Tesla’s (TSLA) dominance in Europe is fading fast. In July 2025, its sales in France plunged nearly 27%—one of its steepest monthly declines yet. Once an EV frontrunner, Tesla is now clearly struggling to keep up. Chinese competitors like BYD (BYDDY) are racing ahead, and local automakers are also pushing back hard.
What once felt like unstoppable momentum, Musk’s Tesla has turned into a scramble to retain market share. Europe’s EV market is now the most competitive in the world, and Tesla is feeling the heat.
A CNBC report highlighted that,
“Data published by the U.K.’s Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) showed Tesla’s new car sales dropped by nearly 60% to 987 units last month, down from 2,462 a year ago.”
Tesla’s European Market Share Continues to Shrink
According to the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, Tesla’s market share in the EU, U.K., and EFTA dropped to 2.8% in June, down from 3.4% the previous year.
The company sold 34,781 vehicles across the region that month, which is a 22.9% year-on-year drop. Also in July, its sales in France plunged by nearly 27%, marking one of its steepest monthly drops yet.
The above data tells that Tesla is facing severe headwinds across Europe, with sales falling in most major markets despite the launch of an updated Model Y. According to Reuters, Tesla’s new car registrations in:
-
Sweden fell 86%
-
Denmark dropped 52%
-
Netherlands sank 62%
-
Belgium declined 58%
-
Italy slipped 5%
-
Portugal slid 49%
The only bright spots were Norway and Spain, where Tesla saw gains of 83% and 27%, respectively. Norway’s spike followed the rollout of 0% interest loans on Tesla models, while Spain’s surge coincided with a 155% jump in sales of all electrified cars.
The chart below also tells us that Tesla is losing ground in Europe.
Model Y Revamp Fails to Lift Sales
Tesla had pinned hopes on its refreshed Model Y, which began selling in March 2025 in Europe. However, the update has failed to spark meaningful growth. According to analyst Felipe Munoz from JATO Dynamics, the updated Model Y “has so far failed to provide the expected sales boost.”
Even in Tesla-stronghold Sweden, Model Y registrations fell 88% in July. In Denmark, they dropped 49%. By contrast, Norway saw a resurgence, with Model Y registrations jumping fourfold to 715 units due to financing incentives.
Here’s how Tesla (TSLA) performed in Q2 2025.
- SEE DETAILS: TSLA Stock Drops on Weak Q2 2025 Earnings: Tesla Faces Carbon Credit, Margin, and Political Risks
Pricing Strategy and Margins Under Pressure
To stay competitive, Tesla has slashed prices across Europe, often undercutting its margins. In France, the company’s market share fell from 1.6% in 2024 to just 0.9% in 2025, with buyers turning to local brands like Renault, which outsold Tesla’s Model Y with its new Renault 5 model in June.
Aggressive discounting might stimulate demand in the short term, but it signals waning pricing power, a worrying trend for a brand that once commanded premium status.
Tight Rules Stall Tesla’s Self-Driving Push in Europe
Another pain point for Tesla in Europe is the region’s strict autonomous driving regulations. While Tesla’s supervised self-driving feature is a major selling point in the U.S., it’s not fully available in many European countries due to tighter rules.
Musk acknowledged in July that the company could have “a few rough quarters” ahead as it waits for approvals and ramps up production of a new, more affordable EV model.
Tesla’s efforts to diversify include a trial robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, using autonomous Model Y vehicles. However, this program is not yet authorized for widespread deployment in Europe.
BYD Steals the Spotlight in Major European Markets
While Tesla stumbled, Chinese EV giant BYD roared ahead. In Spain, BYD sold 2,158 cars in July, nearly 8X more than the same month last year.
- In the UK, BYD registered 3,184 vehicles, quadrupling its year-over-year numbers. And in Germany, BYD posted a 390% increase in July sales.
BYD’s affordability, growing dealership network, and product variety have helped it attract European buyers seeking alternatives to Tesla.
- Notably, BYD overtook Tesla in overall European EV sales as early as April 2025, a trend that now looks firmly established.
Smart Pricing, Sharp Growth
BYD’s strategy of affordable pricing and rapid expansion is paying off. Models like the Dolphin Surf (globally known as the Seagull) and the Seal U are leading the charge. The Seal U tied as Europe’s best-selling PHEV in June.
Looking ahead, BYD plans to expand into 12 more European countries by the end of 2025. The company is also preparing to launch local production in Hungary, helping it reduce costs, navigate EU tariffs, and better compete with local and global rivals.
Chinese Brands Make Their Mark
The impact goes beyond BYD. Chinese EV makers, led by BYD, have nearly doubled their collective market share in Europe — from 2.7% in early 2024 to 5.1% in the first half of 2025. This surge reflects the growing influence of Chinese automakers across the European auto market.
Broader EV Market Still Growing—But Tesla Lags Behind
It’s important to note that Tesla’s slump comes at a time when overall EV demand in Europe is still rising. In July:
-
Denmark’s overall car sales rose 20%
-
Sweden was up 6%
-
Norway surged 48%
-
Spain grew 17%
-
Portugal jumped 21%
This makes Tesla’s performance look even worse in comparison. The EV pioneer is not suffering from market decline, but rather losing ground to faster-moving rivals like BYD, Volkswagen, and Renault.
Elon Musk’s Controversies Add Fuel to the Fire
Aside from market dynamics, Tesla is battling reputational damage, much of it tied to CEO Elon Musk. His endorsement of Germany’s far-right AfD party and anti-union comments sparked protests at Tesla showrooms across Europe.
The backlash has been especially strong in Germany, where labor unions and political parties wield significant influence. Tesla’s sales in the country dropped 55% in July, with only 1,110 units sold compared to 2,469 a year ago. From January to July, Tesla’s total German sales plunged 57.8% to just 10,000 units.
In Britain, Tesla’s July sales fell 60%, while BYD’s more than quadrupled.
Legacy Automakers Also Feel the Heat
Tesla isn’t the only automaker feeling the squeeze. European giants like Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, and Renault all posted weak Q2 results, citing falling demand and concerns over U.S. import tariffs.
However, these companies are still expanding their EV offerings and investing in local supply chains, unlike Tesla, which continues to rely heavily on exports and centralized production.
What Lies Ahead?
Tesla’s roadmap includes a more affordable EV model and the potential expansion of its Berlin Gigafactory’s output. But until production ramps up and autonomous features are approved in Europe, Tesla may continue to struggle.
In contrast, BYD and other Chinese players are gaining speed, price advantage, and regulatory momentum, making them serious threats to Tesla’s European ambitions.
Tesla’s 27% sales crash in France shows that the much-touted EV leader is on the defensive in a region once crucial to its global strategy. Concisely, unless Tesla adjusts its pricing, updates its lineup more frequently, and repairs its brand reputation, it may continue to lose ground to BYD and others.
The post BYD (BYDDY) Beats Tesla (TSLA) in Europe: The EV Shift No One Saw Coming appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits