In the early hours of November 5, 2025, after a marathon 18-hour negotiation session in Brussels, European Union environment ministers reached a hard-fought agreement on the bloc’s climate ambitions for 2040. The deal, which comes just before the United Nations COP30 climate summit in Brazil, has drawn both praise for its pragmatism and criticism for what some see as a dilution of Europe’s climate leadership.
The agreement sets a target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. This commitment, though ambitious on its face, includes significant flexibilities that allow member states to meet part of their obligations by purchasing foreign carbon credits—a mechanism that environmental campaigners say could undermine the real impact of the pledge. According to Reuters, the compromise allows countries to buy international carbon credits to cover up to 5% of their 2040 emissions-cutting goal, effectively lowering the required domestic emissions reductions to about 85%.
The deal was described by one unnamed diplomat as a “take it or leave it” text, reflecting the high-pressure, last-minute nature of the negotiations. Ministers began their talks on Tuesday, November 4, and continued well past midnight, finally reaching a consensus as dawn broke. The agreement needed approval from at least 15 of the 27 EU member states, and while a weighted majority backed the compromise, several countries—including Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland—voted against it. Bulgaria and Belgium reportedly abstained, according to reporting by BBC and other outlets.
“Setting a climate target is not just picking a number, it is a political decision with far-reaching consequences for the continent,” Danish Climate Minister Lars Aagaard said during a press conference alongside European Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra after the meeting, as quoted by Reuters. “Therefore, we have also worked to provide comfort that it can be reached in a way that preserves competitiveness, social balance and security.”
The negotiations were marked by deep divisions among member states over how much flexibility to allow and how to balance environmental goals with economic realities. Countries like France and Portugal pushed for the ability to use up to 5% of foreign carbon credits, while others, including Poland and Italy, advocated for even greater leeway—up to 10%. Meanwhile, environmental frontrunners such as Spain and the Netherlands resisted any move to further soften the targets, citing the urgency of climate action and the need to stay competitive with countries like China in the green technology race.
In addition to the 2040 target, ministers agreed on a 2035 emissions cut range of 66.25% to 72.5%, which will be enshrined in the EU’s Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement. These targets will be presented at COP30, which opens in Brazil on November 6, 2025. The timing of the agreement was crucial, as the United Nations had asked all governments to submit their 2035 climate plans before the summit began.
One of the most contentious aspects of the deal is the provision allowing member states to outsource up to 5% of their emissions reductions to non-EU countries through international credits, starting in 2036. There will be a pilot project running from 2031 to 2035 to test the system. Furthermore, the agreement includes a revision clause: every two years, the European Commission will review the flexibility provisions, potentially allowing even greater use of international credits depending on factors such as energy prices, the effectiveness of carbon sinks like forests and soils, and the impact on EU industry and competitiveness.
The deal also delays the launch of the EU’s new Emissions Trading System for buildings and transport (ETS2) by one year, pushing its start date to 2028. This postponement, led by Italy and supported by countries like Poland and Romania, was seen as a concession to industries facing high energy costs and competition from outside the EU, particularly China and the United States.
Environmental groups were quick to criticize the outcome. “The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change had called for emissions cuts of 90-95% by 2040, and had stressed that this target must be for domestic reductions to climate pollution, not cuts outsourced to other countries,” said Greenpeace, as reported by BBC. Thomas Gelin, Greenpeace EU climate campaigner, added, “The use of offshore carbon laundering to meet this nominal target means the EU’s own commitment is much lower, and that commitment means even less with a baked-in clause to dilute the target every two years.” He likened the arrangement to “promising to run a marathon by only training for 10km, taking the bus for the last kilometre of that, and reserving the right to just stay home if it rains.”
Michael Sicaud-Clyet, Climate Policy Officer at WWF EU, echoed these concerns. “Member states are claiming they have agreed on a 90% target, but that’s just sleight of hand. Once you strip off the offsets and the potential emergency break for carbon sinks, the real figure will be lower than 85%. The EU should lead by example, not by loophole,” he told BBC.
The European Commission’s original proposal had called for a 90% domestic reduction, with a maximum of 3% allowed through carbon credits. The EU’s independent climate science advisers argued that the original proposal was in line with what science demands to keep global warming in check, and warned against relying on foreign credits, which they said would divert much-needed investment from European industries.
Despite the criticism, supporters of the deal argue that it strikes a necessary balance between environmental ambition and economic reality. Polish Deputy Climate Minister Krzysztof Bolesta summed up the concerns of several countries when he said, “We don’t want to destroy the economy. We don’t want to destroy the climate. We want to save both at the same time.”
The agreement comes at a time when the EU’s climate agenda faces growing backlash from some industries and governments worried about the costs of the green transition, especially in light of ongoing geopolitical instability and rising energy prices. The dilution of the target reflects these pressures, as well as the need to maintain social and economic stability across the bloc.
As the EU heads to COP30, the deal ensures that Europe will not arrive empty-handed at the global climate stage. However, the debate over how best to balance ambition with pragmatism is far from over. With a built-in review mechanism and the possibility of further adjustments down the line, the future of Europe’s climate commitments remains a moving target—one that will be shaped by both political will and the realities of a rapidly changing world.
