Externality pricing is coming to New York City in a big, barrier-busting form known as congestion pricing. And judging from how it’s unfolding, it might just be bold enough to return U.S. carbon pricing to public consideration.
Another big milestone in the long journey was reached this week when New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority unveiled its prospective tolls to drive a car or truck into Manhattan’s central business district. Barring a last-minute reversal, the Western hemisphere’s first congestion pricing program, and the world’s biggest by far in terms of revenue, will begin in six months, in June 2024.
NY Gov. Kathy Hochul (top) and CTC director Charles Komanoff (below) speaking at Dec. 5 Union Square rally celebrating the march toward congestion pricing in NYC.
The plan took half-a-century to legislate and another four-and-a-half years to flesh out, culminating, for now, in its formal approval by the MTA board on Wednesday. Autos will pay $15 to drive into Manhattan south of 60th Street between 5am-9pm weekdays and 9am-9pm weekends and holidays. Night-time tolls will be 75 percent lower, at $3.75. Trucks will pay more than cars, and for-hire vehicle trips that touch any part of the 8-square-mile congestion zone will be surcharged $1.25 (for yellow cabs) and $2.50 (for “ride-hail” vehicles, largely Ubers). Peak-period car trips to the zone via tunnels under the Hudson and East Rivers, which already pay double-digit round-trip tolls, will get $5 off, but other exemptions or discounts will be few except for qualifying low-income residents of the zone and commuters to it. (Many details here, by the author; and here, by the MTA’s toll-setting panel.)
The 2019 state legislation authorizing the tolls requires that they generate $1 billion a year net of administrative costs — a revenue stream sufficient to bond $15 billion in transit investments. Eighty percent of that, $12 billion, is earmarked for subway improvements such as station elevators to increase accessibility and fully digital signals to boost train frequencies; the other $3 billion will be invested in expanding commuter rail service between the suburbs and Manhattan.
[Click here to watch/hear Gov. Hochul’s remarks depicted above. Click here for Komanoff’s.]
Revenue Most Visible
The billion-dollar a year take from New York congestion pricing puts it in the same league as the Northeast states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which currently reaps $1.2 billion a year from sales of carbon emission permits for burning fossil fuels to make electricity. Yet “RGGI” is largely invisible to the public. So too are California’s economy-wide carbon cap-and-trade program, which started in 2013, and British Columbia’s 2008 carbon tax as well as subsequent cap-and-trade schemes elsewhere in Canada, .
Those other mechanisms rest on what former CTC staffer James Handley habitually derided as “hide the price” subterfuges. Congestion pricing, in contrast, hides nothing. Motorists know full well what they’ll soon pay to drive into the nation’s most gridlocked (and transit-rich) district. True, the surcharges on for-vehicle trips can be tricky to track — they add to rather than replace incumbent FHV surcharges of $2.50 and $2.75 for “taxi zone” trips in yellows and ride-hails, respectively. But congestion pricing’s main event is the fees for private car trips.
And “main event” is putting it mildly. Though the $15 peak car toll is many times less than the socially optimal toll (per Paul Krugman, whose July encomium to congestion program relied indirectly on my traffic-cost modeling) or the congestion costs imposed by a single car trip, which is nearly the same thing, it’s still a gut-punch for diehard drivers. Not only that, imposing a hefty price on car travel to capture externality costs rather than merely to pay for infrastructure provision is, let us say, deliciously transgressive in the USA. Kind of like taxing carbon emissions.
The point being: successfully implementing congestion pricing in New York — not simply putting it in place but having it deliver tangible benefits like more-reliable travel, more-livable streets and re-invigorated public transportation — conceivably could burnish carbon pricing not just in New York but nationwide.
Enacting Carbon Taxes Remains Devilishly Difficult
As if getting New York congestion pricing within inches of the goal line hasn’t been hard enough, enacting a national, i.e., federal carbon tax worthy of the name — one that hits triple digits within a half-dozen years or less — will be devilishly more difficult. Consider these differences between New York congestion pricing and national carbon taxing:
-
- The economic incidence of NY congestion pricing is far more income-progressive than national carbon pricing. A bulwark of CP advocacy here has been unstinting support from the Community Service Society — the city’s and nation’s oldest antipoverty NGO. It’s hard to picture comparable support for nationwide carbon pricing. Not even “dividending” carbon revenues, which CTC strongly supports, ensure guarantee that millions of U.S. households won’t pay more in higher fuel costs than they’ll get back in monthly carbon dividends. Inevitably and unfortunately, some will slip through the dividend’s safety net.
- NY congestion pricing comes with a natural route for managing the congestion revenues: investing them in long-term mass transit improvements. It was this facet, even more than the promise of lessened auto traffic, that brought the city’s rich tapestry of transit advocates into the fore of the congestion pricing campaign. Even motorists — some of them, anyway — grasp improved transit’s value to them as a means of dissuading others to invade “their” road space. National carbon pricing has no such obvious path for distributing or investing its revenues. Sure, spending carbon revenues on renewables and efficiency, particularly in historically disadvantaged communities, has a nice ring, but in practice there’s no clear carbon revenue spending path that won’t disaffect vast numbers of stakeholders. Now factor in the orders-of-magnitude difference in annual dollars — a billion or so in the case of NY congestion pricing vs. half-a-trillion for a comprehensive triple-digit U.S. carbon tax. Talk about a donnybrook gap!
- America’s geographic vastness and cultural separateness make it nearly impossible for citizens to consistently find common ground, as evidenced by our red-vs.-blue and urban-vs.-rural polarization. Even as New York City’s sense of conjoined fate has frayed somewhat, many residents still manage to cultivate a sense of connectedness to each other. Nationally, that ship has sailed. Woody Guthrie wrote “This Land Is Your Land” over 80 years ago. Fond hopes from the 1990s or early 2000s that combating climate change might re-invigorate Americans’ shared humanity seem almost as distant.
Antidotes
To these three difficulties we have three antidotes.
The first is carbon dividends. Even if they can’t keep whole every single low-income U.S. household — there are, after all, 65 million below-median-income families — the vast majority of those households will reap more in dividends than they’ll pay with the carbon tax. Not just that, the dividend approach completely bypasses the political fights over where and how to invest the revenues.
The second is the exigency of the climate crisis itself. Unlike NYC traffic congestion or failing transit, which public policies like congestion pricing can vanquish going forwad, at least to some extent, climate collapse can’t be reversed. This ineluctable fact could, or should, motivate climate advocates to re-evaluate their largely ideological objections to robust carbon pricing (which we discuss in terms of climate justice campaigners and self-identified progressives). Given that people of color, whether in the U.S. or the Global South, are disproportionately vulnerable to climate chaos, should make carbon-pricing opponents reconsider their antipathy to the most efficacious policy for slashing emissions.
The third, as always is organizing. Carbon-taxing proponents need to keep up the pressure. We also need to expand our tent, as we wrote about last month in Gainsharing: Carbon Taxes Can Put Clean Energy Back in the Black. We’ll have more to say on that score soon.
Carbon Footprint
Philippines Taps Blue Carbon and Biodiversity Credits to Protect Coasts and Climate
The Philippines is stepping up efforts to protect its coastal ecosystems. The government recently advanced its National Blue Carbon Action Partnership (NBCAP) Roadmap. This plan aims to conserve and restore mangroves, seagrass beds, and tidal marshes. It also explores biodiversity credits — a new market linked to nature conservation.
Blue carbon refers to the carbon stored in coastal and marine ecosystems. These habitats can hold large amounts of carbon in plants and soil. Mangroves, for example, store carbon at much higher rates than many land forests. Protecting them reduces greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Biodiversity credits are a related concept. They reward actions that protect or restore species and ecosystems. They work alongside carbon credits but focus more on ecosystem health and species diversity. Markets for biodiversity credits are being discussed globally as a complement to carbon markets.
Why the Philippines Is Targeting Blue Carbon
The Philippines is rich in coastal ecosystems. It has more than 327,000 hectares of mangroves along its shores. These areas protect coastlines from storms, support fisheries, and store carbon.
Mangroves and seagrasses also support high levels of biodiversity. Many fish, birds, and marine species depend on these habitats. Restoring these ecosystems helps conserve species and supports local food systems.
The NBCAP Roadmap was handed over to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) during the Philippine Mangrove Conference 2026. The roadmap is a strategy to protect blue carbon ecosystems while linking them to climate goals and local livelihoods.
DENR Undersecretary, Atty. Analiza Rebuelta-Teh, remarked during the turnover:
“This Roadmap reflects the Philippines’ strong commitment to advancing blue carbon accounting and delivering tangible impact for coastal communities.”
Edwina Garchitorena, country director of ZSL Philippines, which will oversee its implementation, also commented:
“The handover of the NBCAP Roadmap to the DENR represents a turning point in advancing blue carbon action and strengthening the Philippines’ leadership in coastal conservation in the region.”
The plan highlights four main pillars:
- Science, technology, and innovation.
- Policy and governance.
- Communication and community engagement.
- Finance and sustainable livelihoods.
These pillars aim to strengthen coastal resilience, support community well‑being, and align blue carbon action with national climate commitments.
What Blue Carbon Credits Could Mean for Markets
Globally, blue carbon markets are growing. These markets allow coastal restoration projects to sell carbon credits. Projects that preserve or restore mangroves, seagrass meadows, and tidal marshes can generate credits. Buyers pay for these credits to offset emissions.
According to Grand View Research, the global blue carbon market was valued at US$2.42 million in 2025. It is projected to reach US$14.79 million by 2033, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of almost 25%.
The Asia Pacific region led the market in 2025, with 39% of global revenue, due to its extensive coastal ecosystems and government support. Within the market, mangroves accounted for 68% of revenue, reflecting their high carbon storage capacity.
Blue carbon credits belong to the voluntary carbon market. Companies purchase these credits to offset emissions they can’t eliminate right now. Buyers are often motivated by sustainability goals and environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) standards.
Experts at the UN Environment Programme say these blue habitats can capture carbon 4x faster than forests:
Why Biodiversity Credits Matter: Rewarding Species, Strengthening Ecosystems
Carbon credits aim to cut greenhouse gases. In contrast, biodiversity credits focus on saving species and habitats. These credits reward projects that improve ecosystem health and may be used alongside carbon markets to attract finance for nature.
Biodiversity credits are particularly relevant in the Philippines, one of 17 megadiverse countries. The nation is home to thousands of unique plant and animal species. Supporting biodiversity through market mechanisms can strengthen conservation efforts while also supporting local communities.
Globally, biodiversity credit markets are still developing. Organizations such as the Biodiversity Credit Alliance are creating standards to ensure transparency, equity, and measurable outcomes. They want to link private investment to good environmental outcomes. They also respect the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples.
These markets complement carbon markets. They can support conservation efforts. This boosts ecosystem resilience and protects species while also capturing carbon.
Together with blue carbon credits, they form part of a broader nature-based solution to climate change and biodiversity loss. A report by the Ecosystem Marketplace estimates the potential carbon abatement for every type of blue carbon solution by 2050.
Science, Policy, and Funding: The Roadblocks Ahead
Building blue carbon and biodiversity credit markets is not easy. There are several challenges ahead for the Philippines.
One key challenge is measurement and verification. To sell carbon or biodiversity credits, projects must prove they deliver real and measurable benefits. This requires science‑based methods and monitoring systems.
Another challenge is finance. Case studies reveal that creating a blue carbon action roadmap in the Philippines may need around US$1 million. This funding will help set up essential systems and support initial actions.
Policy frameworks are also needed. Laws and rules must support credit issuance, protect local rights, and ensure fair sharing of benefits. Coordination across government agencies, local communities, and investors will be important.
Stakeholder engagement is key. The NBCAP Roadmap and related forums involve scientists, policymakers, civil society, and private sector partners. This teamwork approach makes sure actions are based on science, inclusive, and fair in the long run.
Looking Ahead: Coastal Conservation as Climate Strategy
Blue carbon and biodiversity credits could provide multiple benefits for the Philippines. Protecting and restoring coastal habitats reduces greenhouse gases, conserves species, and supports local economies. Coastal ecosystems also provide natural defenses against storms and rising seas.
If blue carbon and biodiversity credit markets grow, they could fund coastal conservation at scale while supporting global climate targets. Biodiversity credits could further enhance ecosystem protection by linking nature’s intrinsic value to market mechanisms.
The market also involves climate finance and corporate buyers looking for quality credits. Additionally, international development partners focused on coastal resilience may join in.
For the Philippines, the next few years will be critical. Implementing the NBCAP roadmap, establishing credit systems, and strengthening governance could unlock new opportunities for climate action, sustainable development, and regional leadership in blue carbon finance.
The post Philippines Taps Blue Carbon and Biodiversity Credits to Protect Coasts and Climate appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The global electric vehicle (EV) market is gaining speed again. A sharp rise in oil prices, triggered by the recent U.S.–Iran conflict in early 2026, has changed how consumers think about fuel and mobility. What looked like a slow market just months ago is now showing strong signs of recovery.
According to SNE Research’s latest report, this sudden shift in energy markets is pushing EV adoption faster than expected. Rising gasoline costs and uncertainty about future oil supply are driving buyers toward electric cars. As a result, the EV transition is no longer gradual—it is accelerating.
Oil Price Shock Changes Consumer Behavior
The conflict in the Middle East sent oil markets into turmoil. Gasoline prices jumped quickly, rising from around 1,600–1,700 KRW per liter to as high as 2,200 KRW. This sudden spike acted as a wake-up call for many drivers.
Consumers who once hesitated to switch to EVs are now rethinking their choices. High and unstable fuel prices have made traditional gasoline vehicles less attractive. At the same time, EVs now look more cost-effective and reliable over the long term.
SNE Research noted that even if oil prices stabilize later, the fear of future spikes will remain. This uncertainty is a key driver behind early EV adoption. People no longer want to depend on volatile fuel markets.
EV Growth Forecasts Get a Major Boost
SNE Research has revised its global EV outlook. The firm now expects faster adoption across the decade.
- EV market penetration is projected to reach 29% in 2026, up from an earlier estimate of 27%.
- By 2027, the share could jump to 35%, instead of the previously expected 30%.
- Most importantly, EVs are now expected to cross 50% of new car sales by 2030, earlier than prior forecasts.
The research firm also highlighted a clear timeline shift. EV demand has moved forward by half a year in 2026. By 2027, this lead increases to one full year. From 2028 onward, adoption is expected to accelerate by more than two years. This shows that the global EV transition is happening much faster than industry players had originally planned.
Higher Fuel Costs Improve EV Economics
One of the biggest drivers behind this shift is simple: EVs are becoming cheaper to own compared to gasoline cars.
SNE Research compared two popular models—the gasoline-powered Kia Sportage 1.6T and the electric Kia EV5. The results highlight how rising fuel prices change the equation.
At a gasoline price of 1,600 KRW per liter, it takes about two years to recover the higher upfront cost of an EV. However, when fuel prices rise to 2,000 KRW per liter, the payback period drops to just one year and two months.
So, over a longer period, the savings are even clearer:
- Total 10-year cost of a gasoline car: 59–65 million KRW
- Total 10-year cost of an EV: around 44 million KRW
This large gap makes EVs a smarter financial choice, especially when fuel prices remain high.
Battery Shake-Up: Market Struggles While CATL Surges Ahead
In the first two months of 2026, global EV battery usage reached 134.9 GWh, a modest increase of 4.4% year-over-year. However, not all companies are benefiting equally.
South Korean battery makers—LG Energy Solution, SK On, and Samsung SDI—saw their combined market share fall to 15%, down by 2.2 percentage points. Each company reported declining growth:
- LG Energy Solution: down 2.7%
- SK On: down 12.9%
- Samsung SDI: down 21.9%
This drop was mainly due to weaker EV sales in the U.S. market earlier in the year.
- In contrast, Chinese battery giant CATL continued to expand its lead. Its market share grew from 38.7% to 42.1%, strengthening its global dominance.
SNE Research explained that future competition will depend less on overall EV growth and more on supply chain strategy. Companies that diversify across customers and regions will be in a stronger position.
Automakers Feel the Impact Across Markets
Battery demand also reflects trends in automaker performance. Samsung SDI, for example, supplies batteries to brands like BMW, Audi, and Rivian. However, slower EV sales across these companies reduced overall battery demand.
Some key factors include:
- Lower sales of BMW’s electric lineup, including models like the i4 and iX
- Weak demand for Audi EVs despite new launches
- Declining sales from North America-focused brands like Rivian and Jeep
In some cases, new models even reduced demand for older ones. For instance, Audi’s Q6 e-tron impacted sales of the Q8 e-tron, lowering overall battery usage.
A Structural Shift in the EV Market
Despite short-term fluctuations, SNE Research believes the EV market is entering a new phase. The current surge is not just a reaction to oil prices—it reflects a deeper shift in consumer mindset.
People now see EVs as a safer and more stable option. Energy security, cost savings, and environmental concerns are all playing a role.
As SNE Research’s Vice President Ik-hwan James Oh explained, even if oil prices fall, the memory of sudden spikes will remain. This lasting concern will continue to push EV adoption.
In conclusion, the events of early 2026 have shown how quickly market dynamics can change. A single geopolitical shock has reshaped the global auto industry outlook.
For automakers, the message is clear: EV demand can rise faster than expected. For battery companies, the focus must shift to global expansion and supply chain resilience. For consumers, the decision is becoming easier as EVs offer both savings and stability.
The global EV market is no longer just growing—it is accelerating. And if current trends continue, the shift to electric mobility could arrive much sooner than anyone expected.
The post Global EV Sales Set to Hit 50% by 2030 Amid Oil Shock While CATL Leads Batteries appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
AI Data Centers Power Crisis: Massive Energy Demand Threatens Emissions Targets and Latest Delays Signal Market Shift
The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) is creating a new challenge for global energy systems. AI data centers now require far more electricity than traditional computing facilities. This surge in demand is putting pressure on power grids and raising concerns about whether climate targets can still be met.
Large AI data centers typically need 100 to 300 megawatts (MW) of continuous power. In contrast, conventional data centers use around 10-50 MW. This makes AI facilities up to 10x more energy-intensive, depending on the scale and workload.
AI Data Centers Are Driving a Sharp Rise in Power Demand
The increase is happening quickly. The International Energy Agency estimates that global data center electricity use reached about 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2024. That number could rise to more than 1,000 TWh by 2026, largely driven by AI applications such as machine learning, cloud computing, and generative models. 
At that level, data centers would consume as much electricity as an entire mid-sized country like Japan.
In the United States, the impact is also growing. Data centers could account for 6% to 8% of total electricity demand by 2030, based on utility projections and grid operator estimates. AI is expected to drive most of that increase as companies continue to scale infrastructure to support new applications.
Training large AI models is especially energy-intensive. Some estimates say an advanced model can use millions of kilowatt-hours (kWh) just for training. For instance, training GPT-3 needs roughly 1.287 million kWh, and Google’s PaLM at about 3.4 million kWh. Analytical estimates suggest training newer models like GPT-4 may require between 50 million and over 100 million kWh.
That is equal to the annual electricity use of hundreds of households. When combined with ongoing usage, known as inference, total energy consumption rises even further.
This rapid growth is creating a gap between electricity demand and available supply. It is also raising questions about how the technology sector can expand while staying aligned with global climate goals.
The Grid Bottleneck: Why Data Centers Are Waiting Years for Power
Power demand from AI is rising faster than grid infrastructure can support. Utilities in key regions are now facing a surge in interconnection requests from technology companies building new data centers.
This has led to delays in several major projects. In many cases, developers must wait years before they can secure enough electricity to operate. These delays are becoming more common in established tech hubs where grid capacity is already stretched.
The main constraints include:
- Limited transmission capacity in high-demand areas,
- Slow grid upgrades and long permitting timelines, and
- Regulatory systems not designed for AI-scale demand.
Grid stability is another concern. AI data centers require constant and uninterrupted power. Even short disruptions can affect performance and reliability. This makes it more difficult for utilities to balance supply and demand, especially during peak periods.
In some regions, utilities are struggling to manage the size and concentration of new loads. A single large data center can use as much electricity as a small city. When several projects are planned in the same area, the pressure on local infrastructure increases significantly.
As a result, some companies are rethinking their expansion strategies. Projects may be delayed, scaled down, or moved to new locations where energy is more accessible. These shifts could slow the pace of AI deployment, at least in the short term.
Renewable Energy Growth Faces a Reality Check
Technology companies have made strong commitments to clean energy. Many aim to power their operations with 100% renewable electricity. This is part of their larger environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals.
For example, Microsoft plans to become carbon negative by 2030, meaning it will remove more carbon than it emits. Google is targeting 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030, which goes beyond annual matching to ensure clean power is used at all times. Amazon has committed to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 under its Climate Pledge.
Despite these targets, AI data centers present a difficult challenge. They need reliable electricity around the clock, while renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are not always available. Output can vary depending on weather conditions and time of day.
To maintain stable operations, many facilities rely on a mix of energy sources. This often includes grid electricity, which may still be partly generated from fossil fuels. In some cases, natural gas backup systems are used more frequently than planned.
Battery storage can help balance supply and demand. However, long-duration storage remains expensive and is not yet widely deployed at the scale needed for large AI facilities. This creates both technical and financial barriers.
Thus, there is a growing gap between corporate clean energy goals and real-world energy use. Closing that gap will require faster deployment of renewable energy, improved storage solutions, and more flexible grid systems.
Carbon Credits Use Surge as Tech Tries to Close the Emissions Gap
The mismatch between AI growth and clean energy supply is also affecting carbon markets. Many technology companies are increasing their use of carbon credits to offset emissions linked to data center operations.
According to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2025, carbon pricing now covers over 28% of global emissions. But carbon prices vary widely—from under $10 per ton in some systems to over $100 per ton in stricter markets. This gap is pushing companies toward voluntary carbon markets.
The Ecosystem Marketplace report shows rising demand for high-quality credits, especially carbon removal rather than avoidance credits. But supply is still limited.
Costs are especially high for engineered removals. The IEA estimates that direct air capture (DAC) costs today range from about $600 to over $1,000 per ton of CO₂. It may fall to $100–$300 per ton in the future, but supply is still very small.
Companies are focusing on credits that:
- Deliver verified emissions reductions,
- Support long-term carbon removal, and
- Align with ESG and net-zero commitments.
At the same time, many firms are taking a more active role in energy development. Instead of relying only on offsets, they are investing directly in renewable energy projects. This includes funding new solar and wind farms, as well as entering long-term power purchase agreements.
These investments help secure a dedicated clean energy supply. They also reduce long-term exposure to carbon markets, which can be volatile and subject to changing standards.
Companies Are Adapting Their Energy Strategies: The New AI Energy Playbook
AI companies are changing how they design and operate data centers to manage rising energy demand. Here are some of the key strategies:
- Energy efficiency improvements (new hardware and cooling systems) that reduce data center power use.
- More efficient AI chips, specialized processors, that drive performance gains.
- Advanced cooling systems that cut energy waste and can help cut total power use per workload by 20% to 40%.
- Data center location strategy is shifting, where facilities are built in regions with stronger renewable energy access.
- Infrastructure is becoming more distributed, where firms deploy smaller data centers across multiple locations to balance demand and improve resilience.
- Long-term renewable energy contracts are expanding, which helps companies secure power at stable prices.
A Turning Point for Energy and Climate Goals
The rise of AI is creating both risks and opportunities for the global energy transition. In the short term, increased electricity demand could lead to higher emissions if fossil fuels are used to fill supply gaps.
At the same time, AI is driving major investment in clean energy and infrastructure. The long-term outcome will depend on how quickly clean energy systems can scale.
If renewable supply, storage, and grid capacity keep pace with AI growth, the technology sector could help accelerate the shift to a low-carbon economy. If progress is too slow, however, AI could become a major new source of emissions.
Either way, AI is now a central force shaping global energy demand, infrastructure investment, and the future of carbon markets.
The post AI Data Centers Power Crisis: Massive Energy Demand Threatens Emissions Targets and Latest Delays Signal Market Shift 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 Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits