USA Rare Earth is making a big move in the critical minerals space. The company plans to acquire Brazil’s Serra Verde for $2.8 billion. This deal includes $300 million in cash and 126.9 million new shares. This values Serra Verde at about $2.8 billion based on USA Rare Earth’s share price from April 17. The acquisition is expected to close in the third quarter of 2026.
This purchase connects one of the few heavy rare earth producers outside China with USA Rare Earth’s growing mine-to-magnet platform. It aims to create an integrated supply chain for mining, processing, and magnet manufacturing. This is key as governments and industries want to reduce their reliance on Chinese supplies.
Barbara Humpton, Chief Executive Officer of USA Rare Earth, stated:
“The acquisition of Serra Verde represents a transformational step in delivering on our ambition to build a global champion and the partner of choice in rare earth elements, oxides, metals and magnets. Serra Verde’s Pela Ema mine is a one-of-a-kind asset and the only producer outside Asia capable of supplying all four magnetic rare earths at scale, together with other vital REEs, such as Yttrium. Serra Verde’s global importance is evidenced by its 15-year offtake agreement with a special purpose vehicle capitalized by various U.S. Government entities, as well as private capital sources, for 100% of its Phase 1 Nd, Pr, Dy and Tb production.
By combining Serra Verde’s world-class operations and team with our processing, separation, metallization and magnet-making capabilities, we are advancing our goal of creating a fully integrated platform that will serve as a cornerstone of global rare earth supply security for decades to come.”
Serra Verde Adds Heavy Rare Earth Supply the West Has Been Missing
Serra Verde provides access to heavy rare earths like dysprosium, terbium, and yttrium. These materials are essential for permanent magnets in electric vehicles, wind turbines, robotics, and defense tech. Sourcing them outside China is challenging. Supply concerns are rising as demand grows.
Many Western projects focus on light rare earths, but Serra Verde offers valuable heavy elements. Its Pela Ema mine in Goiás began production in 2024 after over $1.1 billion in investments. It became the first operational ionic clay deposit in the West.
REEs from clay deposits at Pela Ema
- By 2027, Phase 1 is projected to produce about 6,400 metric tons of total rare earth oxide annually. The mine aims to supply over 50% of non-China heavy rare earths by 2027. These figures boost the asset’s strategic value, with growth potential beyond current operations.
- A Phase 2 expansion could double production.
This growth aligns with USA Rare Earth’s goal of building a complete rare earth supply chain. Serra Verde adds feedstock production, while Round Top in Texas offers another source of heavy rare earths. Together, these assets strengthen the upstream supply base. But the story goes beyond mining.
Building a Vertically Integrated Rare Earth Platform
USA Rare Earth has spent years creating a vertically integrated platform. They acquired Less Common Metals in the UK, adding rare earth metal, alloy, and strip-casting capabilities. An Oklahoma magnet plant, launching later this year, will enhance downstream manufacturing.
With Serra Verde, these assets connect Brazilian feedstock, U.S. project development, European metallization, and U.S. magnet production.
- ALSO SEE: MP Materials (MP Stock): The Rare Earth Magnet Powering America’s Clean Energy and Climate Goals
Closing the Weak Links in the Supply Chain
According to the U.S. Geological Survey’s Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025, rare earth supply remains highly concentrated, with China continuing to dominate both mining and, more importantly, processing and magnet production.
Thus, this integration is crucial. Supply chain gaps have hindered Western rare earth ambitions. Mines without processing capacity face bottlenecks. Processing without secure feedstock risks supply. Magnet manufacturing without reliable materials can leave operations vulnerable.
This deal addresses these issues by combining multiple stages of the value chain. Strategic highlights from the acquisition show expansion opportunities across nearly every part of the platform.
- Upstream Supply Base: Upstream, Serra Verde’s Phase 2 growth paves the way for larger production volumes, while Round Top adds long-term potential. On the processing side, USA Rare Earth gains separation expertise through its partnership with Carester and plans to develop a rare earth carbonate separation line.
- Processing and Metallization Capacity: In metallization, the company aims to expand Less Common Metals’ reach in France, the U.S., and other markets to increase non-China metal, alloy, and strip-cast output.
- Downstream Magnet Manufacturing: Downstream, management sees potential to grow magnet manufacturing capacity for industrial customers focused on supply security. Together, these initiatives create a strategy that scales the entire supply chain rather than adding isolated assets.
Financial Structure Designed to Reduce Risk and Support Growth
The deal includes financial features aimed at reducing risk while supporting growth. Serra Verde secured a $565 million financing package from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to fund expansion through positive cash flow.
This eases financing pressure and supports scaling. It also has a 15-year, 100% offtake agreement for neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium, with minimum price floors, improving revenue stability and limiting commodity price risk.
Serra Verde expects $550–650 million in annualized EBITDA by 2027, with the combined company targeting about $1.8 billion by 2030 and roughly 80% cash flow conversion. The projections underline the deal’s transformational nature, focused on earnings growth and supply chain resilience.
USA Rare Earth (USAR) Stock Jumps 15%
Meanwhile, USA Rare Earth secured a separate $1.6 billion funding package from the U.S. government earlier this year. The company expects more than $3.2 billion in pro forma liquidity, which includes around $1.2 billion in cash and $1.8 billion from milestone-based funding. This funding comes from DFC and the U.S. Department of Commerce loan facilities.
This government support shows that rare earth supply connects to industrial strategy and national security. Governments see critical mineral supply chains as essential for energy, advanced manufacturing, and defense. The deal’s financing reflects this change and improves the company’s financial outlook.
Significantly, USA Rare Earth (USAR stock) shares rose over 15% after the announcement, boosting the company’s market value to about $4.9 billion.
Overall, this acquisition marked a shift in how the Western rare earth industry approached supply security. Instead of relying on isolated mining projects, USA Rare Earth moved toward a fully integrated platform that connected mining, processing, metallization, and magnet manufacturing across multiple regions.
The deal strengthened access to heavy rare earths, improved supply chain control, and aligned closely with government-backed industrial strategy. While execution risks remained, the overall direction pointed clearly toward building a more secure and independent rare earth supply chain outside China.
The post USA Rare Earth (USAR) Stock Jumps 15% on $2.8B Brazil Rare Earth Acquisition, Giving Massive Boost to Western Supply Chains appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
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.
-
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