<p>This study examines the renewable resource investments of resource-based companies following carbon emission regulations. Resource companies can apply for green financing from financial institutions under certain financial constraints. This research initially develops three distinct models: a strategy based solely on conventional resources, a strategy focused exclusively on renewable resources, and a hybrid resource strategy. Second, it discusses the impact of the difference between a company's conventional energy carbon emissions and local government carbon emission quotas on the company's optimal profits, total carbon emissions, and total social welfare. Finally, it compares the advantages of the three strategies. The findings indicate that (1) the hybrid approach outperforms both of the pure strategies, and the extent of this advantage for the two pure strategies is influenced by the market conditions; (2) under the framework of the hybrid strategy, the investment of the company in the construction of renewable resources gradually increases with an increase in the difference between the company's conventional energy carbon emissions and the carbon emission quota set by the local government; and (3) the greater the difference between a company's conventional energy carbon emission and the carbon emission quota set by the local government, the more adverse it is to invest in renewable resources. However, this could be beneficial to the overall social welfare. This study is the first to consider the impact of the gap between carbon emissions and carbon allowances on resource-based companies and local governments, and make policy recommendations.</p>