Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals.
Every time instability erupts in the Middle East, North Americans feel it where it hurts most—at the gas pump. It happened in 1979, when the Iranian Revolution sent shockwaves through global energy markets. Oil supplies tightened. Prices surged, and inflation followed. Entire economies slowed under the pressure.
For millions of households, the crisis’s impact was personal. It showed up in longer lines at gas stations and rising costs across daily life.
Nearly five decades later, the pattern is repeating.
Renewed tensions across key oil-producing regions are once again tightening global supply. Prices are rising. Consumers are feeling the impact. And once again, events unfolding thousands of miles away are shaping the cost of energy at home.
This pattern suggests a persistent structural vulnerability in North America’s exposure to global oil‑supply shocks. The region still depends heavily on global oil markets. That means supply disruptions, no matter where they occur, can quickly ripple through the system.
The result is a familiar cycle: geopolitical instability leads to supply concerns, which drive up prices, which then feed directly into the cost of living.
A Cycle Consumers Know All Too Well
When prices spike, households adjust. Commuters rethink travel. Businesses absorb higher costs or pass them on. Inflation pressures build. The impact spreads far beyond the energy sector.
With average gasoline prices currently around $4 per gallon in the US ($5.50 in California), or roughly $1.05 US per liter ($1.45 in California), the connection between global events and local fuel prices is no longer theoretical – it is a lived experience. This is why energy security is increasingly framed as both a policy concern and a kitchen‑table issue.
The events of 1979 were a warning. Today’s rising prices are another. The difference is that North America now has more options than it did back then.
Electric vehicles, battery storage, and renewable power systems are no longer future concepts. They are already part of the energy mix. And for those who have made the shift, the experience is very different, and the transition is already complete.
Instead of watching fuel prices climb, they are plugging in.
Graham Harris, Chairman of Surge Battery Metals, has spoken openly about this shift in practical terms. While rising oil prices create uncertainty at the pump, he charges his electric vehicle at home.
The contrast between gasoline dependency and electrification is becoming more visible.
When oil prices rise, gasoline costs follow. But electricity prices tend to be more stable, especially when supported by domestic generation and renewable sources. That difference is simple but powerful. It changes how people experience energy volatility.
One system is exposed to global shocks. The other is increasingly tied to domestic infrastructure. This contrast highlights how the energy transition is reshaping exposure to global price shocks.
Some analysts increasingly frame the energy transition not only as a climate imperative but also as a strategy to reduce exposure to external risk. It relates to questions of control over where energy comes from, how it is produced, and how stable it is over time.
And at the center of that transition is one critical material: lithium.
Lithium: The Foundation of Energy Independence
Lithium is the core component of modern battery technology. It powers electric vehicles, supports grid-scale energy storage, and plays a growing role in advanced defense systems.
As electrification expands, demand for lithium is rising across multiple sectors.
But here is the challenge: much of today’s lithium supply still comes from outside the United States. This creates a familiar dynamic.
Just as oil dependency has long exposed North America to geopolitical risk, reliance on foreign lithium supply introduces a new layer of vulnerability. The commodity is different, but the structure is similar.
The United States imported the majority of its lithium from Chile and Argentina in 2024. Together, they accounted for roughly 98% of the total supply. Smaller volumes were sourced from the UK, France, and China.
That is why domestic production is becoming a central focus of energy and industrial policy.
In March 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production.” The directive called for faster permitting, expanded development, and reduced reliance on foreign supply chains for critical minerals.
The message of the order was clear: building domestic capacity is now a strategic priority.
- RELATED: Live Lithium Prices Today
A Domestic Resource Takes Shape in Nevada
Within this broader shift, projects like Surge Battery Metals’ (TSX-V: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF) Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) are gaining attention.
NNLP hosts a measured and indicated resource of 11.24 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at an average grade of 3,010 ppm lithium, based on company disclosures. This makes it the highest-grade lithium clay resource identified in the United States to date.
A 2025 Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) outlines the project’s scale:
- After-tax NPV (8%): US$9.21 billion
- Internal Rate of Return (IRR): 22.8%
- Mine life: 42 years
- Average annual production: ~86,300 tonnes LCE
- Employment: ~2,000 construction jobs and ~350 long-term operational roles
These figures indicate potential in terms of scale, longevity, and the ability to contribute to domestic supply if the project moves forward. At full production, NNLP has the potential to rank among the larger lithium-producing assets globally, based on third-party analysis.
Recent drilling results announced by Surge Battery Metals have further strengthened NNLP’s profile as a standout asset. In February 2026, step-out drilling found a 31-meter intercept with 4,196 ppm lithium from surface. This is much higher than the project’s average of 3,010 ppm Li. It also extends high-grade mineralization nearly 640 meters beyond the current resource boundary.
Infill drilling showed a steady, thick, high-grade core. It included intercepts like 116 meters at 3,752 ppm Li and 32 meters at 4,521 ppm Li. These results support future resource expansion. They also highlight the project’s scale, quality, and technical readiness as it prepares for a Pre-Feasibility Study.
Beyond the project itself, it reflects a broader policy and industry shift toward building more domestically anchored energy systems.
From Oil Dependency to Mineral Security
The connection between oil and lithium is not always obvious at first glance. Oil fuels internal combustion engines, while lithium supports batteries and energy‑storage systems, with distinct technologies and supply chains.
But the underlying issue is the same. Dependence on external sources creates exposure to external risk.
In the case of oil, that risk has played out repeatedly over decades. Supply disruptions, price shocks, and geopolitical tensions have all shaped the market.
With lithium, the industry is earlier in its development. But the stakes are rising quickly.
Global demand for lithium grew about 30 % in 2024, driven mainly by batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage, according to IEA data. Demand in 2025 continued at high rates, and under current policies, lithium demand is projected to grow fivefold by 2040 compared with today.
At the same time, supply growth is struggling to keep pace with demand forecasts. These trends show that ensuring a stable, secure supply is becoming just as important as expanding production.
That is where domestic projects come in, such as Surge Battery Metals’ NNLP.
They may not eliminate global market dynamics, but they can reduce exposure to them. They can provide a buffer against volatility. And they can support a more stable, self-reliant energy system.
A Turning Point – or Another Warning?
While history does not repeat in the same way, similar patterns can be observed.
The oil shocks of the 1970s revealed a vulnerability that shaped energy policy for decades. Today’s market signals are pointing to a similar challenge—this time at the intersection of oil dependency and critical mineral supply.
The difference is that the range of policy and technological options available today is broader. Electrification is already underway. Battery technology is advancing. Domestic resource development is gaining policy support. The pieces are in place.
Data from the International Energy Agency’s Global EV Outlook 2025 shows that global battery demand reached a historic milestone of 1 terawatt-hour (TWh) in 2024. This surge was mainly due to the growth of electric vehicles (EVs).
By 2030, demand is expected to more than triple, exceeding 3 TWh under current policies. This reflects not only rising EV adoption but also expanding stationary storage demand. Both of which rely on critical minerals like lithium.
Electric vehicles continue to displace traditional oil use as well. The same IEA analysis shows that by 2030, EVs will replace over 5 million barrels of oil daily. This is about the size of a major country’s transport sector, highlighting how electrification is changing energy markets.
What remains uncertain is the pace at which these changes will occur.
Will rising fuel prices once again fade as markets stabilize? Or will they serve as a catalyst for deeper structural shifts?
That question matters not just for policymakers or investors, but for everyday consumers.
Because at the end of the day, energy transitions are not measured in policy papers. They are measured in daily decisions—how people power their homes, fuel their vehicles, and respond to rising costs.
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 $75,000 to provide marketing services for a term of three 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 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, 2025, 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.
The post History Repeating Itself: Why Middle East Conflict at the Pump Should Be a Wake-Up Call for North America appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Climate Change1 year 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits