The European Union is preparing to make large changes to its carbon pricing system. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the bloc will revise its Emissions Trading System (ETS) and launch a new €30 billion cleantech investment fund. These moves aim to support the bloc’s climate goals and help industry cope with shifting energy markets.
The announcements came after a summit of EU leaders focused on energy prices and economic challenges. Rising global energy prices and geopolitical pressures are affecting Europe’s economy and industry.
The new proposals aim to improve the EU’s carbon pricing system. They will also encourage investment in clean technology throughout the bloc.
Von der Leyen said:
“The Emissions Trading System is working. It has massively reduced gas consumption. Because of that, it has reduced our dependency on imports of fossil fuels, and it has reduced our vulnerability. And it has driven major investments in the energy transition in the low-carbon energy sources like renewables and nuclear that are homegrown and give us independence. But we need to modernise it and make it more flexible.”
What Is the EU Emissions Trading System and Why Change It?
The EU’s Emissions Trading System is the bloc’s main carbon pricing tool. It was set up in 2005 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial sectors. These include electricity and heat generation, steel, cement, chemicals, and commercial aviation.
Under the ETS, companies must buy permits for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit. The total number of permits is capped to reduce emissions over time.
Over nearly two decades, the ETS has helped reduce Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels and encouraged investment in cleaner energy. It is often viewed as a cornerstone of the EU’s climate policy.
The EU ETS continues to generate large revenues that fund climate action across Europe. In 2025, total ETS auction revenues exceeded €43 billion, with about €24 billion going directly to EU member states.
The remaining funds were allocated to EU-level programs such as the Innovation Fund, Modernisation Fund, and the Social Climate Fund. Overall, ETS revenues since 2013 have surpassed €258 billion, making it one of the world’s largest carbon market funding sources.
However, rising energy costs are pressuring European industries. They started with the war in Ukraine and are now impacted by conflicts in the Middle East. Some member states have asked for a review of the ETS to ease short‑term burdens.
Planned changes “in the next days” may include:
- Updating benchmarks for free allowances given to the industry.
- Strengthening the Market Stability Reserve, which manages the supply of carbon allowances to stabilize prices.
Future changes will seek a “more realistic trajectory.” They may also extend free allocation for some industries past 2034.
Carbon Pricing in Europe: The Stakes and the Context
Carbon pricing has been a key driver of investment in clean energy. ETS prices influence how companies weigh fossil fuels versus low‑carbon options. In recent weeks, ETS prices have fluctuated, partly in response to talks about reform and broader energy market volatility.
Recent reports noted that benchmark EU carbon prices jumped almost 10% after policy statements from EU leadership.
Market stability is a core concern. The ETS’s design includes mechanisms to support consistent carbon prices, especially during times of economic stress. A strong and predictable carbon price can help investors commit to long‑term clean energy projects. Conversely, sudden changes can raise costs for industrial players and weaken investment incentives.
At the same time, formal industry and civil society groups have called for regulatory certainty. They say stable carbon pricing is key for planning big clean energy projects. It also helps the EU keep its role as a leader in global climate efforts. These groups emphasize that unpredictable policy shifts could slow clean industrial growth and raise risk for new projects.
A New €30 Billion Cleantech Fund to Boost Decarbonization
Alongside ETS reform, von der Leyen announced plans for a €30 billion ETS Investment Booster. This new fund will support decarbonization and clean technology projects across Europe. It will be financed by revenues from the ETS, meaning carbon pricing will help fund climate action directly.
The booster fund will operate on a “first-come, first-served” basis to support ready‑to‑deploy projects. Von der Leyen said that the fund will ensure access for lower‑income member states. This is intended to promote fairness across the EU and help balance regional disparities in clean technology investment.
The new fund complements existing EU climate finance mechanisms. The Innovation Fund has backed many projects. These include renewable energy, energy storage, and industrial decarbonization.
In 2024, the Innovation Fund provided €4.8 billion in grants. This supported 85 innovative net-zero projects. These efforts helped reduce nearly 476 million tonnes of CO₂ in the first decade.
Expanding funding sources for clean industrial investments reflects a broader EU trend. The Clean Industrial Deal, launched in 2025, plans to raise over €100 billion. This funding will support clean technology manufacturing, create jobs, boost energy efficiency, and promote circular economy solutions.
Renewables, Baseload, and Energy Market Trends in Europe
The EU’s net‑zero journey sits against a backdrop of changing energy markets. Renewable energy deployment in Europe continues to grow rapidly.
Wind and solar now make up an increasing share of electricity generation in many member states. These technologies are expected to gain further market share as costs fall and grid integration improves.
However, the need for stable and resilient power systems has grown. Renewable sources like wind and solar are variable by nature. This increases interest in baseload options like geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, and storage paired with renewables.
Meanwhile, global energy prices have remained volatile. Brent crude prices rose above $110 per barrel due to geopolitical tensions. This increase is driving up electricity and heating costs in Europe. These price swings can influence industrial competitiveness and household energy bills.
EU leaders view carbon pricing and investment in decarbonization as key to reducing long-term risks from unstable fossil fuel markets. Policymakers want to use ETS revenues for clean technologies. This will help reduce the need for imported fuels and boost energy independence.
Industry Reaction: Balancing Flexibility and Climate Signals
The proposed changes have drawn mixed reactions. Some industry groups welcomed the updates to the ETS. They said the funding support could help reduce short-term cost pressures. Others warn that too much flexibility could weaken long‑term climate signals and reduce investment certainty.
Civil society organizations have stressed the importance of maintaining carbon pricing integrity. They believe a strong, predictable ETS is key. It will boost investment in electrification, renewables, energy efficiency, and circular economy solutions. Maintaining the market’s rules‑based design, supporters say, will help the EU stay on track with its 2030 and 2040 climate targets.
The European Council has invited the Commission to present a formal ETS review by July 2026 at the latest. This timeline reflects the urgency of balancing climate goals with current economic pressures.
Looking Ahead: Combining Policy and Investment for Climate Goals
The EU’s planned changes mark an important step for climate policy. Reforming carbon pricing and launching a €30 billion cleantech fund will help drive decarbonization.
The ETS has already helped cut emissions by putting a cost on pollution and supporting cleaner energy. Using ETS revenues for clean technology will expand this impact. It will speed up renewable energy and support low-carbon industries.
These actions support the EU’s targets to reach climate neutrality by 2050 and cut emissions by at least 55% by 2030. The next phase of policy decisions will shape carbon markets, energy prices, and Europe’s clean energy transition.
The post EU Plans Major Carbon Pricing Overhaul and €30B Clean Tech Boost to Drive Decarbonization appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
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 Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits