The European Commission has proposed an EU climate target for 2040 that allows countries to count carbon credits bought from developing nations towards the EU goal for the first time.
Here's what that means, and why the EU move has faced criticism from campaigners and some scientists.
WHAT ARE CARBON CREDITS?
Carbon credits, or offsets, involve funding projects that reduce CO2 emissions abroad in place of cuts to your own greenhouse gas emissions.
Examples include forest restoration in Brazil, or converting a city's petrol buses to electric. The buyer counts "credits" for those emission reductions towards its climate goal, and the seller gets finance for their green project.
Proponents say the system generates much-needed funding for CO2-cutting efforts in developing nations and lets countries work together to cut emissions around the world.
However, the reputation of CO2 credits has been dented by a string of scandals in which credit-generating projects failed to deliver the climate benefits they claimed.
WHY IS THE EU BUYING THEM?
The European Commission proposed allowing up to 3 percentage points of the EU's 2040 target - to cut net emissions by 90% from 1990 levels - to be covered by carbon credits bought from other countries.
The EU's existing climate targets require countries to meet the goals entirely by cutting emissions at home.
The bloc's executive Commission said last year it hoped the EU could agree a 90% emissions-cutting target for 2040, with no mention of carbon credits.
Tumultuous geopolitics and the economic woes of European industries have since stoked political pushback, with governments from Germany to Poland demanding a softer target.
In response, the Commission said it would add flexibilities, and landed on carbon credits as a way to retain a 90% emissions-cutting goal while reducing the domestic steps needed to reach it.
EU countries and the European Parliament must negotiate and approve the goal.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS?
The EU plan was welcomed by countries including Germany, which had pushed to include carbon credits in the goal, and by carbon credit project developers as a boost for climate finance.
But environmental campaigners said the EU was shirking domestic CO2-cutting efforts and warned against relying on cheap, low-value credits.
The EU's climate science advisers had also opposed buying credits under the 2040 target, which they said would divert money from investments in local clean industries.
The EU banned international credits from its own carbon market after a flood of cheap credits with weak environmental benefits contributed to a carbon price crash.
To try to address the risks, the Commission said it would buy credits in line with a global market and rules for trading carbon credits which the U.N. is developing. These include quality standards aimed at avoiding the problems that unregulated credit trading has faced in recent years.
Brussels will also propose rules next year on specific quality standards for the carbon credits the EU buys.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
The EU doesn't yet know. Carbon credit prices today can be as low as a few dollars per tonne of CO2, up to more than $100, depending on the project.
EU emissions records suggest the bloc would need to buy at least 140 million tonnes of CO2 emissions to cover 3% of the 2040 target, roughly equivalent to the Netherlands' total emissions last year.
One senior Commission official said the bloc was determined not to hoover up cheap junk credits.
"I don't think that would have any additional value. The credits we see currently on voluntary carbon markets are very, very cheap, and that probably reflects a lack of high environmental integrity," the senior official said.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
11 Comments
Login to comment
Wick's pencil
No!
They will just enrich a few powerful people.
wallace
No, they do not. If polluting companies in Europe are buying carbon credits in a poorer country, they are still polluting the atmosphere in Europe with larger numbers of concentrated residents.
factchecker
No, they line the pockets of airline executives.
Brian Nicholls
Carbon credits are little more than a greenwashing scam. Here in Australia there have been multiple examples of the same credits being resold several times to numerous purch
Kaowaiinekochanknaw
Some Green scammers were buying up large swathes of rainforest in Malaysia and Indonesia and selling credits for the amount of carbon their forests captured.
Ridiculous scam.
TaiwanIsNotChina
I've always treated them with skepticism. Maybe they should be set at $1 billion per once of carbon.
Lord Dartmouth
Of course they don't, but then again, there really isn't much humanity can do to 'fight climate change'. It's a preposterous idea.
virusrex
The experts and scientist of the world clearly disagree with you and propose multiple things humanity can do to correct the damage produced by industrialization.
What evidence do you have to disprove what the scientific consensus say about the realistic possibility of fighting climate change? if you have none then the experts are obviously a much more reliable source of information.
Lord Dartmouth
virusrex, I understand why people trust the experts (or what they understand to be the experts' positions on things), but if you really look into this issue, you will find that the basis for a lot of the claims (supposedly from experts but often spun and exaggerated by media and governments out of all recognition) are very flimsy indeed. I give you this for now: https://lomborg.com/paris-climate-promises-will-reduce-temperatures-just-005degc-2100-press-release
virusrex
The experts are regularly quoted verbatim on multiple articles explaining how there is a lot of things that can be done to remediate climate change, no exaggeration, no distortion. If you personally never consult primary sources that is something you should correct, but that is a very poor reason to assume everybody is the same.
The experts have clearly cocncluded there is a lot to be done, and when you try to use a deeply discredited source to refute them you are also conceding that you could not find any actual expert that could support the conclusion you liked, so you had to descend to use someone that willingly misinterpreted studies for political purposes.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190612203359/https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/wall-street-journal-bjorn-lomborg-alarming-thing-climate-alarmism/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/02/climate-cost-study-authors-accuse-bjrn-lomborg-of-misinterpreting-results
Lord Dartmouth
Yes, The Guardian! Hilarious. Sorry, but they are notorious purveyors of climate hysteria, along with the BBC.
Look up Richard Lindzen, MIT.