The global carbon market is undergoing a dramatic reset that could transform both supply and costs over the next 25 years. New projections from BloombergNEF (BNEF) suggest that carbon credit supply may grow 20- to 35-fold by 2050, creating one of the most significant financial mechanisms for funding decarbonization. But the shape of this future market hinges on integrity, governance, and the types of projects that ultimately win buyers’ trust.
While the long-term trajectory points upward, the road is being shaped by near-term shifts. From surging issuances to a rapid geographic rebalancing, the market reset is already redefining which sectors and regions are taking the lead.
Carbon Credit Costs Head Higher
BNEF further points to steep increases in average costs as high-quality projects dominate. Prices could reach $60 per ton of CO₂e in 2030 and rise to $104 per ton in 2050 if technology-based removals, such as direct air capture (DAC), dominate the supply mix.
In scenarios where lower-quality credits flood the market, prices would remain significantly lower—just $69 per ton in 2050—but at the cost of weaker governance and reduced impact. This highlights the growing divide between volume-driven growth and integrity-driven supply.
Issuances Surge as Market Resets
According to Sylvera, new credit creation has picked up pace. In Q2 2025, issuances reached 77 million credits, up 39% from Q1 and 14% higher than Q2 2024. This signals renewed confidence among project developers and buyers, with particular momentum in both traditional land-use projects and industrial breakthroughs.
Nature-Based Leaders Face New Competition
Forestry and Land Use projects still dominate, making up 31% of Q2 issuances. Within this group, Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation (ARR) projects stood out. These credits averaged $24 each, reflecting higher implementation costs and buyers’ willingness to pay for premium, nature-based removals. For higher-rated ARR projects (BBB+), the premium stretched closer to $27, driven by limited supply.
Yet the real story this quarter was the surge in Industrial and Commercial projects, which jumped from 7.9% of issuances in H1 2024 to 19% in H1 2025. These include refrigerant recovery, methane capture from coal mines, and advanced industrial efficiency. Meanwhile, REDD+ projects rebounded strongly, climbing to 16% of Q2 issuances, their highest share since mid-2023.
This diversification shows the market moving beyond forests alone, with industrial innovation gaining ground.
North America Rises as Supply Hub
One of the most striking changes came from geography. North America more than doubled its share of issuances, rising from 21% in Q1 to 43% in Q2. This momentum made the American Carbon Registry (ACR) the top registry for the first time, accounting for 33% of all new credits.
It was followed by Gold Standard (25%) and Verra (21%), signaling a more competitive registry landscape. This shift reflects both investor appetite for high-integrity projects in North America and the region’s strong regulatory backdrop, which is creating demand for compliance-grade credits.
Cheap vs. Trusted: The Carbon Market’s Fork in the Road
BNEF outlined the possible futures for the global carbon credit market. Carbon credit supply could follow three different paths, shaped by governance, investor trust, and project quality.
- High-Quality Scenario: If the market reset succeeds, supply reaches 2.6B tons in 2030 and 4.8B in 2050. The market stays smaller but centers on high-impact projects. Direct air capture (DAC) grows to 21% of supply by 2050, with prices averaging $104/ton.
- Full Supply Scenario: If governance fails, supply surges to 5.3B tons in 2030 and 8.2B in 2050. Most credits come from avoided deforestation and reforestation, about two-thirds of the total. Prices stay low at $69/ton, but quality concerns weaken trust.
- OTC Carbon Removal Scenario: This middle path sees bespoke deals growing 27 times since 2022. Supply hits 2B tons in 2030 and 5.3B in 2050. Bioenergy with carbon capture (BECCS) dominates, with prices at $98/ton by 2050.
The trade-off: Cheaper credits risk poor quality, while higher-cost, smaller markets could build the trust buyers want.
Buyers Pay Premium for Integrity
Even as average credit prices softened, buyers continued paying premiums for nature-based removal credits and high-rated projects. For instance, ARR credits rated BBB+ commanded roughly $27 each, compared to lower-rated alternatives.
This price differentiation shows that buyers—especially corporates seeking credible net-zero claims—are prioritizing quality over volume. Credits recognized in compliance systems or international frameworks also commanded higher prices, reflecting their stronger governance.
Carbon Pricing Expands Across Economies
Alongside the voluntary market reset, government-led carbon pricing systems are expanding. As per the World Bank Group, by mid-2025, 43 carbon taxes and 37 emissions trading systems (ETSs) were in place, covering 28% of global emissions—up from 24% just a year earlier.
Several major moves drove this growth:
- China’s national ETS expanded beyond power to include cement, steel, and aluminum, adding 3 billion tons of coverage.
- Colombia broadened its carbon tax to include coal combustion.
Together, these expansions lifted global coverage to nearly 15 billion tons CO₂e, representing two-thirds of global GDP under a direct carbon price.
Power Sector Leads, Industry Joins In
The power sector continues to dominate carbon pricing. Over half of global power emissions—about 30% of global GHGs—are now priced. This matters because electrification of industry and transport can only deliver deep cuts if electricity itself is low-carbon.
Industry is catching up fast. Thanks to China’s ETS expansion, over 40% of industrial emissions are now covered, marking a major leap for one of the most carbon-intensive sectors.
Carbon Markets Channel Private Capital
Despite short-term price softening, demand remains resilient. Corporations remain the biggest buyers through voluntary and domestic compliance markets, viewing credits as essential for net-zero alignment. Global retirements rose in early 2025, driven by a spike in compliance demand.
This reflects carbon markets’ central role: channeling private capital into decarbonization projects while governments pursue broader policy goals like economic development, job creation, and fiscal stability.
The Political Economy of Pricing
The durability of carbon pricing depends not just on policy design but also on public sentiment and perceived fairness. Governments are balancing competing goals—emissions cuts, economic growth, and equity. As seen with China and Colombia, systems are being designed to ratchet up coverage and ambition over time, offering flexibility while building acceptance.
This political economy lens will be crucial as carbon pricing moves into harder-to-abate sectors like heavy industry and as middle-income economies such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Türkiye expand their systems.
Outlook: Carbon Market Integrity Over Volume
The global carbon market is no longer defined by raw volume. Instead, the reset since 2022 has pushed integrity to the forefront. Whether through nature-based solutions, industrial projects, or advanced removals, the projects that deliver measurable, durable impact will attract the highest demand and premiums.
What’s clear from BNEF’s forecast on carbon credits supply is that carbon markets will remain a cornerstone of climate finance, one where buyers, governments, and investors increasingly value quality over quantity.
The post Carbon Credits Supply to Skyrocket 35x by 2050 – But at What Price? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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