Climate 411

Importing international carbon credits to the EU: How to make it work?

By István Bart and Pedro Martins Barata

EU flags waving

Join EDF on Monday, October 20 for the webinar EU Pathways for International Carbon Credits on Zoom

As the European Union sets a new climate goal for 2040, a key question is whether the EU should use carbon credits from outside Europe to help meet that goal. The European Commission’s July 2025 proposal intends to reopen the door to credits for the first time in over a decade. Still, it remains vague on exactly how importing should be done – that is, who should import, how much and where should the imported credits be used? Now is the time to get the design right. 

EDF’s latest publication, International Credits in the EU: Strategic Choices & Practical Implementation’, explores these questions.  It argues that if done well, importing credits could be a practical way for Europe to keep target compliance costs manageable, protect its climate ambition, and increase its influence in international climate policy. But the details matter – doing it right means we’d need strong rules on quality, clear conditions for if/when credits would be used, and a coordinated EU system to manage purchases and credit use.  

Read More »

Also posted in Carbon Markets, Economics, International / Tagged , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Advancing affordability through climate ambition: How states can cut costs while cutting pollution

While the federal government rapidly undermines climate progress, new analysis from EDF shows that state leadership is more important than ever. Our analysis finds that if leadership states deliver on their climate commitments, they could make a significant impact on the overall U.S. emissions and collectively cut the gap to the nation’s Paris-aligned 2035 target by a third.  

What’s more, implementing the comprehensive and powerful policy tools state leaders have at their fingertips to meet these commitments would both slash planet-warming pollution and deliver household savings and economic benefits for communities. Now is the time for governors and state legislators to get the job done.

Read More »

Also posted in California, Carbon Markets, Cities and states, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Authors: , , / Comments are closed

How the Trump administration is obstructing clean energy – and why it raises your costs

A black and white photograph of solar and wind projects is being torn in half to reveal a coal plant overlaid with an upward trend line to reflect rising costs.

Last updated August 20, 2025.

Electricity prices are rising across the U.S. Demand for electricity is going up for the first time in 20 years. And more extreme weather and heat waves are causing blackouts.

Yet instead of expanding access to low-cost, reliable clean power, the Trump administration is making the problem worse. Since Day One, the administration and its allies in Congress have pushed policies that restrict the supply of affordable, homegrown clean energy – creating a self-inflicted rate hike just as the country needs more power.

Wind and solar offer some of the cheapest – and fastest – ways to provide electric power today. In contrast, the cost to build natural gas plants is at a 10-year high and a shortage of turbines is delaying construction, while coal remains the most expensive and dirtiest way to generate power. To put it simply: Blocking cheap, clean energy while doubling down on outdated fossil fuels makes no economic or environmental sense.

The attacks on clean energy will not only hike up our electricity bills, but they will also unleash more pollution in our water and air, kill thousands of jobs and make our electric grid weaker.

How is this happening? Here are major ways the Trump administration is obstructing clean energy: Read More »

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Climate Change Legislation, Economics, Green Jobs, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

President Trump’s new tax law undermines clean energy when the U.S. needs it most

(This post was written by EDF Vice President for Political and Government Affairs Joanna Slaney)

President Trump just signed a deeply unpopular law passed by congressional Republicans — one that could thwart unprecedented American progress on clean energy and transportation. 

New polling shows that 67% of voters oppose the bill when they learn what’s in it. But the law puts the U.S. on a more expensive, more dangerous, and more harmful path, threatening $980 billion in gross domestic product and taking away 900,000 good-paying jobs in energy and manufacturing alone. Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions,  said, “This stands to be the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country.”  Read More »

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, News / Authors: / Comments are closed

Cap-and-invest program continues to drive down climate pollution and raise investments in Washington state

Results were released today for Washington’s second cap-and-invest auction of the year, administered last Wednesday by the Department of Ecology (Ecology). During the auction, participating entities submitted their bids for allowances. Under the Climate Commitment Act — Washington’s landmark climate law that sets a binding, declining limit on pollution — major emitters in Washington are required to hold one allowance for every ton of greenhouse gas they emit, with the total number of allowances decreasing each year. This system requires Washington’s polluters to reduce their emissions in line with the state’s climate targets, as fewer allowances become available annually.

Read More »

Also posted in Carbon Markets, Cities and states, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Authors: / Comments are closed

As the California legislature looks to reauthorize cap-and-trade, they cannot forget the strongest climate safeguard the state has: the cap itself

In the face of federal attacks on U.S. climate progress, Governor Newsom recently announced that California was “doubling down on cap-and-trade: one of our most effective tools to cut emissions and create good-paying jobs.”  And at the heart of that program is the emissions cap: the firm, declining limit on climate pollution that drives progress on emissions reductions across the state. 

With the cap-and-trade program up for reauthorization this year and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) evaluating important program updates, now is a crucial moment to revisit what matters most: the cap. 

What is the cap and why does it matter?

The cap is the foundation of California’s cap-and-trade program. It sets a binding, declining limit on greenhouse gas emissions from the state’s largest polluters, covering roughly 75% of statewide climate pollution. Each year, California issues a declining number of emissions allowances — each one representing one ton of carbon pollution — and the amount issued is limited to the total allowed under the state’s emissions cap. The allowances are either auctioned at quarterly auctions, or distributed to regulated entities to benefit ratepayers and insulate them from price impacts. Because the total number of allowances declines each year, overall emissions must also fall. The cap is what gives the cap-and-trade program its climate power. The built-in trajectory that the cap represents ensures steady, predictable progress toward California’s climate goals — as long as the cap is properly calibrated to achieve those goals. 

California’s emissions cap is designed to help achieve both near- and long-term climate targets. Under the state’s 2022 Scoping Plan, California is aiming to cut emissions 48% below 1990 levels by 2030, and at least 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. Hitting those targets requires consistent and meaningful progress. The design of the cap, and especially how quickly it declines, plays a key role in determining how much pollution is avoided in this critical decade. These cumulative emissions are incredibly important: every ton of pollution we avoid emitting today reduces the long-term buildup of pollution in the atmosphere, limiting warming and the damage of future climate impacts. 

Cap-and-trade is part of a broad suite of climate policies in California, including clean air standards, electrification efforts, and clean fuels. But while most policies are designed to incentivize reductions or reduce emissions from specific sectors or sources, the cap ensures that economy-wide emissions stay within the limit of the cap. That makes the cap a critical ‘insurance policy’ — even if other programs don’t deliver the level of emissions reductions they expected, the cap guarantees an upper bound on pollution. 

How can the cap be strengthened?

Lawmakers have the opportunity this year to reaffirm their commitment to ambitious, effective climate action by extending the cap-and-trade program. The cap is what guarantees that emissions go down, and reauthorization should reinforce that core principle. 

At the same time, CARB is evaluating near-term changes to the program through a rulemaking process. One of the most important choices on the table is how the cap will be structured until 2030. Encouragingly, CARB is considering options that would properly align the cap with emission reductions the 2022 Scoping Plan says are necessary. With reauthorization, lawmakers can ensure that this cornerstone program can keep delivering emissions reductions for Californians while generating billions of dollars in investments for climate resilience, environmental justice priorities and to help address affordability. Also, with the current rulemaking, CARB has the chance to make sure that these reductions are swift enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. 

These are both necessary and crucial steps — strengthening the cap through long-term reauthorization and the rulemaking will keep California on track for near-term climate success, and create a model for other states to follow. Because — when it comes to California’s climate future — it’s about the cap.

Also posted in California, Carbon Markets, Cities and states, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Authors: , / Comments are closed