As the European Union nears a pivotal decision on its 2040 climate target, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) has issued a strong and unprecedented warning. The independent panel of scientists is urging the EU to reject the use of international carbon credits in favor of ambitious domestic emissions cuts. Their central message is clear: the EU climate plan must prioritize real, measurable reductions within its own borders if it is to remain effective, credible, and aligned with climate science.
Currently, the EU is committed to becoming climate neutral by 2050 and is progressing toward its interim goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030. However, the 2040 target remains legally undefined. Initial statements from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and climate leaders Wopke Hoekstra and Teresa Ribera suggested a 90% domestic reduction goal—aligned with the lower bound of the ESABCC’s recommendation. Yet political pushback from some member states has led to a delay in revising the European Climate Law, with Hoekstra reportedly considering the inclusion of carbon credits as a form of flexibility in the final EU climate plan.
Carbon credits, also known as international offsets, allow countries to pay for emission-reduction projects abroad and count those reductions toward their own goals. While advocates argue that this approach is cost-efficient and supports developing nations, ESABCC and other critics warn that it undermines the environmental integrity and ambition of the EU climate plan. The board’s report cites data showing that only 16% of issued carbon credits under existing programs have resulted in genuine emissions reductions.
Professor Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, vice-chair of the ESABCC, emphasized that a 90–95% domestic reduction target is achievable with existing technologies and is in Europe’s strategic interest. She warned that relying on international credits could delay necessary investments in clean energy, slow economic modernization, and weaken Europe’s leadership in green technology. “Delaying action or relying on international carbon credits would risk missing vital opportunities to modernise the EU’s economy, create quality jobs, and reinforce Europe’s position in clean tech leadership,” she said.
NGOs have welcomed the board’s intervention. Michael Sicaud-Clyet of WWF EU criticized international offsets as “a waste of taxpayers’ money,” comparing the practice to “sending someone else to school and expecting to receive the degree yourself.” The scientists also note that domestic action is fairer and strengthens Europe’s global credibility in climate negotiations.
Beyond emissions mitigation, the ESABCC report stresses that the EU climate plan must also include a robust adaptation strategy. Rising global temperatures—already up by 1.3 to 1.4°C—are increasing the frequency and severity of climate-related disasters in Europe. Yet the EU’s current adaptation framework lacks measurable goals and a solid legal basis. Professor Laura Diaz Anadon warned that without clearer governance and legal tools, Europe risks falling behind the accelerating pace of climate impacts.
In summary, the ESABCC is calling on EU leaders to ground the 2040 EU climate plan in science, focus on domestic reductions, and strengthen adaptation policies. Doing so would not only advance Europe’s climate goals but also secure its economic and environmental future.