Carbon pricing has long been a central tool in Canada’s and the United States’ climate strategies. However, recent political shifts are changing how both nations approach this policy.
In Canada, Liberal leadership contender Chrystia Freeland has pledged to scrap the consumer carbon pricing system in favor of alternatives developed through consultations. In the U.S., President Trump’s administration has removed the social cost of carbon from regulations. This marks a big change from earlier climate policies.
These shifts highlight the ongoing debate over the role of carbon pricing in addressing climate change.
Canada’s Carbon Tax Crossroads: Freeland Proposes Policy Overhaul
Canada’s carbon pricing system was introduced in 2019 under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government. The plan set a price on carbon emissions. This encourages businesses and consumers to cut back on fossil fuel use.
- The initial price was CAD 20 per ton of carbon dioxide. It increased every year, hitting CAD 80 per ton in 2024. By 2030, it is expected to reach CAD 170 per ton.
Provinces could set up their own carbon pricing systems. However, if they didn’t meet federal benchmarks, they faced the federal backstop. Some provinces, like British Columbia and Quebec, embraced carbon pricing early. But others resisted it.
Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario took the federal carbon tax to court. In 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada decided it was constitutional.
However, political opposition to consumer-facing carbon pricing has intensified. Critics argue that it increases the cost of living, particularly amid inflation concerns.
For consumers, the carbon price increase means higher costs for gasoline, heating fuels, and other fossil fuel-based products. For example, gas prices are expected to rise by about 3.3 cents per liter due to the 2024 increase.
Freeland wants to replace consumer carbon pricing with other options. This change shows the current political situation.
She promised to make sure the biggest polluters keep paying. She will also look into options like carbon credit markets, better building codes, and rewards for cleaner energy.
Her leadership rival, Mark Carney, also wants to get rid of the consumer carbon tax. He says there is a lot of misinformation and division around it. The Liberal Party will select its new leader on March 9, potentially signaling a significant shift in Canada’s climate policy.
U.S. Deregulates Carbon Costs: Trump Eliminates Social Cost Metrics
The U.S. has had a fragmented approach to carbon pricing. Unlike Canada, the U.S. never adopted a nationwide carbon tax. Instead, various state-level initiatives have shaped its carbon pricing landscape.
One of the first carbon pricing systems in North America is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). It started in 2009 and includes 10 northeastern U.S. states. This cap-and-trade system limited power sector emissions and reinvested revenue into clean energy programs.
California started its cap-and-trade program, also called the emissions trading system (ETS) in 2013. It’s one of the most detailed programs worldwide. Carbon credits under this ETS are distributed in 4 different categories as shown below.
The state increased the carbon price under its cap-and-trade program. In early 2024, the price per tonne of carbon in California rose to over $40, up from around $30 in 2023. This increase means that companies in the state must pay more for their emissions, encouraging them to reduce pollution and invest in cleaner technologies.
At the federal level, the concept of a “social cost of carbon” (SCC) was introduced under President Barack Obama. This metric placed a dollar value on the long-term economic damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide emitted. It was used to justify regulations limiting pollution from industries and vehicles.
During President Trump’s first administration, officials slashed the SCC from around $50 per ton to as low as $7, significantly weakening the economic case for climate regulations. President Biden raised the SCC to $190 per ton. This change supports emissions reductions in federal policy.
However, President Trump’s second administration has completely removed the SCC from U.S. regulations. The “Unleashing American Energy” executive order disbanded the working group responsible for setting the SCC and directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to eliminate its use in future regulations. This move helps the fossil fuel industry, showing the administration’s plan to reduce climate policies.
Implications of Policy Changes: Navigating the Future of Emission Reductions
Freeland’s plan in Canada and Trump’s policy change in the U.S. signal a key moment for climate strategy in North America. Both decisions could reshape how businesses and consumers engage with carbon reduction efforts.
If Canada removes consumer carbon pricing, it will face strong pressure to find other ways to meet emissions reduction goals. The challenge is keeping polluters accountable without raising costs for households.
Freeland promised to offer rebates for home energy upgrades. She will also support renewable energy and work on creating a better-connected electricity grid.
Removing the SCC from federal rules in the U.S. could greatly weaken climate action. The SCC has been a key factor in justifying emissions standards for power plants, fuel economy regulations, and clean energy incentives. Without it, policymakers may struggle to enforce meaningful emissions reductions.
Moreover, shifting climate costs from industry to taxpayers could raise financial burdens on American households. This could result in higher insurance costs, more expensive disaster recovery, and rising energy bills.
What Comes Next for Climate Policy in North America?
Canada and the U.S. have historically taken different approaches to carbon pricing. Yet, recent developments show a convergence in political resistance to consumer-facing carbon costs. Freeland wants to get rid of Canada’s consumer carbon pricing. Similarly, Trump plans to eliminate the social cost of carbon. These actions show the changing discussion on how to reduce emissions.
Despite these policy changes, the need for climate action remains urgent. Both countries deal with rising climate costs. These include wildfires, hurricanes, and extreme temperatures, which hurt agriculture and infrastructure.
As both nations navigate these policy shifts, the challenge will be ensuring that climate action remains effective without placing undue financial burdens on the public. With these changes, the coming months will be crucial in determining the future direction of North America’s climate policies.
- READ MORE: Trump’s Tariffs and Climate Rollbacks: How 2025 is Shaking Copper Markets and Clean Energy Goals
The post A Tale of Two Climate Policies: Canada Rethinks Consumer Carbon Pricing While U.S. Drops Social Cost of Carbon appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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 Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?