From Wyoming to Brussels: Bridging the Carbon Credit Divide

Markets function best when incentives are aligned. At their best, carbon markets offer a clean example of this principle: let the private sector profit by reducing environmental harm. But even good ideas are susceptible to weaponization. And that is precisely what has occurred with the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). It purports to reduce global emissions, but in practice, it operates as a tariff targeting US exports, unless those exports come adorned with a certified European carbon halo.

This is not an abstract concern. CBAM went into effect in October 2023, and already US producers are facing real barriers to accessing European markets, not because their carbon mitigation efforts are inadequate, but because Europe refuses to recognize the standards used to certify those efforts. The result is a de facto climate tax levied on American steel, cement, fertilizer, and a dozen other industrial goods, not for their emissions, but for their geography.

The economic impact is predictable. US producers lose market share. European firms gain a protectionist advantage. And the revenue that could have funded environmental restoration in Texas, Wyoming, or the Dakotas instead flows into the bureaucratic coffers of Brussels. A conservative nation, grounded in the principles of free markets and national sovereignty, should find this state of affairs intolerable.

What makes this all the more galling is that the United States does not lack scientific rigor, environmental expertise, or legitimate projects worthy of carbon credit issuance. We lack only one thing: European recognition. That is, we lack a politically accepted, academically "neutral" institution to bless American carbon credits with the imprimatur required by EU climate law. It is a diplomatic and institutional gap, not a technological or scientific one.

The solution is elegant in its simplicity. The University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources has already developed a carbon credit certification standard that meets or exceeds the rigor of current EU protocols. Located in a state with deep experience in energy production, land restoration, and environmental monitoring, the university combines domain expertise with academic neutrality. Its protocols have been specifically designed to align with the methodological demands of European climate compliance regimes. From orphan well plugging to soil carbon sequestration to post-mining land recovery, the kinds of restoration work already underway in Wyoming not only qualify under European standards but exemplify the kind of high-integrity, science-backed projects the EU claims to prioritize.

Indeed, if Cambridge can do it, so can Laramie. The academic quality is there. What is missing is the policy scaffolding.

That scaffolding can and should be established through statutory means. In the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to level the international playing field for American workers and producers, a small but potent amendment to Trump's Big Beautiful Bill should be made to Subtitle C, Make America Win Again, Part 1, Working Families Over Elites, Section 112028. After subparagraph (5) of subsection (a)(e)(6), Congress should insert the following:

"(6) shall facilitate the allowance for the taxpayer to use protocols developed or approved by the University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources for purposes of compliance with foreign trade taxes such as the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) or other EU greenhouse gas protocols, provided such protocols are recognized as equivalent or comparably effective to EU standards, including those established by institutions such as the University of Cambridge."

With this one clause, American producers gain a viable pathway to participate in the global carbon market. More importantly, international capital seeking high-integrity carbon offsets would find a home in American soil, literally. Landowners, farmers, tribal nations, and former fossil fuel communities would suddenly have access to revenue streams for performing verifiable environmental restoration. No new federal bureaucracy. No cap-and-trade mandates. Just science, market incentives, and a fair playing field.

Predictably, the European response may be: "Your standards are not our standards." But this is precisely where trade diplomacy must assert itself. US Trade Representative Jamison Greer should use the ongoing negotiations with the EU to demand parity. Specifically, that any carbon credits certified by the University of Wyoming (and potentially other American certifiers with comparable expertise) be automatically accepted in the EU market as if they were issued by Cambridge or any other favored European institution.

This is not an unreasonable ask. Consider the current reality. US carbon credit applicants routinely wait over two years for their projects to be evaluated by European regulators. Even when the science is sound and the outcomes measurable, approvals are arbitrarily denied, often without transparent explanation. The bureaucratic inertia serves no environmental purpose. It only entrenches European advantage.

This is a textbook example of non-tariff barriers in trade. And in the context of carbon markets, it is especially hypocritical. If the goal is emissions reduction, then the location of the credit should not matter. A methane plug in Wyoming benefits the atmosphere just as much as a solar panel in Spain. If the European climate regime were truly global, it would embrace the best projects, wherever they occur. That it does not suggests something else is at work: protectionism dressed in green.

Let us not be naive. Europe is using climate policy to entrench industrial advantage. It is the twenty-first century equivalent of subsidizing domestic producers while pretending to enforce moral principles. The remedy, then, is not to plead for inclusion but to assert institutional parity. We have universities. We have scientists. We have measurable carbon outcomes. What we lack is a political posture equal to the moment.

President Trump, to his credit, has already signaled an end to climate policy as an instrument of national self-harm. But the world does not stop at our border. If Europe wishes to play climate games with our exports, we should respond with intellectual credibility and legal precision. The University of Wyoming gives us the former. The amendment to Section 112028 gives us the latter.

The irony is rich. In their effort to exclude American environmental efforts from the global market, European regulators may have inadvertently created the clearest conservative opportunity in climate policy in a generation. No new agencies. No mandates. Just recognition of what already exists, and the legal structure to make it count.

If done properly, the results could be transformative: billions in new capital flowing into environmental restoration projects across rural America. Orphan wells capped. Prairie lands renewed. Abandoned mines returned to forest. And all paid for not by Washington, but by international buyers eager for legitimate, measurable, and certified carbon credits.

Let Cambridge keep its crown. Wyoming is ready to lead.

If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.