What is the EU’s Position on a Legally-Binding Agreement?

What is the EU’s Position on a Legally-Binding Agreement?

What is the EU’s Position on a Legally-Binding Agreement?

Amidst a scandal over a leaked Danish negotiating text, pressure is growing on E.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Amidst a scandal over a leaked Danish negotiating text, pressure is growing on E.U. countries to boost their pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and firm up their commitment to a legally-binding, comprehensive agreement on addressing climate change.

 

The E.U. will hold its final quarterly meeting of the year this week in Brussels and environmental groups are pressuring the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany to commit to stronger emissions reductions targets before arriving at COP15. The E.U. has previously pledged to reduce its emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020 and would increase that commitment to 30% if other developed countries commit to similar targets. Now, environmental groups are demanding that the E.U. raise their pledge to a 40% reduction by 2020, given recent emission reduction offers from countries such as China, India, and South Africa and in order to meet the recommendations of the IPCC, the U.N.’s climate science organization.

The leaked Danish text, published yesterday in the Guardian, has exposed several E.U. countries to criticism that they are reneging on prior commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and that they are part of an effort to ram an agreement through COP15 that does not address the concerns of many poor and low-lying island nations. There are several significant aspects of the leaked document. It includes requirements for developing countries’ to cut their emissions, a provision that runs counter to responsibilities in Kyoto for developed nations to recognize their historic responsibility for global warming through emissions cuts. And, the proposal, if implemented, would erode the U.N.’s role in financing climate adaptation. Several European countries took part in negotiating the text.

In response to the leaked text, Sudanese Ambassador Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, speaking on behalf of the G77, said: “The G77 member states will not walk out of these consultations or negotiations at this late hour because we cannot afford failure. We have to reach a fair and just deal. However, we will not sign an unequitable deal.”

In a dramatic move this afternoon, COP15 talks have been temporarily suspended. The small island nation of Tuvalu called on UNFCCC nations to consider its proposal for legally-binding climate agreement. It proposal had been crafted in a bottom-up fashion and would create a legally-binding climate deal that included demands from poor and developing nations. But it did not get support for a hearing on its proposal. Importantly, the E.U., along with the U.S., did not support a hearing of Tuvalu’s proposal.

Addressing the E.U.’s role in climate negotiations and the call for boosting emissions targets, Martin Kaiser Greenpeace International Climate Policy Director, told me: “We expect a statement from Brown, Sarkozy, and Merkel on their commitment to a legally-binding agreement and increasing emissions targets. Cutting emissions twenty percent below 1990 levels if below the recommendations of the IPCC and far below what aggregate emissions cuts require for keeping temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.”

While the G77 has committed to remaining at the negotiating table, stark divisions are emerging between developed nations; developing countries, such as Brazil, China and India; and the poor and low-lying countries. Commitments this week from the European Union on its support for a legally-binding agreement and greater emissions cuts could bridge these gaps ever so slightly. But it may be a gap that is already too wide to close in the remaining days of COP15.

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x