Behind the numbers: Why the EU looks like it's meeting climate targets

May 2020, By Bruno Dubrulle, Ruoyu Wang & Helena Robertson

Climate change has been around for a while. Scientists argued as early as the end of the 19th century that human emissions of greenhouse gases could alter the climate. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has existed for over three decades and countless treaties - from Kyoto in 2005 to Paris in 2016 - have been debated, ratified to national law and converted into practical policies.

But only in the last couple of years has the issue been thrust into the mainstream, most recently by Greta Thunberg and her school climate strike that called for more meaningful action and inspired a generation of young activists.

A lot of what we read about climate change is all doom and gloom, but is there an upside? Has there been any real progress? We look into climate targets in the EU; explaining what progress has been made, what is hidden from emissions statistics, and where we might be headed in the future.

EU Climate Targets Greenhouse gas emissions as % of 1990 levels What about Brexit? Click Here to find out more %

Source: Climate Action Tracker

Europe has long been making law to protect the environment, with the earliest measures dating back to 1996, when the EU defined its first target: to limit the global temperature rise on the planet to 2 °C, compared to where temperatures were in the nineteenth-century.

By the end of this year, the EU was aiming to have cut its emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% (compared to 1990).

But it hit this target ahead of schedule, in 2017, when emissions were already down by almost a quarter.

By 2030, the EU expects to have cut them by at least 40%.

In November 2019 a new European Commission, the EU’s cabinet of ministers, took office. Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission’s first-ever female president, vowed for a green, geopolitical and digital EU in her speech before Parliament.

The new European ‘Green Deal’ now aims for at least a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030, up from its previous target of 40%.

It also wants Europe to become climate neutral by 2050. Climate neutrality means emissions will yield no net impact on the climate: climate-damaging greenhouse gases are either completely avoided, or they are offset with climate protection measures (by planting trees for example).

The Green Deal and its associated targets are to be debated this summer and, if passed by parliament, will become the new official EU targets.

Can the EU meet its new 2030 target?

The new proposed EU target for 2030 is to reduce emissions by at least 50%, compared to 1990 levels. The charts below show the projections for 2030 - by country on the left and for the EU as a whole on the right - that are expected under current policy.

Drag the bars for each country and watch the ball drop to see how far Member States would actually need to reduce emissions to meet the new target.

How will the EU meet it's new 2030 target?

The new proposed EU target for 2030 is to reduce emissions by between 50 and 55 per cent,compared to 1990 levels. Under current policy, EU emissions will only be reduced by 33% by 2030.

Click the buttons below to see how much further countries would need to reduce emissions to together meet the new 2030 target

% change in emissions from 1990 levels by country

What's included in emissions statistics?

Emissions statistics usually only include the emissions that are produced within a country. This might make sense intuitively, but calculating them this way fails to account for the emissions generated in the production of goods that are imported.

To understand this idea, below we follow the typical stages of production of a T-shirt that could be bought in the UK today.

Source: World Bank, Apparel Business Systems, ESGROBO

What the lifecycle of the T-shirt illustrates is just how few greenhouse gas emissions from a product, bought in the UK but produced in China and Bangladesh, are counted towards UK emissions statistics.

Industrial production has declined in the UK over time. As we've imported more goods, the UK's emissions have seemingly declined because less is produced domestically but more emissions are counted towards the countries from which we import.

The UK clothing industry

Click the buttons below to see how emissions from clothing consumed in the UK have changed over time.


Emissions from clothing consumed in the UK (Mt CO2)

Creative carbon accounting

Greenhouse gas emissions are typically measured on the basis of production, as explained above. Consumption based-reporting, on the other hand, takes into account emissions embedded in trade, including the emissions of domestic final consumption and those caused by the production of its imports.

A simplified formula for UK consumption emissions might look something like this:

The clothing industry is just one part of UK consumption. When we take a look at the UK's official emissions statistics (based only on production), relative to the numbers that include consumption, it paints a very different picture of UK climate progress. Including consumption, emissions actually increased until the recession of 2007-08. If the 2050 target is taken to mean "true" climate neutrality - that includes eliminating or offsetting emissions from consumption - the UK has got a lot further to go than its official statistics suggest.

UK emissions over time

Emissions in Mt CO2 equivalent

Source: Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds

With countries currently reporting their emissions on production basis, it is not hard to see why this flatters statistics reported by developed regions. An article published in the scientific journal PNAS in 2011, estimates that emissions from the production of traded goods and services has increased from 4.3 Gt CO2 in 1990 (20% of global emissions) to 7.8 Gt CO2 in 2008 (26%). Over the same period, net emission transfers from international trade from developing to developed countries increased from 0.4 to 1.6 gigatonnes of CO2. Not only have emissions from goods traded between countries increased, but developing countries have taken on the bulk of this emissions growth, whilst the consumption of these goods happens in developed countries.

The chart below shows which countries are net consumers and which are net producers according to their emissions. EU countries look particularly heavy on consumption. This sheds a different light on the emissions savings the EU has achieved so far. Although we cannot definitively say whether the EU would have met its 2020 emissions target if it accounted for its import-heavy status, there is no doubt that meeting it would have been harder.

Greenhouse gas emissions embedded in trade % difference between production and consumption emissions

Source: Our World in Data, University of Oxford

Greenhouse gas emissions embedded in trade

% difference between production and consumption emissions

How do we achieve climate neutrality?

The deteriorating state of the environment has attracted increasing attention around the world. Initiatives like civic advocacy group, Extinction Rebellion, are trying to install a sense of urgency (insisting we refer to a ‘climate crisis’ instead of ‘climate change’). ‘Woke’ or ‘enlightened’ consumers and conscious investors are pressuring companies to adopt more sustainable business models, as young people around the world are taking to the streets under Greta Thurnberg’s lead, pushing for more ambitious climate policies from governments.

The transition to climate neutrality will be gradual, but the call to action is urgent. The debate over who will drive this transition frequently comes down to the relative importance of individuals, businesses, and governments. Each of these represent different perspectives on how we can achieve climate neutrality in the long run. In simple terms, they respectively stand for solutions based on lifestyle (changing food consumption or choices of transport), innovation (inventing, researching or designing our way out of the problem) and regulation (with governments intervening through legislation). Rather than being independent, these categories are interdependent. Working within a ‘cyclical diagram’, each node’s activity is part of a larger recurring process towards climate neutrality.

Governments, for example, spurred on by engaged citizens, will enact more regulation (or incentives) upon both businesses and citizens towards sustainability. This will give individuals the ability to live more sustainably, whilst being offered more products and services to do so. Once the benefits of green living become self-evident, support for the green economy and green policies grows.

Citizens hold governments to account through the ballot box or activism.
Governments must regulate and incentivize individuals to drive behavioural change, like enacting recycling policies or providing better public transport.
In a free-market economy, the zeal and speed with which businesses embrace (green) policies is a driving factor.
Individuals Governments Businesses
Businesses should provide goods and services necessary for individuals to make lifestyle changes.
Individuals put pressure on the business world to take action by actively choosing to buy from sustainable companies.
Governments must impose regulation on businesses to force change, or incentivise industry through subsidies for those who act.

Professor Philip Jones, chair of Architectural Science and the Low Carbon Research Institute, is sceptical of the role of both the business world and citizens when it comes to climate action. He thinks a push in government policy is the main priority for the near future. When it comes to regulation in the housebuilding sector, for example, Jones says: “Housebuilders make all kinds of excuses to avoid it, mainly trying to say ‘we’re not quite ready yet, but we will be in five years or so’, constantly pushing change further into the future”.

Climate change is a global existential threat, a global pandemic... borders really are artificial.
- Walter McLeod, Carbon Creed

A general call for change when it comes to climate is no longer enough. Professor says a specific policy push, in the housebuilding sector as much as elsewhere, is needed to make progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The call for government action is shared by Walter McLeod, creator of ‘Carbon Creed’, a newsletter for people “woke” on carbon and climate. Mr. McLeod argues the transition to clean technology and decarbonization so far has been driven by government intervention, helped by the secondary role of businesses and people in adopting the policies. McLeod insists national leaders should take charge, but on the global stage. “Climate change is a global existential threat, a global pandemic. When it comes to global health issues, borders really are artificial. It’s like a healthcare bushfire. The same thing is true when it comes to tackling climate change as a pandemic of sorts, an environmental pandemic.”

With behaviour being notoriously hard to change and trade-offs that will have to be made for environmentally-friendly living, Professor Jones argues designing for any behaviour is the best option, “so people don’t have to change”. But while we shouldn’t expect people to make drastic alterations to their lifestyles, making sustainability central to our everyday actions will be important. Ducky.eco is a ‘climate action toolkit’ which helps organisations such as companies and schools set up campaigns to improve sustainable behaviour amongst employees or students through gamification, information campaigns and technology. Haakon Skar from Ducky.eco insists that their toolkit is only a part of the wider solution to climate-neutral living, mainly looking to raise people’s awareness of how seemingly trivial behaviours can influence people’s carbon footprint.

Instead of focussing only on recording actual consumption data, Ducky asks people questions about their behaviour. “Have you saved food from being thrown out today? Have you included the kids in cooking today?” These are relatively easy questions to answer, says Mr. Skar, insisting their product does not state causation, just correlation. The basic idea for organisations to subscribe to Ducky ties back to what has been dubbed the IKEA effect, says Mr. Skar, referring to the insight according to which consumers (users of Ducky) place a disproportionately high value on products (or activities, like being involved in sustainability) they partially created. “Ultimately, we simply want to engage people in thinking about the environment.”

Ducky.eco's carbon footprint tracker

But will making people think about their actions be enough? Without imposed obligations, ‘going green’ essentially remains a choice of self-interest. Mr. Skar emphasizes it’s important for consumers to have a viable alternative: with a small extra cost and not difficult to use compared to what they’re used to. With the help of government, people will have to rethink of their ‘carbon budgets’. Mr. Scales underlines people need to recognize there’s a carbon footprint associated with consumerism, and factor this in when looking to contribute their part to climate neutrality. “You have to understand what you’re doing to make your plans effectively go carbon neutral, you can’t keep buying and throwing away. Buying an electric car tomorrow isn’t the best idea if your current car is only two years old.” In the shift from a ‘take-make-dispose’ to a doughnut economy, closing the cycle of raw materials consumption, government should serve as a communicator between academia and the wider public, funneling complicated information which is hard to digest into useful recommendations, adds Mr. Skar.

Despite the growth of innovative businesses and research, and a shift to more sustainable lifestyles, progress remains too slow. Part of the problem is put down to the stretched timescales of national and international climate progress targets, which badly reflect much needed immediate action. However, enacting plans for the future rather than now suits everyone: governments can claim to tackle climate change without actually doing so, citizen’s lives remain unchanged and businesses are happy to talk of climate change in ‘Strategic Roadmaps’ instead of their financial statements. Mr. McLeod favours short-term, actionable targets: “Twenty year goals don’t make sense because governments don’t work in that timeframe. Let’s set meaningful goals and execute from 2020 to 2030, that’s about it and you’ll see things get done”.

To ‘get things done’ is what will be needed if countries want to deliver on the promises inscribed in the Paris Agreement: keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C. For that, Mr. Scales says the main point is how quickly we get to 95% of total carbon neutrality. While climate neutrality may be the end goal, Mr. Scales explains the most important task will be the speed at which we can get close to that level. That will determine whether we can get on top of the global temperature shift.

The efforts with which the EU managed to reduce 20 per cent of its (production) emissions, suggests the task ahead of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 is quite daunting. In this light, it’s encouraging to see Europe strengthening its political commitments to climate neutrality. Businesses and citizens, however, will have to come up with initiatives of their own if they want to remain in control of climate change. Either we change, or the climate will enforce its changes upon us.