In late February 2026, OpenAI reached a deal that allows its artificial intelligence (AI) tools run inside the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) classified computer systems. CEO Sam Altman said this deal includes safety limits on mass surveillance and use in weapons systems.

The announcement came shortly after the Trump administration ordered U.S. agencies to stop using rival AI company Anthropic’s technology.

This moment highlighted how AI is becoming linked with national security. It also showed how two leading AI models — OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude AI — are now part of major technology debates. At the same time, their energy use and carbon footprints matter to people, organizations, and climate policy makers.

This article compares ChatGPT and Claude AI using data from credible research. It explains their environmental impact, why it matters, and how it connects to broader issues in technology and climate.

Why Every Query Counts: AI’s Hidden Carbon Cost

AI systems run on large computer networks called data centers. These centers use electricity and water. They also produce carbon dioxide (CO₂), a major contributor to climate change.

The size of the AI model and how often it is used affect its environmental costs. A single AI query may use only a small amount of energy. But billions of queries add up quickly. Data centers for AI are part of a fast‑growing electricity demand that could shape future carbon emissions patterns.

Because of this, comparing the environmental impact of different AI models helps users, developers, and policymakers understand sustainability trade‑offs.

How ChatGPT and Claude AI Use Energy

Energy Per Query

A single AI query is often measured in watt‑hours (Wh). This measures how much electricity is used.

Independent research shows:

• OpenAI’s GPT‑4o (ChatGPT) uses about 0.30 Wh per request, with around 0.13 grams of CO₂ emitted on a typical global electricity grid.
• Anthropic’s Claude 3 Opus AI uses significantly more, roughly 4.05 Wh per request, with about 1.80 grams of CO₂ per query in similar conditions.
• A lighter version of Claude, Claude 3 Haiku, uses around 0.22 Wh and 0.10 grams CO₂ per query, suggesting model choice matters for impact.

This comparison shows that different AI architectures and optimizations can lead to more than 10× differences in energy usage per interaction.

User Shifts: Claude Climbs as ChatGPT Falls 

After news broke about OpenAI’s partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense, some users began leaving ChatGPT for alternatives. Data from app rankings shows that Anthropic’s Claude AI overtook ChatGPT as the #1 free app on the Apple U.S. App Store shortly after the dispute with the Pentagon became public. 

Sensor Tower data showed that Claude climbed from outside the top 100 in late January to the top spot by early March. Daily sign-ups and free users increased sharply during this time.

Reports show that Claude’s free user base grew over 60% since January. Also, its paid subscriptions more than doubled this year, according to company statements about the surge.

At the same time, uninstalls of the ChatGPT app spiked. Some data showed that these rates surged after the Pentagon deal. Yet, OpenAI’s chatbot maintains a much larger overall user base, with reported weekly active users in the hundreds of millions.

These recent shifts represent a notable trend toward user migration and increased competition in the AI chatbot market. 

Scaling Impact: Why Small Differences Multiply

A single AI query’s footprint may look small. For example, 0.30 Wh is roughly the energy needed to run a small LED light bulb for a few minutes. But the global scale of use changes the picture.

ChatGPT alone handles hundreds of millions to billions of queries every day. One estimate suggests more than 1 billion queries daily, leading to about 300 megawatt‑hours (MWh) of electricity consumption per day and over 260,000 kilograms of CO₂ emissions per month from ChatGPT use.

• SEE MORE: ChatGPT vs. Gemini: Who Leads the AI Race and at What Environmental Cost?

If models like Claude AI — which use more energy per query — are used widely, the total emissions scale up even faster. That means small differences in per‑query use can translate into large differences in total environmental output.

From Training to Inference: The Energy Life Cycle of AI

There are two main parts of AI’s life cycle:

• Model Training

Training is a one‑time event for a given version of a model, but it must be repeated for updates.

Training a large AI model involves consuming large amounts of energy. Training generates billions of calculations and can emit hundreds of metric tons of CO₂.

For example, research on large language models estimates that training some early AI models resulted in over 500 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent because of the hardware and energy used.

• Inference (Everyday Use)

Inference is when a model responds to user prompts. This ongoing use represents most of the daily energy footprint of AI systems. Here, the efficiency per query matters most.

A more efficient model like GPT‑4o may use less energy per request than a less efficient model. Since ChatGPT already sees large volumes of queries, even small efficiency gains can reduce total emissions.

• SEE MORE: AI’s Energy Hunger: Data Centers Set to Use Power Equal to Japan’s by 2035

Water and Data Centers

AI data centers use water mainly for cooling. Hot servers generate heat and need water for cooling systems. Research indicates water use per query is usually very small, such as about 0.32 milliliters per average AI prompt.

However, at scale, this water use still matters, especially in regions where water is scarce. Not all companies publicly disclose the water footprints tied to their AI operations, making precise comparison challenging.

AI’s Role in Future Carbon Emissions

AI’s total environmental impact includes training, inference, and indirect effects from electricity production.

Data centers now account for a significant share of global electricity demand. Some estimates suggest that by 2030, data centers could use up to 3–4 % of global power. Most of this growth is tied to AI and cloud computing.

Globally, generative AI, including models like ChatGPT and Claude, could contribute millions of tons of CO₂ emissions annually by 2035 if current growth trends continue. This broad projection highlights why understanding per‑model efficiency matters for climate planning.

Comparing ChatGPT and Claude: Key Numbers 

Here is a comparison at a glance based on third‑party research:

This table shows clear differences in per‑query environmental output between the two companies’ flagship models.

Understanding AI Emissions Limits

It is important to note that exact figures for model training and full system usage are often not publicly disclosed by AI companies. Independent research fills the gap using benchmarks and statistical methods.

Training emissions and energy use depend on many factors, such as the type of hardware used, the energy mix of the data center, and optimization choices. This study focused on inference energy use, not full life‑cycle emissions.

Greater transparency from AI companies would help both researchers and users better understand environmental impacts.

AI and Climate Policy: Why Efficiency Shapes Carbon Markets

Many climate strategies today focus on reducing emissions where possible. Measures include energy efficiency, shifting to renewable energy, and accounting for indirect emissions (scope 2 and 3).

AI technologies are part of this broader discussion for these reasons:

• They consume electricity at large scale.
• Their footprints depend on model design and data center energy sources.
• Differences between models show how design choices affect emissions.

For users and organizations, choosing more efficient models or using AI judiciously can reduce total carbon emissions. For policymakers, understanding AI’s footprint supports better regulation around digital emissions accounting.

Lessons from ChatGPT and Claude

AI models like ChatGPT and Claude AI do not have identical environmental footprints. Data suggests that, per query:

• ChatGPT’s GPT‑4o model operates with lower energy use and emissions than many versions of Claude AI.
• Claude has some versions with higher per‑query energy use, though variants exist with lower profiles.

These differences are significant because AI usage continues to grow rapidly. Even small gains in efficiency can make a substantial difference when scaled across millions or billions of queries.

For climate‑focused platforms, this comparison shows that digital technologies have measurable environmental effects. Understanding these effects helps shape carbon accounting, sustainability reporting, and climate policy decisions in a world where AI is increasingly widespread.

• READ MORE: ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek Are on an AI Race – But at What Climate Cost? A Comparison

The post ChatGPT vs Claude AI: Carbon Footprints, Pentagon Deal, and Energy Impact appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Disseminated on behalf of Alaska Energy Metals Corporation.

The global nickel market enters 2026 after a bruising and uneven year. In 2025, macroeconomic stress, trade disruptions, and deep supply imbalances reshaped pricing and sentiment. Although short-term rallies have returned, the underlying structure of the market remains fragile. As a result, 2026 is shaping up to be a year defined by volatility rather than a sustained recovery.

A Challenging Backdrop from 2025

To understand where nickel is headed, it helps to revisit the environment it emerged from. In 2025, global trade flows came under pressure after the US implemented new tariff policies. These measures disrupted supply chains and dampened confidence across industrial commodities. At the same time, global manufacturing growth slowed, weighing heavily on the broader nonferrous metals complex.

SMM reported highlighted some significant points. Adding to the uncertainty, the US Federal Reserve sent mixed signals throughout the year. Expectations around interest rate cuts shifted repeatedly. Each change altered risk appetite and triggered sharp moves across commodity markets. Nickel, already vulnerable due to oversupply, struggled to attract sustained buying interest.

China attempted to offset some of these pressures. Policymakers rolled out proactive fiscal measures and maintained a moderately accommodative monetary policy. They also focused on boosting domestic demand and diversifying export routes to reduce exposure to trade frictions. In July, China introduced its “anti-involution” policy, aimed at curbing destructive price competition across industries.

Even so, nickel underperformed. While other nonferrous metals showed mixed results, nickel remained constrained by a clear mismatch between supply and demand. Prices trended lower for most of the year. LME nickel opened near $15,365 per tonne and slid to lows around $13,865 per tonne, marking a sharp reset in the price center.

• SEE DETAILS: Nickel Forecast 2025: Can $66 Billion Investment Solve the Supply Gap? 

2026 Nickel Price Outlook: A Volatile Start to the New Cycle

Momentum shifted suddenly toward the end of the year. From mid-December, nickel prices began climbing rapidly.

• By early January, LME prices had surged past $18,000 per tonne, the first time in more than a year. In just 12 trading sessions, prices jumped nearly 20%, catching many traders off guard.

Several factors fueled this rebound. Demand signals from China improved modestly, particularly from stainless steel mills and EV battery producers. At the same time, speculative positioning adjusted as supply risks from Indonesia returned to the spotlight.

Trading Economics analysis stated that Indonesia, the world’s largest nickel producer, hinted at a potential 34% reduction in output for this year. Meanwhile, Vale temporarily halted operations at its Pomalaa and Bahodopi mines while waiting for regulatory approvals. Although its flagship Sorowako mine continued operating, these pauses added to market caution.

Still, the rally faced clear limits. Inventory levels remained elevated. Combined LME registered and off-warrant stocks jumped nearly 58% last year, reaching more than 367,000 tonnes. In addition, large shadow inventories in Singapore and Kaohsiung continued to hang over the market. As a result, every price spike met resistance.

Price Expectations Remain Capped

Most analysts expect nickel prices to settle into a narrow band rather than trend sharply higher. Forecasts largely cluster between $15,000 and $16,000 per tonne. Several major institutions attribute the restrained outlook to ongoing surpluses.

• The World Bank’s 2026 nickel price outlook also revealed nickel prices to stay around US$15,500, rising to US$16,000 in 2027.
• Trading Economics data indicated that nickel futures moved back up to nearly $17,800 per tonne, reversing last week’s steep decline as buyers stepped back into the market.

Analysts consider that the differences in price forecasts primarily reflect contrasting views on how strictly Indonesia will enforce production limits and how quickly global manufacturing activity is expected to recover.

• CHECK: LIVE NICKEL PRICES

Nickel Demand Drivers Show Modest Growth

• Stainless steel: remains the dominant driver, accounting for about 70% of total demand. Consumption may rise to roughly 2.45 to 2.5 million tonnes. China’s production recovery offers support, while infrastructure projects in emerging markets add incremental demand. Still, no major surge is expected.
• Battery and EV application: They make up roughly 13% to 15% of demand. Nickel use in this segment could reach up to 500,000 tonnes. High-nickel cathodes continue to support premium EV models.

According to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, demand for battery-grade nickel is expected to surge, tripling by 2030. This growth will largely be due to mid- and high-performance EVs in Western markets.

Other uses, including alloying, plating, aerospace, and electronics, provide steady but smaller contributions. A broader manufacturing recovery and net-zero investments could lift demand slightly, while faster EV adoption remains the main upside risk.

• READ MORE: Nickel Supply Shock: Indonesia’s 120M Ton Cut and Its Ripple on Carbon Markets 

Supply-Demand Balance Stays Uneven

According to SMM, the nickel market will remain oversupplied through the year, remaining between 120,000 and 275,000 tonnes. While short-term rallies may continue, oversupply will remain the dominant force.

On the supply side, Indonesia’s refined nickel output stays high, supported by sunk investments and low operating costs. On the demand side, growth remains steady but unspectacular.

Ewa Manthey, a commodities strategist at London-Based ING Group, explained that the global nickel market is still set to remain oversupplied, with a projected surplus of about 261,000 metric tonnes. As a result, any production cuts would need to be deep and sustained to meaningfully shift market fundamentals.

China’s real estate support policies may provide limited relief for stainless steel consumption. However, a strong housing rebound appears unlikely, and any improvement is expected to be gradual. Similarly, demand from ternary batteries faces structural headwinds. Solid-state batteries remain years away from large-scale commercial use, and near-term battery chemistry trends do not favor a sharp jump in nickel intensity.

As a result, the average price level may drift lower over time. Tightening ore supply could briefly push prices above $16,000 per tonne. However, high inventories and excess capacity will take longer to absorb.

Why Nickel Matters for US Critical Mineral Independence?

Nickel plays a critical role in military-grade alloys, advanced weapons systems, electric vehicle batteries, grid-scale energy storage, and broader clean energy infrastructure. Despite its importance, the United States remains almost entirely dependent on imports for nickel, while China controls much of the global processing and supply chain. This reliance has become a clear strategic risk, one that domestic resources need more exploration.

And this is the reason America’s push to secure its critical mineral supply is gaining real momentum.

Spotlight: Alaska Energy Metals – America’s Nickel Backbone

At the center of this shift is Alaska Energy Metals Corporation (TSX-V: AEMC, OTCQB: AKEMF) and its Eureka deposit, the largest documented nickel resource in the United States. As Washington intensifies efforts to reshore critical supply chains for national security and clean energy goals, AEMC’s Nikolai Project in Alaska is steadily gaining recognition as a strategic domestic asset.

At the same time, the project aligns closely with the Trump administration’s executive orders focused on critical minerals and Alaska resource development. Those directives sought to speed up domestic production, curb reliance on foreign suppliers, and reinforce US security interests.

Against this backdrop, Nikolai stands out as a fully US-based “Sulphide nickel and battery metal project” to meet the country’s metal needs for the energy transition. Significantly, it has two claim blocks: Eureka and Canwell.

Eureka: The Largest Known Nickel Resource in the US

The Eureka deposit is not just large—it is nationally strategic. It hosts nickel alongside copper, cobalt, chromium, iron, and platinum group metals, including platinum and palladium. This metal mix makes Eureka highly relevant for both defense systems and the expanding clean energy economy.

According to the 2025 Mineral Resource Estimate, Eureka contains:

• Indicated Resource of 814 million tonnes grading 0.42% nickel equivalent, representing 5.62 billion pounds of nickel in situ.
• Inferred Resource of 896 million tonnes grading 0.39% nickel equivalent, totaling 9.38 billion pounds of nickel in situ.

Combined, the deposit contains more than 15 billion pounds of nickel, enough to support American demand for decades.

FAST-41 Listing Accelerates the Nikolai Project

A major step forward came when the Nikolai Project was accepted onto the FAST-41 Transparency Dashboard by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.

• The initial phase focuses on infrastructure upgrades, including rehabilitation and extension of the Rainy Creek Mining Trail, installation of temporary bridges, and development of an on-site camp.

These improvements will lower exploration costs, improve safety, enable better site access, and speed up the transition to advanced exploration and development at Eureka. Just as important, FAST-41 provides transparency, inter-agency coordination, and defined permitting milestones.

Key catalysts ahead

AEMC is entering a phase with several near- and mid-term value drivers. These include a first-pass metallurgical study to assess metal recovery, the potential for a major US Department of Defense grant, completion of a Preliminary Economic Assessment, and continued drilling at the Angliers target. Each step strengthens the investment and strategic case for Eureka.

Nickel Oversupply Overseas, Opportunity in the US

In summary, the nickel market faces another complex year. Structural oversupply, elevated inventories, and cautious demand growth define the landscape. Although policy shifts in Indonesia and short-term demand improvements can trigger sharp rallies, fundamentals continue to cap sustained upside. For now, nickel remains a market driven more by volatility than by balance.

As the US rebuilds its domestic critical mineral supply chain, assets like Eureka are becoming indispensable. With its scale, multi-metal profile, federal permitting support, and alignment with national policy priorities, Alaska Energy Metals Corporation is positioning itself as a key player in America’s push for resource security. In a world increasingly defined by competition for critical metals, Eureka has the potential to become the backbone of the US nickel supply for generations.

READ MORE: Nickel Demand to Triple by 2030: Can the Market Keep Up?

The post Nickel Prices Hit $18,000 in 2026 Amid Global Oversupply, US Boosts Domestic Supply Chain appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Meta Platforms Inc., the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, has signed a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) with renewable energy developer MN8 Energy LLC. Under the deal, the tech giant will buy 100% of the electricity generated by MN8’s 80 megawatt (MW) Walker Solar Project in Juniata County, Pennsylvania. The agreement marks the first direct clean-energy contract between the two companies.

Meta will use solar power to help supply electricity to its data centers in the United States. The project is scheduled to begin operations by the end of 2026.

The Walker Solar project will supply power to the PJM Interconnection grid. This grid is the biggest wholesale electricity market in the U.S. It serves over 65 million people in 13 states and Washington, D.C.

Urvi Parekh, Director of Global Energy at Meta, said:

“We are thrilled to partner with MN8 ​Energy​ to bring new renewable energy to Pennsylvania and help support our operations with 100% clean energy.”

Inside the 80 MW Walker Solar Deal

The solar facility will generate about 80 MW of clean electricity when complete. Under the PPA, Meta will acquire all of the project’s output.

The agreement is a long-term contract. Meta will buy renewable power from MN8 Energy for years. This will help meet part of its data center electricity demand with clean energy.

MN8 Energy, a New York-based renewable energy and battery storage company, will develop and build the solar plant. It has about 4 GW of operational and under-construction solar projects nationwide. The company also operates 1.1 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of battery capacity and over 40 high-power EV charging stations in the U.S.

The Walker Solar project will supply energy to the regional grid and create local jobs during construction. It will also generate tax revenue for Juniata County and strengthen local energy infrastructure.

Powering AI Growth With Long-Term Solar

Meta has set a clear long-term climate goal. The company aims to reach net-zero emissions across its full value chain by 2030. This includes direct operations and supply chain emissions.

The tech giant has matched 100% of its global electricity use with clean and renewable energy since 2020. This covers its offices and data centers. To support this goal, Meta has helped add nearly 29 gigawatts (GW) of new clean energy capacity to power grids worldwide.

Since 2021, Meta reports that its renewable energy procurement has helped reduce emissions by 23.8 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e). These reductions come from large-scale wind and solar projects tied to long-term power purchase agreements.

However, electricity demand continues to grow. Meta’s data centers are expanding to support artificial intelligence and digital services. The company notes that rising data center demand makes decarbonization more complex, even as renewable energy use increases.

Meta aims to go further. It wants to reach net zero across its full value chain by 2030. This means not only its own operations (Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions) but also the emissions tied to its suppliers, hardware, and products (Scope 3). Scope 3 emissions, which are about 8.15 million metric tons of CO2e, account for 99% of its total carbon footprint.

As of its latest report, 48% of its suppliers — based on emissions contribution — have set science-aligned emissions reduction targets. These supplier commitments are critical because Scope 3 emissions make up a large share of Meta’s total carbon footprint.

• The company has also set a goal to reduce Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 42% by 2031, using 2021 as a baseline year.

Meta’s sustainability reports also show that electricity use remains central to its climate strategy. Since using 100% renewable energy in operations, Meta has helped avoid millions of tons of CO₂ emissions.

• SEE MORE: Meta and Zelestra Expand Solar Partnership as Data Center Power Demand Surges

Beyond Carbon Emissions: Biggest Clean Energy Buyer

Beyond carbon reductions, Meta includes water and biodiversity in its ESG strategy. Since 2017, Meta has supported more than 40 water restoration projects.

In 2024 alone, these projects helped restore over 1.6 billion gallons of water in regions facing high or medium water stress. The company has committed to becoming water positive by 2030, meaning it plans to restore more water than it consumes.

The Facebook owner also supports biodiversity near its facilities. It has allocated more than 4,000 acres of land, over half of its owned data center campus footprint, for habitat protection and restoration using native species.

In addition, Meta invests in voluntary carbon removal. The company funds projects designed to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to address emissions that are difficult to eliminate. It also works with industry groups and government initiatives to help scale high-quality carbon removal markets.

A recent BloombergNEF report highlights Meta’s role in large-scale corporate clean energy procurement. The tech company was the biggest corporate clean energy buyer in 2025. They signed over 10 GW in power purchase agreements (PPAs).

It also found that Meta and its peers, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, accounted for nearly half of all corporate clean energy deals last year. This demonstrates Meta’s influence in driving new renewable capacity online.

These efforts show Meta is combining financial power with sustainability action. The Walker Solar PPA helps the tech giant meet the fast-growing electricity needs from its data centers and AI workloads. Data centers use a lot of power. Using renewables can help meet this demand and reduce carbon emissions from grid electricity.

New Solar Capacity Strengthens the PJM Grid

The solar project will deliver clean power into the PJM Interconnection market. PJM coordinates electricity flow across a broad region of the U.S. and manages one of the most complex power systems in North America.

Adding new generation capacity like Walker Solar contributes to grid resilience and supports broader decarbonization goals. Solar generation helps offset older fossil-fuel plants as they retire or reduce output.

Experts say utility-scale solar is key. As more sectors electrify, the demand for electricity keeps rising. More solar capacity means steady, low-carbon energy when the sun is out, which helps reduce overall system emissions.

The Walker Solar project is part of a larger trend in U.S. solar growth. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says 2026 will bring a record increase in utility-scale solar capacity. Over 40 GW is set to be added, marking a big jump from previous years.

Big Tech’s Expanding PPA Playbook

Meta’s solar PPA with MN8 reflects a broader trend in corporate renewable procurement. Many large technology companies have signed long-term deals to secure clean electricity for their operations.

Beyond Meta, firms like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft also regularly enter into PPAs for new solar and wind projects. These companies made up almost half of all corporate clean energy deals in 2025, based on market analysis.

Long-term solar PPAs give companies a way to lock in clean power at predictable costs. They also help developers secure financing for new projects, since a contracted buyer reduces risk for lenders and investors.

These corporate procurement strategies go beyond purchasing renewable energy certificates (RECs). They involve direct contracts tied to specific solar or wind projects. This practice supports actual builds of new clean capacity rather than shifting existing output on paper.

The Next Wave of Data Center Decarbonization

The Meta–MN8 Energy solar agreement highlights a shift in how major tech companies meet their clean energy goals. Long-term PPAs like this one are becoming a key tool for corporate decarbonization.

Analysts believe major data center operators will keep growing their PPA portfolios. This is due to increased electricity demand and investor expectations for ESG. This trend could help accelerate the broader deployment of solar and wind generation across the U.S. power system.

As the landscape changes, data center operators and renewable developers may look into hybrid solutions, which could mix solar power with battery storage, microgrids, and demand response systems. This approach aims to provide reliable, low-carbon power all day long.

• READ MORE: Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft Dominate Clean Energy Deals as Global Buying Slips in 2025

The post Meta Strikes 80 MW Solar Deal to Power Data Centers and Cut Carbon Impact appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Two fresh developments put carbon policy and carbon credits back in the spotlight. First, a new peer-reviewed study in Nature Communications estimates that national climate policy packages reduced real-world emissions substantially in 2022. Second, the UN carbon market approved the first-ever issuance of credits under the Paris Agreement.

Both stories focus on one core issue. Countries need to cut emissions fast, and they need tools they can trust. Policy rules can push change inside national borders. Carbon credits can help move money to projects that cut emissions on the ground. The hard part is proving results and avoiding double-counting.

What the New Study Measured: Inside the 3,917-Policy Climate Dataset

The Nature Communications study looks at national “policy portfolios.” That means many climate policies work together, not one rule at a time. The authors used the International Energy Agency (IEA) Policies and Measures Database and built a dataset of 3,917 climate policies from 2000 to 2022. They studied 43 countries, covering OECD members plus major emerging economies in the BRIICS group.

The study links larger and stronger policy portfolios with faster declines in fossil CO₂ emission intensity. Emission intensity means CO₂ per unit of economic output.

The paper also finds that policy results improve when countries pair policies with clear long-term targets and supportive institutions. The authors point to factors like national emissions reduction targets and dedicated energy or climate ministries.

The study’s most cited figure is its estimate of “avoided emissions.” The authors compare observed emissions to a counterfactual case where those policy portfolios did not exist.

• Across the full 43-country sample, they estimate 27.5 GtCO₂ avoided over 2000–2022, and 3.1 GtCO₂ avoided in 2022 alone.

How Big is 3.1 Gigatons?

A reduction of 3.1 GtCO₂ in 2022 is large. It equals 3.1 billion tonnes of CO₂ in one year, compared with the study’s no-policy scenario. In comparison, the International Energy Agency reports that global energy-related CO₂ emissions reached over 36.8 Gt in 2022.

If you put those two numbers side by side, 3.1 Gt is roughly a single-digit share of global energy-related emissions in that year.

That comparison is not perfect because the study focuses on a 43-country sample and uses a specific method. Still, it gives a sense of scale. Climate policies can measurably reduce emissions, but the world still emits tens of gigatons each year.

The study also highlights that results vary by country group. For the BRIICS subset, it estimates 14.6 GtCO₂ avoided over 2000–2022, and 1.8 GtCO₂ avoided in 2022. This suggests emerging economies play a major role in the total, because their emissions are large and still changing fast.

Article 6.4 Moves From Blueprint to First Issuance

On 26 February 2026, the UNFCCC announced that a UN body approved the first credits to be issued under the UN carbon market created by the Paris Agreement. The approval covers a clean-cooking project in Myanmar that distributes efficient cookstoves. UNFCCC says the stoves reduce harmful household air pollution and reduce pressure on local forests.

This matters because Article 6.4 is meant to be the Paris Agreement’s centralized crediting system. It aims to generate “Article 6.4 Emission Reductions,” which countries can use to cooperate on meeting climate targets. The UNFCCC release frames this first approval as a shift from designing the market to operating it in the real world.

The release also includes details about how the credits will be used. It says the project is coordinated with authorized participants from the Republic of Korea.

Credits authorized for use in Korea can be transferred to Korean entities for use in the Korean Emissions Trading System. They can also support Korea’s climate target. UNFCCC says the remaining credits will support Myanmar’s own target.

The UN body also explains how it handled integrity concerns around older systems. It says the project previously received a provisional issuance under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Under the Paris mechanism, the UN applied updated values and more conservative calculations. The Supervisory Body Chair, Mkhuthazi Steleki, said the credited reductions are about 40% lower than what older systems would have issued. He specifically noted:

“This initial issuance reflects the careful application of the rules set by countries under the Paris Agreement. By applying updated values and more conservative calculations, the credited reductions are about 40 percent lower than what older systems would have issued. The result is consistent with environmental integrity requirements and ensures that each credited tonne genuinely represents a tonne reduced and contributes to the goals of the Paris Agreement.”

UNFCCC notes that a short process step remains. Approval stays subject to a 14-day appeal period, during which project participants, the host country, and directly affected stakeholders can submit an appeal.

• RELATED: $100B at Stake: New Joint Venture Builds Digital Backbone for Article 6 Carbon Markets

Policy Impact Meets Carbon Market Integrity

The Nature study and the UN issuance story connect in a simple way. The study focuses on what national policies can achieve at scale. The UN story focuses on how the world may credit and trade smaller project-level emission cuts under shared rules. Both depend on measurement and accounting.

• The Nature study tries to answer this question: Do policies, as a package, actually reduce emissions? It uses a cross-country econometric approach and estimates a 2022 “avoided emissions” value from those national portfolios.
• The UN carbon market tries to answer another question: Do project credits represent real reductions, and can countries use them without counting the same reduction twice? In the first issuance decision, UNFCCC emphasizes stronger safeguards and more conservative calculations compared with older crediting rules.

This matters for buyers and for governments. If credits overstate results, buyers may claim progress without a real climate impact. If countries double-count, global totals look better on paper than they are in the atmosphere. The UNFCCC framing of “about 40% lower than older systems” shows it wants to build credibility early.

Scale, Transparency, and the Real Test for Carbon Markets

The near-term question is scale. One issuance is symbolic, but global carbon markets and national plans need volume and variety.

UNFCCC says more than 165 host-Party-approved projects are in the pipeline to transition from the CDM into the new Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism. It also says these activities span sectors such as waste management, energy, industry, and agriculture. That pipeline suggests more issuances could follow if projects meet updated standards.

At the same time, the Nature study suggests that national policy portfolios already avoid gigatons of emissions, but not enough to meet Paris goals on their own. That creates a practical lesson for carbon markets.

Carbon credits work best when they complement strong domestic policies, not replace them. Countries still need power-sector rules, efficiency standards, clean-industry support, and enforcement.

• READ MORE: The Carbon Credit Market in 2025 is A Turning Point: What Comes Next for 2026 and Beyond?

The post Carbon Markets Deliver First Results: Climate Policies Cut 3.1 Gigatons, First Paris Credits Issued by UN appeared first on Carbon Credits.