Connect with us

Published

on

EU Bets on Carbon Credits: Bold 2040 Climate Target Adds Global Twist

The European Commission (EC) recently proposed a bold climate target: reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. For the first time, the plan allows up to 3% of this reduction to come from international carbon credits. This marks a major shift in EU climate strategy—blending domestic action with global cooperation.

Ambitious Goal with New Flexibility: A Shift in the EU’s Climate Strategy

Under the EU’s original plans, all emission cuts had to occur within its borders. Now, the EU will permit a limited share of high-quality international carbon credits, starting in 2036, and no more than 3% of the total 90% target by 2040. This allows the bloc to maintain ambition while offering economic and technical ease for industries under stress.

In announcing the proposal, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called it “a clear, pragmatic and realistic” step. Officials say that allowing member states some flexibility sends a good message. This approach benefits both local industries and global climate partners.

The Commission states that with the new proposed target, the EU is:

“…sending a signal to the global community: it will stay the course on climate change, deliver the Paris Agreement and continue engaging with partner countries to reduce global emissions.”

How the New Framework Works

The new EU climate plan aims to cut net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040, based on 1990 levels. This target includes direct emission cuts, domestic carbon removals, and the use of carbon credits. However, the plan strictly limits the role of international carbon credits.

EU net GHG emissions
Source: European Commission

Starting in 2036, the EU will allow up to 3% of the 90% reduction goal to be met using carbon credits from outside the EU. These credits must meet high-quality standards and undergo transparent monitoring.

SEE MORE: International Carbon Credits Back on the Table? EU’s Climate Goal Gets a Twist

Most emissions reductions need to happen in Europe. This can be done by:

  • Improving energy efficiency,
  • Expanding clean energy,
  • Capturing and storing carbon, and
  • Using sustainable land management practices.

Carbon removal methods—whether through planting trees, improving soil health, or using new technologies—will also play a role. These efforts are already being tracked through the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). It will also govern how domestic carbon removals are counted.

The framework focuses on internal solutions first. It looks at international carbon offsets only after. This way, the EU aims to cut emissions at home before using credits from other countries.

Why Include Carbon Credits?

Ministers from Germany and Poland said the 90% target could hurt the manufacturing, transport, and heating sectors. A 3% international offset helps ease this pressure. It allows the EU to buy emission reductions from projects in developing countries. These projects include forest conservation and cleaner cookstoves.

Supporters see this as a win-win, mixing ambition with resilience. But, scientific advisers warn that these credits might slow down home-grown clean energy efforts. They cautioned: it “might divert resources” if misused.

The Credit Tug-of-War: Flexibility vs. Integrity

The shift has sparked a heated debate. Supporters say carbon credits offer economic flexibility for EU industries. This helps them manage costs and still meet climate goals. The chart below shows the traded volume of voluntary credits that entities used in offsetting emissions.

VCM market size traded volume 2024

Moreover, the credits can provide important funding for emission-reduction projects in developing countries. This helps build global cooperation and solidarity in the fight against climate change.

However, critics warn that past reliance on carbon credits has not always resulted in real emissions cuts. Some projects have been poorly monitored, or overestimated their climate benefits.

They worry that if the EU relies too much on credits, it could slow down important actions at home. This includes growing renewable energy and updating infrastructure.

Scientists and environmental groups stress the need for strict rules. They warn that low-quality or unverified credits can harm public trust. This, in turn, can slow real climate progress.

Colin Roche, from the Friends of the Earth Europe, remarked:

“The European Commission will try to portray this as an ambitious step forward, but the reality is we are fast running out of room to achieve the Paris agreement. This target is in line neither with climate science nor with climate justice.”

To address these concerns, the European Commission plans to introduce a set of EU-wide rules in 2026. These rules will aim to ensure that carbon credits are transparent, traceable to their origin, and meet strong integrity standards. This step helps stop greenwashing. It also ensures that using credits really supports the EU’s climate goals, not just in theory, but in real life.

To prevent abuse, the Commission plans to propose EU-wide rules in 2026, ensuring transparency, clear origins, and high integrity.

What This Means for EU Policy and Global Climate Action

These reforms set the stage for mid-term climate planning ahead of the EU’s 2035 submission under the Paris Agreement, which is due by September.

By promoting a 90% target with a 2036–2040 credit window, the EU signals both ambition and realism. Yet it also underscores that pure domestic reductions remain unpopular among some Member States. Denmark’s climate minister urged not to “stall the green transition” despite pressures for flexibility.

This shift may also impact the EU’s global image. Compared with slower-moving nations, the EU positions itself as a climate leader. However, critics worry that lean credit use could be seen as avoiding internal responsibilities.

For international carbon markets, the EU’s plan is a major boost, potentially adding 140 million tonnes worth of demand by 2040. But sluggish rollout and tight standards may limit near-term impact.

Eyes on 2026: Rules, Votes, and What to Watch

Looking forward, here are some major things to watch as the region continues with this new proposal:

  • Approval Process: The proposal needs approval from the European Parliament and all 27 EU Member States.
  • Credit Rules by 2026: Watch for legislation defining which offset projects meet EU standards—no shortcuts.
  • Member State Limits: Key actions may focus on how countries use credits, for example, in transport versus energy.
  • Future Targets: The 2040 rule will guide the EU’s 2035 climate pledge and set the course toward net-zero by 2050.
  • Industry Response: Some businesses may welcome flexibility with stricter emissions. Others might push for deeper cuts at home.

The EU’s new law is a compromise that balances ambition with adaptability: maintaining momentum while giving industries breathing room. Critics caution that credits must not replace hard-fought investment in domestic clean infrastructure. Ensuring strong governance and transparent carbon credit standards will be key to aligning the EU’s high-level goals with on-the-ground climate action.

As the EU prepares to finalize the law and set its 2035 target, one message is clear: global cooperation will count—but so will cutting emissions at home.

The post EU Bets on Carbon Credits: Bold 2040 Climate Target Adds Global Twist appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L

Published

on

The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.

Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.

Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.

You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.

Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings

The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.

Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.

Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.

What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.

The three commodity exposures that hit margin first

For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.

  • Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
  • Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
  • Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.

TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes

The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.

For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.

The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.

What procurement and finance can do now

Three actions matter near-term.

Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.

Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.

Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.

Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.

If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?

Published

on

More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com