This month has been particularly prolific in European climate regulation. Two major developments stand out, both of which will shape the strategic landscape for Spanish companies regardless of the outcomes of COP30. This post focuses on the first — the Council’s agreement on the EU’s 2040 climate target — while a forthcoming piece will examine the European Parliament’s decision as well as the implications emerging from COP30.
On November 05, after more than twelve hours of intense overnight negotiations in Brussels, the environment ministers of the twenty-seven European Union member states finally reached a historic compromise on the bloc’s next major climate milestone. The European Union (EU) will commit to a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2040 compared with 1990 levels — a binding target that bridges the gap between the existing 55% cut for 2030 and the ultimate objective of climate neutrality by 2050.
According to the Council of the European Union, the final agreement was endorsed by 21 countries, representing 81.9% of the EU population, comfortably surpassing the qualified majority threshold (at least 15 states representing 65% of the population).
The deal salvaged the EU’s credibility ahead of the COP30 UN Climate Summit in Belém, Brazil. As Danish Climate Minister Lars Aagaard — whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Council — summarized:
“We must remain competitive while reducing emissions. This is a strong and balanced compromise.”
Yet the sense of victory was tempered by the reality of concessions. Beneath the diplomatic surface, the agreement reflects deep divisions between Europe’s more ambitious members and those wary of the economic costs of transition.
The Anatomy of the Agreement
The Council adopted the European Commission’s original proposal for a 90% reduction target but modified its architecture to accommodate key member states such as Italy, France, and Poland.
The most notable concession increases the use of international carbon credits — from 3% to 5% of total reductions. These credits, formally defined by the European Commission as “financial instruments representing one tonne of CO₂ reduced or removed from the atmosphere as a result of a project,” allow EU countries to invest in climate mitigation projects outside the Union and count those reductions toward their domestic targets.
A pilot phase from 2031 to 2035 will test these mechanisms, followed by full implementation in 2036. In practice, this means that at least 85% of the required reduction must come from direct action within EU territory.
This flexibility was crucial for Italy, whose government had pressed for more lenient treatment of its automotive industry and questioned the 2035 ban on combustion-engine vehicle sales.
Meanwhile, environmental NGOs denounced the compromise. Greenpeace EU Unit described the expanded use of credits as “a dangerous dilution of Europe’s climate ambition,” warning that offsetting emissions abroad risks “outsourcing responsibility” rather than transforming domestic industries.
Another major change is the one-year delay (to 2028) in implementing the new EU Emissions Trading System II (ETS2) — the carbon market that will extend pricing to emissions from buildings, road transport, and smaller industries.
The ETS2, initially scheduled for 2027, complements the original EU ETS, which already covers around 10,000 large industrial and power installations across the continent. Several governments, including France and Poland, had warned that accelerating ETS2 could trigger social backlash similar to the gilets jaunes protests of 2018.
In addition, the agreement formally recognizes the role of low-carbon and renewable fuels in decarbonizing transport “beyond 2030” — a concession championed by France to protect its biofuel and hydrogen sectors.
Competitiveness as the Price of Consensus
The Danish presidency had to balance an unusually polarized Council. On one side stood the “high-ambition coalition” — countries like Spain, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands — insisting that the 90% goal remain legally binding. On the other, a group led by Italy, France, Poland, and the Czech Republic demanded more flexibility and time to protect domestic industries.
Austria, initially part of the ambitious bloc, withdrew its support at the last minute. Its Climate Minister Norbert Totschnig stated that “there is still room for improvement,” asking for stronger safeguards for energy-intensive sectors.
Ultimately, 21 countries supported the final text — enough to meet the qualified majority rule — confirming Europe’s commitment but also revealing how climate ambition increasingly depends on intricate diplomacy and industrial negotiation.
Financial and Economic Implications
For investors, businesses, and policymakers, the 2040 deal carries profound implications that reach far beyond environmental policy.
- Regulatory Certainty and Capital Allocation
By enshrining a binding 90% reduction target, the EU has sent a clear long-term signal to capital markets. This provides the policy visibility necessary for ESG investors, sovereign funds, and institutions like the European Investment Bank (EIB) to plan capital deployment around a predictable carbon trajectory.
The EIB is expected to align financing toward projects that accelerate deep decarbonization — from renewable energy to hydrogen, energy storage, and building retrofits — while phasing out support for unabated fossil fuels.
- The Carbon Market and Credit Integrity
The expansion of international credits from 3% to 5% demands rigorous oversight to prevent “carbon laundering.” The pilot phase (2031–2035) will test whether these credits meet the “high-quality” criteria required under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Transparent governance will be essential to ensure that European offsets finance genuine and additional emission reductions abroad.
Financial regulators and voluntary carbon market players will need to harmonize standards to avoid fragmentation and maintain investor confidence in the carbon price signal.
- Competitiveness, Industrial Strategy, and Just Transition
Flexibility was also about political economy. France and Italy’s insistence on accommodating low-carbon fuels and delaying ETS2 reflects the reality that Europe’s climate transition is inseparable from its industrial policy.
The EU now faces a dual challenge: ensuring a fair “just transition” for households and workers, while protecting strategic sectors — steel, chemicals, cement, automotive — from carbon leakage. The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will play a key role in preventing offshoring of emissions-intensive production and maintaining competitiveness vis-à-vis trading partners.
Governance Through Imperfection
From a governance perspective, the 2040 climate deal is a textbook example of European “flexible integration” — a political mechanism that combines legally binding targets with adaptable instruments.
The European Climate Law, first adopted in 2021, made the 2050 net-zero goal legally binding. The new 2040 target reinforces this framework while acknowledging national diversity and economic asymmetry. It is, in short, a law designed to survive political change.
As Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra remarked in Brussels:
“In politics, the road to our goals is not always straight. But we are still on the right road.”
Indeed, the 2040 compromise reflects the EU’s unique institutional DNA: progress through negotiation, ambition tempered by realism, and a shared commitment to continuity amid crisis.
Sources
- Council of the European Union (2025). Statement following the Extraordinary Meeting of Environment Ministers, Brussels, 12–13 November 2025.
- European Commission (2025). Proposal for a Regulation Amending the European Climate Law.
- El Confidencial (05 November 2025). “La UE profundiza en las cesiones a los críticos con el Pacto Verde para salvar el objetivo de 2040.”
- El País (05 November 2025). “Los Veintisiete acuerdan por fin el recorte del 90% de emisiones para 2040 con más flexibilidad para los Estados.”
- Greenpeace EU Unit (2025). Press Statement on the EU 2040 Climate Deal.
- IPCC (2023). Sixth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers.