Europe’s climate transition is entering a new phase. In the space of a few weeks, three major developments have emerged across the continent: the launch of the first commercial robotaxi service, a historic surge in electric vehicle (EV) sales, and another drop in carbon emissions under the EU’s flagship trading system.
Each story is different, but together, they point in the same direction. Europe is rapidly reshaping how people move, how energy is consumed, and how emissions are controlled. At the same time, the pace and stability of this transition remain uneven.
Robotaxis Arrive: Europe’s First Commercial Deployment
Europe has officially entered the autonomous mobility era. In Zagreb, the Croatian company Verne launched the first robotaxi service in Europe. This service uses the seventh-generation system from the Chinese firm Pony.ai. The service allows the public to book and pay for fully autonomous rides using the Verne app.
The launch marks a shift from testing to real-world deployment. The service operates in a defined zone of around 90 square kilometers across central Zagreb, including the airport. It runs daily from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., according to company disclosures.
The fleet uses Arcfox Alpha T5 electric vehicles, built by BAIC and equipped with Pony.ai’s Gen-7 autonomous driving technology. For safety, trained operators stay in the front seat during this early rollout. The system is fully autonomous for passengers in the back.
Each vehicle carries up to two passengers per trip, reflecting the controlled nature of this early deployment stage.
Verne, a spin-off from Rimac Group, operates the fleet. The company was originally planning a custom-built robotaxi but has now launched using existing vehicle platforms. It has already tested dozens of prototype vehicles and is preparing for scale-up.
This launch is significant for Europe. Until now, autonomous ride-hailing has been largely concentrated in the United States and China. Europe has been slower due to stricter safety rules and regulatory frameworks.
But the commercial rollout changes that narrative. As Verne’s leadership noted, Europe now needs autonomous systems that move beyond pilots into real services.
Expansion is already planned. Partners plan to expand to thousands of robotaxis in over 20 cities worldwide. Uber will also help with future deployments and investment talks. This suggests Zagreb is not the endpoint, but the starting point.
EV Sales Break Records as Fuel Prices Surge
At the same time, Europe’s electric vehicle market is accelerating at an unexpected pace.
In March, the region hit over 500,000 monthly EV sales for the first time. Registrations jumped about 37% from last year, reaching nearly 540,000 units, based on data from Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. The region’s EV sales reached 1.2 million units in the first quarter, up 27% year-on-year.
This surge is not happening in isolation. Rising fuel costs are tied to geopolitical disruptions that have increased global oil prices. As petrol and diesel became more expensive, consumers increasingly shifted toward electric alternatives.
The response has been immediate in major markets.
In Germany, the biggest car market in Europe, battery electric vehicle registrations soared 66.2% from last year. In March alone, over 70,000 units were registered, as reported by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA). EVs now account for roughly 24% of all new car registrations in the country, overtaking petrol in monthly sales for the first time.
This is a major shift for a market that struggled just a year earlier. Germany cut subsidies in 2024, leading to a sharp drop in demand. Then, in 2026, it reversed the policy and reintroduced incentives of up to €6,000 for each electric vehicle. At the same time, fuel prices surged. Diesel crossed €2.50 per litre, one of the highest levels on record.
Elsewhere in Europe, similar trends are visible.
The UK saw 86,120 new battery electric vehicle registrations in March. This is a 24.2% increase compared to last year, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. EVs now represent over 22% of the UK market, although still below mandated targets for 2026.
Across the continent, fuel prices have become a key driver of change. Gasoline prices jumped about 17% in key EU countries. Diesel surged up to 30% in some areas. This followed supply issues tied to geopolitical tensions and unstable oil routes.
Even after oil prices eased from earlier peaks near $120 per barrel, they remain significantly above pre-crisis levels, keeping pressure on consumers.
Online car platforms show how quickly sentiment is shifting. EV searches and inquiries have surged in Germany, the UK, and Spain. This shows a rising consumer urgency, not just slow adoption.
But questions remain about durability. Previous fuel-driven EV surges have faded once prices stabilized. This time, however, structural forces are stronger: tighter EU emissions rules, more affordable EV models, and expanding charging infrastructure are reinforcing demand.
A key economic factor is running cost. In markets like Belgium, driving an EV now costs 45–56% less per kilometre than petrol or diesel vehicles when charged at home.
Emissions Continue to Fall—but Progress Is Uneven
While transport electrification accelerates, Europe’s emissions trend continues downward.
The European Commission reports that emissions under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) dropped by 1.3% in 2025. This decline continues a long-term trend in the bloc’s industrial and energy sectors.
The EU ETS covers around 45% of total EU greenhouse gas emissions, including power generation, heavy industry, aviation, and maritime transport. It operates under a declining cap system designed to force emissions reductions over time.
Since 2005, emissions in covered sectors have fallen by roughly 50%, placing the EU broadly on track toward its 2030 target of a 62% reduction.
A major driver of recent progress is the power sector. Renewables continue to expand rapidly. Solar generation rose over 20% in 2025. Together, wind and solar made up about 30% of EU electricity. This marked the first time they surpassed fossil fuels in total share.
Overall, renewables supplied roughly 48% of Europe’s electricity in 2025, compared with declining fossil fuel contributions. Coal has seen the sharpest decline, falling to just 9.2% of electricity generation, down from nearly 25% a decade ago.
However, the transition is not linear.
Natural gas usage has remained volatile, and in some cases increased, as it continues to play a balancing role in the energy system. Aviation emissions have also risen as travel demand recovered after the pandemic, highlighting one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize.
Carbon markets reflect this mixed picture. EU carbon allowance prices have remained around €70–75 per tonne, supported by steady demand but influenced by shifting energy dynamics.
A Transition Moving at Uneven Speeds
Taken together, these three developments reveal a Europe that is transforming quickly—but not evenly. Robotaxis in Zagreb show how fast mobility innovation is moving when regulation, technology, and investment align.
Record EV sales show how sensitive consumer behaviour is to energy prices, incentives, and infrastructure. And falling emissions show that policy frameworks like the EU ETS are still effective in driving long-term reductions.
But they also show limitations. Electrification is rising, but unevenly across countries. Emissions are falling, but not fast enough in harder sectors like aviation and gas-heavy power systems. And innovation is advancing, but still constrained by regulation and scale.
Europe’s climate transition is no longer theoretical. It is visible in cities, car markets, and industrial emissions data. The path forward may be complex, and there are constraints; still, progress is real.
Europe is not just decarbonizing but is redesigning how mobility, energy, and industry interact. And that process is only just beginning.
The post Europe’s Green Shift Hits Overdrive: Robotaxis Launch, EV Sales Surge, Emissions Fall appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
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.
-
Climate Change1 year 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”
-
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