The Trump administration is set to update America’s quantum computing strategy, reports Cyberscoop. This comes from executives and former national security officials. The plan may involve new executive orders and a national action plan. It will be like the White House’s July AI roadmap. This plan focuses on keeping U.S. leadership in new technologies.
Let’s explore what quantum computing really is, examine the market forecast, and highlight the stocks riding this emerging wave.
Quantum Computing: A Market on the Rise
Quantum computing is an emerging investment space with the potential to transform how information is processed. Experts believe that this technology could reshape cybersecurity, finance, defense, and global communications.
Unlike traditional computers that use bits as 0 or 1, quantum computers use qubits, which can exist in multiple states at once. This ability allows them to solve complex problems thousands of times faster than today’s supercomputers.
The networking system uses rules of quantum mechanics to create ultra-secure communication systems. Instead of relying on encryption that future quantum machines could break, it uses entanglement. It’s a process that links particles across long distances to transmit information instantly and securely.
Simply put, quantum networks deliver unconditional data protection and enable advanced tools like quantum teleportation, transforming how information moves.
- With governments pouring money into research, the global quantum networking market is projected to grow from $1.15 billion in 2025 to $42.11 billion by 2035, representing a massive 43.4% CAGR.
Experts also predict that the quantum computing sector holds huge promise and could rival the impact of artificial intelligence (AI).
Carbon Footprint of Quantum Computing
A 2023 research report found that running large quantum simulations, like a 43-qubit system, could generate 48 times more CO₂ equivalent emissions than training a typical transformer-based machine learning model.
Quantum computing is more computationally efficient than classical supercomputers. This can reduce energy needs for future simulations and AI tasks. Scientists also say that if quantum processors utilize renewable energy and optimized algorithms, their carbon footprint may be much smaller than that of traditional high-performance computing centers.
Thus, to lessen the environmental impact of quantum technology, the industry needs:
-
Sustainable manufacturing of quantum hardware
-
Energy-efficient system designs
-
Responsible sourcing of rare earth elements and other materials
Researchers are looking into “carbon-aware quantum computing.” This means tracking and managing the entire life-cycle carbon footprint of quantum technology.
As the industry aims to cut emissions, quantum computing is expected to help decarbonize other sectors.
Decarbonization Potential
Quantum computing supports low-carbon solutions by modeling materials, chemical reactions, and energy systems beyond classical limits. It enhances batteries, improves solar panels, optimizes carbon capture, and refines hydrogen processes. It also aids in creating cleaner cement and optimizing energy grids.
With faster and more accurate simulations, quantum computing can reduce emissions across industries and support the green transition.
U.S. Pushes Quantum Computing Overhaul as Industry Gains Billions
Cyberscoop further reported that the White House is weighing steps to push federal agencies toward post-quantum cryptographic protections. The urgency stems from a looming future in which quantum computers could crack today’s encryption, threatening financial systems, government databases, and defense communications.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of Commerce are said to be leading these efforts. A senior executive in the field revealed that “everyone in the quantum industry has heard some version of the message that the White House wants to replicate for quantum what they did for AI in July.”
Paul Dabbar, a former Department of Energy official and now Commerce Deputy Secretary, is reportedly at the center of the initiative. Dabbar previously launched a quantum networking startup, giving him unique insight into both the research and commercial sides of the industry.
Cybersecurity and Geopolitics Drive Action
Washington has long recognized the risks of outdated encryption, pushing contractors for over a decade to adopt stronger post-quantum algorithms. But migration has been slow, sparking fears that the U.S. may fall behind in the global race for secure communications.
Rising geopolitical competition has intensified those concerns. With rival nations investing heavily in quantum research, U.S. leaders see a coordinated national strategy as critical to maintaining technological dominance.
If finalized, the federal push could deliver significant benefits for publicly traded quantum companies such as Rigetti Computing (RGTI), IONQ (IONQ), D-Wave Quantum (QBTS), and Quantum Computing Inc. (QUBT). Government contracts, clearer priorities, and investor confidence could drive further growth across the sector.
Quantum Computing Inc. (QUBT) Lands $500M, Shares Surge
Quantum Computing Inc. (QUBT) boosted the sector on September 21 by raising $500 million in a private placement that was oversubscribed. This is one of the largest quantum funding rounds this year. The deal boosted the Hoboken-based firm’s cash position to about $850 million.
The company will issue over 26.8 million shares to institutional investors. This includes support from major existing shareholders and a new global alternative asset manager. Following the news, QUBT shares jumped 26.8% to $23.27, increasing its market cap to $3.72 billion.
CEO Dr. Yuping Huang called the deal a strong vote of confidence. He noted it was priced at a premium compared to the last four offerings. Titan Partners Group, a division of American Capital Partners, managed the placement.
So far in 2025, QUBT stock has risen more than 40% year-to-date. This highlights growing investor enthusiasm for quantum optics and computing firms.
Rigetti Rides $5.8M Air Force Deal: RGTI Stock Surges
Meanwhile, Rigetti Computing is growing its government partnerships. On September 18, the company announced a three-year contract worth $5.8 million with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). This contract aims to advance superconducting quantum networking. Rigetti will collaborate with Dutch startup QphoX, known for its quantum transduction technology.
The project tackles a big challenge: changing microwave signals that control qubits into optical photons. These photons can travel long distances through fiber-optic cables. This advance could link smaller quantum processors. It would create distributed quantum systems, similar to classical high-performance computing clusters.
Rigetti CEO Dr. Subodh Kulkarni called the partnership a significant step forward. He highlighted the strengths of Rigetti, QphoX, and AFRL in building hybrid quantum networks.
The company’s market cap has climbed to $9.25 billion. It’s up 10.4% in the past month, showing strong investor interest as funding and commercial traction grow in 2025. The stock was trading near $28.37 as of September 22, 2025, after reaching a recent high of $29.59. This momentum comes from a major analyst price target upgrade and key contract wins.
Quantum technology is being adopted by organizations, defense departments, and global markets. Defense agencies are racing to use quantum systems for national security. Government funding is increasing. Corporate investment is picking up speed. Breakthrough research is underway. The industry is entering a crucial phase.
If the White House’s plans to launch a new quantum strategy succeed, it could boost U.S. cybersecurity. It would also send a clear message to investors and innovators: quantum is not just the future; it’s already here.
The post Quantum Stocks Rally: Rigetti (RGTI) & Quantum Computing Inc. (QUBT) Surge on U.S. Strategy appeared first on Carbon Credits.
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
What replaced the cheap REDD credit on the boardroom slide deck, and why procurement is leading the rewrite.
Three years ago, a corporate slide showing a portfolio of cheap REDD+ credits could carry a board meeting. The number was big, the price was low, and the press release wrote itself. Today, that same slide gets sent back with questions. The questions are uncomfortable, the answers are unclear, and your general counsel is suddenly in the room.
Conventional carbon offsets are not dead. The voluntary carbon market retired 202 million tonnes in 2025, and the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 confirmed that interest from corporate buyers remains substantial. What changed is the credibility threshold. The integrity floor has risen, the disclosure scrutiny has tightened, and the buyer profile has shifted. This article tracks what changed, what sophisticated buyers now ask before signing, and what serious corporates are putting on the board slide instead.
What boards used to buy, and why it stopped working
The 2020 to 2022 model was simple: buy a large tranche of avoidance credits at low single-digit prices, retire them against the company footprint, announce the carbon-neutral claim, and move on. Most of those credits came from REDD+ projects, renewable energy installations in countries where the renewable energy was already economic, or methane projects with thin documentation.
Several things broke that model. Academic research published in 2023, including a widely cited Science paper, found that the majority of REDD+ credits issued under the most common methodologies did not represent additional reductions when tested against rigorous counterfactuals. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative published its Claims Code of Practice, which sets requirements for what companies can credibly claim from credit use. The European Union finalised its Green Claims Directive, restricting how companies can describe products as climate-neutral. France’s Décret 2022-539 already restricts carbon neutrality advertising. California’s AB 1305 imposes disclosure requirements on any company making net-zero or carbon-neutral claims while doing business in the state.
The collective effect: the cheap credit no longer buys the announcement, and the announcement now carries litigation risk.
The integrity reset: ICVCM, VCMI, and what changed
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market published the Core Carbon Principles in 2023 and began assessing methodologies against them in 2024. The first methodologies received the CCP label later that year. The point of the label is to give corporate buyers a defensible quality screen they can cite in disclosure.
The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative complements this on the demand side. Its Claims Code of Practice defines what a buyer can say (Silver, Gold, or Platinum claims, with associated requirements) based on the quality of credits used and the underlying decarbonisation strategy. Together, CCP and VCMI build a quality stack: CCP on the supply, VCMI on the claim, with the science-based target sitting underneath both.
The reset is not a ban on offsets. It is a ratchet. Credits that meet the new bar continue to clear; credits that do not, do not. The Morgan Stanley survey found that 61% of current buyers like the CCP label concept but that supply of labelled credits remains limited. That supply constraint is now visible in pricing.
What sophisticated buyers ask before they sign
The questions on the procurement scorecard have changed. A 2022 buyer might have asked about price, vintage, and project type. A 2026 buyer asks five different questions before any of those.
- What does the counterfactual look like, and who validated it.
- What is the permanence regime, and what is the buffer pool exposure.
- What is the leakage risk, and how is it mitigated.
- What rating has the project received from the independent ratings agencies (Sylvera, BeZero, Calyx Global), and what was the rationale.
- What is the documentation discipline that survives an audit four years from now when the procurement team that signed the contract has moved on.
If the vendor cannot answer those five questions on a first call, the conversation ends. Conversely, if the vendor can answer them with documented specificity, the conversation often expands beyond a single transaction toward a multi-year engagement.
Where this leaves your near-term commitments
You probably have near-term commitments that pre-date the integrity reset. Public targets to be carbon neutral by 2025 or 2030. Product-level claims that ran in last year’s marketing. Disclosed reduction trajectories that assumed continued access to cheap credits.
You have three workable paths. The first is to re-baseline your strategy, replacing the most exposed credits with higher-quality alternatives and adjusting the public language to match what you can defend. The second is to shift the underlying spend from offsetting outside your value chain to investing inside your value chain, where reductions count against Scope 3 directly and the audit trail is cleaner. The third is to keep the strategy and absorb the risk, which is increasingly the most expensive option once you price in litigation, restatement, and reputational exposure.
Most serious buyers are choosing the second path. It moves the carbon spend from a compliance cost to a procurement and resilience investment, and it removes the central failure point of the legacy model: the disconnect between where the emissions occurred and where the reductions sat. Nature-based supply chain investments, structured under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard and aligned to the SBTi FLAG Guidance, are the asset class that fits this brief. They generate inventory-grade reductions, they produce audit-grade documentation, and they survive the new claim restrictions because the carbon math sits inside the value chain that the disclosure already covers.
If you are reassessing a carbon strategy under the new integrity bar, or rebuilding a board narrative that has to survive a more skeptical audience, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help. The Dual-Value Model gives you a defensible alternative to legacy offset purchases, with the documentation and operational integration that survives the procurement scorecard and the audit. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测