Wells Fargo, one of the largest financial institutions in the United States, has made a significant shift in its climate strategy by abandoning its commitment to achieving net-zero financed emissions by 2050. It is the first major U.S. bank to do so. 

The bank has also dropped its interim 2030 targets for financed emissions. This is a big step back from its earlier climate goals. This decision fits a larger trend: Major financial institutions are changing their sustainability strategies, responding to outside pressures like political challenges and economic facts.

Why Wells Fargo Abandoned Its 2050 Net Zero Pledge

In a formal statement, Wells Fargo announced that it was discontinuing its sector-specific 2030 interim financed emissions targets and withdrawing its 2050 net zero commitment.

The bank mentioned several outside factors. These include changes in public policies, shifts in consumer behavior, and new technology. These reasons led to its strategic shift.

The bank stated:

“When we set our financed emissions goal and targets, we said that achieving them was dependent on many factors outside our control…Many of the conditions necessary to facilitate our clients’ transitions have not occurred.”

This change happens as the political backlash against net-zero policies in the U.S. grows. This trend follows President Donald Trump’s re-election. The administration is rolling back climate rules, which gives banks less reason to stick to strict decarbonization goals.

Wells Fargo’s choice reflects a wider trend in banking. For example, HSBC is also easing rules on fossil fuel financing.

• SEE MORE: HSBC Scales Back Net Zero Plans by 20 Years: A Climate Setback or Realistic Strategy?

Wells Fargo’s Emissions Reduction Strategy

Before Wells Fargo stepped back from net-zero promises, it was working hard to cut its operational emissions. The bank aims to cut its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50% by 2030. This target is based on its 2019 levels.

The bank is working to reduce its Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which totaled 641,026 metric tons (location-based emissions) in 2023. These emissions include direct emissions from its own operations and indirect emissions from the electricity it buys.

Key components of Wells Fargo’s emissions reduction strategy include:

• 100% Renewable Energy Usage: Wells Fargo has been operating on 100% renewable energy since 2017 to power its global operations.
• Energy Efficiency Measures: The bank invested in high-efficiency HVAC systems, LED lights, and smart energy management systems. These upgrades are in branches and offices to cut energy use.
• Sustainable Building Initiatives: The company is investing more in LEED-certified buildings. They want all new corporate offices to meet high environmental standards.

Wells Fargo uses carbon credits to offset its emissions. The bank offsets its residual Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions through the purchase of voluntary carbon credits registered under the Verra Registry’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program and the Climate Action Reserve Registry (CAR). These credits are used to compensate for emissions that remain after reduction efforts.

In 2023, Wells Fargo retired about 86,044 metric tons of carbon credits to offset its residual Scope 1 and 2 emissions.

Wells Fargo not only aims for operational sustainability but also works to cut financed emissions. These emissions come from the businesses and industries it lends to. While it has now scrapped its sector-specific financed emissions goals, the bank had targeted emission reductions in high-impact industries, such as oil and gas, power generation, and automotive manufacturing.

A Changing Approach to Sustainability Financing 

Wells Fargo says it still cares about sustainability financing, even after rolling back its net-zero commitments. The bank promises to keep funding both traditional and low-carbon energy options. It will continue to support clients’ efforts related to climate change.

As of December 2023, Wells Fargo has about $55 billion in commitments. This amount goes to oil, gas, pipeline companies, and utilities. The bank has given more than $20 billion in renewable tax equity since 2006.

Also, it has invested $178 billion in sustainable finance in the last three years. These investments include $16 billion in renewable energy projects and over $15 billion in clean transportation finance.

In 2021, Wells Fargo set a goal to provide $500 billion in sustainable financing by 2030. The bank confirmed that it will maintain this target despite scrapping its net-zero goals. It will also keep working on its goals to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions for better operational sustainability.

Impact on the Financial Sector

Wells Fargo’s move raises questions about the financial sector’s role in addressing climate change. Many banks promised to follow the Paris Agreement’s climate goals. However, making these goals happen has been tough.

High energy prices, economic worries, and investor demands for profit have changed priorities.

The bank’s withdrawal from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), a global coalition committed to financing emissions reductions, further signals a shift in strategy. Other big U.S. banks, like Goldman Sachs, have left the alliance. This shows a wider trend in the industry of stepping back from strict climate commitments.

• RELATED: Morgan Stanley, Citi and Bank of America Exit Net-Zero Alliance: What’s Next for Sustainable Finance?

Criticism from Climate Advocates

Wells Fargo’s choice has faced harsh backlash from climate activists and sustainability supporters. The Sierra Club has criticized the bank for breaking its climate promises. They say financial institutions are key to funding the shift to a low-carbon economy.

Greenpeace UK and other environmental groups agree. They say that financial institutions play a major role in shaping global climate efforts. When banks invest in fossil fuels instead of renewable energy, they hurt the climate crisis rather than help it.

Investor Reactions: Profit Pressures Take Priority

Wells Fargo’s strategic shift aims to keep investors confident and ensure profits. The bank’s leaders stress that they focus on meeting client needs. They also aim to ensure financial stability in a fast-changing economy.

Wells Fargo feels pressure from activist investors. One major player is Elliott Investment Management. They want the bank to deliver better returns. The bank’s share price has lagged behind rivals like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. So, leaders are now shifting their focus back to core banking functions instead of ambitious climate goals.

The bank’s revised strategy includes:

• Reducing operational costs and divesting $20 billion in assets by 2027.
• Increasing fossil fuel financing, maintaining significant lending to oil and gas projects.
• Shifting its renewable investments to a more selective and capital-light model.

What’s Next? Will Other Banks Follow Suit?

Although Wells Fargo has abandoned its financed emissions reduction targets, it continues to position itself as a key player in sustainable finance. The bank says it will still help clients with decarbonization strategies. It will keep investing in renewable energy where there are good opportunities.

However, the broader implications of this decision remain uncertain. The move might encourage other banks to rethink their net-zero pledges. This is especially true in areas where political pushback against climate policies is rising. But pressure from institutional investors and global stakeholders may lead to new commitments later.

As the global energy transition unfolds, Wells Fargo’s evolving strategy reflects the complexities financial institutions face in balancing profitability, regulatory landscapes, and climate goals. The bank still supports sustainable finance, but its move away from net zero shows that aligning finances with climate goals is a tall order.

• READ MORE: Visa vs. Mastercard: Who’s Leading the Charge in Finance, Sustainability, and Net Zero?

The post Wells Fargo Abandons Net Zero Promise: What It Means for the Future of Green Finance appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Verra recently introduced the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Methodology VM0051 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from rice farming. Under this guideline, farmers will practice improved water and crop management practices in flooded rice systems.

Verra began developing this methodology in late 2023. They held a public consultation in 2024 with ATOA Carbon and external reviewers to refine VM0051. The new standard, “Improved Management in Rice Production Systems, v1.0, replaces the old Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) method AMS-III.AU. The previous method ended in March 2023.

Verra’s VM0051: A New Approach to Reducing Rice Emissions

Rice is a staple for over half the world’s population. Rice fields cover around 168 million hectares. But they also release a lot of methane, which is a potent environmental pollutant.

As mentioned before, VM0051 promotes sustainable farming techniques. These methods reduce methane emissions from rice farming and improve water and fertilizer use. The standard also provides social benefits by raising farmers’ income and helping women get training and financial services in agriculture.

Generate High-Quality Credits 

Verra’s VM0051 also aims to measure or quantify emission reductions more accurately. This method promotes actions such as enhancing rice varieties and using methanotrophic bacteria to cut down methane. By using VM0051, project developers can earn high-quality Verified Carbon Units (VCUs).

Subsequently, buyers or stakeholders will want these credits to help improve rice farming, boost food security, and meet their climate goals.

• RELATED: Verra Holds Crediting for CDM Rice Cultivation Methodology

Key Features 

Some major improvements over the previous CDM methodology include:

• Stronger Additionality Criteria: The methodology introduces stricter guidelines for proving additionality, including the use of remote sensing data.
• Expanded Project Eligibility: Eligible activities now include using methanotrophic bacteria, shortening cultivation periods, avoiding residue burning, planting low-emission rice varieties, and optimizing nitrogen fertilizer use.
• Soil Protection Measures: Safeguards prevent soil organic carbon (SOC) loss due to new farming methods.
• Comprehensive Emission Tracking: Monitor and quantify nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, along with CO2 from fossil fuels and energy use.
• Dynamic Baseline Setting: The methodology adjusts baseline emissions based on actual weather conditions.
• Improved Guidance: It provides clear instructions for project area classification and emission reduction calculations.
• Flexible Measurement Methods: Project developers can choose from different quantification approaches, including biogeochemical models.
• Digital Monitoring and Verification: Promotes advanced tools like remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to streamline project validation and verification.

Quantifying Emission Reductions

VM0051 provides three methods for measuring emissions:

1. Biogeochemical Process-Based Models: These simulate how farming practices impact emissions.

2. Direct Measurement: Field studies gather data on actual methane emissions.

3. Default Equations and Emission Factors: Use standard emission factors for easy calculations. These are available for projects that emit less than 60,000 t CO2e per year.

How VCS Projects Can Transition

Each project selects a method based on its size and emission sources. Table 4 in the methodology document lists all eligible quantification options.

Future Developments

Verra is creating a digital version of VM0051. You can find it on the Verra Project Hub. This tool will streamline project submissions with structured templates for data collection. Verra is also looking to integrate VM0051 into its upcoming Scope 3 Standard Program.

The post Can Verra’s New Carbon Standard Make Rice Farming More Sustainable? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

As demand for nickel rises, the Philippines can strengthen its role in the EV supply chain. However, a proposed ban on raw mineral exports could reshape its industry. At the same time, global trade tensions are adding uncertainty. New US tariffs on nickel imports, combined with an ongoing supply surplus, are keeping prices volatile.

While some experts predict that the long-term nickel price might increase as demand outpaces supply, near-term challenges remain. Can the Philippines capitalize on this shift, or will market instability hinder progress?

Nickel and Copper Demand Soars – Can the Philippines Capitalize?

The Philippines is the world’s second-largest producer of mined nickel. Copper and nickel both are essential for lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles (EVs). With the demand for these metals rising, the Philippines has a unique opportunity to become a key supplier in the EV supply chain.

But on February 3, Senate President Francis Chiz G. Escudero approved the measure to ban the export of raw minerals. 

He said,

“What we are looking at is to shift our policy from merely exporting raw minerals that will be utilized by other countries to produce higher value products, to developing our processing capabilities. This will result in added value for our minerals-related exports, provide a much-needed boost to our economy and generate employment for our people.”

Boosting Domestic Nickel Refining

If enacted, the ban will take effect in five years, giving mining companies time to establish processing plants. This policy shift is especially significant for key energy metals like nickel, which play a crucial role in the global battery and renewable energy sectors.

Escudero highlighted Indonesia’s 2020 ban on nickel ore exports as a successful example. He hopes that by processing nickel and copper within the country, the Philippines can become a major supplier of battery materials and a key player in the global EV industry.

He also believes that building a strong refining industry will create jobs, reduce dependence on raw material exports, and boost the economy. In the future, this could even help the Philippines manufacture its electric vehicles.

Challenges in Implementation

Mining groups are against a proposed export ban on ore, saying it will hurt the country’s mineral sector.

The Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP) and the Philippine Nickel Industry Association (PNIA) support Senate Bill (SB) 2826 but disagree with the ban. The bill introduces a new tax system based on profits, but the groups believe stopping ore exports will cause problems.

They argue that mining companies cannot build processing plants within five years because of high power costs, poor transport systems, and conflicting local rules. The Philippines also has some of the highest electricity prices in Asia, making local processing too expensive.

They said, “Unless these issues are fixed, processing minerals locally will remain just a dream. There are no shortcuts.”

Supply Surplus and Investment Risks

Even though the Philippines wants to boost its nickel industry, the global market already has too much supply. Big companies have secured their nickel resources, and experts at the Shanghai Metals Market (SMM) predict this surplus will grow even more in 2025 and beyond.

As this decision takes shape, the Philippines may face challenges in developing a strong local processing industry. With too much nickel already available, demand may not be high enough to make processing profitable. This could make it hard to attract big investors, slowing down the country’s plans to move from raw ore exports to processed nickel products.

Impact on China’s Nickel Supply

According to SMM, the Philippines exported 54 million metric tons of nickel ore in 2024. Out of this, 43.5 million mt went to China, while 10.35 million mt was sent to Indonesia.

If the Philippines decides to ban ore exports, China could face serious supply disruptions. The country relies heavily on Philippine nickel, especially after Indonesia tightened its mining quotas in 2024. A ban would likely create shortages, pushing China to look for other suppliers or invest in processing facilities within the Philippines to secure its supply.

A Short-Lived Rally for Nickel Prices

So, what happened to nickel prices after the Philippine government’s announcement of considering banning nickel ore exports? Well, as reported by S&P Global, this news sparked optimism in the nickel market, helping prices climb back to $15,811 per ton on February 6. 

However, further gains were limited. Between February 7 and February 21, prices remained within the $15,400 to $15,800 range, and fears of worsening trade tensions loomed large.

• READ MORE: Philippines Aims for Nickel Dominance with New Mining Reforms

The Larger Picture: How the U.S Tariff War is Shaping Nickel Prices?

S&P Global has provided deeper insights into how U.S. tariffs could affect nickel prices and the broader American nickel market. In January, the White House announced new tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Following this, nickel prices tumbled to a one-month low of $15,210 per ton.

In early February, President Trump signed executive orders imposing a 10% tariff on imports from China and an even higher 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico. These tariffs took effect on February 4, keeping nickel prices on the London Metal Exchange (LME) below $16,000 per ton throughout the month. As trade tensions escalated, market uncertainty overshadowed concerns about a possible nickel ore export ban in the Philippines.

Canada quickly responded. Trudeau announced a 25% tariff on $155 billion worth of US goods, set to take effect the same day. But just before the deadline, the US government delayed tariffs on Canada and Mexico by 30 days, temporarily easing market concerns.

Will it Backfire on the US EV Industry?

If the US moves forward with a 10% tariff on nickel imports from Canada after the 30-day delay, it could drive up costs for American industries. Canada supplied nearly one-third of the US’s primary nickel imports in 2024, making it the country’s largest source.

The bigger challenge? The US produces very little nickel. The only nickel-producing mine is Lundin Mining’s Eagle Mine in Michigan. It contributed just 0.21% of global output in 2024 and is set to close before the decade ends. On top of that, the US lacks refining capacity for class 1 nickel, a key material for EV batteries.

If tariffs on Canadian nickel remain in place, it could become harder for US manufacturers to access affordable supplies, especially for the EV and stainless-steel industries. The US had expected to depend on Canada to meet its rising demand for battery-grade nickel.

However, trade restrictions might create challenges for this plan. It can also affect the competitiveness of domestic EV companies in the global market.

The Bottom Line

At present, the global nickel market remains volatile, affected by trade tensions, excessive supply, and evolving policies. All these factors are driving prices down. However, this dim nickel environment is expected to shift in the future.

With a declining market balance and reduced oversupply, nickel prices are forecasted to rise. By 2030 and beyond, demand is projected to exceed supply, leading to a further price increase.

• RELATED: Nickel Prices Plunge in 2025: Can Demand Revive the Market by 2030?

The post Philippines’ Nickel Export Ban and U.S. Tariffs: What’s Happening in the Nickel Market Now? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

BP has announced a major shift in its strategy, cutting back on renewable energy investments and increasing its focus on oil and gas. The company plans to invest $10 billion annually in fossil fuels while slashing more than $5 billion per year from its energy transition spending.

This move marks a sharp reversal from its previous commitment to cut emissions and transition toward greener energy. So, what prompted the energy giant to go back on its climate goals?

Why Is BP Changing Its Strategy?

BP’s leadership cited slower-than-expected progress in the energy transition as a key reason for the shift. CEO Murray Auchincloss said the Ukraine war, the pandemic, and unstable energy markets have slowed the shift to renewables.

He acknowledged that BP was too optimistic in its early climate targets, saying,

“Our optimism for a fast transition was misplaced, and we went too far, too fast…We will be very selective in our investment in the transition, including through innovative capital-light platforms. This is a reset BP, with an unwavering focus on growing long-term shareholder value.”

The company also pointed to strong demand for oil and gas, which remains higher than expected.

As a result, BP now aims to increase oil and gas production to between 2.3 million and 2.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) by 2030—up from its current 2.36 million boepd.

BP’s New Investment Plans

BP plans to spend between $13 billion and $15 billion each year until 2027. Most of this money will now go toward traditional fossil fuels. The company has also announced that it will:

• Cut energy transition spending to $1.5 billion to $2 billion per year, down from previous forecasts of $8 billion in 2025 and $9 billion in 2030. BP’s big cut shows it expects slower returns on renewables. So, fossil fuel projects are now its main focus.
• Increase its dividend by 4% each year to draw in investors. This shows confidence in profits, even as green investments decline.
• Reduce operating costs and divest $20 billion worth of assets by 2027, including parts of its renewables business. BP says these divestments will simplify operations and bring in cash quickly.
• Sell a 50% stake in Lightsource BP, its solar business, and shift to a capital-light renewable energy model. BP will not fully develop its green energy projects. Instead, it will depend on outside capital and partnerships. This approach cuts its financial risk but keeps BP involved in renewables.

Dialing Down Climate Commitments

The energy major’s combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions were 32.1 MtCO2e in 2023. This is a decrease of 41% from its 2019 baseline. This means they’ve already surpassed their 2025 target of 20% emission reductions against the baseline. 

BP has changed its strategy. It has lowered its climate goals and moved away from its earlier decarbonization plans. The company’s revised targets include:

• Cutting Scope 1 and 2 emissions (from its own operations) by 45%-50% by 2030, down from the original 50% goal. This slight reduction reflects BP’s decision to keep oil and gas production at higher levels than originally planned.
• Reducing the carbon intensity of its products by 8%-10% by 2030, compared to the previous 15%-20% target. This weaker target shows that BP is focusing on short-term profits instead of making bigger cuts in emissions from its fuel products.
• Eliminating its absolute Scope 3 emissions reduction target, which previously aimed for a 20%-30% cut by 2030. Scope 3 emissions make up most of an oil company’s total carbon footprint. They arise from how people use its products, not from the company’s direct operations. Critics say BP’s decision to remove this target signals a major retreat from its climate commitments and a lack of accountability for downstream emissions.

• BP’s aim 1 means to be net zero across its entire operations on an absolute basis by 2050 or sooner.

The energy giant’s new climate goals show a shift seen in many big oil companies. Many of them are slowing down their green efforts due to economic uncertainty. By abandoning absolute Scope 3 targets, BP avoids binding commitments to reduce emissions from its gasoline and diesel sales, which make up the bulk of its carbon footprint.

• RELATED: Big Oil’s Showdown: How Shell, Chevron & ExxonMobil Balance Big Profits with Net Zero?

Investor Pressure: Chasing Profits Over Sustainability?

BP is reducing its focus on renewable energy. This change follows pressure from Elliott Investment Management. They want BP to boost its financial returns.

BP has also underperformed compared to competitors like Shell, Exxon, and Chevron, leading to dissatisfaction among investors.

Following the announcement, BP’s share price fell by 1.8%, reflecting mixed reactions from the market. Some investors like the new focus on profits. But others think BP is giving up on long-term sustainability.

BP’s move could also have regulatory implications as governments worldwide tighten emissions standards. With climate policies evolving, companies that fail to adapt may face higher compliance costs in the future.

Environmental Groups Call Out BP’s ‘Climate U-Turn

BP’s return to fossil fuels has angered environmental groups. It has also worried investors who care about sustainability. Greenpeace UK called the decision “proof that fossil fuel companies can’t or won’t be part of climate crisis solutions.”

Meanwhile, Global Witness criticized BP. They claimed the company cares more about quick profits for shareholders than protecting the environment in the long run. The group held a protest in London. They used mobile billboards to call out BP’s leaders for their “flip-flop” climate policy decisions.

BP’s move also raises concerns about its alignment with global climate goals. The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that new fossil fuel projects can’t help limit global warming to 1.5°C. By increasing oil and gas production, BP may stray from the global net-zero goal.

What This Means for BP’s Future

BP’s shift signals a clear return to traditional fossil fuel business models, with a reduced emphasis on clean and renewable energy. While this move may generate higher short-term profits, it raises concerns about BP’s ability to adapt to a decarbonizing world.

Many experts believe that, over time, stricter climate regulations and changing energy markets will force oil companies to prioritize renewables once again.

BP’s shift in priorities could also affect its reputation among environmentally conscious investors and consumers. Companies that continue investing in fossil fuels at the expense of renewables may struggle to attract younger, sustainability-focused investors who prioritize long-term climate goals over immediate financial returns.

For now, BP is betting on oil and gas—but whether this strategy pays off in the long run remains uncertain. As the world moves toward net-zero goals, its decision to step back from renewables could impact its standing in the energy sector in the years ahead.

The question remains: Will BP’s return to fossil fuels prove to be a wise financial move, or will it leave the company behind in an increasingly green-focused world?

• READ MORE: 2025: The Year Clean Energy Dominates with Record $670 Billion Investment, Trumping Oil & Gas

The post BP Rolls Back on Net Zero Goals, Bets $10B on Fossil Fuels: A Smart Move or a Climate Setback? appeared first on Carbon Credits.