118 / 145
THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
118
commitment included a 40 % joint Member
State reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030
compared to 1990 but did not establish quotas
on a country-by-country basis. The INDC docu-
ment noted that the EU commitment, like all its
earlier climate change policies, had been guided
by the need to avoid a 2-degree Celsius rise in
average global temperature and recommenda-
tions contained in the reports issued by the
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The EU thus positioned itself in line with what
was expected of developed countries: a reduc-
tion of its emissions by 80-95 % by 2050 com-
pared to 1990, a commitment that will entail
the decarbonisation of the European economy.
Therefore, the Paris Agreement reached in
December 2015 does not suppose, at least for
the moment, any pressure to move forward on
this issue that was not previously contemplated
in EU climate policy. This is because, in the first
instance, the EU had already established a two-
degree Celsius cap on the rise in average global
temperature over pre-industrial levels called for
in the Paris Agreement. Secondly, EU policy co-
incides with the Paris Agreement in that objec-
tives are voluntarily and internally to be set by
individual states or groups of states; it contains
no obligatory quotas as called for under the
Kyoto Protocol. Thirdly, neither document stipu-
lates that the ambition of individual countries
must be pegged to their individual levels of re-
sponsibility or capacity.
Due to the method agreed upon, it is difficult
to assess whether the European effort will be
sufficient to meet the target set or not. The few
attempts that have been made to compare cli-
mate change commitments to date rank Europe
amongst the less ambitious if the emissions it
has generated since the beginning of the indus-
trial revolution and its capacity based on per
capita GDP are factored into the equation.
According to the calculations of Climate Action
Tracker, a coalition of independent scientific or-
ganisations, the European Union’s INDC merits
a “medium” rating –somewhat below that giv-
en to countries such as Costa Rica, Ethiopia,
Morocco, Brazil and China.
A number of NGOs and civil society organisa-
tions have noted that the EU could do better in
light of its responsibility and capacity. According
to several studies, if existing policies continue to
be followed, the EU will be able to reduce its
emissions by 32 % by 2030. This prognostica-
tion indicates that pushing the target a bit far-
ther to 40 % by that date would not represent a
significant challenge. The Commission present-
ed the European Council’s draft Decision on the
adoption of the Paris Agreement in March 2016.
The Agreement will be open for ratification and
signature on 22 April. It is important to keep in
mind that the Paris Agreement obligates signers
to periodically make formal commitments to
raise the level of their ambitions on this issue.
Therefore, the window of opportunity for Europe
to demonstrate a greater level of responsibility
and determination regarding the problem of cli-
mate change remains open. As in the past,
deeper commitment will depend on the pressure
of public opinion.
The EU has assumed international leadership
on environmental issues in the past, especially in
terms of the fight against climate change. In the
months leading up to COP21, it did much to
convince other developed and emerging coun-
tries to strengthen their commitment to do
more in this area. Nevertheless, its leadership
role has been gradually eroding, touching a
metaphorical bottom with the entry of the new
Commission. As a result, the EU has lost its for-
mer position as a leader in investment in envi-
ronmental technologies. Countries such as
China have been the top producers of renewa-