ArcelorMittal, the world’s second-largest steelmaker, announced a delay in its planned green steel investments in the European Union (EU), citing challenges posed by regulatory uncertainty. This decision underscores the tension between net zero commitments and economic pressures that ArcelorMittal and others face in the industry.
Major Decarbonization Plans in Limbo
The steelmaking industry is responsible for around 7% of global carbon emissions. This substantial carbon footprint prompts steelmakers to look for ways to cut their emissions.
In January, ArcelorMittal secured €850 million ($885 million) in subsidies from the French government to support its €1.7 billion decarbonization program at its Dunkirk and Fos-sur-Mer sites in France. A key component of this plan involves replacing 2 of 3 blast furnaces in Dunkirk with green hydrogen-powered facilities.
Despite the substantial funding, the company has yet to finalize these investments. ArcelorMittal stated in an email:
“We are operating in a difficult market, and there are a number of policy uncertainties that are impacting the industry… We need an effective carbon border adjustment mechanism, as well as more robust trade defense measures, to strengthen the business case.”
The steelmaker emphasized the need for robust EU policies to support such initiatives.
EU Policy Uncertainty Hampers Progress
A significant factor in the delay is the lack of clarity regarding the European Commission’s Steel and Metals Action Plan. It is expected to address emissions reduction targets and competitive challenges.
Industry analysts, like Philip Gibbs from KeyBanc, note that ArcelorMittal has been clear about its stance: it will not commit to substantial decarbonization investments unless supportive EU policies are in place.
Eurofer, the European Steel Association, echoed similar concerns. It highlighted that steelmakers face mounting pressure to cut emissions while maintaining profitability in a fiercely competitive global market.
The production of green steel hinges on emerging technologies like green hydrogen, which is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable energy sources. It is considered a cleaner alternative with green electrical energy used to producing green steel as shown below.

However, green hydrogen remains expensive and technologically nascent, adding to the challenges faced by steelmakers.
ArcelorMittal is not alone in grappling with these issues. German steel giant Thyssenkrupp announced in October that it is reviewing its €3 billion plan for green steel production, further highlighting the economic and policy hurdles in achieving emissions targets.
How the EU’s Green Deal and CBAM Impact the Steel Industry’s Transition
European steelmakers, among the largest global CO2 emitters, are under intense scrutiny to decarbonize. At the same time, they face fierce competition, particularly from China, where lower production costs allow for cheaper steel exports.
The European Commission’s Green New Deal, introduced in 2020, aimed to replace coal-fired blast furnaces with hydrogen-powered facilities. The initiative included a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), intended to level the playing field by imposing tariffs on imported goods with high carbon footprints.
However, delays in its implementation and uncertainty over its effectiveness have added to the hesitation among companies like ArcelorMittal. The company pointed out critical weaknesses in the CBAM.
They have seen green steelmakers remain uncompetitive in the face of imports from coal-fired steelmakers in China. These flaws have allowed cheaper, high-emission imports to undercut European green steel producers, undermining efforts to make decarbonized steel cost-competitive.
ArcelorMittal’s Commitment to Net Zero: A Path Forward or a Stalled Dream?
Despite these challenges, ArcelorMittal reaffirmed its dedication to sustainability. The company had initially outlined plans to achieve net zero by 2050 through innovative technologies, including hydrogen-powered furnaces.
CEO Aditya Mittal remarked on the company’s commitment to reaching net zero emissions, saying that:
“ArcelorMittal remains absolutely committed to decarbonization. It is the right thing to do, both for the company and the planet. I remain confident that we can still achieve our net-zero by 2050 target, but the shape of how we will achieve this could differ from what was previously announced.”
ArcelorMittal Net Zero Roadmap

The world’s leading steel producer has outlined 5 key levers to achieve its net-zero emissions target by 2050, which include:
- Steelmaking Transformation: Using innovative technologies such as Smart Carbon and direct reduced iron (DRI) processes to significantly reduce carbon emissions.
- Energy Transformation: Shifting to clean energy like green hydrogen, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and circular carbon solutions from sustainable sources.
- Increased Scrap Usage: Enhancing recycling methods to integrate more scrap metal into steel production.
- Sourcing Clean Electricity: Transitioning to renewable energy sources to meet operational energy needs and partnering with clean energy providers to ensure sustainable electricity supply.
- Offsetting Residual Emissions: Purchasing high-quality carbon offsets or developing carbon credit projects that rely on its direct intervention.
The steel giant’s decarbonization strategy unveiled in 2020, relied on favorable policies, technological advancements, and supportive market conditions to offset the high capital and operating costs of transitioning from coal to green hydrogen-powered steel production. However, significant challenges put a break in its decarbonization efforts.
The slow progress of green hydrogen adoption and inadequate policy support have made large-scale investments risky. This forced the company to reconsider its roadmap.
The Path Forward
While ArcelorMittal remains committed to decarbonization, its delays reflect a broader challenge for the steel industry: achieving ambitious climate goals without undermining competitiveness. Clearer EU policies will be critical to unlocking investments in green steel technologies.
For now, the industry’s ability to transition to greener operations hangs in the balance. Companies like ArcelorMittal are waiting for the right combination of market conditions and policy support to move forward toward their net zero goal.
The post ArcelorMittal Delays €1.7B Net Zero Plan: Is The EU Policy to Blame? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 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 Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

