The New York City Council today held a hearing on a suite of bills to limit noise from helicopter flights over New York City. The bill most pertinent to carbon taxing is a resolution supporting a proposed NY State $400 “noise tax” on flights taking off or landing at the city’s heliports.
My testimony, presented below, situates the proposed noise tax in the context of social damage costing, also known as externality pricing. Previous CTC posts in this vein have covered NYC’s forthcoming congestion pricing plan, a California growers’ program that taxes excess withdrawals of groundwater for farming, and Berkeley, CA’s soda tax.
Educator from the NYC harbor ecology group Billion Oyster Project, at the April 16 City Hall Park rally organized by Stop The Chop NY/NJ. To speaker’s left are Councilmembers Lincoln Restler and Amanda Farias, lead sponsors of Intro 70 and 26.
As can be seen from photographs of the rally prior to the council hearing, the anti-heli-noise outfit Stop The Chop NY/NJ takes a reformist position on helicopter flights. I’m more militant in both deed, having helped organize a human blockade of the West 30th Street (Hudson River) heliport last September; and in language, preferring the term “luxury fights” to Stop The Chop’s “nonessential flights.”
That said, I tip my hat to Stop The Chop for their scrappy advocacy raising the profile of helicopters’ aural and other assaults on New Yorkers’ quality of life. The bills in question would almost certainly not have been written without their years of organizing.
Testimony of Charles Komanoff[1] supporting Council Bills banning nonessential helicopter flights using municipal properties, and Council Resolution 0085-2024 endorsing state legislation imposing a noise-annoyance surcharge on nonessential helicopter flights in New York City[2]. Submitted on April 16, 2024. (My statement has been lightly edited for clarity. Bracketed numbers denote endnotes.)
I emphatically support Council bills Intro 26 and Intro 70 banning nonessential helicopter flights from the two City-run heliports. In addition, as an economist specializing in environmental costing,[3] I’d like to single out for praise Council Resolution 0085-2024 endorsing state legislators Kirsten Gonzalez’s and Bobby Carroll’s bills S7216B and A7638B imposing a noise fee on nonessential helicopter flights.[4]
The Gonzalez-Carroll noise fee is $100 per occupied seat or $400 per flight, whichever amount is larger. Although these levies appear to fall short of the average helicopter flight’s full societal cost, they are a commendable starting point. The levies can be raised later on, as methodologies for quantifying helicopter noise costs mature — a process that will be aided by passing a related bill, Intro 27. The fees can also be lowered if quieter helicopters emerge — which the Gonzalez-Carroll bills will incentivize.
“Cost internalization,” as this kind of social-damage pricing is termed, is long overdue for helicopter noise. “Luxury” helicopter flights — a more apt term, perhaps, than “nonessential” — impose other costs like carbon pollution and particulate-exhaust pollution. Moreover, these flights are purely discretionary. Anyone taking a luxury helicopter flight — whether to the Hamptons or JFK or for sightseeing — has money to spare, as revealed by their pricey transportation choice. Taxing helicopter noise is entirely consistent with economic justice.
Consider Blade’s JFK helicopter service from its Manhattan West 30th Street heliport — a flight covering about 15 miles. I’ve made a preliminary but serviceable calculation suggesting that one such flight steals around $2,500 worth of peace and quiet from city residents.[5]
A more militant protest: Extinction Rebellion’s Sept 2023 human heliport blockade. See our post from that month, “Grounding Helicopter Luxury.” Photo: Christopher Ketcham.
The Gonzalez-Carroll noise fee offsets only a fraction of that damage. But it amounts to a roughly 40 percent surcharge to Blade’s $250 standard ticket price to JFK, making it a worthy start. Assemblymember Carroll has been a legislative leader on externalities taxing, and it’s great to see Sen. Gonzalez also taking up the cause.
A noise fee raising the price of a commuter helicopter trip by 40 percent will cut usage, hence, the number of flights, by 30 to 50 perceny,[6] as some would-be passengers opt out. (Yes, just like congestion pricing, except more draconian, and deservedly so). That will not only bring peace and quiet, it will generate $10 to $15 million per year[7] — revenue that New York City can use to expand and enforce noise-abatement rules citywide.
Noise isn’t the sole harm that commuter and tourist helicopters inflict on the millions of residents below. But it is the most egregious and insulting. Every member should vote Yes on the bills to ban nonessential helicopter flights from the two City-owned heliports. And please also vote for Council Resolution 0085-2024 to make clear to your Albany counterparts that New York City’s local elected officials support the Gonzalez-Carroll helicopter noise fee.
Endnotes.[8]
[1] Policy analyst and consulting economist at KEA, 11 Hanover Square, 21st floor, New York, NY 10005. Website www.komanoff.net.
[2] This document is available on line as https://www.komanoff.net/jet_skis/Komanoff_Testimony_City_Council_Helicopter_Noise_Costs.pdf.
[3] My work quantifying and supporting NYC congestion pricing is widely known; much of it is collected here. My body of research also includes Drowning in Noise: Noise Costs of Jet Skis in the United States, a monograph co-authored with Dr. Howard Shaw and published in 2000 by the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse.
[4] Assemblymember Bobby Carroll represents part of Brooklyn. State Senator Kristen Gonzalez represents parts of Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan.
[5] Key assumptions in my calculation of a $2,500 collective noise cost per flight from W 30 St to JFK Blade include: 625,000 households in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens households lie within the helicopter noise field; excess noise of 20 dBA during the average 44 seconds of noise exposure for each flight; a “Noise Depreciation Index” — reduced property value per additional decibel during exposure — of 1%. Some parameters in the calculation are placeholder values, making the resulting $2,500 estimated per-flight collective noise cost preliminary and subject to change. See Excel spreadsheet referenced in final endnote.
[6] The 30 percent reduction is associated with a price-elasticity of helicopter flights of negative 1, while the 50 percent reduction comes from a price-elasticity of negative 2. The respective calculations are: 1.4^(-1) ~ 0.7, and 1.4^(-2) ~ 0.5. (My high price-elasticity figures reflect the discretionary and luxury nature of helicopter travel.) See Excel spreadsheet referenced in final endnote.
[7] The number of helicopter flights per year that would be subject to the Gonzalez-Carroll noise tax appears to be between 50,000 and 60,000 per year. I have used the lower figure (50,000) in my calculations. Taking into account that the incorporation of the proposed tax into the price of helicopter flights would be expected to reduce the number of flights by 30 to 50 percent, and applying a per-flight noise fee of $400, the annual tax revenues, rounded, calculate to between $10 and $15 million per year (50k x $400 x 50% or 70%).
[8] An Excel spreadsheet (NYC_Helicopter_Flights_Externality_Costs.xls) with assumptions, calculations and citations supporting my preliminary $2,500 per-flight noise cost estimate, my tax revenue estimate of $10 to $15 million, and other figures in my testimony may be downloaded via this link: https://www.komanoff.net/jet_skis/NYC_Helicopter_Flights_Externality_Costs.xlsx.
India’s clean energy transition is entering a new phase. Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) has signed a long-term green ammonia supply agreement with Samsung C&T Corporation. The deal, worth over $3 billion, will run for 15 years starting in the second half of FY2029.
This agreement reflects a structural shift in global energy markets. India is positioning itself not just as a clean energy producer, but as a future exporter of green fuels.
At the same time, the deal highlights a growing global race to secure long-term supplies of low-carbon energy. As industries look to decarbonize, green hydrogen and ammonia are becoming critical building blocks of the future energy system.
India’s Hydrogen Vision Meets Global Demand Reality
The agreement aligns with India’s broader policy push. Led by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the National Green Hydrogen Mission aims to turn the country into a global hub for hydrogen production and exports.
The government has proposed around $2.2 billion in funding through 2030. Its targets are ambitious. India plans to build at least 5 million metric tonnes of annual green hydrogen capacity, supported by 125 GW of new renewable energy.
The economic and environmental impact could be substantial. Investments may exceed ₹8 lakh crore. The mission could create over 600,000 jobs while cutting fossil fuel imports by ₹1 lakh crore. In addition, it aims to reduce around 50 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year.
However, market realities remain complex. As of August 2025, about 158 hydrogen projects were under development. While announced capacity is already more than double the government’s target, only a small fraction is under construction or operational. This gap highlights execution risks.
Reliance Builds a Fully Integrated Green Energy Platform
To capture this opportunity, Reliance is building a deeply integrated clean energy ecosystem. The company is not only producing green hydrogen but also controlling the entire value chain.
This includes renewable power generation, energy storage, hydrogen production, and downstream products like green ammonia. A key focus is domestic manufacturing of critical technologies such as solar modules, battery systems, and electrolysers.
This strategy serves two purposes:
- First, it reduces costs by localizing supply chains.
- Second, it strengthens India’s position as a manufacturing hub for clean energy technologies.
At the center of this ecosystem is the Dhirubhai Ambani Green Energy Giga Complex in Jamnagar. Spread across 5,000 acres, it will house multiple gigafactories producing solar panels, batteries, electrolysers, fuel cells, and power electronics.
In parallel, Reliance is developing a large renewable energy project in Kutch. By combining solar, wind, and storage, the project will provide round-the-clock clean electricity. This power will feed into hydrogen and ammonia production facilities in Jamnagar.
The company has also committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2035, placing it among the more aggressive corporate climate targets globally.
- ALSO READ: India-Europe Hydrogen Highway: AM Green and Rotterdam Join Forces to Drive $1B Green Fuel Trade
Samsung’s Offtake Deal Brings Stability to the Green Hydrogen Market
The partnership with Samsung C&T plays a crucial role in addressing one of the hydrogen sector’s biggest challenges—demand uncertainty.
By securing a 15-year offtake agreement, Reliance gains revenue visibility. This makes it easier to finance large-scale projects. At the same time, Samsung C&T Corporation benefits from a stable and cost-competitive supply of green ammonia.
The company operates across more than 40 countries and is active in trading industrial materials and developing renewable energy projects. Access to green ammonia strengthens its ability to decarbonize operations and expand its clean energy portfolio.
This is particularly important as global companies face rising pressure to meet environmental, social, and governance (ESG) targets. Green ammonia can be used in fertilizers, as a hydrogen carrier, and even as a shipping fuel. Therefore, securing supply early provides a strategic advantage.
From Slow Start to Rapid Scale: McKinsey and PwC Map Hydrogen Growth
Global demand trends add another layer to the story. According to McKinsey & Company, clean hydrogen demand could reach between 125 and 585 million tonnes per year by 2050. This is a sharp increase from today’s levels, where nearly 90 million tonnes of hydrogen are still produced using fossil fuels.
In the near term, demand growth is expected to remain gradual. McKinsey notes that traditional sectors like fertilizers and refining will drive early adoption as they switch from grey to cleaner hydrogen. However, newer applications—such as steelmaking, synthetic fuels, and heavy transport—will likely scale up after 2030, accelerating overall demand.
While long-term demand looks strong, short-term growth is expected to be gradual. Insights from PwC suggest that hydrogen demand will remain limited until 2030.
There are several reasons for this. First, most current projects are still in early stages and operate at relatively small scales. Many electrolyser facilities today have capacities below 50 MW. Even planned projects, which may exceed 100 MW, are still small compared to existing fossil-based hydrogen plants.
Second, infrastructure development takes time. Building pipelines, storage systems, and export terminals can take seven to twelve years. Without this infrastructure, large-scale hydrogen trade cannot take off.
As a result, PwC expects stronger demand growth after 2030, with a more rapid acceleration after 2035. This timeline aligns with broader climate goals and the need to scale clean energy systems globally.
Challenges Still Loom Over the Sector
Despite growing momentum, the green hydrogen sector faces several hurdles. High production costs remain a major barrier. In many regions, green hydrogen is still more expensive than fossil-based alternatives.
In addition, global standards are still evolving. Different countries use different definitions for “green” or “low-emission” hydrogen. This creates uncertainty and complicates international trade. Demand visibility is another concern. Although many projects have been announced, actual uptake depends on policy support, pricing mechanisms, and technological progress.
These challenges explain why only a small portion of announced capacity has moved into construction or operation so far.
In conclusion, the Reliance-Samsung deal highlights a key turning point. It shows how large-scale, long-term agreements can unlock investments and accelerate project development.
At the same time, it signals India’s growing role in the global hydrogen economy. With strong policy backing, rising investor interest, and integrated industrial strategies, the country is building a foundation for large-scale exports of green fuels.
The post Reliance and Samsung C&T $3B Green Ammonia Deal Powers India’s Hydrogen Exports appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The voluntary carbon market (VCM) lets companies buy carbon credits to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. AlliedOffsets, a data and technology firm for carbon offsetting, tracks this market closely. Their database covers more than 36,000 projects, over 28,000 buyers, and billions of tons of carbon that have been issued or retired.
The VCM is growing fast. Over the last five years, most buyers have come from technology, telecommunications, and energy. Other sectors, like industrials, manufacturing, financial services, and aviation, also participate, though in smaller amounts.
The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan have the most buyers, showing that developed countries lead the market.
As the market grows, new companies and sectors are expected to join. AlliedOffsets studied over 130,000 companies to predict who will likely buy carbon credits next. This helps sellers, project developers, and policymakers focus their efforts where demand is likely.
LtB Model: Predicting the Next Wave of Credit Buyers
AlliedOffsets uses a model called Likelihood to Buy (LtB). It looks at companies active before and since 2024, and even those that have never bought credits publicly. The company stated:
“Ranking specific companies’ likelihoods and identifying patterns in their unifying traits informs market suppliers and intermediaries about who to pivot engagement towards. Understanding the features that play the greatest roles in determining companies’ likelihoods, meanwhile, is vital for highlighting wider drivers for the growth of the market, which serve as levers for policymakers and signals for companies themselves.”
The model includes data from 36 global registries, covering both non-anonymous purchases and retirements. It looks at several key factors that affect a company’s likelihood to buy, including:
- Abatement potential – how easy it is for the company to reduce emissions.
- Data center usage – companies with large data centers use more energy and may buy more credits.
- Headquarters country – companies in the US, UK, and China lead predicted purchases.
- Internal carbon pricing – companies with higher carbon costs buy more credits.
- Net-zero targets – companies with short-term or long-term climate goals are more likely to buy.
- Sector – aviation, energy, and tech tend to buy more due to rules and public pressure.
- Annual profit or loss – profitable firms are more able to purchase carbon credits.
The model also uses SHAP analysis to show which factors influence predicted buying the most. Companies that recently bought credits are weighted higher. Some sectors, like aviation, are manually marked as high-likelihood because of rules like CORSIA, which requires airlines to offset emissions.
AlliedOffsets also separates companies into new entrants and returning buyers, helping track demand trends.
Forecasted Carbon Credit Demand
AlliedOffsets predicts that new and returning buyers will need about 281 million credits per year. This comes from over 11,500 companies with characteristics similar to current buyers.
The demand by project type is expected to have this composition:
Demand for forestry projects is rising, partly because of forward contracts, which made up 55% of the 147 million credits negotiated in 2025.
By country, the greatest demand will come from the U.S., China, UK, France, Germany, and Brazil.
Aviation will be a big factor because airlines must offset emissions under CORSIA rules. Energy and technology companies in the US, like AT&T, IBM, and Ingram Micro, are likely to enter or re-enter the market.
Moreover, new entrants will expand the buyer base, per AlliedOffsets analysis. These include consumer goods, professional services, healthcare, and industrial firms. Many come from countries with fewer buyers so far, like Turkey and Belgium.
Financial Impact of Returning and New Buyers
AlliedOffsets estimates that new and returning buyers will spend around $2.27 billion per year. Sector contributions are expected as follows, with aviation and energy leading the pack:
- Aviation: over $800 million per year (about one-third of total).
- Energy and Technology & Telecommunications: substantial ongoing purchases, over $300 million a year.
- Consumer services, industrials, financial services, professional services: smaller but steady spend.
Returning buyers bought nearly 7 million credits in previous years. ExxonMobil accounted for 66% of these purchases through both forward contracts and OTC deals. Other companies, like ArcelorMittal, invest in low-emission technology, reducing the need to buy credits.
New entrants, especially airlines, will increase activity. Credits purchased for CORSIA compliance must match emissions for international flights to and from ICAO member states.
Overall, growth in both returning and new buyers shows that corporate demand for carbon credits is likely to rise sharply. Companies that belong to initiatives like RE100, SBTi, Race to Zero, or NZBA are more likely to participate in the voluntary carbon market.
A Turning Point and Future Forecasts: Supply, Demand, and Policy Drivers
In 2025, the voluntary carbon credit market saw big changes. Total retirements fell to about 168 million tonnes, and new issuances dropped to around 270 million tonnes, the lowest since 2020.
Despite this, spending rose to roughly $1.04 billion, up from $980 million in 2024. The average price per credit also climbed to about $6.10, showing that buyers are paying more for high-quality, trusted credits rather than just buying large amounts.
Companies are now choosing credits with strong monitoring and real climate impact. Nature-based projects, like afforestation and reforestation, did better than older REDD+ credits.
Forward contracts also grew, with over $12 billion signed in 2025, even though these will deliver only about 10 million credits a year through 2035. This shows that many companies want to secure the future supply of trusted credits. These trends match forecasts from AlliedOffsets, where demand is expected to rise for durable, high-quality carbon credits.
AlliedOffsets keeps expanding its database, now covering over 60,000 companies. Adding historical emissions data and checking with initiatives like the Forest Stewardship Council and Science Based Targets will improve forecasts.
Analysts expect supply limits may appear in forestry and land use projects as demand grows. Engineered removals, chemical processes, and industrial projects will also get more attention. Large investments by companies like Google and Amazon, which pledged $100 million to superpollutant removal projects by 2030, are expected to drive this.
Returning and new buyers, led by aviation, energy, and tech, will shape the next wave of demand. Understanding these patterns helps policymakers, intermediaries, and project developers plan supply and engagement strategies.
The voluntary carbon market is entering a new growth phase, driven by rules, climate commitments, and better forecasting tools. With models like Likelihood to Buy, market participants can plan ahead. Forestry, renewable energy, and industrial projects are likely to see the biggest benefits as corporate demand grows worldwide.
- READ MORE: The Carbon Credit Market in 2025 is A Turning Point: What Comes Next for 2026 and Beyond?
The post Who Will Drive the Next Wave of Carbon Credit Demand? Insights from AlliedOffsets appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The verified carbon market is changing. Buyers are asking harder questions. A carbon credit’s value is increasingly defined not just by the carbon it represents, but by what the project delivers alongside it and by how rigorously those outcomes are measured.
-
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
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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