Spanish 
French 
English 
Global Carbon Credits—A Strategic Pivot or a Risky Retreat?
As the EU moves toward its 2040 climate goal—a 90% cut in emissions from 1990 levels—a new debate is emerging: Should international carbon credits be allowed?
The European Commission is considering a major policy shift. It may let member states use global carbon credits to offset some emissions. This would be a big change from the EU’s usual “domestic-only” climate policy.
A Strategic Shift Under Pressure
Until now, the EU’s climate strategy has been defined by in-house action. Emissions Trading System (ETS) reforms, renewable energy targets, and strict regulations have kept the bloc focused on cutting emissions at home. But with growing political resistance, rising costs for industry, and competing priorities like defense and global trade tensions, the European Commission appears to be looking for a more flexible path forward.
According to EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, the 90% emissions cut remains the “starting point” for negotiations. Yet sources confirm the Commission is assessing whether a slightly reduced domestic target—topped up by international carbon credits—might still meet the overall 2040 ambition.
This dual-track approach could serve multiple objectives: offer industries cost-effective options, unlock vital climate finance for the Global South, and keep political consensus intact. For example, carbon credits could fund forest restoration in Brazil or clean energy projects in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Promise of Article 6
The proposal hinges on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which establishes a global market for carbon trading. In theory, internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) could cut emissions. They could also help poorer countries fund sustainable development.
New UN safeguards are being developed. These include rules to prevent double counting and protect environmental integrity. Advocates say it’s time to rejoin the global carbon market—responsibly. Think-tanks like ERCST say developing nations want climate finance. They argue the EU could lead in building a credible global offset system.
A History That Haunts
But critics warn the EU may be on the verge of repeating past mistakes.
Between 2008 and 2020, the EU allowed the use of over 1.6 billion international carbon credits under the ETS. Many of these credits, sourced from mechanisms like the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), were later found to be deeply flawed—lacking permanence, additionality, or even basic transparency. The result? Market manipulation, collapsed carbon prices, and a near-decade-long slowdown in domestic climate action.
In 2013, the EU banned international credits from its ETS entirely, citing fraud, poor environmental integrity, and a dramatic decline in effectiveness. Critics like Linda Kalcher from Strategic Perspectives fear the EU is forgetting the hard lessons of that period.
“The list of scandals linked to international credits is long,” she warns. “Fraud, lack of environmental integrity, and the drastic collapse of the EU CO₂ price.”
Scientific Pushback
Beyond the political controversy, scientific experts have also weighed in. The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) recommends a 90–95% emissions cut by 2040 through domestic reductions alone, warning that offsets and removals must not substitute for real, verifiable emissions cuts.
Environmental groups such as Carbon Market Watch have called out the potential move as a “dangerous delay” in urgently needed climate action. They argue that allowing cheap international offsets risks weakening the EU’s climate ambition, delaying innovation, and disincentivizing investment in clean technology and green jobs within Europe.
Removals vs. Reductions: A False Trade-Off?
The debate also touches on the EU’s growing reliance on carbon removals—either through natural sinks or emerging technologies. But with the EU’s land carbon sink shrinking and major uncertainties over the scalability of removals like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), experts caution against counting too heavily on these solutions to meet net targets.
Instead, many are calling for the Commission to set clear, separate targets: one for gross emissions reductions, another for land-based sequestration, and a third for permanent removals—ensuring accountability and clarity in how Europe meets its net-zero commitment.
The Road Ahead
The European Commission is expected to release its formal 2040 climate proposal before the summer. Any final decision will require the backing of both the European Parliament and all 27 member states. With elections on the horizon and political fault lines deepening, the climate file is poised to become one of the EU’s most contentious issues in 2025.
What’s at stake is more than just a target. It’s a test of the EU’s climate credibility. Will the bloc maintain its hard-earned leadership role on climate action? Or will it trade ambition for flexibility, risking both environmental integrity and global trust?
In the words of Carbon Market Watch: “The planet cannot afford the EU to step down as a climate leader at a time when some other parts of the world are backtracking.”
Asista a nuestro próximo Europa | Programa para Profesionales Certificados en Sostenibilidad (ESG), Edición Avanzada 2025, on June 25-26 & 27 to stay informed on evolving climate policies like the EU’s potential shift toward international carbon credits, which could reshape global sustainability strategies.
