At the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, former U.S. President Donald Trump spoke in support of nuclear energy. His remarks highlighted nuclear power as a key part of energy security and clean energy supply, saying:
“We’re very much into the world of nuclear energy, and we can have it now at good prices and very, very safe…the progress they’ve made with nuclear is unbelievable, and the safety progress they’ve made is incredible…”
After these comments, nuclear and uranium stocks moved higher in early trading. Investors showed renewed interest in nuclear companies, especially those developing advanced technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs).
Stocks such as Oklo Inc. (NYSE: OKLO), NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR), and Nano Nuclear Energy (NASDAQ: NNE) saw price increases as traders responded to the pro-nuclear sentiment. This trend shows how energy markets are changing.
Many investors now view nuclear energy as a stable, low-carbon power source. This is important as demand grows from data centers and industries.
Oklo Takes Center Stage in the Nuclear Trade
Oklo has become one of the most-watched nuclear stocks in 2025. Oklo’s shares jumped after it signed a big deal with Meta Platforms. They plan to build a 1.2 GW advanced nuclear energy campus in Pike County, Ohio.
The deal positions Oklo to supply clean, reliable power for Meta’s data centers. Analysts described this binding agreement as reducing some business risks for Oklo.
In January 2026, Oklo stock kept rising after President Trump’s pro-nuclear comments at Davos. It hit intraday highs around January 22, with gains across the sector. Bank of America upgraded Oklo to a Buy rating, setting a price target of $111. This shows strong confidence in Oklo’s data center partnerships and regulatory progress.
Cathie Wood’s ARK Investment increased its stake in Oklo. They bought over 34,000 shares. This shows a rising interest from institutions in advanced nuclear technology. This purchase followed earlier acquisitions valued at more than $8.9 million, showing sustained investment interest.
Strong Rallies, Sharp Pullbacks
Despite strong gains, Oklo’s stock price has also seen pullbacks. At times, shares fell nearly 10% in a single week due to profit-taking after earlier rallies. Investors sometimes respond to news about sectors. For example, competitive technologies like geothermal power can provide clean energy alternatives for data centers.
Oklo remains pre-revenue, meaning it has not yet begun large-scale power production. The company aims to build its first commercial microreactor system between late 2027 and 2028. Until that point, investor focus remains on contracts, partnerships, and regulatory progress.
SMRs and Speculation: Two Very Different Nuclear Bets
NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) is another company that benefited from the nuclear rally after Davos. The company’s shares jumped around 15% on early trading days in 2026, along with sector momentum.
The stock is drawing investor interest because of the rising focus on small modular reactor (SMR) technology. SMRs may be easier to deploy and scale than traditional large plants.
NuScale’s SMRs got design approvals from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This boosts confidence in their technology. Analysts expect the company’s revenue to continue rising as project work expands.
NuScale is a great example of how modular nuclear designs can provide reliable power for industrial and data center needs. Regulatory milestones for SMRs may accelerate deployment timelines through the rest of the decade.
Nano Nuclear Energy: Early Stage, Strong Moves
Nano Nuclear Energy (NASDAQ: NNE) is a smaller player that also saw stock gains as part of the sector rally. Its shares rose roughly 40% in one trading week amid news of technology deals between U.S. and U.K. partners, and Trump’s recent announcement. This price movement reflected broader investor interest in nuclear technologies and potential future revenues.
Nano Nuclear is still in the early stages without significant revenue, similar to Oklo’s position. Its valuation illustrates how speculative nuclear stocks can be, driven by future expectations about technology deployment and regulatory support.
Why Nuclear Is Back on Investor Radar
Supportive government policy is a key driver for nuclear stocks. In 2025, the U.S. administration moved to speed up nuclear power development as part of a broader energy strategy. These moves include efforts to shorten licensing timelines and enhance domestic infrastructure for nuclear fuel and reactors. This policy backdrop helped lift stocks such as Oklo and NuScale.
President Trump’s Davos statements reinforced this trend by linking nuclear energy to national energy strategy and data center demand. Many investors view nuclear energy as a solution for rising electricity demands. This includes powering artificial intelligence and cloud computing infrastructure.
Nuclear power generates low-carbon electricity. This attracts companies that need to meet emissions targets while also dealing with growing power demand.
Globally, nuclear power already contributes a significant share of clean energy. According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear energy generated about 9% of the world’s electricity from existing reactors. Supporters say that expanding nuclear power can meet future demand and reduce carbon emissions.
AI’s Power Hunger Fuels the Nuclear Case
The growth of data centers, particularly for AI, is driving interest in reliable baseload power. Tech companies, including Meta, have pursued long-term nuclear power agreements.
Meta has deals with companies like Oklo and TerraPower. These agreements aim to secure nuclear-generated electricity for its AI infrastructure. They involve spending tens of billions of dollars on building AI data centers. This corporate demand creates new business models for nuclear power. It makes future reactor deployments more financially viable.
Electricity demand from industrial and tech sectors continues to rise worldwide, increasing focus on clean, consistent power sources. Nuclear energy’s high capacity factor, meaning it can provide steady power output, is a key strength in this context.
What the Next Nuclear Decade Could Look Like
Industry analysts expect nuclear capacity to grow over the next few decades. Some forecasts tied to long-term pledges suggest that global nuclear capacity could triple by 2050 as part of decarbonization goals. This aligns with commitments from large utilities, governments, and corporate coalitions.
Stock forecasts differ, but long-term demand for nuclear reactors and fuel is expected to grow. This growth is driven by electrification and carbon reduction goals.
Small modular reactors are key to industry growth. They offer shorter construction times and lower upfront costs than large traditional reactors. If SMRs get regulatory approval and have stable supply chains, companies like Oklo and NuScale could start commercial operations in the 2030s.
Analysts provide mixed views on nuclear stocks. Many forecasts highlight the potential upside if technologies succeed at scale, especially for SMRs. Analyst price targets for NuScale Power suggest there is a lot of potential for growth from current prices.
A Renewed Nuclear Narrative
After President Trump’s supportive comments on nuclear energy at Davos, nuclear stocks climbed as traders reacted to potential industry growth. Oklo saw strong investor interest following major deals and institutional purchases. NuScale benefited from regulatory milestones and rising demand for modular reactors. Nano Nuclear showed how early-stage players can also capture attention.
Government support, corporate demand for reliable low-carbon power, and rising electricity needs from AI and data centers are key drivers behind the nuclear sector’s resurgence. Analysts still see challenges, but they expect nuclear capacity, especially smaller modular systems, to grow in the global energy mix.
The post Trump’s Davos Nuclear Endorsement Powers a Rally in Oklo, SMRs, and Atomic Stocks appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
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