The lithium market is undergoing significant changes as demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and energy storage solutions continues to rise. This soft, silvery-white metal remains at the center of the global clean energy transition.
Let’s uncover the major market trends according to experts and significant insights shared by the head of a lithium extraction company in an exclusive interview.
Lithium Market Trends from CERAWeek 2025
At CERAWeek 2025, industry experts highlighted key trends shaping the lithium market. Experts noted that while lithium demand remains high due to EVs and energy storage systems, the market has seen volatility.
Lithium prices in China fell from $76,000 per ton in early 2023 to about $23,000 per ton by year’s end. This drop raised worries about supply chain stability.
One of the most pressing concerns is the lack of a strong domestic lithium supply chain in the United States. Experts say that 77% of graphite for lithium-ion batteries comes from China. Overall, 53% of the US’s graphite imports since 2023 are from China. This highlights the need to diversify supply.
- Battery production drives lithium demand. In 2023, global lithium consumption hit 180,000 tons. This marks a 27% rise from last year.
S&P Global Market Intelligence and Commodity Insights predict that lithium supplies will remain in surplus until 2032. However, as of Q4 2024, the U.S. still relies heavily on imports, with most of its lithium coming from Chile and Argentina.
Industry leaders at the conference stressed the importance of new extraction technologies to meet future demand. An expert noted that lithium-metal batteries are 10x more powerful than lithium-ion batteries. This could change the game. They highlighted how waste lithium metal from industry could help build a circular supply chain.
Scalability remains a significant challenge, however. Companies are putting money into resource validation projects. They’re also expanding lithium extraction facilities to produce 20,000 tons each year.
The focus is now on producing lithium at a large scale. The aim is for sustainable sourcing methods to keep the lithium market stable in the long run. These insights reinforce the need for technological advancements, government support, and recycling initiatives to build a more resilient lithium industry.
This is where the unique technology of a company promising to optimize lithium production and make it eco-friendly comes in.
François-Michel Colomar, Head of International Development at Adionics, shares insights on lithium extraction. He discusses challenges and opportunities, pricing trends, and how new technologies shape the industry’s future.
What Factors Drive the 2025 Lithium Market Recovery?
After a turbulent 2024, the lithium market is showing early signs of recovery in 2025. Colomar attributes this rebound to the increasing demand from EV manufacturers and energy storage providers.
François-Michel Colomar: “As global policies push for electrification and clean energy adoption, the need for lithium continues to grow. Furthermore, advancements in extraction technologies, such as Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE), are improving efficiency and reducing environmental impact. These technological improvements, combined with increased investments in domestic lithium production, are helping stabilize the market.”
Despite past price corrections, Colomar remains optimistic about sustained growth, driven by ongoing investments in sustainable lithium production.
Lithium Price Projections and Market Forces
Looking ahead, lithium prices are expected to climb to between around $15,000 and $20,000 per ton by 2028. Colomar provided insights into what key market forces will contribute to this growth.
François-Michel Colomar: “The projected price increase of lithium is largely driven by the rising demand for EV batteries and energy storage solutions. Global lithium consumption is expected to surpass supply in the coming years, putting upward pressure on prices.
He also highlights the role of efficient and sustainable extraction technologies in stabilizing the market while meeting increasing demand. The push for local lithium production and recycling initiatives will be crucial in reducing reliance on traditional mining operations.
The Role of New Extraction Technologies
Innovative extraction technologies are revolutionizing the lithium industry, offering more sustainable and cost-effective alternatives to traditional methods. One such advancement is DLE, which allows for selective lithium extraction with minimal environmental impact.
François-Michel Colomar: “Unlike traditional lithium mining, which relies on evaporation ponds and hard rock mining, DLE offers a more efficient and environmentally friendly alternative. It allows for higher lithium recovery rates, reduces water usage, and minimizes ecological disruption. At Adionics, our technology achieves lithium recoveries of up to 98%, making it a game-changer in sustainable lithium production.”
Adionics’ Position in the Lithium Industry
Adionics is playing a key role in advancing sustainable lithium production and battery recycling. Its technology enables the extraction of high-purity lithium from battery black mass, addressing a major challenge in the recycling process.
Colomar emphasized their unique position in the broader lithium and battery recycling landscape.
François-Michel Colomar: “By providing a domestic alternative to overseas processing, we are strengthening the local supply chain and reducing dependence on newly mined lithium. Our approach supports a truly circular economy, ensuring that lithium resources are efficiently reused.”
Impact of EV Demand on Lithium Supply and Pricing
With global EV sales projected to reach 54.7 million units by 2030, the demand for lithium is expected to soar. Colomar predicts that this surge will create supply chain pressures, potentially leading to price fluctuations.
François-Michel Colomar: “The rapid expansion of the EV market will undoubtedly put pressure on lithium supply chains. While increased production capacity and improved extraction methods will help balance supply and demand, the industry must also focus on recycling to supplement primary lithium sources. We anticipate some price volatility, but long-term trends indicate continued growth in lithium prices as demand outpaces supply.”
However, advancements in extraction technologies and recycling capabilities will help mitigate these challenges.
The Importance of Lithium Recycling
Recycling lithium is crucial in addressing supply chain constraints and reducing environmental impacts. Tofanni highlighted this while detailing how their technology helps in this way.
François-Michel Colomar: “With demand projected to exceed supply by 2029, recycling offers a way to recover valuable materials and reduce reliance on newly mined lithium. Adionics’ technology allows for high-purity lithium extraction from recycled batteries without producing toxic waste. This advancement is crucial in creating a closed-loop system where lithium can be reused efficiently.”
Balancing Rapid Lithium Production with Sustainability
The lithium industry faces the challenge of balancing rapid production with sustainable practices. Colomar emphasizes the need for efficient extraction technologies that minimize environmental harm.
François-Michel Colomar: “Sustainability must be a top priority. Technologies like DLE provide a solution by allowing for high lithium recovery rates without the negative environmental impact of traditional mining.”
Adionics’ lithium extraction process boosts recovery rates and purity. It also cuts water use and removes toxic by-products. These innovations enable the industry to scale up production while maintaining environmental responsibility.
Future Trends in the Lithium and Battery Industry
Looking beyond 2030, Colomar foresees major shifts in the lithium and battery industries.
François-Michel Colomar: “First, we expect a greater emphasis on recycling and circular economy practices. Second, advancements in battery technology, such as solid-state batteries, could reduce reliance on lithium-ion cells. Lastly, the industry will see increased efforts to localize lithium supply chains, reducing geopolitical risks and ensuring stable access to this critical mineral.”
Adionics is at the forefront of these changes, driving innovation in lithium extraction and recycling.
Lithium’s Role in the Clean Energy Transition
Lithium remains a key enabler of the clean energy transition, powering EVs and energy storage systems. As the world moves toward net-zero emissions, lithium demand will continue to grow.
François-Michel Colomar highlights the importance of integrating sustainable extraction and recycling methods to ensure a reliable lithium supply. By investing in innovative technologies, the industry can support the global shift to clean energy while minimizing environmental impacts.
The 2025 lithium market presents both challenges and opportunities. Rising demand, evolving extraction technologies, and a growing focus on sustainability will shape the industry’s future.
The post Lithium Market Insight 2025: Price Recovery, EV Demand, and the Future of Extraction – Exclusive Interview appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
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