Japan’s largest polluters are rushing to buy carbon credits ahead of the launch of the country’s mandatory emissions trading system. Trading activity on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) has surged as companies prepare for tighter climate rules and try to meet their corporate sustainability targets before the fiscal year ends.
According to Bloomberg, major Japanese companies are already purchasing credits on the TSE’s voluntary market in anticipation of the GX-ETS launch.
This buying spree highlights growing anxiety about future compliance costs. At the same time, it signals that Japan’s carbon market is shifting from a voluntary experiment to a central pillar of its climate strategy.
What Is the GX-ETS and Why Does It Matter
The Green Transformation Emissions Trading System (GX-ETS) is Japan’s national carbon trading program. The government launched it in 2023 under the GX League, a public-private platform designed to accelerate corporate decarbonization.
The GX-ETS mirrors the European Union’s emissions trading system. Companies receive or buy emissions allowances and can trade them. If they emit less than their cap, they can sell extra allowances. If they exceed limits, they must buy more or face penalties.
Timeline and Key Features
Japan is rolling out the GX-ETS in stages:
- Phase 1 (2023–2025): Voluntary participation and market testing
- Phase 2 (2026 onward): Mandatory participation for large emitters
- Future phases: Auctions, price bands, and fuel levies
Japan plans to introduce power sector auctions around 2033 and a fossil fuel importer levy by 2028. Policymakers are also considering price bands of ¥4,000 to ¥6,000 per tonne by 2027, with potential increases by 2030. Significantly, the compliance market will include a price ceiling and phased expansion with additional policy tools.
The system integrates voluntary credits into compliance trading. Companies can trade GX credits via call auctions on the TSE, with unmatched orders carried forward. This design aims to improve liquidity and price discovery.
Japan’s Path to Net-Zero by 2050
Japan made modest progress in reducing emissions in the first half of 2025. The Ministry of the Environment reported a 2.8% decline compared with the same period in 2024. For the full year, emissions are estimated at 1,070 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, down from about 1,272 million tonnes in 1990.
Much of this improvement came from energy efficiency gains in the industrial sector. However, Japan still relies heavily on fossil fuels, and transport emissions remain difficult to reduce. Consequently, current policies are projected to cut emissions by 31% to 37% below 2013 levels by 2030, which still falls short of the country’s 46% national climate target, excluding land-use emissions.

Heavy industries—such as steel, chemicals, cement, and power generation—account for more than 60% of national emissions, making them key GX-ETS targets. Therefore, the GX-ETS is expected to cover roughly 60% of Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions and support the country’s goal of achieving net zero by 2050.
Japan’s carbon tax remains low at about ¥289 per tonne (roughly $2.16), emphasizing the need for stronger market-based mechanisms. As a result, policymakers view the GX-ETS as a critical lever to accelerate emissions reductions and drive the nation toward net-zero.
Who Must Participate in the GX-ETS
Phase 1 of the GX-ETS was voluntary. However, Phase 2 will become mandatory in spring 2026. Companies emitting more than 100,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year must participate.
This rule affects roughly 300 to 400 companies. Together, they account for about 60% of Japan’s total emissions. Key sectors include steel, chemicals, cement, power generation, automotive manufacturing, and aviation.
Under current proposals, companies can use carbon credits to offset up to 10% of regulated emissions. Therefore, credits complement emissions cuts rather than replace them.
Pre-Compliance Buying Surge Among Big Polluters
Large Japanese companies are buying voluntary credits aggressively before the mandatory launch. TSE officials see strong demand driven by companies preparing for GX-ETS and rushing to retire credits before the fiscal year ends.
Reports also reveal that members of the GX League, such as Toshiba, Tokyo Gas, and Isuzu Motors, have already participated in voluntary trading. Analysts expect steelmakers, utilities, and other heavy industries to dominate future purchases.
This early buying strategy helps companies hedge against future allowance shortages. It also reduces the risk of penalties once compliance rules take effect.
Japan’s Carbon Credits: Demand Soars Ahead of Mandatory GX-ETS
Japan’s carbon credit market is expanding fast. It was valued at about $28.2 billion in fiscal 2023 and could reach more than $121 billion by 2031, growing at roughly 20% annually.
Trading on the TSE began in 2023 and focuses on GX credits, including:
- J-Credits from domestic renewable and efficiency projects
- JCM credits from international projects under Japan’s Joint Crediting Mechanism
However, demand already exceeds supply. J-Credit issuance averages around 1 million tonnes per year. Analysts expect demand to reach about 3 million tonnes annually once the mandatory phase begins.
Therefore, limited supply could push prices higher and increase compliance costs for heavy emitters.
Carbon Credit Prices and Market Dynamics
Bloomberg also highlighted that carbon credit prices on the TSE have fluctuated as the market matures. Renewable electricity credits peaked at about ¥6,600 per tonne in early 2025. Since then, prices have fallen by nearly 25%.
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has proposed a price ceiling of ¥4,300 per tonne for the compliance market. Renewable-linked credits still trade above that level, reflecting strong demand and limited supply. And the prices across voluntary credit categories are converging ahead of the mandatory phase. This trend suggests growing liquidity and market confidence.

Challenges Facing the GX-ETS
Despite strong momentum, several challenges remain. Limited credit supply could push prices higher if demand grows faster than new issuances. Credit quality also poses a risk, as regulators must ensure offsets deliver real and permanent emissions reductions to avoid greenwashing.
At the same time, Japan still depends heavily on coal, gas, and oil, meaning carbon trading alone cannot transform the energy system. Transport emissions also remain a major hurdle, especially in the road and aviation sectors, where decarbonization is progressing slowly.
Past regional trading systems, such as Tokyo’s cap-and-trade program, achieved emissions reductions of around 15% to 27%. However, scaling that success nationwide will require strict enforcement, transparent monitoring, and strong policy support.
Strategic Role of Carbon Credits in Japan’s Transition
For hard-to-abate sectors such as steel and power, carbon credits provide a temporary bridge while low-carbon technologies mature. Companies can offset a small share of emissions while investing in hydrogen, electrification, and carbon capture.
Early purchases also hedge against future price spikes. If allowance supply tightens, companies holding credits will face lower compliance costs.
Globally, Japan wants J-Credits to align with international carbon markets and potential EU carbon border rules. This strategy could strengthen Japan’s role in Article 6 carbon trading frameworks.
In conclusion, the surge in carbon credit buying shows Japanese companies are taking the GX-ETS seriously. The market is transitioning from a voluntary pilot to a compliance-driven system that will shape corporate strategies for decades.
As climate pressures mount, Japan must close the gap between current policies and its 2030 target. The GX-ETS could become one of the country’s most powerful tools to drive emissions cuts, attract investment, and accelerate clean energy deployment.
However, success depends on credit supply, price stability, and strong governance. Industry analysts and experts suggest early credit buying reflects corporate hedging strategies as Japan’s carbon market moves toward full compliance.
If Japan manages these challenges, the GX-ETS could transform its carbon market and set a model for other Asian economies.
The post Japan’s GX-ETS Sparks Carbon Credit Surge as Major Polluters Prep for Compliance appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares
Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

