Tesla has established itself as a leader in the fight against climate change. It often emphasizes its role in cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by promoting electric vehicles (EVs).
In 2023, the company claimed its fleet helped avoid 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions. A recent study by Greenly, a firm specializing in carbon footprint measurement and management, however, questions this figure. They estimate the real avoided emissions at 10.2 to 14.4 million metric tons, which is 28-49% lower than Tesla’s claims.
What’s the basis for Greenly’s claim? Let’s find out, and how this may impact Tesla’s position and the entire industry.
Breaking Down Tesla’s Avoided Emissions Calculations
Tesla calculates avoided emissions by comparing its EV fleet to a similar fleet of ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. The process follows these steps:
- Fleet Size Calculation. Using sales data, Tesla estimates the number of active vehicles in its fleet. By the end of 2023, Greenly estimated this number to be around 5.35 million Teslas worldwide.
- ICE Emissions Comparison. Tesla assumes that ICE vehicles emit an average of 445 grams of CO2e per mile in the U.S. and 459 grams in Europe, based on data from Consumer Reports.
- EV Emissions Calculation. Tesla estimates U.S. emissions from electricity generation at 116 gCO2e/mile. But Greenly, using IEA data, finds a much higher figure of 206 gCO2e/mile.
- Manufacturing Emissions. Tesla estimates that making an ICE vehicle releases 10 metric tons of CO2e. In contrast, an EV generates 20 metric tons, mainly because of battery production.
Tesla found that in 2023, swapping ICE vehicles for its EVs cut emissions by 20 million metric tons. Now, let’s uncover Greenly’s calculations.
Greenly’s Findings and Discrepancies: A Reality Check for Tesla?
Greenly reanalyzed Tesla’s approach using independent emissions factors and found significant discrepancies. These include the following analysis findings:
Overestimation of ICE Vehicle Emissions. Tesla’s emissions factor for ICE vehicles is 445-459 gCO2e/mile. This is much higher than the UK standard for large diesel cars, which is 415 gCO2e/mile. This difference suggests that Tesla might have overstated the emissions avoided.
Underestimation of Grid Emissions. Tesla uses a lower emissions factor for electricity at 116 gCO2e/mile. In contrast, the IEA calculates it at 206 gCO2e/mile. This suggests Tesla might have underestimated the emissions from charging its EVs.
Mileage Assumptions: Tesla assumes its EVs travel 200,000 miles over 17 years. If this assumption were lowered to 150,000 miles, Greenly found that avoided emissions would drop significantly to 6.9 million metric tons.
- After adjustments, Greenly estimated Tesla’s real avoided emissions at 10.2-14.4 million metric tons. This is much lower than Tesla’s reported 20 million metric tons.
What This Means for the EV Industry’s Climate Goals
EVs are widely recognized as key to reducing transportation-related GHG emissions. In 2023, the sector was the world’s second-largest source of GHG emissions with 8.24 GtCO₂. Road vehicles are the top polluters.
By 2023, the growing use of EVs helped cut CO₂ emissions from new vehicles by 11%, bringing the average down to 319 grams per mile—the lowest ever recorded. The chart below shows the difference in GHG emissions for an EV and gas-powered car.
However, accurate carbon emissions accounting is crucial. It helps maintain credibility and shows the industry’s real environmental impact.
Tesla’s potentially inflated claims could have several consequences for the broader EV market.
Regulatory Scrutiny:
Exaggerating avoided emissions may result in more regulatory scrutiny of EV makers’ climate claims. If Tesla’s reports are misleading, policymakers might require stricter checks on EV carbon reduction claims.
Investor and Consumer Trust:
The EV industry has gained from high public and investor trust. This confidence comes from the promise of major emission cuts. Greenly’s findings might hurt this trust. This could make investors wary of supporting EV companies. It can also lead consumers to doubt the environmental benefits of leaving ICE vehicles behind.
Competitive Pressures:
Tesla’s competitors, including BYD, Rivian, and traditional automakers like Ford and BMW, are also marketing their EVs as low-emission alternatives. If a big player is caught exaggerating claims, it could push all EV makers to get third-party checks on their environmental impact.
The Billion-Dollar Carbon Credit Question
One of Tesla’s key revenue streams has been the sale of carbon credits to other automakers that do not meet emissions standards. Since Tesla produces only electric vehicles, it accumulates large amounts of regulatory credits.
The EV maker then sells these credits to companies still producing gasoline-powered cars. Tesla’s carbon credit sales have earned billions, with over $10.4 billion since 2017. Last year’s revenue was record high. This profit helps keep the company strong, especially in years with lower vehicle margins.
If Tesla’s avoided emissions claims are found to be inflated, it could undermine the credibility of its carbon credit sales. Regulatory bodies may set stricter rules for issuing and verifying carbon credits. This change could make it tougher for Tesla to profit from this market.
Also, automakers buying these credits might want more transparency. This helps them confirm they meet rules without depending on possibly inflated numbers. Any disruptions in this market could significantly impact Tesla’s bottom line.
Tesla’s Reputation at Stake: Environmental Claims Under Fire
Greenly’s findings come at a bad time for Tesla. The company already faces reputational issues because of CEO Elon Musk’s political activities. Plus, its stock price has dropped sharply. Musk’s controversial comments and changing political views have turned off some customers and investors. This has hurt Tesla’s brand image.
Moreover, Tesla’s stock has struggled in recent months, with share prices down over 25% year-to-date. The combination of financial struggles, leadership controversies, and now questions about its environmental impact could further erode confidence in Tesla’s long-term growth potential.
Moreover, governments worldwide are increasing scrutiny of corporate sustainability claims. If Tesla overstated its emissions reductions, it might face legal issues. This could include fines or losing access to incentive programs.
The Need for Transparency in Carbon Accounting
Tesla’s differences in avoided emissions estimates show a bigger problem: the EV industry needs independent and standardized carbon accounting. Without clear, verifiable methods for calculating avoided emissions, companies could mislead stakeholders about their true climate impact.
Greenly’s report says manufacturers should use 3rd-party audits for emissions claims. This is like how financial audits work to help keep their credibility. More rigorous carbon accounting would help:
- Ensure that avoided emissions are not exaggerated to attract investment or government incentives.
- Provide policymakers with reliable data to shape EV-related regulations.
- Prevent backlash similar to the Dieselgate scandal, where automakers manipulated emissions data.
Tesla plays a big role in boosting EV adoption and cutting emissions. However, it’s important to check how accurate its environmental claims are. The Greenly report raises concerns about transparency in EV industry reporting.
As governments and consumers push for more rigorous climate accountability, automakers must ensure their emissions calculations are accurate and independently verified.
The post Tesla’s Avoided Emissions Are Up to 49% Overstated, A Study Claims appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
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.
