Connect with us

Published

on

Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals.

When General Motors (GM) committed $625 million to develop Thacker Pass in Nevada, it did more than fund a lithium project. It established a new model for how automakers secure critical minerals, and in doing so, it reshaped how investors should evaluate the next generation of U.S. lithium assets.

This was not a passive investment. It was a fully structured supply chain partnership, combining equity, long-term offtake, and pricing strategy into a single agreement. 

For investors watching Nevada’s clay lithium sector, the implication is clear: the first project has been validated – now the market is looking for what comes next.

A Landmark Deal and a New Partnership Model

GM’s $625 million investment in Lithium Americas remains one of the largest commitments by an automaker into upstream battery materials. The structure of the deal matters as much as its size. 

GM secured exclusive access to Phase 1 production, locking in long-term supply from Thacker Pass, which is expected to produce around 40,000 tonnes per year of battery-grade lithium carbonate. That output alone could support hundreds of thousands to up to 1 million EVs annually.

More importantly, the agreement evolved into a joint venture structure, with GM ultimately taking a 38% ownership stake in the project while securing long-term offtake rights. This started as a TopCo equity investment but changed into a JV. 

John Evans, LAC CEO, said in an interview on the GM agreement:

“They view this as an investment as much as they do a hedge to ensure that they get low-cost lithium. They want to run this JV as a business.”

A key highlight of the Thacker Pass deal is GM’s offtake agreement, which now serves as a template for a world-class OEM arrangement. GM must purchase at least 20% of its North American lithium demand, with the option to increase to 100%. 

The floor price is “meaningfully above” the August 2024 low (~$10,000/t) but below current prices (~$21,000/t), as noted by Evans. GM was given an effective discount at higher price levels, lightly structured when prices at that time were at ~$60,000/t.

GM provides rolling three-year forecasts, with the next year’s volume fixed, allowing Lithium Americas to commit remaining volume to third parties. The agreement covers up to three years of contracted volume at a time. 

GM Moves Upstream: From Automaker to Lithium Investor

The GM–Thacker Pass agreement highlights a shift in the lithium market. Automakers are moving upstream, directly into mining, to secure supply, manage costs, and reduce geopolitical risk. This approach is driven by both market forces and policy, with the U.S. pushing for domestic sourcing of critical minerals to support EV supply chains.

Key elements of this emerging model include:

  • Equity participation in the mining project,
  • Long-term offtake agreements tied to production, and
  • Structured pricing mechanisms to manage volatility.

Thacker Pass sits at the center of that strategy. It is widely recognized as the largest known lithium resource in the United States, and with construction underway, it is moving from concept to execution.

Breaking the Clay Lithium Barrier

For years, sedimentary clay lithium has carried a persistent discount in the market. Unlike brine operations in South America or hard-rock mining in Australia, clay deposits had never been proven at a commercial scale. The uncertainty around processing, recovery rates, and operating costs limited investor confidence.

Thacker Pass is now changing that, with construction underway, production targeted later this decade, and processing planned using sulfuric acid leaching at an industrial scale. Once operational, it will mark the first large-scale commercial validation of clay lithium extraction.

In resource markets, once a new extraction method is proven, capital follows. Financing improves, development timelines accelerate, and the entire category begins to reprice. This is exactly what happened in Chile’s brine sector decades ago. Clay lithium in Nevada may now be entering a similar phase.

Why This Matters for Investors

GM’s investment provides a real-world benchmark for what a bankable lithium project looks like in today’s market. It demonstrates that:

  • OEMs are willing to invest upstream
  • Long-term offtake agreements can anchor financing
  • Domestic lithium supply is now a strategic priority

It also answers a key question that has held back the sector: Will major industrial players commit to clay lithium at scale? The answer is now yes.

The Next Project in the Queue: NNLP

With Thacker Pass moving forward, investor focus naturally shifts to the next project capable of attracting similar strategic interest. That brings attention to Surge Battery Metals’ Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP), a structurally aligned next-tier candidate. 

NNLP is not competing with Thacker Pass as a first mover; it is emerging as a next-generation project within a now-validated category.

NNLP stands out based on core project metrics that directly impact economics. Its average lithium grade of 3,010 ppm is significantly higher than Thacker Pass Phase 1 material, which ranges from 1,500 to 2,500 ppm. Higher grades typically translate into more efficient recovery and lower processing intensity per tonne. 

Surge lithium clay comparison

The project also benefits from near-surface mineralization and a low strip ratio of approximately 1.16:1. This may reduce mining complexity and indicate efficient material movement. 

From a cost perspective, NNLP’s estimated operating cost of around $5,243 per tonne LCE compares favorably to LAC’s Thacker Pass guidance of roughly $6,200 per tonne.

Beyond geology, NNLP aligns with the same development framework that defines Thacker Pass. The project has secured a strategic partnership with Evolution Mining, funding up to C$10 million toward the Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS), while Fluor Corporation, the engineering firm involved in Thacker Pass, is leading the PFS at NNLP. 

Surge joint venture evolution mining

Leadership expertise also matters: Steffen Ball, a key member of the team, previously led battery raw material sourcing strategies at major automakers. These include Nissan North America and Ford Motor Company, aligning with the type of OEM agreements now seen in GM–Thacker Pass.

Scale, Market Tailwinds, and Second-Wave Opportunities

Scale is critical to attract major OEM partners. NNLP outlines a 42-year mine life with average annual production of approximately 86,300 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent. That output positions it to support long-term anchor offtake agreements, similar in structure to what GM secured at Thacker Pass.

Market fundamentals continue to support these developments:

  • Global lithium demand is projected to more than double by 2030.
  • EV production is scaling rapidly across major markets.
  • Governments are prioritizing domestic supply chains for critical minerals.

Even with recent lithium price volatility, long-term fundamentals remain intact. GM’s investment reflects a forward-looking strategy: secure supply today to avoid constraints tomorrow. 

Thacker Pass carries the burden of being first, proving the process, building infrastructure, and validating the economics of clay lithium. This creates opportunities for projects that follow, like NNLP, which benefit from reduced technical uncertainty, clearer financing pathways, and a market that now understands clay lithium.

First Project Validated, Next Project Poised to Follow

GM’s $625 million investment was not just a bet on one project. It was a commitment to a new supply chain model for lithium—one that integrates mining, manufacturing, and long-term demand into a single structure. Thacker Pass is now proving that model, and NNLP is positioned to fit within it.

With higher grades, favorable mining characteristics, strong development partners, and the right scale, NNLP aligns with the criteria that attracted one of the world’s largest automakers to Nevada clay lithium in the first place. 

For investors, the takeaway is straightforward: the first project is being built, the template is established, and the next project in the queue is becoming easier to identify.

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 $75,000 to provide marketing services for a term of three 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, 2025, 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.


Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: .

Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.

Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.

The post GM Bets $625 Million on Nevada Lithium Clay: What It Signals for the Next U.S. Project appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business

Published

on

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) just rolled out a major revision to its Net-Zero Standard, Version 2.0. It changes how companies set climate targets, how much room they actually have to hit those targets, and how carbon credits fit into a credible net-zero strategy. Below, we break down what’s changing, when it takes effect, and why it matters even if your business isn’t formally an SBTi participant.

Key takeaways

  • SBTi is the default reference point for corporate climate action: 51% of Fortune Global 500 companies now hold net-zero targets, up from 8% in 2020, and over 11,000 organizations worldwide have SBTi-validated targets.
  • Net Zero Standard V2 redefines climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions, not reduction alone.
  • The new standard adds flexibility through five-year cycles, a “best efforts” standard, and an Asset Transition Method for companies whose path to net-zero doesn’t fit a straight-line trajectory.
  • Voluntary carbon credits are formally recognized for the first time, with reduction and removal credits accepted from 2027, and removals required from 2035.
  • Companies with 2030 targets keep using V1 for their current cycle and move to V2 in 2028; companies without targets can start using V2 on February 1, 2027.

Why every business needs to understand the SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has become the default reference point for credible corporate climate action. Net-zero targets are now held by 51% of Fortune Global 500 (FG500) companies, up dramatically from just 8% in 2020, and more than 11,000 organizations worldwide have set SBTi-validated targets.

However, SBTi’s influence extends well beyond the companies formally participating in the program. Every business in the value chain of an SBTi participant will have to reduce its own carbon emissions, and businesses that aren’t SBTi participants themselves still look to the program for guidance on climate action.

In short, SBTi gives every business a credible blueprint for climate action, and companies that follow its principles can pursue climate action with confidence, whether or not they’re formally part of the program.

How will the Net Zero Standard revision affect business climate action?

SBTi participation is expected to grow. Despite strong target-setting participation among the F500, only 17% of companies use the SBTi Net Zero Standard V1 beyond target setting, largely because its rules have been seen as too rigid to apply in practice. Much of the Net Zero Standard revision has focused on creating more flexibility to enable higher participation. Medium and small businesses will also increasingly feel pressure for climate action, since SBTi mandates that its participants reduce carbon emissions across their value chains.

Net Zero Standard V2 also redefines climate leadership: leading climate action now means reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. Reducing your own emissions while ignoring the emissions you continue to release along the way is no longer considered leadership. Supporting voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits is now backed by the leading authority on corporate climate action.

What lessons shaped the Net Zero Standard V2 revision?

The revision reflects a few learnings about what actually drives climate progress, and how SBTi built those lessons into the new standard.

Net Zero Standard V1 Learnings Net Zero Standard V2 Implementation
Making real short-term progress is more important and more difficult than making big long-term promises Focus on short-term climate progress
Every company has a different path to net zero that doesn’t always fit generalized net-zero rules Create asset transition plans based on each company’s unique asset lifecycles and capital planning
We need to mitigate our ongoing emissions to keep global carbon emissions in check Reduce global carbon emissions by financing voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits

What are the key changes between the old and new Net Zero Standard?

Both versions of the standard are grounded in net-zero by 2050. However, the old standard treated climate leadership as simply reducing emissions, expected a long-term commitment to net zero, based emission reduction targets on generalized net-zero goals, revoked status from companies that fell behind on targets, and ignored voluntary carbon projects entirely.

The new standard treats climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. It shifts the focus to short-term progress through five-year cycles, and it bases emission reduction targets on both the net-zero goal and a company’s own asset decarbonization plan. A new Asset Transition Method lets companies set decarbonization targets through asset plans with committed, verifiable steps; an ambitious but achievable path based on a company’s starting point, financial resources, and technology, with multiple pathways to reflect the unique opportunities and constraints of different industries and companies.

Crucially, the new standard moves to a “best efforts” basis that creates real flexibility on progress against targets. Businesses that miss their targets can keep their status if they’ve used “every lever” within their control, and minimum progress rules will be set out in the SBTi Assurance Manual.

Finally, the new standard formally uses voluntary carbon projects to mitigate ongoing emissions. From 2027 through 2034, this mitigation is recognized, and both carbon reduction and removal credits are accepted. From 2035 forward, mitigation with carbon removal credits becomes required, with durability matching between the removal and the emission it offsets.

Old Net Zero Standard New Net Zero Standard
Grounded in net-zero by 2050 Grounded in net-zero by 2050
Climate leadership is reducing emissions Climate leadership is reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions
Make a long-term commitment to net-zero Focus on short-term progress in 5-year cycles
Emission reduction targets are based on net-zero goal
  • Emission reduction targets are based on net-zero goal and asset decarbonization plan
  • Adds SBTi’s Asset Transition Method
  • Decarbonization targets are set through asset plans with committed, verifiable steps
  • Ambitious but achievable path based on starting point, financial resources, technology
  • Multiple pathways for unique opportunities and constraints of industries and companies
Businesses who fall behind targets lose status
  • “Best efforts” basis creates flexibility on progress to targets
  • Businesses that miss targets can keep status if they used “every lever” in their control
  • Minimum progress rules will be provided in the SBTi Assurance Manual
Ignores voluntary carbon projects
  • Uses voluntary carbon projects to mitigate ongoing emissions
  • 2027–2034: Mitigation is recognized. Carbon reduction and removal credits are accepted.
  • 2035 forward: Mitigation with carbon removal credits is required, with durability matching.

When does the new Net Zero Standard take effect?

Companies with existing 2030 targets should continue using the old Net Zero Standard for their current cycle, and start using the new Net Zero Standard in 2028 to set targets for the next cycle (2030–2035).

Companies that don’t yet have targets can use the new Net Zero Standard starting February 1, 2027.

What are SBTi’s Category A and Category B companies?

The new Net Zero Standard splits companies into two categories, with different requirements attached to each.

Category A covers large companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from high-income countries. A company from any country qualifies if it meets at least one of: net turnover of €450 million or more, or 1,000 or more full-time employees. A company from a high-income country qualifies if its Scope 1 and 2 emissions are 10,000 tCO2e or more, or if it meets at least two of: balance sheet of €25 million or more, net turnover of €50 million or more, or 250 or more full-time employees.

Category B covers small companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from lower-income countries.

How do Scope 1 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?

Scope 1 targets aim to transition companies to net-zero direct emissions by 2050 or sooner, and companies can choose from three approaches.

  1. Absolute emissions reduction follows a straight-line emissions trajectory from the target base year to the net-zero year.
  2. Emissions intensity reduction lets companies follow sector-specific pathways designed to reflect the reduction opportunities available in sectors like steel, cement, or chemicals.
  3. Asset transition is designed for companies whose capital stock turnover doesn’t follow a linear or sector pathway. These companies design a transition plan to operate existing assets efficiently and replace them with low-carbon assets, using predetermined milestones.

How do Scope 2 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?

Scope 2 targets address emissions from purchased electricity through three pathways:

  1. Reducing electricity consumption,
  2. Reducing grid consumption by installing onsite or direct-line offsite clean energy generation, and
  3. Cleaning up the regional grid using market-based tools like PPAs, RECs, and GOs that drive clean energy development.

V2 introduces a dual Scope 2 framework requiring two separate targets, with an overall goal of 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040.

The location-based target addresses the carbon intensity of a company’s physical power use, and requires companies to show that their grid consumption is falling and/or that their physical grid use is getting cleaner; in other words, that their market-based solutions are actually making the grid cleaner.

The market-based (or zero-carbon electricity) target tracks a company’s use of low-carbon power generation contracts and Energy Attribute Certificates. It requires geographical matching of these certificates with electricity consumption based on deliverability regions (grid regions); annual matching is allowed, though hourly matching is encouraged. Category A companies with large electricity loads must report the percentage of their Scope 2 electricity consumption matched with low-carbon attributes on an hourly basis, and there’s an optional recognition framework for companies that meet hourly matching thresholds.

How do Scope 3 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?

Scope 3 targets share the same 2050-or-sooner net-zero goal, but companies set near-term targets only for material emissions sources in their value chain and areas where they have real influence. Long-term Scope 3 targets are generally not required.

Limited, justified exclusions are allowed for near-term targets, including categories that individually account for less than 5% of total Scope 3 emissions, and activities where a company lacks practical influence, like leased assets it doesn’t operationally control, or the processing of sold products. Optional exclusions are also available in specific categories.

Companies can choose from three approaches to near-term Scope 3 targets:

  1. An overarching emissions reduction target, which follows a linear contraction of emissions from the base year to residual emissions of 10% or less by 2050 or sooner;
  2. An overarching supplier/customer alignment target, benchmarked against a growing share of tier 1 suppliers and customers reaching net-zero by 2050 or sooner; or
  3. A category- or activity-specific target, tailored for companies with concentrated emissions in particular Scope 3 categories or high-emitting activities.

What is “ongoing emissions mitigation” under the new SBTi standard?

This is one of the most significant additions in Net Zero Standard V2. Accelerated climate contributions are needed to help the world achieve climate objectives, limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support the scale-up of climate solutions, and V2 formally recognizes that. Ongoing emissions mitigation runs as a parallel track to companies also reducing their own emissions.

The framework is initially voluntary, with recognition available at three contribution levels to encourage early action.

  1. Engaged companies address more than 1% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
  2. Advanced companies address more than 10% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, including 100% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
  3. Leadership companies address 100% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with a contribution budget of $80/tCO2e.

Carbon credits used for this purpose have to meet certain quality standards. They must be ex-post (issued after the mitigation has actually occurred), independently third-party-assured, emissions reductions or removals, measured in tCO2e, that occur within five years prior to the reporting year. They must be sourced from outside the company’s own value chain. Further minimum criteria will be set to align with high-integrity frameworks, with additional details on the recognition program expected in the second half of 2026.

Starting in 2035, carbon removals become mandatory for Category A companies. From that point, the carbon removal coverage requirement rises linearly from 1% of Scope 1–3 emissions to 100% by a company’s net-zero year. Within that, 10% of long-lived GHG emissions must specifically be covered by durable removals, also rising linearly to 100% by the net-zero year.

How must companies neutralize residual emissions?

At a company’s net-zero target year and thereafter, it must reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions to zero or to residual levels, and neutralize all residual emissions using eligible carbon removals. Those removals have to meet two conditions: they must occur within the same reporting period as the residual emissions they’re neutralizing, and long-lived GHGs must be neutralized with long-lived removals, matching the durability of the removal to the atmospheric lifetime of the emission being addressed.

What is the SBTi implementation hierarchy?

Net Zero Standard V2 also lays out how companies should prioritize their actions for credible target delivery, in three tiers.

  1. Direct actions, at the activity level, are actions that reduce emissions at the source within a company’s own operations and value chain; things like efficiency improvements, fuel switching, and engaging suppliers and customers to reduce their emissions.
  2. Actions within shared systems, or activity pools that reduce the emissions of shared systems like electricity or gas grids. This includes market instruments that convey low-carbon attributes, such as PPAs, RECs, and GOs, all of which must meet minimum integrity criteria that SBTi will elaborate on in future guidance.
  3. Sector-level actions relate to the same type of activity occurring in a relevant geography or system, in a way that meaningfully reduces the emissions a company is responsible for.

How Terrapass helps businesses meet the new SBTi standard

As the rules around carbon credits become more rigorous, the quality of the credits behind them matters more than ever. Terrapass has expanded our global network of carbon projects: more project types, locations, prices, ICVCM CCPs, and UN SDGs, spanning super-pollutant destruction, nature-based solutions, and durable removals. We offer Green-e® Climate Certification and we only source from third-party-verified projects on ICVCM-Eligible registries.

We also help clients with impact beyond carbon: EACs, RECs, and GOs including Green-e® Certified credits that support leading renewable energy projects; water credits that support water restoration projects; and custom environmental product needs like RNG and SAF. Wherever your organization is on its sustainability journey, we help clients around the world address climate risk, advance their environmental and social goals, and get the most out of their sustainability budgets.

FAQ: SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision

What is the SBTi Net-Zero Standard?

It’s the framework the Science Based Targets initiative publishes for companies that want validated, credible net-zero targets tied to limiting global warming.

What is changing in the SBTi Net Zero Standard V2 revision?

The biggest changes are more flexibility (five-year cycles and a “best efforts” standard), a new Asset Transition Method for companies whose emissions don’t follow a straight-line path, and formal recognition of voluntary carbon credits for mitigating ongoing emissions.

When do companies need to switch to the new SBTi standard?

If your company already has 2030 targets, you keep using V1 for your current cycle and move to V2 in 2028. If you don’t have targets yet, you can start using V2 as of February 1, 2027.

Can companies use carbon credits to meet SBTi targets?

They can. Under V2, high-integrity carbon reduction and removal credits count toward mitigating ongoing emissions from 2027 through 2034. Starting in 2035, only removal credits count, and they need to be durability-matched to the emissions they offset.

What’s the difference between Category A and Category B companies under SBTi?

Category A is large companies everywhere plus medium-sized companies in high-income countries, based on thresholds like revenue, headcount, or emissions. Category B is small companies everywhere and medium-sized companies in lower-income countries.

What happens if a company misses its SBTi target?

Under the old standard, falling behind could cost a company its SBTi status. Under V2’s “best efforts” approach, a company can hold onto its status as long as it’s used every lever within its control, with minimum progress rules coming in the SBTi Assurance Manual.

Sources: This post is based on Terrapass’s internal analysis of the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0. Facts and figures were checked against SBTi’s official V2.0 announcement, SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 — Chapter 6: Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, Trellis’s coverage of the standard, Trellis’s reporting on Ongoing Emissions Recognition costs, Sylvera’s analysis of what comes next, Anthesis Group’s Fortune 500 net-zero commitments research, and Climate Impact Partners’ seventh annual FG500 analysis, as reported by CarbonUnits.com.

The post SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business appeared first on Terrapass.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How community stewardship makes carbon credits durable

Published

on

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?

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com