Global renewable energy reached a major turning point in 2025. For the first time in history, it generated more electricity than coal, marking a shift in how the world produces power.
Let’s take a closer look at the details and how this milestone impacts the clean energy transition landscape as well as carbon markets.
Clean Energy Hits Historic Milestone in Global Electricity Mix
According to energy think tank Ember, renewables’ share of global electricity overtook coal’s share in 2025. Renewables now supply more than a third of global power, while coal’s share has fallen below one‑third.
Ember notes that solar and wind together met about 99% of new global electricity demand growth in 2025. This helped push renewables ahead of coal despite rising energy use worldwide.
This milestone reflects years of investment in clean energy and signals a structural change in the global power system. It also shows that renewable technologies are now scaling fast enough to compete with traditional fossil fuels.
Solar Power Drives Record Growth in Clean Electricity
Solar energy led the global expansion in renewables. The Ember report stated,
“Record solar growth meant clean power sources grew fast enough to meet all new electricity demand in 2025, thereby preventing an increase in fossil generation. This was the first year since 2020 without an increase in electricity generation from fossil fuels and only the fifth year without a rise this century.”
The data shows that solar generation grew by about 636 terawatt‑hours (TWh) in 2025, the largest annual increase of any single electricity source ever. This surge made solar the main driver of new electricity supply.
Solar output increased by around 30% in 2025, reflecting rapid deployment and falling costs. It also played a key role in meeting rising demand.
Ember’s analysis indicates that solar alone met about 75% of the net increase in global electricity demand in 2025. Wind energy also contributed strongly, helping renewables meet almost all of the year’s additional demand.
The continued drop in solar costs has supported this growth. Over the past decade, solar module prices have fallen by more than 80%, making it one of the cheapest sources of new electricity in many markets.
Asia Powers the Shift: China and India Drive the Transition
The shift toward renewables has been driven largely by Asia’s biggest economies, per Ember data. China remains the largest contributor to global solar growth. It accounted for about 55% of the increase in solar generation in 2025, reflecting its large-scale investments in clean energy infrastructure.
The United States contributed around 14% of global solar growth, while India also expanded its renewable capacity significantly.
A key development in 2025 was the decline in fossil fuel generation in both China and India at the same time. This has not happened in many years.
Globally, coal generation dropped by 63 TWh in 2025, driven by reduced output in these major economies. This decline played a critical role in allowing renewables to overtake coal.
The transition in these countries has a global impact. Together, China and India account for a large share of global electricity demand and emissions.
In 2025, the two countries together represented roughly one‑fifth of global electricity demand and more than one‑fifth of global power‑sector CO₂ emissions, according to Ember’s annual electricity review and supporting analyses.
Emissions Peak? Clean Power Starts to Bend the Curve
Despite rising electricity demand, emissions from the power sector are beginning to stabilize. Global electricity demand increased by about 2.8% in 2025. However, power-sector emissions fell slightly, even with the higher demand.
According to Ember’s 2025 annual electricity review, power‑sector emissions fell slightly in 2025 despite a rise in global electricity demand. The analysis indicates that, without the growth of solar and wind, emissions from the power sector would have been about 236 MtCO₂ higher than they actually were.
This shows how renewable energy is helping offset emissions from growing energy use. The data further shows that the average kilowatt-hour of electricity produced globally resulted in 458 gCO₂e in 2025, about 2.7% less than 471 gCO₂e in 2024.
The International Energy Agency also projects a steady decline in carbon intensity. Global electricity emissions intensity is expected to fall from 445 grams of CO₂ per kilowatt-hour (gCO₂/kWh) in 2024 to about 400 gCO₂/kWh by 2027.
This represents an average annual reduction of 3.6%, highlighting gradual progress toward cleaner electricity systems.
The Grid Test: Can Power Systems Keep Up With Renewables?
The rapid growth of renewables brings new challenges for power systems. Solar and wind are variable sources, meaning their output depends on weather conditions.
By 2030, variable renewables are expected to supply nearly 30% of global electricity, roughly double current levels. This will require more flexible and resilient power grids.
Key solutions include:
- Expanding grid infrastructure,
- Increasing energy storage capacity, and
- Improving demand-side management.
Battery storage is playing a central role in this transition. Global battery deployment is growing quickly as costs fall.
Battery costs dropped by about 45% in 2025, to a record low of about $70 per kilowatt-hour. Meanwhile, installed storage capacity additions increased by 46% during the same period, reaching about 247 gigawatt-hours in 2025. These systems help store excess solar energy during the day and release it when demand rises.
Current battery capacity can already shift about 14% of solar generation from midday to other times of the day. This improves grid stability and reduces reliance on fossil fuel backup.
Corporate Action Supports Clean Energy Growth
Large companies are also helping drive renewable energy adoption. Microsoft has committed to using 100% renewable electricity for its operations and aims to become carbon negative by 2030. Google is investing heavily in solar and wind projects worldwide, including partnerships in Asia to support clean energy supply for data centers.
Corporate demand for renewable energy is growing as companies set net-zero targets and seek to reduce their carbon footprints. This trend supports further investment in renewable capacity and helps scale clean technologies.
Market Implications for Carbon Credits and Investment
The rise of renewables has important implications for carbon markets and clean energy investment. As renewable generation increases, the need for fossil fuel-based power declines. This can reduce emissions and affect demand for certain types of carbon credits.
At the same time, the transition creates new opportunities. Projects that support grid stability, energy storage, and renewable integration may generate additional carbon credits.
Investors are also shifting focus toward clean energy infrastructure. Renewable energy projects are becoming more competitive as costs fall and policy support strengthens.
The milestone of renewables overtaking coal provides strong evidence that the energy transition is accelerating.
A Turning Point for Global Energy
The fact that renewables have surpassed coal in global electricity generation marks a major turning point. It shows that clean energy is no longer a niche solution. Instead, it is becoming the foundation of the global power system.
Solar and wind are now growing fast enough to meet rising demand while reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Challenges remain, especially in grid integration and storage. However, continued investment and innovation are helping address these issues.
For policymakers, investors, and businesses, the message is clear: The global energy transition is moving from ambition to reality.
As renewable energy continues to expand, it will play a central role in reducing emissions, supporting economic growth, and building a more sustainable energy system.
The post Renewables Overtake Coal for the First Time as World’s Largest Electricity Source in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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