Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in response to Hamas’ October assault on Jewish civilians is prompting much soul-searching. One reappraisal that caught my eye was Who’s a ‘Colonizer’? How an Old Word Became a New Weapon, which ran earlier this month in The New York Times.
The piece, by veteran NY Times correspondent Roger Cohen, centers on two opposing ideas — clashes, if you will. One, particular to the current war, concerns the charge that Israel is an outpost of “settler colonialism” and the counterclaim that the Jewish state, “far from being colonialist,” in Cohen’s words, “is a diverse nation largely formed by a gathering-in of the persecuted.” The other is what Cohen calls “a fundamental reframing” of history away from an East-West conflict canonized in the American and French revolutions, toward a North-South struggle “focused on the millions of lives lost to the slave trade and the genocide of the native American peoples.”
The scene in San Francisco on Sept 10, 2018 as activists with the Climate Justice Alliance demonstrated outside California Gov. Jerry Brown’s Climate Action Summit.
Cohen’s grappling with colonialism and colonization took me back to 2018 and the image shown at left. Outside a “Climate Action Summit” convened in San Francisco by Jerry Brown toward the end of his fourth and final term as governor of California, activists from the Climate Justice Alliance hoisted a banner proclaiming “Carbon Pricing Is Colonialism.”
To me, the message was shocking but not surprising.
Shocking, in equating carbon pricing — an admittedly technocratic but singularly powerful policy tool for cutting carbon emissions and, thus, aiding vulnerable nations and communities considered most gravely threatened by climate chaos — with the centuries-long colonial project that subjugated and plundered the Global South to benefit the colonizing North, and whose psychological and financial toll endures.
Unsurprising, in light of the climate-justice movement’s embrace of intersectionality, and with it, conflation of carbon pricing with predatory capitalism that, over centuries, bestowed riches on Europeans and North Americans by stealing the lands of Indigenous people, the labor of people of African descent, and the mineral resources of the entire Global South.
What Is Colonialism?
Wikipedia usefully defines colonialism as “a practice by which one group of people, social construct, or nation state controls, directs, or imposes taxes or tribute on other people or areas, often by establishing colonies, generally for strategic and economic advancement of the colonizing group or construct.”
Notwithstanding Wiki’s disclaimer in the same paragraph that there’s “no clear definition” of colonialism, this one is distinct and, with its reference to taxes, pertinent.
How Carbon Taxing Actually Works
Suppose carbon emissions were taxed in every country. Would that entail colonizing of poor nations by the rich? It could, but only if the carbon-tax wealth — the revenue generated by the tax on carbon emissions — was siphoned off by the rich countries.
There is no carbon-taxing or pricing system under which that would take place.
Keep in mind that carbon taxing is a charge on carbon emissions. If Country A exports fossil fuels to Country B, the carbon tax arises when the fuels are burned, which takes place in Country B. The tax is imposed in and collected by Country B, and the revenues adhere to Country B.
What about Country A? Its carbon tax applies to fuels burned there — to power vehicles, to generate electricity, to run factories, to heat buildings, and, yes, to operate the machinery that extracts the fossil fuels from the ground and brings them to docks for export. Each of those combustion processes generates carbon emissions in Country A which will be taxed by Country A and whose revenues will stay in Country A.
There are genuine debates to be had as to how Country A, the exporter, will spend its revenues, just as there are or should be debates in Country B concerning disposition of its carbon revenues. Nevertheless, under no conceivable carbon-pricing regime will revenues from Country A’s carbon tax flow to Country B.
Where in this picture is colonialism?
Is it in the prospect that taxes on carbon emissions in Country B and other importing countries will cut demand for Country A’s fuel exports . . . which will lower demand for Country A’s fuels and depress its commerce in extracting and exporting fossil fuels? No. This lowering of demand is part of the intent of taxing carbon — “a feature, not a bug,” per the expression.
Shrinking global demand for carbon fuels and thereby reducing Country A’s carbon commerce isn’t colonialism. It’s not a coercive transfer of wealth or imposition of tribute. Rather, it’s part of how the world cuts emissions and protects the climate, accomplished entirely by and under the control of Country A.
The Colonial Adjacency of Carbon Offsets
Carbon offsets are accounting devices to enable “polluters,” who may be countries, companies or individuals such as air travelers, to avoid having to reduce their own emissions, by purchasing offsets or “carbon credits” that ostensibly cut emissions elsewhere, e.g., by planting trees or destroying greenhouse chemicals like Freon. Plagued from the start by the rap that they are little more than get-out-of-jail-free cards for the Global North, and further undercut by repeated evidence of fraud, carbon offsets have not only hindered effective climate action but have also ended up sullying the cause of carbon pricing.
We tweeted this after seeing the activists tweet their banner on Sept 10, 2018.
The Carbon Tax Center’s website section on carbon offsets recounts their history and controversy. Suffice it to say that offsets’ ties to various carbon cap-and-trade programs such as the European Union’s Emissions Trading System and California’s AB-32 carbon cap-and-trade program have led climate-justice campaigners to condemn not just offsets or carbon cap-and-trade but any proposed or actual form of carbon pricing — even straight-up carbon taxing with no offsets whatsoever.
What the Colonial Powers Owe Their Former Colonies
Let’s be clear that the developed countries owe an immense debt to the Global South for exhausting most of our planet’s carbon budget: trillions for climate adaptation; massive financing for clean-energy infrastructure; and large-scale technology transfer. Sweeping debt forgiveness would help as well. These obligations are, or should be, compulsory. But they have nothing to do with carbon pricing. They certainly won’t be exacerbated by taxing carbon emissions whether in the Global South or North. Rather, the emission reductions that carbon pricing will spark will buy time for former colonies to manage, adjust and thrive as the payments, financing and technology ramp up.
Carbon Pricing is Anti-Colonial
We conclude this with its headline. Carbon pricing is utterly and intrinsically anti-colonial. Nations levy their own carbon price and collect the revenues, which they allocate or invest as they see fit.
It’s not perfect. No policy is. And it’s not a silver bullet. When it comes to protecting and restoring climate, there’s no such thing.
But carbon taxing promises huge reductions in carbon emissions — 30 percent or better within ten years if ramped up steadily, in the case of the United States. And it’s complementary with virtually every other carbon-cutting action, be it regulatory, investment, or even clean-energy subsidization, to go far beyond that 30 percent mark. Moreover, pathways abound for allocating, or, our favorite approach, dividending the revenues to keep whole the vast majority of the most-vulnerable households
Carbon pricing is a policy path any nation can undertake on its own and manage as it chooses. If that’s not the essence of political autonomy, what is?
Environmental justice misgivings about carbon pricing, and antidotes to same, are discussed at length on our Carbon Pricing and Environmental Justice page.
Carbon Footprint
Climate Impact Partners Unveils High-Quality Carbon Credits from Sabah Rainforest in Malaysia
The voluntary carbon market is changing. Buyers are no longer focused only on large volumes of cheap credits. Instead, they want projects with strong science, long-term monitoring, and clear proof that carbon has truly been removed from the atmosphere. That shift is drawing more attention to high-integrity, nature-based projects.
One project now gaining that spotlight is the Sabah INFAPRO rainforest rehabilitation project in Malaysia. Climate Impact Partners announced that the project is now issuing verified carbon removal credits, opening access to one of the highest-quality nature-based removals currently available in the global market.
Restoring One of the World’s Richest Rainforest Ecosystems
The project is located in Sabah, Malaysia, on the island of Borneo. This region is home to tropical dipterocarp rainforest, one of the richest forest ecosystems on Earth. These forests store huge amounts of carbon and support extraordinary biodiversity. Some dipterocarp trees can grow up to 70 meters tall, creating habitat for orangutans, pygmy elephants, gibbons, sun bears, and the critically endangered Sumatran rhino.
However, the forest within the INFAPRO project area was not intact. In the 1980s, selective logging removed many of the most valuable tree species, especially large dipterocarps. That caused serious ecological damage. Once the key mother trees were gone, natural regeneration became much harder. Young seedlings also had to compete with dense vines and shrubs, which slowed the forest’s recovery.
To repair that damage, the INFAPRO project was launched in the Ulu-Segama forestry management unit in eastern Sabah.
- The project has restored more than 25,000 hectares of logged-over rainforest.
- It was developed by Face the Future in cooperation with Yayasan Sabah, while Climate Impact Partners has supported the project and helped bring its credits to market.
Why Sabah’s Carbon Removals are Attracting Attention
What makes Sabah INFAPRO different is not only the size of the restoration effort. It is also the way the project measured carbon gains.
Many forest carbon projects issue credits in annual vintages based on year-by-year growth estimates. Sabah INFAPRO followed a different path. It used a landscape-scale monitoring system and waited until the forest moved through its strongest natural growth period before issuing removal credits.
- This approach gives the credits more weight. Rather than relying mainly on short-term annual estimates, the project measured carbon sequestration over a longer period. That helps show that the forest delivered real, sustained, and measurable carbon removal.
The scientific backing is also unusually strong. Since 2007, the project has maintained nearly 400 permanent monitoring plots. These plots have allowed researchers, independent auditors, and technical specialists to observe the full growth cycle of dipterocarp forest recovery. The result is a large body of field data that supports carbon calculations and strengthens confidence in the credits.
In simple terms, buyers are not just being asked to trust a model. They are being shown years of direct forest monitoring across the project landscape.
Strong Ratings Support Market Confidence
Independent assessment has also lifted the project’s profile. BeZero awarded Sabah INFAPRO an A.pre overall rating and an AA score for permanence. That places the project among the highest-rated Improved Forest Management, or IFM, projects in the world.
The rating reflects several important strengths. First, the project has very low exposure to reversal risk. Second, it has a long and stable operating history. Third, its measured carbon gains align well with peer-reviewed ecological research and independent analysis.
These points matter in today’s market. Buyers have become more cautious after years of debate over the quality of some forest carbon credits. As a result, they now look more closely at durability, transparency, and third-party validation. Sabah INFAPRO’s rating helps answer those concerns and makes the project more attractive to companies looking for credible carbon removal.
The project is also registered with Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard under the name INFAPRO Rehabilitation of Logged-over Dipterocarp Forest in Sabah, Malaysia. That adds another level of market recognition and verification.
A Wider Model for Rainforest Recovery
Sabah INFAPRO also shows why high-quality nature-based projects are about more than carbon alone. The restoration effort supports broader ecological recovery in one of the world’s most important rainforest regions.
Climate Impact Partners said it has worked with project partners to restore degraded areas, run local training programs, carry out monthly forest patrols, and distribute seedlings to support rainforest recovery beyond the project boundary. These efforts help strengthen the wider landscape and expand the project’s environmental impact.
That broader value is becoming more important for buyers. Companies increasingly want projects that support biodiversity, ecosystem health, and local engagement, along with carbon removal. Sabah INFAPRO offers that mix, making it a stronger fit for the market’s shift toward higher-integrity credits.
Why IFM is Getting More Attention in the Carbon Market
The project’s launch also fits a wider shift in the voluntary carbon market. Improved Forest Management refers to practices that help existing forests store more carbon or avoid emissions through better stewardship. Unlike afforestation or reforestation, which involve creating or replanting forests, IFM focuses on improving the way current forests are managed.
These practices can help forests grow older, become more diverse, and stay healthier under climate stress. They can also support timber production in some cases by improving harvest cycles rather than stopping forest use altogether.
Because IFM projects often operate over very long periods, sometimes 100 years or more, they can generate lasting climate benefits. Still, buyers must be careful. Quality varies widely across projects, and strong due diligence remains essential.
That is why Sabah INFAPRO is drawing attention. Although IFM supply has grown in recent years, truly high-quality carbon removal credits within the category remain limited.
Nature-Based Carbon Removal Still Leads the Market
Nature-based carbon removal continues to dominate the spot market, as reported by Carbon Direct. In 2025, about 95% of all carbon dioxide removal credits issued in the voluntary carbon market came from nature-based pathways. Only 5% came from higher-durability pathways such as biochar or BECCS.
This shows two things at once. First, nature-based carbon removal still plays the leading role in today’s market. Second, high-durability removal technologies are still at an early stage of deployment.
Demand Side:
Within nature-based credits, supply conditions differ sharply by project type.
- Afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation, known as ARR, have remained tight. Over the past four years, ARR issuances and retirements have stayed close to a 1:1 ratio, while annual issuance has held nearly flat at around 7 million to 8 million metric tons. That has left limited ARR inventory available for spot buyers.
- IFM has followed a different path. Issuances have grown about 2.5 times since 2023, making it one of the biggest growth areas in nature-based carbon credits. Even so, the supply of top-tier IFM carbon removal credits remains much smaller than headline volumes suggest.
Supply Side:
At the same time, buyer behavior is shifting. Demand has moved away from many older REDD+ projects and toward IFM, ARR, agriculture-based projects, and other credit types viewed as more credible or better aligned with corporate climate goals.
Retirements have dipped slightly, but that does not necessarily mean interest is fading. Buyer participation has remained steady. What changed is the purchasing strategy. Companies are becoming more selective about what they buy, when they buy, and how much they are willing to pay for quality.
Meanwhile, long-term nature-based offtakes and purchase commitments have risen above 90 million tons of future delivery. Most of those commitments are concentrated in ARR projects. That trend shows both how tight ARR supply is today and how seriously buyers are trying to secure future volume.
Against that backdrop, Sabah INFAPRO enters the market at the right time. It offers a rare mix of long-term monitoring, strong scientific backing, high biodiversity value, and verified removals. For buyers looking for high-quality nature-based carbon removal, this Malaysian rainforest project may become an important benchmark.
The post Climate Impact Partners Unveils High-Quality Carbon Credits from Sabah Rainforest in Malaysia appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Bitcoin’s recent drop below $70,000 reflects more than short-term market pressure. It signals a deeper shift. The world’s largest cryptocurrency is becoming increasingly tied to global energy markets.
For years, Bitcoin has moved mainly on investor sentiment, adoption trends, and regulation. Today, another force is shaping its direction: the cost of energy.
As oil prices rise and electricity markets tighten, Bitcoin is starting to behave less like a tech asset and more like an energy-dependent system. This shift is changing how investors, analysts, and policymakers understand crypto.
A Global Power Consumer: Inside Bitcoin’s Energy Use
Bitcoin depends on mining, a process that uses powerful computers to verify transactions. These machines run continuously and consume large amounts of electricity.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows Bitcoin mining used between 67 and 240 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2023, with a midpoint estimate of about 120 TWh.
Other estimates place consumption closer to 170 TWh per year in 2025. This accounts for roughly 0.5% of global electricity demand. Recently, as of February 2026, estimates see Bitcoin’s energy use reaching over 200 TWh per year.
That level of energy use is significant. Global electricity demand reached about 27,400 TWh in 2023. Bitcoin’s share may seem small, but it is comparable to the power use of mid-sized countries.
The network also requires steady power. Estimates suggest it draws around 10 gigawatts continuously, similar to several large power plants operating at full capacity. This constant demand makes energy costs central to Bitcoin’s economics.
When Oil Rises, Bitcoin Falls
Bitcoin mining is highly sensitive to electricity prices. Energy is the highest operating cost for miners. When power becomes more expensive, profit margins shrink.
Recent market movements show this link clearly. As oil prices rise and inflation concerns persist, energy costs have increased. At the same time, Bitcoin prices have weakened, falling below the $70,000 level.
This is not a coincidence. Studies show a direct relationship between Bitcoin prices, mining activity, and electricity use. When Bitcoin prices rise, more miners join the network, increasing energy demand. When energy costs rise, less efficient miners may shut down, reducing activity and adding selling pressure.
This creates a feedback loop between crypto and energy markets. Bitcoin is no longer driven only by demand and speculation. It is now influenced by the same forces that affect oil, gas, and power prices.
Cleaner Energy Use Is Growing, but Fossil Fuels Still Matter
Bitcoin’s environmental impact depends on its energy mix. This mix is improving, but it remains uneven.
A 2025 study from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance found that 52.4% of Bitcoin mining now uses sustainable energy. This includes both renewable sources (42.6%) and nuclear power (9.8%). The share has risen significantly from about 37.6% in 2022.
Despite this progress, fossil fuels still account for a large portion of mining energy. Natural gas alone makes up about 38.2%, while coal continues to contribute a smaller share.
This reliance on fossil fuels keeps emissions high. Current estimates suggest Bitcoin produces more than 114 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. That puts it in line with emissions from some industrial sectors.
The shift toward cleaner energy is real, but it is not complete. The pace of change will play a key role in how Bitcoin fits into global climate goals.
Bitcoin’s Climate Debate Intensifies
Bitcoin’s growing energy demand has placed it at the center of ESG discussions. Its impact is often measured through three key areas:
- Total electricity use, which rivals that of entire countries.
- Carbon emissions are estimated at over 100 million tons of CO₂ annually.
- Energy intensity, with a single transaction using large amounts of power.
At the same time, the industry is evolving. Mining companies are adopting more efficient hardware and exploring new energy sources. Some operations use excess renewable power or capture waste energy, such as flare gas from oil fields.
These efforts show progress, but they do not fully address the concerns. The gap between Bitcoin’s energy use and its environmental impact remains a key issue for investors and regulators.
- MUST READ: Bitcoin Price Hits All-Time High Above $126K: ETFs, Market Drivers, and the Future of Digital Gold
Bitcoin Is Becoming Part of the Energy System
Bitcoin mining is now closely integrated with the broader energy system. Operators often choose locations based on access to cheap or excess electricity. This includes areas with strong renewable generation or underused energy resources.
This integration creates both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, mining can support energy systems by using power that might otherwise go to waste. It can also provide flexible demand that helps stabilize grids.
On the other hand, it can increase pressure on local electricity supplies and extend the use of fossil fuels if cleaner options are not available.
In the United States, Bitcoin mining could account for up to 2.3% of total electricity demand in certain scenarios. This highlights how quickly the sector is scaling and how closely it is tied to national energy systems.
Energy Markets Are Now Key to Bitcoin’s Future
Looking ahead, the connection between Bitcoin and energy is expected to grow stronger. The network’s computing power, or hash rate, continues to reach new highs, which typically leads to higher energy use.
Electricity will remain the main cost for miners. This means Bitcoin will continue to respond to changes in energy prices and supply conditions. At the same time, governments are starting to pay closer attention to crypto’s environmental impact, which could shape future regulations.
Some forecasts suggest Bitcoin’s energy use could rise sharply if adoption increases, potentially reaching up to 400 TWh in extreme scenarios. However, cleaner energy systems could reduce the carbon impact over time.
Bitcoin is no longer just a financial asset. It is also a large-scale energy consumer and a growing part of the global power system.
As a result, understanding Bitcoin now requires a broader view. Energy prices, electricity markets, and carbon trends are becoming just as important as market demand and investor sentiment.
The message is clear. As energy markets move, Bitcoin is likely to move with them.
The post Bitcoin Falls as Energy Prices Rise: Why Crypto Is Now an Energy Market Story appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The LEGO Group is giving its new Virginia factory a major clean energy upgrade. The company plans to build a large on-site solar park at LEGO Manufacturing Virginia in Chesterfield County. At the same time, it will add thousands of rooftop solar panels across the site.
Together, these projects mark a big step toward LEGO’s goal of covering 100% of the facility’s yearly electricity needs with renewable energy. The move also shows how the toy giant is tying factory expansion to its wider climate strategy.
A Big Solar Build for a Big Factory
The company announced that its Virginia site is one of its biggest investments in the U.S, having more than 28 MWp of on-site solar capacity in total. Now it is also becoming one of its most important clean energy projects.
- Construction on the solar park should begin in summer 2026. The ground-mounted system will include more than 30,700 solar panels and deliver 22 megawatt-peak (MWp) of capacity.
- The solar park will spread across nearly 80 acres at the Chesterfield factory site. On top of that, LEGO plans to install 10,080 rooftop solar panels, adding another 6.11 MWp.
Thus, it is a core part of how the company wants this factory to operate from the start.
Lego also said the solar build is a major milestone in its effort to source renewable energy for the plant’s annual needs. That matters because the factory is being designed as a long-term manufacturing hub, not just a packaging or distribution site.
Jesus Ibañez, General Manager of LEGO Manufacturing Virginia, said:
“We’re proud of the progress we continue to make. These initiatives are key to increasing our use of renewable energy and support our ongoing commitment towards more sustainable operations.”
Using Mass Timber for Low- Carbon Factory
The solar park is only one part of the Virginia story. LEGO is also trying to reduce the site’s footprint through the building design itself.
Construction is moving ahead on schedule after the main factory reached its steel topping-out milestone in October 2025. The site’s office space, built with mass timber, is expected to top out later in spring 2026. Mass timber matters because it is a renewable material and can store carbon, unlike many traditional building materials that come with heavier emissions.
Focuses on Energy, Waste, and Better Materials
LEGO also wants the facility to earn LEED Platinum certification once completed. That target covers energy, water, and waste performance. The company further said the Virginia site shares the same goal as all LEGO operations: zero waste to landfill.
In simple terms, it wants almost all factory waste to be reused, recycled, composted, or sent to non-landfill treatment.
These details matter because clean power alone does not make a factory sustainable. Companies also need smarter materials, better energy use, and stronger waste systems. LEGO seems to be taking that broader route here.
Long-Term Impact: Jobs and Local Growth
The Virginia factory is not just about energy. It is also a major job project.
More than 500 people already work across the factory under construction and LEGO’s temporary packing facility. That number is expected to rise to about 900 by the end of 2026 as the company gets ready to run highly automated molding and packing equipment.
The overall investment in the site and regional distribution center is more than $1.5 billion. The full campus covers 340 acres and includes 13 buildings with roughly 1.7 million square feet of space. LEGO has said the site is expected to create more than 1,700 jobs over 10 years.
The company is also trying to build stronger local ties while construction continues. In February 2026, LEGO announced more than $1.3 million in grants for eight nonprofit groups in the Greater Richmond area. Since 2022, it has provided more than $3.5 million in local grants through the LEGO Foundation.
So, the Virginia site is becoming more than a factory. It is shaping up as a long-term regional base for manufacturing, jobs, and community funding.
Is LEGO’s Net-Zero Plan Still A Work in Progress?
The company has committed to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 across its full value chain. The Virginia solar project also fits into LEGO’s bigger climate plan.
It also has near-term targets validated by the Science Based Targets initiative, aiming to cut absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 37% by 2032 from a 2019 baseline, and reduce Scope 3 emissions by the same amount. Those targets align with the 1.5°C pathway.
However, the toy maker’s emissions rose in 2024 as consumer sales grew faster than expected. Its greenhouse gas emissions are approximately 144,400 metric tons of CO₂‑equivalent (around 144.4 million kg CO₂e) globally.
The company noted that higher product demand pushed carbon emissions 3.9% above target, even as it increased spending on more sustainable manufacturing. This means that when a business grows fast, cutting emissions gets harder, not easier.
Even so, LEGO says it remains committed to its climate goals and is investing in local solutions at each factory rather than using a one-size-fits-all model. That approach makes sense because every site has different energy systems, weather, and infrastructure options.
Renewable Growth Spreads Across Global Sites
The company also expanded renewable energy projects at other locations in 2024. It added 6.64 MWp of solar capacity across operations globally, a 43% increase from the previous year.
- In Kladno, Czech Republic, it expanded rooftop solar by 1.5 MWp, bringing total capacity there to 2.5 MWp.
- In Billund, Denmark, it added 4.4 MWp, bringing the site’s total solar capacity to 5.5 MWp.
It also cut Scope 1 emissions in Billund by moving 11 buildings from natural gas to district heating, saving about 1,064 tonnes of CO2e each year. Meanwhile, LEGO launched a geothermal project in Hungary and upgraded heat-recovery systems in Jiaxing, China, to reduce gas use.
Progress in Waste Reduction
- In 2024, its manufacturing sites generated a total of 25,859 tonnes of waste, which was 7.6% below the target of 28,000 tonnes.
As a remedy for this situation, factories in Denmark, China, and Mexico improved moulding processes to recover more raw materials and cut waste. These efforts reduced scrap by more than 160 tons, helped by digital tools that identified materials for reuse and improved efficiency.
Additionally, in the Czech Republic, it also introduced more circular packing methods. The factory reused 39% of cardboard tube cores from suppliers and tested returnable inbound packaging, cutting waste by more than 39 tons a year.
Of course, none of this solves LEGO’s full emissions challenge overnight. Scope 3 emissions across the supply chain will still be the harder part.
However, taken together, these efforts show a company trying to clean up its manufacturing footprint piece by piece. The Virginia project stands out because of its scale, but it is part of a wider pattern. Even though it is still under construction, it already shows what modern industrial planning can look like: on-site renewables, lower-carbon materials, waste reduction, and job creation in one package.
But this project gives LEGO something important: a real, visible step forward. And in climate action, visible progress matters.
The post LEGO’s Virginia Factory Goes Big on Solar as Net-Zero Push Speeds Up appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy2 years ago
GAF Energy Completes Construction of Second Manufacturing Facility