EU Opts for Vague Climate Commitment Instead of Firm 2035 Target Ahead of COP30
European Union countries have stopped short of agreeing on a concrete climate target for 2035, instead presenting a broad “statement of intent” ahead of upcoming international talks.

Following prolonged negotiations, environment ministers from EU member states announced they would bring a flexible target range to the United Nations General Assembly next week, rather than a fixed commitment under the Paris Agreement framework.
European Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra confirmed that the bloc would propose reducing greenhouse gas emissions by between 66.25% and 72.5% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels. The range reflects ongoing disagreements among member states, which remain split between more ambitious and more cautious approaches.
Hoekstra suggested that presenting either a specific target or maintaining a range could both be viable options, noting that similar approaches are being considered by other countries.
Ongoing divisions delay concrete decision
The EU’s inability to settle on a single figure highlights internal divisions over how far and how fast emissions should be cut.
Discussions are expected to continue on key elements that could help achieve the proposed reductions. These include the use of carbon capture and storage technologies, land-based carbon removal through forestry, and the potential inclusion of carbon credits in emissions accounting.
Despite criticism from environmental organisations, Hoekstra expressed confidence that the EU would eventually deliver a unified and credible position before the COP30 climate summit.
However, the bloc will miss the official deadline set by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 29 September. Instead, the EU plans to present its statement of intent at the UN Climate Ambition Summit on 24 September.
Pressure mounts ahead of global talks
The delay comes at a politically sensitive moment, as the EU seeks to maintain its reputation as a global leader on climate action.
Danish climate minister Lars Aagaard emphasised that member states remain united in principle, stating that the bloc aims to present a cohesive voice on the international stage.
At the same time, the EU is still struggling to agree on its longer-term 2040 climate target. The European Commission has proposed a legally binding goal of reducing emissions by 90%, but negotiations on this proposal remain ongoing.
Both the 2035 and 2040 targets are expected to be revisited at a meeting of EU heads of state in October. However, officials suggest that a formal vote is unlikely at that stage, partly to avoid potential vetoes from countries such as Hungary and Slovakia.
Hoekstra indicated that an extraordinary meeting of environment ministers could be convened soon after to try to reach a compromise.
Environmental groups criticise lack of ambition
The EU’s approach has drawn criticism from climate advocacy organisations, which argue that the proposed range lacks the ambition needed to meet long-term climate goals.
Climate Action Network Europe said the current proposal falls significantly short of what is required to achieve climate neutrality, particularly in the absence of a clear 2040 target.
Similarly, WWF representative Shirley Matheson described the move as a missed opportunity for the EU to demonstrate leadership and encourage stronger commitments from other countries.
She criticised the decision as a diplomatic manoeuvre designed to avoid presenting an incomplete plan at international negotiations.
Uncertainty over EU climate roadmap
Under the Paris Agreement, countries are required to submit updated national climate plans outlining their emissions reduction targets. For the EU, agreeing on a 2035 milestone is closely tied to setting a clear 2040 objective.
Without alignment on both timelines, experts warn that the bloc risks weakening its overall climate strategy.
As global pressure builds ahead of COP30 in Brazil, the EU faces the challenge of resolving internal disagreements while maintaining credibility in international climate negotiations.
