Climate

European Union forest policy is regulated, for example, through the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which aims to safeguard the diversity and vitality of Europe’s forests and to curb biodiversity loss. According to the strategy, the measures taken in Europe to safeguard biodiversity are insufficient, which is why the strategy sets out an increase in the number of protected areas within the EU.

According to the Biodiversity Strategy, by 2030 at least 30% of the EU’s land and sea areas must be brought under legal protection, and in addition 10% of the EU’s surface area must be placed under strict protection. The targets do not set out country-specific target percentages; instead, each member state must do its own share of the protection, and the responsibility should not primarily be shifted onto other member states to handle.

The EU regulation setting out the emission reduction targets for the land use sector (LULUCF) also provides for flexibility mechanisms under which member states can offset the calculated emissions of forests. This offsetting mechanism specifically takes into account heavily forested countries such as Finland, where the opportunities to increase forest area are limited compared with other member states.

Finland has therefore been granted greater opportunities for emission offsets than other member states precisely because of Finland’s abundance of forest. In addition, Finland has the opportunity to make use of the calculated net removals resulting from its abundance of forest in the effort-sharing sector of the LULUCF sector. As a result, Finland does not incur greater responsibility than other member states without also being compensated for its existing carbon sinks.

• Finland has already been granted greater opportunities for emission offsets than other member states precisely because of its abundance of forest.
• As a result, Finland does not incur greater responsibility than other member states without also being compensated for its existing carbon sinks.

The state of Finland’s forest nature has deteriorated as a result of the impact of human activity. At the national level, 26 of Finland’s 34 forest habitat types are threatened, and in addition 833 threatened species live primarily in Finland’s forests. Changes in forest habitats caused by the commercial use of forests have driven forest species towards extinction, which is why the diversity of Finland’s forests, known for its “responsible” forest management, is under threat.

The forest management practised in Finland is not on a sustainable footing: according to the Finnish Climate Change Panel, the carbon sinks of Finland’s land use sector turned into a source of emissions during 2022 as a result of irresponsible forest management. As a consequence, Finland’s carbon neutrality targets are at risk of not being met, and the backsliding in forest policy also leads to a decline in biodiversity. Because of these changes, Finland and Finnish taxpayers may face considerable financial costs unless deforestation and the weakening of carbon sinks are addressed swiftly.

The aim of the EU Biodiversity Strategy is to respond to the decline of biodiversity in the member states and to enable nature to recover by 2030. Although the strategy is partly deficient and also turns a blind eye to the deterioration of the state of Finland’s forest management, it creates a framework in the light of which unsustainable forest management can be monitored at the level of the whole union, so that it is carried out responsibly and sustainably.

• The forest management practised in Finland is not on a sustainable footing.
• As a consequence, Finland’s carbon neutrality targets are at risk of not being met, and the backsliding in forest policy also leads to a decline in biodiversity.
• The aim of the EU Biodiversity Strategy is to respond to the decline of biodiversity in the member states and to enable nature to recover by 2030.

It is true that the investments used to prepare for climate change are a considerable item of public spending, which entails significant costs for societies, and that the operating environment of private actors may in the short term face challenges due to tightening emission reduction targets.

Despite this, it is an indisputable fact that inaction on halting climate change will be considerably more expensive, both economically and socially. If the global average temperature is allowed to rise by 2.0-2.6 °C (the estimated warming under the development path of the 2021 climate measures), global gross domestic product could fall by a total of around 11-14% by 2050 due to the consequences caused by climate change. Warming of 1.5 °C as defined in the Paris Agreement, on the other hand, would cause a decline of around 4.2% in GDP. (Guo, J., Kubli, D., & Saner, P. (2021). The economics of climate change: No action not an option. Swiss Re Institute.)

In addition, there are considerable uncertainties involved in anticipating the effects of climate change that are not taken into account in cost estimates. One key area is natural disasters, such as floods and heatwaves, which are becoming more common as a result of climate change. The economic and human losses caused by these disasters (for example, the catastrophic floods experienced in Europe in 2021 caused around 46 billion euros in damage and more than 200 deaths) will cause massive losses for both states and businesses. As extreme weather events become more common, the conditions for food production, for instance, will also deteriorate internationally, which intensifies international poverty and creates ever-growing pressure for a rise in food prices. Climate change will therefore also cause enormous economic losses within the EU, compared with which the costs of climate measures remain truly small.

• It is an indisputable fact that inaction on halting climate change will be considerably more expensive, both economically and socially.
• There are considerable uncertainties involved in anticipating the effects of climate change that are not taken into account in cost estimates.
• Climate change will therefore also cause enormous economic losses within the EU, compared with which the costs of climate measures remain truly small.

The EU has committed, in line with the Paris Agreement, to halting global warming at 1.5 °C relative to the pre-industrial era, because warming beyond this significantly increases the likelihood that climate change will cause irreversible damage to the planet’s climate and its ecosystems.

Despite its commitment to the Paris Agreement, the European Union is, under its current climate measures, not yet on track to achieve its targets for halting warming at 1.5 °C. One of the key measures with which the EU has sought to advance the implementation of adequate climate measures is the Fit for 55 package, in which the EU aims to cut its emissions by at least 55% from 1990 levels by 2030 on the way towards carbon neutrality by 2050.

The Fit for 55 package is, however, insufficient to achieve the targets listed in it on the basis of the current measures, because this programme has, in terms of the effectiveness of its climate measures, been watered down in many areas through the influence of lobbyists. For example, as a result of lobbying by agricultural producers, the emission reduction targets for the land use sector contain numerous loopholes through which actors can avoid carrying out the responsibilities that fall to them for strengthening carbon sinks.

Because the EU carries considerable international weight in global markets, the decisions it makes also have considerable influence over states outside the EU (see the Brussels effect). For this reason, the EU must absolutely strive not to backslide on the climate targets it has set for itself, so that it can credibly press other parts of the world too to shoulder their own responsibility for protecting the planet.

• Despite its commitment to the Paris Agreement, the European Union is, under its current climate measures, not yet on track to achieve its targets for halting warming at 1.5 °C.
• The EU carries considerable international weight in global markets. For this reason, the EU must absolutely strive not to backslide on the climate targets it has set for itself, so that it can credibly press other parts of the world too to shoulder their own responsibility for protecting the planet.

Europe and the whole world are threatened by a serious climate and sustainability crisis. The Maastricht Treaty (1992) officially brought environmental matters into the sphere of European Union policy. With the treaty, the environment began to be integrated into the operations of other policy sectors. The starting point for the European Union in mitigating climate change is the Green Deal programme. Internal strength is emphasised in the European Union’s environmental policy. For example, European industry is strongly committed to achieving the goals of the Green Deal programme.

The European Union is determinedly pursuing an ambitious climate policy. The targets in the union’s climate policy are exceptionally clear: achieving the European Union’s position as the first climate-neutral continent in the world. All European Union member states have committed to achieving the climate neutrality target by 2050. With its ambitious climate policy, the European Union is building the direction of green development at the global level. For example, China has announced that it aims to become carbon neutral before 2060. The United States, for its part, has pledged to reduce its emissions by half from 2005 levels by 2030. The Green Deal has prompted global discussion about carbon tariffs and preventing carbon leakage. Through a carbon tariff system, the union would be able to demand tariff payments for the emissions that the manufacture of a product has caused. Even a small move, such as the proposal for a carbon tariff system, has prompted other countries too to develop climate regulation. This is a sign of the European Union’s power in climate policy.

The European Union’s role in climate policy is significant, as the EU acts as a trailblazer for other states. The EU’s active engagement in climate policy is reflected in other countries through the Brussels effect. Together, EU countries have produced the second-largest amount of emissions in the world over the course of their history, and they still pollute a great deal per capita, so Europe’s emission reductions have considerable global significance, and in addition, taking responsibility for past emissions is simply fair. The European Union’s influence in climate policy is based on its opportunities to act as a global climate leader, especially after the United States left the Paris Agreement. Through common climate targets, the EU is able to harmonise the climate measures of its member states. The EU’s green development programme serves as an example to others of how climate measures can be effectively advanced through diplomacy, cooperation and trade based on common standards.

• All European Union member states have committed to achieving the climate neutrality target by 2050.
• Even a small move, such as the proposal for a carbon tariff system, has prompted other countries too to develop climate regulation. This is a sign of the European Union’s power in climate policy.
• Together, EU countries have produced the second-largest amount of emissions in the world over the course of their history, and they still pollute a great deal per capita, so Europe’s emission reductions have considerable global significance, and in addition, taking responsibility for past emissions is simply fair.

It is true that the emissions caused by large corporations are considerable, but the choices of individuals are a significant part of mitigating climate change. For example, at the individual level, transport already causes a large share of emissions. The European Union can therefore steer consumer behaviour through various incentives. Incentives can be an effective way to reduce, among other things, excessive car use and to get consumers to make use of public transport.

Restrictions targeted at large corporations are directly reflected in consumer prices. It is therefore challenging to penalise large corporations while at the same time not affecting consumers. For this reason, the European Union seeks to calibrate its measures so that they create better operating conditions for actors that are favourable for the climate and increase consumers’ opportunities to switch to more environmentally friendly alternatives.

Emissions trading is a good example of a measure with which the European Union seeks to limit the pollution caused by large corporations. Emissions trading is based on allowances that heavily polluting companies can acquire. It therefore concerns industry in particular. Behind the allowances lies the idea of incentive. Companies have to pay for allowances, which makes it worthwhile for companies to pollute less so that they avoid having to buy allowances.

• The emissions caused by large corporations are considerable, but the choices of individuals are a significant part of mitigating climate change, including in non-consumption matters such as transport.
• Emissions trading is a good example of a measure with which the European Union seeks to limit the pollution caused by large corporations.