Under current treaties one member state holds the presidency of the EU every 6 months and it is now Sweden's turn. As with a number of its predecessors, Sweden has listed climate change as a top priority for its presidency term and is certainly talking the talk.

With international climate negotiations due to conclude in Copenhagen in December at the UNFCCC COP15, during the term of the Swedish presidency, it is not a surprise that climate change should be a priority.

However, its programme section on climate change is bland and non-committal, offering little hope that it will pursue a truly ambitious strategy on EU climate change policy. Not surprisingly, the Swedish plans have been criticised by leading environmental NGOs as lacking ambition.

The programme offers no new proposals on the EU position in the context of an international agreement. In fact, in the context of emissions reductions, it seems to suggest that the most the EU would be willing to do is increase its 20% reduction (by 2020 from 1990 levels) to a 30% reduction. This is in conflict with the EU's responsibility for the emissions reductions recommended by the IPCC 4th assessment report and lowers the ambition from previous proposals by the European Commission (see this blog).

On the issue of climate financing, the Swedish presidency is just playing a wait-and-see game. The programme merely rehashes conclusions already approved by EU leaders on more than one occasion (see our press release). This was thrown into welcome contrast by UK prime minister Gordon Brown, who has become the first industrialised country leader to recognise the true scale of financing necessary.

The lack of ambition in the Swedish programme was mirrored in comments made by its environment minister Andreas Carlgren during the EU's 'Green Week'. Carlgren insisted that it was time for other countries to do more and that the EU would not improve its commitments without sufficient commitments elsewhere - fighting talk, rather than motivational diplomacy. Calgren's remarks have been taken as a challenge in the US, which has just seen its own (albeit relatively weak) climate bill pass the first hurdle.

Given the lack of ambition in the Swedish presidency's programme, this fighting talk is pretty hypocritical. It could be counterproductive diplomatically. Either way, it implies that the EU is only willing to go a certain amount and no further - even if this is not consistent with the EU's stated goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels...a gloomy start to this crucial six month period.