China has updated and expanded its carbon reporting rules to cover new sectors. The changes are part of the country’s effort to improve transparency on climate risks and emissions.

Officials have extended carbon reporting requirements to include the airline industry and major industrial sectors such as petrochemicals and copper producers. This is a major shift in how companies disclose climate data and manage emissions.

China also introduced a new national climate reporting standard in late 2025. This standard aims to align with global best practices and to make climate data clearer and more useful to investors and regulators.

The changes reflect China’s strategy to meet its climate targets and to build stronger systems for environmental data. They also show how the Chinese reporting regime is becoming more structured and consistent.

Inside China’s New Climate Disclosure Rulebook

In December 2025, China’s Ministry of Finance and eight other ministries issued the Corporate Sustainable Disclosure Standard No. 1 – Climate (Trial). This is a national framework for climate disclosures.

The standard is based on the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures. It focuses on reporting climate risks, opportunities, and impacts.

Under the new framework, companies are expected to report on their governance, strategy, risk and opportunity management, and metrics and targets.

The Chinese framework also requires more extensive emissions data, including value chain emissions in many cases. This goes beyond basic climate risk reporting.

Currently, the Chinese authorities present the standard as a trial (voluntary phase). However, they plan to expand its use and make parts mandatory over time. They will start with large companies and key sectors.

• READ MORE: Is China Setting a New Global Standard for Corporate Climate Reporting?

High-Emission Sectors Now Under the Spotlight

The newly announced carbon reporting expansion will affect energy-intensive and high-impact sectors, not only traditional industries:

• Airlines: This includes carriers operating domestic and international flights.
• Petrochemical firms: Companies that refine oil and produce chemical products.
• Copper producers: Firms involved in mining and processing copper.

These sectors consume large amounts of energy and generate significant greenhouse gas emissions.

The aviation sector accounts for about 2% of global energy-related CO₂ emissions, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). In 2023, aviation emissions reached roughly 950 million tonnes of CO₂, returning close to pre-pandemic levels. China is one of the world’s largest aviation markets, and fuel combustion remains the dominant source of airline emissions.

The petrochemical industry is also highly carbon-intensive. The IEA reports that petrochemicals account for about 14% of global oil demand and 8% of global gas demand. China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of many petrochemical products, making emissions monitoring in this sector especially important.

Copper production is another energy-heavy industry. The International Copper Association states that producing refined copper needs 2 to 4 tonnes of CO₂ for each tonne of copper. This varies by ore grade and energy source.

China produces over 40% of the world’s refined copper, says the International Energy Agency and global metals stats. Smelting and refining processes consume large amounts of electricity, often generated from fossil fuels.

From Patchwork Rules to a National Framework

The new reporting requirements and standards are part of a wider shift in China’s climate disclosure regime. The country has been building a national corporate climate reporting framework since 2024. This includes guidance from stock exchanges, government agencies, and new national standards.

In January 2026, the national climate reporting standard was formally released. It follows the IFRS S2 climate disclosure framework, but it adds China-specific details. One key requirement is to report the actual business impact on the climate.

Authorities say they’re working on guidelines for industries with high emissions. These include power, steel, coal, petroleum, fertilizer, aluminum, hydrogen, cement, and automobiles, among others.

The current trial phase mainly targets listed companies. But it plans to expand to non-listed firms and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) later on.

China aims to make its climate disclosure regime more comprehensive and quantitative. Companies are expected to shift from narrative statements to detailed data reporting as they develop their climate information systems.

Driving Data to Deliver on Dual-Carbon Goals

As the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, China aims to have its National Emissions Trading System (ETS? cover all major emitting industries by 2027 to help achieve its “dual-carbon” goals:

• peaking emissions before 2030 and reaching carbon neutrality by 2060.

Achieving these goals requires accurate, timely, and comparable emissions data from companies. Improved reporting helps regulators, investors, and the public understand corporate climate risks and progress.

Standardized disclosure can help cut down on greenwashing. This happens when companies overstate or misrepresent their climate performance. Clear rules make it harder to present incomplete or misleading data.

Those who fail to comply will face consequences. For instance, a power plant in Ningxia was recently fined 424 million yuan ($58.5 million) for missing compliance deadlines.

Better climate data also supports green finance. Investors use emissions and climate information to assess risks and make decisions about capital allocation. Reliable data can help direct funding toward low-carbon technologies and projects.

The expanded rules also fit within China’s broader strategy to build a national carbon market and improve its emissions trading system. This market already covers a growing share of the economy and underpins carbon pricing across industries.

The move also responds to global pressures. For example, the European Union’s carbon taxes on imports impact Chinese exporters in these sectors.

China’s ETS and the Use of Carbon Offsets

This data collection phase is a precursor to integrating the industries into China’s ETS. The system initially covers only the power sector, but it has added steel, aluminum, and cement.

• SEE MORE: China Carbon Prices Rise as Metals and Cement Enter the National Trading Scheme

The covered companies can use a limited number of carbon offsets to meet compliance requirements. Under the ETS design, entities can use China Certified Emissions Reductions (CCERs). These must come from projects not included in the national ETS. But companies can surrender CCERs for up to 5% of their verified emissions.

Also, only CCER credits from projects in the new national CCER program can be used after January 2025. This offset flexibility gives companies an option to meet part of their compliance obligations while broader reporting and reduction measures take effect.

The system currently regulates more than 5 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually from the power industry alone. Analysts estimate that once the additional sectors are fully included, the ETS could cover between 8.7 and 10.6 billion tonnes of CO₂ by the late 2020s — representing a significant share of China’s total emissions.

A Transparency Push With Global Implications

China’s expanded reporting rules represent a clear shift toward greater transparency in corporate climate data. Better reporting helps policymakers track progress toward national climate goals. It also helps businesses understand their own climate risks and opportunities.

For investors, richer data support more informed decisions about sustainable investments. This can help channel capital to cleaner technologies and low-carbon business models.

For the global climate community, China’s moves may influence reporting norms in other markets. As the world’s largest emitter, China’s reporting regime could shape climate disclosure expectations elsewhere.

• FURTHER READING: China Adds Power 8x More Than the US in 2025, with $500B Energy Build-Out in a Single Year

The post China Expands Carbon Reporting to Airlines and Heavy Industry in Major Climate Disclosure Shift appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Uranium is back in the spotlight. In 2026, uranium prices are climbing to levels not seen in years, fueled by supply constraints, policy support, and rising demand from nuclear power and AI-driven data centers. What was once a quiet energy commodity is now a strategic asset at the heart of the global energy transition.

Sprott Drives Uranium Price Rally with Strategic Accumulation

As per media reports, the global uranium market entered 2026 with strong momentum, as spot uranium prices surged by roughly 25% in January, surpassing $100 per pound for the first time in two years. This sharp rise reflects growing confidence in nuclear energy and mounting concerns about long-term supply constraints.

According to Sprott Asset Management, the rally toward 2024 peak levels indicates a stronger supportive backdrop than last year. In 2025, prices were volatile—falling in the early months before rebounding from the low $60s to the high $80s in the second half. Today, fundamentals appear more favorable.

Jacob White, Sprott’s ETF products director, noted that the January surge signals a shift in investor focus. Capital is moving away from downstream nuclear themes and returning to the upstream uranium supply chain, largely due to clearer policy signals and improving fundamentals.

Moreover, Sprott has been one of the largest buyers of physical uranium, adding around 4 million pounds to its uranium fund this year and bringing total holdings to nearly 79 million pounds. This accumulation highlights how investors increasingly view uranium as a strategic, long-term asset rather than a cyclical commodity.

Financial Buyers Are Redefining the Market

Institutional investors are transforming uranium into a financial asset class. Funds that accumulate physical uranium create additional demand beyond traditional utilities, removing supply from the spot market and amplifying price volatility.

Unlike utilities, financial buyers are less sensitive to short-term price swings. Their participation reduces downside risk and strengthens the long-term bull market thesis.

Strong Policy Support Is Driving Uranium Prices

Government policy is playing an increasingly influential role in shaping uranium prices in 2026. The U.S. government’s Section 232 framework on critical minerals explicitly designates uranium as vital for energy security and national defense, placing it alongside rare earths and lithium as a strategic resource.

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) committed $2.7 billion over the next decade to expand domestic uranium enrichment. The investment aims to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers while supporting the next phase of nuclear power growth.

AI and Data Centers Boost Uranium Demand

This policy shift reflects a broader change in perception. Nuclear is now viewed as essential for meeting rising electricity demand, powering AI infrastructure, ensuring industrial resilience, and achieving long-term climate goals.

As tech companies increasingly recognize nuclear as a strategic power source, they create a new, enduring layer of uranium demand. Analysts project that the uranium market could expand to $60.5 billion by 2030, with AI-driven demand accelerating this growth.

Enrichment Bottlenecks Highlight Structural Weaknesses

Despite policy support, uranium enrichment remains a major bottleneck. Most reactors operate on low-enriched uranium (LEU), while advanced reactors—including small modular reactors (SMRs)—require high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU).

Currently, the U.S. produces less than 1% of global enrichment capacity and relies heavily on foreign suppliers. New restrictions on Russian uranium imports starting in 2028 further emphasize energy security risks.

Although the DOE’s investment aims to rebuild domestic enrichment capacity, new facilities will take years to become operational. Consequently, near-term enrichment constraints will continue to support higher uranium prices.

Mining Remains the Weakest Link

While enrichment is a challenge, upstream mining remains the weakest link in the nuclear fuel cycle. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that domestic uranium concentrate production fell 44% in Q3 2025, to about 329,623 pounds of U₃O₈, from only six operating facilities, mainly in Wyoming and Texas.

This decline highlights a systemic problem. The nuclear fuel cycle requires coordinated growth across mining, processing, enrichment, and fuel fabrication. Advancements in one segment without corresponding growth in the others create structural bottlenecks.

In the short term, declining production adds bullish pressure. Over the long term, decades of underinvestment in mining point to a persistent supply deficit, which could keep prices elevated.

Uranium Supply and Demand Outlook

Global demand for reactor fuel continued to grow in 2025. The World Nuclear Association estimates uranium requirements at about 68,920 tonnes, or roughly 77,000 tonnes of uranium oxide, up 3% from 2024.

Looking ahead, demand is expected to rise sharply. Under the reference scenario, global uranium needs could reach 107,000 tonnes by 2040, and under a higher-growth scenario, up to 204,000 tonnes.

This growth aligns with increasing nuclear capacity, which is projected to climb to 438 gigawatts by 2030, and nearly 746 gigawatts by 2040. The trend points to a long-term, multi-decade increase in uranium demand.

The U.S. also plans to quadruple nuclear capacity by 2050 and have 10 new large reactors under construction by 2030. If achieved, this expansion would dramatically increase uranium demand.

The timing mismatch between rising demand and the slow pace of mine development creates a structural imbalance between supply and demand. Analysts also speculate that the U.S. government could take equity stakes in uranium miners in exchange for long-term offtake agreements with price floors. This move would further tighten supply and support higher prices.

Kazatomprom’s 2026 Outlook Signals Tight Margins

Recent reports tell that Kazatomprom plans to raise uranium output by about 9% in 2026, targeting 71.5–75.4 million pounds of U₃O₈, slightly below state caps but above analyst forecasts.

However, new ISR projects and brownfield expansions take time, so near-term supply remains constrained, keeping upward pressure on prices.

• PREVIOUSLY: Kazatomprom Uranium Output Jumps 13% in 2025, But Plans for 2026 Cutback 

2026: Why the Uranium Bull Market Could Continue

Given these dynamics, uranium prices could continue trending higher throughout 2026. Government investment, supply bottlenecks, and AI-driven demand are reshaping uranium’s role in the global energy mix. Prices could approach $92 per pound or more, particularly if contracting accelerates or financial buyers continue stockpiling physical uranium.

Uranium is evolving from a traditional commodity into a strategic pillar of the global energy transition. Policy support, structural supply constraints, institutional demand, and AI-driven electricity requirements are creating a compelling long-term bull case.

For investors and utilities alike, the uranium market is signaling that big moves—and big opportunities—are on the horizon.

• SEE MORE: 2026: The Year Nuclear Power Reclaims Relevance With 15 Reactors, AI Demand, and China’s Expansion 

The post Uranium Prices 2026: Supply Crunch and Rising Demand Fuel a Nuclear Bull Market appeared first on Carbon Credits.

A new report from MSCI shows that many listed companies are still not aligned with the world’s most ambitious climate goal. The findings suggest that progress is uneven. Some companies are moving in the right direction. Many are not yet cutting emissions fast enough.

According to MSCI’s latest Transition Finance Tracker, about 38% of companies in the MSCI All Country World Investable Market Index (ACWI IMI) have emissions trajectories that are aligned with limiting global warming to 2°C or below. This includes 12% aligned with 1.5°C or less and 26% aligned between 1.5°C and 2°C.

However, only about 12% of companies are aligned with the stricter 1.5°C goal set under the Paris Agreement. The remaining companies are on pathways that imply warming above 2°C.

In fact, 36% of companies fall in the range above 2°C but below 3.2°C, while 26% exceed 3.2°C. Overall, the median listed company trajectory implies 3°C (5.4°F) of warming above preindustrial levels this century.

MSCI uses a tool called the Implied Temperature Rise (ITR) metric. This tool estimates how much global temperatures would rise if the whole economy followed the same emissions pathway as a given company. It looks at aggregate emissions, sector-specific carbon budgets, and corporate climate targets.

Inside the ITR: Measuring Corporate Warming Impact

MSCI’s ITR metric helps investors understand climate risk. It compares a company’s projected emissions with global carbon budgets that align with temperature goals. The dataset used in this estimate covers roughly 95% of ACWI IMI constituents, as about 5% lack sufficient data for the calculation.

If a company’s emissions plan fits within a 1.5°C carbon budget, it is considered aligned with the most ambitious Paris goal. If it fits within a 2°C budget, it is considered moderately aligned. If not, it implies higher warming.

• The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C, and preferably to 1.5°C, compared with pre-industrial levels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that global emissions must fall by about 43% by 2030, compared with 2019 levels, to keep 1.5°C within reach.

MSCI’s data shows that most companies are not reducing emissions at that pace. The report also notes that its latest warming estimate is three-tenths of a degree higher than the previous quarter due to a methodological update that removed a cap on how much companies could exceed their carbon budgets.

This gap matters because corporate emissions play a major role in global totals. The MSCI ACWI IMI includes 8,225 companies and captures about 99% of the global equity investment opportunity set as of Dec. 31, 2025.

Winners and Laggards: How Sectors Stack Up on Climate

The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) gives a clear look at how corporate climate performance differs by industry.

The TPI report looked at more than 2,000 major companies. These companies have a total market value of about US$87 trillion. The focus was on their climate governance and progress on emissions. It found that 98% of companies lack credible plans to shift capital away from carbon-intensive assets.

The report warns that 554 companies in 12 high-emitting sectors are on a dangerous path. Their current emissions are on track to overshoot the 1.5°C carbon budget by 61% between 2020 and 2050. These same pathways will also likely exceed the 2°C budget by 13% during that same period.

The analysis suggests that many firms consider climate issues in daily decisions. However, few have solid long-term transition plans.

TPI also shows clear differences in sector progress. For example, automotive and electricity companies reduced emissions intensity nearly five times faster between 2020 and 2023 than cement and steel firms. Conversely, sectors such as oil & gas, aluminum, and coal mining remain among the most misaligned with Paris goals.

This highlights that while some industries are beginning to cut emissions and improve governance, most still need stronger transition plans and clearer capital alignment to meet global climate targets.

Climate Alignment Is Now a Financial Risk Indicator

Findings reveal that climate alignment is not only an environmental issue. It is also a financial one.

Governments are tightening climate policies. Carbon pricing systems now cover about 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing report.

More countries are setting net-zero targets. Regulations are increasing disclosure requirements. Investors face growing pressure to measure climate risk in portfolios.

The MSCI report also shows that 19% of listed companies had a climate target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as of Dec. 31, 2025, up from 14% a year earlier. Meanwhile, 32% of companies have set a companywide net-zero target, and 60% have published some form of climate commitment.

Companies that are not aligned with global climate goals may face higher regulatory costs, stranded assets, or weaker demand in the future. On the other hand, companies aligned with 1.5°C or 2°C pathways may benefit from new markets and lower transition risk.

MSCI’s data helps investors compare companies on this basis. The 38% alignment figure gives a broad snapshot of progress across global markets.

Progress, But Not Fast Enough

The fact that 38% of companies align with 2°C or below shows improvement compared with past years. Corporate climate reporting has expanded. More companies now set net-zero targets, and many publish science-based targets.

Disclosure rates have also improved. As of Dec. 31, 2024, 79% of listed companies disclosed Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions, up from 76% a year earlier. A majority, 56%, reported at least some Scope 3 emissions, up from 51%.

Still, MSCI’s findings show that ambition and action are not always the same. Some companies set long-term targets but delay near-term reductions. Others rely heavily on carbon offsets instead of direct emissions cuts. In some cases, emissions intensity improves while absolute emissions remain high.

The IPCC has made clear that global emissions must fall sharply this decade. Delayed action increases future costs and transition risks.

A Fossil-Fuel-Heavy World Complicates the Shift

Global energy-related CO₂ emissions reached a record 37.8 billion tonnes in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency. While renewable energy growth has accelerated, fossil fuels still account for around 80% of global primary energy supply.

These global figures explain why corporate alignment remains challenging. Many companies operate in economies that still depend on fossil energy.

MSCI’s report reflects this broader reality. Corporate alignment depends on system-wide change, not just company-level pledges. Moreover, the report’s findings come as corporate climate pledges continue to rise sharply.

According to the SBTi, the number of companies setting both near-term and net-zero science-based targets surged 227% between late 2023 and mid-2025. Companies setting near-term targets alone grew by nearly 97% over the same period.

By the end of 2023, only 17% of companies with validated targets had both near-term and net-zero commitments. That share rose to 33% in 2024 and reached 38% by mid-2025.

The figures show that more companies are formalizing climate commitments. However, MSCI’s data indicates that only 12% of listed firms align with 1.5°C, while 38% align with 2°C or below — highlighting a gap between target-setting and full emissions alignment.

The Road Ahead: Bridging the 1.5°C Gap

The headline figure shows that more than one-third of listed firms are moving in a direction consistent with global climate goals. That gap is significant.

To meet the Paris Agreement’s goals, alignment will need to increase quickly across all sectors. This means faster emissions cuts, clearer short-term targets, and stronger capital allocation toward low-carbon technologies. Today’s alignment rate suggests progress is underway, but it also shows that most companies still have to work harder to be on track to a 1.5°C path.

• READ MORE: Corporate Climate Pledges Surge 227% as SBTi Net Zero Standards Tighten

The post Climate Reality Check: Only 12% of Global Companies Align With 1.5°C Goal, MSCI Reports appeared first on Carbon Credits.