Streetsblog USA today published my essay, Get the Facts About ‘Car Bloat’ and Pollution. I’ve cross-posted it here to allow comments.
— C.K., Feb. 1, 2024

The increasing size of passenger vehicles has been catastrophic for road safety, traffic congestion, climate viability, and household budgets. Compared to sedans, brawnier sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are far more likely to kill other road users, to clog urban streets and suburban roads, to guzzle fuel and emit particulates and carbon, and to keep their owners on a treadmill of car payments and pain at the pump.
Not only that, SUVs and pickups — collectively designated “light trucks” by regulators (“deregulators” is more apt) — may even engender more driving by owners seduced by their roominess, faux road-worthiness and illusion of indomitability. All 12 of the dozen models most preferred by gasoline “superusers” — drivers in the top decile of U.S. gasoline consumption — are SUVs or pickups, with the Chevy Silverado and Ford F150 topping the list.
As I wrote earlier this week, superusers manage the bizarre feat of averaging 40,000 miles a year* — a quantity of driving that consumes 13 percent of their owners’ waking hours — while burning 22 percent more fuel per mile than other U.S. drivers’ rides. Ivan Illich was right.
Just after Thanksgiving, The Guardian added its two cents with a story headlined, “Motor emissions could have fallen over 30 percent without SUV trends, report says.” Translated: Global CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles would have shrunk by nearly one-third if not for vehicle upsizing to SUVs and pickups.
Startling and damning, right? But it’s a vast overstatement: The true 2010-2022 “lost reduction” in passenger vehicles’ carbon emissions due to the growing share of big trucks worldwide was just 6 percent — five times less than the reported 30 percent.
Wait, am I cutting SUVs a break on their carbon spewing? Not at all. To deal effectively with climate we need to be clear about what’s destroying it.
The false 30-percent figure — which you’ll soon see wasn’t the fault of the Guardian — has begun worming its way into energy and climate discourse. This is unfortunate, since it serves to reinforce emphasis on the types of vehicles being made, sold and driven, when American motorists’ carbon profligacy is the inevitable result of our oversupply of pavement and our bias against full-cost pricing of driving.
Whence the error?
The Global Fuel Economy Initiative is a think tank funded by the European Commission, the Global Environment Facility, the UN Environment Programme and the FIA Foundation. Notwithstanding the fact that FIA is the “philanthropic arm” of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (aka Formula One auto racing), GFEI produces high-caliber analysis and research.
GFEI’s November 2023 report, “Trends in the Global Vehicle Fleet 2023: Managing the SUV Shift and the EV Transition,” meticulously examined passenger-vehicle fuel consumption over the 12-year period, 2010 to 2022, and found that average fuel use (and, hence, per-mile carbon emissions) dropped by an average rate of 1.5 percent per year.
If not for more and heavier SUVs, the average annual decrease in emissions, according to the report, would have been around 1.95 percent, a rate that is 30 percent greater than the actual decline rate.
A 1.5-percent annual decrease in fuel intake per mile calculates to a total 16.6-percent total drop during the period. (See math box at the bottom of this post for the arithmetic.) Had the annual decrease been 1.95 percent, its 12-year drop would have been 21.5 percent. The gap between those two drops means that bigger car size worsened fuel economy 6 percent more than if car size had remained the same.
The Guardian, before (left) and after I got out my calculator. There’s a difference, but it’s not sharp enough.
Accordingly, the headline in the story should have been, “Motor Emissions Could Have Fallen 6 Percent More Without SUVs, Report Says,” but that’s not exactly eyeball-grabbing. But don’t blame Guardian reporter Helena Horton. She wrote her story off of GFEI’s press release, which (incorrectly) trumpeted a lost 30-percent gain in fuel economy due to “the SUV trend.”
After being contacted by me, GFEI’s study director immediately acknowledged his comms team’s error and labored mightily to get The Guardian to run a full correction. As you can tell from the side-by-side story headlines above, he was only partly successful.
The image on the left shows the original Nov. 24 Guardian headline and lede, retrieved via the Web’s Wayback Machine. The image on the right shows the corrected headline and lede since Dec. 18. The alterations are subtle nearly to the point of invisibility. The new “30 percent more” is confusing (30 percent more than what?), and the subhead is unaltered and thus plain wrong to say that the fall in emissions “would have been far more” than it was, had vehicle sizes stayed the same. No, the fall in emissions would have been 6 percent more — not exactly “far more.”
Why it’s important to correct the error

The Guardian’s erroneous “30-percent-less” headline, though not its fault, has the makings of a honey trap. New York Times climate columnist David Wallace-Wells fell for it on Twitter, along with esteemed climate pundit David Roberts. The Colorado-based climate think tank RMI got ensnared as well, as did our own Kea Wilson at Streetsblog USA. (RMI and Streetsblog quickly corrected their flubs after I emailed.) Consider this post an antidote to future repetitions, or, at least, a means to correct them.
It’s also worth touching on the innumeracy required to imagine that auto upsizing — “car bloat” in the evocative phrase popularized by journalist David Zipper — as loathsome as it is, stood in the way of a 30-percent gain in world-average auto fuel economy. The typical difference between sedan and “light truck” mpg is only around 20 percent, so even a universal switchover from all sedans to all light trucks would have put only a 20-percent dent in fuel economy.
Of course, the actual carbon damage due to vehicle SUV-ification over the 12 years studied has been far less — just 6 percent as we saw above — on account of longer vehicle turnover times. This should have been readily apparent to The Guardian reporter as well as the journalists and advocates who repeated the error on social media or websites. Errant quantification is hardly journalism’s number one albatross — free-falling revenues and shrinking newsrooms are orders of magnitude more consequential — but it lurks under the surface.
With greater numeracy, it might be easier for journalists, advocates and policymakers to grasp that vehicle electrification and shrinkage alone aren’t going to cut auto emissions at the rate needed.
Driving too must shrink. Collectively, road pricing, congestion pricing, curb pricing, carbon pricing, better transit and livable streets are almost certainly at least as important for climate as improved miles per gallon.
Carbon Footprint
Lithium Prices Surge Amid Strong Demand Forecasts, Could Reach Up to $28,000/Ton by 2026
Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals Inc.
Lithium prices have jumped sharply overnight, catching the attention of investors, automakers, and battery makers. In China, lithium carbonate futures on the Guangzhou Futures Exchange hit about 95,200 yuan (≈$13,400 USD) per metric ton. This marks a rebound from earlier lows caused by oversupply.
Historically, lithium prices have been volatile. Peak prices reached around 150,000 yuan per ton in 2022, followed by a slump during the oversupply period in 2023–2024.
The recent spike followed comments from the chairman of Ganfeng Lithium, Li Liangbin, who projected a 30–40% rise in global demand by 2026. He suggested prices could reach between 150,000 and 200,000 yuan per ton if this growth materializes.
The surge highlights lithium’s critical role in powering electric vehicles (EVs) and large-scale energy storage.
Growing Demand for Lithium: What Drives the Boom?
Electric vehicles remain the largest driver of lithium demand. Around 16 million EVs were on the road globally in 2024, up from 10 million in 2022. Sales are forecast to exceed 25 million units by 2026 and reach over 50 million by 2030. Longer-range vehicles require larger batteries, which increases lithium use.
Energy storage systems are another fast-growing source of demand. Utilities expanding solar and wind energy need lithium-based batteries to store surplus electricity. Heavy-duty electric trucks and buses have larger batteries. This means they use more lithium per vehicle compared to passenger EVs.
Long-term trends toward decarbonization and renewable energy growth further support lithium demand. Analysts say that EV batteries make up about 70% of lithium demand. Grid storage accounts for 15%. Electric trucks use 10%, and other uses, like electronics and specialty chemicals, are around 5%.
Supply Challenges Keep Prices Elevated
Lithium carbonate prices in China have climbed dramatically, moving from $8,259/tonne on June 23, 2025, to $12,791/tonne on November 19, 2025 – a rise of about 55% over five months.
This recent rally is primarily attributed to tight supply conditions, with major Chinese mines, including those operated by CATL, pausing operations due to falling prices earlier in the year. As output was reduced or shut in, inventories were gradually drawn down, tightening available supply.

Moreover, lithium production is highly concentrated. Australia leads with around 60,000 tonnes LCE annually, followed by Chile (35,000 tonnes), China (25,000 tonnes), Argentina (18,000 tonnes), and the U.S. (≈5,000 tonnes). Geographic concentration adds risk: environmental regulations, political tensions, or operational issues could tighten supply.
Restarting idled mines or opening new projects takes 2–5 years. Inventories from the oversupply period act as a buffer. Current estimates show global lithium stocks at about 350,000 tonnes LCE. This amount can help with short-term supply issues, but it’s not enough for long-term growth.
- SEE live prices here: Live Lithium Prices Today
The factors that keep pushing lithium demand higher include:
- Electric vehicles,
- Energy storage systems,
- Electric trucks and buses, and
- Long-term climate trends.
Lithium makes up about 20–25% of total EV battery costs. So, price changes can greatly impact EV production costs. Also, battery chemistry trends show that sodium-ion and solid-state batteries might take a small share of the market by 2030. However, lithium-ion will remain the leader for now.
Lithium carbonate prices in China have climbed sharply, as shown in the chart. Prices rose more than 17% this month as investors bet on accelerating demand from the energy storage sector.
- MORE on LITHIUM:
What Analysts Say: Forecasts and Future Trends
Fastmarkets predicts a small surplus in 2025, shifting to a deficit of 1,500 tonnes LCE by 2026. A few years ago, the market had a surplus of about 175,000 tonnes in 2023 and 154,000 tonnes in 2024. Cuts in production at high-cost or marginal mines and rising demand from EVs and storage systems are driving this rebalancing.
Arcane Capital forecasts global demand could hit 4.6 million tonnes LCE by 2030, led by EVs, grid storage, and heavy-duty transport.
Benchmark Mineral Intelligence expects lithium carbonate prices to stay between $15,000 and $17,000 USD per ton in 2025, but prices may be lower in 2026 if supply increases faster than demand.
Still, the chart from Katusa Research highlights a growing deficit in lithium supply and demand. This supply deficit will likely underpin upward pressure on lithium prices moving toward 2030.

Production in Australia, China, and South America should grow by about 10% each year, per industry estimates. However, delays or cost overruns might slow this growth.
Risks to the Price Recovery
Lithium prices face several risks. EV adoption could slow if subsidies or incentives drop. Battery makers might adopt sodium-ion or other chemistries if costs rise. Rapid restarts of idled mines or new production could oversupply the market.
Regulatory hurdles, environmental restrictions, and trade tensions could also disrupt supply. Recent price spikes were partly due to speculative trading, highlighting the market’s sensitivity to sentiment.
Who Wins and Who Loses?
Higher lithium prices may hurt automakers and battery makers, pushing them to secure contracts or invest in recycling. Mining companies benefit from higher prices but must manage timelines and costs.
Meanwhile, investors have opportunities, though volatility is high. Policymakers consider lithium a strategic resource and are encouraging domestic production, recycling, and robust supply chains.
With global supply growth uncertain, focus is turning to projects that provide steady, long-term output. This is especially true in areas aiming to boost domestic supply chains, where Surge Battery Metals comes in.
Spotlight: Surge Battery Metals – US Lithium Hero
Surge Battery Metals (TSX-V: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF) is emerging as a key U.S. lithium developer. Its Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) hosts the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the United States, with an Inferred Resource of 11.24 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) grading 3,010 ppm lithium (NI 43-101, September 24, 2024).

A Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) on the project outlines robust economics, including:
- After-tax NPV₈%: US$9.21 billion
- After-tax IRR: 22.8%
- Low operating costs: US$5,243 per tonne LCE
NNLP benefits from access to regional infrastructure, including established roads and nearby power, supporting future development.
Surge’s leadership team includes veterans from Millennial Lithium, a company acquired for US$490 million in 2022. The company has also secured a staged C$10 million JV funding agreement with Evolution Mining to advance NNLP toward Pre-Feasibility while maintaining majority ownership.
How Nevada North Fits into the Global Picture
The Nevada North Lithium Project demonstrates the potential to become a globally significant lithium operation. According to comparative analysis from 3L Capital and S&P Global, NNLP’s Life-of-Mine (LOM) average production of 86 kt LCE per year—as outlined in the PEA—would rank the project as the 5th largest lithium-producing project in the world compared with 2024 producers and developers.

Even in its first year, NNLP is projected to produce 26 kt LCE, placing it among the top 16 lithium projects globally on a 2024 comparative basis. This combination of scale, grade, and location underscores NNLP’s potential as a strategic U.S. supply source in a market seeking domestic, high-quality lithium to reduce dependence on overseas imports.

If advanced through feasibility, permitting, and construction decisions, NNLP has the potential to become a competitive, American-based lithium operation—supporting both EV manufacturing and large-scale energy storage with “American-made” battery-grade feedstock.
Lithium Surges, Supply Matters, and America Prepares
Prices are shaped by several key factors. These include updates on production from major mines, trends in EV adoption, grid storage deployment, new battery technologies, and changes in policy. Inventory levels and market speculation will continue to influence short-term volatility.
Lithium prices have jumped, signaling a possible market turning point after past oversupply. High demand from EVs, grid storage, and heavy-duty transport, along with limited production and geographic concentration, is pushing prices up.
Industry stakeholders, investors, and policymakers have to monitor developments closely as lithium continues to play a central role in the global energy transition. Surge Battery Metals shows the type of domestic production needed to meet rising demand and strengthen supply chains in a rapidly evolving market.
DISCLAIMER
New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.
This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.
Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.
It is our policy that the information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.
These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.
Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.
There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.
Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: None.
Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.
Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.
The post Lithium Prices Surge Amid Strong Demand Forecasts, Could Reach Up to $28,000/Ton by 2026 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Canada’s Carbon Pricing Reset in 2026: Will Industry Step Up or Stall Climate Progress?
Canada is at a key moment in its fight against climate change. Carbon pricing has been the central tool used to cut emissions, but recent policy changes and differences across provinces have created uncertainty.
This article examines how Canada’s carbon pricing system works now. It covers expert concerns and what the key federal review in 2026 might mean for both industry and the country’s journey toward a lower-carbon future.
How Canada Prices Pollution
Canada uses carbon pricing to encourage companies and people to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Under that system, there are two main parts.
For ordinary people and small businesses, there used to be a “fuel charge” or carbon tax on fossil fuels. For large industrial emitters, there is a program called the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS).
Under the OBPS, factories or facilities that produce a lot of emissions get a limit based on how much they produce. If they emit more than their limit, they must pay; if they emit less, they earn credits that they can sell or use later.
This approach aims to reduce carbon pollution while trying to protect industries that compete globally. The goal is to cancel out the risk that companies might move to other countries with weaker climate rules.
From Gas Pumps to Smokestacks: A Major Policy Shift
In 2025, the federal government made important changes. It removed the “consumer-facing” carbon tax — the fuel charge — effective April 1, 2025. This means people pay no extra carbon tax when buying gasoline or heating fuel.

Instead, the focus shifted more clearly onto industrial carbon pricing. The government said it would review the carbon pricing “benchmark” in 2026. This review could change how industrial carbon pricing operates.
A recent analysis by ClearBlue Markets shows that Canada’s carbon pricing for industry is now fragmented. Fragmentation has caused uncertainty. This is a problem for companies that need stable cost signals before they invest in cleaner technology.
The ClearBlue report stated:
“The federal benchmark review will therefore trigger extensive engagement between the federal government and the provinces, aimed at aligning key benchmark elements such as coverage, pricing stringency, and competitiveness protections. Negotiations are likely to be complex and politically charged, particularly with provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, which have already taken strong positions. These types of unilateral decisions reflect ongoing tensions and highlight the difficulty of achieving a truly aligned national approach.”
Carbon pricing today: A patchwork across Canada
Because Canada is large and its provinces have different rules, carbon pricing for industry is not the same everywhere. ClearBlue Markets shows that credit prices—what companies pay or earn—vary a lot by province or system.
Here are specific examples:
In Alberta, the Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency has seen a big drop in credits under its Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Program (TIER). Despite a compliance price of CAD 95 per tonne, market credits trade at around CAD 18 per tonne. This shows a credit surplus and weak demand.
In British Columbia (B.C.), the new B.C. Output-Based Pricing System (B.C. OBPS) began to be applied recently. Credits are trading at about CAD 65 per tonne, a discount compared with the regulatory level of CAD 80.
In Ontario, the Emissions Performance Standards (EPS) system governs industrial emissions. Because the program does not allow offset credits, supply is tighter — units (EPUs) recently traded at around CAD 72 per tonne.
In areas where the federal OBPS still applies, like some territories and small provinces, cheap carbon offset credits from Alberta’s TIER have lowered prices. Now, they can be as low as about CAD 37.50 per tonne.

The true cost of carbon emissions differs greatly by industry and province. The federal government aims to raise the carbon price to CAD 170 per tonne by 2030 for direct pricing systems.
The 2026 Showdown: Can Canada Fix Its Carbon Market?
The upcoming review of the federal benchmark is seen as a turning point. It could lead to stronger, more aligned carbon pricing across all provinces. As ClearBlue Markets notes, the review may address issues such as:
- Align different provincial systems under a common design. This way, credits and compliance will act more alike.
- Improving transparency in reporting credit inventories, trades, and emission reductions.
- Possibly introducing a “floor price” — a minimum cost for carbon credits — to avoid extreme price drops like those seen in some programs.
- Setting a long-term carbon price path past 2030 helps industries plan investments more clearly. This is especially important for clean technologies.
All of these could make carbon pricing more predictable and effective. If the review doesn’t meet expectations, patchwork and uncertainty may persist. This could weaken the carbon price signal and confuse investment in clean technology.
This patchwork of provincial and federal carbon pricing programs has created a corresponding patchwork of compliance offset markets. The image below shows how these offset markets are distributed across Canada.

Global Pressure Is Rising: Europe Could Hit Canada with Carbon Tariffs
One major external risk comes from the global trade environment. Starting in 2026, the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will impact imports based on their carbon emissions.
For Canadian exporters, this raises a key question:
- Will EU authorities accept the compliance credits or offsets generated under Canada’s various carbon pricing systems as evidence of “carbon price paid”?
If not, Canadian exports might face extra tariffs. This could double the carbon cost or hurt competitiveness.
This makes it even more important for Canada to standardize and strengthen its carbon pricing framework before 2026. This is to ensure that its pricing and credits are recognized internationally. Otherwise, Canadian industries like steel, aluminum, and cement might find it hard to compete. This is especially true in markets with strict climate-related import rules.
Strengths and Challenges of Canada’s Carbon Pricing
Carbon pricing works to link environmental costs with economic decision-making. For large emitters, it encourages improved efficiency. Carbon pricing revenue, especially from the OBPS, can fund clean energy projects. It also supports carbon capture and investments in low-carbon infrastructure.
A recent evaluation by the government highlights that industrial carbon pricing helps reduce emissions with minimal impact on households.
But there are major challenges too. The system varies by province, so many industries might have low carbon costs. This means there is little motivation for real change.
A 2022 report from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) found that weak rules in provincial large-emitter programs lower the impact of carbon pricing. Also, the unclear use of carbon revenues and the long-term price outlook have made some firms hesitant to invest in cleaner technologies.
The Stakes: Canada’s Climate Credibility and Industrial Future
The 2026 benchmark review could reshape Canada’s carbon pricing for decades. Key signs to watch are:
- Whether the government sets a new, clear carbon price path beyond 2030 — possibly up to 2050, that would give firms confidence to invest in long-term clean solutions.
- Whether provincial carbon pricing systems become more harmonized. This means similar rules, credit prices, and transparency everywhere.
- Introducing a price floor or other methods can help prevent deeply discounted carbon credits. This ensures a strong carbon price signal.
- Will Canadian industrial credits and compliance be set up to gain recognition under global systems like CBAM? This could help keep Canadian exports competitive.
Canada’s carbon pricing, especially for industry, is at a crossroads. The removal of the consumer carbon tax in 2025 reflects a shift toward focusing on industrial emissions. Meanwhile, the upcoming 2026 benchmark review offers a chance to make this system stronger, fairer, and more predictable.
However, much depends on political and regulatory will. Without clear pricing, rules, and long-term certainty, the carbon price might be too weak. This puts Canada’s climate goals and global competitiveness at risk. But if the government and provinces act quickly, carbon pricing can help Canada shift to a low-carbon economy while also keeping industries competitive.
The post Canada’s Carbon Pricing Reset in 2026: Will Industry Step Up or Stall Climate Progress? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Walmart (WMT) Expands EV Charging and Boosts Renewable Energy in Its Net-Zero Playbook
Walmart (NYSE: WMT) is stepping up its clean energy and emissions game across the United States. Shoppers want to save money and live more sustainable lives, and Walmart sees a big role for itself in that shift. With a store or club within 10 miles of nearly 90% of Americans, the retailer believes it is perfectly placed to support the country’s move to cleaner transportation.
From expanding EV charging access to using more renewable power and electrifying its delivery fleet, Walmart is building a lower-carbon future that also brings long-term savings and stronger resilience.
Charging Up America: Walmart’s Big EV Push
Walmart wants to make owning an electric car easier for millions of people. The company plans to build its own fast-charging network across thousands of Walmart and Sam’s Club locations by 2030. This will add to the nearly 1,300 chargers already running at more than 280 stores today.
The goal is simple: remove the fear of not finding a safe and reliable place to charge. Walmart’s well-lit parking lots offer an easy place to plug in while customers shop, grab groceries, or pick up essentials. And in true Walmart style, the company aims to offer low-cost charging to help families save on transportation—the second-largest expense for most households.

Greener Deliveries and Next-Gen Fleet
Transportation is one of Walmart’s toughest emissions issues. In 2024, the company’s fleet made up 24.9% of Scope 1 emissions and 14.4% of total operational emissions. As Walmart brings more logistics in-house and grows its business, fleet emissions may rise in the short term.
Yet Walmart is preparing for a cleaner future. It’s partnering with GM, Ford, and Canoo to electrify delivery vehicles. Many Walmart+ deliveries already use electric vans.
- They are also testing heavy-duty battery trucks, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and renewable diesel.
- Walmart is rolling out liquid hydrogen-powered forklifts and recently opened Latin America’s first industrial-scale renewable hydrogen plant in Chile.
- Electric yard trucks are already delivering major gains—cutting emissions by more than 75% per hour compared to diesel models.
These tests matter. They help shape the future of Walmart’s fleet, especially as long-haul truck solutions may not mature until the 2030s.
As more drivers go electric, the re network will add much-needed charging options nationwide. Even rural areas, which often lack EV infrastructure, will benefit. Walmart sees this as a smart business move and a natural extension of its mission to help customers live better and more sustainably.
Smart Stores with Clean Energy
Walmart’s clean energy plan centers on four ideas: access, cost, resilience, and emissions cuts. Because its stores rely more than ever on electricity and digital systems, stable power is essential. So Walmart is investing in new technology to identify power risks, upgrade monitoring tools, and strengthen connections to the grid.
Real-time energy monitoring across thousands of facilities helps Walmart track usage and operate more efficiently. These insights will matter even more as automation grows across the company’s operations.
Walmart is also adding more on-site power. Solar panels, wind systems, and battery storage help stores stay open during outages and lower long-term energy bills. Between 2024 and 2030, it aims to support up to 10 gigawatts of new clean energy capacity.
The company is already making progress. In 2024, renewable energy met 48.5% of Walmart’s global electricity needs. This brings the retailer close to its goal of 50% renewable power by 2025 and puts it on track for 100% by 2035. By the end of 2024, its U.S. operations had 166 MW of onsite solar across 325 facilities and 10 MW of energy storage at 44 locations.

Achieving Net-Zero Emissions
Walmart is working toward zero emissions across its global operations (Scope 1 and 2) by 2040. These emissions come from transport fuels, refrigeration, heating, and electricity use.
The company has reduced its emissions intensity by 47.4% since 2015, but annual emissions can still vary. In 2024, Walmart’s Scope 1 and 2 emissions rose by 1.1%. Growth in U.S. transportation and lower renewable energy output in Mexico and Central America—due to extreme heat and drought—played a big role.
Still, global operational emissions remain 18.1% lower than the 2015 baseline. But progress won’t always be smooth. Policies, infrastructure limits, equipment shortages, and slow advances in low-carbon trucking technology create challenges. Walmart has noted that meeting its 2025 and 2030 targets may take more time.
Even so, Walmart keeps improving. New buildings and remodels use efficient lighting, HVAC systems, and refrigeration. The company is replacing older equipment with high-efficiency models and testing refrigeration and HVAC systems with lower global warming impact. These upgrades support both sustainability and cost savings.

Walmart (WMT) Q3 FY2025 Highlights
Walmart Inc. posted Q3 FY2025 revenue of $179.5 billion, up 5.8% from last year and beating estimates by 1.1%. Same-store sales rose 4.5%, fueled by strong e-commerce and retail growth, with adjusted EPS at $0.62—above expectations. The company raised its full-year sales outlook amid steady demand and efficiency gains.
Additionally, WMT stock hit near-record highs but with a “Moderate Buy” rating from analysts, targeting 6-9% upside. Growth drivers include e-commerce, consumer resilience, and clean energy bets like EV fleets and chargers.
The goals are bold: zero operational emissions by 2040 and 100% renewable power by 2035. Yet Walmart’s scale, resources, and willingness to innovate give it a powerful role in America’s clean energy transition. And ultimately, these steps help customers live better, save more, and make sustainable choices that fit their everyday lives.
- FURTHER READING: Why Walmart Stock (WMT) Is at the Forefront of ESG Investing: Sustainability and Emissions Achievements in 2025
The post Walmart (WMT) Expands EV Charging and Boosts Renewable Energy in Its Net-Zero Playbook appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Climate Change4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
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”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale



