The EU aims to reduce its emissions by 40 per cent and increase the amount of energy it gets from renewables to 27 percent by 2030. No strong storyline emerged from the media: news coverage of yesterday’s announcement ran the gamut: informative, positive, negative, outraged – and occasionally incorrect.

The gory details 

We summed up the announcement. It breaks down to a pledge to reduce EU-wide emissions by 40 per cent on 1990 levels. It also contains a target to get 27 per cent of the EU’s energy from renewable sources by 2030 – though in a change from the 2020 package, the new target doesn’t require countries to take on individual targets. Though how the EU will reach the 27 per cent mark without individual targets is a question yet to be answered.

You know what they say: If you like climate targets, don’t watch them being made. The Guardian gives readers a glimpse at the EU sausage-making apparatus, reporting that negotiations to reach the agreement ground on until the eleventh hour. The source of the conflict was the UK’s opposition to a new renewable energy target, the paper reports:

” Ed Davey, the UK’s energy and climate change secretary, bitterly opposed the renewable energy target, but was overruled as big member states including Germany, France and Italy backed it.”

The BBC also lays out the details of the package, and the FT provides a useful Q&A.

It’s good news, right? 

Most coverage focused on the decision to ditch country-specific renewables targets. The Mail seems pretty pleased with the outcome. Britain will no longer be “forced” to build windfarms after 2020, it says, and unlike the Guardian, it paints the renewable agreement as a win for the UK:

“The policy is a defeat for major European nations including Germany, France and Italy which had demanded a target to drive the development of wind and solar power.”

The Telegraph also heralds the outcome as a “climbdown” for the EU.

Business also welcomes the non-binding energy target. City A.M. collects the reactions of the community, including the CBI’s Katja Hall, who says:

“This package puts us on the right path to delivering a competitive, low-carbon future. “It’s important that member states have flexibility to decarbonise in the most cost-effective way.”

So flexible is the target that the UK could just ditch renewable power altogether, the paper points out. It adds:

“The UK could theoretically build no more renewables after 2020, as enough coal-fired power plants will be shut down to reduce our emissions”.

Energy and climate secretary Ed Davey has welcomed the outcome, too, albeit for slightly different stated reasons. Quoted in BusinessGreen, he says the 40 per cent target strengthens the case for keeping the fourth carbon budget, which sets out the UK’s low-carbon pathway in the mid-2020s. The Treasury is reportedly keen to water down the budget to allow for more gas-powered generation.

Or it could be bad 

The Financial Times highlights the downside of the 2030 package for Europe’s currently-healthy green economy. The 2020 package – which requires countries to fill specific targets – has given renewable energy a significant boost in Europe. Without those incentives, there’s a danger renewable growth could lose out to rival energy sources such as nuclear and gas. But the FT’s official line on the discussion over EU climate targets is very different. An op-ed published just before the announcement reveals the paper believes support for renewables should be removed or restructured to cut energy prices for industry and prevent flight to cheaper countries.

Ed Davey has called the 40 per cent emissions target a victory for decarbonisation. But scientists quoted in the journal Nature put the scale of commitment needed to dent emissions into perspective. Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre tells the journal that from a science viewpoint the target should be closer to an 80 per cent reduction in emissions to avoid dangerous temperature rise.

Missing the point 

The Express also believes the targets are bad news for the UK – though it’s a little confused as to why. Its piece, entitled ‘ EU’s ‘ridiculous’ green energy plan to push up Britain’s bills‘, claims the UK will be forced to obtain 27 per cent of its energy from renewables.

Most people would agree EU memos aren’t the most riveting read – and the fact that the paper missed that there are no country-specific targets suggests it skipped the reading part altogether.

The Express quotes free market thinktank, the Taxpayers Alliance, saying subsidies to renewables should be axed to lower household bills.

There are some more subtle points to pick up in the news coverage, too. The new renewables target certainly gives countries more flexibility in the mix of technologies they choose – though they will still have to reduce emissions enough to reach the 40 per cent target. Yet it’s unlikely the UK will drop pursuing growth in renewables altogether, as some outlets rather hopefully suggest. The country’s obligation to incease renewables’ share of the energy mix to 15 per cent by 2020 still stands.

While it’s possible renewables could lose out on funding to nuclear and shale gas, the 2020 target means the UK is already on its way to increase renewables use to help meet the 2030 goal. The 40 per cent emissions target also suggests that we won’t be ditching low carbon energy any time soon. Unless countries significantly change current policies, the emissions obligation means the EU is expected to hit the renewable energy target anyway.

The threat to that scenario lies in the lure of silver bullet options that promise to allow energy policies that look more like business as usual rather than energy transformation, such as fitting carbon capture and storage (CCS) mechanisms to conventional or shale gas plants. CCS is as yet unproven on a commercial scale, but the incentive to invest in it is greater given that emissions limits won’t allow exploitation of shale gas for long without it. Nuclear power is also likely to attract significant government funds.

But there’s a bit of a fly in the ointment for those who have called the outcome a win for the UK. While the government will have more flexibility in choosing its energy mix, it must still submit a national plan outlining its pathway from 2020 and 2030. If it’s not deemed good enough, the European Commission will demand a rewrite – and has the power to implement binding targets if the UK doesn’t cooperate.

It’s also important not to forget: none of this is a done deal yet. The European Parliament will outline its position on the targets in February, before the commission’s proposal goes to member states in March. In fact, the story could rumble on until the current package expires in 2020.

All in all, the announcement is a bit of a mixed bag, just like the coverage.