The transition to a low-carbon economy is not just a trend—it’s a must. With climate change accelerating, companies are under increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprints. Major tech companies, such as Meta, Apple, and Netflix, have committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2030, while mining and energy giants like Barrick, Newmont, and ExxonMobil are following suit. For investors, this evolving trend presents a unique opportunity to invest in carbon stocks and support innovative companies focused on carbon reduction and capture.
Why Carbon Stocks Are Gaining Traction in 2025
Carbon stocks are becoming increasingly popular as people and organizations alike strive to meet climate goals. These stocks represent companies that focus on reducing or offsetting carbon emissions. They are drawing attention not only for their environmental benefits but also for their potential financial returns.
With governments and corporations prioritizing carbon reduction technologies and emissions offsets, the market for carbon-related solutions is poised for rapid growth.
In 2025, here are the top five carbon stocks worth keeping on your radar.
1. Brookfield Renewable Partners (BEP): A Leader in Clean Energy
Brookfield Renewable Partners (BEP) is one of the world’s largest publicly traded renewable energy companies. With a clear focus on clean, renewable energy, BEP distinguishes itself from many of its competitors by operating as a pure-play renewable energy company. This means that its portfolio consists exclusively of renewable sources of power generation, unlike other companies that often combine renewable energy with fossil fuel assets.
Global Portfolio and Capacity
As of 2024, BEP’s diversified portfolio encompasses over 35,000 megawatts of operating capacity across various renewable energy sources:
- Hydroelectric Plants: 229 facilities
- Wind Farms: 105 installations
- Solar Power Plants: 88 sites
- Energy Storage Facilities: 700 megawatts of capacity
This extensive array of assets spans multiple regions, including North America, South America, Europe, and Asia, underscoring BEP’s commitment to global renewable energy development.
Financial Performance, Growth, and Expansion Plans
In the third quarter of 2024, BEP reported Funds From Operations (FFO) of $278 million, equating to $0.42 per unit. This represents an 11% increase compared to the same period in the prior year, highlighting the company’s robust financial health and operational efficiency.
Over the past 5 years, BEP has maintained an average dividend yield of around 5%. Since its inception over two decades ago, it has reached over $109 billion in assets under management globally.
The company is actively pursuing an ambitious growth strategy, with a development pipeline poised to add 11,000 megawatts of capacity. This expansion represents a 46% increase over the current operating capacity, with plans to execute these developments over the next 3 years.
Successful realization of this pipeline could enable the renewable energy company to significantly scale its power generation capabilities. Here’s what BEP’s development and growth plans look like, highlighting its 10.5 GW partnership with Microsoft:
Positioning in the Transition to Clean Energy
As corporations worldwide strive to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, the demand for renewable energy sources is escalating. BEP’s exclusive focus on carbon-free energy positions it as a preferred partner for companies seeking to reduce their carbon footprints.
For investors seeking exposure to the renewable energy sector with a preference for established companies demonstrating stable growth and reliable returns, Brookfield Renewable Partners represents a compelling option.
2. Aker Carbon Capture ASA (AKCCF): Pioneering Carbon Capture Solutions
Aker Carbon Capture (AKCCF) is a Norwegian company specializing in carbon capture technology. Leveraging its expertise from the Aker Group, a global leader in offshore engineering, Aker Carbon Capture has developed modular carbon capture systems that are both cost-effective and scalable.
One of the company’s standout innovations is the “Just Catch” modular carbon capture plant. It is designed to meet the needs of mid-sized industries like cement, biomass, and waste-to-energy. This plant reduces the time and cost typically associated with custom-built carbon capture facilities.
Aker has also developed a proprietary amine solvent, a technology that efficiently captures CO₂ from industrial emissions. This solvent is highly stable, has low degradation rates, and minimizes energy consumption, making it a cost-effective solution for industries looking to reduce their carbon footprint.
The technology has been successfully deployed in real-world projects, such as the CO₂ capture pilot at the Norcem cement plant in Brevik, Norway.
Aker Carbon Capture is also undergoing a joint venture with SLB to form SLB Capturi, which will further accelerate the development of large-scale carbon capture technologies. The carbon capture company partnered with Microsoft last year to capture and store carbon at pulp and paper mills.
Financial Performance, Key Projects, and Outlook
As of the third quarter of 2024, ACC ASA reported a net loss of NOK 47 million. The company maintained a robust financial position with NOK 4.5 billion in cash and an equity standing at NOK 5.5 billion.
ACC ASA is involved in several significant carbon capture projects including:
- Heidelberg Materials Brevik CCS Project (Norway): Captures 400,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually.
- Ørsted’s BECCS Project (Denmark): Deploying five Just Catch units to capture up to 500,000 tonnes of CO₂.
- Twence Project (Netherlands): Captures 100,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually for use in local agriculture.
With a solid financial foundation and strategic partnerships, ACC ASA is well-positioned to expand its carbon capture solutions globally. The aim is to contribute significantly to the reduction of industrial CO₂ emissions and support the transition to a low-carbon economy.
3. LanzaTech Global, Inc. (LNZA): Turning Emissions into Valuable Products
LanzaTech Global, Inc. (LNZA) is a pioneering carbon recycling company that transforms waste carbon emissions into sustainable fuels and chemicals through innovative biotechnology using gas fermentation. Through this process, industrial emissions—rich in carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide—are converted into ethanol and other chemicals.
The company uses proprietary microbes engineered to thrive in industrial gas streams, such as those found in steel mills and refineries. These microbes consume waste gases, turning them into useful products.
The ethanol produced can serve as a building block for various products, including jet fuel, plastics, and synthetic fibers.
Financial Performance and Strategic Development
In the third quarter of 2024, LanzaTech reported revenue of $9.9 million, a decrease from $17.4 million in the second quarter and $19.6 million in the third quarter of 2023. This decline was primarily due to a timing delay in a LanzaJet sublicensing event, which was expected to generate about $8.0 million in licensing revenue.
LanzaTech has been actively expanding its technological capabilities and market reach:
- CirculAir Initiative: In June 2024, LanzaTech and its subsidiary LanzaJet introduced CirculAir, a commercially viable solution designed to convert waste carbon and renewable power into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
- Project Drake: LanzaTech advanced Project Drake, a 30-million-gallon sustainable aviation fuel project, furthering its commitment to large-scale SAF production.
Key Projects and Partnerships
The carbon recycling company has engaged in several significant projects and collaborations, including:
- Technip Energies Collaboration: Received U.S. Department of Energy funding to commercialize CO₂-to-ethylene technology.
- Eramet Partnership: Developing a Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) project in Norway.
- LanzaJet Initiative: Introducing CirculAir, a technology to produce sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
Additionally, LanzaTech is developing a novel biocatalyst to directly convert CO₂ to ethanol at 100% carbon efficiency, leveraging affordable, renewable hydrogen. This transformative technology aims to produce biofuels and feedstocks for valuable products using carbon-free renewable energy, water, and CO₂.
With a solid financial foundation bolstered by recent capital raises and strategic partnerships, LanzaTech is well-positioned to expand its carbon recycling solutions globally, creating sustainable products from waste carbon.
4. Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY): Carbon Capture with Enhanced Oil Recovery
Occidental Petroleum (OXY) is a major player in the oil and gas industry. However, in recent years, the company has been transforming itself into a leader in carbon management solutions.
Occidental has embraced Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology, which removes CO₂ directly from the atmosphere. In partnership with Carbon Engineering, Occidental is constructing the world’s largest DAC facility in Texas, a groundbreaking project that will play a significant role in achieving global emission reduction targets.
Financial Performance
In the third quarter of 2024, Occidental reported net income attributable to common stockholders of $964 million, or $0.98 per diluted share. The company has scheduled the announcement of its fourth-quarter 2024 financial results for February 18, 2025.
Carbon Capture Initiatives
Occidental is actively investing in DAC technology through its subsidiary, 1PointFive. The company’s flagship DAC facility, named STRATOS, is under construction in the Permian Basin.
STRATOS is designed to extract 500,000 metric tons of atmospheric CO₂ annually, laying the foundation for commercial-scale DAC deployment. The facility will begin operations in the summer of 2025, with live power anticipated to come online in December 2024.
- RELATED: Are Direct Air Capture Plants Facing Massive Clean Energy Challenge in the U.S.? A S&P Global Report
Occidental plans to integrate the captured CO₂ into enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes, injecting the CO₂ into aging oil fields to extract additional oil while effectively sequestering the CO₂ underground.
This approach creates a closed-loop system that both boosts oil production and reduces atmospheric carbon.
Additionally, Occidental is developing a project to transport and store CO₂ captured from Velocys’ planned Bayou Fuels biomass-to-fuels project in Natchez, Mississippi, in secure geologic formations.
The Bayou Fuels project converts waste woody biomass into transportation fuels, and applying CO₂ capture and storage can make the facility a net-negative carbon dioxide emitter.
Occidental’s approach is an example of how traditional energy companies are evolving to embrace sustainability. By combining its existing expertise in oil extraction with innovative carbon capture methods, Occidental is paving the way for a future where fossil fuel extraction can coexist with carbon reduction technologies.
5. Equinor ASA (EQNR): Leading the Way in Carbon Storage and Capture
Equinor, formerly known as Statoil, is a Norwegian energy giant that has diversified its portfolio to include renewable energy sources like wind power. It has also been at the forefront of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies for over 25 years.
Their extensive experience includes operating the world’s first dedicated CO₂ storage site at the Sleipner field since 1996 and the Snøhvit field since 2008. The image from the company’s presentation below shows its overall performance in the latest report.
Moreover, Equinor is a key player in the Northern Lights project, a pioneering initiative in Norway aimed at developing a large-scale CCS infrastructure.
The Northern Lights project focuses on capturing CO₂ from industrial sources, transporting it via ships, and securely storing it beneath the North Sea seabed. This project is a crucial step in addressing the complexities of CCS, and Equinor is positioning itself as a facilitator of this transformative technology.
What makes the Northern Lights project particularly noteworthy is its open-source infrastructure. It allows other companies to use the storage facilities. This collaborative model could accelerate the widespread adoption of CCS technology across Europe and beyond.
Financial Performance
Equinor reported Q3 2024 operating income of $6.89 billion, down 13% from $7.93 billion in Q3 2023, missing forecasts. Adjusted net income after tax was $2.04 billion, with net income at $2.29 billion. Earnings per share reached $0.79. Lower oil prices and production declines drove the decrease in profit.
Other Key Projects and Developments
- Bayou Bend CCS Project: Equinor has acquired a 25% interest in Bayou Bend CCS LLC, positioning it to be one of the largest carbon capture and storage projects in the United States.
- UK Carbon Storage Initiatives: Equinor, in collaboration with BP and TotalEnergies, has secured investment into Britain’s carbon capture projects, directly supporting 2,000 jobs in the northeast of England.
Strategic Partnerships, Technological Innovations, and Outlook
Equinor has signed an agreement with French gas grid operator GRTgaz to develop a CO₂ transport system that will carry captured CO₂ from French industrial emitters to offshore storage sites in Norway.
The Norwegian energy giant operates the Technology Centre Mongstad, the world’s largest and most flexible plant for testing and improving CO₂ capture technologies. This facility plays a crucial role in advancing CCUS solutions to decarbonize industries and the energy system.
In December 2024, Equinor secured over $3 billion in financing for its Empire Wind 1 offshore project in the U.S. Scheduled to become fully operational by 2027, the project will deliver clean energy to 500,000 New York homes, advancing the company’s renewable energy ambitions.
- READ MORE: Equinor’s $3B Financing Deal for Empire Wind 1 Project: A Turning Point for U.S. Offshore Wind?
Equinor has decades of experience in offshore oil and gas exploration, and its deep-rooted knowledge of energy infrastructure is key to its success in developing large-scale CCS solutions. With the potential to store the equivalent of 1,000 years of Norwegian CO₂ emissions beneath the seabed, Equinor’s initiatives are pivotal in supporting global climate goals.
Conclusion: The Future of Carbon Stocks
As more companies declare their commitment to net-zero goals and seek innovative solutions to reduce carbon emissions, carbon stocks are becoming attractive to investors. The top carbon stocks or companies mentioned in this article—Brookfield Renewable Partners, Aker Carbon Capture, LanzaTech, Occidental Petroleum, and Equinor—are leading the charge in decarbonizing industries and creating sustainable solutions for a carbon-constrained world.
By investing in these carbon stocks, investors not only support the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable future but also position themselves to benefit from the growth of the green economy.
As we move closer to 2030 and beyond, carbon stocks will become an increasingly important part of investment portfolios aiming to align financial returns with environmental impact.
The post Top 5 Carbon Stocks to Watch in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 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”
-
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 Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
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