A recent study by researchers from the University of Michigan and Cornell University, published by the International Energy Forum, highlights a critical challenge in the transition to renewable energy in the United States: the insufficient availability of copper to meet the demands of renewable energy infrastructure and electric vehicles (EVs).
Recent copper price trends show a near 15-month high, which analysts attribute to speculative buying and genuine supply constraints.
Amid this surging copper prices is an alarming revelation by the researchers from the two universities mentioned.
A Century of Data Reveals a Looming Shortfall
The study examines 120 years of global copper mining data, revealing that current copper production rates cannot keep pace with the copper requirements outlined in US policy guidelines for transitioning to renewable energy.
Particularly concerning is the Inflation Reduction Act’s mandate for 100% electric vehicle production by 2035. EVs require significantly more copper than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles, along with additional copper needed for grid upgrades.
According to Adam Simon, co-author of the study, the disparity is stark, saying that:
“A normal Honda Accord needs about 40 pounds of copper. The same battery electric Honda Accord needs almost 200 pounds of copper. Onshore wind turbines require about 10 tons of copper, and in offshore wind turbines, that amount can more than double.”
The paper shows that the required copper is significantly impossible for miners to generate.
One key factor contributing to the shortfall is the lengthy permitting process for mining companies. It averages about 20 years from discovery to mine construction approval.
With over 100 companies mining copper across six continents, the study’s modeling suggests that global copper production may fall short of future demand. This poses significant challenges to achieving renewable energy goals in the US and beyond.
Renewable energy technologies, including solar photovoltaics and wind turbines, depend heavily on copper for efficient electricity transmission and distribution. EVs also require substantial copper for motors, inverters, and wiring.
The 115% Increase Dilemma
The research underscores the immense challenge of meeting future copper demands, particularly in the context of the global energy transition. To illustrate, the study indicates that between 2018 and 2050, humanity will need to mine 115% more copper than has been mined throughout history until 2018 just to sustain current needs and support developing regions, excluding green energy efforts.
The table below provided details of the masses of copper to be supplied by new mines, the corresponding production rates necessary in 2050, and the estimated number of new mines required.
For instance, to fulfill the demand for 260 million tons of mined copper under a business-as-usual scenario, an average mine output of 8.13 million tons per year (Mtpy) over 32 years is required. Consequently, new mines would need to produce 16.3 Mtpy by 2050.
The study suggests that mines with an average production rate of 0.472 Mtpy, akin to the top 10 existing mines, would need to be operational by 2050. This necessitates the discovery, permitting, and establishment of a significant number of new mines annually between 2018 and 2050.
The analysis underscores that the bulk of new copper supply will come from large-scale mines due to their substantial production capacity. It highlights the need for the establishment of between 35 and 194 large new mines over the next three decades. That’s equal to an annual rate of 1.1 to 6 new mines to sustain the green transition and meet exploding demand.
Balancing Act: Electrification vs. Essential Infrastructure
For the global vehicle fleet to electrify successfully, the study suggests the need to establish up to 6 new large copper mines annually over the coming decades. Moreover, around 40% of the output from these mines will be crucial for electric vehicle-related grid enhancements.
In another estimates by the Copper Development Association, below is what the EV industry requires for copper.
Adam Simon emphasizes the importance of adopting pragmatic approaches to the energy transition. Rather than solely focusing on fully electrifying vehicle fleets, he proposes exploring hybrid vehicle manufacturing as a more feasible alternative.
Furthermore, Simon emphasizes the indispensable role of copper in developing countries for critical infrastructure projects like electrification, clean water facilities, and sanitation systems. Balancing these diverse needs highlights the complexity of the copper allocation dilemma amidst the global energy transition.
“Our study highlights that significant progress can be made to reduce emissions in the United States. However, the current — almost singular — emphasis on downstream manufacture of renewable energy technologies cannot be met by upstream mine production of copper and other metals without a complete mindset change about mining among environmental groups and policymakers.”
Ultimately, the study urges a nuanced approach that acknowledges the critical role of copper in enabling sustainable development.
The post The World Needs 194 New Large Copper Mines to Reach Net Zero appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon removal is moving beyond pilot projects. A new agreement between JPMorgan Chase and Charm Industrial shows how the sector is entering a new phase. The deal combines carbon removal credit purchases with financing support, helping expand future supply while reducing project risk.
Under the agreement, JPMorgan will purchase 61,500 metric tons of carbon removal credits from Charm Industrial. The bank will also provide financing support to help the company grow its operations.
The deal highlights a broader trend. Large financial institutions are starting to view carbon removal not only as a climate tool but also as a market with long-term growth potential.
As net-zero deadlines approach, demand for high-quality carbon removal credits is rising. Companies are looking for solutions that deliver measurable climate benefits and long-term carbon storage.
Taylor Wright, Head of Operational Sustainability at JPMorganChase, remarked:
“Our initial purchase with Charm marked an important step as we expanded our ambition in carbon removal and refined how we assess quality and deliver real impact across our portfolio. This new purchase—bringing our total to 90,000 tons—together with financial support from our business, reflects how our portfolio has matured over time and Charm’s track record of delivering measurable, durable outcomes across its projects.”
Carbon Removal Becomes a Bigger Part of Net Zero
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is different from traditional carbon offsets. Many offsets focus on avoiding emissions. Carbon removal takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and stores it for the long term.
Most climate experts agree that emissions cuts alone will not be enough to meet global climate goals. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C require large-scale carbon removal.
Today, the novel technological market remains small. Global demand for these engineered carbon removals is still below 10 million metric tons per year, according to CDR.fyi.
However, the State of Carbon Dioxide Removal Report shows that total global removals—mostly from forestry—already sit at 2.2 billion tons. Looking forward, IPCC climate pathways project that total global demand will need to reach billions of tons annually by mid-century to meet net-zero targets.
That growth is expected to come from sectors such as aviation, steel, cement, and shipping. These industries are difficult to fully decarbonize and will likely need carbon removal to address remaining emissions. Thus, investors and financial institutions are paying closer attention to the sector.
Inside JPMorgan’s Growing Climate Strategy
The agreement also fits JPMorgan’s broader climate strategy. The bank has committed to aligning key parts of its financing portfolio with net-zero emissions by 2050. It has also set emissions reduction targets across sectors including power generation, oil and gas, aviation, shipping, and automotive manufacturing.
In addition, JPMorgan has pledged to finance and facilitate more than $2.5 trillion toward sustainable development initiatives by 2030. That includes $1 trillion dedicated to climate action and green solutions. Carbon removal is becoming an important part of those efforts.
Many companies can reduce most of their emissions through clean energy, efficiency improvements, and new technologies. However, some emissions are likely to remain. Carbon removal is expected to help address these residual emissions.
The structure of the JPMorgan-Charm deal is also notable. Instead of only purchasing carbon credits, the bank is helping support future production capacity. This approach gives developers access to capital while helping buyers secure future carbon removal supply.
Peter Reinhardt, CEO and Co-Founder of Charm Industrial, stated:
“JPMorganChase is helping build the infrastructure for a permanent carbon removal industry. Having a sophisticated, mission-aligned financial institution come back for a second, larger purchase while also stepping up with growth capital is exactly the kind of validation that tells us we’re on the right path.”
Charm’s Way: Turning Farm Waste Into Permanent Carbon Storage
Charm Industrial uses a process known as biomass carbon removal and storage. The company collects agricultural waste, including crop residues that would otherwise decompose or be burned. It converts this material into a carbon-rich bio-oil through a process called fast pyrolysis.
The bio-oil is then injected deep underground for long-term storage. This method is designed to keep carbon locked away for hundreds or even thousands of years.
One advantage is that the process can use existing energy infrastructure. Storage wells, transportation systems, and other equipment already used in the energy sector can often be adapted for carbon storage.
Charm has become one of the leading companies in the sector. The company says it has already delivered more than 150,000 metric tons of carbon removal to customers, making it one of the world’s largest suppliers of durable carbon removal credits.
While the technology continues to develop, many experts see biomass carbon removal as one of the more mature engineered carbon removal pathways available today.
The Carbon Removal Supply Crunch Is Emerging
Corporate demand for carbon removal continues to increase. Technology companies have been among the biggest buyers. Many have net-zero goals and are looking for ways to address emissions that cannot be eliminated through renewable energy or operational improvements.
Programs such as Frontier have also helped accelerate the market. The initiative, backed by major technology companies, commits funding to help scale carbon removal technologies.
Yet, supply remains limited. Novel or engineered solutions contribute only 0.1%, roughly 2.2 million metric tons, to the physical supply.
Analysts at McKinsey estimate global demand for carbon removals could reach 100 million metric tons per year by 2030 and grow 100-fold by 2050. Current delivery volumes are only a small fraction of that level. CDR.fyi data shows only 1.5 million metric tons were delievered as of June 2026.
This gap between supply and demand is pushing buyers to sign long-term agreements years before credits are delivered. That trend is creating new opportunities for financing and investment.
Why Capital Could Unlock the Next Wave of Growth
One of the most important aspects of the JPMorgan-Charm agreement is the financing component.
Carbon removal projects often need large upfront investments. Companies must build infrastructure, secure storage sites, and establish monitoring systems before generating significant revenue.
New financing models are helping address this challenge. These include:
- Long-term carbon removal purchase agreements,
- Advance market commitments,
- Project financing backed by future credit deliveries, and
- Blended finance structures that combine different sources of capital.
The approach resembles the early growth of renewable energy. Long-term power purchase agreements helped wind and solar developers secure financing and expand rapidly.
Many industry observers believe carbon removal could follow a similar path. The involvement of a major institution like JPMorgan suggests the market is beginning to mature.
From Climate Niche to Investable Market
The JPMorgan-Charm Industrial agreement shows how climate finance is evolving. Companies are no longer focused only on buying carbon credits. Increasingly, they are investing in the systems needed to produce those credits at scale.
Most net-zero pathways still require large amounts of carbon removal to balance emissions from hard-to-abate industries. The challenge now is building enough capacity to meet future demand.
Technology is advancing. Corporate demand is growing. Financing is becoming more available. Together, these trends are helping move carbon removal from a niche climate solution toward a larger and more established market.
The post JPMorgan Backs Carbon Removal Growth With New Charm Industrial Deal appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
SMRs Set for Breakout: Global Nuclear Capacity Forecast to Jump Nearly Sixfold by 2030
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are moving from concept to commercial reality. A new forecast from GlobalData suggests global SMR capacity could increase nearly sixfold between 2025 and 2030.
The projection reflects rising confidence in advanced nuclear technology as countries search for reliable, low-carbon electricity. This demand is being driven by electrification, artificial intelligence (AI), data center growth, and industrial decarbonization.
For years, SMRs were seen as a long-term idea. That view is now shifting. Governments are updating nuclear policies. Regulators are speeding up licensing reviews. Utilities are forming partnerships with technology developers.
At the same time, electricity demand is rising sharply, strengthening the case for firm power sources capable of operating 24/7. This momentum comes as countries try to meet net-zero targets while also ensuring stable and affordable energy supplies.
Why SMRs Are Gaining Momentum
SMRs are nuclear reactors that typically produce up to 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity per unit. Unlike large nuclear plants, they are designed to be built in factories and assembled on site.
Supporters say this modular approach can reduce construction time, improve cost control, and make deployment more flexible. SMRs can also be added in phases, depending on demand growth.
GlobalData’s forecast reflects a wider revival in nuclear energy. The firm expects global nuclear capacity to grow steadily over the next decade, by almost sixfold from 2025 to 2030. That increase could even reach a hundredfold by 2040. Cleaner energy goals, policy backing, and increasing demand for stable baseload electricity will support this growth.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) also expects strong long-term growth. In its Announced Pledges Scenario, the IEA predicts over 1,000 SMRs to be used worldwide by 2050. This would add up to about 120 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. It also estimates SMR investment could rise from about $5 billion today to more than $25 billion by 2030.
Meanwhile, major SMR projects are moving forward. GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300 design will be used at Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington site in Canada. This is one of the most advanced SMR projects currently in planning.
Holtec International is also advancing plans to install SMR-300 reactors at the Palisades site in Michigan. The company has outlined a long-term vision that could scale SMR capacity across North America to as much as 10 GW in the coming decades.
These early projects are important. They will test cost, speed, and performance. Their results will help determine how quickly SMRs can scale globally.
Nuclear Power’s Quiet Climate Comeback
As countries move toward net-zero targets, nuclear energy is receiving renewed attention as a low-emissions power source.
According to the IEA, nuclear is the world’s second-largest source of low-emissions electricity after hydropower. In 2024, more than 410 reactors in over 30 countries supplied about 9% of global electricity. Nuclear also generated more low-carbon electricity than wind and significantly more than solar.
- Since 1971, nuclear power has helped avoid roughly 72 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
This climate contribution is becoming more important as electricity demand rises and countries retire coal plants. The IEA expects global nuclear generation to reach a record high in 2025, supported by reactor restarts in Japan, maintenance work in France, and new builds in Asia.
More than 60 reactors are currently under construction worldwide, adding over 70 GW of new capacity.
SMRs could strengthen this role further. Their smaller size makes them suitable for regions where large nuclear plants are not practical. They may also replace aging coal plants by using existing grid infrastructure.
In addition, SMRs are being considered for industrial uses such as hydrogen production, mining, and heavy manufacturing, where steady heat and power are required.
Big Tech and Data Centers Drive New Power Demand
One of the strongest drivers for SMR growth is the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and data centers. AI systems require large amounts of electricity. Training and operating these systems depend on high-performance computing infrastructure that runs continuously. This is pushing electricity demand higher in key technology hubs.
Goldman Sachs has raised its forecast for AI-related capital spending by major hyperscalers. The bank now expects Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet to invest about $5.3 trillion between 2025 and 2030, up from a previous estimate of $4.5 trillion. A large share of this spending will go into AI infrastructure, data centers, and supporting energy systems.
Moreover, Goldman Sachs Research estimates global data center electricity demand could increase by as much as 165% by 2030 compared with 2023 levels.
This surge in demand is changing energy planning. While renewable energy remains central to corporate climate strategies, many technology companies are also looking for stable, round-the-clock power sources.
SMRs are increasingly viewed as a potential solution because they can provide constant power without weather dependence. Unlike wind or solar, nuclear plants can operate day and night continuously. This reliability is becoming more important as AI workloads grow and grids face higher stress.
As a result, several SMR developers are now targeting data center operators as future customers, alongside traditional utilities.
The First Wave of SMR Projects Breaks Ground
The SMR industry is now entering a more practical phase, with several flagship projects moving toward construction and deployment.
In Canada, Ontario Power Generation is advancing the first commercial deployment of GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300 reactor at the Darlington site. This project is widely seen as a key test case for SMR commercialization in North America.
In the United States, TerraPower continues development of its Natrium reactor in Wyoming. The project, backed by Bill Gates, combines nuclear generation with advanced energy storage. This design aims to improve flexibility and help balance electricity grids with growing renewable energy penetration.
These developments mark an important shift. The industry is moving beyond design and licensing discussions and into construction, financing, and real-world deployment.
The Roadblocks on the Nuclear Revival Path
Despite strong momentum, SMRs still face major challenges.
- Cost remains the most important issue. Early projects must prove that factory-based construction can reliably reduce total costs compared with traditional nuclear plants.
- Regulatory approval is another barrier. Even though licensing frameworks are improving, nuclear projects still require long review timelines in most countries.
- Fuel supply is also a concern. Many advanced SMR designs depend on high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), but global supply chains are still limited.
- There are also broader concerns around nuclear waste management and public acceptance, which continue to influence project timelines in several regions.
These challenges explain why some analysts remain cautious about near-term deployment, even while long-term forecasts are becoming more positive.
Outlook: A Defining Decade for SMRs
The next five years could be decisive for SMRs. Global momentum is being driven by several overlapping trends. Electricity demand is rising. AI growth is accelerating. Countries are committing to net-zero targets. Energy security has become a national priority. At the same time, nuclear technology is improving.
GlobalData’s forecast of a nearly sixfold increase in SMR capacity by 2030 reflects growing confidence that the sector is approaching commercial scale.
While SMRs are still in the early stages of deployment, progress in Canada, the United States, China, and other regions suggests the industry is moving closer to wider adoption.
If current projects succeed, SMRs could become an important part of the global low-carbon energy mix. They may help support grid stability, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and provide the steady power needed for a more electrified and digital economy.
The post SMRs Set for Breakout: Global Nuclear Capacity Forecast to Jump Nearly Sixfold by 2030 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
“…”What gets measured gets managed. But what gets audited gets trusted….”
The disclosures regulators, auditors, and investors now read the same way they read your financial statements.
For most of the last decade, Scope 3 emissions sat in the appendix of the sustainability report. Auditors skimmed past it. Investors filed it under “nice to have.” Boards approved it without much pushback. The number was directional, the methodology was opaque, and everyone seemed comfortable with that arrangement.
That arrangement is now over. In the last 24 months, your Scope 3 reduction strategy has migrated from the appendix to the front of the disclosure file. The auditors who used to skim past it are now flagging it. The investors who used to file it are now asking follow-up questions on earnings calls. The boards that used to approve it are now asking whether you can defend the number under sworn testimony. The shift is uncomfortable but it is also rational, and you need a Scope 3 reduction strategy that holds up.
This article explains what changed, where most Scope 3 inventories fall apart under scrutiny, and what corporates with material exposure are doing to prepare.
What “audited Scope 3” actually means in 2026
Under the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, large companies operating in the European Union must now disclose Scope 3 emissions across all relevant value chain categories, with the same assurance expectations applied to financial reporting. The European Sustainability Reporting Standards require limited assurance now, with reasonable assurance phasing in over the next several years.
In the United States, the SEC’s climate disclosure rule remains contested in court, but California’s SB 253 requires large companies doing business in the state to disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with third-party assurance. The International Sustainability Standards Board’s IFRS S2 standard, adopted in over 20 jurisdictions, requires climate-related disclosures that auditors and securities regulators can test.
The practical effect is consistent across geographies. Scope 3 is no longer a marketing number. It is a regulated disclosure that travels with your financial statements and carries comparable legal weight.
Where most Scope 3 inventories fall apart under scrutiny
Three failure modes turn up over and over.
The first is over-reliance on spend-based methods. Most companies started Scope 3 reporting by multiplying spend by an industry-average emission factor, following the methodology set out in the GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard. That works for an initial estimate. It does not work for an audit. When the auditor asks why your category 1 number assumes the industry average for your top supplier, the answer “because we have not asked them” is no longer acceptable.
The second is missing or inconsistent supplier data. Category 1 (purchased goods and services) and category 11 (use of sold products) together can represent 70% or more of a company’s total footprint, according to CDP Supply Chain research. If half your tier-one suppliers have no measured data, your Scope 3 number is half a guess, and the auditor will say so.
The third is the boundary problem. What counts as part of your value chain, where the boundary sits between Scope 3 category 1 and category 4, how franchised operations are treated, how joint ventures are consolidated: each of these is now an auditable judgment. Two years ago, a quiet footnote covered the ambiguity. Now the footnote itself becomes the audit finding.
The shift from disclosure to defensibility
The reframe you need is not technical, it is governance. Your Scope 3 reduction strategy is now a disclosure controls question, in the same way that revenue recognition is a financial controls question. The auditors apply the same logic: where did the number come from, who signed off on the method, how is the supporting evidence retained, and how do you correct it when it turns out to be wrong.
What this means in practice: the procurement and finance functions are now stakeholders in your carbon math, whether you invited them or not. Procurement controls supplier data quality. Finance controls the documentation discipline that supports the disclosure. The CSO who used to own Scope 3 alone now owns it jointly with the controller and the head of procurement.
Why reduction strategy now sits inside procurement and finance
This is where the strategic question shifts. If the data sits with procurement and the disclosure controls sit with finance, your reduction strategy has to sit there too. Buying offsets in November to clean up a Q4 disclosure is not a reduction strategy; it is a write-down. Reducing the emissions inside your supply chain, at the supplier level, with verifiable interventions: that is what survives audit.
The Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 found that current and future carbon credit buyers expect 65% of their net-zero progress to come from inside the value chain, with 24% from supplier action and 41% from their own operations. Only 7% expect to rely on carbon removals to offset residual emissions. That number is the consensus view of where Scope 3 reduction strategy is heading: into the supply chain, embedded in procurement contracts, with finance signing off on the documentation.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class purpose-built for this shift. They sit inside the company’s value chain rather than outside it. They generate verifiable emissions reductions that flow through Scope 3 categories 1 and 4 under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard. They produce the documentation trail an auditor can test. And they deliver operational co-benefits, including yield resilience, supplier loyalty, and regulatory readiness, that make the carbon math sustainable across the multi-year horizon that disclosure now requires.
If you are responsible for a Scope 3 reduction strategy that will face audit, investor questioning, and regulatory review across the next reporting cycle, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure to a Dual-Value Model engagement built for that scrutiny. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- GHG Protocol. Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. https://ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard
- Science Based Targets initiative. Corporate Net-Zero Standard. https://sciencebasedtargets.org/net-zero
- CDP. Climate Change reporting guidance. https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance
- IPCC. AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 12: Cross-sectoral perspectives. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
- WRI and WBCSD. GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard. https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
- CDP. Global Supply Chain Report. https://www.cdp.net/en/research/global-reports
European Commission. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022L2464
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测