The lawmaker leading the European Parliament’s work on the EU’s new climate milestone has filed a motion rejecting the entire proposal, a move other MEPs slammed as “economically illiterate” and “destructive.”

Ondřej Knotek, a member of the European Parliament with the far-right Patriots for Europe, was put in charge of drafting the institution’s position on the 2040 climate target as the so-called rapporteur after his far-right grouping outbid other factions to take control of the file earlier this month.

Centrist groups, however, moved last week to curtail the far right’s influence, meaning Knotek’s attempt to kill the target is likely to fail.

In his submission on behalf of Parliament, seen by POLITICO, the Czech MEP calls “for this legislative proposal on the new, additional legally binding climate target for 2040 to be rejected in order to free up capacity for a clear change of course towards market-based, socially just and environmentally sound policies.”

In an accompanying statement, he urges the EU to stop focusing on reducing planet-warming emissions and casts doubt on the man-made drivers of climate change.

The European Commission earlier this month proposed reducing the EU’s emissions by roughly 90 percent below 1990 levels. Parliament and EU governments will now form their own positions on the proposal before entering into final negotiations between institutions.

The Parliament’s submission is a simple, one-paragraph proposal for rejection with the justification that the EU already has existing climate targets for 2030 and 2050, and is currently facing significant economic and security challenges. No other major economy has so far committed to a binding 2040 target, the report also notes.

Knotek’s motion for rejection is unlikely to be successful.

Centrist groups, together with the Greens and The Left, last week agreed on a sped-up timeline amid concerns that the far right would seek to deliberately slow-walk the proposal.

The deal meant that Knotek had until Friday, July 25, to submit his report — forcing him to file a simple rejection report rather than a more complex position. Some centrist MEPs worried that if the far right had, for example, suggested a watered-down target, parts of the center-right European People’s Party could have been tempted to side with the Patriots.

Other MEPs can now file amendments to the position by early September, with an environment committee vote scheduled for later that month. If a majority of centrist MEPs in the committee agree on their own submission, they can pass a counterproposal, which will then be voted on by all lawmakers in October.

Centrist MEPs hit back

The motion for rejection encountered instant criticism.

“Mr. Knotek’s rejection of the 2040 target confirms the destructive agenda of Patriots leading this file and the impossibility of building a functional majority with the far right,” said Javi López, the Socialists and Democrats’ lead MEP on the proposal.

He called on the EPP, which is divided over whether to support the target, to work on an “ambitious agreement among pro-European forces.”

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, who leads the centrist Renew Europe group’s work on the file, said: “This is economically illiterate, and pursues a path that will hurt the most vulnerable regions and people.”

He added: “The rapporteur shows once again that there is only one possible coalition to get things done; it is when democratic parties in the center work together for a strong 2040 goal.”

Green MEP Lena Schilling said: “You can’t work with those who want to dismantle climate action. The pro-democratic groups must work together now.”

The EPP’s lead MEP Lídia Pereira did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

The Patriots separately issued a statement rejecting the 2040 target, criticizing the EU’s Green Deal policy framework and calling for measures that “serve people, not ideology.”

Questioning policy — and science

Knotek, who objects to being labeled as far right, told POLITICO that his report represents “not an activist approach, but a very justified” one.

His report includes a lengthy explanatory statement that suggests the EU make reducing emissions a “secondary priority” — which would represent a radical break with European and international climate efforts — and focus instead on preparing for the impacts of global warming.

The statement also contradicts established climate science, which has found that global warming is unequivocally driven by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.

“It is also very likely that other factors contribute to climate change,” Knotek’s statement says. “If we focus solely on human-made emissions in the EU Member States, we will reduce our ability to adapt to the elements of climate change caused by nature. An open scientific approach is needed.”

The statement also details the changed political landscape, with more governments voicing skepticism of ambitious climate policies and the Parliament leaning further to the right.

Noting that the Commission has decided to give countries additional leeway to meet the proposed target, Knotek argues that this “is a clear indication that the EU is finding it increasingly difficult to implement its own climate policy.”

He concluded: “In summary, Europe is currently facing internal and external security challenges, economic challenges and a generally tense and uncertain geopolitical situation. Therefore … the proposal to set a new, additional binding climate target for 2040 appears to be more of an ideological experiment without solid reasons and definitely not a realistic plan.”

The Commission, through a spokesperson, declined to comment.