Published

2 years ago

April 29, 2024

Alice Rush

Over the weekend the Washington Spectator published my essay, Diary of a Transit Miracle, recounting the arduous march of NYC congestion pricing from a gleam in a trio of prominent New Yorkers’ eyes, to the verge of startup at the stroke of midnight June 30, the startup time announced by the MTA last Friday.

I’m cross-posting it here — the third post on the subject in this space in the past 12 months (following this in December and this post last June) — because the advent of congestion pricing in the U.S. is “a really big deal,” as a number of friends and colleagues have told me in recent weeks. As my new essay makes clear, charging motorists to drive into the heart of Manhattan isn’t just a rejection of unconstrained motordom, it’s a new beachhead in “externality pricing” — social-cost surcharging — of which carbon taxes are the ultimate form.

The essay features two governors, two mayors — one of whom I served a half-century ago as a lowly but admiring data cruncher — a civic “Walter Cronkite,” a Nobel economist, raucous transit activists, a gridlock guru and yours truly, plus a cameo appearance by Robert Moses. It includes footage of the historic 1969 press conference in which Mayor John Lindsay and two distinguished associates enunciated the core idea of using externality pricing to better balance automobiles and mass transit that animated the arduous but ultimately triumphant congestion pricing campaign.

— C.K., April 29, 2024

Diary of a Transit Miracle

A miracle is coming to New York City. Beginning on July 1, and barring a last-minute hitch, motorists will soon pay a hefty $15 to enter the southern half of Manhattan — the area bounded by the Hudson River, the East River and 60th Street.

An anticipated 15 percent or so of drivers will switch to transit, unsnarling roads within the “congestion zone” and routes leading to it. The other 80 or 90 percent will grumble but continue driving. That is by design. The toll bounty, a billion dollars a year, will finance subway enhancements like station elevators and digital signals that will increase train throughput and lure more car trips onto trains.

The result will be faster, smoother commutes, especially for car drivers and taxicab and Uber passengers, who will pay a modest surcharge of $1.25 to $2.50 per trip. Drivers of for-hire vehicles will benefit as well, as lesser gridlock leads to more fares.¹

The miracle is three-fold: Winners will vastly outnumber losers; New York will be made healthier, calmer and more prosperous; and that this salutary measure is happening at all, after a half-century of setbacks.

Obstacles to congestion pricing

Congestion pricing, as the policy is known, faced formidable obstacles even beyond the difficulty inherent in asking a group of people to start forking over a billion dollars a year for something that’s always been free.

Congestion pricing also had to contend with: an ingrained pro-motoring ideology that casts any restraint on driving as a betrayal of the American Dream; a general aversion to social-cost surcharges (what economists call “externality pricing”); exasperation over the region’s balkanized and convoluted toll and transit regimes; and, of late, a decline in social solidarity and appeals to the common good.

The advent of congestion pricing in New York is, thus, cause not just for celebration but wonderment. How did this wonky yet radical idea advance to the verge of enactment?

Origins

The trail begins in the waning days of 1969, when newly re-elected mayor John Lindsay recruited two well-regarded New Yorkers to devise a plan to fend off a 50 percent rise in subway and bus fares.

William Vickrey, a Canadian transplant teaching at Columbia and a future Nobel economics laureate, was a protean theorist of externality pricing. New York-bred mediator Theodore Kheel was admired as a civic Walter Cronkite for his plain-spoken common sense.

Lindsay, too often dismissed as a lightweight, understood mass transit as key to loosening automobiles’ spreading chokehold over the city. He had made combating air pollution a pillar of his first term and was fast becoming an exemplar of urban environmentalism. From his municipal engineers, Lindsay knew that technology to clean up tailpipes still lay in the future. A transit fare hike that would add yet more vehicles to city streets imperiled his clean-air agenda.

The triumvirate proposed a suite of motorist fees to preserve the fare. Their program ― higher registration fees and gasoline taxes, a parking garage tax, doubled tolls ― though mild in today’s terms, threatened powerful bureaucracies and their auto allies. Newly dethroned “master-builder” Robert Moses opined that Kheel, in his zeal to save the fare, had “gone berserk over bridge and tunnel tolls.”² The program went nowhere.

L to R: Kheel, Lindsay, Vickrey. Click arrow to view (please excuse two brief garbled passages toward end).

Moses was right to be alarmed. From a City Hall podium on Dec. 16, 1969, Mayor Lindsay showcased Kheel’s and Vickrey’s respective reports, “A Balanced System of Transportation is a Must” and “A Transit Fare Increase is Costly Revenue.” (Click link in still photo above to view 27-minute video.) The trio propounded a new urban doctrine rebalancing automobiles and public transportation: “Automobiles are strangling our cities… Starving mass transit imposes costs that are difficult to measure, yet real… Correcting the fiscal imbalance between transit and the automobile is key to enhancing our environment and quality of life…”

Their remarks set generations of urbanists on course toward congestion pricing.

Setbacks

Quantifying those precepts became my research agenda 40 years later. In the interim, two creditable attempts to enact congestion pricing crashed and burned.

The central element of Lindsay’s 1973 “transportation control plan” was tolls on the city’s East River bridges, a measure designed to eliminate enough traffic to satisfy federal clean-air standards. Though the plan’s formal demise didn’t come until 1977, in legislation written by liberal lawmakers from Brooklyn and Queens, the toll idea never stood a chance. Electronic tolling was 20 years away, and adding stop-and-go toll booths seemed more likely to compound vehicular exhaust than to cut it.

Three decades later, in 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked Albany to toll not just the same East River bridges but also the more-trafficked 60th Street “portal” to mid-Manhattan. Predictably, faux-populist legislators saw Bloomberg’s billionaire wealth as an invitation to denounce the congestion fee as an affront to the little guy.

The mayor may have hurt his cause by presenting congestion pricing primarily as a climate and pollution measure. The pollution rationale was no longer compelling in the way it had been in Lindsay’s day, as automotive engineers had slashed rates of toxic vehicle exhaust ten-fold. Appeals tied to global warming also fell flat; remember, congestion pricing contemplated that most drivers would stay in their fossil-fuel burning cars.

This isn’t to say that congestion pricing confers no climate benefits. Rather, the benefits are subtler ones that can be hard to convey to voters, such as making climate-friendly urban living more attractive. A further benefit may come as congestion pricing demonstrates the unique power of externality pricing, as explained below.

From the Rubble

Even as Bloomberg’s toll plan was faltering in Albany, new loci of support were germinating in the city.

Changing times demanded not just the intellectual leadership of think-tanks like the Regional Plan Association and the good-government Straphangers Campaign, but gritty, grassroots transit organizing. Enter the newly-minted Riders Alliance.

2017 subway handbill exemplified new militancy targeting Gov. Andrew Cuomo for failing transit.

As subway service began cratering in 2015, the inevitable result of budget-raiding by a skein of governors, the Alliance posted crowd-sourced photos of stalled trains and jammed platforms alongside demands for improved service from “#CuomosMTA.” Before long, the papers were pointing the finger at the governor not just in “Why Your Commute Is Bad” explainers but in tear-jerkers like the Times’ May 2017 classic, “Money Out of Your Pocket”: New Yorkers Tell of Subway Delay Woes.

The drumbeat was deafening. Cuomo finally blinked. On a Sunday in August 2017, he phoned the Times’ Albany bureau chief and handed him a scoop for the next day’s front page: Cuomo Calls Manhattan Traffic Plan an Idea ‘Whose Time Has Come’.

The “traffic plan” was congestion pricing.

Data Cruncher

Two months later, Cuomo’s staff summoned me to the midtown office of the consulting firm they had retained to “scope” congestion pricing ― essentially, to compute how much revenue tolls could generate. They wanted to see if an Excel spreadsheet model I had constructed and refined over the prior decade could aid their scoping process.

The model was called the Balanced Transportation Analyzer, a name bestowed in 2007 by Ted Kheel.

Ted, in his nineties, had recruited me to determine whether a large enough congestion toll could pay to make city transit free. The idea worked on paper but foundered politically. Nevertheless, Ted saw in my Excel modeling a way to capture phenomena like “rebound effects” (motorists driving more as road space frees up) and “mode switching” between cars, trains, buses and taxicabs, that he and Prof. Vickrey had identified in their 1969 work but lacked the computing ability to quantify.

Ted’s philanthropy enabled me over the next decade to expand, test and update my transportation modeling. With a hundred “tabs” and 160,000 equations, the “BTA” can instantly answer almost any conceivable question about New York congestion pricing, as well as these two central ones: how much revenue it will yield, and how much time will travelers save in lightened traffic and better transit.³

The BTA model aced its 2017 audition and became the computational engine for the congestion pricing legislation the governor’s team enacted into law in 2019. Its impact has been even broader.4 “Having the model helped make the case with the public, journalists, elected officials and others,” Eric McClure, director of the livable-streets advocacy group StreetsPAC, wrote recently, in part by helping congestion pricing proponents push back on opponents’ exaggerated claims of disastrous outcomes and their incessant demands for special treatment. The model may also have influenced the detailed toll design adopted by the MTA board earlier this year, which hewed close to the toll design I had recommended last summer.5

The BTA also provided sustenance during congestion pricing’s seven lean years ― the 2009-2016 period in which the torch was kept lit by a new triumvirate known as “Move NY” ― traffic guru “Gridlock” Sam Schwartz, the very able campaign strategist Alex Matthiessen, and myself. The model helped our team evangelize congestion pricing’s transformative benefits to elected officials and the public. This, I believe, was a key element in mustering the critical mass of support that ultimately swayed not one but two governors.

The Hochul Factor

New York Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul’s ascension to governor in August 2021 could have been congestion pricing’s death knell. The toll plan was adrift in the federal bureaucracy, and its latter-day champion Andrew Cuomo had exited in “me-too” disgrace. His successor, from distant Buffalo, wasn’t beholden to New York or congestion pricing.

Hochul, who as governor controls city and regional transit, could have disowned congestion pricing as convoluted, bureaucratic and tainted. Instead, she became a resolute and enthusiastic backer. Her spirited support, both in public and behind the scenes, became the decisive ingredient in shepherding congestion pricing to safety.

Why the new governor went all-in on congestion pricing awaits a future journalist or historian. Had she spurned it, the opprobrium from downstate transit advocates would have been intense; but there doubtless would have been cries of “good riddance” as well. Vickrey, Kheel and Riders Alliance notwithstanding, it’s not clear how closely New Yorkers — including transit users — connect congestion tolls to improved travel and a better city.

What makes Hochul’s embrace especially impressive is that congestion pricing is, in a real sense, an attack on a jealously guarded entitlement: the right to inconvenience others by usurping public space for one’s vehicle. The classic lament about entitlements’ iron grip is that “losers cry louder than winners sing.”⁶ Yet in this case, it seems, potential losers — actual and aspiring zone-bound drivers — are being out-sung by transit interests seeking, in Kheel’s 1969 words, a better balance between public transportation and automobiles.

Credits and Prospects

Let us now praise Andrew Cuomo’s crafting of the legislation that teed up congestion pricing’s successful run.

Rather than specifying a dollar price for the tolls, or a precise traffic reduction, his 2019 bill established a revenue target: sufficient earnings to bond $15 billion in transit investment — which equates to $1 billion a year to cover debt service. This device trained the public’s focus on the gain from congestion pricing (better transit) instead of the pain (the toll). Equally important, with this deft stroke, any toll exemption that a vocal minority might seek would mathematically trigger higher tolls for everyone else. The effect was vastly heightened scrutiny of requests for carve-outs.

Which cities will follow on New York’s heels? No U.S. urban area comes close to our trifecta of gridlock, transit and wealth. Sprawling Los Angeles or Houston, or even Chicago for that matter, might be better served by more granulated traffic tolls than New York’s all-or-none model.

Perhaps Asia’s megalopolises will be swept up in our wake. In the meantime, my focus will be on the holy grail of externality pricing: taxing carbon emissions. Every economist knows that the surest and fastest way to cut down on a “bad” is by taxing it rather than subsidizing possible alternatives. Yet that approach remains counter-intuitive and even anathema to nearly everyone else.

A huge and important legacy that New York congestion pricing could provide is to prove that intelligently taxing societal harms need not be electoral suicide. This proof could help unlock a treasure-trove of prosperity-enhancing pricing reforms including, most prominently, robust carbon taxing.

The author, a policy analyst based in New York City, worked in Mayor Lindsay’s Environmental Protection Administration in 1972-1974. He met Bill Vickrey in 1991 and worked closely with Ted Kheel from 2007 to 2010.

Endnotes

The new passenger surcharges of $1.25 for taxicabs and $2.50 for “ride-hails” (principally Ubers) apply to trips touching the congestion zone. These will be partially offset by lower fares owing to shorter wait-time charges due to faster travel speeds.
Quote is from Moses’ August 23, 1969 guest essay in Newsday, “Is Rubber to Pay for Rails?” (not digitally available).
The current version of the BTA is publicly available at this link: (18 MB Excel file).
See Fix NYC Advisory Panel Report, Appendix B, 2019.
A Congestion Toll New York Can Live With, July 2023, by Charles Komanoff, co-authored with Columbia Business School economist Gernot Wagner.
As pronounced by University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod, in Goodbye, My Sweet Deduction, New York Times, by Eduardo Porter and David Leonhardt, Nov. 3, 2005.

Up Next

Copper and the Need to Meet the World’s Rewiring Demand for Energy Transition

Don't Miss

Methane Offsets Provider Zefiro Methane Goes Public on Cboe Canada

Alice Rush

Carbon Footprint

Walmart (WMT) Expands EV Charging and Boosts Renewable Energy in Its Net-Zero Playbook

Published

13 hours ago

November 28, 2025

Alice Rush

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.

ev walmart clean energy — Source: Walmart

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.

READ MORE: EV Boom Pushes U.S. Clean Energy Investment to New High: $75B in Q3

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 emissions WMT stock — Source: Walmart

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.

Carbon Footprint

Sierra Madre: Breathing New Life into Mexico’s Silver and Gold Heartland

Published

2 days ago

November 27, 2025

Alice Rush

Disseminated on behalf of Sierra Madre Gold & Silver Ltd.

Mexico has been a cornerstone of global silver and gold production for centuries, with historic mining regions such as Zacatecas, Durango, and the Sierra Madre belt supplying the world with these precious metals. Mining represents nearly 2.5% of Mexico’s GDP and produces significant export revenue.

However, decades of underinvestment and declining output from aging mines led to a slowdown in production growth. Today, a new wave of modern mining companies is reinvigorating Mexico’s silver and gold industry, bringing capital, modern technology, and strict environmental practices to historic mining regions.

Among these companies, Sierra Madre Gold & Silver Ltd. (TSXV: SM | OTCQX: SMDRF) is emerging as a standout player, spearheading the revival of Mexico’s rich Temascaltepec district with its La Guitarra Mine.

Mexico’s Silver and Gold Renaissance: Strategic Importance

Mexico remains the world’s largest silver producer, contributing roughly 23–25% of global output in 2024, with total production between 5,800 and 6,300 tonnes. The surge in industrial demand for silver is reshaping its role from primarily a jewelry and investment metal to an essential material in the clean energy transition.

With silver prices stabilizing around US$28 per ounce in 2025 and climbing above $50 in October, mid-tier producers like Sierra Madre stand to increase shareholder value while supporting rural economies.

Each solar panel consumes about 20 grams of silver, while electric vehicles require up to 50 grams. Analysts predict that by 2030, global silver demand will exceed 1.2 billion ounces annually, highlighting the need for stable, modern supply sources.

Mexico’s combination of skilled workforce, supportive regulations, and modern infrastructure makes it an attractive destination for exploration and investment. Sierra Madre’s work at La Guitarra, along with exploration at Tepic, exemplifies how new companies are turning dormant assets into engines of growth for the next decade.

Reviving La Guitarra: History Meets Modern Mining

The La Guitarra Mine has a storied history dating back to colonial times, producing both gold and silver under different owners, most recently First Majestic Silver. After a period of care and maintenance, Sierra Madre acquired the mine in 2023 with a clear strategy: restart production (achieved January 2025) and expand output.

The mine comes equipped with a 500-tonnes-per-day processing plant, permitted underground workings, and nearby infrastructure including roads, water, and power. With C$19.5 million in fresh capital and a skilled technical team, it has achieved a full-scale restart, with commercial production announced in January 2025.

By 2027, the company aims to up to triple production to 1,500 tonnes per day, leveraging smart mine design and local partnerships to keep costs low while ramping output efficiently.

Furthermore, their leadership blends local mining expertise with strong capital markets knowledge, enabling efficient project execution. La Guitarra’s high-grade veins, clear exploration targets, and straightforward permitting process make it one of Mexico’s most promising silver-gold projects.

La Guitarra Sierra Madre

READ MORE: Silver’s New Role in the Clean Energy Era – and What It Means for Sierra Madre Investors

Commitment to Responsible Mining

Sierra Madre embodies a new generation of environmentally and socially responsible miners. The company is upgrading waste and water systems to modern standards, reclaiming tailings efficiently, and minimizing water usage. Open communication with local communities, clear permitting, and strong ESG practices reinforce its credibility with stakeholders and investors.

Modernization at La Guitarra is as much about responsible operations as it is about increasing output. This focus on sustainability aligns with global investor expectations while strengthening its long-term partnerships.

Sierra Madre holds one other project in Mexico’s Sierra Madre mineral belt:

Tepic Project (Nayarit): High-grade epithermal gold-silver deposit with near-surface mineralization and strong exploration upside.

By focusing on assets with existing infrastructure and clear development paths, Sierra Madre reduces operational risk compared with early-stage exploration projects.

Industrial Demand Drives Silver’s Strategic Role

Silver’s function has evolved beyond traditional uses. Its high conductivity and reflectivity make it essential in solar panels, EV batteries, 5G networks, and electronics. Industrial demand is rising sharply: in 2024, industrial silver consumption reached 680.5 million ounces, accounting for over 30% of total usage, and solar energy alone represents a growing share.

The EV market further drives demand, with each vehicle requiring up to 50 grams of silver. Rising industrial requirements, combined with structural supply deficits, position companies like Sierra Madre to benefit from near-term production growth.

Global silver production is struggling to keep pace. In 2024, total output was roughly 819.7 million ounces, barely a 1% increase over the previous year. A projected 117.6 million-ounce supply deficit in 2025 underscores the need for reliable producers in Mexico’s rich silver belt.

silver supply and demand

Leveraging Gold’s Enduring Value in a Record-Price Era

Gold remains a cornerstone of stability. Prices are expected to hold above US$3,000 per ounce, supported by investment demand, central bank buying, and geopolitical uncertainty. In Q2 2025, total gold demand rose 3% year-over-year, reaching 1,249 tonnes, while mine production matched this growth, reflecting a healthy market balance.

At La Guitarra, underground mining at the high-grade Coloso vein started in April 2025, increasing production potential and improving grades. The company is upgrading milling systems to improve recovery rates and lower costs, capitalizing on record-high gold prices.

Strong Operational and Financial Performance

In Q2 2025, Sierra Madre sold 173,562 silver-equivalent ounces: 66,011 ounces of silver and 1,048 ounces of gold, generating 168,535 AgEq ounces at an average price of US$30.10 per AgEq ounce.

The Coloso Mine is ramping up to 150 t/d by year-end, while underground development at the Nazareno Mine has already delivered over 700 tonnes of mineralized material to the Guitarra mill, with grades exceeding prior estimates.

The company raised C$19.5 million in mid-2025 to expand throughput, launch a +20,000-meter exploration program across its mineralized belt, and target high-grade zones in the East District. Strong revenue, cash position, and working capital support ongoing operations and exploration, providing a solid financial foundation for growth.

Silver continues to show upside potential. With a gold-to-silver ratio of 70:1, silver is currently undervalued relative to gold. Combined with rising industrial demand and tight supply, this positions Sierra Madre’s dual-metal strategy to capitalize on both growth and stability. Analysts project that silver deficits will persist, reinforcing the value of near-term production assets like La Guitarra.

sierra madre gold&silver

ALSO READ: Gold’s Enduring Value: How Sierra Madre Is Advancing Mexico’s Next Generation of Gold Projects

Two Metals, One Growth Strategy

Sierra Madre’s dual-metal approach combines gold’s stability with silver’s growth potential. Gold anchors financial security, while silver leverages rising industrial demand. This strategy enables the company to maximize shareholder value while maintaining operational resilience.

Phased Expansion Plan

Sierra Madre is executing a two-phase expansion at La Guitarra:

Phase 1 (Q2 2026): Increase capacity to 750–800 t/d with equipment upgrades, including a new cone crusher and ball mill.
Phase 2 (Q3 2027): Ramp up to 1,200–1,500 t/d with additional crushing circuits, producing finer material and improving recovery rates.

No additional permits are required, and the expansion will be fully funded from existing cash flow, ensuring self-sustained growth.

Final Take: Why Sierra Madre Is Poised to Deliver Silver and Gold

Sierra Madre Gold & Silver is at the forefront of Mexico’s silver and gold revival. With a mix of production-ready assets, exploration upside, and strong financial backing, the company is well-positioned to benefit from rising demand, structural supply deficits, and supportive market dynamics.

Sierra Madre gold & silver

La Guitarra combines history, infrastructure, and timing for near-term production, while Tepic offers significant exploration potential. Sierra Madre’s dual-metal strategy balances stability with growth, leveraging gold’s safe-haven value and silver’s industrial demand.

As global demand for clean energy technologies, electric vehicles, and industrial applications rises, Sierra Madre is uniquely equipped to deliver both silver and gold. Its operational asset, responsible mining practices, and strategic expansion plan position it as a leading junior miner in Mexico’s most productive silver-gold belt.

In short, Sierra Madre has not just restarted a mine—it is breathing new life into Mexico’s historic silver and gold heartland while positioning investors to benefit from a transformative decade in precious metals.

MUST READ: Reviving Mexico’s Silver Belt: How Sierra Madre’s La Guitarra Mine Is Leading the Comeback

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. Sierra Madre Gold and Silver Ltd. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $25,000 to provide marketing services for a term of one month. 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 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.

For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

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 Sierra Madre: Breathing New Life into Mexico’s Silver and Gold Heartland appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Carbon Footprint

Frontier Backs Climate Startup Reverion for 96,000 Tons of Biogas-Based Carbon Removal

Published

2 days ago

November 27, 2025

Alice Rush

Climate startup Reverion, a German company specializing in biogas-based carbon removal, has secured several major offtake agreements through Frontier, the advanced carbon removal buyer coalition. The deals mark a significant milestone for the company as it works to commercialize its solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology, which captures and permanently stores CO₂ while producing clean electricity.

Under the new commitments, Frontier buyers—including Google, McKinsey, H&M Group, Autodesk, Workday, and others—will pay $41 million for 96,000 tons of permanent CO₂ removal between 2027 and 2030.

Frontier’s carbon removal portfolio

frontier carbon removal — Source: Frontier

These agreements strengthen the growing belief that biogas-based carbon removal can be both scalable and economically attractive when combined with high-efficiency energy production.

How Reverion’s Fuel Cell System Turns Biogas into Permanent Carbon Removal

Reverion, a 2022 spin-off from the Technical University of Munich, has created a system that generates clean electricity and captures carbon from biogas at the same time. Farmers produce biogas by placing manure, crop leftovers, and food waste into anaerobic digesters. These digesters create a gas mix that contains methane and CO₂.

The company’s solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) converts the methane in this gas directly into electricity with very high efficiency.
During this reaction, the carbon in the gas separates into a pure CO₂ stream.
The system then liquefies this CO₂ and sends it for permanent geological storage.

Traditional biogas systems burn the gas in engines, lose energy, and release most of the carbon back into the air. Some even leak methane, which traps far more heat than CO₂. Reverion avoids these problems by capturing carbon from both methane and CO₂ in the biogas. As a result, the system increases the amount of carbon removed and cuts emissions at the source.

By pairing efficient power generation with full carbon capture, Reverion turns everyday biogas into a dependable pathway for long-term carbon removal.

Reverion CARBON REMOVAL Biogas — Source: Frontier

Energy, Hydrogen, and New Revenue Streams for Farmers

The press release highlighted that, today, more than 120,000 biogas plants operate worldwide, but many still use old engines with low efficiency. And Reverion’s SOFC gives farmers a major upgrade. It reaches about 74% fuel-to-electricity efficiency—one of the highest levels in the industry. This lets farmers produce more electricity from the same biogas, lower their energy bills, and earn extra money by selling clean power.

The system also adds flexibility. When electricity prices drop, often during times of strong wind and solar output, the fuel cell can run in reverse to make green hydrogen. Farmers can sell this hydrogen or use it on their own farms, creating another income source.

By delivering clean energy, flexible operation, and permanent carbon removal, Reverion offers a strong alternative to combustion engines and renewable natural gas upgrading systems.

Frontier Unlocks: Why BiCRS Matters in Carbon Removal Portfolios

Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) is emerging as a strong contender for long-duration carbon removal. It includes several pathways such as BECCS, bio-oil sequestration, biomass injection, and now biogas-based fuel cell systems.

Frontier explains how BiCRS stands out for the following reasons:

Lower costs: Plants capture CO₂ naturally and at no cost. Many BiCRS systems also use existing waste streams, which reduces input costs.
Clear verification: Technologies like BECCS and biomass injection are easier to measure and verify compared with more experimental removal pathways.
Near-term scalability: Bio-oil and biomass injection can grow quickly, helping meet the rising demand for carbon removal supply.

However, BiCRS is not without challenges. The biggest concern is sustainable biomass sourcing. Poor practices—such as removing too much crop residue, clear-cutting forests, or heavy fertilizer use—can harm biodiversity, damage soils, or increase emissions. Because of these risks, carbon removal purchasers must follow strict sustainability guidelines when sourcing biomass.

There is also a durability question for some BiCRS methods. Some biomass burial or sinking approaches could decompose over time, reversing the stored carbon. Frontier funds several R&D projects to evaluate long-term durability.

Finally, the BiCRS market is expected to be highly fragmented. Feedstock types differ by region, and the best removal pathway varies based on geography, transportation options, and local policy. Most BiCRS facilities also operate at a modest scale, meaning the market will rely on many distributed projects rather than a handful of giants.

Even so, BiCRS delivers several co-benefits. These include on-site clean energy production, lower fossil fuel use, reduced methane emissions, nutrient recycling for croplands, and destruction of harmful pollutants like PFAS.

ALSO READ: BASF and ExxonMobil Team Up to Boost Low-Emission Hydrogen with Methane Pyrolysis

BiCRS Dominates CDR Market

As per the CDR.fyi report, biomass-based carbon removal is leading the carbon removal market. In 2025, BiCRS projects delivered 97% of durable carbon dioxide removals, showing their major impact. BECCS, a key BiCRS pathway, is set to grow at a 19.3% CAGR from 2024 to 2030.

In the US alone, BiCRS could remove over 800 million tonnes of CO2 per year at costs below $100 per ton, with potential to exceed 1 billion tonnes with expanded biomass use.

The carbon removal market reached $3.9 billion in Q2 2025, with biomass projects accounting for 99% of transactions. Growth is fueled by rising demand for sustainable energy, expanding investment, and supportive policies.

Why Reverion’s Model Stands Out

Reverion’s approach offers compelling advantages that support its rapid market adoption:

Large potential impact: With over 120,000 biogas sites worldwide, the theoretical removal potential from biogas could exceed 2 gigatons per year by 2040, according to IEA projections. Reverion could capture a meaningful share of this, especially alongside other BiCRS technologies.
Full-stream carbon capture: Most systems capture only the CO₂ portion of biogas. Reverion captures carbon from both CO₂ and methane, effectively doubling the removal impact.
World-class electrical efficiency: Its 74% efficiency ranks among the highest globally, increasing economic returns for operators.
Low methane leakage: Because methane is converted on-site, the system avoids pipeline leaks often associated with renewable natural gas.
Strong market demand: Reverion already holds 60 pre-orders and 120 letters of intent, signaling strong momentum.

As the world accelerates efforts to scale permanent carbon removal, technologies like Reverion’s offer a promising path—combining high-efficiency clean energy production with durable, verifiable carbon storage at biogas sites around the world.