Google is taking a long-term stake in Finland’s low-carbon energy future. The technology giant has signed a 22-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with Finnish utility Fortum covering up to 50% of the generation capacity of the Loviisa nuclear power plant.

The press release says that the agreement will help Fortum finance investments needed to extend Loviisa’s operating life through 2050. It will also support a planned power upgrade at the plant.

The Loviisa Deal Puts Nuclear at the Center

The most important part of the partnership is the long-term PPA.

• The agreement starts in 2028 with a smaller contracted capacity. From 2030 through 2049, Google will contract up to 50% of Loviisa’s generation capacity.

It gives Fortum something particularly valuable for a large nuclear investment: long-term revenue visibility.

Fortum is already pursuing an approximately €1 billion investment program to extend Loviisa’s operating life to 2050. About €700 million of the required capital expenditure is still pending investment decisions.

The Google agreement provides additional certainty to move ahead with those investments. This matters significantly because Loviisa is not a marginal asset for Finland.

                                        Loviisa nuclear plant

• ALSO SEE: Sweden’s Nuclear Evolution: Samsung C&T and Kärnfull Next Partner for SMRs

Keeping 10% of Finland’s power online

The plant currently provides about 10% of Finland’s electricity and employs approximately 580 people. Without the lifetime extension investment program, Loviisa would not be able to continue operating beyond 2030.

Extending the plant to 2050 therefore allows Finland to retain a large source of reliable, fossil-free electricity instead of losing that capacity at the end of the current operating period.

Additionally, the agreement could also increase the plant’s output. Fortum already has plans for a 38-megawatt capacity increase, expected to be operational in 2028. The new partnership with Google could support an additional 10 MW increase.

For Finland’s electricity system, keeping existing nuclear generation online while adding capacity can help strengthen supply without waiting years for entirely new large-scale generation projects.

Google’s Finland Bet Goes Beyond Nuclear Power

But the partnership goes beyond nuclear power.

The companies have also agreed to explore new nuclear generation, renewable energy and flexibility solutions. The companies are effectively building a broader framework for expanding reliable, low-carbon electricity across Finland.

• Google plans to invest €13 billion in Finland during 2027 and 2028. The investment will include data centers, supporting infrastructure and partnerships in Hamina, Muhos, Vaala and Kajaani.

Fortum has an 8 GW renewable pipeline in the Nordic countries currently in the permitting phase. The company aims to have 1.2 GW of ready-to-build renewable projects and 2.5 GW of new flexibility services and generation assets ready to deploy by the end of 2028.

Google’s partnership could help create demand for some of that future capacity and create a much broader clean-energy strategy.

The companies also want to explore how nuclear, renewable energy and flexibility technologies can work together as electricity demand changes. However, for Fortum, the immediate focus is clear: keep a major source of Finland’s fossil-free electricity online for another two decades.

Batteries join the equation

The first example is already taking shape in Kajaani. The deal will help optimize a new 94 MW battery storage system that Google has contracted for near its new data center.

Battery storage can help balance variable renewable generation and provide additional flexibility to the electricity system. It makes the partnership broader than a traditional nuclear PPA.

Google’s Clean-Energy Portfolio is Expanding

The Fortum agreement also fits into Google’s rapidly expanding clean-energy portfolio.

• In 2025, Google struck more than 12 GW of net-new clean energy deals. It was the company’s largest annual clean-energy procurement and exceeded the combined amount it contracted during the previous two years.

Since 2010, it has signed more than 240 clean-energy agreements representing nearly 35 GW of capacity. It also reported a 37% increase in electricity demand in 2025.

• Despite that increase, Google said it reduced operational emissions by 2% and matched 100% of its electricity consumption with renewable energy purchases for the ninth consecutive year.
• Its energy, hardware and computing-efficiency initiatives also avoided more than 58 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2025.

The Nuclear Strategy Extends Beyond Finland

The Loviisa agreement is not Google’s only nuclear commitment. The company has signed landmark nuclear agreements earlier, and they are:

Geothermal, storage and fusion broaden the bet

In Taiwan, Google signed geothermal agreements expected to add 10 MW of always-on geothermal power to the grid and made an equity investment in Baseload Capital.

Google is also supporting long-duration energy storage through its partnership with Energy Dome. Its CO2 Battery technology is designed to store renewable electricity and discharge it over eight to 24 hours.

Together, however, they show Google’s willingness to support a wide range of technologies that could contribute to a more resilient low-carbon electricity system.

A Nordic Model for Clean Energy

The Loviisa deal shows how big companies can support the wider energy transition, not just buy clean electricity. Google’s long-term demand gives Fortum greater certainty to keep Loviisa running through 2050 and develop new renewable, storage and nuclear capacity.

Google’s €13 billion investment in Finland adds to this strategy by expanding its footprint and supporting the country’s low-carbon energy system. The partnership could become a model for using corporate demand and investment to strengthen clean energy infrastructure across Finland and the Nordic region.

• ALSO SEE: Google Bets Big on Next-Gen Nuclear and Carbon Credits from Superpollutants For a Greener AI

The post Google’s Big Energy Bet on Finland: 22-Year Fortum Deal Brings Nuclear, Renewables and Storage Together appeared first on Carbon Credits.

European airlines received billions of euros in free carbon allowances under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), but most of the benefit appears to have supported airline profits rather than new green investment. That is the key finding of a new CE Delft report examining free aviation allowances between 2013 and 2025.

The study estimates airlines received €10.9 billion worth of free EU allowances during the period. By comparison, six major airline groups spent about €1.1 billion on sustainable activities, mainly sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The findings come as the EU completes its phase-out of free aviation allowances in 2026.

Airlines Received €10.9 Billion in Free Allowances

The EU originally provided free allowances to airlines to limit competitiveness concerns and reduce the risk of carbon leakage. Between 2013 and 2025, airlines received about 350 million free allowances, covering roughly half of the 700 million tonnes of verified aviation emissions reported under the EU ETS during the period.

The value of those allowances increased sharply as carbon prices rose.

CE Delft estimates the average EU allowance price increased from about €4.56 per tonne in 2013 to €73.43 in 2025, measured in 2025 prices. The annual average reached about €87.90 per tonne in 2022.

That made free allowances increasingly valuable to airlines, particularly during the years when carbon prices were high. The largest benefits came in 2022 and 2023, when airlines continued receiving free allowances while EU carbon prices remained elevated.

The author noted:

“We find no strong reason to expect that these expenditures would have been substantially lower without free allocation. EU ETS auction revenues, on the other hand, are largely used for climate and energy transition purposes. Full auctioning of aviation allowances would therefore most likely have made significantly more funding available for the decarbonisation of the European economy.”

Free Allocation Became a Major Profit Booster

CE Delft compared airline profitability with a scenario in which airlines had to purchase all their EU allowances. The six airline groups studied were Ryanair, Lufthansa, Air France-KLM, easyJet, Wizz Air and IAG.

For five major European airline groups that were profitable over the period, the report estimates that free allocation accounted for about 17% of profitability. For Air France-KLM, which recorded cumulative losses, free allowances reduced those losses by about 10%.

The report also finds little evidence that ending free allocation has seriously damaged airline profitability. European airline margins during 2023–2025 were broadly comparable with pre-pandemic levels, even as free allocation declined sharply.

That does not mean airlines would face no costs from buying all their allowances. But it weakens the argument that free allocation was essential to protect the sector’s financial performance.

• RELATED: Top 5 Airports Driving Global Aviation Emissions as Expansion Fuels Climate Risks

Green Spending Fell Far Behind the Carbon Windfall

The biggest concern raised by the report is the gap between the value of free allowances and spending on sustainable activities. The six airline groups spent approximately €80 million on sustainable capital investments during the period studied.

They also spent an estimated €1 billion on SAF purchases. Combined, that is roughly €1.1 billion, compared with the €10.9 billion estimated value of free carbon allowances.

CE Delft also examined 2025 EU Taxonomy reporting from eight airlines. The airlines reported a combined €18.1 billion in capital expenditure. About €9.57 billion, or 52.8%, was classified as taxonomy-aligned.

However, almost all of that spending — €9.55 billion — was classified as transitional activity, mainly conventional aircraft purchases and maintenance.

Only €24 million, or 0.13% of total reported capital expenditure, was classified as genuinely sustainable investment. This consisted of electric ground-handling equipment reported by Air France-KLM.

The distinction matters because newer aircraft can use less fuel than older models but still rely mainly on fossil-based jet fuel.

Could Auction Revenue Have Delivered More?

The report argues that governments could have used auction revenue to support technologies that can cut aviation emissions. CE Delft models several hypothetical uses for the €10.9 billion in free allowances.

If the money had instead been used to purchase HEFA-based SAF, the report estimates it could have supported about 18 million tonnes of CO₂ reductions. Using synthetic SAF could have produced about 4.7 million tonnes of reductions.

The report also estimates that putting the money into the EU Innovation Fund could theoretically have generated up to 815 million tonnes of reductions across sectors. These are not actual historical savings. They are illustrative scenarios based on different technology and investment assumptions.

Still, they highlight the potential opportunity cost of giving carbon allowances to airlines rather than auctioning them.

The wider EU ETS has already become a major source of climate funding. EU ETS auctions generated more than €258 billion between 2013 and 2025, with revenues exceeding €43 billion in 2025, according to the European Commission.

Aviation’s Carbon Costs Remain Partly Unpriced

The report also examines aviation’s wider climate impact. For the six airline groups, CE Delft estimates their external climate costs reached almost €30 billion in 2025.

That included about €14.7 billion from direct aircraft CO₂ emissions, €4.6 billion from fuel-production emissions and €10.3 billion from non-CO₂ climate effects. These figures show why aviation’s climate impact extends beyond the CO₂ covered by the EU ETS.

CE Delft estimates that carbon pricing has internalized around 40% of the external cost of direct CO₂ emissions within the EU ETS scope in recent years. But the picture changes when international aviation and non-CO₂ effects are included.

For 2025, the report estimates only 16% of CO₂-related external costs were internalized when intercontinental aviation was included. Non-CO₂ effects, including climate impacts linked to aircraft emissions at altitude, remain much less covered by carbon pricing.

Europe Finally Ends Free Airline Allowances

The EU has now entered a new phase for aviation carbon pricing. Under the 2023 EU ETS reforms, free aviation allowances were reduced by 25% in 2024 and 50% in 2025. From 2026, regular free allocation has ended, and aviation allowances are auctioned.

The change means airlines now face a clearer market-based carbon cost for their EU ETS emissions. At the same time, the EU is directing carbon market resources toward aviation decarbonization.

• Between 2024 and 2030, up to 20 million EU ETS allowances will be used to help narrow the cost gap between eligible SAF and conventional jet fuel.

EASA expects aviation emissions covered by the EU ETS to reach about 59.5 million tonnes in 2026. It estimates airlines could need to purchase about 34.5 million allowances this year. That makes the price of carbon increasingly important to airline costs.

The Next Test for Aviation Carbon Policy

The CE Delft report does not show that free allowances had no value to airlines. Instead, it raises a broader question about whether the policy delivered enough climate benefits for its cost.

The report was commissioned by Opportunity Green, so its policy recommendations should be considered in that context. Its analysis, however, uses EU ETS data, airline financial reports, EU Taxonomy disclosures and other published datasets.

With free allocation now ending, the focus shifts to what happens next. A stronger carbon price can increase the cost of flying while creating revenue for climate investment.

The challenge for Europe is to ensure that those revenues help scale technologies such as SAF, synthetic fuels, and eventually hydrogen and electric aviation.

For the EU’s carbon market, the goal is no longer simply putting a price on aviation emissions. It is turning that price into measurable progress toward cleaner flight.

• READ MORE: EU Carbon Market under Pressure: Business Lobby for Reform, Italy Calls for Suspension
  

The post Free EU Carbon Allowances Boosted Airline Profits More Than Green Investment, Report Finds appeared first on Carbon Credits.

China’s electric vehicle market is showing a growing split between battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and other powertrains. The country’s overall passenger vehicle market fell sharply in August. Yet, BEV sales increased year over year, while plug-in hybrids, extended-range EVs and gasoline-powered vehicles all declined.

The shift is also exposing a tougher problem for Tesla. The company’s China retail sales fell for a third consecutive month, even as the broader BEV market expanded.

The latest figures show how quickly China’s auto market is changing. They also highlight the growing role of electrification in cutting oil demand and transportation emissions.

China’s Auto Market Slumps, But BEVs Keep Growing

China’s passenger vehicle retail market dropped 23.6% year-over-year in August, according to China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) data. New energy vehicle (NEV) sales also declined, falling 10.1% to about 1.005 million units. NEVs include BEVs, plug-in hybrids and extended-range electric vehicles.

However, the headline NEV decline masks a major difference between powertrains. BEV retail sales reached 698,000 units in August, up 0.8% from August 2025 and 7.9% from July.

Meanwhile, plug-in hybrid sales fell 29.6%, and extended-range EV sales declined 22.2%. Fossil-fuel vehicles, including internal-combustion and conventional hybrid models, plunged about 40%. That made August another important month for China’s transition toward fully electric vehicles.

BEVs did not deliver explosive growth. However, they were the only major powertrain category to post year-over-year growth as the broader auto market contracted.

The result was a record 65.2% NEV penetration rate in China’s passenger vehicle retail market, up from 55.2% a year earlier. In other words, nearly two out of every three new passenger vehicles sold in China in August were NEVs.

Tesla Is Moving in the Opposite Direction

Tesla’s performance stands out because its core product is concentrated in the BEV segment. Tesla sold 50,047 vehicles in China in August, according to CPCA data. That was down 12.4% from 57,152 vehicles a year earlier.

It was also Tesla’s weakest August result in China since 2022. The decline followed a 32.9% year-over-year drop in July and a 14% decline in June, creating three consecutive months of falling China retail sales.

The month-on-month comparison was better. Tesla’s August sales jumped 83.7% from July, when the company sold only 27,249 vehicles in China.

Still, the rebound was not enough to reverse the underlying annual decline. Through the first eight months of 2026, Tesla’s China retail sales reached 316,251 vehicles, down about 12.4% from the same period last year.

Tesla’s position in China’s NEV market also shows the intensity of competition. The company ranked sixth in August with a 5.0% share of NEV retail sales. BYD led with 233,943 vehicles and a 23.3% share, followed by Geely at 110,560 and Leapmotor at 84,874.

Tesla, therefore, sold less than half as many NEVs as BYD in the Chinese retail market during the month.

China’s EV Competition Is Getting More Intense

Tesla’s challenge is not simply a weak Chinese auto market. Local manufacturers are continuing to expand their presence across different price points and vehicle categories.

• Other major players included Changan, SAIC-GM-Wuling, Chery, Huawei-backed HIMA, Li Auto, Nio, Xpeng and Xiaomi.

The rise of these companies matters because China’s EV market is increasingly driven by competition over price, battery technology, charging speed, software and vehicle features.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that China’s EV production costs are around 35% lower than in advanced economies, reflecting the country’s integrated battery, materials and manufacturing supply chains. China also accounted for nearly 75% of global electric car production in 2025.

Tesla once had a much larger position in this market. Reuters reported that Tesla’s share of China’s BEV sector fell to 6.6% in the second quarter of 2026, compared with more than 15% in 2020.

That decline shows the structural change underway. Tesla helped establish the premium mass-market EV category in China, but domestic manufacturers now have increasingly competitive alternatives.

Tesla Stock Reaction

Tesla shares showed little reaction to the August China sales figures. TSLA stock rose about 0.3% on September 9, even as Tesla’s China sales fell 12.4% from a year earlier.

Investors are looking beyond the latest sales numbers. Tesla’s stock has also been affected by concerns over its slowing vehicle sales, rising competition in China and uncertainty around its robotaxi and Cybertruck plans.

The bigger concern is the growing gap between Tesla and China’s broader BEV market. China’s BEV sales increased in August, while Tesla’s sales fell for a third straight month. This suggests Tesla is facing stronger competition, rather than simply a weaker EV market.

China Is Turning to Exports as Domestic Demand Weakens

China’s weakening domestic market is also pushing automakers toward international markets. Passenger vehicle exports reached 894,000 units in August, up 77.5% year over year, even as domestic sales fell 23.7%.

NEV exports were particularly strong, rising 154.7% from a year earlier. NEVs represented 58.4% of China’s passenger vehicle exports during the month. The trend extends beyond August.

IEA data show that Chinese electric car exports increased by more than 120% in the first half of 2026, fully offsetting the decline in domestic electric car sales. Electric vehicles accounted for more than 45% of China’s car exports, compared with around 35% in 2025.

Tesla is also increasingly using Shanghai as an export hub. The EV giant exported 36,119 vehicles from its Shanghai factory in August, up 38.7% year over year. However, that was down 45.6% from July’s record 66,330 exports.

The contrast is important. Tesla’s China retail market is shrinking, while its Shanghai factory is increasingly serving international markets. Chinese automakers face a similar dynamic, but their export growth has been substantially faster.

Electric Cars Are Starting to Cut China’s Oil Demand

The shift toward BEVs also has consequences beyond the auto industry. China is the world’s largest oil importer and has the world’s largest EV fleet. The IEA estimates that EVs already displaced around 1 million barrels of oil per day in China in 2025.

That figure could reach 2.7 million barrels per day by 2030 under current policies. Recent data suggest the effect is becoming visible in national energy statistics.

China’s carbon dioxide emissions fell 1% year over year in the second quarter of 2026, according to analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). Oil consumption fell about 9%, while transport oil use dropped 16%.

CREA estimated that EVs displaced around 36 million tonnes of oil during the first half of 2026, contributing to an estimated 35 million tonnes of carbon emissions reductions after accounting for emissions from EV charging.

Sinopec’s research arm now expects China’s oil demand to decline by 600,000 barrels per day, or 8.9%, in 2026. Gasoline demand is forecast to fall 8.7%, while diesel demand could decline 11.4%.

EV adoption is not the only factor behind those changes. Higher oil prices, weaker economic activity, and changes in industrial demand also matter. Still, transportation electrification is becoming an increasingly important structural factor.

China’s EV Boom Is Becoming a Global Export Story

China’s auto market is under pressure, but BEVs are still gaining ground as gasoline vehicles lose share. At the same time, Chinese automakers are taking their EVs into overseas markets, increasing competition in Europe, Southeast Asia and other regions.

The IEA says China produced nearly 75% of the world’s electric cars in 2025, while Chinese brands accounted for more than half of EV sales in Southeast Asia.

Tesla faces a different challenge. Its August sales fell even as China’s BEV market grew, showing that stronger competition is hurting its position in the world’s largest EV market.

The long-term outlook for China’s EV market remains strong. The IEA expects EVs to make up more than 60% of China’s car sales in 2026 and more than 90% by 2035.

The shift also has climate implications. More BEVs can reduce oil demand and transport emissions while increasing demand for cleaner electricity and batteries.

READ MORE: China’s New 2030 Climate Playbook and What It Means for the EV Market

The post China’s Battery EV Market Grows as Tesla (TSLA Stock) Posts Third Straight Monthly Sales Decline appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Australia has taken a major step toward using carbon credits to protect native forests. However, the decision has also exposed a deep split within the environmental movement.

The Senate has rejected an attempt to block the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method. This allows the new forest carbon credit system to remain in place.

The Greens were divided. Most of their senators supported the government’s position after securing changes to the scheme. Three Greens senators opposed it. The vote highlights a bigger question for Australia’s carbon market:

Can carbon credits help protect forests without allowing companies to rely on offsets instead of cutting their own emissions?

Australia’s Senate Clears a New Path for Forest Carbon

The Coalition tried to disallow the INFM method, arguing that it could affect Australia’s native forestry industry. The motion was defeated 34 votes to 27, allowing the method to continue.

• Seven Greens senators supported the government, while Senators Nick McKim, Vanessa Bleyer and Jordon Steele-John voted against it.

The federal government says the method gives states another financial option for protecting public native forests. Under the system, states can generate Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) by stopping planned timber harvesting in eligible native forests.

The forests can then continue growing and storing carbon. At the same time, emissions linked to harvesting can be avoided.

The government formally approved the INFM method in June 2026. It is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2036, unless extended under Australian law.

How Forest Credits Work

The basic idea is simple. A state identifies a forest that would otherwise be harvested. If logging is stopped through an eligible project, the additional carbon stored in the forest can be counted as emissions reduction.

Projects must use Australia’s Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM) to calculate the carbon benefit. They also face monitoring, reporting and compliance requirements.

The resulting ACCUs can be sold to companies seeking to offset emissions or meet obligations under Australia’s climate policies. For governments, this creates a potential new source of revenue from forest protection.

For environmental groups, however, the question is whether the carbon benefit is genuinely additional. That issue sits at the heart of the debate.

Why the Greens Are Divided

The Greens have long supported stronger forest protection and deeper emissions cuts. But the party remains divided over the role of carbon markets.

Most Greens senators backed the INFM method after negotiating changes with the government. Greens leader Larissa Waters said the party secured stronger safeguards, including restrictions on how credits can be used by coal and gas companies.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen said:

“If you believe in ending native forest logging or moving away from it and reducing it, then you vote for this method.”

Three Greens senators, however, rejected the deal.

McKim, Bleyer and Steele-John argued that carbon credits could allow major polluters to keep emitting while claiming reductions elsewhere. They also said native forests should be protected for their environmental and biodiversity value, rather than mainly because they can generate carbon credits.

Senator McKim noted:

“Labor is holding koalas hostage… and threatening their extinction unless they can profit from their habitat.”

The disagreement reflects a wider debate over whether forest conservation and carbon markets should be linked.

Supporters argue that carbon revenue can make standing forests more valuable than logging them. Critics say forests should be protected through direct government action, without creating credits that companies can use to offset emissions.

Great Koala National Park Could Become the Big Test

The proposed Great Koala National Park in New South Wales is likely to become one of the most important tests of the new system. The proposed park covers about 476,000 hectares, including more than 176,000 hectares of state forest.

The NSW government says the area could protect more than 12,000 koalas, 36,000 greater gliders and habitat for more than 100 other threatened species.

NSW is developing a carbon project under the new INFM method. The plan is to stop timber harvesting and allow the forests to continue growing and storing carbon.

• Earlier government estimates suggested the project could generate about 6.4 million tonnes of carbon abatement and sequestration over 25 years, including around 3.7 million ACCUs over 15 years.

Those figures were based on an earlier version of the method. They should not be treated as the final credit volume.

The project will now provide an important real-world test of whether carbon finance can support large-scale forest protection.

Additionality Will Make or Break Forest Credits

The Senate vote does not end concerns about the quality of forest carbon credits. One major issue is additionality.

For a carbon credit to represent a real climate benefit, the protection should not have happened without the project. If a forest was already going to be protected, critics argue that issuing credits could create little additional climate benefit.

Another concern is leakage. If logging stops in one forest but moves to another area, some of the claimed emissions benefit could be lost.

The government considered both issues while developing the INFM method. The final rules include requirements to monitor harvesting and account for potential leakage.

The government received 371 submissions during consultation on the draft method. The results will now depend on how the rules work in actual projects.

A New Phase for Australia’s Carbon Market

The forest credit debate comes as Australia’s ACCU market plays a larger role in national climate policy. The credits are increasingly linked to the Safeguard Mechanism, which requires Australia’s largest industrial facilities to manage their emissions.

The policy continues to show positive momentum, with a noticeable reduction in industrial footprints during 2024–25. Total gross covered emissions decreased by 2.3% year-over-year to 132.8 MtCO₂e. Meanwhile, net emissions dropped at a faster rate of 5.5%, falling to 120.3 MtCO₂e, highlighting increased compliance and market activity.

The Climate Change Authority’s latest review said the ACCU system remains fundamentally sound but called for improvements in transparency and information for buyers. It also recommended further work on carbon storage permanence and the treatment of credits from different project types.

The INFM method adds another potential source of ACCUs. Instead of planting new forests, projects can generate credits by keeping existing native forests standing and allowing them to grow.

That could expand Australia’s land-sector carbon market. But forest projects also face risks from fires, drought, pests and other disturbances. Ensuring that credited carbon remains stored will therefore be important for market credibility.

The Real Test: Can Australia Forest Credits Deliver?

Australia’s Senate decision does not settle the debate over forest carbon credits. It does, however, create a path for governments to put a financial value on keeping native forests standing.

The Great Koala National Park could become an early test. If its carbon project delivers real additional emissions reductions while protecting important biodiversity, it could show how carbon markets can support large-scale conservation.

But if credits are issued for protection that would have happened anyway, or if they allow major emitters to delay real emissions cuts, the method could face renewed criticism.

The next stage will, therefore, matter more than the Senate vote itself.

Australia now has to show that forest carbon can deliver both real climate benefits and real forest protection. How that works in New South Wales could influence the future of forest carbon projects across Australia.

• READ MORE: Australia Shuts Down Carbon Offset Program Climate Active: What Comes Next for the Market and Corporate Net Zero?

The post Australia’s Forest Carbon Fight: Greens Split as Senate Backs Forest Credits appeared first on Carbon Credits.