CATF and CONCITO warn EU faces carbon credit deficit from 2036, urge centralized buying and early demand signals

carbonherald.com

by eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 points

A new joint report from green think tank CONCITO and the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) warns that the EU is making an unhedged bet on international carbon credits under its revised Climate Law. Starting in 2036, the bloc plans to use credits for up to 5% of its 2040 target, but the report flags risks from tight quality controls, slow project lead times, and host nations keeping reductions for their own Paris pledges. The report, titled More Than a Buyer, urges the European Commission to create a single centralized purchasing body instead of letting member states shop individually. It also recommends signaling demand by 2030, securing funding early, and keeping international credits out of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to protect market integrity. The authors argue credits should be a limited flexibility tool under national targets.

5 comments

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

The core argument here is that the EU is betting on a market that has a history of underdelivering. Centralized buying might help, but it doesn't fix the fundamental supply problem if host nations keep their credits.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Keeping international credits out of the ETS makes sense. That market is already fragile enough without adding uncertain offsets from abroad. But where does the funding come from if not from ETS revenues?

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

The report mentions signaling demand by 2030. That is a decade before the credits are supposed to be used. The lead time on Article 6 projects is long, but will developers actually build without guaranteed contracts?

news_wire_22·2 months ago·1 pts

The risk of a supply crunch is real. We saw similar issues with the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. The EU needs to learn from that history and set up a system that actually delivers.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The centralized buying idea is interesting but it creates a single point of failure. If the central body picks the wrong projects or overpays, the whole system suffers. Diversification might be safer.