The lithium sector took center stage this week when Lithium Americas (NYSE: LAC) stock soared nearly 95% on reports that the Trump administration is considering taking an equity stake in the company’s Thacker Pass mine in Nevada. If it happens, this move would be one of the biggest government actions in U.S. mining in years. It shows how important lithium is to national policy now.
Behind the headlines lies a deeper story: America’s ambition to lead the clean energy transition risks colliding with a stark supply shortage. We highlight below, with the two charts, both the opportunity and the vulnerability facing the United States in this lithium quest.
A Lithium Crisis in the Making
The United States faces a lithium crisis that makes its clean energy ambitions look more like an aspiration than an execution. Current domestic production is only 2,700 metric tons a year. That’s too small compared to the 500,000 tons needed by 2030 to hit electric vehicle (EV) goals.
To put this in perspective:
- The lithium in an iPhone weighs about the same as a penny.
- A Tesla Model 3 battery pack requires around 12 kilograms.
- A Ford F-150 Lightning demands closer to 17 kilograms.
At present mining levels, the U.S. produces enough lithium for only about 158,000 Tesla Model 3s annually. That’s in a market where Americans bought 1.4 million EVs in 2024 alone, with demand expected to climb sharply in the coming years.
This gap reveals a harsh reality: America’s lithium supply chain is ill-prepared for its electrification goals.
From Marginal Producer to Top Four — If Thacker Pass Delivers
The government’s solution to this issue is projects like Lithium Americas’ Thacker Pass. It’s one of the largest lithium deposits in North America. If fully developed, it could boost U.S. production to around 40,000 tons each year. This would place the country among the top four producers, following Australia, Chile, and China.
That would mark a tenfold increase in output, but it is still far from enough. Even under the most optimistic forecasts, Thacker Pass would meet just 8% of projected U.S. demand by 2030, and a mere 3% of the 1.2 million tons expected by 2035.
Meanwhile, China has spent more than a decade locking up supply chains, securing lithium assets in Africa, South America, and Australia. It is also building refining infrastructure that now processes nearly 80% of the world’s lithium.
The comparison is striking: Zimbabwe produces eight times more lithium than the U.S. Even smaller producers, like Argentina, surpass American output. In this context, Washington’s sudden push for equity stakes is less about profits and more about survival in a high-stakes race for supply.
Reserves Rich, Supply Poor: The Untapped U.S. Advantage
The second chart points to America’s hidden strength: the U.S. ranks first globally in lithium reserves, with more than 100 million tonnes identified. Despite this geological advantage, those resources remain largely untapped.
Encouragingly, the U.S. now ranks third in global exploration budgets, reflecting a deliberate policy pivot. Billions of dollars are going to exploration and project development, from Nevada to North Carolina. If even a fraction of these reserves is unlocked, the U.S. could rival today’s top producers and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains.
However, converting reserves into production requires more than exploration. Projects can hit delays with permits, face environmental lawsuits, struggle with financing, and deal with local opposition. All these issues can stretch timelines into decades. This is why federal involvement is becoming more important. This includes equity stakes, subsidies, and fast-tracking permits.
Why the LAC Surge Matters
The near-doubling of Lithium Americas’ stock was not just a speculative rally. It was a market signal that U.S. lithium policy is entering a new phase.
- Government backing reduces financing risk, making it easier to attract institutional investors.
- Aligning policies with EV makers like General Motors, which has a big stake in Thacker Pass, ensures supply security and offtake agreements.
- National security framing places lithium on the same level as oil and gas. This makes lithium a strategic commodity and allows for more state intervention.
For automakers and battery manufacturers, this could mark the start of a more stable domestic supply base. For investors, it highlights how policy can rapidly change the outlook for mining equities.
Demand, Prices, and the Rollercoaster Market
Lithium demand will rise quickly. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence (BMI) predicts that consumption of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) will surpass 2.4 million tonnes by 2030. That’s almost four times what we use now. By 2035, demand could climb past 5 million tonnes, fueled by electric vehicles and large-scale battery storage.
The industry needs hundreds of new projects to meet this surge. However, BMI points out that permitting delays, financing issues, and tech challenges are slowing supply growth.
Battery demand adds another layer of urgency. Analysts predict global battery capacity will reach nearly 4 terawatt-hours by 2030. This highlights lithium’s vital role in the clean energy shift.
The U.S. is still a minor player. Most refining and conversion happens in China, which holds about 80% of processing capacity. This imbalance shows why Washington supports projects like Lithium Americas. They want to secure a local supply.
Litium prices, meanwhile, have been highly volatile. After lithium carbonate reached over $80,000 per tonne in late 2022, prices dropped sharply. In 2023–2024, they fell by more than 80%, going below $10,000 earlier this year. BMI attributes the crash to oversupply from South America and weaker near-term EV sales in China, which created a temporary glut.
However, the consultancy stresses that volatility is cyclical, not structural. Demand is strong, and prices should bounce back. In fact, last August, prices climbed when China’s major battery player closed its major mine.
New supply can’t keep up with long-term consumption. BMI warns that without steady investment and diversification of supply, future shortages could push prices sharply higher again by the late 2020s.
For the U.S., this shows why public investment matters. It helps create a strong domestic lithium industry. This will support electrification goals and better handle global changes.
Government in the Game: Stabilizing Supply Chains
U.S. government equity in Lithium Americas offers help in these areas:
- Provide a floor for project financing — Government backing reduces the risk premium for lenders or institutional partners.
- Stabilize supply — A guaranteed domestic source reduces reliance on external shocks.
- Mitigate short-term volatility — If Thacker Pass operates under a model combining private and public capital, it could offer a more stable supply corridor insulated from market swings.
- Signal future project structures — The U.S. may increasingly demand “state-option carve-outs” or partial equity as a condition for major critical mineral projects.
In a market where excess supply can drive prices into unprofitable territory, having a strategic anchor on flagship projects becomes a competitive edge.
Lithium as a Strategic Commodity
Lithium is no longer just a commodity for battery makers — it is now a strategic asset shaping national policy. The U.S. has the reserves, capital, and political will to be a major producer. But it will take years of teamwork to turn potential into production.
The Trump administration’s willingness to consider a government equity stake in Lithium Americas suggests a broader trend: future large-scale projects may require some form of state participation to succeed.
For the U.S., the stakes could not be higher. Without a reliable domestic lithium supply, the country risks falling behind in the global EV race, remaining dependent on supply chains controlled by rivals. With it, America could not only meet its clean energy goals but also secure a critical pillar of its industrial future.
- READ MORE on Lithium:
- Lithium Market in 2025 and Beyond: Supply Deficit Looms with $116B Requirement
- Lithium’s Comeback in 2025: Will Surging EV Demand Fuel the Next Price Boom?
- Top 5 Lithium Producers Powering the Battery Market in 2025
The post U.S. Lithium Push: How Washington’s Bet on Lithium Americas Could Reshape the Global Market appeared first on Carbon Credits.
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
What replaced the cheap REDD credit on the boardroom slide deck, and why procurement is leading the rewrite.
Three years ago, a corporate slide showing a portfolio of cheap REDD+ credits could carry a board meeting. The number was big, the price was low, and the press release wrote itself. Today, that same slide gets sent back with questions. The questions are uncomfortable, the answers are unclear, and your general counsel is suddenly in the room.
Conventional carbon offsets are not dead. The voluntary carbon market retired 202 million tonnes in 2025, and the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 confirmed that interest from corporate buyers remains substantial. What changed is the credibility threshold. The integrity floor has risen, the disclosure scrutiny has tightened, and the buyer profile has shifted. This article tracks what changed, what sophisticated buyers now ask before signing, and what serious corporates are putting on the board slide instead.
What boards used to buy, and why it stopped working
The 2020 to 2022 model was simple: buy a large tranche of avoidance credits at low single-digit prices, retire them against the company footprint, announce the carbon-neutral claim, and move on. Most of those credits came from REDD+ projects, renewable energy installations in countries where the renewable energy was already economic, or methane projects with thin documentation.
Several things broke that model. Academic research published in 2023, including a widely cited Science paper, found that the majority of REDD+ credits issued under the most common methodologies did not represent additional reductions when tested against rigorous counterfactuals. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative published its Claims Code of Practice, which sets requirements for what companies can credibly claim from credit use. The European Union finalised its Green Claims Directive, restricting how companies can describe products as climate-neutral. France’s Décret 2022-539 already restricts carbon neutrality advertising. California’s AB 1305 imposes disclosure requirements on any company making net-zero or carbon-neutral claims while doing business in the state.
The collective effect: the cheap credit no longer buys the announcement, and the announcement now carries litigation risk.
The integrity reset: ICVCM, VCMI, and what changed
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market published the Core Carbon Principles in 2023 and began assessing methodologies against them in 2024. The first methodologies received the CCP label later that year. The point of the label is to give corporate buyers a defensible quality screen they can cite in disclosure.
The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative complements this on the demand side. Its Claims Code of Practice defines what a buyer can say (Silver, Gold, or Platinum claims, with associated requirements) based on the quality of credits used and the underlying decarbonisation strategy. Together, CCP and VCMI build a quality stack: CCP on the supply, VCMI on the claim, with the science-based target sitting underneath both.
The reset is not a ban on offsets. It is a ratchet. Credits that meet the new bar continue to clear; credits that do not, do not. The Morgan Stanley survey found that 61% of current buyers like the CCP label concept but that supply of labelled credits remains limited. That supply constraint is now visible in pricing.
What sophisticated buyers ask before they sign
The questions on the procurement scorecard have changed. A 2022 buyer might have asked about price, vintage, and project type. A 2026 buyer asks five different questions before any of those.
- What does the counterfactual look like, and who validated it.
- What is the permanence regime, and what is the buffer pool exposure.
- What is the leakage risk, and how is it mitigated.
- What rating has the project received from the independent ratings agencies (Sylvera, BeZero, Calyx Global), and what was the rationale.
- What is the documentation discipline that survives an audit four years from now when the procurement team that signed the contract has moved on.
If the vendor cannot answer those five questions on a first call, the conversation ends. Conversely, if the vendor can answer them with documented specificity, the conversation often expands beyond a single transaction toward a multi-year engagement.
Where this leaves your near-term commitments
You probably have near-term commitments that pre-date the integrity reset. Public targets to be carbon neutral by 2025 or 2030. Product-level claims that ran in last year’s marketing. Disclosed reduction trajectories that assumed continued access to cheap credits.
You have three workable paths. The first is to re-baseline your strategy, replacing the most exposed credits with higher-quality alternatives and adjusting the public language to match what you can defend. The second is to shift the underlying spend from offsetting outside your value chain to investing inside your value chain, where reductions count against Scope 3 directly and the audit trail is cleaner. The third is to keep the strategy and absorb the risk, which is increasingly the most expensive option once you price in litigation, restatement, and reputational exposure.
Most serious buyers are choosing the second path. It moves the carbon spend from a compliance cost to a procurement and resilience investment, and it removes the central failure point of the legacy model: the disconnect between where the emissions occurred and where the reductions sat. Nature-based supply chain investments, structured under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard and aligned to the SBTi FLAG Guidance, are the asset class that fits this brief. They generate inventory-grade reductions, they produce audit-grade documentation, and they survive the new claim restrictions because the carbon math sits inside the value chain that the disclosure already covers.
If you are reassessing a carbon strategy under the new integrity bar, or rebuilding a board narrative that has to survive a more skeptical audience, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help. The Dual-Value Model gives you a defensible alternative to legacy offset purchases, with the documentation and operational integration that survives the procurement scorecard and the audit. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 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 Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测