The EU has raised its climate target for 2030 to at least -55 %. Agora Energiewende and Ecologic Institute sketch a "Fit for 55" package that can ensure both environmental integrity and solidarity. It investigates four options how to regulate heating and transport emissions, focusing in particular on the pros and cons of expanding emissions trading to these sectors. The paper makes the case for a smart mix of EU-level carbon pricing and companion polices.

Legally binding reduction targets for Member States have been the backbone of EU climate policies since 2009. At a moment where the EU increases its climate ambition significantly, reduction targets for Member States must continue. They should be the unequivocal starting point of reforms to make EU climate rules fit for the EU's new climate targets – a new Ecologic Institute policy brief explains why.

As part of a project to structure the energy law, Ecologic Institute contributed to a discussion paper on conceptual considerations on the concept of plant in the Renewable Energy Act . Based on the functions of the term "plant", the authors recommend a new conceptualization, according to which the current abstract term "plant" is replaced by energy carrier-specific terms "plant", which are first combined in a catalog to form a uniform term "plant". The discussion paper is available for download.

The Climate Action Regulation (CAR aka Effort Sharing Regulation) regulates 57 % of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, the EU cannot achieve its new climate targets without major contributions from the sectors regulated by the CAR. This makes reforming the CAR one of the EU's most important legislative processes in 2021. There are various ideas about how to turn the CAR into a strong driver for achieving the EU's climate targets. This Ecologic Institute paper discusses these ideas, and makes proposals for reform.

The EU is discussing whether its 2030 climate target should be a net target or gross target. Net targets treat CO2 removal and greenhouse gas emission reductions the same, although they are fundamentally different. To avoid a major step backwards, the EU should formulate separate targets for emissions reductions and CO2 removal, argues Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf in his contribution to the Tagesspiegel.

The European Parliament improves the Commission's proposal for a European Climate Law. Gross reduction target for 2030, legally binding climate neutrality targets, emissions budgets and a European Climate Council would make the European Climate Law what it should be: a reliable compass for the path to climate neutrality by 2050, writes Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf in his article for Tagesspiegel.

The new EU climate architecture should include a separate CDR target that builds primarily on restoring degraded ecosystems. This target should be legally binding and quantified – for the EU and Member States. It should not be a combined target which treats reductions and CDRs equally. This EU's CDR target should be enshrined in the European Climate Law.

On 17 September 2020, the European Commission proposed to raise the EU climate target for 2030, so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% compared to 1990. In this policy brief, CLIMACT and Ecologic Institute unpack the Commission's impact assessment for the new target. The brief analyses key policy options and analytical results and compares them to recent studies, in particular CLIMACT's 2030 modelling results. Within the framework of the tightened target, the EU Commission proposes to extend the EU Emissions Trading Scheme to buildings and road transport – a major change to the EU's current climate policy architecture. The team discusses potential implications and provides context to the sectoral developments and policies. The briefing highlights key points where the Commission diverges from other studies, identifying climate mitigation potentials that merit more attention in future analysis.

In this paper the authors, among them Ecologic Institute's Ulf Stein, focus on the governmental bottlenecks in the Implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. The lack of horizontal, inter-sectoral communication; the insufficient land reserves; human resources and; the lack of financing were the areas that emerged as the most pressing issues. Further evidence suggests that the interaction of the WFD with other policy areas regulated at the European level might require closer inspection.

In this publication, Doris Knoblauch (Ecologic Institute), Lorenzo Felicetti, and Ulf Stein (Ecologic Institute) shed light on the untapped potential of ICT solutions in water management across Berlin, Milan, Copenhagen, Paris and Sofia, the five cities analysed in the project digital-water.city. In the analysis, the cross-cutting nature of digital water governance, and thereby its multifunctionality in terms of policy goals became evident.

In Europe, limited information is available about the environmental characteristics of the vehicles stocks and of traded used vehicles in terms of vehicle's air pollutant and CO2 emissions. In this report Ecologic Institute and Fraunhofer ISI explore available national and European data sources of vehicle stocks and trade throughout Europe and compile the available vehicle characteristics. Based on the available characteristics, the authors derive the environmental performance of vehicle stocks and traded used vehicles and assess respective regional differences in the environmental performance of the vehicles stocks and of used vehicle trade flows. The report is available for download.

This background paper provides an overview of existing and new laws and initiatives regarding plastics in Germany and the EU. Despite the multitude of approaches, guidelines and laws, regulatory gaps remain. The greatest need for action exists in the areas of strengthening recycling and use of recycled plastics as well as waste prevention. Waste prevention remains the unwanted child in the resource discourse, although it almost always represents the best option in terms of environmental policy.

This article (written in German) examines various policies and approaches that are currently being implemented or planned as solutions to the plastics crisis. It becomes clear that in national and international policies plastics are mainly described as a problem of waste management and that solutions are oriented accordingly. As a consequence, there are numerous regulations for the recycling of plastic waste in Germany, while waste prevention is rarely addressed. The perception of the plastics crisis as a problem of waste management also leads to a transfer of responsibility to individuals, who, however, have only limited room for manoeuvre compared to industry and politics.

The EU recovery and resilience facility marks progress but has some shortcomings in climate policy, argues Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf in his OpEd for the Tagesspiegel. A bigger role for the European Parliament in the distribution of recovery funds is important – for climate protection and democracy in the EU. The facility's spending rules must be clarified.

Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf comments on the EU corona aid package in Tagesspiegel Background. He calls for the EU Parliament to have a greater say in the matter and criticises that the aid programme is not sufficiently linked to the goal of climate neutrality by 2050.