Gold prices have climbed to historic levels in global markets, with Bloomberg reporting that spot gold hit an intraday all‑time high of 4,689.15 dollars per ounce on January 19, 2026. This milestone underscores intense safe‑haven demand as investors navigate ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty and shifting expectations for future interest‑rate cuts.
Gold’s latest surge extends a powerful bull run. In 2025, the metal posted more than 50 new record highs and delivered a yearly return of over 60 percent, drawing in institutional investors, central banks, and retail traders seeking diversification and protection against market volatility.
Over the past two years, gold prices have roughly doubled, a rare feat for a major, highly liquid commodity, reinforcing its status as a store of value and hedge against inflation and geopolitical risk.
Why Investors Flock to Gold: Safe Haven and Policy Signals
A key driver of the gold rally is shifting expectations around monetary policy, especially in the United States. Many investors now expect the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates in 2026.
When interest rates fall, gold becomes more attractive because it does not pay interest or dividends. This lowers the opportunity cost of holding gold compared with bonds or savings.
The U.S. dollar has also shown signs of weakening against other major currencies at times, another factor that boosts gold demand. A weaker dollar makes gold cheaper for holders of non‑U.S. currencies, increasing global buying pressure.
During periods of market stress and geopolitical tension, investors often treat gold as a safe haven. These conditions have become more common in late 2025 and early 2026, driving flows into gold‑related investments.
Central Banks: The Steady Hands Behind Gold’s Rally
Central banks have played an unusually large role in supporting gold prices. According to World Gold Council data, global central banks added 1,044.6 metric tons of gold to reserves in 2024. This was the third year in a row that purchases exceeded 1,000 tons. This amount is much higher than the long-term average of about 473 tons from 2010 to 2021.
Gold as a percentage of total reserve holdings across select central banks
The trend continued into 2025, with central banks acquiring substantial amounts through the third quarter. Net quarterly demand from investors and central banks hit about 980 tons. This equals roughly $109 billion in gold inflows for Q3 2025.
Major buyers include emerging market central banks such as Poland, China, India, and Turkey, each adding significant quantities to their reserves. These purchases help reduce reliance on foreign currencies and support financial diversification strategies.
Strong central bank buying has limited the amount of gold available on the markets for other buyers. Because these purchases tend to be long‑term and price‑insensitive, they act as a stable base of demand, supporting higher price levels.
Supply Tightness Keeps Prices Elevated
Gold supply has struggled to keep pace with rising demand. Mining production reached a record 3,661 metric tons in 2024, a modest increase of 0.6% year‑over‑year.
Production gains happened in Mexico, Canada, and Ghana. However, rising costs have offset some of this growth. Overall cost to produce gold, measured as all‑in sustaining cost (AISC), rose to about $1,399 per ounce in 2024, up roughly 8% from the prior year.
Recycling and secondary supply help the market, but they have limits. These sources haven’t eased market tightness much. The combination of constrained supply and strong demand keeps pressure on prices.
Global Ripple Effects: From Central Banks to Exploration
Rising gold prices have real economic and financial impacts. In the Philippines, for instance, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas noted that its gold holdings jumped about 70% in 2025. They reached a record $18.6 billion. This rise was mainly due to a big increase in gold prices. Gold now makes up about 17% of the central bank’s foreign exchange reserves.
Around the world, strong gold prices have influenced central bank profits and balance sheets. The Swiss National Bank reported one of its highest profit levels in history in 2025, driven in part by gains on its gold holdings as prices rallied.
High prices have also affected exploration activity. Australia’s gold exploration spending jumped about 34% year-over-year in Q2 2025. This rise shows growing interest in new projects as prices have gone up.
- SEE MORE: Gold Price Today Surges to All-Time High at $3,671 as Miners Push ESG and Carbon Reduction Goals
What This Means for Investors and Markets
The current rise in gold prices shows a mix of economic risks, expectations about monetary policy, and high demand from official sectors. These forces suggest that gold’s role as a defensive asset remains important in the current environment.
While gold does not produce income, it continues to attract buyers seeking stability and diversification. Central banks are accumulating gold. This, along with strong investor demand and limited supply, pushes prices up.
Analyst forecasts suggest that gold may remain elevated in the coming year if these conditions persist. Some forecasts suggest gold might average around $4,753 per ounce until 2026, per J.P. Morgan’s forecast. It could rise more in 2027 if global economic stress grows.
In this context, gold’s rise is not just a short‑term spike. It highlights key changes in how investors, banks, and governments deal with uncertainty and risk. As these trends evolve, gold is likely to remain a key asset in global financial markets.
Beyond market forces and central bank demand, the gold industry is also under pressure to reduce its environmental impact and align with global climate goals.
Gold Goes Green: Mining’s Climate and Net-Zero Push
Gold mining produces greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from fuel and electricity used in mining and processing. In 2023, primary gold mines around the world released about 46.6 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e) from direct (Scope 1) and electricity (Scope 2) emissions. This number reflects the energy‑intensive nature of mining operations.
Leading gold producers have set clear climate targets to reduce emissions and improve sustainability. For example, Barrick Gold aims to cut its own operational Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by at least 30% by 2030 from a 2018 baseline. It also plans to reach net‑zero emissions by 2050 as part of its long‑term climate strategy. The company is investing in big solar power plants to reduce the use of fossil fuels. One of these is a 200 MW solar farm for the Nevada Gold Mines complex.
Newmont Corporation, a leading gold producer, also plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030. They also aim for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The company is shifting its energy mix and investing in cleaner technologies to meet these goals.
Gold Fields has committed to cutting its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 30% by 2030 from a 2016 baseline and to reach net‑zero emissions by 2050. In 2023, the company reduced its emissions intensity to 660 kg CO₂e per ounce of gold, compared with 669 kg CO₂e per ounce in 2022. It plans further cuts through increased use of renewables, energy efficiency, and lower‑carbon mine equipment.
- MUST READ: Gold’s Enduring Value: How Sierra Madre Is Advancing Mexico’s Next Generation of Gold Projects
Renewables Powering Gold Production
Some producers are already deploying renewable energy at scale. For example, Barrick’s Nevada operations have reduced electricity‑related emissions by investing in solar power and renewable energy credits.
Other mines are testing battery-electric haul trucks. They’re also using renewable microgrids and off-grid solar and wind sites. This helps cut diesel use and lower carbon output.
These company commitments show that gold mining firms are integrating emissions reduction into their business plans. Many have set 2030 interim goals to lower emissions, and most aim for net‑zero emissions by 2050, in line with global climate targets.
Beyond individual companies, the gold industry as a whole is moving toward sustainability. The World Gold Council’s Net Zero by 2050 framework guides miners across the sector. It focuses on greater use of renewable energy, electrification of operations, and closer engagement with suppliers.
In 2024, renewable sources accounted for about 35% of electricity used in gold mining, up from roughly 15% in 2019. This shows steady progress in cutting power-related emissions.
Gold’s recent price rise shows global economic uncertainty. It also reflects strong demand from investors and central banks. At the same time, the industry is taking meaningful steps to reduce emissions and advance sustainability. This shows that gold can be both a safe investment and a cleaner, more responsible choice.
The post Gold Prices Smash Another Record: Spot Gold Hits $4,689 All‑Time High as Central Banks Go on a Buying Spree appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
