EU parliament sets out position ahead of Cop 28

Market: Crude oil, Emissions, Natural gas
07/11/23

The European Parliament's environment committee today approved a draft resolution calling for accelerated action to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement, increase international climate finance and end fossil fuel subsidies, as well as boost renewable energy and biodiversity.

The text, which still needs to be adopted by the whole parliament later this month, calls for developed countries including EU member states to ensure the annual climate finance goal of $100bn/yr is met in 2023. Wealthy nations agreed in 2009 to provide $100bn/yr in climate finance to developing countries for mitigation — cutting emissions — and adaptation — adjustments to avoid global warming impacts — by 2020. Although the goal has not been met yet, some countries suggested that it will be reached this year.

The resolution also said that Cop 28 should progress discussions on a new post-2025 climate finance target that goes "beyond this amount". Developed and developing countries have started discussions to set a new climate finance target moving from the $100bn/yr goal by 2025, with negotiations scheduled to conclude next year at Cop 29. The EU parliament will send a delegation from 8-12 December to the UN climate summit Cop 28, which starts at the end of this month.

The resolution said that a fund for loss and damage — the irreversible and unavoidable effects of climate change — should be made "operational" at Cop 28 and ensure "new, additional, adequate and predictable funding" is available. The text said that loss and damage funding should "prioritise grants and be additional to and distinct from humanitarian aid". MEPs said "that all major emitters, including EU countries, should be ready to contribute their fair share to the fund."

It repeated a call to "urgently end all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible and by 2025 the latest", adding that "fossil fuels are the largest contributors to climate change, responsible for over 75pc of all greenhouse gases emissions". The resolution noted that fossil energy subsidies in the EU have remained stable since 2008 at around €55bn-58bn/yr ($59bn-61bn), which is the equivalent to around one-third of all energy subsidies in the EU.

Other points in the draft resolution support a global target for tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030, with a "tangible" phase out of fossil fuels as soon as possible to maintain within reach of a target of retaining global warming to within 1.5°C of pre-industrial average global temperatures. The EU parliament supports "halting" all new investments in fossil fuel extraction.

EU environment ministers approved a negotiating mandate for the European Commission at Cop 28 earlier this year, which also included a call to phase out fossil fuels, triple installed renewable energy capacity to 11TW and double of the rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said earlier this year that unabated fossil fuels need to be phased out "well before 2050".

By Dafydd ab Iago

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News

11/04/25

US tariffs cast a shadow on global gas market

Steel can make up nearly a third of an LNG terminal's pricetag, so the new levies could push up costs and push back start-up dates, writes Xiaoyi Deng London, 11 April (Argus) — US president Donald Trump's volatile tariff policy and some of the countermeasures already announced by large trade partners are unlikely to cause any direct disruption to global gas markets. But they will have a direct impact on future US liquefaction capacity. And the indirect effects on gas supply and demand could be huge, stemming from a weaker macroeconomic outlook, fuel substitution and inflationary pressures on infrastructure development. US LNG developers hailed Trump's return to office, after complaining that his predecessor complicated the issuance of additional export licences. But Trump's imposition of 25pc tariffs on all foreign-sourced steel and aluminum, from 12 March, will increase infrastructure costs in the US' upstream and midstream sectors. These present an immediate risk for US LNG developers, particularly for the five projects under construction and the six others expected to reach final investment decisions (FIDs) this year. Metals account for up to 30pc of the cost of an LNG export plant. A terminal can cost $5bn-25bn to build, depending on its size, with steel used for pipelines, tanks and other structural frameworks. Facilities can be built using some domestically produced metal, but higher prices for this might lead to construction and FID delays for the country's planned liquefaction projects. US tariffs' primary effect on the domestic gas market stems from duties levied on non-energy goods used by the oil and gas industry, including steel and specialised pipeline components such as valves and compressors, which are imported. The US remains a net natural gas importer from Canada , but these flows are unlikely to be affected by trade tariffs, given the lack of alternative supply sources available to some northern US states. Tariff baiting Trump's latest tariff round , unveiled on 2 April, involves a a minimum 10pc on all foreign imports from 5 April,with much higher tariffs on selected countries that briefly came into force on 9 April, before Trump bowed to panic in financial markets and announced a 90-day pause. China is the key exception. It has announced retaliatory tariffs that could disrupt US energy exports, resulting in an escalation that leaves the overall levy at 145pc in the US and 125pc in China. China had already stopped importing US LNG earlier this year. But disruption to trade between the world's two largest economies may weigh heavily on manufacturing activity in China, in turn reducing industrial gas demand. And the ripple effects of disruption to US LPG exports to China may alter fuel-switching economics in the region and beyond. Most other countries in Asia-Pacific have opted not to follow China's lead by retaliating. The Japanese government intends to negotiate a better tariff deal and is considering investing in the US' proposed 20mn t/yr Alaska LNG export project as part of wider efforts to reduce its trade surplus with the US. Countries in Asia-Pacific have been hit with some of the highest of Trump's targeted duties. The EU is keeping retaliatory measures on the table, but these are unlikely to involve US LNG. Europe has become much more reliant on LNG imports after losing the bulk of its Russian pipeline supply, and imposing tariffs on energy imports would only reignite inflationary pressures that European countries have tried to curb over the past three years. The bloc says it is ready to negotiate on possibly increasing its US LNG imports to reduce its trade surplus and would axe tariffs on industrial imports if the US agrees to do the same. But Trump says this is not enough, citing the EU's upcoming Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism as one of the "unfair trade practices" that justifies a tariff response. US LNG project pipeline mn t/yr Project Capacity Expected start/FID Under construction Plaquemines 19.2 2025 Corpus Christi stage 3 12.0 2025 Golden Pass 18.1 2026 Rio Grande 17.6 2027 Port Arthur 13.5 2027 Waiting for final investment decision Delfin FLNG 1 13.2 mid-2025 Texas LNG 4.0 2025 Calcasieu Pass 2 28.0 mid-2025 Corpus Christi train 8-9 3.3 2025 Louisiana LNG 16.5 mid-2025 Cameron train 4 6.8 mid-2025 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Find out more

News

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

11/04/25

News

11/04/25

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting. Argus Media spoke to ministerial adviser and Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, on the sidelines of the London MEPC meeting. What is your initial reaction to the text? We are happy and satisfied about the content of the agreed text, so far. But we need to be careful. This week, all member states were able to vote. But in October, when adaption will take place, only those states which are parties to Marpol Annex VI will be able to vote if indeed a vote is called for, and that changes the situation a little bit. Here when we were voting, a minority was enough — 40 votes. But if or when we vote in October, then we need two thirds of those party to Marpol Annex VI to be in favour of the text. Will enthusiasm for the decision today remain by October? I'm pretty sure it will. But you never know what will happen between now and and the next six months. What is the effect of the decision on FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS? Both FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS have a review clause. This review clause states that if we are ambitious enough at the IMO, then the EU can review or amend the regulation. So of course, it is very important that we first consider if the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough to meet EU standards. Only after that evaluation, which won't be until well after October, can we consider these possible changes. Do you think the EU will be able to adopt these the text as it stands today? My personal view is that we can perhaps incorporate this text under FuelEU Maritime, but it may be more challenging for the EU ETS, where shipping is now included. What was the impact of US President Donald Trump's letter on the proceedings? EU states were not impacted, but it's difficult to say what the impact was on other states. By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism

11/04/25

News

11/04/25

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, pending an adoption vote at the next MEPC in October. The proposal passed by a majority vote, with 63 nations in favor including EU states, the UK, China and India, and 16 members opposed, including Mideast Gulf states, Russia, and Venezuela. The US was absent from the MEPC 83 meeting, and 24 member states abstained. The proposal was accompanied by an amendment to implement the regulation, which was approved for circulation ahead of an anticipated adoption at the October MEPC. Approval was not unanimous, which is rare. If adoption is approved in October at a vote that will require a two-thirds majority, the maritime industry will become the first transport sector to implement internationally mandated targets to reduce GHG emissions. The text says ships must initially reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 ( see table ) against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. This gradually tightens to 30pc by 2035. The text defines a "direct compliance target", that starts at 17pc for 2028 and grows to 43pc by 2035. The pricing mechanism establishes a levy for excessive emissions at $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) for ships compliant with the minimum 'base' target, called Tier 2. For ships in Tier 1 — those compliant with the base target but that still have emission levels higher than the direct compliance target — the price was set at $100/tCO2e. Over-compliant vessels will receive 'surplus units' equal to their positive compliance balance, expressed in tCO2e, valid for two years after emission. Ships then will be able to use the surplus units in the following reporting periods; transfer to other vessels as a credit; or voluntarily cancel as a mitigation contribution. IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said while it would have been more preferable to have a unanimous outcome, this outcome is a good result nonetheless. "We work on consensus, not unanimity," he said. "We demonstrated that we will continue to work as an organization despite the concerns." Looking at the MEPC session in October, Dominguez said: "Different member states have different positions, and there is time for us to remain in the process and address those concerns, including those that were against and those that were expecting more." Dominguez said the regulation is set to come into force in 2027, with first revenues collected in 2028 of an estimated $11bn-13bn. Dominguez also said there is a clause within the regulation that ensures a review at least every five years. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara IMO GHG reduction targets Year Base Target Direct Compliance Target 2028 4% 17% 2029 6% 19% 2030 8% 21% 2031 12% 25% 2032 17% 30% 2033 21% 34% 2034 26% 39% 2035 30% 43% Source: IMO Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

US consumer sentiment 2nd lowest on record: Survey

11/04/25

News

11/04/25

US consumer sentiment 2nd lowest on record: Survey

Houston, 11 April (Argus) — US consumer sentiment fell for a fourth straight month in April, reaching lower levels than during the Great Recession in 2008, as inflation expectations surged to four-decade highs. The preliminary consumer sentiment gauge fell to 50.8 in April, below the 55.3 end-of-month level it reached in November 2008 during the start of the Great Recession, according to the University of Michigan's preliminary reading for April. The only lower reading in records going back to 1952 was in mid-2022 during Covid-19. Year-ahead inflation expectations surged to 6.7pc this month, the highest reading since 1981, from 5pc last month. Sentiment fell by 10.9pc from 57 in March and has lost more than 30pc since December 2024 "... amid growing worries about trade war developments that have oscillated over the course of the year." "Consumers report multiple warning signs that raise the risk of recession: expectations for business conditions, personal finances, incomes, inflation, and labor markets all continued to deteriorate," the survey said. The index of current economic conditions fell to 56.5 in April from 63.8 the prior month. The index of consumer expectations fell to 47.2 this month from 52.6 in March. The proportion of consumers who expect unemployment to rise in the year ahead rose for a fifth month and is more than double the November 2024 result. Interviews for the report were done between 25 March and 8 April, ending prior to the 9 April partial reversal of US tariffs. By Bob Willis Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Q&A: Australia’s Corporate Carbon expands ACCU trading

11/04/25

News

11/04/25

Q&A: Australia’s Corporate Carbon expands ACCU trading

Sydney, 11 April (Argus) — Australian carbon project developer Corporate Carbon has been expanding its trading capabilities around Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) on the back of growing supply and wider market maturity. Head of carbon trading Angus Robertson spoke with Argus about the latest developments in the market. Corporate Carbon is one of the biggest suppliers of ACCUs. Is it correct that the company has been issued around 15mn ACCUs, counting both fully-owned projects and partnerships, which would be around 10pc of all ACCU issuances since the scheme started in 2011? Yes, that's the approximate number. We've got around 100 projects. In terms of issuance from a mix of owned projects and offtake agreements with other developers and partners in the industry, the approximate forecast is around 3mn ACCUs/yr. We trade around that and then also have capacity to trade outside of our own projects and within the portfolio, plus operating as a trading entity in the secondary market. The company has been one of the main suppliers to private buyers, and to the federal government through carbon abatement contracts (CACs). But you are also buyers. How does that work? The increased capability of our business to both buy and sell is a reflection of the broader Australian carbon market maturing over the last few years. The beginning of the business was very much built off the back of those CACs. As that policy changed over time, allowing for the partial exiting of those CACs , obviously there's been a lot more focus on the secondary market now. We've seen a lot of trading houses, banks and other financial institutions coming into the market, and with that you get a more mature financial market. So in response to that, we've been building out our trading capacity as well as our broader commercial team over the past few years. We take a portfolio approach and we have a large inventory flow to assist with that growing demand, but there are times when we go out to the secondary market and source units on behalf of clients. You recently partnered with trading and risk management firm Ion Commodities to implement their Carbon Zero tool. How does that translate into your trading capabilities? We see Ion's solution as a really effective trading tool and portfolio management system. It reflects our readiness to operate at a larger scale. By providing those tools, it allows us to focus on the strategic goals of the business, especially from a commercial perspective. It is very much a tool for reporting purposes and the automation capabilities of the system assist with that, but it does have a bit of a flow-on effect in terms of efficiency across the business as well. Going to the market, in the short term, it seems to be all about the upcoming federal elections. Do you expect to see much price volatility within the next few weeks? Yes. As we approach the Australian federal election, we would expect there to be a degree of uncertainty, considering the difference in the two major party outcomes in terms of their take on the carbon market. We would see it as positive in either instance, but I think there is still a degree of uncertainty that should lead to perhaps a degree of illiquidity in the market. The market has been also weighed down by a strong issuance of safeguard mechanism credits (SMCs). Were you surprised with that high volume when it was first disclosed by the Climate Change Authority late last year? I think it was the general market consensus that the number was higher than initially forecast, and [ACCU] market prices definitely reflected that in the following weeks and months after those numbers were disclosed. Once the final numbers were released, I think the market had generally already priced that in by that point. Has that changed your internal outlook for when the ACCU market might see an expected shift from oversupply to undersupply? I wouldn't say our internal view has changed all that much. If the majority of that volume is now weighted towards the early years of the safeguard mechanism, policies might reflect that going forward. Now we would probably see ACCU supply as a potential restriction on the market in the short to medium term. Obviously, there's speculation around certain methods in the ACCU market, where higher forecasts were expected over the following next few years and that's now no longer the case. So probably more around supply than demand in terms of our shifted internal views, and this is more from a trading and market perspective as opposed to our actual projects being affected. So it's more on the supply side than demand, even with the high SMC issuances? Well, obviously the market has reacted to those media releases by the regulator around SMCs. So you know that's already happened — you can't really argue that now. Will there be further policy changes around the safeguard mechanism to account for that? That's a bit of an unknown, but it's definitely potential in the following years. And when you talk about supply constraints, is it mostly the delays with the development of the integrated farm and land management methodology , and potentially lower issuances from a reformed landfill gas method? Those are good examples of general delays in certain methods and the creation of new methods. So yes, our expectation is that this could be a big driver on ACCU prices in the next few years. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more