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.
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.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits