By the look of it European members are not really showing any strong leadership the year before UN Climate Change conference in Paris (2015). To reach the international goal of staying below 2 degrees warming the world's greenhouse gas emissions has to drop 80 % by 2050 (compared to 1990). Some environmental experts, such as Johan Rockström, argue that to even have a chance of reaching that goal the EU needs to have a target of at least 60% reduction in greenhouse gasses emissions by 2030. Decisions are to be made next week at the European Council. There is still time to take action! Below are two petitions you can sign to show your support for stronger European climate targets.

The European Council decided Europe's climate future yesterday. The results are lower than many environmentalists and scientists hoped for, set at targets of 27% energy efficiency, 27% renewables and 40% GHG emissions to be met by 2030 (Supermiljöbloggen). The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) condemned last nights outcome which escalated into a race to the bottom. Jeremy Wates, EEB Secretary General, said that “With this abysmal result, Europe’s leaders have failed their citizens and failed the world. More and more extreme weather events such as flooding and wildfires are already hurting people and their communities all across Europe. Adopting a set of targets to cut energy waste by 40%, roll out sustainable renewables to 45% of the energy mix and cut emissions by 60% is what the science of climate change demands, and is also what will help Europe get on its feet.” (EEB Press release). Others say that it is a first good step, showing other regions of the world that Europe has ambitions to lower greenhouse emissions. However, any final decisions about targets may change in accordance with the UN climate summit in 2015. The Swedish representatives failed to reach higher targets and seems to have focused most of their energy on voting each other down. The conservatives voted down red/greens higher targets, after which S made up some new much less ambitious target that in the end only got the support of SD.

The main obstacle to a binding treaty is of course the division between richer and poorer nations on how to proceed, specifically which countries ought to bear most of the burden? This is fundamentally a international justice issue since most of the cumulative carbon emissions and massive resource use originates from the wealthiest people on the planet (Fig. 1).

Trying to get governments, especially the US, EU and China, to commit to substantial carbon emission reductions will be very difficult as such action definitely will have a direct impact on the their economies i.e. initially costly but beneficial in the long-term. Professor in physics Chris Williams says "a solution to the climate crisis requires a restructuring of the global economy, but when the last opportunity to do so came after the 2008-09 financial crisis, wold leaders saved the banks instead" (The Real News)

Aware of the tension between economic growth and carbon emission reductions many organisations have this time around adapted their material to match the language of economics, making cost-benefit analyses of adopting "green" technologies etc. One example is the new report called "The new climate economy" of which the Swedish minster of Environment, Lena Ek, was an initiator. The key message of the report is basically that we can have economic growth and save the environment too. My guess is that it's a political attempt to get more nations aboard signing a binding treaty. So the intent is good and probably smart but it depends on what kind of growth western nations are asking for - material or knowledge based? Another example is a recent Oxfam report stating that climate-related disasters (e.g. droughts, extreme temperatures, wildfires, storms, floods) have cost the world almost 500 billion dollars since 2010. To put numbers on losses in natural and social capital have thus become a new standard practice. And will perhaps lead to more action from politicians. In any case, it will be interesting to see what 2014-2015 will bring in terms of climate debate, demonstrations, treaty and much more. I'm hoping that talks will go beyond arguments about carbon markets and blame games. Civil society organizations and businesses attending the conference play an important role in reminding government officials that what is good for the planet, is also good for the people and for business.