Rethinking Europe’s historical climate leadership in a ‘Time of Transition’

Tension was apparent between the proponents of simplifying legislation and those emphasising the need for strong targets: the EU’s regulatory framework needed to be reduced to hasten adaptation and prevent businesses from waiting for regulation to catch up.

However, such measures may amount to dismantling the regulatory framework and undermining climate goals; legislation provides legal clarity, after all. Instead of weakening one of Europe’s assets, it was argued that there should be a greater focus on increasing national capacity to adapt by funding knowledge sharing and technical training to deliver targets.

Similar friction emerged over the carbon capture and storage capacities, calls for more funding and improved solutions for carbon removal systems were challenged, with carbon capture technologies highlighted as not being ready to be deployed or scaled up, especially regarding poorer cost efficiency. Carbon removal is not a silver bullet: negative emissions are required, not just net zero, a target which can only be achieved by cantering emission reduction targets.

However, tensions have developed on the assumption that regulation is bad for business; however, this opinion is far from monolithic: strong, science-based regulation establishes a scope within which businesses can act to minimise risk and provides direction in the face of uncertain futures. Unilever, for example, has called for stronger legislation to ensure climate-resilient supply chains and energy supply.

Read more here.