COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Securing our future Europe's 2040 climate target and path to climate neutrality by 2050 building a sustainable, just and prosperous society
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission
Subjects: EU energy policy, EU industrial policy, adaptation to climate change, carbon neutrality, clean technology, emission trading, energy efficiency, green economy, greenhouse gas, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 6.2.2024  SWD(2024) 64 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Securing our future      Europe's 2040 climate target and path to climate neutrality by 2050 building a sustainable, just and prosperous society     {COM(2024) 63 final} - {SEC(2024) 64 final} - {SWD(2024) 63 final}  
 
 
Executive summary of the impact assessment 

Limiting  global  warming  to  the  Paris  Agreement  goal  of  1.5oC  requires  greenhouse  gas 
(GHG) emissions to reach net zero globally by the early 2050s. The remaining global carbon 
budget(1) is declining very fast, increasing the risks of reaching irreversible tipping points in 
the climate system,  with unknown and potentially catastrophic consequences for  people and 
for ecosystems. It is essential to accelerate action to avoid these consequences. 

The  European  Climate  Law  mandates  the  Commission  to  make  a  legislative  proposal,  as 
appropriate,  for  an  EU-wide  2040  climate  target  within  6  months  of  the  global  stocktake 
under  the  Paris  Agreement.  The  global  stocktake  was  completed  at  the  Conference  of  the 
Parties in December 2023. The aim of the initiative covered by this impact assessment is to 
implement  the  European  Climate  Law,  which  enshrines  in  law  the  EU’s  commitment  to 
become climate neutral  by 2050 and the EU’s 2030 climate target to  reduce net greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55% in 2030 relative to 1990 levels.  

The 2040 target will also inform the EU’s future post-2030 nationally determined contribution 
(NDC) that all Parties to the Paris Agreement must submit to the UNFCCC by 2025 (under 
Article 4(9) of the Agreement). The 2040 climate target will set the pace to reduce EU-wide 
net GHG emissions over 2030-2050 on an effective and just transition path towards climate 
neutrality by 2050. 

The impact assessment draws on public and stakeholder consultations, an extensive analysis 
of  the  impacts  on  the  energy  system,  land  sector,  non-CO2  emissions  and  the  economy,  as 
well as on exchanges with related policy DGs through an Inter-Service Group. 

It  looks  at  five  options  for  the  2040  target,  to  consider  the  full  range  of  possible  net  GHG 
emission levels. The assessment narrows down the options at an early stage to three, with a 
detailed assessment  by  sector of the  action needed  to  reach  climate neutrality  by 2050. The 
options are to set the 2040 target to reduce emissions by:  

-  up  to  80%  (Option  1),  consistent  with  the  ‘linear’  trajectory  of  net  GHGs  between 

- 

2030 and 2050 referred to in the Climate Law (Article 8);   
two options that are consistent with the ranges of scientific scenarios compatible with 
reaching the goal under the Paris Agreement of a 1.5 °C temperature increase:  
o  at least 85% (Option 2) corresponding to a range of 85-90% reduction;   
o  at least 90% (Option 3) corresponding to a range of 90-95% reduction.  

Option 2 reflects the total net GHG emissions that would be reached with a continuation of 
the current policy framework, and thus serves as the ‘baseline’ target level. 

This  impact  assessment  looks  at  how  these  three  options  compare  in  terms  of  their 
effectiveness in achieving the following goals:  

-  bringing the EU’s GHGs to net zero by 2050;  
-  minimising the EU’s contribution to climate change;  
- 

ensuring a just transition;  

(1) IPCC. Estimated cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions from a given start date to the time that 
anthropogenic CO2 emissions reach net zero that would result in limiting global warming to a given level.   

1 

 
 
 
-  maintaining the long-term competitiveness of the EU economy;  
-  promoting the deployment of the technologies needed for the transition;  
- 
-  meeting the EU’s broader environmental policy objectives.  

ensuring security of supply and the EU’s strategic autonomy; and  

The analysis covers all sectors needed for the EU to reach its 2050 climate neutrality target. It 
is  based  on  the  Green  Deal  legislation  and  the  REPowerEU  actions  to  address  the  energy 
crisis. 

The initiative does not propose or assess the post-2030 energy and climate policy framework. 
This future framework will be developed and assessed in the coming years to meet the 2040 
target. 

The main difference between the options is in the pace of the transition. Option 3 is the most 
effective  in  bringing  the  EU  to  climate  neutrality  by  2050,  with  a  greater  reduction  in  net 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  ahead  of  2040.  As  a  consequence,  it  will  imply  less  additional 
action after 2040 to reach net zero emissions by 2050. 

Option  3  leads  to  the  lowest  GHG  cumulative  emissions  (the  “GHG  budget”)  for  the  EU, 
making  it  the  best  option  in  terms  of  the  EU’s  contribution  to  limiting  climate  change  and 
providing the most credible push to the EU’s partners worldwide to accelerate climate action. 
By  encouraging  early  action,  it  is  the  target  option  expected  to  have  the  most  impact  on 
reducing global emissions, and on increasing the prospect of keeping 1.5 °C degrees warming 
within  reach,  so  as  to  limit  the  disruptions  to  all  economies,  including  the  risk  of  reaching 
irreversible climate tipping points. 

There  is  a  clear  difference  between  the  target  options  in  terms  of  the  importance  of  novel 
technologies. Option 3 is accompanied by a faster roll-out of low-carbon technologies such as 
hydrogen production by electrolysis, carbon capture and industrial carbon removals between 
2031  and  2040  than  Option  2.  Option  1  largely  postpones  the  deployment  of  these 
technologies to the last decade 2041-2050. 

Option  3  requires  higher  annual  investment  needs  in  2031-2040  than  Options  1  and  2,  and 
then  comparatively  lower  investment  in  2041-2050.  They  result  in  only  very  limited 
differences in terms of total energy system cost,  GDP and competitiveness  on global export 
shares,  while  Target  Option  3  shows  the  greatest  benefits  in  terms  of  energy  independence 
and  greater  protection  against  fossil  fuel  price  shocks,  strengthening  the  EU’s  strategic 
autonomy.  All  options  lead  to  strong  improvement  in  air  quality  and  associated  health 
benefits, and limit the environmental impacts. 

Overall,  Option  3  is  more  efficient,  with  higher  net  benefits  in  terms  of  avoided  climate 
change and air pollution than the additional costs needed to mitigate climate change. 

Option 3 will require a greater focus and action to ensure a just transition than under the less 
ambitious target options, as the transition is somewhat accelerated. However, the increase in 
costs for households compared with the ‘baseline’ Option 2 is small, and this assessment does 
not  account  for  any  policy  measures  or  redistributive  measures  that  can  be  expected  to  be 
developed to address social impacts. 

The  analysis  shows  the  potential  for  demand-side  actions,  such  as  behavioural  changes  in 
food,  circularity  and  mobility  (as  in  the  LIFE  analysis),  to  complement  the  supply-side 

2 

 
 
transition (as shown in the core scenarios), and to reduce the costs to society of reaching the 
2040  target:  lowering  energy  system  costs,  the  need  for  investment  in  (novel)  technologies, 
and environmental risks (e.g. linked to higher demand for bioenergy). 

The  stakeholders  who  responded  to  the  public  consultation  showed  their  awareness  of  the 
problems addressed and clear support for the 2040 target options, in line with those analysed 
in  this  impact  assessment.  Setting  the  target  at  90%  or  higher  received  strong  support  from 
individuals (46%) and civil society organisations (63%). Most businesses supported a target 
of over 80% (39%), split as follows between a reduction of between 80% and 90% (23%) and 
a reduction of over 90% (16%), with less support for a reduction of 75-80% (29%). Research 
organisations  were  split  between  a  target  between  80-90%  and  a  target  above  90%  (35% 
each). 

The impact assessment therefore concludes that the preferred option is Option 3, a net GHG 
reduction target for the EU of 90-95% by 2040. It is in line with the advice of the European 
Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change.  It provides the best  balance between, on the 
one  hand,  climate  ambition  and  contribution  to  a  fair  share  of  the  global  carbon  budget  to 
meet  the  Paris  Agreement  temperature  goals,  and  on  the  other  hand,  financial  and 
technological feasibility. 

The  benefits  of  Option  3  outweigh  the  limited  differences  with  Option  2,  the  baseline,  and 
Option 1 in terms of effectiveness on just transition, competitiveness and in term of possible 
environmental trade-offs or supply of critical raw materials. These are trade-offs that can be 
addressed  and  mitigated  by  the  forthcoming  climate  and  energy  framework  and  the  overall 
enabling framework. 

The  transition  will  contribute  to  shielding  the  EU  from  shocks  stemming  from  geopolitical 
events  and  global  fragmentation,  notably  by  reducing  dependence  on  fossil  fuels  and 
improving the security  of  its  energy supply.  The security of supply  of critical  raw materials 
will  need  to  be  monitored  and  anticipated.  It  will  be  essential  to  manage  the  transition 
effectively  to  ensure  the  affordability  for  households  and  competitiveness  of  the  European 
industry. 

3