Australia and the United States have launched a $3.5 billion critical minerals partnership, marking one of the largest bilateral efforts to secure materials essential for clean energy and electric vehicles (EVs).
The agreement focuses on strengthening supply chains for minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements. These materials are vital for batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and other low-carbon technologies.
The deal comes as global demand for these minerals rises sharply. The International Energy Agency estimates that demand for critical minerals could quadruple by 2040 under net-zero scenarios. Lithium demand alone could grow more than 40 times by 2040, driven by EV adoption and battery storage.
Australia plays a central role in this supply chain. It currently produces about 55% of the world’s lithium, making it the largest global supplier. However, much of the processing still takes place overseas, creating supply risks for Western economies.
The new partnership aims to address this gap by boosting both extraction and domestic processing capacity.
Billions Back the Full Value Chain—from Mine to Market
The $3.5 billion investment will be deployed over seven years. The United States will give around $2.1 billion. This funding comes from the Defense Production Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Australia will provide $1.4 billion through national financing programs.
The funding is designed to support the full value chain, from mining to refining to advanced research. The main areas of investment include:
- $1.8 billion for new mining projects and infrastructure upgrades
- $1.2 billion for processing and refining facilities
- $500 million for research, innovation, and sustainable extraction technologies
A key goal is to reduce reliance on external processing markets and build more resilient supply chains. This includes expanding refining capacity for lithium and rare earth elements, which are often processed outside producing countries.
The partnership is also expected to create economic benefits. Government estimates say about 15,000 direct jobs will be created. Additionally, around 30,000 indirect jobs will come from supply chains and related industries.
Breaking China’s Grip on Mineral Processing
The agreement reflects growing concern over the concentration of mineral processing in China. Currently, China dominates key parts of the global supply chain.
According to the International Energy Agency:
- China handles about 60% of global lithium processing
- It controls more than 80% of rare earth refining
- It also leads in battery component manufacturing
This dominance creates risks for supply security, pricing, and geopolitical stability. Disruptions in one region can affect global clean energy deployment.
By investing in alternative supply chains, Australia and the United States aim to diversify production and reduce these risks. The partnership could also encourage other countries to develop their own critical minerals strategies.
In addition, the deal may help stabilize prices for key materials. Volatility in lithium and nickel markets has impacted EV production costs. It has also delayed some renewable energy projects in recent years.
Supporting Climate Goals and the Energy Transition
The partnership has direct implications for global climate efforts. Critical minerals are essential for scaling clean energy technologies. Without a reliable supply, the pace of decarbonization could slow.
Battery storage is a key example. Energy storage systems help manage the variability of renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Expanding mineral supply will support the growth of these systems.
The IEA projects that global battery capacity must increase significantly to meet climate targets. Some estimates suggest energy storage capacity needs to grow more than sixfold by 2030 to stay on track for net-zero emissions.
The US-Australia alliance could help unlock this growth by ensuring stable access to raw materials. This, in turn, may reduce costs for batteries and renewable energy systems over time.
Both countries have also committed to improving environmental standards in mining. This includes reducing emissions, improving water management, and limiting land impacts. These measures are important because mining itself can be carbon-intensive.
Efforts to lower emissions in mineral extraction could also influence carbon accounting frameworks. As supply chains become more transparent, companies may need to track and report emissions linked to raw material sourcing.
ESG, Carbon Markets, and the New Mining Reality
The expansion of critical minerals supply chains is expected to influence carbon markets and ESG strategies.
As mining activity increases, so does the need to manage emissions. This could increase the need for carbon credits in the extractive sector. This is true for projects that cut or offset emissions from mining.
At the same time, improved supply chains for clean technologies may accelerate renewable energy deployment. This could support carbon reduction efforts across multiple sectors, including power generation and transportation.
The partnership may also lead to higher standards for responsible sourcing. Materials produced under strict environmental and social guidelines could command a premium in global markets.
This shift aligns with growing investor focus on ESG performance. Companies face growing pressure to show that their supply chains meet sustainability standards. This includes tracking emissions across Scope 1, 2, and 3 categories.
Over time, these trends could reshape how carbon credits are used. Companies may focus more on cutting emissions directly in their supply chains, rather than just using offsets.
Industry Scrambles to Secure the Next Wave of Supply
The announcement has received strong support from industry players. Major automakers and battery manufacturers are seeking secure and stable supplies of critical minerals. Companies like Tesla, Ford, and General Motors want to source materials from projects tied to the partnership.
Mining firms are also responding. Albemarle Corporation and Pilbara Minerals will likely gain from more investment and quicker project timelines.
Investor interest in the sector is rising as well. Global spending on energy transition minerals is growing rapidly, supported by both public and private capital.
The International Energy Agency reports that investment in critical minerals has increased sharply in recent years. This trend is expected to continue as countries compete to secure supply chains for clean energy technologies.
A Defining Shift in the Global Energy Economy
The $3.5 billion Australia–US critical minerals partnership represents a major step in reshaping global energy supply chains. It addresses a key bottleneck in the transition to a low-carbon economy: access to essential raw materials.
In the short term, the deal may help stabilize supply and reduce risks linked to market concentration. In the long term, it could accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies and support global climate goals.
For carbon markets, the impact is indirect but important. More minerals can help speed up the use of renewables and energy storage. This, in turn, cuts emissions throughout the economy. At the same time, higher mining activity may drive demand for carbon credits and new emissions reduction strategies within the sector.
The success of the partnership will depend on execution. Expanding mining and processing capacity takes time, investment, and strong environmental oversight.
If these challenges are addressed, the alliance could serve as a model for future international cooperation on critical minerals. It also highlights how energy security, economic policy, and climate action are becoming increasingly connected.
Ultimately, as demand for clean energy continues to grow, securing sustainable and reliable mineral supply chains will remain a key priority for governments and industries worldwide.
The post US and Australia Boost Critical Minerals Support with $3.5B Alliance, Challenging China’s Grip appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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