Ever since Trump came to power, there have been serious speculations about the future of America from a climate perspective. We saw clean energy stocks tumbling like a pack of cards and Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” policies eventually taking shape.
Well, at this conjecture Reuters came up with an interesting report explaining that Donald Trump’s energy team is planning an aggressive agenda to reshape U.S. energy policy. He will prioritize expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, increasing offshore oil drilling, and streamlining permits for federal land projects.
These actions signal a dramatic shift from the Biden administration’s climate-focused pro-renewables policies. Let’s deep dive into what’s on Trump’s agenda…
Fast-Tracking LNG Exports, Restart Oil and Drilling
The report further highlighted that under the Biden administration, several significant LNG projects were delayed. Venture Global’s CP2, Commonwealth LNG, and Energy Transfer’s Lake Charles facility all of them are based in Louisiana. Trump wants to de-freeze and approve these projects which would send a strong message of support for the natural gas sector.
Federal records revealed,
“Five U.S. LNG export projects that have been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are still awaiting permit approvals at the Department of Energy (DOE).”
The U.S., as the leading LNG exporter, plays a key role in global energy. With Europe seeking U.S. gas to cut reliance on Russia, Trump aims to seize the opportunity. This means there would be faster approvals, unlocking massive LNG infrastructure investments.
- EIA notes, that in 2023 the U.S. LNG exports averaged 11.9 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d)—a 12% increase (1.3 Bcf/d) compared with 2022.
Notably, Trump’s team also aims to accelerate oil and gas drilling off the U.S. coast and on federal lands. Federal lands currently account for a quarter of U.S. oil production and 12% of natural gas output.
During his first term, drilling permits took significantly less time to process compared to the Biden administration. This time he plans to reinstate a concrete long-term drilling plan that would expand offshore lease sales and fast-track all permit approvals to increase energy product. His focus will primarily be on regions having rich oil reserves.
Now taking about the stats, Reuters reported,
“According to federal data, oil output on federal lands and waters hit a record in 2023, while gas production reached its highest level since 2016.”
The report also revealed that Trump is most likely to persuade the IEA on pro-oil decisions. However, his advisors have urged him to suppress funding unless the IEA adopts a more pro-oil stance.
Dan Eberhart, CEO of oilfield service firm Canary said,
“I have pushed Trump in person and his team generally on pressuring the IEA to return to its core mission of energy security and to pivot away from greenwashing.”
A symbolic yet bold move would be Trump’s push to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a project canceled downrightly by Biden. However, reviving the pipeline has challenges, as land easements have been returned and construction would require starting from scratch. Even so, Trump’s endorsement signals a commitment to fossil fuel infrastructure.
Trump’s Stance on Inflation Reduction Act: A “Green Scam”?
Prior to his win, we have read and seen all around how he openly criticized the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), calling it a “green scam”. He also pledged to repeal it if he returned to power once again.
This bold statement has raised questions about the future of the Biden administration’s $369 billion energy transition agenda. While his rhetoric may signal trouble for renewable energy sectors like electric vehicles (EVs) and wind power, Trump’s track record suggests a more nuanced approach to industrial policy and critical mineral supply chains.
But Critical Minerals are Safe in Trump’s Hands…
The IRA has funneled significant resources into renewable energy, but it also supports rebuilding America’s industrial base. For instance, $75 million was allocated to upgrade Constellium’s aluminum rolling mill in West Virginia. Efforts like these align with Trump’s earlier policies emphasizing industrial revitalization and reduced reliance on foreign nations for critical resources.
In 2020, Trump declared the United States’ dependence on foreign critical minerals a national emergency. A second Trump administration is unlikely to abandon this push for metal self-sufficiency. Instead, he may amplify efforts to boost domestic production of key materials like aluminum, nickel, and lithium.
The good news is cross-party consensus on this issue suggests that funding for industrial projects tied to critical minerals may be safe, even under a Republican administration.
America First: China in Scrutiny
Both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have prioritized investments in rebuilding U.S. metals capacity. While the DOE focuses on EV battery metals like lithium, the DOD has diversified its investments toward antimony to zirconium. All these moves align toward reducing dependency on China for critical minerals.
Projects like Talon Metals’ Tamarack nickel initiative in Minnesota have already received federal funding. However, the nickel market faces significant challenges due to Indonesia’s mining boom, which has driven down prices. Most of Indonesia’s nickel production is controlled by Chinese entities, complicating matters for U.S. companies like Ford, which are sourcing Indonesian nickel for EV batteries.
Trump’s “America First” philosophy highlights his strong opposition to critical metal imports from China. His administration will probably scrutinize even joint ventures like Ford’s collaboration with Indonesia’s Vale and Huayou Cobalt. Even if these ventures technically qualify for IRA subsidies, their ties to Chinese supply chains may face new barriers under his administration.
Can America Be Great Again?
Despite Trump’s bitterness about the IRA, his administration may continue supporting parts of it that align with domestic industrial goals. Consequently building U.S. mineral independence will significantly reduce reliance on China and secure advanced technology materials.
Concisely, this means a second Trump presidency might prioritize America’s self-sufficiency while addressing IRA’s initiatives to fit in his “Make America Great Again” agenda.
This report suggests that Trump’s policies could possibly reinforce a robust U.S. oil, gas, and critical minerals industry. While his decision on renewables like EVs and tariffs on imports are still uncertain, he prioritizes critical minerals which is assuring for national security and economic competitiveness.
Sources:
- Exclusive: Trump prepares wide-ranging energy plan to boost gas exports, oil drilling, sources say | Reuters
- Trump 2.0 won’t reverse Biden’s critical minerals push | Reuters
The post Trump’s Tactic to Make America Great Again: Expanding Domestic Oil, Gas, and Critical Minerals 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