{"id":35971,"date":"2025-06-02T16:39:12","date_gmt":"2025-06-02T14:39:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/?p=35971"},"modified":"2025-06-07T16:46:31","modified_gmt":"2025-06-07T14:46:31","slug":"eu-scientific-advisers-to-limit-carbon-credits-for-climate-target-by-2040","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/2025\/06\/02\/eu-scientific-advisers-to-limit-carbon-credits-for-climate-target-by-2040\/","title":{"rendered":"EU scientific advisers: Limit carbon credits for climate target by 2040"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Carbon credits<\/strong> (part of carbon offset) represent a unit of emissions that the project <em>will prevent<\/em> discharge or <em>will remove<\/em> from the atmosphere. Strictly speaking, it is a tradable permit to reduce <!--more-->1 tonne of CO\u2082 equivalent. Carbon credits are generated through specific projects \u2013 such as planting forests, renewable sources or technological solutions \u2013 and are then sold to those who want to \u201coffset\u201d their emissions. This means that a company that still emits some emissions can buy credits from projects that reduce them elsewhere and formally claim to have offset its carbon footprint.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Voluntary vs. regulated market:<\/strong> Carbon credits are divided into mandatory (&quot;compliance&quot;) and <strong>voluntary<\/strong>Mandatory allowances are part of regulated systems \u2013 such as the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) \u2013 where states or unions set a total emission quota and companies must either buy an allowance or receive one from the state for each ton of CO\u2082 they emit. <strong>Voluntary market<\/strong> (VCM) is outside of mandatory obligations; it is where companies, organizations or individuals buy credits beyond the legal requirements. However, both forms work similarly \u2013 if a project reduces emissions, it produces credits that can be used (retired) to offset emissions elsewhere.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Types of solutions \u2013 natural vs. technological:<\/strong> Projects emitting credits can be divided according to how they reduce or eliminate emissions. Among <strong>natural solutions (NBS)<\/strong> These include reforestation, wetland or soil restoration, and protection of existing forests that sequester carbon through tree growth. <strong>Technological solutions<\/strong> they can include the installation of renewable energy sources (wind or solar farms replacing fossil fuels), the capture and storage of CO\u2082 from production processes (CCS), or the destruction of methane and other potent greenhouse gases. In practice, carbon credits therefore consist of a mix of different projects \u2013 from solar power plants to new forest plantations \u2013 with each credit usually representing the reduction or removal of exactly one tonne of CO\u2082 equivalent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Illustration:<\/strong> A wind farm in Spain (May 2025). Renewable energy projects are among the main sources of carbon credits. Any project that increases green energy production or protects nature can emit credits, which companies then buy on <em>compensation<\/em> own emissions.<\/p>\n<p>European countries have set an extremely strict emissions reduction target by 2040 \u2013 around <strong>90 % compared to 1990 levels<\/strong>These ambitions were to result from the expert recommendations of the so-called European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) and from <strong>of the Fit for 55 package<\/strong>, which sets out the EU&#039;s overall path towards carbon neutrality. However, the ESABCC has recently <strong>recommended not to use international credits (according to Paris Agreement Article 6)<\/strong> in meeting the 2040 target. Specifically, they warned that using foreign projects to meet the target could \u201cundermine domestic value creation\u201d and divert investment needed to <strong>a real green transition in the EU<\/strong>The original proposal to the Commission (from July 2025) considers a concession \u2013 for example, allowing the import of credits to maintain the 90% reduction \u2013 but experts advise sticking to the target. <em>without<\/em> such concessions. Experts emphasize that without this time a tough domestic reduction, the target would fall out of reach and the EU would abandon the principle of its own ambitions. ESABCC, however, continues to support the goal of reducing emissions by <strong>90\u201395 % by 2040<\/strong>, which would mean virtually &quot;landless&quot; energy and complete electrification of industry by mid-century.<\/p>\n<h5>Criticism of carbon offsets and the risk of greenwashing<\/h5>\n<p>Experts and environmental organizations have long warned that <strong>carbon offsets are not a substitute for real emission reductions<\/strong>In many cases, projects issuing credits have been shown to fall short of their intended results. CarbonBrief\u2019s analysis found that companies often successfully offset a significant portion of their emissions through the purchase of credits \u2013 but many of these projects \u201c<em>they appear to be failing to actually reduce emissions<\/em>&quot;. No independent study has yet confirmed that most offsets would deliver new permanent CO\u2082 savings: one study calculated that only approx. <strong>12 % of offsets sold are generated by real emission reductions<\/strong>In addition, experts point out <strong>uneven and poor quality credits<\/strong> \u2013 it seems that tens of millions of tons of CO\u2082 sold are actually \u201c<em>they are probably crap credit<\/em>&quot;, meaning the projects did not create them in accordance with the declared goals.<\/p>\n<p>These shortcomings lead to accusations of <strong>greenwashing<\/strong> \u2013 companies inflate emissions reduction figures using credits, even though their own CO\u2082 production remains high. Activists say offsets often act as \u201c<em>pollution license<\/em>&quot;: instead of real investments in cleaner technologies, the biggest polluters prefer to buy cheap offsets. For example, CarbonBrief pointed out that two-thirds of companies with the ambition to achieve zero emissions use offsets to achieve their goals, but large projects - there are talks of tens of millions of tons of credits for oil companies or car manufacturers - <em>in practice they often fail<\/em>The reliability of credits is also complicated by a lack of transparency: for many purchases, there is no public data on how and where the invested projects actually save carbon.<\/p>\n<p>The key concerns regarding offsets are summarized in the following points:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Insufficient additionality<\/em>: Many projects could have been implemented without them (e.g. state subsidies for wind farms), so the credits do not increase to a real reduction, but rather to a dense <strong>they rewrite the accounts<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><em>Poor quality credits<\/em>: This is evident from cases such as reforestation projects that claimed to plant hundreds of thousands of trees to absorb carbon, but later found that most of the trees had died. Analyses of large corporations have shown that tens of percent of their offsets are <em>probably worthless (&quot;junk&quot;)<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li><em>Greenwashing<\/em>: In the absence of a standardized definition of \u201cquality,\u201d companies often stubbornly present their credit offsets as proof of carbon neutrality, even though actual emissions are only stagnating. Critics therefore view offsets as <strong>cheap trick<\/strong> instead of proper climate action.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>As a result of these weaknesses, offsets have been viewed by assessors of emissions targets as effective \u201csupport measures, not primary solutions.\u201d For example, the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), which audits corporate climate plans, recently concluded that \u201ccarbon credits are largely ineffective at reducing emissions,\u201d and therefore currently allows companies to use them. <em>until after<\/em> meeting its own emission targets through direct reduction.<\/p>\n<h5>Impact on businesses and climate pledges<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction of stricter rules and restrictions on offsets could significantly affect companies that have so far relied on credits to meet climate goals. In the CarbonBrief ranking, companies such as Shell, Volkswagen and Chevron are the largest buyers of offsets (tens of millions of tons). Since many large companies (e.g. car manufacturers, airlines and energy companies) have set ambitious \u201czero emissions\u201d goals, they often assumed that they would achieve part of their goals by buying offsets. By limiting this option, they risk having to reassess their commitments. Reuters warns that \u201cstopping the use of carbon offsets increases the prospect that some companies will cancel or reduce their carbon footprint reduction targets\u201d. Several corporations have already begun to distance themselves from offsets \u2013 according to an analysis by The Guardian, \u201csome of these companies have already stopped using carbon offsets as growing evidence shows that carbon trading is not leading to the announced emission reductions\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>This means that if the EU moves to limit offsets, companies will be forced to look elsewhere. They will have to invest directly in clean technologies and energy efficiency, or accept that meeting the targets will be more difficult. Some may reduce their declared climate ambitions; others may focus on their own emission reduction projects. In either case, they risk <strong>the method of &quot;let&#039;s buy offsets and double CO\u2082 production&quot; will no longer be enough<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<h5>The future of &quot;quality&quot; carbon credits in EU policy<\/h5>\n<p>The strict stance of the ESABCC does not mean a complete ban on all credits, however. Experts are now discussing what role the best (verified, \u201cquality\u201d) offsets could play in EU climate policy. For example, European institutions are developing certification schemes that will ensure that only credits from projects with proven benefits are accepted. The international Paris Mechanism (Article 6) was designed to tighten the rules on offsets \u2013 specifically <strong>Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM)<\/strong>which has <em>improve quality and integrity<\/em> carbon credits. Similarly, ERCST experts propose that technical criteria be adopted in European legislation that would allow only international credits from projects with \u201crobust climate, social and environmental benefits\u201d to be used. The aim is to prevent the import of cheap, low-quality offsets and protect the credibility of the EU emissions market.<\/p>\n<p>As a result, strict rules should apply: <strong>offset credits may remain part of the system, but solely as a supplementary tool<\/strong> for the final &quot;cleaning up&quot; of emissions that cannot be completely eliminated otherwise (e.g. certain industrial processes or essential air transport). Their use should be linked to transparent verification of outputs - projects that are extra strictly certified (e.g. according to the new CRCF or PACM method). However, the main emphasis remains on <strong>drastic reduction of emissions directly in the EU<\/strong>, with offsets <em>only as a secondary aid<\/em> after meeting their own goals. As experts summarized, investments in domestic clean technologies bring \u201cfewer health problems and greater safety\u201d compared to relief efforts abroad.<\/p>\n<p>In summary, future policy should promote strict domestic cuts, and only <strong>&quot;quality&quot;<\/strong> carbon credits \u2013 with proven additionality and monitoring \u2013 should be used to finance additional climate change mitigation projects. After the mass introduction of raw offsets in the past, scientists and companies are now warning more and more loudly: emissions trading <em>didn&#039;t let us get closer<\/em> to the goals; the real transformation comes only when we start emissions <strong>real<\/strong> reduce.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Sources:<\/strong> The facts and quotes given are based on analyses by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC), Reuters and CarbonPulse reporting on the new EU 2040 target, expert studies and reports (CarbonBrief, Guardian, Deloitte, CSR initiatives) and Slovak climate literature (CO2news). These sources agree that <strong>offsets can only alleviate the crisis to a certain extent<\/strong>, and therefore the EU should use the new credits solely as a complementary instrument under strict conditions. <em><strong>Spring<\/strong><\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Carbon credits (part of carbon offsets) represent a unit of emissions that a project prevents from being released or removes from the atmosphere. Strictly speaking, they are a tradable permit to reduce<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uhlikove-kredity","category-offsetove-projekty"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}