Photo credits @ AdobeStock_artjazz

New milestone: EU proposes 2040 climate target

You can read this article in 4 minutes

The EU is proposing another interim climate target: a 90% reduction in emissions by 2040, with greater cross-sectoral flexibility. However, industry associations are calling for more than just ambitious new goals.

The text you are reading has been translated using an automatic tool, which may lead to certain inaccuracies. Thank you for your understanding.

On 2 July 2025, the European Commission presented its proposal for a binding interim climate target – by 2040, net greenhouse gas emissions in the EU should be reduced by 90% compared to 1990 levels. With this step, Brussels aims to stay on course for the already agreed objective of climate neutrality by 2050 – a key commitment under the European Climate Law.

“Industry and investors expect us to provide a clear direction. Today, we are reaffirming our commitment to decarbonising the European economy by 2050,” said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The additional 2040 target marks the next step on the EU’s decarbonisation pathway. By 2030, emissions are to be cut by at least 55% compared to 1990 – to be achieved solely through domestic measures within the EU.

Climate certificates from outside the EU

To help meet the targets, the Commission plans to allow the use of international climate protection projects in the emissions balance from 2036 – albeit in a limited way. Up to 3% of the 1990 base-year emissions may be offset using so-called climate certificates from non-EU countries. Until now, EU member states were required to meet their climate goals exclusively through domestic reductions.

What happens next?

The Commission’s proposal will now go to the European Parliament and the Council. Both institutions will develop their respective positions on the target. These will then be negotiated and consolidated into a joint legislative text.

Transport and logistics: Infrastructure remains a bottleneck

The transport and logistics sector, in particular, faces considerable challenges in achieving the targets. The German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) described the 90% goal as “currently not realistically achievable.”

“It is currently not evident how CO₂ emissions can be reduced by 90% across Europe by 2040 – even taking into account the 2030 target of 55%,” said VDA President Hildegard Müller.

Müller criticised that “Brussels must do more than simply set ambitious targets.” The rollout of charging and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure must be accelerated and systematically monitored.

She also called for emissions trading to be expanded as a key instrument to include the transport and building sectors. This, she argued, would not only reduce regulatory complexity but also provide greater economic planning certainty.

“Such simplification of the regulatory framework would be a welcome step,” Müller said.

Existing fleets and alternative fuels: Tapping into potential

The eFuel Alliance also criticised the Commission’s plans as “ambitious but impractical.” Managing Director Ralf Diemer stressed that European companies need investment security. He called for “technology openness instead of bans” and for “tax incentives for CO₂-neutral fuels” to ensure fair competition.

The Alliance highlighted the CO₂-saving potential of eFuels – even a 5% blend by 2030 could reduce emissions by 60 million tonnes per year. This would offer a realistic path to decarbonisation, particularly for existing fleets in aviation, shipping, and road transport.

Tags:
Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: •	record the time and place, •	report the issue to the dispatcher, •	take a screenshot of the error code, •	report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: • record the time and place, • report the issue to the dispatcher, • take a screenshot of the error code, • report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus Journalist Trans.info | 17.11.2025