Physical Address
23,24,25 & 26, 2nd Floor, Software Technology Park India, Opp: Garware Stadium,MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad, Maharashtra – 431001 India
A new Australian carbon-offset platform, Aetium, has sparked a heated debate. Launched late last year, Aetium promises to reward everyday climate actions – like installing rooftop solar panels or driving an electric vehicle – by issuing tradable carbon credits. On its website, the startup invites homeowners, businesses and even councils to register existing solar systems, EVs and forests in return for “Tonne CO₂ Units” (TCUs) that they could later sell . On the surface it sounds like an ingenious way to make climate-friendly choices pay. More details can be read from here and here
However, climate campaigners warn the scheme may be too good to be true. Critics say Aetium is handing out offsets for routine actions that would have happened anyway – effectively creating “junk” credits that don’t represent any new emissions cuts . In January 2026 the not-for-profit group Climate Integrity filed a formal complaint with the consumer watchdog ,ACCC, a government agency, arguing Aetium’s marketing is misleading and breaches Australian Consumer Law . The heart of the dispute is a principle called “additionality” – the rule that carbon credits must only reward reductions that wouldn’t have occurred without the offset scheme. Critics say Aetium fails this test, and they fear ordinary solar and EV owners are being sold a false promise of climate benefit.
This article looks at how the Aetium scheme works, why the additionality test matters, and why regulators are now asking tough questions about its integrity. It will also touch on the broader carbon-offset market issues that this controversy highlights.
How the Aetium scheme works
Aetium’s platform is built around a simple idea: register your green action, earn credits. Homeowners or businesses sign up and list their existing climate-friendly assets – for example, a rooftop solar array, an electric car, or preserved bushland. The platform then measures the CO₂ reductions those assets have delivered. In effect, Aetium converts each solar watt produced or kilometre driven in an EV into a potential offset “credit” on its site. These credits are minted as digital tokens and sometimes called NFTs that can be traded on Aetium’s exchange. Buyers – such as companies or individuals looking to offset their footprint – can browse and purchase these tokens as a way of claiming the corresponding CO₂ savings.
Key details of the scheme include:
Registration fee and share: Participants will pay a fee to list their equipment and give Aetium a 7% cut of any credits sold . To date, Aetium says it has not charged any fees or sold any credits –a minimum 12-month verification period means all projects are still being processed.
Scale so far: Since launching in early 2025, Aetium reports over 4,000 projects have been registered on its platform . These include solar and EVs owned by local councils and businesses – for example, the Cassowary Coast council in Queensland has signed up more than 150 solar and forestry projects, and rental-car company Europcar has listed over 30 EVs.
More details about the above two points can be read in this Guardian article.
Certification: Aetium’s TCUs are not verified by any existing carbon standards such as Verra or a government scheme or independent auditor . In other words, Aetium is effectively creating its own credits on an unregulated basis.
In practice, the scheme rewards past or current actions – not funding new projects. For example, a family that installed solar panels last year could sign up those panels with Aetium and earn credits for the electricity they produce. Likewise, driving an electric car accrues credits. Aetium’s pitch is that these are “genuine” CO₂ savings, and by trading the tokens to others, the credits cancel out emissions elsewhere. The idea of recognizing everyday climate actions has appeal; one might say “it’s about time people got paid for doing the right thing” . But whether that appeal masks an integrity problem is exactly the controversy.
What is additionality – and why it matters
To understand the critics, we need to explain “additionality.” This is a cornerstone rule in carbon offset markets worldwide. In plain terms, a carbon credit should only be issued for emissions cuts or removals that would not have happened anyway. If someone was already going to install solar panels or plant trees, then awarding credits for those actions doesn’t create any new benefit – it’s just rewarding the ordinary thing.
Most established carbon standards insist on additionality. As Climate Integrity’s Claire Snyder explains: “an additionality test is a critical integrity safeguard… it assesses whether a project genuinely creates ‘additional’ emissions reductions beyond business-as-usual, and which would not have occurred in the absence of the incentive” . In practical terms, offset projects are supposed to show that the credit revenue enabled them to happen – for example, a wind farm built only because it got funding from selling credits.
By that definition, Aetium’s approach raises alarm bells. Its scheme is awarding credits for assets that already exist. If a household bought solar panels of its own accord ,perhaps motivated by lower bills or environmental reasons, then those panels would reduce emissions regardless of Aetium. In other words, there was no extra incentive from Aetium involved. The program’s own site says it only gives credits if “the CO₂ reduction would not have occurred if the solar system, EV or forestry did not exist.” . Critics respond that this wording simply restates the problem: Aetium is giving credits for things that did happen due to panels installed, EVs driven, rather than things that wouldn’t have.
As a result, climate experts say Aetium’s credits appear to break the additionality rule. Prof. Andrew Macintosh of ANU – who has reviewed global carbon registries – told Guardian Australia that Aetium “stands out as one of the most divergent from accepted practice,” in that it has effectively “jettisoned” the additionality principle . In his view, Aetium is issuing credits “for standard activities where the emissions reductions have nothing to do with the incentive provided by the scheme” . In other words, people aren’t doing these actions because Aetium existed; they did them for other reasons like financial, environmental, or regulatory.
Why it matters
To the general public, carbon credits can seem arcane. But at stake is trust in climate action. If everyday Australians think they’re contributing to emissions cuts by trading these credits, they could be misled into complacency. Climate Integrity warns that if such non-additional credits circulate widely, they could undermine real climate efforts . Conversely, supporters of schemes like Aetium say that any incentive, even for routine green actions, is better than none.
The government and regulators will soon have to decide: Should a program like Aetium’s be allowed to market such credits at all? The ACCC investigation and any resulting inquiry will shed light on this question. For now, the debate underscores a simple lesson: In voluntary carbon markets, not all credits are created equal. Only those grounded in independent science and strict additionality can be counted as real climate offsets. The rest are often derided as “junk”, offering reassurance rather than actual emissions cuts.
References
https://climateintegrity.org.au/latest/junk-carbon-offset-scheme-too-good-to-be-true
Buyer Beware: Carbon credit platforms repeating ills of the past
Climate Integrity makes complaint about Aetium to ACCC
https://www.aetium.com.au/news
Banner Image: Photo by Chelsea on Unsplash
Sections of this article may have been developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to support research, drafting and language refinement. All information has been reviewed, edited and verified by the author/editor to ensure accuracy, context and editorial integrity. The responsibility for the final content, interpretations and conclusions rests solely with the publisher
