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing”. An editorial in the Sun, which has led much of the criticism of the £28bn pledge, says “this is the party’s only major idea – and they cannot agree whether even that’s a goer”. A Daily Mail editorial simply concludes that “Labour’s green extremism risks leaving the country in the dark. Just like voters are over its energy plans”. In related news, the Daily Telegraph reports the claims of chancellor Jeremy Hunt, who says income tax would have to rise by up to 4% to fund the £28bn plan. Speaking at Treasury questions when asked by a Tory MP where Labour would find the sum, Hunt said: “[I]f you’re going to stick to fiscal rules, as the party opposite claims they will do – it would mean increasing income tax by 4% or increasing the corporation tax they say they’re going to cap by 8%.

In other UK comment, an editorial in the Daily Telegraph about a recent House of Lords climate change committee report on electric vehicles (EVs) asks “why should the government intervene to force the sale of a particular vehicle?”. It adds: “If EVs are worth buying then the market will ensure they are purchased in large numbers. That requires improved battery capacity and far more charging points. If the infrastructure is not available, no amount of cajoling will help matters.” A related Daily Telegraph news article notes that comedian and actor Rowan Atkinson was “blamed for poor sales of electric cars” in the report. The outlet references Atkinson’s Guardian article in June last year in which he claimed that “keeping your old petrol car may be better than buying an EV”. The Daily Telegraph quotes the factcheck by Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans – also published in the Guardian – which responded: “Mr Atkinson’s biggest mistake is his failure to recognise that electric vehicles already offer significant global environmental benefits, compared with combustion-engine cars.”

Finally, an editorial in the Times reflects on the farmers’ protests against environmental policies in Europe and concludes “as the push to net-zero intensifies, it is essential that politicians start to be frank with the public about what is possible, and what it will cost”.

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon for cattle and soybean production has delayed the onset of the agricultural rainy season, a new study says, with knock-on impacts for the soy-maize double cropping system. Using daily climate data and annual land-use maps, the researchers isolate the “signal of forest loss on the climate” using a machine learning algorithm. The findings indicate that forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon “intensifies the risks of climate change from the local to the regional geographical scale”. Between 1999 and 2019, largely deforested regions “exhibited a delay of approximately 76 days in the onset of the agricultural rainy season”, the study finds, along with “a 360mm decrease in rainfall and an increase in maximum air temperature of 2.5C”.