Who’s Winning the Oil Game? A Financial Face-Off
Shell: Struggling Profits, Big Promises
Shell reported Q4 2024 earnings of $1.20 per ADS (American Depository Share), missing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.78 and significantly lower than $2.22 per ADS in Q4 2023. The company’s revenue dropped to $66.8 billion from $80.1 billion, falling short of expectations by 16.6%. The decline was driven by weaker realized prices, reduced trading margins, and lower LNG sales.
Shell repurchased $3.6 billion in shares and increased its dividend by 5%, with plans for another $3.5 billion in repurchases in Q1 2025. Here is the oil giant’s income per segment:
- Upstream: Profit fell to $1.7 billion from $3.1 billion, missing expectations due to lower oil and gas prices. Liquids prices fell 11%, while natural gas declined 7%.
- Chemicals & Products: Reported a $229 million loss, reversing a $29 million profit from the previous year, due to lower margins and unfavorable tax movements.
- Integrated Gas: Adjusted income dropped to $2.2 billion from $4 billion, missing the expected $2.8 billion due to a 14.3% drop in LNG sales.
- Marketing: Income rose to $839 million from $794 million, but missed expectations of $885 million.
- Renewables & Energy Solutions: Recorded a $311 million loss, down from a $173 million profit a year earlier, due to rising costs and adverse tax effects.
Chevron: A Mixed Bag of Losses and Growth
Chevron’s Q4 earnings fell below Wall Street expectations, reporting adjusted EPS of $2.06 versus the estimated $2.11. This led to a 4% drop in its stock price. The company’s downstream segment posted a $248 million loss, compared to a $1.15 billion profit in Q4 2023. This is because refining margins weakened amid declining fuel demand in the U.S. and China.
- Oil & Gas Production: Profits rose to $4.3 billion from $1.59 billion a year ago, despite a flat overall output of 3.35 million boepd (Barrels of oil equivalent per day). Permian Basin production grew 14% to a record 992,000 boepd.
- Refining: Weak jet fuel demand contributed to the company’s first refining loss since 2020.
Chevron expects global output to grow 6-8% in 2025 and 3-6% in 2026. The company raised its quarterly dividend by 5% and reaffirmed share buyback plans of $10-$20 billion annually.
Exxon: Defying Expectations Amid Industry Headwinds
Exxon announced Q4 2024 earnings of $7.6 billion, or $1.72 per share, exceeding analyst estimates of $1.56. Despite lower oil prices, higher production helped offset the weaker refining margins of this big oil company.
- Oil & Gas Production: Adjusted earnings rose to $6.28 billion from $4.15 billion a year earlier. Production increased to 4.6 million boepd, driven by low production costs in the Permian Basin and Guyana projects.
- Refining: Earnings from gasoline and diesel production dropped sharply to $323 million from $3.2 billion a year earlier due to increased refinery capacity in Asia.
Exxon reported $33.7 billion in earnings for 2024, down from $38.57 billion in 2023, but highlighted strong operational efficiency and profitability.
The three energy giants all faced challenges in Q4 2024, with weaker refining margins and lower oil prices impacting profitability. However, Exxon outperformed expectations, while Chevron and Shell struggled with underwhelming results. All three companies remain focused on capital discipline, shareholder returns, and production efficiency moving forward.
The Green Pivot: Are Big Oil’s Net Zero Pledges Enough?
Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil are charting distinct paths toward sustainability as the energy landscape evolves. Their climate commitments, emissions targets, and investment in renewables illustrate their vision for a lower-carbon future.
Each of the energy giants has its own roadmap to net-zero emissions, with varying approaches and strategies. To have a clearer picture of how much carbon pollution each of them emitted in 2023, look at the image below.

While some are making bolder moves in renewables, others remain focused on carbon capture and efficiency improvements. Understanding Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil’s strategies provides insight into the future of the oil and gas industry.
Shell’s Carbon Commitment: Big Talk or Real Action?
Shell aims to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 as part of its Powering Progress strategy. This commitment includes eliminating operational emissions and reducing the emissions from the energy products it sells.

The company has set several targets to achieve this goal:
- 50% absolute emissions reduction by 2030 (Scopes 1 and 2) compared to 2016 levels.
- Eliminate routine flaring of natural gas by 2025 to curb carbon emissions.
- Reduce methane emissions intensity below 0.2% and reach near-zero methane emissions by 2030.
- 15-20% reduction in customer emissions from oil products by 2030 (Scope 3, Category 11, 2021 baseline).
Progress Achieved
By the end of 2023, Shell had cut more than 60% of its emissions goal for 2030. The company’s methane emissions intensity was 0.05% for facilities with marketed gas and 0.001% for facilities without marketed gas.

Shell tracks its emissions reductions through Net Carbon Intensity (NCI), which measures emissions per unit of energy sold. Key milestones include:
- 6-8% reduction achieved in 2023 (from 2016 levels)
- 9-12% reduction target for 2024
- 100% reduction goal by 2050
Shell’s strategy for 2030 balances energy security with sustainability. The company plans to reduce emissions by evolving its product mix and shifting towards low-carbon solutions such as biofuels, hydrogen, and renewables.
Shell has also invested heavily in carbon offset initiatives to negate its GHG emissions. However, under CEO Wael Sawan’s leadership, the oil giant is reducing its focus on nature-based projects and is considering engineered carbon removals instead.
- READ MORE: Shell and Microsoft Are The Biggest Carbon Credit Buyers in 2024: What Projects Do They Support?
Today, 70% of Shell’s cash flow comes from Integrated Gas and Upstream businesses, while 75% of its emissions come from Downstream, Renewables, and Energy Solutions. Additionally, Shell has invested heavily in offshore wind projects, with plans to expand its renewable energy portfolio across multiple continents.
Chevron’s Climate Play: Real Solutions or Greenwashing?
Chevron is investing $8 billion in lower-carbon energy projects from 2021-2028, including renewable fuels, carbon capture, hydrogen, and offsets. An additional $2 billion is allocated to reducing emissions within its operations.

The company is also developing new partnerships with tech firms to enhance energy efficiency and reduce its environmental impact.
Chevron targets net-zero upstream Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2050 but acknowledges that achieving this goal depends on technological advances, regulatory support, and viable carbon capture and offset mechanisms.
2028 Carbon Intensity Targets
Chevron’s plans to lower carbon intensity include:
- 71 g CO₂e/MJ portfolio carbon intensity (Scope 1, 2, and 3)
- 24 kg CO₂e/boe oil carbon intensity (Scope 1 and 2)
- 24 kg CO₂e/boe gas carbon intensity (Scope 1 and 2)
- 36 kg CO₂e/boe refining carbon intensity (Scope 1 and 2)
GHG Reduction Initiatives
Chevron uses the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) to optimize carbon reduction. The company has identified 150+ GHG abatement projects, with over $600 million in investments planned for 2024.
Between 2021-2028, Chevron expects $2 billion in GHG reduction investments, targeting 4 million metric tons (mt) of annual emissions reductions. Here are the company’s other sustainability plans and strategies to achieve its ambitious 2050 net zero goal.
Methane and Renewable Energy Expansion
- Methane emissions goal of 2.0 kg CO₂e/boe by 2028
- Advanced methane detection programs, including satellite monitoring
- Growing renewable fuels capacity to 100 mbd by 2030, including renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel
- Significant CCUS investments, including Bayou Bend (Texas) and Gorgon (Australia)
- Expanding hydrogen production to 150 mtpa by 2030
- Developing advanced geothermal energy projects to enhance clean energy production
SEE MORE: Chevron Reports Lower Q2 Earnings! What About Its Emissions?
ExxonMobil’s Bold Bet on Decarbonization
ExxonMobil has cut 23% of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and volatile organic compounds emissions since 2016. In 2023, its GHG emissions stood at 111 MMTCO₂e, marking a 2 MMT reduction from the previous year. The company is also exploring new ways to enhance energy efficiency across its global operations.
ExxonMobil aims for a 20% absolute reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, compared to 2016 levels. The company aligns its emissions reductions with the Paris Agreement while emphasizing intensity-based reductions.

Beyond burning down emissions in its own operations, Exxon is also helping other industries decarbonize. Its Low Carbon Solutions business focuses on hard-to-decarbonize sectors like heavy industry, power, and transportation. The oil giant seeks to lead in profitable, large-scale emission reduction solutions, with the following key strategies.
Key Sustainability Actions
- Investing in carbon capture, biofuels, and hydrogen
- Advancing methane management with innovative detection technologies
- Deploying CCUS projects, including the world’s largest CCUS facility at LaBarge, Wyoming
- Developing low-carbon solutions for hard-to-abate industries
- Launching a $17 billion investment plan in lower-carbon solutions through 2027
- Exploring direct air capture (DAC) technologies to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere
READ MORE: ExxonMobil’s First-of-its-Kind Carbon Capture Solution for the U.S. Data Centers
Big Oil’s Race Against Time
Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil are taking different approaches to sustainability and emissions reduction. While Shell focuses on reducing absolute emissions and net carbon intensity, Chevron prioritizes carbon intensity reduction and methane management. ExxonMobil, meanwhile, is expanding CCUS and methane detection efforts to lower emissions.
As global climate policies tighten, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other energy companies should accelerate their transition strategies to meet net-zero targets.
- FURTHER READING: Shell’s Polaris Project Fuels Canada’s Carbon Capture Revolution
The post Big Oil’s Showdown: How Shell, Chevron & ExxonMobil Balance Big Profits with Net Zero? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business
Key takeaways
- SBTi is the default reference point for corporate climate action: 51% of Fortune Global 500 companies now hold net-zero targets, up from 8% in 2020, and over 11,000 organizations worldwide have SBTi-validated targets.
- Net Zero Standard V2 redefines climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions, not reduction alone.
- The new standard adds flexibility through five-year cycles, a “best efforts” standard, and an Asset Transition Method for companies whose path to net-zero doesn’t fit a straight-line trajectory.
- Voluntary carbon credits are formally recognized for the first time, with reduction and removal credits accepted from 2027, and removals required from 2035.
- Companies with 2030 targets keep using V1 for their current cycle and move to V2 in 2028; companies without targets can start using V2 on February 1, 2027.
Why every business needs to understand the SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has become the default reference point for credible corporate climate action. Net-zero targets are now held by 51% of Fortune Global 500 (FG500) companies, up dramatically from just 8% in 2020, and more than 11,000 organizations worldwide have set SBTi-validated targets.
However, SBTi’s influence extends well beyond the companies formally participating in the program. Every business in the value chain of an SBTi participant will have to reduce its own carbon emissions, and businesses that aren’t SBTi participants themselves still look to the program for guidance on climate action.
In short, SBTi gives every business a credible blueprint for climate action, and companies that follow its principles can pursue climate action with confidence, whether or not they’re formally part of the program.
How will the Net Zero Standard revision affect business climate action?
SBTi participation is expected to grow. Despite strong target-setting participation among the F500, only 17% of companies use the SBTi Net Zero Standard V1 beyond target setting, largely because its rules have been seen as too rigid to apply in practice. Much of the Net Zero Standard revision has focused on creating more flexibility to enable higher participation. Medium and small businesses will also increasingly feel pressure for climate action, since SBTi mandates that its participants reduce carbon emissions across their value chains.
Net Zero Standard V2 also redefines climate leadership: leading climate action now means reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. Reducing your own emissions while ignoring the emissions you continue to release along the way is no longer considered leadership. Supporting voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits is now backed by the leading authority on corporate climate action.
What lessons shaped the Net Zero Standard V2 revision?
The revision reflects a few learnings about what actually drives climate progress, and how SBTi built those lessons into the new standard.
| Net Zero Standard V1 Learnings | Net Zero Standard V2 Implementation |
|---|---|
| Making real short-term progress is more important and more difficult than making big long-term promises | Focus on short-term climate progress |
| Every company has a different path to net zero that doesn’t always fit generalized net-zero rules | Create asset transition plans based on each company’s unique asset lifecycles and capital planning |
| We need to mitigate our ongoing emissions to keep global carbon emissions in check | Reduce global carbon emissions by financing voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits |
What are the key changes between the old and new Net Zero Standard?
Both versions of the standard are grounded in net-zero by 2050. However, the old standard treated climate leadership as simply reducing emissions, expected a long-term commitment to net zero, based emission reduction targets on generalized net-zero goals, revoked status from companies that fell behind on targets, and ignored voluntary carbon projects entirely.
The new standard treats climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. It shifts the focus to short-term progress through five-year cycles, and it bases emission reduction targets on both the net-zero goal and a company’s own asset decarbonization plan. A new Asset Transition Method lets companies set decarbonization targets through asset plans with committed, verifiable steps; an ambitious but achievable path based on a company’s starting point, financial resources, and technology, with multiple pathways to reflect the unique opportunities and constraints of different industries and companies.
Crucially, the new standard moves to a “best efforts” basis that creates real flexibility on progress against targets. Businesses that miss their targets can keep their status if they’ve used “every lever” within their control, and minimum progress rules will be set out in the SBTi Assurance Manual.
Finally, the new standard formally uses voluntary carbon projects to mitigate ongoing emissions. From 2027 through 2034, this mitigation is recognized, and both carbon reduction and removal credits are accepted. From 2035 forward, mitigation with carbon removal credits becomes required, with durability matching between the removal and the emission it offsets.
| Old Net Zero Standard | New Net Zero Standard |
|---|---|
| Grounded in net-zero by 2050 | Grounded in net-zero by 2050 |
| Climate leadership is reducing emissions | Climate leadership is reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions |
| Make a long-term commitment to net-zero | Focus on short-term progress in 5-year cycles |
| Emission reduction targets are based on net-zero goal |
|
| Businesses who fall behind targets lose status |
|
| Ignores voluntary carbon projects |
|
When does the new Net Zero Standard take effect?
Companies with existing 2030 targets should continue using the old Net Zero Standard for their current cycle, and start using the new Net Zero Standard in 2028 to set targets for the next cycle (2030–2035).
Companies that don’t yet have targets can use the new Net Zero Standard starting February 1, 2027.
What are SBTi’s Category A and Category B companies?
The new Net Zero Standard splits companies into two categories, with different requirements attached to each.
Category A covers large companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from high-income countries. A company from any country qualifies if it meets at least one of: net turnover of €450 million or more, or 1,000 or more full-time employees. A company from a high-income country qualifies if its Scope 1 and 2 emissions are 10,000 tCO2e or more, or if it meets at least two of: balance sheet of €25 million or more, net turnover of €50 million or more, or 250 or more full-time employees.
Category B covers small companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from lower-income countries.
How do Scope 1 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?
Scope 1 targets aim to transition companies to net-zero direct emissions by 2050 or sooner, and companies can choose from three approaches.
- Absolute emissions reduction follows a straight-line emissions trajectory from the target base year to the net-zero year.
- Emissions intensity reduction lets companies follow sector-specific pathways designed to reflect the reduction opportunities available in sectors like steel, cement, or chemicals.
- Asset transition is designed for companies whose capital stock turnover doesn’t follow a linear or sector pathway. These companies design a transition plan to operate existing assets efficiently and replace them with low-carbon assets, using predetermined milestones.
How do Scope 2 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?
Scope 2 targets address emissions from purchased electricity through three pathways:
- Reducing electricity consumption,
- Reducing grid consumption by installing onsite or direct-line offsite clean energy generation, and
- Cleaning up the regional grid using market-based tools like PPAs, RECs, and GOs that drive clean energy development.
V2 introduces a dual Scope 2 framework requiring two separate targets, with an overall goal of 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040.
The location-based target addresses the carbon intensity of a company’s physical power use, and requires companies to show that their grid consumption is falling and/or that their physical grid use is getting cleaner; in other words, that their market-based solutions are actually making the grid cleaner.
The market-based (or zero-carbon electricity) target tracks a company’s use of low-carbon power generation contracts and Energy Attribute Certificates. It requires geographical matching of these certificates with electricity consumption based on deliverability regions (grid regions); annual matching is allowed, though hourly matching is encouraged. Category A companies with large electricity loads must report the percentage of their Scope 2 electricity consumption matched with low-carbon attributes on an hourly basis, and there’s an optional recognition framework for companies that meet hourly matching thresholds.
How do Scope 3 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?
Scope 3 targets share the same 2050-or-sooner net-zero goal, but companies set near-term targets only for material emissions sources in their value chain and areas where they have real influence. Long-term Scope 3 targets are generally not required.
Limited, justified exclusions are allowed for near-term targets, including categories that individually account for less than 5% of total Scope 3 emissions, and activities where a company lacks practical influence, like leased assets it doesn’t operationally control, or the processing of sold products. Optional exclusions are also available in specific categories.
Companies can choose from three approaches to near-term Scope 3 targets:
- An overarching emissions reduction target, which follows a linear contraction of emissions from the base year to residual emissions of 10% or less by 2050 or sooner;
- An overarching supplier/customer alignment target, benchmarked against a growing share of tier 1 suppliers and customers reaching net-zero by 2050 or sooner; or
- A category- or activity-specific target, tailored for companies with concentrated emissions in particular Scope 3 categories or high-emitting activities.
What is “ongoing emissions mitigation” under the new SBTi standard?
This is one of the most significant additions in Net Zero Standard V2. Accelerated climate contributions are needed to help the world achieve climate objectives, limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support the scale-up of climate solutions, and V2 formally recognizes that. Ongoing emissions mitigation runs as a parallel track to companies also reducing their own emissions.
The framework is initially voluntary, with recognition available at three contribution levels to encourage early action.
- Engaged companies address more than 1% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
- Advanced companies address more than 10% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, including 100% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
- Leadership companies address 100% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with a contribution budget of $80/tCO2e.
Carbon credits used for this purpose have to meet certain quality standards. They must be ex-post (issued after the mitigation has actually occurred), independently third-party-assured, emissions reductions or removals, measured in tCO2e, that occur within five years prior to the reporting year. They must be sourced from outside the company’s own value chain. Further minimum criteria will be set to align with high-integrity frameworks, with additional details on the recognition program expected in the second half of 2026.
Starting in 2035, carbon removals become mandatory for Category A companies. From that point, the carbon removal coverage requirement rises linearly from 1% of Scope 1–3 emissions to 100% by a company’s net-zero year. Within that, 10% of long-lived GHG emissions must specifically be covered by durable removals, also rising linearly to 100% by the net-zero year.
How must companies neutralize residual emissions?
At a company’s net-zero target year and thereafter, it must reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions to zero or to residual levels, and neutralize all residual emissions using eligible carbon removals. Those removals have to meet two conditions: they must occur within the same reporting period as the residual emissions they’re neutralizing, and long-lived GHGs must be neutralized with long-lived removals, matching the durability of the removal to the atmospheric lifetime of the emission being addressed.
What is the SBTi implementation hierarchy?
Net Zero Standard V2 also lays out how companies should prioritize their actions for credible target delivery, in three tiers.
- Direct actions, at the activity level, are actions that reduce emissions at the source within a company’s own operations and value chain; things like efficiency improvements, fuel switching, and engaging suppliers and customers to reduce their emissions.
- Actions within shared systems, or activity pools that reduce the emissions of shared systems like electricity or gas grids. This includes market instruments that convey low-carbon attributes, such as PPAs, RECs, and GOs, all of which must meet minimum integrity criteria that SBTi will elaborate on in future guidance.
- Sector-level actions relate to the same type of activity occurring in a relevant geography or system, in a way that meaningfully reduces the emissions a company is responsible for.
How Terrapass helps businesses meet the new SBTi standard
As the rules around carbon credits become more rigorous, the quality of the credits behind them matters more than ever. Terrapass has expanded our global network of carbon projects: more project types, locations, prices, ICVCM CCPs, and UN SDGs, spanning super-pollutant destruction, nature-based solutions, and durable removals. We offer Green-e® Climate Certification and we only source from third-party-verified projects on ICVCM-Eligible registries.
We also help clients with impact beyond carbon: EACs, RECs, and GOs including Green-e® Certified credits that support leading renewable energy projects; water credits that support water restoration projects; and custom environmental product needs like RNG and SAF. Wherever your organization is on its sustainability journey, we help clients around the world address climate risk, advance their environmental and social goals, and get the most out of their sustainability budgets.
FAQ: SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision
What is the SBTi Net-Zero Standard?
It’s the framework the Science Based Targets initiative publishes for companies that want validated, credible net-zero targets tied to limiting global warming.
What is changing in the SBTi Net Zero Standard V2 revision?
The biggest changes are more flexibility (five-year cycles and a “best efforts” standard), a new Asset Transition Method for companies whose emissions don’t follow a straight-line path, and formal recognition of voluntary carbon credits for mitigating ongoing emissions.
When do companies need to switch to the new SBTi standard?
If your company already has 2030 targets, you keep using V1 for your current cycle and move to V2 in 2028. If you don’t have targets yet, you can start using V2 as of February 1, 2027.
Can companies use carbon credits to meet SBTi targets?
They can. Under V2, high-integrity carbon reduction and removal credits count toward mitigating ongoing emissions from 2027 through 2034. Starting in 2035, only removal credits count, and they need to be durability-matched to the emissions they offset.
What’s the difference between Category A and Category B companies under SBTi?
Category A is large companies everywhere plus medium-sized companies in high-income countries, based on thresholds like revenue, headcount, or emissions. Category B is small companies everywhere and medium-sized companies in lower-income countries.
What happens if a company misses its SBTi target?
Under the old standard, falling behind could cost a company its SBTi status. Under V2’s “best efforts” approach, a company can hold onto its status as long as it’s used every lever within its control, with minimum progress rules coming in the SBTi Assurance Manual.
Sources: This post is based on Terrapass’s internal analysis of the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0. Facts and figures were checked against SBTi’s official V2.0 announcement, SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 — Chapter 6: Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, Trellis’s coverage of the standard, Trellis’s reporting on Ongoing Emissions Recognition costs, Sylvera’s analysis of what comes next, Anthesis Group’s Fortune 500 net-zero commitments research, and Climate Impact Partners’ seventh annual FG500 analysis, as reported by CarbonUnits.com.
The post SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
How to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
How community stewardship makes carbon credits durable
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change12 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
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

