13 To be clear: this is the adopted and agreed position of the EU Member States (the Council). To become law, still needs to be agreed with the European Parliament and the Commission. So details may still change - but broad lines can be expected to stay.🤝🇪🇺

12 Delay means: in 2027 there will be no cap, no carbon price, and thus higher emissions. 🚗💨When (if?) ETS2 starts in 2028, the cap will be where it would’ve been anyway - but the price must rise even higher to compensate for the lost year, foregone mitigation in 2027. 🎢

11 A major grievance: the 1-year delay of ETS2. Triggered via an “emergency mechanism” meant for energy-price shocks, this signal damages credibility and market trust. ⚠️
The practical impact may be limited - since the ETS2 cap trajectory stays the same.

10 The text also mentions a slower phase-out of free allocation after 2028. This doesn’t change total emissions, but creates uncertainty (e.g. CBAM phase-in). The language here is weak: the Commission “should consider” a slower phaseout. How that would “support decarbonisation” is anyone’s guess. 🤷‍♂️

9️⃣What does this mean for the EU ETS? The 🇪🇺 ETS linear reduction factor (LRF) should be adjusted to match the 2040 target — possibly allowing some emissions after 2039. Recalibrating the LRF toward 2040 is logical — the question is from when. The longer it stays, the more the ETS can do its job. 📉

8️⃣Credits should support third countries to pursue Paris-aligned trajectories. Good - but: these countries' emissions will need to be on a steep downward trajectory in the late 2030s. Means: unlikely they will have gigatons of credits to sell at low prices to the EU. 🌐

7️⃣Where will credits come from? Recital 8a only says opportunity to support strategic EU partnerships should be considered when setting rules — among the weakest phrasings possible. Stronger language would’ve helped - using EU demand as leverage to increase ambition in third countries. 🤝

6️⃣Credits for what? The provision that international credits can’t be used for ETS compliance is still in, but has been on a journey: originally in the explanatory memorandum ➜ during negotiation moved to legal text ➜ now ended up in the recitals. What legal weight that still carries? To be seen. ⚖️

5️⃣Credits as of when? Start remains at 2036. Credits can only count towards the EU climate target after that. A “pilot phase” 2031–35 to develop the market is mentioned — but any transfers in that phase would thus not count toward the official EU goal. 📆

4️⃣ Depending on how the 5% clause is interpreted, the EU could use anywhere between 1 bn t (original proposal) and 3.3 bn t (5% every year from 2036–49) in credits over the 2036-49 period - more than today’s annual EU emissions. Most likely about 1.7 bn (linear ramp-up to 36-40, ramp-down 41-49)↕️

3️⃣The 5% international removals, starting in 2036, are a major increase over the Commission’s original proposal from July. That proposal recommended a linear ramp-up of international credits - the new agreement does not specify. This ambiguity now opens space for very different interpretations.↔️

2️⃣The headline number stays: 2040 emissions must be 90% below the base year 1990 (Article 4.3). But the deal allows up to 5% international credits, meaning the actual domestic reduction could be 85%.🎯

Den Transrapid dann aber bitte stilecht mit Raucherabteil!

No 1 ist vermutlich unstrittig und sinnvoll, No 2 ist sinnvoll aber erst mal nur die Ankündigung einer Prüfung - die Musik spielt bei No 3, da wird es auf die Details ankommen...

Tegeler See - viele kleine Buchten und zwei größere Badestellen an der Südseite ggü Reiswerder (gratis und zT schattig), oder das liebenswerte alte Strandbad an der Nordseite, von ehrenamtlichen Helfern wieder wachgeküsst.