This is my new custom code!
1 - HTML for this page comes from themes/pentahelix/page-templates/page-forum.php
2 - Default CSS for this page comes from themes/pentahelix/css/theme.min.css , do not modify it! Source for this CSS is here themes/pentahelix/sass/theme/_theme.scss . Do not modify it either! Write your own CSS in themes/pentahelix/css/new.css
4 - Save your code locally both before and after coding session according to the date
The EU is working on an classification system for sustainable activities i.e. an EU Taxonomy. Recent progress is of upmost importance for all of us working on climate change since the Technical Expert Group (TEG) has been asked to develop recommendations for technical screening criteria for economic activities that can make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation or adaptation, while avoiding significant harm to the four other environmental objectives (sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention control, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems). Read all about it on https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainable-finance/eu-taxonomy-sustainable-activities_en. Pay special attention to the technical annex of the report containing the updated technical screening criteria for 70 climate change mitigation and 68 climate change adaptation activities, including criteria for ‘do no significant harm to the other environmental objectives’.
I have several municipalities that are sort of regional economic hubs, where there is a lot of industry, intensive agriculture (greenhouses) and transport. For these municipalities, it is almost literally impossible to come up with a scenario to reduce emissions 40%. So there are 2 pathways in tackling this: 1. You make an enormous assumption of reduction for these sectors, on which you have very little influence as a local government/community. E.g. for industry, I would consider counting on a 43% reduction of emissions, because this is the EU-ETS goal (2030 vs 2005). 2. You leave these sectors out and make a SECAP with measures only for buildings, local transport, renewable energy, ... this is not the signal I want to give, but it does make it easier to come up with a 'realistic' scenario for CoM. Have other partners had the same issue and what was your approach?