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.
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.
