The global energy system is under pressure again. This time, the shock is not just about oil and gas. It is also about minerals that power clean energy and nuclear technologies. Media reports revealed that, according to International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol, the current crisis could soon look small compared to what lies ahead in critical minerals.
Speaking at a major industry event in Canberra, Birol warned that supply risks in minerals like uranium, copper, and battery metals could reshape global energy security. His message was clear: countries must diversify supply chains now or face deeper disruptions later.
A New Energy Shock Unfolds
The world is already dealing with a massive energy disruption. The ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has removed the equivalent of around 10 million barrels of oil per day from global markets, according to the IEA. This supply gap has pushed countries to rethink energy security. Oil prices remain volatile, and supply routes are under strain. However, Birol stressed that the bigger challenge may not be oil at all.
Instead, the future risk lies in critical minerals. These materials are essential for clean energy systems, electric vehicles (EVs), and nuclear power. Without stable access to them, the global energy transition could slow down sharply.
The problem is concentration. Today, one country dominates the refining and processing of many key minerals. China controls more than 80% of global refining capacity for several critical materials, according to IEA estimates. This creates a major bottleneck in supply chains.
To sum up, without urgent diversification, countries could face even greater risks than today’s energy shock.
IEA Highlights Australia as a Reliable Supplier of Uranium and Critical Minerals
Amid these concerns, Australia is emerging as a key player. The country holds vast reserves of critical minerals and energy resources. This includes uranium, lithium, copper, and natural gas.
Australia has the world’s largest uranium reserves. It accounts for roughly one-third of the known global resources, according to data from the Minerals Council of Australia. At the same time, it ranks among the top global uranium producers, alongside Kazakhstan, Canada, and Namibia.
This puts the nation in a strong position as nuclear energy gains traction again worldwide. IEA highlighted that Australia is a reliable supplier that does not use energy exports as a geopolitical tool. This reliability is becoming more valuable as global tensions rise.
At the same time, Australia is also rich in battery minerals. It is the world’s largest producer of lithium and a major supplier of nickel and cobalt. These materials are critical for EV batteries and renewable energy storage.
SMRs Open Lucrative Uranium Export Path for Australia
One of the biggest shifts expected from this crisis is the revival of nuclear energy. Governments are now looking for stable, low-carbon energy sources that can reduce reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets.
A key driver of this nuclear growth will be Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). They are smaller, faster to build, and more flexible than traditional nuclear plants. Countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and South Korea are leading their development.
The IEA expects global nuclear capacity to grow strongly through 2035. In its latest outlook, nuclear generation could rise by nearly 50% by 2040 under net-zero scenarios. This shift will significantly increase demand for uranium. According to the World Nuclear Association, uranium demand could double by 2040 if new reactors and SMRs scale up as expected.
For Australia, this presents a major export opportunity. Even though the country does not use nuclear power domestically, it plays a crucial role in supplying fuel to the global market.
One of the biggest shifts expected from this crisis is the revival of nuclear energy. Governments are now looking for stable, low-carbon energy sources that can reduce reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets.
As per WNA, in 2022, Australia produced 4087 tU of uranium, 8% of global production. Uranium comprises about 17% of the country’s energy exports in thermal terms.
Contracted Imports of Australian Uranium Oxide Concentrate – U3O8
LNG Demand Set to Rise
The current crisis is also boosting demand for liquefied natural gas (LNG). Damage to energy infrastructure in the Middle East has disrupted supply flows, forcing countries to seek alternatives.
Australia is already one of the world’s largest LNG exporters. Projects in Western Australia and Queensland supply key markets across Asia, including Japan, South Korea, and China.
Birol said demand for Australian LNG is expected to grow further as countries look for stable suppliers. This could strengthen Australia’s role in global gas markets in the short to medium term. Similarly, Wood Mac had also projected earlier that the nation’s exports would remain steady throughout this year,
According to the International Energy Agency, global LNG demand is projected to rise by around 3–4% annually through 2030, driven by Asia’s energy needs and coal-to-gas switching.
- READ MORE: War Could Boost Carbon Credit Demand: How Middle East Energy Crisis May Reshape Climate Markets
EV Growth Drives Copper and Battery Metals
Beyond nuclear and gas, electrification is another major trend shaping demand. The global shift to EVs and renewable energy systems is accelerating the need for metals like copper, lithium, and nickel.
Copper is especially important. It is used in power grids, EV motors, and renewable energy systems. Birol emphasized that expanding electricity grids worldwide will require massive amounts of copper.
The IEA estimates that clean energy technologies could double global copper demand by 2040. Similarly, lithium demand could grow more than 40 times under aggressive climate scenarios.
As said before, Australia is well-positioned here too. It leads global lithium production and has large untapped reserves of other key minerals. This gives it a strategic advantage as countries race to secure supply chains.
Investment Trends Show Growing Interest
Recent data shows rising investment in Australia’s resource sector. Uranium exploration spending has picked up after years of decline. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, uranium exploration spending reached about $55 million in 2023. This marked the highest level in over a decade.
This increase reflects renewed interest in nuclear energy and long-term expectations of higher uranium demand. At the same time, mining companies are investing more in critical minerals projects. Governments are also stepping in with policies to support domestic processing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains.
Minerals, Not Oil, Are the New Battleground for Energy Security
While the current energy crisis is serious, Birol’s warning points to a deeper challenge. The world is entering a new phase where minerals, not just fuels, will define energy security. If supply chains remain concentrated, disruptions could become more frequent and more severe. This could slow down clean energy deployment and push up costs.
Diversification is key. Countries need to invest in new mining projects, expand refining capacity, and build resilient supply networks. And Australia is likely to play a central role in this shift. Its vast resources, stable political environment, and strong export infrastructure make it a critical partner for many nations.
The global energy landscape is changing fast. Oil shocks are no longer the only concern. Critical minerals are becoming the new backbone of energy systems. As nuclear power returns, EV adoption rises, and clean energy expands, demand for these materials will surge. This creates both risks and opportunities.
The challenge now is to scale supply, diversify processing, and ensure these materials remain accessible. If not, today’s energy crisis could soon be overshadowed by a much larger minerals crunch.
The post IEA Sounds Alarm as War Disrupts Energy Markets, Boosting Australia’s Uranium Demand appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
