Note: This post distills and extends ideas from our Nov. 1 post, The Carbon-Tax Nimby Cure.
From the East Coast to Idaho’s high desert, big green-energy investments are foundering.
Composite of (top) first U.S. SMR complex (NuScale facility, artist’s depiction) and (below) offshore wind farm (Orsted’s UK Hornsea facility). Neither was in line for more than token revenues tied to displaced carbon emissions. Both have been cancelled.
Just in the past week, Danish wind giant Orsted scuttled the 2,248-megawatt Ocean Wind farm it was developing off New Jersey’s Atlantic coast, while NuScale scrapped its planned 462-MW complex of six 77-MW small modular reactors (SMRs) near Idaho Falls.
Both ventures were viewed as door-openers to new large-scale U.S. carbon-free green power. They would have contributed mightily to decarbonizing their respective grids, taking the place of fossil fuel electricity now spewing nearly 4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.
Their demise, along with dimming prospects for Equinor’s 2,076-MW Empire Wind farm off Long Island, NY, suggest that the U.S. is moving away from, not toward, the vaunted crossover point at which big green-energy investments will come seamlessly to fruition fast and hard enough to rapidly decarbonize our grids.
The 1983 title denoted “hard energy” facilities like giant power stations and LNG terminals. Nowadays it also seems apt for big green-energy projects.
The causes are no mystery: supply bottlenecks, spiraling materials costs, 40-year-high interest rates, Nimby obstruction. Not all of these will necessarily persist, but right now the combination looks daunting. Big energy projects, once derided as “brittle” by energy guru Amory Lovins, are rife for negative synergies. Nimbys have little trouble stretching project schedules and imposing punishing interest costs, particularly on big wind farms, a phenomenon we wrote about a week ago in The Carbon-Tax Nimby Cure.
Alas, Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is not a panacea. IRA incentives are targeted primarily at EV’s, rooftop solar, heat pumps, batteries and factories. They are not going to refloat stalled clean power projects. That push will have to come from somewhere else.
What a Robust Carbon Price Could Do for Green Energy
A robust carbon price could provide much of that push. Not a token price like RGGI’s $15, which is the per-metric-ton value of the 4Q 2023 permit price in the northeast US Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative electricity generation cap-and-trade program; but $50 or more, preferably $100.
Of late I’ve been calculating how much profit a robust carbon price could inject into clean-energy bottom lines. The numbers are so astounding that I checked and rechecked them. Here’s one: A $100/ton carbon price in NY would allow Empire Wind to charge an additional $200 million or more each year for its output. How? Because the tax would raise the “bid price” for natural gas-generated electricity, the dominant power source and thus the price-setter on the downstate grid by so much — $30 to $35 per MWh, I estimate — that Empire Wind’s 7.25 million MWh’s a year could extract an additional $240 million in its power purchase agreement with the NY grid operator.
Lots to see here. The dollar figures, including the $/MWh bottom lines, are derived off-screen. Added revenues will be less if gas generators lower their grid prices somewhat, but will be more if the methane fee enacted as part of the 2022 IRA comes into play.
Same goes for NuScale. I estimate that its Idaho SMRs could command an additional $100 million a year (less than for Empire Wind because the project is smaller). This additional value equates to $29 per MWh. With that project’s cancellation being chalked up to a $31/MWh climb in costs since 2021 to $89 per MWh, as per a report by the anti-nuclear Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, that additional value is is no small thing.
These added payments are not “subsidies” to the clean-energy providers. They arise by slashing ongoing subsidies now enjoyed by fossil fuel providers and processors — in this case the methane-gas extractors and the electricity generators that burn the fuel — through carbon pricing. The added payments will come about as the carbon price forces the gas generators to raise their sale price to the grid (to recoup their higher price to purchase the gas), which then creates room for Empire (or NuScale) to raise *its* prices.
Every cent of the carbon tax revenues will remain fully available for public purposes, whether to support low-income ratepayers, or invest in more clean energy or community remediation, or, our preference at CTC, as “dividend” checks to households. None of it needs to be earmarked to Empire or NuScale for them or other clean-power generators to rebuild their profit margins.
Adios, Nimbys?
The Not In My Back Yard crowd wasn’t an apparent factor in NuScale’s downfall. (“Regulatory creep” was, but that’s a story for another time, not to mention one I dissected 40 years ago in the peer-reviewed journal Nuclear Safety.) But they certainly were for Ocean Wind in NJ and will be in NY if Empire Wind goes down the drain.
But here’s the thing: Not only would the added revenue allowed by the carbon price help return Empire Wind to the black. It would give Equinor, the developer, the wherewithal to spread so much largesse among the residents of Long Beach, LI (my hometown!) that they could subdue the Nimbys who have been able to hold up permitting by spreading scare stories about the routing of the project’s power cables underground. Nimby-ism solved, not by suasion (a fool’s errand) but by motivating the masses in the middle who evidently require more tangible inducements than saving the climate (or their beaches or homes).
The Full Picture
Ocean Wind, Empire Wind and NuScale are just several examples of carbon-free projects that could again pencil out beautifully with robust carbon pricing. The question remains, how do we get there?
The point of this new analysis isn’t so much to tie clean energy to carbon pricing, but to enlist the political power and prestige of clean-energy entrepreneurs and developers on the side of carbon-tax advocacy.
As we noted in our previous (Nov. 1) post, during headier carbon-pricing times (2007 to 2011) the Carbon Tax Center attempted, alongside allies like Friends of the Earth, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Citizens Climate Lobby, to induce the American Wind Energy Association, the Solar Energy Industry Association and other green-tech trade groups to join us in advocating carbon taxing. We put out similar feelers to the Nuclear Energy Institute and the American Nuclear Energy Council. The U.S. nuke lobby should have been an absolute no-brainer, insofar as keeping extant reactors solvent could have been aided mightily by carbon taxes that monetized the climate value of nuclear power plants’ combustion-free electricity production.
2010 redux: Equation at left signifying “Renewable Energy cheaper than Fossil Fuels” was a cleantech meme. Button on right, created by then-CTC senior policy analyst James Handley, was less prevalent. Time to meld the two?
No dice. We weren’t granted even one conversation with the nuclear folks. The wind and solar people, for their part, insisted that unending cost reductions through increased scale and efficiency, along with green power’s inherent magical appeal, would, they insisted, propel them past any obstacle. Why besmirch our Randian aura, they seemed to say, with energy taxes when our tech is going to usher in energy abundance that spares earth’s climate?
Things look different now. Big, carbon-free power ventures — the ones that everyone from governors and ambassadors to scientists and schoolkids are counting on to get us off fossil fuels — are beset by troubles: financial, logistical, cultural.
Without genuine carbon pricing that accords clean energy the economic rewards to which it’s entitled, large-scale green energy is guaranteed to come up short. As we asked in that earlier post: Will clean-power developers look at this week’s NJ and Idaho losses, among others, and decide that they need a carbon tax every bit as much as the climate does?
Google, Meta, and McKinsey & Company have made a major move in corporate climate action. They signed a long-term deal to remove carbon from the air in Appalachia. The project is run by Living Carbon and focuses on restoring forests on degraded lands. Under this deal, the companies will remove 131,240 tonnes of CO₂ over the next ten years.
A New Deal for Climate
The effort targets a much larger problem. Across the United States, about 1.6 million acres of abandoned mine land remain damaged by past mining. These lands often have poor soil, erosion, toxic metals, and invasive species that block natural regrowth.
In addition, around 30 million acres of degraded agricultural land could be restored through reforestation. Appalachia is one of the hardest-hit regions due to decades of coal mining.
The deal is backed by the Symbiosis Coalition, a group of buyers that funds high-quality carbon removal projects. The coalition is an advance market commitment (AMC) launched in 2024 by Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Salesforce.
The group has pledged to contract up to 20 million tonnes of carbon removal credits by 2030. This commitment aims to create strong market demand and support the growth of high-impact, science-based restoration projects that can help advance global climate goals.
The agreements they have give developers a steady demand. They also help unlock financing and allow projects to scale.
Symbiosis selected the Appalachian project after a strict review process. It looked at data, field conditions, and long-term risks. The group follows key standards such as durability, transparency, ecological integrity, and community impact. This helps ensure that every credit represents real and measurable carbon removal.
Julia Strong, Executive Director of the Symbiosis Coalition, remarked:
“Our support of Living Carbon reflects our belief that effective nature-based carbon removal requires both strong science and solid execution. Their project stands out for its rigor and for its thoughtful and scalable approach shaped around the needs of local communities, ecosystems, and economies in Appalachia.”
Why Appalachia Matters: From Coal Hubs to Carbon Heroes
The Appalachia region, in the eastern United States, was once a center of coal mining. Today, many of these lands remain unused and degraded. Living Carbon is working to restore them by planting native hardwood and pine trees on former mine sites and damaged farmland.
The project uses a mix of careful site preparation, invasive species control, and strategic planting. This helps trees grow in areas where nature cannot easily recover on its own. The goal is not just to plant trees, but to rebuild entire ecosystems and support long-term carbon storage.
The benefits go beyond carbon removal. Restoring forests improves soil health, water quality, and biodiversity. Native trees help rebuild habitats for local plants and wildlife. These changes can also reduce erosion and improve land stability over time.
The project also creates real economic value. Landowners earn lease payments from land that was once unproductive. Local workers are hired for planting and land restoration.
-
In some cases, old mining equipment is reused to support ecological recovery. This helps turn former industrial sites into productive carbon sinks.
Community engagement is a key part of the project. Living Carbon works closely with landowners, local groups, and government agencies. This helps build long-term support and ensures the project fits local needs. Strong local partnerships also improve the chances that the forests will be maintained over time.
The project stands out for its strong science and clear execution plan. It uses careful monitoring and conservative estimates to ensure carbon removal is real. It also applies new methods for tracking results, including advanced baselines and lifecycle analysis.
This type of approach shows that high-quality nature-based carbon removal can deliver more than climate impact. It can restore ecosystems, support local economies, and scale across similar regions. In places like Appalachia, it offers a way to turn damaged land into a long-term climate solution.
Big Business Bets on Carbon Credits
More corporations are now buying carbon removal credits to meet climate goals. For example, Microsoft bought 45 million tonnes of carbon removal in fiscal year 2025. This is nearly double the amount from 2024 and nine times what they bought in 2023.
These purchases are part of a broader climate strategy. Companies are combining emissions reductions with long-term removal commitments. Durable carbon removal credits, which permanently store CO₂, are becoming more important. Businesses feel pressure to deal with emissions that they cannot completely eliminate.
A major supporter of these deals is Frontier, launched in 2022 by Stripe, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Meta, Shopify, and McKinsey Sustainability. Frontier wants to boost early demand and funding for promising carbon removal technologies.
The company does this through long-term purchase agreements. Its initial goal was $1 billion in purchases by 2030, sending a strong signal to the market about future demand.
By 2025, Frontier signed contracts for various technologies. These include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), and enhanced weathering. Several contracts are worth tens of millions of dollars. These agreements help developers survive the early “valley of death,” when financing is hardest to secure.
Market Trends: From Niche to Necessity
The carbon removal market is still small compared with global climate goals, but it is evolving quickly. Industry forecasts say that demand for durable carbon removal credits might hit 100 million tonnes of CO₂ each year by 2030.
This growth is fueled by corporate commitments and government purchases. This is roughly double the supply currently announced, showing a large gap between demand and delivery.
Globally, carbon removal is still a tiny fraction of what is needed. Scientific assessments show that to meet the Paris Agreement, carbon removal needs to increase. By 2050, it should reach 7–9 billion tonnes of CO₂ each year. This is about 4,000 times more than what we do now.
Market projections show strong growth in the next decade. A report by Oliver Wyman and the UK Carbon Markets Forum estimates that the global carbon removal market could grow from $2.7 billion in 2023 to $100 billion per year by 2030–2035, provided policies and standards evolve to support it.
Local and Global Wins
The Appalachia project highlights how carbon removal can benefit both the climate and communities. Restoring degraded lands improves water filtration, soil health, and wildlife habitats. Communities also gain jobs and income through forest management.
Nature-based projects, including reforestation and forest management, currently dominate removal activity. However, they do not offer the same permanence as engineered removals like BECCS or DAC, which store carbon for centuries or longer. Still, both approaches are necessary to scale the carbon removal market.
From Milestones to Market Momentum
The Google, Meta, and McKinsey deal is a milestone for corporate climate action. Long-term agreements help projects secure funding and expand. They also send strong signals to developers and investors. These deals can shift the market from short-term offsets to long-term, permanent carbon removal solutions.
The industry must grow significantly to meet global climate targets. Expanding beyond early adopter companies is essential. Continued policy support, strong standards, and wider sector participation will help scale removals.
In the next decade, how fast carbon removal technologies grow and the amount of credits produced will be key to achieving net-zero goals. Deals like the Appalachia reforestation project are early steps in building a foundational, long-term carbon removal industry.
The post Google, Meta and McKinsey Lead Carbon Removal Boom and Turn Appalachia Green appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The sustainability landscape is increasingly complex. More and more carbon-capture solutions are entering the market, and innovation is a constant thread running through the carbon market. With more possibilities, buyers are faced with more considerations than simply offsetting carbon. In this sphere, two main directions are taking shape—nature-centred or tech-focused.
Nasdaq has backed one of the first carbon removal credit deals licensed under European Union rules. The project is based in Stockholm and is designed to generate high-quality carbon removal credits under a formal EU framework.
This marks a key shift. For years, carbon markets have relied on voluntary standards with mixed credibility. Now, the European Union has developed a regulated system to define what counts as a valid carbon removal. This move aims to build trust and attract large investors into a market that is still in its early stages.
The deal shows growing interest from major companies. It also reflects rising demand for reliable ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Inside the Stockholm Carbon Removal Project
The removal project is run by Stockholm Exergi. It uses a process called BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. This method burns biomass, such as wood waste and agricultural residues, to produce heat and electricity. At the same time, it captures the carbon dioxide released and stores it underground.
The captured CO₂ will be transported and stored deep beneath the North Sea in rock formations. Over time, it will turn into solid minerals. This makes the carbon removal long-lasting and more secure than many nature-based solutions.
The facility is expected to start operating in 2028. Once active, it will generate carbon removal credits that companies can buy to balance their remaining emissions.
Beccs Stockholm is one of the world’s largest carbon removal projects. In its first ten years, the project could remove about 7.83 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. This makes it a key tool for helping the European Union reach climate neutrality by 2050.
The project also aims to scale carbon removal by building a full CCS value chain in Northern Europe and supporting a growing market for negative emissions credits.
This project is important because it is one of the first to follow the EU’s new carbon removal certification rules. These rules define how carbon removal should be measured, verified, and reported. They also aim to reduce risks like double-counting and weak accounting.
EU Certification: Building Trust in a Fragile Market
The European Commission has introduced a framework, also called Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation, to certify carbon removal activities. This includes technologies like BECCS, direct air capture with carbon storage, and biochar.
The goal is to create a trusted system that investors and companies can rely on. It also established the first EU-wide certification framework for carbon farming and carbon storage in products, not just removals.
Until now, the voluntary carbon market (VCM) has faced criticism. Concerns about transparency and “greenwashing” have made some companies cautious. Many buyers want stronger proof that credits represent real and permanent carbon removal.
The EU framework tries to solve this problem. It sets clear rules for:
- Measuring how much carbon is removed.
- Verifying results through independent checks.
- Ensuring long-term storage of CO₂.
This structure may help standardize the market. It could also make carbon removal credits easier to compare and trade across borders. The Commission states that the goal of having the framework is:
“to build trust in carbon removals and carbon farming while creating a competitive, sustainable, and circular economy.”
Corporate Demand Is Growing—but Still Limited
Large companies are starting to invest in carbon removal. However, the market remains small compared to what is needed.
One major buyer is Microsoft. It currently holds about 35% of all global carbon removal credits, making it a dominant player in the market. In fact, it is responsible for 92% of purchased removal credits in the first half of 2025.
Other companies, including Adyen, a Dutch payments provider, have also joined the Stockholm project. These early buyers aim to secure a future supply of high-quality carbon credits as demand grows.
Ella Douglas, Adyen’s global sustainability lead, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal:
“This project does exactly that [“catalytic impact” to the VMC] while also building key market infrastructure in collaboration with the European Commission.”
Still, many firms remain cautious. Carbon removal technologies are often expensive and not yet proven at a large scale. Some companies also worry about reputational risks if projects fail to deliver real climate benefits.
This creates a gap. Demand is rising, but the supply of trusted credits is still limited.
- SEE event: Carbon Removal Investment Summit 2026
A Market Set for Rapid Growth
Despite these challenges, the long-term outlook for carbon removal is strong. Estimates suggest the market could reach $250 billion by mid-century, according to MSCI Carbon Markets.
Several factors drive this growth:
- First, global climate targets require large-scale carbon removal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the world may need to remove around 10 billion metric tons of CO₂ per year by 2050 to limit warming.
- Second, many companies have set net-zero goals. These targets often include removing emissions that cannot be avoided, especially in sectors like aviation, shipping, and heavy industry.
- Third, new regulations are pushing companies to disclose and manage emissions more clearly. This increases demand for credible carbon solutions.
However, the current supply falls far short of what is needed. Only a small share of the required carbon removal credits has been developed or sold so far.
Balancing Removal and Emissions Cuts
While carbon removal is gaining attention, experts stress that it cannot replace emissions reductions. Removing carbon from the atmosphere is often more expensive and complex than avoiding emissions in the first place.
Groups like the European Environmental Bureau warn that over-reliance on credits could delay real climate action. They argue that companies should set separate targets for reducing emissions and for removing carbon.
The EU framework reflects this concern. It treats carbon removal as a tool for addressing residual emissions, not as a substitute for cutting pollution at the source. This distinction is important. It helps ensure that carbon markets support, rather than weaken, overall climate goals.
From Concept to Market Infrastructure
The Stockholm project marks a turning point for carbon removal. It shows how rules, strong verification, and corporate backing can bring structure to a fragmented market.
With support from players like Nasdaq, carbon removal is moving closer to becoming a mainstream financial asset. At the same time, the European Union’s certification system is setting the foundation for a more credible and scalable market.
The path ahead remains complex. Technologies must scale. Costs must fall. Trust must grow. But the direction is clear.
Carbon removal is no longer a niche idea. It is becoming a key part of the global climate economy, with the potential to shape investment flows for decades to come.
The post Nasdaq Invests in First EU-Certified Carbon Removal Credits from Stockholm Exergi appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 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
-
Renewable Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits