If you own an electric vehicle or have solar panels on your roof, you鈥檝e taken steps to reduce your carbon footprint. Does that mean you should now be selling carbon credits?
According to a new carbon credit exchange platform called Aetium, the answer is yes.
Aetium is set up to issue carbon credits to people who have EVs or solar technology and offer them for sale to businesses or individuals who want to offset their carbon emissions. The scheme is also open to people who have forests on their property, defined as more than 50 trees.
Aetium’s aim, like that of other grassroots schemes, is to turn households into issuers of carbon credits
The company claims that buyers of the carbon credits are making contributions that reduce net carbon dioxide (颁翱鈧�) emissions, thereby reducing the buyers鈥� carbon footprints.
Aetium is a new entry in the world of voluntary carbon credit schemes as opposed to mandatory, government-regulated ones. Its aim, like that of other grassroots schemes, is to turn households into issuers of carbon credits.
But the advocacy group Climate Integrity has taken issue with the company鈥檚 claims of being able to contribute to the effort of reducing 颁翱鈧� in the atmosphere.
The not-for-profit says Aetium鈥檚 claims lack supporting evidence and are not validated by any third-party certifier of voluntary carbon offsets or independent standards regime. They are also not certified by any government-operated crediting scheme, the not-for-profit says. In short, the business isn鈥檛 regulated by anyone.
Advocacy group Climate Integrity has taken issue with the company鈥檚 claims of being able to contribute to the effort of reducing CO鈧� in the atmosphere
Working with lawyers from the Environmental Defenders Office (an Australian NGO), Climate Integrity recently filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about Aetium, flagging potentially misleading and deceptive conduct.
The not-for-profit has also filed a complaint with Ad Standards, charging that Aetium鈥檚 claims may be in breach of the Environmental Claims Code.
In order for a carbon credits scheme to prove its credits represent genuine 颁翱鈧� reductions, Climate Integrity says it needs to pass the 鈥渁dditionality鈥� test. This measures whether emissions reductions can be linked directly to the scheme or would have happened without the scheme in place.
The requirement to achieve additionality has been endorsed by virtually all carbon crediting regimes around the world as well as by climate scientists, Climate Integrity says.
鈥淎n additionality test is a critical integrity safeguard in all major carbon credit standards. 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,鈥� says executive director Claire Snyder.
鈥淎etium鈥檚 credits fail to meet an additionality test because consumers signing up to the scheme would have bought and used their EVs or solar panels whether Aetium existed or not.鈥�
Aetium鈥檚 credits fail to meet an additionality test because consumers signing up to the scheme would have bought and used their EVs or solar panels whether Aetium existed or not
Climate Integrity executive director Claire Snyder
The credits issued therefore don鈥檛 satisfy the principle of additionality and do not represent genuine reductions in carbon emissions, Climate Integrity says.
It also makes the case that Aetium鈥檚 methodologies are based on the contentious concept of 鈥渁voided emissions鈥�, whereby emission reductions are calculated by comparing the activity in question (in this case driving an EV, having solar panels, or owning a forest) against hypothetical emissions-intensive alternatives.
For Climate Integrity, the hypotheticals lack a firm grounding in the real world. 鈥淎voided emissions offsets cannot cancel out emissions, and claims of their environmental benefits are likely to mislead consumers,鈥� the group says.
Emission reductions are calculated by comparing the activity in question (e.g. driving an EV) against hypothetical emissions-intensive alternatives
Aetium has signed up to the Australian Carbon Industry , but when Climate Integrity contacted the organisation, it was told that it doesn鈥檛 assess whether carbon credits are legitimate or not.
鈥淎etium鈥檚 claim that it aligns with the industry code of conduct is another example of the integrity crisis in Australia鈥檚 carbon market,鈥� Snyder says.
Aetium managing director Christopher Ride tells 糖心Vlog that the company is a new type of carbon credit platform that shouldn鈥檛 be compared to more traditional models. He suggests that Climate Integrity is damning a carbon credit scheme it doesn鈥檛 understand.
The company acknowledges that it鈥檚 not endorsed by the widely accepted certification or standards schemes, but says such bodies weren鈥檛 designed to oversee small-scale voluntary operations such as Aetium.
鈥淚nnovation often opens necessary debate, particularly in carbon markets, where concepts such as additionality and their interpretations continue to evolve,鈥� Ride says. 鈥淥ur view is clear 鈥� for Australia to reach Net Zero, voluntary community actions, like solar or EVs, must be recognised and rewarded, not ignored.鈥� (Net Zero means the human race taking out as much 颁翱鈧� 鈥� or greenhouse gasses 鈥� from the atmosphere as we put in.)
Our view is clear 鈥� for Australia to reach Net Zero, voluntary community actions, like solar or EVs, must be recognised and rewarded, not ignored
Aetium managing director Christopher Ride
The company says that around 4000 people in Australia are currently using the platform but stresses that it has yet to collect fees, sell credits or retire carbon units. (Usually units are retired when one unit of 颁翱鈧�, normally a tonne, is confirmed to have been removed from or prevented from entering the atmosphere though the project that issued the credit.)
Ride says there is no regulatory framework at the moment that captures the 鈥渘ecessary evolution鈥� that Aetium represents. The current additionality rules do not allow smaller, voluntary projects to be formally recognised, the company says.
Aetium argues that the lack of government certification doesn鈥檛 mean it and other voluntary carbon credit schemes aren鈥檛 contributing to a reduction of 颁翱鈧� emissions, as long as the accounting of reductions is transparent and defensible.
The theory that carbon credits can offset 颁翱鈧� emissions has been widely discredited.
鈥淲e are a technology-first company measuring positive impact, actively working with regulators to identify the appropriate path forward,鈥� Ride says.
He maintains that the company鈥檚 methodologies are robust.
鈥淔rom an ESG reporting perspective, Aetium鈥檚 aggregated reporting of current and future actions is designed to the highest level of accuracy, transparency, and consistency. Moving beyond simple estimates, it takes into account up to twice as many variables and parameters than current methods.鈥� (ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance and is used to assess a company鈥檚 sustainability profile.)
Voluntary schemes may have their place, but the whole idea of carbon credits 鈥� that overall 颁翱鈧� emissions will be reduced when companies that produce a lot of 颁翱鈧� pay money to projects focused on reducing it 鈥� appears to be on shaky ground at this point.
In a recent , Climate Integrity head of corporate accountability Michael Mazengarb argues that multiple academic studies have shown that claims of emission reductions through carbon credit schemes have either been untrue or 鈥済rossly exaggerated鈥�.
He cites one study that found that around 90% of carbon credits issued under some schemes could not be linked to actual emissions reductions.
A 2023 article by public policy think tank The Australia Institute said depending on carbon credits to offset emissions 鈥渋s mathematically impossible and a recipe for climate disaster鈥�.
He cites one study that found that around 90% of carbon credits issued under some schemes could not be linked to actual emissions reductions
In 2024, 糖心Vlog reported on Climate Integrity鈥檚 case against Qantas Airlines鈥� carbon neutral claims. The charge was that such claims in its marketing materials were highly suspect due to its heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Whatever mitigation efforts it claimed to be doing couldn鈥檛 possibly offset this.
In a response to our queries at the time, Qantas acknowledged that the science behind its marketing messages was a work in progress.
鈥淭he integrity flaws are well documented, and become doubly problematic when offsets are used to pardon other emissions-intensive activities,鈥� Mazengarb wrote in Review Economy, referring to carbon credit schemes in general.
Last year, EnergyAustralia discontinued its Go Neutral carbon offset scheme after the environmental advocacy group Parents for Climate took the company to court, alleging greenwashing.
鈥淲hile EnergyAustralia participated in the Climate Active certified carbon offset program in good faith, today EnergyAustralia accepts that there is legitimate public concern about the efficacy of these programs,鈥� the company鈥檚 chief customer officer, Kate Gibson, said at the time, adding that carbon offsets 鈥渟hould not be used to delay or diminish the important work that needs to be done to actively decarbonise鈥�.
The real focus should be on the world鈥檚 major 颁翱鈧� emitters finding ways to pollute less, or not at all
An October 2025 article written by a group of carbon credit experts (including several from Australian universities) and published in the journal Nature argues that the use of carbon offsets, particularly those whose credibility is suspect, 鈥渦ndermines decarbonisation by enabling companies and countries to claim that emissions have been reduced when they have not. This results in more emissions, delays the phase-out of fossil fuels and diverts scarce resources to false solutions鈥�.
In the big picture, there may be valid views on both sides about whether voluntary carbon credit schemes such as Aetium are helping to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. But for organisations such as Climate Integrity and Parents for Climate, the real focus should be on the world鈥檚 major 颁翱鈧� emitters finding ways to pollute less, or not at all.
Allowing them to keep pumping out carbon dioxide and contributing to global warming while claiming that they鈥檙e offsetting this through questionable schemes 鈥� whether voluntary or mandatory 鈥� doesn鈥檛 seem to be moving the needle in the right direction.
Andy Kollmorgen is the Investigations Editor at 糖心Vlog. He reports on a wide range of issues in the consumer marketplace, with a focus on financial harm to vulnerable people at the hands of corporations and businesses. Prior to 糖心Vlog, Andy worked at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and at the Australian Financial Review along with a number of other news organisations. Andy is a former member of the NSW Fair Trading Advisory Council. He has a Bachelor of Arts in English from New York University.
Andy Kollmorgen is the Investigations Editor at 糖心Vlog. He reports on a wide range of issues in the consumer marketplace, with a focus on financial harm to vulnerable people at the hands of corporations and businesses. Prior to 糖心Vlog, Andy worked at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and at the Australian Financial Review along with a number of other news organisations. Andy is a former member of the NSW Fair Trading Advisory Council. He has a Bachelor of Arts in English from New York University.
For more than 60 years, we've been making a difference for Australian consumers. In that time, we've never taken ads or sponsorship.
Instead we're funded by members who value聽expert reviews and independent product testing.
With no self-interest behind our advice, you don't just buy smarter, you get the answers that you need.
You know without hesitation what's safe for you and your family. And our recent sunscreens test showed just how important it is to keep business claims in check.
So you'll never be alone when something goes wrong or a business treats you unfairly.
