The 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) opened yesterday in Belém, Brazil. From the start, the message was clear: climate change is happening now, and solutions must follow. Nearly 200 countries gathered to turn promises into results. The formal agenda was adopted quickly, which signals a move away from long debates and toward implementation.
President Lula remarked during the summit’s opening:
“We are moving in the right direction, but at the wrong speed…This COP must be remembered as the COP of Action — a conference that turns commitments into results. It is time to integrate climate, economy, and development, creating jobs, reducing inequalities, and strengthening trust among nations.”
Adaptation and Resilience: Real Stories, Real Need
On the first day, adaptation and resilience took center stage. Many communities around the world are already dealing with floods, heat waves, droughts, and storms. At COP30, developing nations stressed they can’t wait for future help. They need infrastructure, early warning systems, and solid support now.
For example, Brazil is using the summit to elevate adaptation as an investor-ready field. A report shows that every dollar spent on resilience can produce up to four dollars in benefits.
The summit’s agenda includes projects such as climate-smart agriculture, restoring mangroves, and strengthening infrastructure. These are not just ideas—they are proven “best buys” in food, water, health, nature, and infrastructure.
RAIZ is a global program aimed at restoring degraded farmland. It also helps strengthen agriculture in vulnerable areas. The aim is to turn land that once produced little into productive, climate-resilient farmland. Such a project tackles food security, livelihoods, and climate risk all at once.
These stories show that adaptation is urgent. The challenge will be making sure the promised funds arrive and that they reach the people and communities who need them most.
Innovation and Technology: Tools for Change
Technology and innovation were also prominent on Day 1. Countries and organizations discussed digital platforms, AI tools, satellite monitoring, and data systems. They aim to measure and track climate action better.
During a showcase at COP30, an agricultural innovation package was launched to help millions of farmers. The package includes an open-source AI model to support farmers in vulnerable regions. This shows how technology can empower local communities—not just big cities or corporations.
These tools matter for carbon credit markets, too. Accurate tracking, measurement, and verification of emissions reductions depend on strong data systems. For companies and project developers in carbon markets, good tech means more confidence that credits represent real change.
The $1.3 Trillion Question: Who Pays for Climate Action?
Financing remains one of the biggest obstacles. On this first day, many developing nations made it clear: they need more money to adapt and reduce emissions. But the structure of responsibilities came into the spotlight as well.
Major emitters such as the United States, China, and India sent lower‐level representation to COP30. These three countries together account for nearly half of global emissions. Fewer resources mean climate finance might weigh more on other areas, especially Europe and vulnerable nations.
Before COP30, Brazil and finance ministers suggested a plan. This roadmap aims to boost global climate finance to about US$1.3 trillion each year. This is a huge sum compared to current flows. It aims to mobilize grants, private capital, bank reform, and new financing models. The question now is: will the money show up at scale and quickly?

For the carbon markets and ESG community, finance connects directly to credibility. Without enough money for adaptation projects, carbon credit systems, and technology, strong markets may not succeed.
Carbon Markets Under Pressure: A Vital Story
A central thread for ESG and carbon market watchers at COP30 is the state of the carbon crediting mechanism under the Paris Agreement (Article 6.4). This mechanism allows projects to generate credits for verified emissions reductions, which countries or companies can use. But the system faces headwinds.
Here are the key facts:
- The Supervisory Body reported a funding shortfall of around US$13 million this year.
- Rules on the following are in place—but the supply pipeline remains uncertain.
- Baseline: What was the starting point?
- Additionality: Did the project occur because of the credit?
- Leakage: Did emissions just shift elsewhere?
- Permanence: Will the reduction last?)
- Because major emitters have not fully committed to using such credits yet, demand and clarity are still developing.

In Brazil’s home terrain, big tech and carbon credit developers are already active. For example, a Brazilian startup working on reforestation is supplying credits to major tech firms. Buyers are willing to pay higher prices for what they believe are higher-quality credits. But they warn that there are still many projects of ambiguous quality.
For companies using carbon credits as part of their ESG strategy, these issues matter. If credit supply is slow or credibility is questioned, companies may find fewer, higher-cost options. Investors and project developers will watch for who steps in to fill the funding gap, how supply scales, and whether credible markets emerge.
Missing Voices, Shifting Power
Day 1 also highlighted a significant challenge: participation gaps. When countries responsible for large shares of global emissions send lower-level delegations, it raises questions about global cooperation and the scale of the response.
For example, the U.S., China, and India—the biggest three—sent less senior representation to COP30. Observers say this leaves a leadership vacuum and puts more burden on others to carry the financing, negotiation, and implementation load. One commentator said COP30 may risk becoming “a global ATM” for climate finance if coordination doesn’t improve.
For carbon markets, the risk is fragmentation. If different regions adopt different rules, or if major emitters operate outside emerging frameworks, companies may face divergent standards, higher costs, or regulatory risks.
A unified market helps lower transaction costs, boosts liquidity, and builds trust. Day 1 showed that building that unity is still a work in progress.
What to Watch in the Days Ahead
As COP30 unfolds, several signals will matter for ESG, carbon markets, and climate action:
- Will there be concrete pledges to fill the funding gap for the Article 6.4 mechanism? Will donors and countries commit more funds so credit supply can scale?
- Will major emitters increase their engagement, or remain at arm’s length? The level of their participation will shape both cooperation and market confidence.
- Will adaptation finance be connected with market-based solutions (for example, nature-based carbon credits, forest protection, regenerative agriculture)? A good sign would be projects where adaptation, resilience, and mitigation align.
- Will new platforms or coalitions for linked carbon markets emerge? For example, proposals from Brazil talk about connecting national carbon systems into a global “Open Coalition for Carbon Market Integration.” If that gains traction, it could boost market scale.
- Will technology and data systems be scaled across developing countries so they can participate in carbon markets, track progress, and report credibly? Without that, the markets remain narrow and less credible.
Day 1 of COP30 in Belém brought strong signals. The world is shifting from talk toward implementation. Adaptation, resilience, technology, finance, and carbon markets all featured prominently.
Yet, the challenges remain. Participation gaps, funding shortfalls, market uncertainty, and divergent standards all pose risks. For ESG professionals, project developers, and investors, the message is clear: the summit’s value will be judged by whether systems, markets, and finance begin to deliver, not just whether pledges are made.
COP30 may mark a turning point, but it will succeed only if what is announced today becomes action tomorrow.
The post COP30 Begins with a Call for Delivery, with Carbon Credit Rules Taking Shape appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
CSRD for SME Suppliers: How to turn data requests into a competitive advantage
Across Europe, a quiet but decisive shift is reshaping how companies work with their suppliers. As the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) comes into force, large organisations are under mounting pressure to disclose detailed, verifiable sustainability information—not only about their own operations, but across their entire value chain. And because up to 80% of a company’s emissions often come from its supply chain, the spotlight naturally turns to SMEs.
![]()
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.
-
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
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action



