Connect with us

Published

on

The rise in global temperatures is a concern that many are taking seriously. Governments, big companies, small businesses, and everyday people are looking for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to lessen climate change risks. One method that’s gaining a lot of attention is using carbon credits. This idea helps provide financial rewards for those who cut down on emissions and support the growth of clean energy sources. This article is the 5th part of our new series based on our 2023 Climate Change and Carbon Markets Annual Report. The series so far includes:

In this post, we’re going to explore the journey of carbon credits from the start with the Kyoto Protocol to now with the Paris Agreement. We’ll look at how global agreements on climate have evolved and how carbon credits play a crucial part in these. Through this discussion, we hope to give a clear picture of how the world is working together to create a sustainable environment for the future.

The Kyoto Protocol: Setting the Stage for Carbon Credits

The Kyoto Protocol, established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997, marked the inception of formalized global efforts to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This landmark treaty set forth binding emissions reduction targets for 37 industrialized nations and the European Union, aiming to reduce emissions to 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. A subsequent amendment in 2012 extended these targets to 2013-2020. Central to the Kyoto Protocol was the innovative concept of carbon credits, designed to provide economic incentives for emissions reductions. The Protocol introduced Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI), laying the foundation for the global carbon credit framework (see: https://unfccc.int/news/kyoto-protocol-paves-the-way-for-greater-ambition-under-paris-agreement#:~:text=,like%20Germany%20by%2030%20percent).

Key facts:

  • The Kyoto Protocol committed developed countries to emissions reduction targets of 5% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012. This was later extended to 2013-2020 with an amended treaty.
  • The innovative mechanisms introduced included Emissions Trading, CDM, and JI which provided the blueprint for carbon credits trading.

Paris Agreement: A New Dawn in Global Climate Cooperation

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, emerged as a robust successor to the Kyoto Protocol, reflecting a global shift towards more inclusive and ambitious climate action. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which placed binding targets on developed countries alone, the Paris Agreement encourages all nations to contribute towards global emissions reduction. This inclusive framework aims to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C, with an ambition of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement introduced the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), poised to replace the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), signifying a transformation in the realm of carbon credits and setting a new trajectory for global environmental strategies (see: https://greencoast.org/kyoto-protocol-vs-paris-agreement).

Key facts:

  • The Paris Agreement set a more ambitious goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to the Kyoto Protocol’s 2°C target.
  • It has a universal framework encouraging all countries to contribute, unlike the Kyoto Protocol’s binding targets just for developed nations.
  • Introduced the SDM to replace the CDM, reflecting an evolution in carbon credits post-Kyoto.

Why Some Countries Opted Out: Economic and Strategic Considerations

The Kyoto Protocol faced resistance from some major emitting countries due to concerns surrounding economic competitiveness and equity. The U.S., citing potential economic drawbacks and the lack of binding commitments on developing countries, chose not to ratify the Protocol. Canada withdrew in 2011, expressing concerns over the Protocol’s ability to effectively address global emissions without the participation of major emitters like the U.S. and China. These decisions underscored the complex interplay of economic, strategic, and environmental considerations that influence international climate agreements and the operationalization of carbon credits (see: https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/lessons-learned-from-kyoto-to-paris).

Key facts:

  • The U.S. and Canada opted out due to concerns over economic impacts and equity without developing nations’ commitments.
  • Highlights the strategic considerations alongside environmental ones in climate agreements.

Carbon Credits – A Mechanism to Meet Targets

The Kyoto Protocol introduced pioneering mechanisms like Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI) to help nations meet their emissions reduction targets. These mechanisms provided the blueprint for the evolution of the carbon credit system, allowing for the trading of emission allowances and fostering international collaboration on carbon sequestration projects. The Paris Agreement further refined these mechanisms, introducing the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) to build upon the successes and lessons learned from the Kyoto-era mechanisms, thereby enhancing the global carbon credit framework.

Key facts:

  • Emissions Trading, CDM, and JI were introduced under Kyoto as innovative ways to meet reduction targets.
  • Paris Agreement’s SDM builds on these mechanisms to further improve the carbon credits system.

The Decline of the CDM: Transitioning to a New Era

With the advent of the Paris Agreement, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) saw a decline in prominence as the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) emerged. This transition reflects the global community’s adaptive approach to evolving environmental challenges. The SDM, with its broader scope and enhanced flexibility, aims to address the shortcomings of the CDM, offering a more robust framework for carbon credit initiatives. The shift from CDM to SDM signifies a continued evolution in the mechanisms governing carbon credits, aligning with the ambitious global climate goals set forth by the Paris Agreement.

Key facts:

  • The CDM is being replaced by the more robust SDM under Paris reflecting an adaptive approach.
  • SDM has a wider scope and flexibility compared to CDM.

Challenges in Participation: Navigating Global Climate Dynamics

The participation challenges faced by the Kyoto Protocol highlight the complexities inherent in global climate agreements. Major emitters like the U.S. and China’s reluctance to commit to binding emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol underscored the need for a more inclusive approach. The Paris Agreement, with its universal framework for climate action, addresses some of these challenges by encouraging all nations, regardless of their economic status, to contribute towards global emissions reduction. However, the nuances of national and global priorities continue to influence the level of participation and commitment to carbon credit initiatives.

Key facts:

  • Universal participation under Paris was designed to address the lack of major emitters’ commitment under Kyoto.
  • National interests still impact countries’ levels of commitment to climate agreements.

The Role of the International Transaction Log (ITL): Ensuring Transparency and Accountability

The International Transaction Log (ITL) plays a crucial role in the operationalization of carbon credits by ensuring transparency, accountability, and efficiency in carbon credit transactions. Established by the Secretariat of the Conference of Parties, the ITL meticulously records carbon credit transactions, preventing potential issues like double-counting of reductions or the sale of identical credits multiple times. The ITL, by bridging national emissions trading registries and the UNFCCC, exemplifies the global commitment to a transparent and accountable carbon credit system, underpinning the credibility of international emissions trading initiatives.

Key facts:

  • The ITL prevents double-counting and ensures transparency in carbon credits trading.
  • It bridges national registries and UNFCCC to enable international cooperation.

Risks and Mitigation in Carbon Credit Projects: Ensuring Viability and Sustainability

Carbon credit projects, inherent with regulatory and market risks, necessitate robust mitigation strategies to ensure their viability and sustainability. The complexities of regulatory approvals, monitoring actual emissions, and navigating volatile market dynamics pose challenges to carbon credit projects. Leveraging approved CDM technologies and entering into long-term fixed-price contracts can significantly reduce these risks. The evolving carbon credit framework, transitioning from CDM to SDM under the Paris Agreement, reflects a continued effort to address these risks and enhance the sustainability of carbon credit projects.

Key facts:

  • Regulatory and market risks pose viability challenges for carbon credit projects.
  • CDM methodologies and long-term contracts help mitigate risks.

Controversies in Land Use Projects: Navigating Carbon Sequestration Challenges

Land use projects under the Kyoto Protocol aimed at GHG removals and emissions reductions through activities like afforestation and reforestation. However, they faced resistance due to challenges in estimating and tracking GHG removals over extended periods. The complexities of measuring carbon sequestration, particularly in vast forested areas, underscore the controversies and challenges inherent in the carbon credits domain. The Paris Agreement, with its enhanced framework for carbon credit initiatives, offers avenues to address some of these challenges, promoting a more robust and transparent approach to land use projects within the carbon credits framework.

Key facts:

  • Estimating and monitoring carbon sequestration from land use projects is complex.
  • Caused controversies under Kyoto but Paris Agreement provides scope to improve.

Conclusion – Carbon Credits and the Evolution of Global Climate Strategy

The journey of carbon credits, from the early days of the Kyoto Protocol to the transformative era of the Paris Agreement, offers a window into the world’s evolving approach to climate change mitigation. The innovative mechanisms introduced under these agreements have played a pivotal role in shaping the global carbon credit framework. As nations continue to navigate the complex landscape of global climate cooperation, understanding the intricacies of carbon credits remains pivotal in the collective quest for a sustainable future. Through the lens of carbon credits, we witness the global community’s adaptive strategies in the face of evolving environmental challenges, charting a course towards a more sustainable and resilient global climate framework.

Sources and References:

Image credit:

Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Carbon Footprint

Trump Inks Rare Earth Deals with Japan and Southeast Asia to Secure Supply Chains

Published

on

Trump Inks Rare Earth Deals with Japan and Southeast Asia to Secure Supply Chains

U.S. President Donald Trump signed new agreements on rare earth and critical minerals with Japan and some Southeast Asian countries. The deals were finalized during his October 2025 Asia tour. They aim to lower reliance on China, which leads to global production of these key materials.

Rare earth elements are vital for many things, including electric vehicles (EVs), wind turbines, smartphones, and defense systems.

Global demand is rising fast as countries invest more in clean energy and digital technologies. These new partnerships are among the biggest efforts yet to build alternative supply chains for critical minerals.

Japan Deal: Strengthening Industrial and Energy Security

On October 28, 2025, Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi signed a key deal. This agreement aims to secure supplies of rare earths, lithium, cobalt, and nickel. The agreement expands past U.S.–Japan cooperation and includes new plans for joint investments, technology sharing, and transparent supply management.

Under the deal, both countries plan to:

  • Build processing and refining plants for rare earths and battery minerals.
  • Create strategic stockpiles and improve recycling systems.
  • Support magnet production for EVs and defense industries.
  • Explore nuclear fuel supply cooperation for next-generation reactors.

Japan still relies on China for about 65% of its rare earth imports, even after years of trying to diversify. The new deal aims to cut this dependence by sourcing from U.S. allies like Australia and Vietnam. Also, it will process materials locally or in partner nations.

China rare earth magnet exports july 2025

The plan supports Japan’s economic security law, which pushes companies to find new material sources. Tokyo has set aside about ¥400 billion (US$2.7 billion) in funding to help domestic rare earth and battery material projects through 2027.

Southeast Asia: Expanding the Network Beyond China

Trump also announced new cooperation deals with Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Indonesia. These countries hold key mineral reserves and play important roles in regional trade.

Malaysia already operates one of the world’s few large rare-earth processing plants outside China. Vietnam has about 22 million tonnes of rare-earth reserves, second only to China. Indonesia and Thailand are major producers of nickel and tin, vital for EV batteries.

The Southeast Asia deals aim to:

  • Bring in U.S. and Japanese investments for mining and refining projects.
  • Train local workers and improve technical skills.
  • Cut tariffs and export barriers that slow regional trade.
  • Support cleaner and safer mining technologies under ESG standards.

Experts say these efforts could create an “Indo-Pacific mineral corridor.” This would link mines in Australia, processors in Southeast Asia, and manufacturers in Japan. This network would help reduce China’s control over the middle stages of the supply chain.

Why Rare Earths Matter: A Market Under Strain

Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used in many high-tech and clean energy products. The most valuable are neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. These elements are essential for strong magnets used in EV motors, drones, and wind turbines.

China controls around 60–70% of mining and 85–90% of refining for rare earths. This gives Beijing major influence over countries that depend on these materials.

China rare earth mining and refining
Note: Data as of 2025, based on 2025 market assessments from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

In 2024, the world produced about 350,000 tonnes of rare earth materials. The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects demand to reach over 500,000 tonnes by 2030. Market value could rise from $13 billion in 2024 to over $25 billion by 2030.

The U.S. currently makes about 12% of global rare earth ore, mostly from the Mountain Pass mine in California. However, much of it is still sent to China for processing. That dependence makes the new deals with Japan and Southeast Asia even more important.

Strategic and Economic Significance

For the United States, these deals mark a new stage in mineral diplomacy. Washington aims to safeguard clean energy and defense industries. It plans to do this by securing long-term supply agreements in Asia to help protect against disruptions.

Japan gains stronger support for its automotive, electronics, and robotics sectors. The country is restarting its rare earth recycling programs. These programs slowed down after Chinese export limits in 2010 made prices rise sharply.

For Southeast Asian nations, the agreements promise foreign investment, new jobs, and technology sharing. Malaysia and Vietnam might become key centers for refining and magnet production. This could create jobs for thousands of skilled workers.

The deals also back U.S. efforts to counter China’s export restrictions. In 2024, China limited exports of gallium, germanium, and certain rare earth magnets for “national security” reasons. Those actions disrupted supply chains and forced manufacturers in Japan, Europe, and the U.S. to look elsewhere for materials.

Rare Earth Market Outlook: Rising Demand, Tight Supply

Demand for rare earth magnets, especially neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets, might triple by 2035. This rise is fueled by electric vehicles (EVs) and wind turbines. Each electric vehicle needs 1–2 kilograms of these magnets, while one offshore wind turbine can use up to 600 kilograms.

rare earth demand and supply
Source: McKinsey

The price of neodymium oxide has climbed from about US$70 per kg in 2020 to more than US$120 per kg in 2025, showing strong pressure on supply. China’s quota limits and environmental checks have made availability uncertain.

The U.S., Japan, and the European Union are expanding recycling programs. They aim to recover rare earths from old motors and electronics. This helps reduce reliance on mined materials. Yet, recycling currently provides less than 5% of total global demand.

The Cost of Breaking Free from China

Building alternative supply chains is difficult. Several challenges include:

  • High costs: Rare-earth plants are expensive and take years to build.
  • Environmental risks: Poor waste management can pollute water and soil.
  • Financing issues: Price swings make investors cautious.
  • Geopolitical tensions: China may respond by lowering prices or tightening exports.

Experts say that without strong government support, new producers may not compete with China’s scale and low costs. Both the U.S. and Japan are studying tax credits and loan programs to help new projects move forward.

Forging a New Indo-Pacific Supply Chain

These rare earth agreements send a clear message: the U.S. and its allies want to reshape global supply chains around trusted partners. The next steps include choosing priority projects, securing funding, and coordinating trade rules.

If successful, these efforts could shift 15–20% of global refining capacity away from China by the early 2030s. That would mark the biggest industry shift in decades.

For the U.S., Japan, and Southeast Asia, the deals combine economic security, industrial growth, and clean energy goals. They also show how the energy transition and geopolitics are now closely linked.

In the long run, building diverse and stable rare earth supply chains could make clean energy industries stronger and less dependent on any single country.

The post Trump Inks Rare Earth Deals with Japan and Southeast Asia to Secure Supply Chains appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Nevada Lithium Hub: Why Surge Battery Metals Holds the Key to U.S. EV Independence

Published

on

Nevada Lithium Hub, Why Surge Battery Metals Holds the Key to U.S. EV Independence

Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals Inc.

Nevada is known for its wide deserts and rich mining history. Today, it is earning a new reputation – as the center of America’s electric vehicle (EV) and battery revolution. The state now produces over 80% of all lithium mined in the U.S., and its output is growing fast.

Nevada’s lithium industry is vital to the nation’s clean-energy goals. In 2025, the state is expected to produce between 25,000 and 40,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE), with production growing at an annual rate of about 40% as new projects begin operations. This growth is supported by a surge of new investment and innovation—from lithium mining to advanced battery manufacturing.

Lithium is at the core of this transformation. It is the key metal that powers EVs, grid batteries, and renewable energy systems. As global demand continues to soar, developing a steady domestic supply has become a top U.S. priority. 

For the country, it is both an economic and an energy security issue. Nevada is becoming the cornerstone of that vision, with its mineral potential, strong infrastructure, and mining-friendly policies. 

Growing Demand for Domestic Lithium

Global lithium demand is expanding rapidly. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects it will increase nearly fivefold by 2040, driven by the global shift to EVs and clean-energy storage. The world’s total known lithium resources now exceed 115 million tonnes, while the U.S. holds about 19 million tonnes—mostly in Nevada and California.

lithium demand outlook IEA
Source: IEA

Even so, the U.S. still imports most of its lithium. Domestic production makes up less than 2% of global supply, leaving the country dependent on imports from Chile, Australia, and China. This creates major risks for automakers and energy companies that rely on steady, affordable lithium.

To meet its clean-energy goals, the U.S. must grow its domestic lithium base fast. Nevada’s large claystone and brine deposits make it the natural hub for that expansion. The state’s deposits are unique in both size and accessibility, giving it a strong edge in supplying the raw materials for EV batteries.

Introducing Surge Battery Metals and the Nevada North Lithium Project

At the center of this growth is Surge Battery Metals. The company’s main project, the Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) in Elko County, represents one of the highest-grade lithium clay deposits in the U.S.

Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP)
Source: Surge Battery Metals

According to its latest resource estimates, NNLP holds 11.2 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at an average grade of 3,010 parts per million (ppm) lithium. This grade is higher than most comparable projects across North America.

Surge’s Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) highlights strong numbers:

  • Post-tax Net Present Value (NPV8): US$9.2 billion
  • Internal Rate of Return (IRR): 22.8%
  • Operating cost: US$5,097/t LCE
  • Mine life: 42 years

NNLP Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA)

The project is located only 13 kilometers from major power lines and has all-season road access. It has received a Record of Decision and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), allowing expansion across 250 acres. With these clearances in place, Surge is years ahead of many early-stage lithium explorers.

Nevada’s Role in Building the U.S. EV Supply Chain

Nevada’s geography and infrastructure make it the ideal base for America’s EV supply chain. The state hosts both lithium claystone deposits in the north and brine basins in the south. This creates multiple sources for battery materials. It is also close to key automotive and battery hubs in California and Arizona, as well as Tesla’s Gigafactory in Sparks.

This location advantage saves both time and money. Lithium mined in Nevada can be refined, processed, and shipped to nearby gigafactories—all within a few hundred miles. 

Compared with importing from overseas, this can reduce transport emissions by up to 70% and cut logistics costs significantly. The shorter distances also lower the carbon footprint of battery production, aligning with U.S. clean-energy policies.

Nevada’s mining and manufacturing sectors are now creating thousands of new jobs and drawing billions in private investment. Projects like the US$1 billion Lyten sulfur battery plant in Reno highlight how the state is becoming a full-scale clean-energy hub, from raw materials to finished batteries.

Surge Battery Metals fits right into this ecosystem. Its Nevada North project could provide the lithium feedstock for future gigafactories, supporting the U.S. plan to localize the entire EV battery supply chain—from mining and processing to assembly and recycling.

Strengthening U.S. Energy Security

By advancing NNLP, Surge Battery Metals directly supports national efforts to secure critical minerals. Producing high-grade lithium within U.S. borders reduces dependency on foreign supply chains and increases resilience against global market shocks.

Unlike imported materials that pass through multiple countries, lithium from Nevada can move straight from mine to factory under stable U.S. regulations. This local sourcing helps ensure long-term supply reliability for automakers while boosting domestic job creation.

Surge Battery Metals also follows environmental, social, and governance (ESG) best practices. Lithium clay mining uses less water and creates lower carbon emissions than many traditional methods. 

The company plans to integrate water recycling and land reclamation into its operations to minimize impacts on nearby ecosystems. As environmental scrutiny grows, such responsible practices make projects like NNLP more attractive to both investors and manufacturers seeking sustainable materials.

Challenges, Opportunities, and the Road to EV Independence

Nevada’s lithium boom presents both opportunities and hurdles. Developers must continue working closely with local communities and regulators to manage water use and protect land resources. 

Battery-grade lithium production requires careful processing, and achieving consistent 99.9% purity – a goal Surge is testing toward – takes time and investment.

Market volatility remains a factor. Lithium prices have been fluctuating. In 2025, it moved between US$8,300 and US$11,525 per tonne, reflecting tight supply and demand cycles. Yet analysts expect strong long-term growth as EV adoption continues worldwide.

Nevada’s emerging lithium industry offers a rare chance to strengthen U.S. energy independence while creating thousands of high-tech jobs. For investors, it represents both a challenge and an opportunity – a chance to help build a fully domestic clean energy economy.

The push for EV independence is about building cars as well as securing the materials that power them. Nevada is leading that effort, combining resource strength, infrastructure, and innovation.

Surge Battery Metals’ Nevada North Lithium Project embodies this shift. With a high-grade resource, strong economics, and a strategic Nevada location, the company is positioned to become a key supplier in America’s energy transition.

DISCLAIMER 

New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.

This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.

Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.

It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.

These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.

Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.

There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.

For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

The post Nevada Lithium Hub: Why Surge Battery Metals Holds the Key to U.S. EV Independence appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

BYD Sales Surges 272% in European Union as Tesla Slumps

Published

on

BYD Sales Surges 272% in European Union as Tesla Slumps

Chinese automaker BYD continues its fast global expansion. In September 2025, the company’s sales in the European Union (EU) soared by 272 percent. In contrast, Tesla’s sales fell by 10.5 percent. This data comes from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. The sharp contrast shows how BYD’s pricing strategy is reshaping the EV market and forcing global rivals to respond.

Pricing Power Drives Market Gains

In one year, BYD’s EU market share climbed from 0.4% to 1.5%. The company sold 13,221 vehicles in September, compared with Tesla’s 25,656. BYD has outsold Tesla in global battery-electric vehicles for four quarters in a row. It leads by about 388,000 units as of Q3 2025.

In the United Kingdom, BYD’s Dolphin Surf starts at £18,650, less than half the cost of a Tesla Model 3 at around £39,000. The price gap has opened the EV market to more consumers and pushed sales up tenfold year-over-year to 11,271 units in September 2025.

Analysts say BYD’s strategy is similar to the smartphone boom in the 2010s. Back then, Chinese brands gained global market share by offering high performance at lower prices. The same pattern is emerging in autos: BYD is now the top-selling car brand in Singapore, competing directly with Toyota and Hyundai.

The Secret Sauce: Vertical Integration at Scale

BYD builds about 75 to 80% of its vehicle components internally. It produces batteries, motors, semiconductors, and even its own car platforms. This level of vertical integration gives BYD three main advantages:

  • Lower costs by avoiding outside suppliers.
  • Supply-chain control, reducing risks from material shortages.
  • Faster innovation in battery and power systems.

At the center of this is BYD’s Blade Battery, a lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) design known for safety and durability. Its cost advantage is about €10 per kWh compared with nickel-cobalt batteries used by many rivals.

The new second-generation Blade Battery will launch in 2025. It aims for 200 Wh/kg of energy density. With just five minutes of charging, it will add 400 kilometers of range.

BYD and others charging time

BYD has also secured lithium mining rights to ensure supply. It also operates the world’s largest car-carrier ship, which can move 9,200 vehicles at a time. This control helps the company keep prices low. It also maintains profit margins above industry averages.

Trade Barriers and Global Headwinds

Behind its strong performance, BYD still faces challenges abroad. The European Union started imposing anti-dumping tariffs of up to 45.3% on Chinese electric cars in 2024. They argued that state subsidies provide unfair advantages. In the United States, 25% tariffs and strict origin rules keep Chinese automakers out of the market.

To manage these barriers, BYD is building local factories. Its Hungary plant, set to open by the end of 2025, will have an annual capacity of 800,000 units and supply European markets directly.

Even with local production, BYD needs to price vehicles at about three times their China prices. This is necessary to remain competitive in Europe, where labor and logistics costs are higher.

At home, the company also faces slower growth. In September 2025, BYD delivered 393,060 vehicles, down from 419,000 a year earlier—its first monthly drop in years.

Analysts link this to domestic market saturation and stronger competition from rivals such as NIO, Xpeng, and Geely. To offset this, BYD is accelerating global expansion: 200,000 of its 1 million Q1 2025 sales came from overseas markets.

EV Market Outlook: Demand Still Accelerating

Worldwide, electric-vehicle sales are still climbing. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects global EV sales will reach 17 million units in 2025, up from about 14 million in 2024. EVs could make up 45% of new car sales by 2030, driven by lower battery costs and stronger climate policies.

EV sales share by region 2030 IEA

Average battery pack prices dropped from US$151 per kWh in 2022 to about US$110 per kWh in 2025. They might fall below US$80 by 2030. This makes EVs cheaper than many gasoline cars.

BYD’s strong control over its supply chain positions it well to benefit from these trends. Its strategy of providing affordable electric and plug-in hybrid models allows it to adapt as markets shift at different speeds toward full electrification.

The Chinese carmaker outpaced Tesla in global pure electric vehicle sales in 2025. From January to September, BYD sold about 1.61 million units. This is 388,000 more than Tesla’s 1.22 million. BYD is expected to exceed 2 million sales in 2025, while Tesla needs a 50% increase in Q4 to match this milestone.

BYD global sales vs tesla

BYD’s Financial Engine Keeps Humming

In 2024, BYD reported 777 billion yuan (US$107 billion) in revenue, up about 43% year-on-year. Net profit grew to roughly 30 billion yuan (US$4 billion). Margins improved thanks to internal battery production and steady demand across Asia and Europe.

BYD’s stock has reflected this growth but remains sensitive to policy news and trade developments. Analysts note that even small tariff changes or currency shifts can move the share price quickly.

Still, the company’s global EV leadership and diversified product lineup—spanning cars, buses, and trucks—offer long-term resilience.

BYD stock price BYDDY
Source: Yahoo Finance

Technology and Future Strategy

BYD continues to invest in next-generation batteries and solid-state chemistry. It is also expanding its plug-in hybrid (DM-i) models, which now account for nearly half of its domestic sales. These hybrids use smaller batteries but deliver very high fuel efficiency, appealing to consumers who are not yet ready for full EVs.

The company is focusing on software and self-driving systems. They aim to add AI features that compete with Western automakers. Its partnerships with ride-hailing firms in Asia and Europe could open new revenue streams in electric mobility services.

What’s Next for BYD — and the Industry?

Investors will keep an eye on several factors:

  • Tariff impacts in Europe and potential U.S. policy changes.
  • Battery-cost trends, which influence margins.
  • Domestic competition in China, especially in the mid-price EV segment.
  • Exchange-rate movements that affect export pricing.

Short-term risks exist, but BYD stands out in the EV market. Its vertical integration, cost leadership, and global presence boost its strength.

BYD’s rapid rise reflects a global shift in the auto industry. The company has combined low prices, in-house technology, and global reach. This mix has made established brands rethink their strategies. Even with trade hurdles, it remains on track to expand production, open new factories, and compete head-to-head with Tesla and legacy automakers worldwide.

If current growth trends hold, BYD may deliver over 5 million vehicles each year by 2026. Exports will make up an increasing portion of that total. For investors, the company represents both opportunity and volatility—an EV leader pushing the limits of cost, scale, and innovation in the race toward a fully electric future.

The post BYD Sales Surges 272% in European Union as Tesla Slumps appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com