The postponement of the EU Emissions Trading System II (EU-ETS II) is casting a shadow over Europe’s climate ambitions, according to the president of the German Environment Agency, Dirk Messner. In remarks to the Funke-Mediengruppe newspapers, Messner expressed concern that shifting the system’s implementation from 2027 to 2028 will significantly constrict the maneuvering room available to meet the ambitious climate targets set for 2030.
Originally slated to launch in 2027, the EU-ETS II, designed to regulate emissions from buildings and transport, faced pushback from several member states, ultimately leading to the delay. This reversal underscores the persistent political challenges in advancing unified climate policy within the EU. Messner highlighted the urgency within the affected sectors, noting that emission reductions in recent years have lagged significantly behind the pace needed to achieve established climate goals.
EU-ETS II was conceived as a pivotal climate protection instrument, intended to spur investment in innovative, climate-friendly technologies and incorporate social safety nets to mitigate potential economic hardship. However, the one-year delay necessitates a compensatory acceleration of other climate mitigation efforts, Messner warned, emphasizing that “other measures must be implemented with even greater consistency to bridge the gap.
The postponement also coincides with the impending implementation of Germany’s own carbon pricing mechanism in the building and transport sectors, scheduled for its inaugural auction in 2026. The price, ranging between 55 and 65 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide, will likely translate into higher energy costs for consumers. While acknowledging this potential burden, Messner argued that the pricing framework will simultaneously bolster the economic viability of green technologies, encouraging critical investments in energy efficiency within buildings and sustainable transportation solutions. The delay and accompanying price adjustments highlight the complex political trade-offs inherent in ambitious climate policy and raise questions about the EU’s commitment to meeting its climate objectives.
