CATLโ€™s Jianxiawo Mine Loses EIA Approval: Will Chinaโ€™s Lithium Supply Take a Hit?

CATLโ€™s Jianxiawo lithium mine has suffered another major setback, with Chinese regulators revoking its environmental impact assessment (EIA) approval and forcing the operation back into care and maintenance.

The development is important for the global lithium market because Jianxiawo is Chinaโ€™s largest lithium mine by planned capacity. Its prolonged shutdown comes at a time when lithium inventories have been falling, and prices have recovered sharply from their 2025 lows.

Benchmark Mineral Intelligence originallyย reported on September 1 that the mineโ€™s EIA had been revoked. The licence setback subsequently highlighted the potential impact on Chinaโ€™s lithium supply.

Jianxiawo Faces Another Delay

The Jianxiawo mine is located in Yichun, Jiangxi province, a major lithium-producing region in China. The operation extracts lithium-bearing lepidolite, a lower-grade ore that has become increasingly important to Chinaโ€™s domestic battery-material supply chain.

The mine had already been offline since August 2025 after its mining permit expired. That shutdown followed tighter regulatory scrutiny of lithium operations in Jiangxi and changes affecting the classification and permitting of lithium resources.

Progress toward a restart appeared to accelerate in June 2026. CATL secured a safety production permit on June 29, removing what Benchmark had described as the final major official hurdle to restarting the mine.

That optimism did not last.

The operation briefly restarted in July but was subsequently placed back into care and maintenance. The latest problem is environmental approval. With the EIA revoked, Jianxiawo now needs to go through another environmental review before a meaningful restart can take place. Benchmark estimates the process could extend into the fourth quarter of 2026 or even 2027.

The issue also appears connected to concerns surrounding the mineโ€™s tailings facilities and environmental management, making the approval process more significant than a simple administrative delay.

CATLโ€™s Expected Lithium Output Has Been Cut

The biggest immediate consequence is the reduction in expected production.

  • Benchmark has cut its forecast for Jianxiawoโ€™s 2026 mined output to 32,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) from 62,500 tonnes LCE previously.

That is a reduction of 30,500 tonnes LCE, or almost 49%.

The revised figure is particularly significant because Jianxiawo was expected to become a major source of additional Chinese lithium supply following its restart. Benchmark had previously expected the mine to contribute roughly 1.5% of global mined lithium supply in 2026.

For perspective, S&P Global expects global lithium raw-material supply to reach about 1.63 million tonnes LCE in 2026, up roughly 10% from 2025. On that basis, Jianxiawo’s revised 32,000 tonnes would represent around 2% of global annual supply, while the 30,500-tonne reduction represents almost 1.9% of the global supply estimate.

The impact is therefore meaningful, even though the mine alone is not large enough to determine the global market balance.

Benchmark has kept its 2027 production forecast for Jianxiawo at approximately 99,000 tonnes LCE, suggesting that the current disruption does not necessarily mean the resource will remain offline permanently. However, that forecast becomes more difficult to achieve if environmental approval slips into next year.

CATL LITHIUM

What Does It Mean for Lithium Prices?

The timing is particularly important.

Lithium prices have already staged a major recovery in 2026. A market benchmark tracked by Trading Economics stood at around 156,000 yuan ($22,000) per tonne on September 3, up more than 105% from a year earlier. The price has also risen about 11% over the past month, showing how quickly sentiment has changed.

lithium prices
Source: Trading Economics

The Jianxiawo setback could add another bullish factor.

China’s battery-grade lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide inventories have been declining since September 2025, according to Benchmark. Lower inventories make the market more sensitive to unexpected production losses because buyers have less material available to absorb supply disruptions.

That does not mean lithium prices will automatically surge.

Global supply is still expanding. S&P Global’s forecast is positive, and the market had previously been characterized by ample supply. New production from other mines can also partly offset Jianxiawo’s shortfall.

The more important question is therefore whether the mine remains offline for months or slips into 2027.

A Bigger Problem for Chinaโ€™s Lithium Supply

Jianxiawo matters beyond its individual production numbers because it highlights the growing regulatory risk surrounding China’s domestic lithium industry.

China dominates lithium refining and battery manufacturing, but some of its domestic ore resources are relatively challenging to process. Lepidolite operations in Jiangxi are particularly important because they provide feedstock for China’s enormous conversion industry.

  • SDIC Securitiesโ€™ August 12, 2026 forecast puts Chinaโ€™s lithium carbonate supply at 1.725 million tonnes in 2026, compared with 1.208 million tonnes in 2025.

If environmental and permitting requirements continue to delay projects, domestic supply growth could become slower than expected.

That could force Chinese refiners and battery manufacturers to source more material from overseas producers. CATL has already been reported to seek alternative feedstock following previous disruptions at Jianxiawo.

The result could be higher competition for imported spodumene and lithium chemicals, potentially supporting prices outside China as well.

china lithium
Source: SIDC

Lithium Market Could Become More Sensitive to Supply Shocks

The Jianxiawo setback does not create an immediate global lithium shortage. The revised 2026 production loss is relatively small compared with total global supply.

But markets rarely price commodities based only on current production.

Expectations matter.

  • A restart at Jianxiawo was expected to bring a significant amount of additional supply into the market. Removing almost 30,500 tonnes LCE from that expectation changes the outlook, particularly when inventories are already tighter and battery demand remains strong.

Energy storage is also becoming an increasingly important source of lithium demand alongside electric vehicles. Strong battery demand means supply disruptions can have a larger effect on prices when producers and converters have limited inventories.

For now, the most likely impact is upward pressure rather than a full-blown lithium price shock. If Jianxiawo receives environmental approval and resumes production before the end of 2026, the market could absorb much of the lost output. If the review extends into 2027, however, traders may begin pricing in a more persistent supply constraint.

The bigger message is clear: Jianxiawo’s lithium is not lost, but its return to the market is no longer guaranteed on the timeline investors expected. With lithium prices already recovering and inventories tighter, another delay at one of China’s largest planned lithium mines could keep the market firmly focused on supply risk.

World Bank, Brazilian Bank Plan $100M Carbon Fund to Finance Brazil Projects

The World Bank and a Brazilian bank are structuring a carbon fund with an initial target of $100 million to provide upfront financing for carbon projects in Brazil. The resulting carbon credits would then be sold to international investors.ย 

The identity of the Brazilian bank and the final structure of the fund have not been disclosed. It is also not yet clear how many projects the fund could finance or how many carbon credits they could generate.

Still, the proposed vehicle points to a growing effort to connect international capital with Brazilโ€™s large pipeline of nature and carbon projects. While the World Bank’s partner remains confidential, market speculation points to major institutions like BNDES or Banco da Amazรดnia (BASA) due to their strong history with green capital. However, these names are strictly market context, not confirmed facts yet.

Upfront Fundingย Could Fill Brazilโ€™s Carbon Finance Gap

Carbon projects often face a financing problem at the start. Developers may need years of investment before projects generate verified carbon credits that can be sold.

An upfront financing fund could help bridge that gap. Developers can get funding sooner instead of waiting for future credit sales. They can use this money for activities like forest restoration, conservation, or other projects that reduce emissions.

The model could also give international investors greater access to Brazilian carbon projects. The proposed $100 million fund is still being set up. So, its investment terms and risk-sharing details are not yet clear.

The announcement comes as demand for carbon projects is shifting toward assets with stronger environmental and social value. The World Bank said in its State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2026 report that global carbon credit issuances rose 8% from 2024 to 2025.

Total carbon credit issuances

At the same time, credit prices fell slightly overall, while some higher-value categories continued to receive premiums. These included credits eligible for international aviation and highly rated forest conservation and reforestation projects.

World Bank Has Already Tested Carbon Finance in Brazil

The new fund would build on earlier World Bank efforts to connect Brazilian climate projects with private finance.

In 2022, the World Bank approved a $500 million project with Banco do Brasil. This project aims to boost sustainability-linked lending and help Brazilian companies access carbon markets. The project aims to reduce emissions by up to 90 million tonnes of CO2e by 2030. It also seeks to attract $1.4 billion in private capital.

That project is separate from the new $100 million fund. The latest report only identifies the current partner as a Brazilian bank.

The World Bank also used a different financing structure for Amazon restoration in 2024. It issued a $225 million, nine-year Amazon Reforestation-Linked Outcome Bond. Returns for investors depend partly on carbon removal units from reforestation projects. Mombak raised about $36 million to boost its reforestation efforts in Brazil.

These transactions illustrate how carbon and climate results can be included in everyday financial products. This approach goes beyond just direct project investments.

Brazil Is Building a Larger Carbon Market

Brazil is also creating a stronger domestic framework for carbon markets. The country established the Brazilian Emissions Trading System, or SBCE, through Law No. 15,042, enacted on December 11, 2024. The law created a regulated carbon market and set rules for emissions trading, carbon credits, and related infrastructure.

brazil ghg emissions trading system
Source: ICAP

Implementation is now moving forward. In July 2026, Brazilโ€™s Ministry of Finance began public consultations. They focused on which sectors would be included in emissions monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV). The consultation also addressed a proposed timetable for implementing the system.

The government said the MRV framework will help create an official and reliable emissions database. That information will later help support:

  • decisions on the emissions cap,
  • allocation of Brazilian Emissions Allowances, and
  • the limits for using verified reduction or removal certificates to meet compliance obligations.

The developing regulated market could eventually create another source of demand for eligible emissions reductions.

Nature and Forestry Could Be Major Opportunities

Brazilโ€™s forests offer a large potential project base, particularly for restoration and carbon removal. Public financing is already helping scale this sector.

The BNDES Forest Credit program has approved R$1.9 billion for 14 projects. These projects focus on ecological restoration, productive restoration, native-species forestry, and forest management. BNDES says the program has attracted R$1.59 in private resources for every R$1 invested by the bank.

The bank has also supported projects focused directly on carbon removal. In 2025, BNDES approved R$100 million for Mombak to reforest degraded areas in the Amazon while supporting biodiversity recovery and carbon capture.

These projects illustrate why Brazil could be an important market for carbon finance. The country has vast degraded lands and important forest ecosystems. It is also developing a growing policy framework for carbon markets.

Global Investors Are Looking for Better Credits

The proposed fund also comes as the carbon market becomes more selective. The World Bank reported that carbon credit issuances increased in 2025, but overall prices declined slightly. Credits linked to international aviation and highly rated forest conservation and reforestation projects still attracted premiums.

Investors are now focusing more on the quality, use case, and project type of carbon credits. They’re not seeing all credits as the same anymore.

For a Brazilian fund targeting international buyers, project quality, measurement, and verification will, therefore, be critical. Strong monitoring and clear ownership of the resulting credits would also matter for investors assessing future revenue.

Right now, thereโ€™s no public information on whether the proposed $100 million fund will target voluntary carbon markets, Brazilโ€™s future regulated system, international Article 6 transactions, or a mix of these markets.world bank brazilian bank $00M carbon fund

Article 6 Eligibility Is Not Yet Confirmed

Brazil is building its international carbon market. However, itโ€™s too soon to say that projects funded by the new fund will qualify for international transfers under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

Article 6.2 allows countries to transfer internationally traded mitigation outcomes, known as ITMOs, under cooperative approaches. A corresponding adjustment stops the same emissions reduction from being counted by both the selling and buying countries.

Whether a project can use this framework depends on national authorization and other eligibility requirements. The latest report on the $100 million fund does not disclose whether its credits will receive such authorization.

For now, the fund should therefore be viewed as a proposed financing mechanism rather than a confirmed source of Article 6 credits.

The Bigger Goal: Turn Public Finance Into Private Capital

The most important feature of the proposed vehicle may be its focus on upfront finance. Brazil has already shown that public and development-bank capital can help bring private money into climate projects.

A new international-investor fund could extend that approach specifically to carbon projects. The opportunity is significant, but the details will determine its impact. Investors will need clarity on project selection, expected returns, credit ownership, verification, market eligibility, and risks before committing capital.

For Brazil, the timing is important. Its regulated carbon market is taking shape, private investment in forest projects is growing, and international demand is increasingly focused on higher-quality credits.

The proposed $100 million fund could help connect those trends. But until the World Bank and its Brazilian partner disclose more details, the size of the opportunity remains an early-stage estimate rather than a confirmed pipeline.

UNEP Warns Global Warming May Overshoot 1.5ยฐC, Calls for Faster Emissions Cuts and Carbon Removal

The world is on track to cross the critical 1.5ยฐC warming threshold within the next few years. A new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report says the threshold is increasingly difficult to avoid, but it does not mean the climate fight is over.

UNEPโ€™s Limiting Overshoot report outlines a difficult but still possible path: allow temperatures to rise above 1.5ยฐC for a limited period, push warming to its lowest possible peak, and then bring global temperatures back down.

The strategy depends on much faster emissions cuts, stronger climate adaptation and a major expansion of carbon dioxide removal (CDR). It also highlights a growing reality for governments and businesses: reaching net-zero emissions may no longer be the final destination. The world may eventually need to move into net-negative emissions to reverse some of the warming.

1.5ยฐC Is Becoming a Temporary Threshold

The Paris Agreement established 1.5ยฐC as a key long-term limit for global warming compared with pre-industrial levels. UNEP press release revealed that current climate action, however, is not moving quickly enough to keep warming below it indefinitely.

So even if governments fully implement existing national climate plans and meet additional net-zero commitments, the most optimistic scenario considered by UNEP still sees warming peak at around 1.8ยฐC.

In this context, UN Secretary-General Antล‘nio Guterres said,

โ€œThis summerโ€™s scorching heat, raging wildfires and deadly floods are a warning of what lies ahead. We must make the overshoot above 1.5 degrees as small and short as possible. That demands an overshoot of ambition.”

Other pathways result in even higher temperatures.

The difference between 1.5ยฐC and 1.8ยฐC may look small on paper, but the climate consequences can be significant. Every additional fraction of a degree increases pressure on ecosystems, food systems, water supplies, infrastructure and human health.

For vulnerable countries and communities, the consequences could be especially severe.

Small island nations and low-lying coastal cities face growing risks from rising seas. Extreme heat and flooding could become more disruptive, while changing ocean conditions would place additional pressure on marine ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.

UNEP carbon emissions
Source: UNEP

The Longer Temperatures Stay High, the Greater the Risk

The problem is not only how high temperatures rise. How long they remain elevated also matters.

Higher and prolonged warming increases the risk of major climate systems reaching tipping points. UNEP highlights threats involving the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, the Amazon rainforest and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC.

Some climate changes could build gradually. Others could happen much faster than expected.

The effects would also spread through economies. Rising temperatures can increase energy demand, damage infrastructure, raise insurance costs and put additional pressure on financial systems.

Food and water security are another major concern. Without effective adaptation, global food production could decline by as much as 14% by 2050, according to the report.

These risks make limiting the peak temperature increasingly important, even if the 1.5ยฐC target is temporarily exceeded.

Global warming
Source: UNEP

Additionally, Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP, said:

โ€œThere are no good outcomes if we remain above 1.5ยฐC. Across the globe, extreme heatwaves are already proving that climate impacts will strike faster, hit harder, and last longer – costing more lives and causing deeper disruption. Now is the time we must double down on climate action. We can โ€“ and must โ€“ get on the right path. By cutting greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening resilience and adaptation, and ensuring exceedance of 1.5ยฐC is as small and short as possible.โ€

The Worldโ€™s Best Remaining Option: Overshoot, Peak and Decline

UNEP describes an โ€œovershoot, peak and declineโ€ pathway as the best remaining option for reducing the damage from a temporary breach of 1.5ยฐC.

The approach has three broad stages.

  1. First, countries need to slow warming as quickly as possible. Deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane and other short-lived climate pollutants, would slow the rate of temperature rise.
  2. Next comes the peak. During this period, economies would need to continue cutting emissions and reach at least net-zero while adapting to increasingly severe climate impacts.
  3. The final stage involves bringing temperatures down through sustained net-negative carbon dioxide emissions. This is where carbon removal becomes critical.
Carbon removal
Sourced from UNEP Report

Carbon Removal Moves From Backup Plan to Climate Tool

Carbon dioxide removal involves taking COโ‚‚ out of the atmosphere and storing it for the long term. Approaches can include restoring forests and other nature-based systems, alongside engineered carbon removal technologies.

UNEP makes an important distinction: carbon removal cannot replace emissions reductions.

Companies and governments cannot continue emitting at current levels and rely on CDR to solve the problem later. Emissions must fall sharply first, with carbon removal addressing residual emissions and eventually helping the world move toward net-negative emissions.

The report also stresses the importance of keeping peak warming well below 2ยฐC. Carbon removal can contribute to a return below 1.5ยฐC only if remaining emissions are brought down substantially, and removal is deployed responsibly.

Strong governance will therefore become increasingly important. Carbon removal projects need credible measurement, environmental safeguards and rules that address questions of scale, fairness and long-term storage.

Adaptation Will Be Just as Important

Even a successful return below 1.5ยฐC would not erase the damage caused during the period of higher temperatures.

Some communities could face permanent changes to their environments, livelihoods and economies. In certain locations, relocation may become necessary.

Adaptation must therefore progress alongside emissions reductions and carbon removal.

The most effective strategies can deliver both benefits at the same time. Nature-based cooling, for example, can help reduce heat exposure while supporting ecosystems and improving resilience.

Adaptation will also need to become more flexible. Climate risks can change rapidly, and infrastructure designed for past conditions may not be suitable for a warmer world.

Three Phases of the Climate Response

UNEP divides the response into three interconnected phases.

Immediate action focuses on slowing warming through rapid emissions reductions, especially methane cuts, while protecting vulnerable communities and ecosystems.

Coping and containment begins as temperatures approach their peak. Governments and businesses would need to accelerate decarbonization, reach at least net-zero, and strengthen resilience against increasingly severe impacts.

Long-term resilience comes as temperatures begin to decline. Sustained net-negative COโ‚‚ emissions would be needed alongside long-term adaptation and stronger climate resilience.

The timeline for moving through these stages will depend heavily on how quickly governments act.

emission mitigation
Source: UNEP

Climate Action Is Now a Race Against the Peak

Crossing 1.5ยฐC should not be treated as a new acceptable climate target. The central challenge is to make any overshoot as small and short as possible.

Every fraction of a degree avoided can reduce damage. Every year spent at higher temperatures can increase the risk of irreversible changes.

Reaching the best possible outcome will require more than carbon removal. Governments need stronger climate policies, faster renewable energy deployment, deeper emissions cuts, methane reductions and major investment in adaptation.

Finance and international cooperation will also be essential. Countries with greater historical responsibility for emissions face greater pressure to move faster and provide support to more vulnerable nations.

The climate challenge has therefore entered a new phase. Net-zero remains essential, but it may be only the midpoint. The longer-term goal could require removing more carbon from the atmosphere than humanity emits.

The window for keeping that pathway open is narrowing. The decisions made now will determine not only whether temperatures cross 1.5ยฐC, but also how high they climb, how long they stay there, and whether the world can eventually bring them back down.

Verra Wins ICVCM Approval for VCS Version 5 as Carbon Market Integrity Tightens

Verra has gained key backing for its Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Version 5.ย The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) recognized VCS Version 5 as CCP-Eligible on September 2, 2026. The decision shows that the latest version of Verra’s program meets the ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles (CCPs). These principles set a global standard for trustworthy carbon markets.

The decision is important. Verra runs the world’s largest voluntary carbon credit program. It has issued about 1.3 billion Verified Carbon Units (VCUs) across 2,579 VCS projects in 132 countries. This comes as the voluntary carbon market shifts to stricter rules on credit quality, transparency, and community protections.

However, the approval does not mean every VCS credit can now carry the CCP label. The ICVCM uses a two-step process. First, it assesses the crediting program. It then assesses the specific methodologies and credit categories used to generate credits.

Verra Raises the Bar for Carbon Credit Quality

Verra launched VCS Version 5 in December 2025 as a major update to its carbon crediting rules. The new version aims to improve program integrity, usability, and climate impact. It also strengthens social and environmental safeguards and places more focus on the rights and role of local communities.

Verra developed the new version through three public consultations, which generated nearly 5,000 comments from around 200 respondents. The company says this was the highest response rate for a VCS program consultation.

  • The updated rules cover the entire project lifecycle. They include project design, validation, monitoring, verification, and credit issuance.

Verra states that projects must create carbon credits that are additional, properly measured, durable, independently verified, traceable, and not double-counted. These requirements address some of the main concerns that have affected confidence in voluntary carbon markets.

Verra VCS Version 5 updates
Source: Verra

Community Safeguards Take a Bigger Role

One of the biggest changes in Version 5 is its focus on people living in and around carbon projects. Verra says the new rules strengthen protections for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Projects must improve stakeholder engagement, assess social and environmental risks, and put safeguards in place.

The standard also calls for clearer financial transparency and fair benefit-sharing arrangements before projects begin. This is important because many carbon projects involve forests, farmland, or other land used by local communities.

A project may deliver a measurable climate benefit but still face serious concerns if it does not respect land rights or share benefits fairly. By putting these safeguards directly into the program rules, Verra is trying to make social performance a core part of credit quality rather than a separate add-on.

ICVCM Approval Comes With an Important Catch

The distinction between CCP-Eligible and CCP-Approved is critical.

The ICVCM first checks if a crediting program has good governance, transparency, tracking, third-party verification, and clear rules for measuring emissions reductions and removals. After that, it assesses the methodologies used to create different types of credits.

Only credits from a CCP-Eligible program and a CCP-Approved methodology may bear the CCP label. This means VCS Version 5’s new status strengthens the program, but buyers still need to check the methodology behind a specific credit.

That two-step system is designed to avoid assigning a single broad quality label to credits that use very different methods.

ICVCM Approves 13 Verra Methodologies

Alongside VCS Version 5, the ICVCM has approved 13 methodologies and one VCS Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ Framework that are active in Verra’s program. The approved methodologies cover several project types, including:

  • Afforestation, reforestation and revegetation, biochar, improved forest management, REDD+, cookstoves, rice production, landfill gas, renewable electricity and coal-mine methane.

The approved methodologies are the following:

Verra ICVCM-Approved Methodologies

As of August 12, 2026, the ICVCM’s broader assessment program had approved 44 methodologies in total, per its assessment-status page. That means Verra’s approved methodologies now form a meaningful part of the CCP-approved market.

Version 5 Is Not Fully Mandatory Yet

Another important detail is timing. Verra launched VCS Version 5 in December 2025, but many of its project-level requirements do not become mandatory until January 1, 2027.

Verra fully operationalized Version 5 in June 2026 by publishing the updated templates and guidance needed for project developers. This allows projects to begin using the new system.

  • Existing projects have transition paths, while new projects registering after January 1, 2027 generally must use Version 5 requirements.
  • All existing projects must transition to Version 5 safeguard requirements after January 1, 2030. Some projects have a longer transition period.

This staged approach gives developers time to adapt while gradually moving the whole program toward the new rules.

Carbon Reversal Risk Gets a New Option

Version 5 also introduces a pilot for managing non-permanence risk. Land-based carbon projects can face the risk that stored carbon is released later through events such as fires, drought, or land-use changes.

Verra’s traditional system uses a pooled buffer approach to manage some of this risk. Version 5 allows a pilot using insurance or fund-based approaches as alternatives.

The goal is to give project developers more ways to protect against carbon reversals. Verra says this could help unlock more financing for projects that use these approaches.

The move is especially relevant for nature-based projects, where long-term storage remains one of the biggest concerns for carbon buyers.

Verra VCS standard version 5

Can Tougher Rules Restore Confidence in the VCM?

The ICVCM’s endorsement comes at a critical time for voluntary carbon markets. Buyers increasingly want proof that credits provide real climate benefits. They also want clearer information about project risks, community impacts, and how credits are measured.

The ICVCM created the CCP framework partly to address those concerns. It says the CCP label should make it easier for buyers to identify and price high-integrity credits across different standards and project types. That could help reduce confusion in a market where credits can vary widely in quality and price.

For Verra, the decision also provides external recognition of the changes it has made to its flagship standard. However, the approval does not eliminate the need for project-level scrutiny.

A CCP-eligible program includes many projects. Individual credits rely on the methodology, project design, monitoring, and verification used.

What It Means for Carbon Credit Buyers

For buyers, the new VCS status could make some Verra credits easier to evaluate. However, they still need to check whether the specific methodology and credit category have CCP approval. They also need to consider the project’s location, vintage, environmental risks, and social impacts.

This is especially important because Verra has a very large existing project base. Its program has issued about 1.3 billion VCUs, but those credits span many project types and years.

New Version 5 projects will face stricter rules, but existing projects will transition over time. That means the voluntary market will have a mix of credits operating under older and newer requirements for several years.

The market will need clear communication about those differences.

For the wider VCM, the next question is whether these stricter rules translate into more buyer confidence, better project practices, and greater demand for high-integrity credits.

The ICVCM approval is therefore more than a standards update. It is another step toward a carbon market where quality, transparency, and community protections play a larger role in determining which credits attract buyers and climate finance.

Econetix Lands Million-Dollar RWE Deal as CORSIA Carbon Credit Shortage Deepens

Econetix, a carbon project developer, has signed a million-dollar deal with RWE Supply & Trading. This agreement allows the German energy trader access to carbon credits for the international aviation market under CORSIA.

The deal, announced September 1, 2026, will see Vienna-based Econetix supply CORSIA-eligible carbon credits from its certified project portfolio. RWE will then market the credits to airlines and other buyers that need units for compliance.

The deal shows a major challenge for CORSIA: airlines might need many more eligible credits than the market can provide right now.

RWE Builds a New Bridge to Airline Carbon Buyers

Under the partnership, Econetix will provide CORSIA-eligible credits from its portfolio to RWE Supply & Trading. RWE will act as the intermediary. It will use its trading platform and customer network to connect the credits with airlines and other compliance-driven buyers.

The companies did not disclose the exact value or volume of credits covered by the agreement. Econetix described it as a million-dollar forward supply agreement.

A forward deal allows a buyer to secure future credit supply before all of the credits are ready for delivery. That can be useful in CORSIA because projects often need time to secure host-country approval, complete certification, and receive the required labels.

For developers, a committed buyer can also make future projects easier to finance. For RWE, the agreement adds another source of credits for customers preparing for CORSIA’s first compliance deadline.

CORSIAโ€™s Carbon Credit Gap Is Getting Harder to Ignore

The timing reflects a major supply problem. ICAO’s latest CORSIA Eligible Emissions Unit Supply Project estimates 170 million to 236 million tonnes of demand during the 2024โ€“2026 first phase. It puts eligible supply from 10 countries at about 36-38 million tonnes as of June 2026.

Sylvera data also shows a similar trend for the demand and supply gap for CORSIA credits.ย 

corsia credit demand and supply gap sylvera

ICAO estimates that the first phase could create a $4 billion to $5 billion climate investment opportunity for developing countries. These countries can provide eligible emissions units.

IATA’s June 2026 market update gives a similar warning. The main scenario shows a first-phase demand of 213 million tonnes. However, there are only 38 million tonnes of eligible units available. This results in a shortfall of about 175 million tonnes.

The small difference between the ICAO and IATA supply figures reflects timing and methodology. But both point to the same conclusion: CORSIA supply remains far below potential demand. That gap is creating stronger interest in forward agreements such as the Econetix-RWE deal.

What Makes a Credit CORSIA Eligible?

Not every carbon credit can enter the CORSIA market. ICAO maintains a specific list of approved emissions-unit programs and sets rules for eligible vintages and other conditions.

For the 2024โ€“2026 first phase, eligible programs include standards such as:

  • American Carbon Registry,
  • Gold Standard,
  • Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard, and
  • Isometric, among others.

Credits also need to meet host-country requirements.

For many credits issued from 2021 onward, ICAO requires evidence linked to host-country authorization and corresponding adjustments. These rules help prevent a country from counting the same emissions reduction toward its own climate target after an airline uses the credit under CORSIA.

That makes CORSIA supply more difficult to build than a normal voluntary carbon project. A project may generate carbon credits, but that does not mean those credits are automatically eligible for aviation compliance.

Article 6 Is Becoming Central to CORSIA

The CORSIA market is also becoming closely linked to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Host countries must approve projects and follow accounting rules before credits can be used internationally.

Econetix says its portfolio includes projects with Article 6 Letters of Authorization and corresponding adjustments. Its earlier Rwanda cookstove project, for example, received authorization for up to 1.77 million tonnes of CORSIA supply.

Econetix carbon developer in numbers
Source: Econetix

In August, Econetix also secured a Ugandan authorization covering up to 10 million tonnes of CO2e from its clean cooking program for vintages from 2025 to 2030. The company described that as the largest single Article 6 authorization granted to a private company in Uganda.

These authorizations do not mean all 11.77 million tonnes will immediately become available to airlines. Projects still need to meet the relevant CORSIA and certification requirements.

But they show how host-country approvals can create a pipeline of future eligible supply.

Econetix Builds a Six-Country CORSIA Pipeline

The RWE deal follows several other CORSIA-related transactions for Econetix. The company said it is advancing more than 10 projects across the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. It has already signed supply deals with SCB Environmental Markets and SmartestEnergy.

Econetix CORSIA article 6 carbon projects
Source: Econetix

In July, Econetix also delivered its first Phase 1-tagged CORSIA credits under an earlier million-dollar agreement with a major international commodity trading house. That delivery is important because it shows a distinction between having a project pipeline and delivering credits that buyers can actually use.

Econetix’s new RWE agreement adds another commercial channel for future supply. For the company, the strategy appears to be moving from individual project development toward a broader CORSIA supply platform.

Airlines Race Toward the 2028 Compliance Deadline

CORSIA’s timing is putting pressure on buyers. The scheme’s first phase runs from 2024 through 2026. Airlines must then cancel the eligible emissions units needed to meet their obligations. ICAO’s timetable sets January 31, 2028 as the deadline for cancellation of units linked to the first compliance period.

That means airlines do not simply need credits eventually. They need qualifying units ready for use ahead of the deadline.

ICAO says 130 states will participate in CORSIA from 2026, increasing to 134 states from 2027, together covering about 85% of international aviation emissions. As participation grows, the need for eligible units could increase. This is one reason airlines, traders and other buyers are securing supply early.

CORSIA compliance requirements abatable

The CORSIA Credit Crunch Could Reward Early Supply

CORSIA is moving toward a larger compliance market. IATA estimates airlines might buy over 200 million credits in the first phase, valued at $4 billion to $5 billion. Demand could reach almost 2 billion credits by 2035.

ICAO estimates a first-phase supply gap of up to 200 million tonnes, while IATA puts the gap at about 175 million tonnes in its central scenario.

That shortage makes forward deals such as the Econetix-RWE agreement more important. The deal gives RWE access to future CORSIA-eligible credits while giving Econetix a route to airline and other compliance buyers.

However, projects still need financing, host-country approval, validation, verification, and CORSIA eligibility before they can deliver credits. With airlines facing a January 2028 deadline to cancel units for the first compliance period, securing reliable future supply is becoming increasingly important.

Textile Emissions Are Rising. Can Carbon Credits Help the Industry Cut Its Footprint?

The textile industry is facing a difficult climate equation. Global demand for clothing and other textile products continues to grow, while the industry is under increasing pressure to reduce emissions across energy use, raw materials, manufacturing and transportation.

The scale of the challenge is becoming clearer. The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that the fashion and textile sector accounts for 2% to 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The sector also consumes about 215 trillion liters of water annually, highlighting how closely its climate footprint is tied to broader resource use.

More recent data suggests that emissions are not falling fast enough.

The Apparel Impact Institute calculated that global apparel emissions reached 944 million metric tons of COโ‚‚e in 2023, up 7.5% from the previous year. The increase represented the first year-over-year rise in the institute’s series and was driven largely by higher apparel production and growing dependence on virgin polyester.

At the same time, the industry’s raw-material base continues to expand.

Global Fiber Production Hits Another Record

Textile Exchange reported that global fiber production climbed to approximately 132 million tonnes in 2024, up from 125 million tonnes in 2023. That means production has increased by roughly 34 million tonnes since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015. Textile Exchange expects continued growth toward 2030, and polyester sits at the center of this problem..

The trend matters because additional production can offset efficiency improvements. Even if individual factories become cleaner, total emissions can continue rising when the industry produces more material.

global fiber production
Source: Textile Exchange Materials Market Report 2025.
  • Textile Exchange said polyester production reached approximately 78 million tonnes in 2024, accounting for about 59% of global fiber production. Synthetic fibers as a whole represented around 69% of the market.

The problem is that most polyester remains fossil-fuel-based. The industry therefore faces a double challenge: reducing the emissions associated with manufacturing textiles while also limiting the growth of virgin fossil-based materials.

Recycling is growing, but not quickly enough.

The share of recycled fibers was about 7.6% of the global fiber market in 2024, according to Textile Exchange. Yet less than 1% of global fiber production came from recycled pre- and post-consumer textiles. Most recycled polyester still comes from plastic bottles rather than old clothing.

That leaves manufacturers with a large decarbonization opportunity.

Where Textile Emissions Come From?

Textile emissions do not come from a single stage of production.

The footprint starts with raw materials. Producing polyester requires fossil feedstocks, while cotton can carry emissions from fertilizer, irrigation, farm machinery and land use.

The next major source is manufacturing.

Spinning, weaving, knitting, dyeing, finishing and drying can require substantial amounts of electricity and heat. In countries where factories rely heavily on coal and natural gas, the carbon intensity of textile production can be particularly high.

Transportation further boosts the emissions.

Recent corporate disclosures show how quickly logistics emissions can rise when brands depend on air freight. Shein reported 8.52 million tonnes of COโ‚‚e from transportation in 2024, up 13.7% from 2023. Inditex reported 2.61 million tonnes of transport-related emissions in its 2024 financial year, up 10%.

The figures demonstrate why textile decarbonization cannot focus solely on fabric.

It needs to address the entire value chain.

TEXTILE EMISSIONS
Source: Textile Exchange

Textile Carbon Credits Could Create a New Financial Incentive

This is where carbon markets become increasingly relevant.

A textile carbon credit can represent a verified reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions. In practical terms, a factory could reduce its emissions through measures such as renewable electricity, energy-efficiency improvements, fuel switching or cleaner industrial heat.

If the reduction qualifies under an approved carbon-crediting system, the resulting environmental benefit could potentially become a tradable asset.

Indiaโ€™s Textile Carbon Market Takes Shape, Sets an Exampleย 

That creates a direct economic incentive to reduce the amount of emissions generated per unit of textile production.

And the system is moving closer to implementation.

In August 2026, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency opened a tender to engage agencies for baseline energy and greenhouse-gas emissions data collection for the textile sector under CCTS.

This is an important development because reliable baselines are essential before factories can accurately determine how much they have reduced emissions.

What Textile Factories Can Do to Generate Reductions?

The biggest opportunities are likely to come from technologies that reduce fossil-fuel consumption.

Factories can replace coal- or gas-fired thermal systems with electric equipment where technically feasible. Renewable electricity can also reduce emissions from spinning, weaving and other electricity-intensive processes.

Energy efficiency offers another relatively immediate opportunity.

Efficient boilers, motors, compressors, heat recovery systems and process controls can reduce energy consumption without necessarily requiring a complete redesign of a factory.

Fuel switching could become particularly important for dyeing and finishing, where industrial heat represents a significant energy requirement.

Carbon-credit revenues could help improve the economics of these investments.

But there is an important caveat.

A company should not treat carbon credits as a substitute for cutting its own emissions. High-quality climate strategies prioritize direct reductions first. Credits can then provide an additional financial mechanism for verified reductions that meet strict accounting and verification requirements.

The Bigger Opportunity is Supply-Chain Finance

The textile industry’s carbon problem extends far beyond major fashion brands.

Thousands of manufacturers produce yarn, fabric, dyes, garments and finished products for global brands. Many smaller suppliers lack the capital to install renewable energy, modern boilers or advanced efficiency systems.

Carbon finance could potentially help bridge that gap.

This is particularly relevant to Scope 3 emissions. Verra’s emerging Scope 3 Standard program is designed to certify value-chain interventions and issue units associated with verified greenhouse-gas benefits. Its development work specifically includes textiles as a potential value-chain application.

That could eventually allow brands to help finance emissions reductions at supplier facilities while establishing a clearer link between the investment and the resulting climate benefit.

The model could look something like this:

  • Brand financing โ†’ Factory investment โ†’ Verified emissions reduction โ†’ Carbon unit โ†’ Revenue/Scope 3 accounting

The key will be credible measurement.

Without accurate production data, energy data, and emissions baselines, it becomes difficult to determine whether a claimed reduction is real and additional.

Europe is Adding Another Layer of Pressure

The economics of textile emissions are also changing because governments are targeting waste and overproduction.

  • EU textile consumption reached 19 kg per person in 2022, up from 17 kg in 2019. EU households’ textile consumption generated an estimated 159 million tonnes of COโ‚‚e in 2022, equal to about 355 kg per person.
  • Europe also generated approximately 6.94 million tonnes of textile waste in 2022, or 16 kg per person.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the EUโ€™s textile consumption

eu textlie emission
Source: European Environment Agency (eea.europa.eu)

The EU is moving toward stronger producer-responsibility and circularity requirements, while France has already introduced environmental fees targeting ultra-fast-fashion businesses such as Shein and Temu. And thisย could make low-carbon production increasingly important for exporters.

EU textile emission

But Carbon Credits Are Not the Whole Solution

The textile industry’s climate challenge is ultimately a production problem.

Textile Exchange’s Climate+ strategy calls for a 45% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions from fiber and raw-material production by 2030. Yet the organization says the industry remains off track to meet that target. This gap explains why carbon finance is attracting attention.

The opportunity is not simply to create another market for offsets. It is to direct capital toward factories and supply chains that can produce measurable, permanent and additional emissions reductions.

For investors, the most interesting opportunities may therefore sit behind the clothing brandsโ€”in renewable industrial heat, energy efficiency, low-carbon dyes, recycled fibers, textile-to-textile recycling and cleaner manufacturing.

For textile manufacturers, the message is even more direct.

Carbon is becoming a cost. But with credible measurement and the right market structure, it can also become a source of financing for the transition.

The companies that reduce emissions most efficiently could eventually gain an advantage not only in compliance but also in access to global customers demanding lower-carbon supply chains.

A summary of key textile carbon and emissions data

Sources: Textile Exchange, Apparel Impact Institute, EEA and UNEP.

Bottom Line

Textile carbon credits are still an emerging market, but India’s inclusion of textiles in its compliance carbon market could be a major turning point. The combination of emissions-intensity targets, factory-level baselines and tradable certificates could turn decarbonization from a sustainability expense into a measurable financial incentive.

Google, Fervo (FRVO Stock) Sign Record Geothermal Deal to Power AI

Google is turning to next-generation geothermal power as it expands its artificial intelligence infrastructure. The tech giant and geothermal developer Fervo Energy have signed a 396-megawatt (MW) power purchase agreement (PPA) for Fervo’s Cape Station project in Utah. The deal has a 15-year term and marks the largest enhanced geothermal power purchase agreement to date, according to Fervo.

Power delivery will start in the third quarter of 2028 through four 99 MW blocks. Google also has an option for about 600 MW of additional capacity, which could bring total contracted capacity to roughly 950 MW by June 2030.

The deal comes as AI data centers drive electricity demand higher. It also shows why companies are looking for clean power that can operate around the clock, rather than relying only on variable sources such as solar and wind. Lucia Tian, at Google, remarked:

โ€œThe next chapter of advanced power generation technology is being written in Utah. This project will drive meaningful economic benefit to the local community and help catalyze long-term energy cost reductions by making enhanced geothermal more affordable and accessible.โ€

Google Locks In 396 MW of Next-Gen Geothermal

The agreement covers 396 MW from Fervo’s Cape Station enhanced geothermal system in Beaver County, Utah. Fervo will provide power through four 99-MW blocks, with deliveries starting in Q3 2028. The agreement will run for 15 years.

CEO and Co-Founder of Fervo, Tim Latimer, noted:

โ€œAs demand for reliable electricity grows, customers like Google need energy resources that can be deployed at scale, operate around the clock, and deliver where power is needed. This new PPA is part of our repeatable commercial model that enables us to meet customer needs and directly deliver clean, firm power to large electricity users.โ€

Google has not finalized the location of the Utah data center that could use the power. The company says the geothermal supply would support a potential Utah data center presence, subject to engineering, regulatory, and commercial approvals.

The deal therefore secures power before Google has announced a final data center site.

The tech giant can also choose to buy about 600 MW of additional Cape Station capacity. If it exercises the option and the companies reach final terms, total contracted capacity could reach about 950 MW, with the added capacity guaranteed to operate by June 2030.

The financial terms were not disclosed.

AI Is Creating Demand for Firm Clean Power

The deal comes as data centers become a much larger source of electricity demand. The International Energy Agency expects global data center electricity use to rise from about 415 TWh in 2024 to around 945 TWh by 2030. AI is the main driver of the increase.

Google is already moving quickly to secure more clean energy. The company says it signed contracts for more than 12 GW of new clean energy in 2025, its largest annual total. It also aims to run its data centers and offices on 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030.

Google carbon-free energy goal 2030
Source: Google

That goal is harder than simply matching yearly electricity use with renewable energy purchases. A data center needs power at night and during periods when solar or wind output is low.

Geothermal can help fill that gap because it can generate electricity continuously.

Fervo’s Enhanced Geothermal Could Unlock New Resources

Traditional geothermal power depends on natural underground conditions. That limits where developers can build projects. Fervo uses enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) to reach heat in hot rock that lacks the natural conditions needed for conventional geothermal plants.

The company uses drilling techniques adapted from the oil and gas industry to create engineered geothermal reservoirs. The approach could allow geothermal development in more places.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration says geothermal plants generated about 16 billion kWh of electricity in 2025, equal to roughly 0.4% of U.S. utility-scale generation. That small share shows how much room geothermal has to grow. If EGS can lower costs and work in more locations, it could become a larger source of firm clean power.

geothermal resources in USA.jpg
Source: US EIA

For AI companies, that could be especially valuable because data centers need reliable electricity around the clock.

Cape Station Is Built to Scale

The Google deal helps move Cape Station from an early project into a much larger commercial development. Fervo’s first phase is about 100 MW.

The company expects its first GeoBlock to begin producing test power in Q4 2026, with full production expected by the end of the year. Its second phase represents about 400 MW and is expected to come online in 2028.

Fervo expects Phase II to reach an installed cost of about $5,500 per kilowatt. Its long-term goal is to reduce that cost to $3,000 per kilowatt.

Lower costs will be critical if enhanced geothermal is to compete with other large-scale clean energy technologies. Fervo says it is using a repeatable GeoBlock design to make future projects easier and cheaper to build.

The company also reported a commercial development pipeline of more than 50 GW at the end of June 2026. It went public last May 2026 on Nasdaq under the FRVO stock ticker.ย 

Google and Fervo Take Their Partnership to the Next Level

The new agreement builds on a partnership that started in 2021. Google and Fervo developed an enhanced geothermal project in Nevada known as Project Red. Fervo began producing power from the pilot in 2023, supplying electricity to the local grid, including the system serving Google’s Nevada data centers.

In June 2024, Google, Fervo and NV Energy signed a separate 115 MW agreement in Nevada. That deal supported NV Energy’s Clean Transition Tariff, which lets Google help fund new geothermal power while limiting the cost impact on other utility customers.

The Utah agreement now moves the relationship to a much larger commercial scale. It also shows how large technology companies can help emerging clean-energy technologies reach the market by committing to long-term power purchases.

Geothermal Could Fill the Gaps Left by Solar and Wind

The value of geothermal goes beyond supplying one data center. Unlike solar and wind, geothermal plants can operate regardless of weather and time of day. That makes them useful as a steady power source alongside variable renewables.

Google’s clean energy strategy includes solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and geothermal. The company says a mix of clean energy technologies can help supply power when variable renewable sources are not producing enough electricity.

Fervo’s systems could therefore complement growing solar and wind capacity rather than replace it. This could become increasingly important as electricity demand rises from AI, electric vehicles and industrial electrification.

More firm clean power can also reduce the need for fossil-fuel generation during periods of high demand. For carbon markets, the benefit is indirect. The geothermal deal is not a carbon credit purchase. Still, replacing fossil-based electricity with new clean generation can lower the emissions intensity of the power system.

Fervo (FRVO) Stock Jumps on Google Deal

Investors reacted strongly to the announcement. Fervo shares jumped 28.41% to $19.75 on September 1, according to market data, with trading volume reaching about 35.1 million shares. The company went public on Nasdaq in May 2026.ย 

The rise came after Fervo announced the 396 MW Google agreement.

The market reaction shows how important long-term customer contracts are for an emerging power company. A major buyer such as Google can provide more visibility into future demand and help support financing for large projects.

However, FRVO stock remains highly volatile. Fervo’s projects still face construction, financing, permitting, and operating risks.

Fervo FRVO stock

AI Could Give Enhanced Geothermal Its Breakthrough Moment

The Google-Fervo agreement is a power purchase deal, not a carbon offset transaction. Google is paying for electricity from a new geothermal project. The company is not using the deal as a substitute for direct emissions cuts.

That distinction matters as companies face growing pressure to show that climate claims reflect real changes in energy use, especially AI.

The tech giant says it is working toward 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030 and continues to invest in new clean generation. Fervo’s deal could help support that goal by adding firm power that can operate when solar and wind output is low.

The geothermal developer also has a major opportunity ahead. Its pipeline exceeds 50 GW, while its long-term cost target is $3,000 per kW.

The next challenge is execution. The company must build projects at scale, control costs, and show that enhanced geothermal can provide reliable power at competitive prices. The Google agreement gives it a major customer and a clearer path to growth.

The bigger story is that AI is creating demand not only for more electricity, but for new forms of reliable, low-carbon power. If Fervo can scale enhanced geothermal as planned, the technology could become an important part of the clean-energy system supporting the next generation of AI infrastructure.

Amazon’s $2.8 Billion Clean Energy Push in Australia: Why Battery Storage Matters

Amazon (AMZN stock) is expanding its clean-energy strategy in Australia with a move that could become increasingly important as renewable power takes a larger role in the country’s electricity system. It has signed its first standalone battery storage agreement globally for the 50-megawatt Bairnsdale battery energy storage system (BESS) in Victoria. It is also the first standalone battery agreement signed by a non-energy company in Australia.

The project marks a shift in how Amazon approaches renewable energy. Rather than focusing only on adding wind and solar generation, the company is investing in infrastructure that can help manage when electricity is produced and when it is needed.

That distinction matters because Australia’s renewable energy system is producing more electricity at certain times than the grid can immediately use.

Australia clean energy
Chart from The Energy.com

Why Amazon Is Investing in Battery Storage

The Bairnsdale battery is not directly connected to a solar or wind farm. Instead, it connects to the national electricity grid. This allows the battery to operate independently of a specific renewable project. When electricity supply is high and demand is relatively low, the system can store power. Later, when demand increases, it can send electricity back into the grid.

The timing is particularly important for solar power. Solar farms can produce large amounts of electricity around midday, when sunlight is strongest. However, electricity demand often rises later in the day as households return home, businesses remain active and solar generation begins to decline.

Battery storage helps bridge this gap.

Instead of curtailing surplus renewable electricity, the grid can store some of it and use it during periods of higher demand. In turn, this can reduce pressure on the electricity system, improve grid flexibility and make renewable generation more valuable.

  • Australia produced an estimated 7.2 terawatt-hours of surplus wind and solar electricity in 2025. Much of this electricity was generated at times when the grid did not need all of the available supply.

Consequently, batteries are becoming a critical part of Australia’s energy transition.

Amazon’s Growing Energy Portfolio in Australia

Bairnsdale is only one part of Amazon’s expanding energy investments in Australia. The company has invested in seven battery projects in Victoria and 10 battery projects across Australia. Once completed, the projects are expected to provide a combined 368 MW of battery capacity.

At the same time, the retail giant continues to develop a broader portfolio of renewable energy projects.

  • Since 2020, the company estimates that it has invested about A$2.8 billion in carbon-free energy projects across Australia. Its portfolio includes solar, wind and battery storage.
  • It expects its 20 Australian carbon-free energy projects to eventually provide almost 1 GW of new renewable capacity. The company estimates the electricity generated will be equivalent to the annual consumption of more than half a million Australian households.

The scale of this investment highlights an important change in corporate renewable energy procurement. Large companies are no longer simply looking for enough renewable electricity to match their consumption. Increasingly, they are looking at how their investments can support the wider electricity system.

Carbon Footprint Adds to this Context

Amazon’s renewable energy investments also need to be viewed against the scale of its overall carbon footprint.

The company’s emissions come from a broad global operation that includes data centers, transportation, warehouses, buildings, purchased electricity, and its supply chain. As its logistics network and cloud computing business continue to expand, reducing emissions across these activities remains a significant challenge.

Amazon has committed to reaching net-zero carbon emissions across its operations by 2040 through The Climate Pledge. The company says its approach starts with reducing emissions across its operations and supply chain. It also plans to address remaining emissions through measures such as carbon removal, nature-based solutions and other forms of carbon neutralization.

emissions Amazon
Source: Amazon

Closing the Emission Gapย 

Renewable energy is therefore only one part of the strategy. Battery storage is becoming relevant because it can help Amazon address electricity-related emissions while also supporting a more flexible grid.

Amazon reached its goal of matching 100% of the electricity consumed by its global operations with renewable energy in 2025, five years earlier than its original 2030 target. However, matching electricity consumption with renewable energy does not eliminate all of the company’s emissions.

“According to BloombergNEF, Amazon was the largest corporate purchaser of carbon-free energy in Australia in 2025.”

Its wider carbon footprint means Amazon still needs to reduce emissions from transportation, buildings, manufacturing, suppliers and other parts of its value chain.

Data Center Demand Makes Grid Investment More Important

The battery investment comes as electricity demand is expected to rise. Amazon Web Services operates data centers in Australia, while demand for cloud computing and artificial intelligence continues to grow globally. Data centers require large and reliable supplies of electricity, making access to clean and dependable power increasingly important.

This creates a complicated challenge.

Adding more solar and wind capacity can reduce the carbon intensity of electricity, but these resources do not produce power continuously. At the same time, data centers require electricity around the clock. Battery storage can help manage short-term fluctuations by shifting electricity from periods of abundant supply to periods of stronger demand.

  • Thus, industry forecasts predict the Australian battery market will grow from $4.8 billion in 2026 to $16.36 billion by 2035, with a CAGR of 14.6%.

Australia battery market

For Amazon, this creates a potential double benefit. The company can increase its access to carbon-free electricity while supporting infrastructure that makes the broader grid more capable of absorbing renewable generation.

A Bigger Global Energy Strategy

Amazon’s global clean-energy portfolio has grown rapidly. As of January 2026, the company had supported more than 712 carbon-free energy projects across 30 countries. Together, the projects represented about 42 GW of carbon-free energy capacity.

The portfolio includes wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear power and battery storage.

Amazon says these investments are designed not only to support its own operations but also to bring new energy capacity to the grids where its employees, customers and communities operate.

For investors, the broader trend is worth watching.

The next stage of the energy transition will require more than building wind and solar farms. It will also require batteries, transmission infrastructure, grid connections and other technologies capable of balancing supply and demand.

And the Bairnsdale agreement clearly illustrates this shift.

Extending to Europe

The approach to clean energy also extends well beyond Australia. In Germany, the company has signed an agreement to purchase 600 MW of carbon-free electricity from the Gennaker offshore wind farm in the Baltic Sea. The long-term power purchase agreement gives developer Skyborn Renewables greater certainty over future revenues.

For large renewable projects, such commitments can help developers secure financing and move from planning to construction.

Gennaker is expected to generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of more than one million German households annually once operational.

Amazon has also signed four new power purchase agreements in Sweden. The deals bring its carbon-free energy capacity in the country to nearly 1 GW and increase its portfolio to nine utility-scale wind projects.

These agreements show how corporate buyers can influence renewable energy development beyond their own electricity consumption.

The company is moving from simply purchasing renewable electricity toward investing in the infrastructure needed to make carbon-free power more reliable and useful. As electricity demand from data centers, artificial intelligence and broader electrification grows, that flexibility could become increasingly valuable.

Ultimately, Amazon’s battery investment is not just a clean-energy procurement decision. It reflects a wider shift in the corporate energy market, where companies are increasingly looking beyond renewable generation and toward the infrastructure required to build a more reliable, flexible and lower-carbon electricity system.

What Types of Projects Generate Carbon Credits?

Carbon credits can come from many different types of projects, but they all have one basic purpose: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or remove carbon dioxide (COโ‚‚) from the atmosphere.

A single carbon credit generally represents one metric ton of COโ‚‚ equivalent (tCOโ‚‚e) reduced or removed by a project. For example, a project that captures methane from a landfill may generate credits by preventing that methane from entering the atmosphere. A reforestation project can generate credits by storing additional carbon in growing trees.

The voluntary carbon market (VCM) supports projects across energy, waste, agriculture, forestry, and carbon-removal technologies. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), one of the major carbon crediting programs, currently recognizes project activities across 18 sectoral scopes, ranging from energy and waste to agriculture, forestry, geological carbon storage, engineered removals, and marine resources.

But not all carbon projects work in the same way. The most important distinction is between emissions reduction projects and carbon removal projects.

Emissions Reduction and Avoidance Projects

Many carbon credits come from projects that reduce or avoid emissions that would otherwise occur.

These projects do not necessarily remove COโ‚‚ that is already in the atmosphere. Instead, they reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released compared with a defined baseline.

Common examples include renewable energy, methane capture, energy efficiency, and forest conservation.

Renewable Energy Projects

Renewable energy projects can generate carbon credits when they replace more emissions-intensive sources of electricity or energy.

Solar, wind, and some other renewable energy projects have historically been used in carbon markets. The basic idea is that generating electricity from a low-carbon source can reduce emissions compared with a higher-emitting alternative.

However, whether a renewable energy project can generate credits depends on the applicable methodology and whether the emissions reduction is considered additional. In other words, the project must meet the relevant rules for demonstrating that the carbon market incentive contributes to the claimed climate benefit.

Methane and Waste Projects

Waste projects are another important source of carbon credits. Landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, agriculture, and other waste-related activities can release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Projects can capture methane and either destroy it or use it to generate energy.

Other waste projects can also generate credits by changing how organic waste is treated. Biochar, for example, can be produced from biomass and used in ways that store carbon while also potentially reducing emissions from conventional waste management.

Carbon crediting programs such as Verra include waste handling and disposal among their recognized project categories.

Clean Cooking and Energy Efficiency

Carbon credits can also support technologies that reduce energy use or replace more polluting fuels. Clean cooking projects are one example. Improved cooking technologies can reduce the amount of fuel needed and, depending on the technology and methodology, reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

These projects can also produce health and social benefits by reducing household exposure to harmful cooking smoke.

Clean cooking remains an important carbon market project type. In 2025, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) confirmed that several Gold Standard clean cooking methodologies were eligible under its Core Carbon Principles (CCP), reflecting the continued role of the sector in the voluntary market.

Other energy efficiency projects can include more efficient lighting, heating, appliances, and industrial processes. The Gold Standard, for example, recognizes renewable energy and end-use energy efficiency projects among its eligible activities.

Forestry and Land-Use Projects

Forestry and land-use projects are among the best-known categories in the carbon market. These projects can either avoid emissions or remove and store carbon.

Forest conservation projects, including REDD-related activities, aim to reduce emissions associated with deforestation and forest degradation. Other projects focus on planting trees, restoring forests, improving forest management, or protecting wetlands.

Verra’s Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) category includes afforestation, reforestation and revegetation, agricultural land management, improved forest management, REDD, grassland conservation, and wetland restoration.

The climate benefit comes from either preventing carbon that is already stored in ecosystems from being released or increasing the amount of carbon stored in vegetation, soils, or other natural systems.

However, these projects also face risks that can affect the durability of their carbon benefits. Forests can be damaged by wildfire, pests, drought, storms, or future changes in land use. This makes careful monitoring and appropriate accounting especially important.

Agricultural Projects

Agriculture can generate carbon credits through changes in farming practices that reduce emissions or increase carbon storage.

Examples include improved soil management, changes in fertilizer use, better water management, reduced tillage, improved livestock practices, and other techniques that can lower greenhouse gas emissions or increase soil carbon.

Agricultural projects can be more complex to measure because carbon levels can vary across fields and over time. As a result, strong measurement, reporting, and verification systems are important for determining how much additional climate benefit a project actually creates.

Agriculture is a recognized carbon project category under major standards, including Verra’s VCS.

emissions reductions and avoidance projects

Carbon Removal Projects

The second major category is carbon removal. Unlike an emissions-reduction project, a carbon removal project takes COโ‚‚ from the atmosphere and stores it in a carbon reservoir.

There are several ways to achieve this, ranging from natural approaches such as reforestation to engineered technologies such as direct air capture.

Reforestation and Other Natural Removals

Trees and plants naturally absorb COโ‚‚ as they grow. Reforestation, afforestation, improved forest management, and some agricultural practices can therefore remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in biomass and soils.

Other natural carbon removal projects include wetland restoration and blue carbon projects, which protect or restore carbon-rich coastal and marine ecosystems.

These approaches can provide additional benefits such as biodiversity protection, improved soil health, water management, and support for local communities. However, the stored carbon can be vulnerable to fires, droughts, storms, land-use changes, and other risks.

Biochar

Biochar is another carbon removal approach. It is produced by heating biomass under controlled conditions with little or no oxygen. The resulting material can then be used in soil or other applications.

When biomass absorbs COโ‚‚ as it grows and is subsequently converted into stable biochar, some of that carbon can remain stored for a long period.

Biochar has attracted growing attention because it combines carbon removal with the potential to put agricultural and organic waste to productive use.

carbon removal project types

Direct Air Capture and Engineered Removals

Some carbon removal projects use technology to capture COโ‚‚ directly from the atmosphere. Direct air capture (DAC) uses specialized equipment to extract COโ‚‚ from ambient air. The captured carbon can then be stored underground or used in other applications, depending on the project.

Other engineered approaches include carbon capture and storage, enhanced mineralization, and other technologies designed to permanently or durably store atmospheric COโ‚‚.

These technologies can offer more durable storage than some nature-based approaches, but they are generally more expensive and remain at an earlier stage of deployment.

Demand for durable carbon removals has increased sharply in recent years. In 2025, buyers purchased an estimated 30 million tonnes of durable carbon removal credits, up from about 8 million tonnes in 2024, according to CDR.fyi data. Yet, fewer than 1 million tonnes of durable removal credits had been issued at the time, highlighting the gap between demand and available supply.

durable-cdr-purchase-volume-2022-2026-q1

Why Does the Project Type Matter?

The type of project matters because each approach has different costs, risks, climate benefits, and measurement challenges.

A methane capture project may prevent a powerful greenhouse gas from reaching the atmosphere. A forest project may protect existing carbon stocks or increase biological carbon storage. A DAC facility physically removes COโ‚‚ from the atmosphere and can store it for very long periods.

These differences also affect carbon credit prices. Lower-cost emissions-reduction projects can generate relatively inexpensive credits, while newer carbon-removal technologies can cost substantially more. But a higher price does not automatically mean a better credit.

Buyers should examine whether the claimed emissions reduction or removal is real, measurable, additional, durable, and independently verified. They should also consider risks such as leakage, reversal, and double counting.

The Bottom Line

Carbon credits can be generated by a wide range of projects, from renewable energy and methane capture to forest conservation, clean cooking, agriculture, biochar, and direct air capture.

The key distinction is whether a project reduces or avoids emissions or removes COโ‚‚ from the atmosphere. Both can play a role in climate action, but they have different costs, risks, and methods for measuring their impact.

As the carbon market develops, demand is increasingly shifting toward projects that can demonstrate strong and durable climate benefits. Understanding where a carbon credit comes from is therefore just as important as knowing its price.

Singapore-based CIX, Carbonplace Merger Targets More Connected Global Carbon Market

Climate Impact X (CIX) and Carbonplace plan to merge in a deal that could reshape the infrastructure behind global carbon markets. The Singapore-based environmental markets exchange and London-based carbon portfolio management platform announced their intent to combine on August 26, 2026.

The deal would bring together CIX’s exchange, trading, and price-discovery tools with Carbonplace’s multi-registry access and bank-grade settlement system. The companies say the goal is to create a more connected system for buying, trading, settling, holding, and retiring carbon credits.

The deal still needs regulatory approval. The companies expect to finish the integration by Q1 2027. Both businesses will keep their current brands during this time.

Two Carbon Market Powerhouses Move to Join Forces

CIX and Carbonplace operate at different points in the carbon credit transaction process.

CIX provides procurement, trading, and price discovery. Its platforms include an exchange for standardized carbon contracts and tools for project sourcing and transactions. CIX also provides price benchmarks and data products.

Carbonplace focuses on what happens after a trade. Its platform provides multi-registry access, settlement, custody, reporting, and retirement. It currently connects users to 14 carbon and renewable energy certificate registries through a single system.

The merger would combine these functions. Buyers and sellers could have one clear path. They can find and price credits easily, and they can complete the transaction and track ownership smoothly.

The companies say this could ease some of the friction in the carbon market. Right now, itโ€™s divided across various exchanges, registries, countries, and standards.

CEO Oi-Yee Choo remarked:

โ€œScaling access and liquidity to meet the growing needs of global carbon markets requires robust, trusted infrastructure. This infrastructure must work across voluntary and compliance schemes, and across geographies and standards.โ€

12 Financial Giants Back the Deal

The proposed company will have backing from 12 major financial institutions, investors, and market operators.

  • They are BBVA, BNP Paribas, CIBC, DBS, GenZero, Mizuho Financial Group, National Australia Bank, NatWest Group, Singapore Exchange (SGX), Standard Chartered, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC), and UBS.

The shareholder base gives the deal a strong link to traditional financial markets.

CIX itself was established in 2021 and is backed by DBS, GenZero, Mizuho, SGX, and Standard Chartered. GenZero is a decarbonization investment platform founded by Temasek. In 2020, major banks like BBVA, BNP Paribas, CIBC, National Australia Bank, NatWest, SMBC, Standard Chartered, and UBS supported Carbonplace.

The combined ownership, therefore, gives the new platform access to financial institutions across Asia, Europe, and other major markets.

Can One Platform Fix Carbon Market Fragmentation?

The merger comes as carbon markets try to become larger and more credible. A major challenge is fragmentation.

Different carbon standards and registries use different systems for issuing, tracking, and retiring credits. Buyers may also need separate relationships with different platforms to source credits, assess prices, and complete transactions. That can make carbon trading more complex than trading many traditional financial assets.

CIX and Carbonplace argue that stronger infrastructure can help solve this problem. Their proposed platform would connect price discovery, trading, registry access, settlement, custody, and retirement across the transaction lifecycle.

That could become more important as carbon markets expand beyond voluntary corporate purchases.

Article 6 Could Increase Demand for Infrastructure

The growth of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is one reason companies see a need for better infrastructure.

Article 6.2 allows countries to transfer emissions reductions internationally, provided they follow agreed accounting rules. This creates a potential bridge between national climate policies and international carbon markets.

The CIX-Carbonplace announcement also points to the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). CORSIA requires participating airlines to use eligible emissions units to address certain growth in international aviation emissions.

CIX CORSIA database

As these systems expand, carbon transactions may involve more than just voluntary corporate buyers. Governments, financial institutions, and regulated companies could play a bigger role.

That could increase demand for systems that can track ownership and retirement with clear records.

CIX Brings Trading and Price Discovery to the Table

Price transparency is another major part of the proposed merger. Carbon markets often have different prices for credits based on project type, location, vintage, and quality. This can make it difficult for buyers to compare credits.

CIX database and price benchmark
Source: CIX

CIX operates an exchange and develops price benchmarks designed to provide more visibility into market-driven prices. Its exchange offers standardized contracts. This lets buyers purchase larger volumes of credits that meet specific requirements. They don’t have to pick individual credits from each project one at a time.

Carbonplace adds a different layer. Its system tracks ownership and provides settlement and reporting tools across multiple registries.

Carbonplace database
Source: Carbonplace

Combining the two could address both market sides: finding and pricing credit, then securely completing and recording the transaction.

Singapore and London Build a Carbon Market Bridge

The proposed merger also connects two important financial centers. CIX is headquartered in Singapore, while Carbonplace is based in London. The companies say the combined business could connect participants across different time zones, regulatory systems and trading communities.

That Asia-Europe link could be important for carbon markets.

Southeast Asia offers great potential for nature-based carbon projects. Meanwhile, Europe holds vast amounts of corporate and institutional capital eager for climate investments.

A more connected platform could make it easier to link project developers and suppliers in emerging markets with international buyers.

The companies highlight cooperation among Singapore, the UK, and Kenya. Theyโ€™re working together through the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets. This group aims to boost carbon market development.

CIX and Carbonplace merger

Better Infrastructure Won’t Fix Credit Quality

Despite its potential, the deal does not automatically solve the carbon market’s biggest challenges. A better trading and settlement system cannot by itself guarantee that carbon credits deliver real emissions reductions or removals.

Credit quality remains critical.

CIX says it maintains standards around quality, impact, and credibility for the products offered through its platforms. Carbonplace focuses on secure ownership, tracking, and reporting. The broader market still needs strict rules for additionality, permanence, monitoring, reporting, and verification.

Liquidity is another challenge.

A platform can make trading easier, but buyers and sellers still need to participate at a sufficient scale. Without enough market activity, price discovery and trading volumes can remain limited.

The merger, therefore, provides infrastructure. It does not guarantee the growth of the underlying market.

The Bigger Goal: Unlock Institutional Carbon Trading

The CIX-Carbonplace deal reflects a broader shift in carbon markets.

Early voluntary carbon markets relied heavily on project developers, brokers, and individual registries. As the market becomes more connected to Article 6, CORSIA, and sovereign climate policies, participants need systems that can handle more complex transactions.

The proposed merger aims to provide that foundation. If completed, the merger would mark a major consolidation in carbon market infrastructure.

The bigger question is whether a more connected trading and settlement system can help carbon markets attract the liquidity, transparency and institutional capital needed to scale.