Lithium, a vital elemental metal, also dubbed as “white gold”, has gained significant attention as a sought-after commodity. This is particularly due to its crucial role in battery manufacturing for electric vehicles (EVs).
The surge in EV sales has fueled optimism among investors regarding companies involved in lithium production and refinement. Despite being a common substance, lithium prices experienced an astounding 1,000% increase from 2021 to the end of 2022. This exceeds the previous highs set in 2017.
However, the landscape changed in 2023.
An increasing supply of lithium from mines in Africa and Australia is putting downward pressure on prices. Plus, reports of lower consumer demand for EVs in the U.S. and China may further contribute to a decline in lithium prices.
Lithium Carbonate (CNY) Price
Following the unprecedented boom of 2021/2022, stocks of lithium producers have faced significant declines due to a continued plunge in lithium prices.
As with all commodity stocks, lithium stocks are intricately tied to supply and demand dynamics in the underlying materials they deal with. The future trajectory of lithium prices and associated stock values will likely be influenced by the continued demand for EVs.
Investing in top lithium stocks follows a similar process to investing in any other type of stock.
Here are our top picks for lithium stocks that are worth each penny of consideration.
Albemarle Corporation (ALB)
Market cap: US$15.1 billion
Enterprise value: US$17.1 billion
Albemarle Corp. stands prominently among the largest lithium stocks and is a key player in lithium mining. With a market value comparable to other major commodities such as Barrick Gold Corporation (GOLD).
The company’s substantial scale and the optimistic long-term forecasts for EV demand position Albemarle as one of the top lithium stocks in the current market. Albemarle has embarked on a significant production expansion initiative in South Carolina, projecting an annual capacity of about 225,000 metric tons of lithium.
-
The American lithium giant anticipates this capacity to triple by the 2030, aligning its growth plans and expectations for the growing EV sector.
But recently, it redirected efforts towards its Kings Mountain lithium-spodumene mine resource in North Carolina, in response to softer market conditions.
Albemarle had warned of potential market share loss to Chinese producers after its unsuccessful takeover bid for Australian lithium producer Liontown Resources. The $4.2 billion merger was abandoned.
The largest producer of lithium for EV batteries has also revised its annual forecast downwards at the end of last year. They further reported a lower-than-expected quarterly profit due to declining prices for lithium.
Still, Albemarle now anticipates a 30% increase in lithium sales volume for the year. But with prices expected to rise only 15%, falling short of market expectations for robust growth.
The reduction in demand from consumers has led major EV manufacturers like Tesla, Ford Motor, General Motors, and Rivian to scale back production. Additionally, Toyota Motor has cut its EV sales forecast by 40% in 2024 due to lower demand in China. This reduced demand is impacting the lithium market and related stocks.
Albemarle’s peers have experienced similar declines. For instance, shares of Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. are down -39.4% YTD.
Sociedad Química y Minera S.A. (SQM)
Market cap: US$15.1 billion
Enterprise value: US$16.1 billion
Chile, globally recognized for its mineral wealth, features Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile (SQM) at the core of its mining industry. While SQM engages in the production of various minerals, its significance in lithium extraction is paramount.
Alongside diversified mining counterparts like Albemarle and Ganfeng, SQM maintains robust double-digit operating profit margins, substantial cash reserves for expansion, and minimal debt.
In 2022, SQM achieved its highest-ever corporate revenues, surpassing $10.7 billion in sales. A substantial 76% of this revenue was derived from lithium and related products.
SQM’s pivotal role goes beyond its economic contributions, as it stands as the largest taxpayer in Chile. Recent discussions about the government potentially increasing its stake in the company have emerged and raised eyebrows.
Such a move introduces the inherent risks associated with government ownership, including the possibility of political interference. Some investors don’t find it a favorable development.
The trajectory of SQM’s shares showed positive momentum until late 2022, when a decline followed. This is largely due to weakened lithium prices and concerns about the company receiving a fair valuation for the anticipated increased government stake.
The impending nationalization raises uncertainties about state control of lithium. Once this pushes through, it may impact SQM’s profitability.
Looking forward to a long-term demand for lithium to exceed supply, SQM has strategically invested in expanding its production capacity. These developments position the company to augment its market share in the lithium supply chain, particularly for EV batteries.
Li-FT Power (LIFT; LIFFF)
Market cap: US$168.5 million
Enterprise value: US$163.4 million
Given the insufficient domestic lithium reserves to meet demand, the U.S. is in a challenging position. With the need for a domestic supply, Canada is positioned to contribute to meeting U.S. lithium requirements. This is where a junior lithium company, Li-FT Power (LIFT: LIFFF), based in Vancouver, British Columbia, perfectly comes into the picture.
Li-FT has acquired promising lithium assets in Canada, starting drilling on their flagship project in June last year. The company’s investment thesis revolves around the aggressive exploration and expansion of high-grade lithium pegmatites to define world-scale resources in a proven mining jurisdiction.
The company’s strategy focuses on consolidating and advancing hard rock lithium pegmatite projects in Canada, particularly in known lithium districts. Li-FT Power aims to apply modern systematic exploration techniques to unveil value in these projects that historical work hasn’t fully realized.
The project portfolio includes assets in the Northwest Territories and Quebec, with flagship projects like the Yellowknife Lithium Project and the Pontax Project, which has revealed an 8km long lithium anomaly.
The company is well-financed to progress its projects, cementing its commitment to advancing the exploration and development of high-quality lithium assets in Canada.
LIFT strategically positions itself to take advantage of weak industry sentiment, allowing for the acquisition of shares at discounted valuations.
The Lithium Deficit Looms
While those top lithium stocks are making waves in 2024, projections indicate that lithium prices will further decline due to:
- increasing supplies of the battery metal, and
- subdued demand from China.
In China, lithium carbonate prices have plummeted from an all-time high of $81,360 per tonne in November 2022. This is the lowest level in two years at $20,782 per tonne in the current month. As lithium carbonate prices have fallen by 67% year-on-year, Chinese refining companies are responding by cutting production or suspending operations.
This represents a nearly 75% correction due to a series of negative catalysts that have suppressed lithium prices. The situation is even more challenging for lithium hydroxide markets, primarily due to the sluggish performance of the nickel cobalt manganese battery sector compared to the lithium iron phosphate battery sector.
-
Australia, which contributes 40% of global lithium production, expects a decline in the spot price of spodumene from around $3,840 per tonne in 2022 to $2,200 per tonne in 2025.
Lithium miners are adjusting to the sharp drop in demand for EVs in China by reducing costs and scaling back production expansion plans.
This response aligns with the challenges faced by lithium producers globally as the market grapples with oversupply and weakening demand for EVs.
The inability of China to meet its own demand for lithium, despite being the world’s 3rd-largest producer, has significant implications for other countries that rely on Chinese lithium. This is why the US aims to develop its own lithium supply chain that doesn’t depend on China.
- RELATED: Lithium-Ion Wars: US Battery Imports Soar by 66%, Setting New Record as Domestic Production Ramps Up
The Inflation Reduction Act, in particular, specifically promotes onshoring of clean energy manufacturing, including EVs, within the U.S. And that also means to reduce or cut off import of lithium from China.
Corinne Blanchard, Deutsche Bank’s director of lithium and clean tech equity research, is among the analysts predicting a future shortage in the lithium industry. Despite forecasting supply growth, she believes that demand will outpace it at a much faster pace.
Blanchard anticipates a “modest deficit” of around 40,000 to 60,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent by the end of 2025, but she foresees a much larger deficit of 768,000 tonnes by the end of 2030. This forecast aligns with the broader industry expectations of increasing demand for lithium, particularly driven by the growing EV market.
2024 unfolds with challenges for the lithium market, witnessing stock declines post 2023’s meteoric rise. Despite the setback, top players like Albemarle, SQM, and Li-FT Power strategically position themselves. As global trends hint at a Chinese lithium market decline, industry experts see a future lithium deficit, driven by the relentless growth in the EV market.
The post Top Lithium Stocks Making Waves in 2024 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.
