A new initiative involving Amazon, eBay and Etsy is helping bring Tesla electric trucks into real freight operations. The Center for Green Market Activation (GMA), a nonprofit group, is planning a pilot program. This project aims to put about 40 all-electric Tesla Semi trucks on the road between Dallas and Houston. The goal is to reduce emissions from freight transport by using cleaner heavy-duty vehicles.
Under the plan, companies pay for “environmental attribute certificates” (EACs). These certificates represent the emissions savings from electric trucks.
Buyers can use the certificates to reduce their reported Scope 3 emissions. This applies even if they don’t directly use the trucks. All charging for the electric trucks is planned to be covered by renewable energy certificates to support clean power use.
Let’s explore why major online companies are taking part in this system, how Tesla’s Semi vehicles fit in, and what this could mean for decarbonizing freight transport in the United States and even beyond.
Why Freight Is the Next Big Climate Battleground
Heavy-duty freight trucks, especially long-haul Class 8 trucks, are a major source of carbon emissions. Traditional diesel trucks burn fossil fuels and produce large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and air pollutants. They accounted for about 25% of all transport-related CO2 emissions.
Road freight accounts for a sizeable share of transportation sector emissions worldwide. Recent studies show that decarbonizing road freight is tough. Electric options are few, charging stations are still growing, and initial costs are high.
Electric heavy trucks such as the Tesla Semi offer a zero-tailpipe emissions alternative. The Tesla Semi is a battery-electric Class 8 truck designed for freight hauling. It features a battery pack of around 850–900 kWh and an estimated range of about 500 miles (~800 km) per charge on a single route.
The truck uses three electric motors and can operate at around 1.7–2 kWh per mile, making it competitive with diesel trucks over long distances. Planned volume production is expected to begin in 2026.
Using electric trucks like the Semi can cut carbon emissions from freight transport. They may also lower operating costs in the long run. Electricity can cost less per mile than diesel fuel. Also, electric drivetrains have fewer moving mechanical parts, which can cut maintenance costs.
This is crucial as the transport sector needs to adopt zero-emission vehicles much faster to cut emissions by 15% by 2030, per the International Energy Agency Net Zero scenario. This includes electric and hydrogen fuel-cell heavy-duty trucks. To make this happen, more countries must set strong fuel-efficiency rules for heavy trucks and align these standards across regions.
However, electric freight truck adoption faces barriers. Electric heavy trucks are still new, and less than 1% of new heavy-duty trucks in the U.S. are electric. The charging infrastructure for heavy trucks is limited. Also, electric vehicles cost more than regular diesel ones.
What Is Book and Claim? Decarbonizing Freight Without Owning a Truck
The pilot program with Amazon, eBay, and Etsy uses a book-and-claim system. A book-and-claim system divides the environmental benefits of a low-emission product from its physical delivery. It lets companies support decarbonization, even if they can’t use low-emission vehicles directly.
In this case, the environmental attribute certificates represent the emissions savings from operating electric trucks instead of diesel trucks. Participating companies purchase these EACs. They then “retire” them, meaning no one can use the certificate again. This reduction counts toward their climate goals or Scope 3 emissions targets.
This approach is similar to how renewable energy certificates work for electricity. A company can buy certificates for renewable energy generation. This is true even if the actual electricity it uses comes from the grid. The certificates allow buyers to claim the environmental benefits.
Book-and-claim can help scale decarbonization efforts by aggregating demand from many buyers. This pooled demand helps both truck makers and service providers. They have a better reason to invest in electric fleets and charging stations, even if single buyers can’t use trucks on their own routes.
Experts say a clear book-and-claim system with strict rules can help decarbonize transportation. It ensures that emissions savings aren’t double-counted.
How the Pilot Program Works: Miles, Megawatts, and CO₂ Savings
The pilot program is run by the Center for Green Market Activation. This nonprofit aims to speed up climate solutions in supply chains. Under the program:
- Roughly 40 all-electric trucks are expected to operate on the Dallas-Houston freight route.
- The trucks will collectively travel up to 7 million miles per year.
- The trucks save about 60,000 metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalent compared to diesel fleets. This is over the multi-year contracts with buyers.
Amazon, eBay, and Etsy have joined the initiative by purchasing EACs. They will retire the certificates to support their own climate goals and reduce their reported Scope 3 logistics emissions.
All charging for the electric trucks is backed by renewable energy certificates. This means the electricity for powering the truck comes from clean energy, which reduces the carbon footprint of truck operation.
Groups in similar schemes often use book-and-claim. This helps decarbonize sectors with few low-emission options. For instance, sustainable aviation fuel certificates gather demand from airlines and corporate buyers. This helps scale the use of clean fuel.
Why Big Brands Are Buying Clean Freight
Big firms more often set climate goals for their whole value chain, which includes transport emissions. Many emissions are Scope 3. This includes indirect emissions from things like freight transport, business travel, and product use.
Reducing Scope 3 emissions is hard. Companies usually don’t control the sources that create these emissions directly.
Book-and-claim allows companies to access low-emission transport options even if they can’t run them. When companies pool demand, they send a stronger message to manufacturers and carriers. It shows there’s a real market need for clean freight solutions.
Electric trucks, like the Tesla Semi, draw attention because they provide a cleaner option than diesel trucks. They also keep the same freight capacity and range.
Moreover, companies aiming for net-zero and science-based targets are growing. So, the demand for low-emission freight services is likely to increase.
In addition, broader sales of electric heavy vehicles, not just Tesla’s Semi, are rising globally. In China alone, for example, registrations for hybrid and electric trucks reached over 231,000 units in 2025. This was a large increase from the previous year. This trend reflects growing production and adoption of electric freight vehicles worldwide.
Electric heavy trucks need to become as affordable as diesel trucks to scale widely, according to Bloomberg. Even so, the electric truck market is expected to grow fast, accounting for about 18% of truck sales.
Stronger emissions rules, rising demand for clean freight, and more truck models are driving this growth. In China, electric trucks could make up around 50% of new truck sales by 2028. This shows how quickly the market is changing as costs fall and charging networks expand.
A Blueprint for Scaling Zero-Emission Freight
The new pilot connects Amazon, eBay, Etsy, and Tesla Semi trucks, offering an innovative way to reduce carbon in freight transport. Electric heavy-duty trucks, like the Tesla Semi, are nearing mass production, while global sales of electric freight trucks are also rising. Thus, solutions that mix corporate demand, smart accounting, and clean tech could help cut transportation emissions.
This pilot could provide a model for how large buyers and logistics providers work together to accelerate the shift to low-carbon freight systems.
The post Amazon, eBay & Etsy Back Tesla Semis: A New Playbook for Zero-Emission Freight appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
