The European Union (EU) is considering a new policy that could allow the use of international carbon credits to help meet its ambitious 2040 climate target. If implemented carefully, the plan could unlock significant climate finance for projects in developing countries, particularly initiatives that expand access to clean cooking technologies.
At a recent clean cooking summit hosted by the International Energy Agency (IEA), France’s climate ambassador Benoît Faraco suggested that the EU could become a major investor in carbon credit projects. These investments could help accelerate efforts to replace polluting wood and biomass stoves with cleaner alternatives across Africa and other regions.
However, the proposal has also revived a long-standing debate in climate policy. Supporters argue that carbon credits can finance climate solutions globally, while critics warn that poorly designed projects can exaggerate emissions reductions and undermine climate integrity.
As global demand for carbon credits grows, the EU’s upcoming rules could shape the future of the voluntary carbon market.
EU’s 2040 Climate Target and the Role of Carbon Credits
The European Union plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% from 1990 levels by 2040, making it one of the most ambitious climate targets globally. To support this goal, policymakers are exploring allowing a limited share of emissions reductions to come from high-quality international carbon credits.
Under the emerging framework, these credits could account for up to about 5% of the emissions reductions needed to meet the 2040 goal. The mechanism would likely begin in 2036 and would include strict safeguards designed to ensure environmental integrity.
EU officials believe this approach could ease pressure on domestic industries while still maintaining the bloc’s overall climate ambition. At the same time, it could channel new climate finance into developing countries where emissions reductions can often be achieved at lower costs.
However, the European Commission has not yet finalized the rules governing which projects would qualify or how these credits would be sourced and verified.

Clean Cooking Projects Could Benefit
One area that could receive significant investment is clean cooking technology. During the IEA summit, Benoît Faraco suggested that EU participation in carbon markets could help scale up efforts to replace traditional cooking methods with cleaner alternatives such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
Across many developing countries, households still rely heavily on wood, charcoal, or biomass for cooking. These fuels create severe indoor air pollution and contribute to deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions.
Globally, the challenge remains enormous:
- More than two billion people still lack access to clean cooking
- Indoor air pollution linked to traditional cooking contributes to millions of deaths every year
Most of those without access live in rural areas where energy infrastructure remains limited.
Expanding access to modern cooking technologies requires large investments in equipment, fuel distribution systems, and consumer financing. Carbon credit funding could help close these financial gaps.
SEE MORE: EU Mobilizes €15.5 Billion to Boost Africa’s Clean Energy Boom
Rwanda Cookstove Initiative Shows the Model
Private companies are already experimenting with this approach. TotalEnergies, for example, has invested in LPG infrastructure aimed at expanding clean cooking access across Africa and India.
One notable initiative involves a cookstove project in Rwanda developed with the organization DelAgua. The program aims to distribute 200,000 high-performance cookstoves to rural households.
Within a year, the project is expected to benefit more than 800,000 people living in rural communities. Compared with traditional open fires, the improved cookstoves significantly reduce pollution and fuel consumption.
The new stoves cut harmful smoke emissions by about 81% and reduce wood use by roughly 71%. Over ten years, the initiative could prevent more than 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.
These avoided emissions generate carbon credits that companies can purchase as part of their climate strategies. The program also supports Rwanda’s national goal of providing universal access to clean cooking by 2030.
Global Carbon Markets Are Expanding
Recent developments in international climate policy suggest that clean cooking projects may play a growing role in carbon markets.
In February 2026, a United Nations body approved the first carbon credits to be issued under the global carbon market established by the Paris Agreement. The approved activity focuses on distributing efficient cookstoves in Myanmar.
The project aims to reduce household air pollution and limit pressure on forests by lowering fuelwood consumption. Some of the credits will be used within South Korea’s emissions trading system, while the remaining credits will support Myanmar’s own climate commitments.
UN climate officials highlighted the broader benefits of clean cooking initiatives. These projects not only cut emissions but also improve health, protect forests, and reduce the burden on women and girls who often spend hours collecting firewood.
Meanwhile, data from the voluntary carbon market shows growing activity. A report from SCB Group found that carbon credit issuances increased by 28% quarter-on-quarter in the second quarter of 2025.
During that period, about 68 million credits were issued globally. Cookstove projects accounted for the largest share of these credits, representing roughly 29% of total issuances. Wind projects followed with about 20%, while forest conservation initiatives made up around 13%.
Most cookstove credits were certified under the Verra and Gold Standard programs.

Concerns About Credit Integrity
Despite their potential benefits, cookstove carbon credits have long been controversial. Some climate experts argue that many projects exaggerate their emissions reductions.
Monitoring real-world stove usage can be difficult. Households may receive improved stoves but continue using traditional cooking methods alongside them. In such cases, the actual emissions reductions may be smaller than estimated.
Environmental organizations have also raised concerns about weak monitoring systems and inconsistent verification standards across carbon markets.
An expert from the Brussels-based NGO Carbon Market Watch warned that relying on credits that have repeatedly failed to meet expectations could pose significant risks for climate policy.
These concerns reflect lessons from earlier offset systems, including the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol. Several projects approved under that framework later faced criticism for overstating emissions reductions.
Because of this history, regulators are now under pressure to ensure that any new carbon credit systems deliver real and measurable climate benefits.
Strong Standards Will Be Critical
EU policymakers say the success of their carbon credit strategy will depend on strict oversight and transparency.
Future rules are expected to focus on three key principles:
- strong monitoring and independent verification
- clear safeguards to prevent double-counting of emissions reductions
- proof that projects deliver additional climate benefits beyond the host countries’ own targets
If implemented effectively, these standards could strengthen confidence in international carbon markets.
At the same time, critics argue that carbon credits should only play a limited role in meeting climate targets. They warn that over-reliance on external offsets could delay necessary emissions reductions within Europe itself.
A Major Global Challenge Remains
The clean cooking challenge illustrates why new financing mechanisms are urgently needed. IEA estimates that around 300 million people must gain access to clean cooking solutions every year to achieve universal access by 2030.
Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for roughly half of the population still relying on traditional cooking fuels. Many rural communities lack access to modern energy infrastructure and affordable alternatives.
Replicating the progress achieved in countries such as China, India, and Indonesia will require large investments and coordinated policy efforts. Carbon finance could become an important tool to accelerate this transition.

Overall, the European Union’s potential use of international carbon credits could reshape the global carbon market and unlock new funding for climate solutions in developing countries.
Clean cooking projects represent one of the most visible opportunities. They deliver clear health and environmental benefits while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the debate over carbon credits highlights a deeper challenge. Policymakers must ensure that these credits represent real, measurable emissions reductions rather than accounting shortcuts.
If the EU succeeds in designing a robust framework with strict quality standards, international carbon markets could channel billions of dollars into projects that improve lives and reduce emissions worldwide.
- READ MORE: The Carbon Credit Market in 2025 is A Turning Point: What Comes Next for 2026 and Beyond?
The post EU Eyes International Carbon Credits to Meet 2040 Climate Target and Expand Clean Cooking 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

