China Puts a Number on Its Carbon Credit Market — and Four Words on Cross-Border Trading
At a State Council Information Office briefing on 21 October, Vice Minister of Ecology and Environment Li Gao put the voluntary carbon market on the record: 44 projects registered with over 25 million tonnes of reductions, more than 24 million tonnes traded, turnover approaching RMB 2 billion, 18 methodologies published with 3 more imminent and 11 out for comment, and full coverage of key sectors targeted for 2027. He also gave the single most useful number this site has found all year: a 50 MW concentrated solar plant in Qinghai whose crediting-period revenue from CCER sales comes to nearly RMB 100 million. On cross-border trading the language is precise and deliberately modest — study, formulate, rely on the domestic registry, propose an alliance.
The numbers, and the gap inside them
At the State Council Information Office briefing on 21 October, Vice Minister Li Gao of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment described the national voluntary emissions reduction market in figures: as of the previous week, 44 projects had completed registration with more than 25 million tonnes of reductions, traded volume had passed 24 million tonnes, and turnover was approaching RMB 2 billion. Eighteen methodologies have been published — including concentrated solar power, offshore wind, renewable hydrogen, afforestation and mangrove restoration — with three more, forest management among them, due shortly, and eleven out for public comment covering green methanol and ammonia, biodiesel, energy storage and carbon sinks.
Read against the previous public reading, the movement is striking. In late September, Wang Naixiang, chairman of the Beijing Green Exchange, which operates the national registry and trading system, reported 21.55 million tonnes registered, 14.1 million tonnes traded, and roughly 3,600 account-holding entities — a gap of about 7.45 million tonnes between what had been issued and what had been sold. The ministry now reports 25 million registered and 24 million traded. The overhang appears to have collapsed from roughly 7.45 million tonnes to about one million.
Discipline is required before drawing the obvious conclusion. Two different institutions, two different dates, and no disclosure of whether block trades, listed agreements or forward contracts are counted the same way. A collapse in the issuance-to-turnover gap this abrupt could be demand catching up, could be a definitional adjustment, or could be a single large compliance buyer. What can be said without overreach: on the ministry's latest figures, the volume registered and the volume traded are now close to each other, which is a different market condition from the one described a month earlier.
A derived price is worth computing with a caveat. RMB 2 billion against 24 million tonnes implies an average of roughly RMB 83 per tonne. That is an average across methodologies with different values, across listed and block channels, and across projects of very different quality — useful as an order of magnitude, useless as a benchmark. The site has made this point before about carbon: an average price is a statement about the mix, not about any single tonne.
A 50 MW solar thermal plant that gets paid twice
Li Gao volunteered a case, and it is the most useful thing in the briefing. In August he visited a 50 MW concentrated solar power project in Gonghe County, Qinghai. The plant combines green generation, storage and peak shaving, and it is expensive to build and to operate. Developed as a voluntary emissions reduction project, selling CCERs over the whole crediting period will bring the project nearly RMB 100 million in reduction revenue — enough, in his words, to resolve the difficulty of the enterprise operating the project.
Why this matters more than the aggregate statistics: it is a specific, named energy asset in which a second revenue line comes from carbon rather than electricity. And it is not a one-off subsidy or a grant — it is a cash flow across the crediting period, generated by a registry entry. If a lender will count that cash flow in a debt service calculation, the economics of storage and peak-shaving assets change. If a lender will not, it is a bonus that improves the equity return and nothing more.
Scale discipline, though. Nearly RMB 100 million over a crediting period — for CSP typically ten years, renewable — is on the order of RMB 10 million a year. Against a 50 MW CSP plant, where construction costs run into the billions of renminbi, that is an improvement in operating economics, not a solution to investment recovery. The minister's own phrasing was careful: it resolved the difficulty of running the project. Running, not building.
The methodological point generalises, and it is why the eleven methodologies under comment matter more than any single project. Energy storage is on that list. A storage asset earns from arbitrage, from capacity and from ancillary services; adding a certified reduction stream gives it a fourth, and unlike the first three it is denominated in a unit that a financial institution can hold, pledge or sell forward. That is the exact point at which an environmental attribute stops being a compliance artefact and becomes collateral — and it is being decided in a public comment process, not on a blockchain.
What the four words about cross-border actually said
The sentence that will be quoted most is this: in accordance with the relevant rules of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and in light of China's actual needs, study and formulate policies and systems for the management of cross-border carbon trading; and, relying on the national voluntary emissions reduction market, study the launch of an international high-quality carbon credit alliance cooperation initiative.
Three words carry the weight. "Study and formulate" means the policy is still being researched — there is no draft for comment, no consultation window, no implementation date. "Relying on" specifies the institutional architecture: the international ambition runs through the domestic registry rather than a newly built international platform, which is the opposite of how most cross-border carbon ventures have been pitched. "Initiative" means an alliance is a proposal, not yet an institution with members, a secretariat or mutual recognition rules.
The sequencing is not evasive; it is the only order that works. Under Article 6, a corresponding adjustment can only be made by the registry that issued the credit — which means cross-border trading presupposes that a foreign counterparty can verify a domestic ledger entry, its vintage, its retirement status and its quality tier. This site described exactly that problem in the Hong Kong–Thailand carbon DvP proof of concept: the hard part of interoperability was never the messaging layer, it was agreeing what one credit means across two jurisdictions with different rules.
Contrast that with what has already happened elsewhere in the region. Hong Kong and Thailand settled a cross-border carbon DvP in about forty seconds, in a sandbox with no real money. HKEX's Core Climate completed two pilots with real assets — a Shenzhen carbon quota settlement pilot with the offshore units of three mainland brokers, and a green certificate transaction of about 100,000 certificates involving fifteen enterprises. Japan's CO₂NNEX went into formal operation for sustainable fuel certificates. China's contribution to this set is not a faster pipe; it is a registry that in 2027 will cover every key sector, and a rulebook for cross-border flows that does not exist yet.
Three paths, one question: who sets the price
Set the three Asian approaches side by side and the divergence is clarifying. Hong Kong innovates at the settlement layer — Ensemble and SAN, tokenised deposits, delivery-versus-payment — and has just begun building a secondary market for tokenised funds on top of it. Japan builds the accounting layer — CO₂NNEX issues, transfers and retires environmental value certificates with digital trust technology to prevent double counting, and does it without a token, because the guarantee it needs is institutional rather than cryptographic. China builds the registry and the methodology set, expands coverage by administrative calendar, and writes the cross-border rulebook last.
All three begin in the same place: defining what counts as one credit. They diverge on the same question: who prices it. Hong Kong's answer is an order book plus a certification taxonomy plus mandated market makers. Japan's is automatic transfer upon certified authorisation, with the state standing behind the certificate. China's is the ministry approving methodologies and the registry issuing volumes, with price emerging from compliance demand — which is why the derived RMB 83 per tonne is a statement about the mix of projects, not a market's judgement of carbon.
The practical implication for anyone holding energy assets is unromantic. Over the next twelve months, whether an environmental attribute becomes investable will depend less on tokenisation rails than on whether a methodology covers your asset class. Storage is under comment. Green methanol and ammonia are under comment. Forest management is imminent. A project in a covered category gets a registry entry, and a registry entry is the thing that can be pledged. A project outside every category has no attribute to sell, no matter what chain it is on.
What to watch, in order of information value. First, whether a draft administrative measure for cross-border carbon trading is published for comment — that document, not any alliance announcement, will define the actual perimeter. Second, the membership and mutual recognition rules of the proposed alliance, if it materialises. Third, and most consequential for this site's subject matter, whether lenders begin counting CCER revenue in debt service coverage once the storage methodology lands. A bank that does will reprice storage; a bank that does not will confirm that carbon revenue is still an equity-side bonus. Fourth, the pace at which 44 projects become the full coverage promised for 2027 — because coverage determines whether an average price of RMB 83 means anything at all.
Related analysis
The Second Half of Tokenisation: Hong Kong Opens 24/7 Secondary Trading in Tokenised Public Funds
On 26 October 2026 the SFC announced its first authorisation for tokenised funds offered to the public to trade on the secondary market of a licensed virtual asset trading platform. Two tokenised money market funds from China Asset Management (Hong Kong) — the HKD and USD digital money market funds, pairs CAMFF-HKD and CUMFU-USD — began round-the-clock trading through PantherTrade, the Futu-owned licensed platform, with retail investors eligible. The tokens are not new instruments and cannot leave the platform; ownership stays in an off-chain register and transfers are recorded on the venue's ledger. Which makes this precisely the right thing to look at: for the first time in Hong Kong's tokenisation build-out, a tokenised instrument can trade away from its net asset value. That is the difference between a product and a market.
Three Days After "Successfully Issued", Another Agreement: Dragon Rise Signs a Non-Binding RWA Framework — With an Unnamed Partner
On 23 October, Dragon Rise Group Holdings (6829.HK) — the Hong Kong engineering-turned-new-energy company whose battery-swap taxi tokenised note this site examined on 20 October — announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary Dragon Rise Investment has signed a non-binding strategic cooperation framework agreement with an unnamed "new energy enterprise" to pursue RWA financing, diversified funding and asset management. Three days earlier, the company had declared the first tranche of its tokenised note "successfully issued". The three hardest follow-up questions from that article — was the HK$30 million first tranche fully subscribed, does the second tranche keep the parent guarantee, and what are the KPIs behind the 6 per cent performance interest — remain unanswered. What arrived instead was another agreement: vaguer, unpriced, and with a counterparty that does not even have a name.
The Retail End of the Tokenisation Stack: HSBC Puts a Licensed HKD Stablecoin into 3.3 Million People's Wallets
On 23 October HSBC launched RedCoin (RCHKD), the first retail-facing HKD stablecoin issued by a licensed bank, available from day one inside PayMe, HSBC's own payment app with more than 3.3 million users. This site has spent months covering Hong Kong's tokenisation build-out from the wholesale end — Ensemble, tokenised deposits, digital green bonds, cross-border DvP for carbon credits. RedCoin is the other end of the stack: the same regulatory architecture, pointed at paying a friend and buying coffee. The interesting question is not whether a stablecoin can exist in Hong Kong — the ordinance took effect in August 2025 — but whether there is anything to buy with one, and the answer arriving this quarter is tokenised investment products, starting with a new share class of HSBC's HKD money market fund.