Green Claims

While the CBAM does not include CDR explicitly yet, there are a strong rationale for including it and several different ways it could be included.  

 The CBAM is intended to mirror the conditions that European Economic Zone actors experience when they emit carbon and fall subject to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). Assuming the EU-ETS includes permanent CDR within its scope to enable participants to reduce net emissions in 2030 at the earliest, a case can be made to integrate removals in the CBAM to make the two mechanisms work under the same rules. This would require clear rules on MRV mechanisms, with removals limited to hard-to-abate sectors. The CBAM could integrate CDR within its scope first, as it gradually phases in starting 2026.   

CDR could be included either directly or indirectly within the CBAM: 

1. By authorising importers to buy durable removals to compensate a share of the embedded emissions and reduce their CBAM obligations. A clear mention of this measure could be made in Article 7. This addition could be done in accordance with the forthcoming CRCF by clearly specifying that only permanent removals are allowed. 
2. By recognising CDR as a way to reduce a product’s overall embedded emissions, therefore reducing the product’s net-direct emissions. For example, a steel-making factory in a non-European country could buy durable CDR credits in its country of operations to reduce the product’s emissions. 

The revenues generated by the CBAM will go to the general EU budget. Since the CBAM covers many hard-to-abate sectors that will likely continue generating GHG emissions in the long term, it could be argued that some of the revenues generated by the CBAM could be used to incentivise/support CDR development/deployment. A share of the revenues could be used to finance the Innovation Fund.  

Including CDR within the CBAM does come with some risks. Among others, it could enable greenwashing and disincentivise decarbonisation along value chains. While the CBAM itself might not contain the tools needed to tackle these two risks, other EU legislations could help address these risks. Greenwashing will likely be prevented by the Green Claims Directive, whilst the EU-ETS incentivises European companies to reduce their emissions.  

Whether CDR could be used to circumvent the CBAM or not should be clearly defined, and if yes, clear eligibility criteria should be created and agreed upon. Effectively, only high-quality removals should qualify, and priority should be given to reducing embedded emissions in the first place. EU policymakers still need to discuss and agree on the methodologies related to embedded emissions accounting, which could provide some opportunities to promote a stringent and robust approach to CDR under the CBAM. For example, indirect emissions could be reduced or even negated if BECCS is allowed in the methodology. 

CBAM in perspective 

The CBAM is not only considered an essential tool to achieve the EU’s climate objectives but also serves to ensure the EU’s industrial competitiveness with the rest of the world. However, while it puts European production on a level-playing field with imported products, European exports are currently still at a disadvantage. How this issue is tackled remains to be seen, as carbon leakage could still occur if a company shifts its share of European production going to the rest of the world outside of the EU.  

Other geographies are also engaging with similar ideas. The United Kingdom is currently going through a public consultation as to whether it should introduce a CBAM. Interestingly, one of the questions asked pertains to whether carbon credits should be used to offset emissions. The United States is currently reviewing the “Clean Competition Act”, which would create a CBAM for the USA. California has already put in place a system similar to the CBAM regarding electricity imports in some situations, and Canada is considering adopting a border carbon adjustment mechanism. 

Policy Landscape

The Green Claims Directive complements the Empowering Consumers Directive published by the European Commission on 30 March 2022 within the EU Together, they aim to improve the circularity of the EU’s economy and achieve climate neutrality. They respectively set requirements to substantiate environmental claims made to consumers and and other commercial practices.

Apart from the French ministerial decree n°2022-538, the Green Claims Directive is a first of its kind in the specificity with which it regulates environmental claims and addresses climate-neutrality claims. The French decree regulates advertising claims based on emission compensation projects. It has different requirements surrounding emissions reporting, compensation data, and net zero plans.

Aim

The Green Claims Directive proposal addresses the issue of greenwashing, increasingly prevalent in recent years. It seeks to standardise environmental claims and labels to improve transparency and credibility for consumers. The proposal aims to use delegated and implementing acts in the future to address substantiation methodologies for specific product groups and evolving commercial practices.

The preamble of the proposal states that climate-related claims are prone to being unclear and misleading, as they are often based on offsetting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through carbon credits of low environmental integrity and credibility, generated outside the company’s value chain and calculated based on methodologies that vary widely in transparency, accuracy, and consistency. Offsetting can also deter traders from reducing emissions in their own operations and value chains.

However, credible net zero claims have the potential to incentivise and drive the development of safe, just and sustainable carbon removals to transition towards real climate neutrality. Claims based on offsetting must be regulated through a robust and science-based system to prevent greenwashing.

Room for improvement

Unfortunately, the Green Claims Directive as it currently stands does not establish the necessary measures to do so:

• The Directive does not align with scientific consensus as it allows offsetting through emissions reductions and avoidance to substantiate carbon neutrality claims. The IPCC’s definition of net zero is clear: balancing emissions with physical removals. Accordingly, offsetting projects that avoid emissions, but do not physically remove and store carbon, must be barred from use in substantiating claims about net climate impacts.
• The proposal rightly requires companies to report GHG emissions separately from offsetting data, to disclose the share of their total emissions that are addressed through offsetting and whether these come from emission reductions or removals. This isn’t enough to monitor whether the claimed climate impacts are real There is a need for more extensive disclosure on the types of carbon credits companies are purchasing (avoidance, reduction, removals), which emissions they are claiming compensation for, and the methodologies used to ensure integrity and correct accounting.
• The proposal allows all types of offsetting without any clear criteria for which emissions they can compensate for, nor which climate claims they can substantiate. However, not all carbon storage is equal in terms of capacity, duration or reversal risk. This means that long-lived fossil fuel emissions otherwise impossible to abate can only be balanced by removals with high-durability storage in the geosphere where the carbon came from. Lower-durability removal and storage of carbon into the biosphere must be accelerated for its own sake, to halt and reverse the loss of ecosystems and natural carbon stocks but cannot be eligible to compensate for fossil fuel emissions. Failing to enshrine this non-fungibility principle in EU law would allow companies to continue offsetting their long-lived emissions through shorter-term carbon storage with higher risks of reversal.
• Although the Directive encourages companies to use offsetting only for residual emissions, it provides no robust definition for what constitutes these residual or ‘hard-to-abate’ emissions. Without a sector-specific and measurable definition, companies can weaken emission cutting efforts by manipulating the boundary between ‘emissions that must be reduced’ and ‘emissions that physical removals can offset’. The EU will need to establish a transparent process for classifying emissions as difficult-to-decarbonise.
• The proposal excludes from its scope environmental claims and labels substantiated by rules in the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF). However, the proposal for the CRCF has no rules for claim substantiation. Instead, the Green Claims Directive could establish guardrails for legitimate net zero claims, which could be substantiated through the purchase of high-quality carbon removal credits certified under the CRCF.