This post, a teeth-clenched corrective to my late-April Diary of a Transit Miracle, was necessitated by Kathy Hochul’s jaw-dropping “indefinite pause” (read: cancellation) of the congestion pricing program she had supported since stepping into the governorship of New York State in August 2021. Like “Diary,” it first appeared in The Washington Spectator, which posted it on June 11 as Hochul Murder Mystery.
That title placed the spotlight on Hochul, whose decision it was to abandon New York City’s congestion pricing plan; on murder, because any delay jeopardizes the precariously perched program to charge drivers to the congested (and transit-rich) heart of the NY metro area even a fraction of the added travel delays their trips impose; and on mystery, owing to the bizarreness of her abrupt turnabout.
Six days on, however, there’s a growing sense that Hochul simply panicked . . . that her belief in (and grasp of the rationale for) imposing a robust fee on private car trips to the Manhattan central business district was too slender to withstand the criticism from motorists for bringing congestion pricing to fruition.
What’s also growing, though, is the pushback to Hochul’s peremptory, unilateral decision. Not just “the usual suspects” — transit proponents, policy wonks and urbanists — but also business interests, infrastructure contractors and good-government advocates — are mounting a sustained counterattack intended to restore the congestion pricing timeline (it had been on track to “go live” on Sunday, June 30). While that outcome may be out of reach, the final chapter in New York’s congestion pricing saga has not necessarily been written.
Nevertheless, Hochul’s pullback underscores just how hard it remains to bring about meaningful externality pricing in the United States. The high hopes we at Carbon Tax Center had invested in NYC congestion pricing as a pacesetter require that we be candid: the setback to carbon pricing, should it stand, will be considerable.
— C.K., June 17, 2024
Note: Other than the photo montage, which we have reproduced from The Spectator, graphic elements here are new.
Photo montage: Riders Alliance
Not two months ago, in a brief history of how congestion pricing triumphed in New York, I canonized New York Governor Kathy Hochul, placing her alongside transportation legends Bill Vickrey (Nobel-winning traffic theorist), Ted Kheel (transit-finance savant), and the upstart Riders Alliance that in 2019 achieved what previous campaigners could not: legislation mandating a revolutionary new toll system that would weed out enough car trips to Manhattan’s core to cut down on endemic gridlock while generating revenue to enable generational expansions of subway and bus infrastructure.
Diary of a Transit Miracle, the Spectator titled that piece. Hochul, I wrote, had proved herself “a resolute and enthusiastic” congestion pricing backer. “Her spirited support,” I said, “became the decisive ingredient in shepherding congestion pricing to safety.”
So much for that fairy tale. Hochul’s June 5 edict “indefinitely pausing” congestion tolling just weeks before its June 30 start may not have killed the program. But Hochul’s governorship has been bloodied and her political prospects are hanging by a thread.
The story, though infuriating to urbanists, climate advocates and foes of big-city car-dominance who for decades had looked to New York congestion pricing for deliverance, is also juicy. It’s hard to recall a public policy story with as many tentacles as this one.
Let us count the ways.
Twelve days after announcing her rescission of congestion pricing, Hochul is still being ferociously “dragged” on social media. Another tweet noted that “Hochul’s decision to blow a $15 billion hole in the MTA’s budget [means] she will get blamed for every single mass transit problem going forward in a city where the majority of people take public transit.”
Hochul’s late-in-the-day reversal obviously is a New York story. With congestion pricing, the nation’s largest city, possessor of a singular global brand, was poised to recapture its pre-eminence in progressive, bold innovation. Instead, its literal engine ― its subway system ― has been jilted at the altar.
It’s also a dystopian governance story, as befits the unilateral monkey-wrenching of a policy forged by thousands of individuals, agencies and organizations over years and, for some, decades. As livable-streets journalist Aaron Naparstek wrote on Twitter, Hochul and her Congressional consiglieres “aren’t just undermining congestion pricing, they’re discrediting the Democratic Party and they’re undermining faith in government and democracy.” New York Times editorial writer Mara Gay lamented that “Americans didn’t need a reason to feel more cynical about politics. But Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York has delivered one.”
And of course, it’s a traffic and transit story. How will New York City solve or at least mitigate its habitual, maddening gridlock, which, notwithstanding post-pandemic office malaise, was revealed last week by city transportation officials to have grown even more strangulating than it was in 2019.
Answer: it won’t. Without congestion pricing’s stiff but fair $15 toll to drive into Manhattan south of 60th Street during most hours, alternative measures to reduce New York’s staggeringly costly traffic gridlock will invariably succumb to the dreaded “rebound effect.”
And how will Hochul and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority she commands come up with a billion-dollar-a-year revenue stream to cover the interest on $15 billion in long-awaited investments in subway station elevators, digital train signals, and clean, electric buses?
Answer: they likely won’t. In a chessboard win for congestion pricing proponents, legislative leaders last week refused to rubber-stamp Hochul’s wished-for hike in the Payroll Mobility Tax, leaving her with no means to fund the new transit improvements, and putting at risk thousands of jobs in upstate factories as well as downstate. With congestion pricing the only apparent way to pay for these investments, the resistance stays alive.
Did I say resistance? The widespread pushback to the governor constitutes yet another tentacle to the story. If Hochul thought that protests over her surprise cancellation would peter out, she was badly mistaken. What began as public astonishment quickly turned to upset and grew to outrage, not just for its transit and traffic consequences but for its sheer stupidity (per climate-conscience Bill McKibben) and cowardice and cravenness (per congestion pricing campaigner Alex Matthiessen).
Nor is the rage confined to transit wonks and bike advocates. It is being expressed by the transit construction and engineering companies; by business leaders and real estate interests; by the Daily News’ editorial board as well as the Times’; by the unquenchable Families for Safe Streets who since 2018 have put their bodies on the line to spare future bereaved mothers; by urbanists who hoped other cities would follow in New York’s footsteps; and by “supply side progressives” desperate for America to actually address urban and suburban gridlock as well as housing and climate.
Sign at June 12 rally across from Hochul’s midtown office. An estimated 800 New Yorkers marched for congestion pricing, chanting “Safer streets, cleaner air, Governor Hochul doesn’t care.”
The fury at the governor shows no signs of abating. Midway through writing this article I attended a Riders Alliance protest in East New York where Hochul was derided as Congestion Kathy and Governor Gridlock and her face photoshopped on a faux Daily News headline, “Hochul to City: Drop Dead. Gov. Betrays Millions of Riders.” Every hour, it seems, brings word of a new demonstration, another rally, another elected official and civic leader resolving to harass and if need be break Kathy Hochul to put congestion pricing back on track.
Hochul’s action is also a car culture story. Though the city’s car-besieged and transit-rich Manhattan core is perfectly suited for congestion pricing, New York remains part of the United States and thus under the sway of mercenary auto and oil interests. Many of the city’s long-immiserated straphangers, moreover, aspire to car ownership and bristle over tolls they might someday pay, even though few working-class residents of Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island or the Bronx routinely motor to the congestion zone. Perhaps that is why the subway improvements that the tolls would pay for have yet to resonate with most “everyday” New Yorkers.
As well, New York’s political class is subway-avoidant and car-besotted, making them kissing cousins to suburban interests whose car windshields render them immune to transit’s value, except perhaps to keep others from clogging “their” road space. That the political ramifications eluded Gov. Hochul only adds spice to the story. That Manhattan and New York City as a whole couldn’t, last week, defy America’s “dominant car culture,” as the Times wrote in its Saturday editorial, is yet another sad aspect of the story.
We come now to the biggest and most puzzling piece of the Hochul congestion pricing saga: Why did she do it?
Why, after uttering nary a negative word about congestion pricing in her thousand days as governor, did she fold with a mere 25 days to go? Why, after extolling congestion pricing repeatedly and evincing genuine pleasure in being its tribune, did the governor move to murder it?
The standard explanation is that key national Democrats, most notably Brooklyn Congressmember and House Speaker-in-waiting Hakeem Jeffries, and perhaps senior White House officials as well, ordered Hochul to ice the June 30 launch to tamp voter defections in borderline House districts. This account is plausible if misguided, given that the four-month interval from June 30 to November 5 afforded ample time to “reset the default,” as Stockholm showed after its 2007 plunge into congestion pricing. The toll’s ostensible unpopularity would have ended up in the proverbial rearview mirror.
Yet these electoral concerns don’t fully add up. Any politician worth their salt knows not to abruptly reverse course on hot-button issues. And while altered circumstances can justify altered policies, no substantive change suddenly roiled New York’s transportation patterns, transit needs or economic vulnerabilities. Indeed, the governor’s fumbling attempts at justification have convinced no one.
The distemper over the governor’s last-minute cancellation isn’t subsiding.
Perhaps Hochul, an upstater and baby-boomer, was too ensnared in car culture to believe her own congestion pricing rhetoric. Perhaps campaign cash from automobile dealers moved her needle. Maybe she panicked and lost the words to tell Jeffries that helping him would destroy her political viability, end of conversation.
Whatever caused Hochul to abandon congestion pricing, her blunder is of spectacular proportions, or so it appears to this city dweller. The prospective upset to drivers ― and not all drivers, insofar as some regarded the tolls as a means to speed their commutes ― seems almost quaint next to the actual rage of toll proponents and the derision from much of the public.
The governor can still right the ship. She could offer to lighten the toll burden around the edges, as I outlined last week. She could propose a June 30, 2025 referendum, an idea patterned on Stockholm, although who should be eligible to vote isn’t clear and could become its own bone of contention. She could cite the legislature’s hold on alternative transit funding and admit that Plan A was right all along.
The key word is admit. Not only is congestion pricing made for New York, its prolonged gestation has built it into expectations for transit finance, traffic management and the health of the city that cannot be easily unraveled.
Whatever precipitated Gov. Hochul’s loss of nerve, and whatever the consequences for her governorship and her remaining time in politics, she must reinstate congestion pricing. The need is too great, and the story too scandalous, to pretend that congestion pricing will go gentle into its good night.
2025 marks the decisive year for companies to prepare for CSRD compliance. By next year, thousands of businesses across Europe, large multinationals and SMEs alike, will need to publish detailed sustainability disclosures aligned with ESRS standards. The countdown has officially begun, and with only one reporting cycle left to strategise, getting started now is a must.
The Financial Times reported that the Pentagon plans to spend up to $1 billion on critical minerals. This move aims to cut U.S. reliance on China for essential metals in defense, clean energy, and advanced tech. Led by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), this program is the largest U.S. strategic mineral acquisition since the Cold War.
Significantly, the Pentagon’s plan is part of Trump’s broader “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBA) to enhance domestic and allied resources. Under OBBA, the DLA will use a $7.5 billion allocation to:
-
Expand the U.S. stockpile by 2027 ($2 billion)
-
Invest in mineral and processing supply chains ($5 billion)
-
Launch a Pentagon credit program to support private mining and refining projects ($500 million)
Washington’s Strategic Push: From Market Reliance to State Control
China’s control over global mineral supply chains has raised national security concerns. The country refines 80–90% of rare earths and dominates other key metals, such as cobalt and nickel.
Recent Chinese export limits on rare earths have raised concerns in the U.S. Washington views these limits as an effort to weaponize mineral exports. The Pentagon’s stockpiling shows a move from market-driven sourcing to state-led resource security.
Trump Targets China with 100% Tariffs
As per the latest news, President Trump has confirmed plans to impose 100% tariffs on all Chinese imports starting on November 1. He labeled China’s export limits a “hostile act.” He noted the timeline might change, saying, “Right now it is. Let’s see what happens.”
On Truth Social, Trump accused Beijing of manipulating supply chains and warned of “100% tariffs… over and above any tariff they are currently paying.”
This tariff announcement follows China’s decision to limit rare earth exports. These actions link industrial policy more closely to national security.
Pentagon Boosts Stockpile with High-Value Minerals
According to the Financial Times, the Pentagon’s buying spree targets four key minerals vital for defense and clean energy:
-
Cobalt – Up to $500 million. Used in batteries, superalloys, and medical implants.
-
Antimony – About $245 million, partly sourced from U.S. Antimony Corp. Key for flame retardants, batteries, and defense components.
-
Tantalum – Around $100 million. Essential for missile systems and aerospace parts.
-
Scandium – A combined $45 million, reportedly from Rio Tinto and APL Engineered Materials. Used in aerospace alloys and electronics.
These purchases will expand the U.S. national stockpile, which already holds $1.3 billion in metals. The new acquisitions focus on materials critical for weapons production, energy systems, and high-tech manufacturing.
A defense official told the FT that several Pentagon offices are now “flush with cash” for mineral procurement. The government is also exploring offshore mineral resources in the Pacific Ocean, rich in nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese.
Alaska’s Ambler Road Project Approval
President Trump approved the long-contested Ambler Road Project in Alaska. This 211-mile corridor will connect the Dalton Highway to vast mineral deposits in the northwest.
This decision reverses a Biden-era block and is seen as a vital step toward U.S. resource independence. It opens access to copper, zinc, and rare earth elements essential for clean energy and defense manufacturing.
Mineral Stockpiling: Shielding the Nation from Supply Shocks
The U.S. imports over 80% of its critical minerals and relies heavily on foreign refining, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This dependence exposes the country to significant supply risks, especially amid rising geopolitical tensions.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that China controls 90% of rare earth refining and significant percentages of nickel and cobalt refining. Such dominance highlights the risk of relying on a single country for critical inputs.
Thus, to tackle these challenges, the U.S. is building a stockpile of critical minerals. This will reduce supply risks, maintain production of weapons and advanced technologies, and support domestic mining investment.
In short, this stockpile acts as strategic insurance, safeguarding industrial capabilities and boosting national security.
The U.S. aligns with a global trend in mineral stockpiling. The EU requires reserves under its Critical Raw Materials Act. India launched a National Mineral Security Strategy in 2025, while Japan maintains a months-long reserve of rare earths.
Minerals with Net Import Reliance on China
Market Impact and Industry Response
The Pentagon’s stockpiling effort has caught attention in mining and rare earth stocks. Companies like U.S. Antimony and MP Materials are gaining interest as Washington increases mineral procurement.
For example, the DLA’s plan for 3,000 tonnes of antimony—about one-eighth of U.S. annual demand—may stabilize the market for this volatile metal. Analysts expect similar effects for other targeted minerals as demand becomes clearer.
In conclusion, the Pentagon’s $1 billion mineral stockpile plan marks a clear shift. The U.S. government is no longer waiting for markets to secure resources. Instead, it is actively building reserves, funding domestic projects, and aligning economic policy with defense needs.
As competition for minerals increases, the Pentagon’s stockpiling is a defensive strategy and a clear signal. It shows that the next big race among global powers will be for critical minerals. These are vital for future technologies, not oil.
The post Pentagon’s $1B Mineral Stockpile Boosts U.S. Independence from China appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The United States’ push to lead in green hydrogen, once a centerpiece of its clean energy strategy, is slowing down. Recent policy changes by the Trump administration cut funding for hydrogen hubs. They also reduced tax credits for large-scale projects. Analysts say this slowdown could open the door for China to dominate the emerging market for low-carbon hydrogen technology.
The cuts mark a major shift from the previous administration’s investment-heavy approach. Under the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the U.S. planned to spend billions to make hydrogen from renewable electricity. The goal was to decarbonize industries such as steel, cement, and chemicals, which are hard to electrify.
Now, with federal incentives being reduced or delayed, several projects are being reassessed. Developers worry that without consistent support, production costs will remain too high to compete globally.
Funding Cuts Stall the Hydrogen Hub Dream
In mid-2025, the U.S. Department of Energy began reviewing funding for several regional hydrogen hubs. These hubs were meant to create networks linking producers, users, and transport systems. Seven hubs were approved in 2023, backed by more than $7 billion in federal funding, but four are now facing cuts or slowdowns.
Industry groups warn that this could affect projects worth tens of billions of dollars. “Policy certainty is crucial for investors,” said one energy analyst cited in the Bloomberg report. “Every delay or rollback increases the cost of capital and slows deployment.”
The U.S. also faces uncertainty about the Section 45V hydrogen tax credit. This credit offers up to $3 per kilogram for hydrogen produced with near-zero emissions. The credit helped close the gap between costly green hydrogen and cheaper fossil-based hydrogen. Without it, the cost of producing green hydrogen in the U.S. could rise from $3 to $5 per kilogram to over $7, according to BloombergNEF estimates.
China Powers Ahead in the Hydrogen Race
While U.S. funding stalls, China is moving fast. The country already leads the world in electrolyzer manufacturing — the core technology used to make hydrogen from water. In 2024, Chinese companies supplied more than 65% of global electrolyzer capacity, up from just 40% in 2022.
China’s domestic market is also growing. The government has set a goal to produce 200,000 tonnes of green hydrogen per year by 2025 and up to 5 million tonnes by 2030. To support this, provinces such as Inner Mongolia and Hebei have started big solar-powered hydrogen plants.
China’s advantage lies in scale and cost. Electrolyser units made in China cost $600–$1,200 per kilowatt, far lower than the $2,000–$2,600 range typical in the U.S. and Europe. If current trends continue, the price difference might make Chinese-made equipment the top choice for global projects.
Rising Costs and Shrinking Margins
Hydrogen production costs remain the biggest obstacle to global growth. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that low-carbon hydrogen made with renewables costs two to four times more than conventional hydrogen from natural gas.
Producing one kilogram of green hydrogen costs between $4 and $12. This varies based on electricity prices and how efficient the electrolyzer is. Grey hydrogen, made from natural gas, costs $1–3 per kilogram. Analysts say costs must fall below $2 per kilogram to compete in most industries.
Scaling up manufacturing and securing cheap renewable power are key. The IEA projects that with large-scale deployment, electrolyzer costs could fall by 60% by 2030. But this requires steady investment and policy support — something the U.S. may now struggle to sustain.
According to BloombergNEF, global investment in hydrogen production and infrastructure reached $24 billion in 2024, up 50% from 2023. China accounted for nearly half of that total, while U.S. spending slowed after federal policy reviews.
Companies Pivot Amid Uncertainty
Despite the funding cuts, some U.S. companies are pressing ahead. Plug Power, a leading hydrogen firm, recently secured a $1.7 billion loan guarantee to expand production. The company plans to build several U.S. facilities that will supply green hydrogen to logistics and industrial customers.
Meanwhile, developers are adjusting strategies to reduce costs. Some plan to co-locate hydrogen plants near wind or solar farms to secure cheap power. Others are exploring blending hydrogen with natural gas in pipelines to reduce emissions without full conversion.
Industry leaders also call for cooperation with allies. The European Union, for example, continues to fund green hydrogen projects through its Hydrogen Bank initiative. They argue that closer cooperation across the Atlantic could help Western producers compete with China’s growing supply chain.
The Global Hydrogen Race
The race for leadership in green hydrogen is as much about geopolitics as it is about technology. Countries view hydrogen as a way to cut oil imports, boost industry, and ensure energy independence.
In 2024, global hydrogen demand reached about 97 million tonnes, according to the IEA. Only a small share — less than 1% — came from low-carbon production. To meet the world’s climate targets, that share must grow to at least 20% by 2030.
BloombergNEF expects the global hydrogen market to surpass $500 billion each year by 2050. This includes production, storage, and transport. But success depends on which countries can bring down costs first and scale up faster.
If the U.S. loses momentum now, analysts warn, it may have to rely on imported technology later — particularly from China. The following table compares the costs, market share, and 2030 planned output between the two nations.
Can America Catch Up?
Green hydrogen is central to decarbonizing heavy industry and transport. It also supports renewable integration by storing excess power from wind and solar. Without continued investment, the U.S. risks missing key climate targets.
According to the Department of Energy’s earlier projections, hydrogen could cut up to 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 if widely adopted. That potential could shrink if projects slow or shift overseas.
At the same time, China’s expansion means more global supply, which could help reduce costs worldwide. Some analysts see this as an opportunity for global cooperation — if the U.S. can focus on innovation, efficiency, and regulation rather than pure scale.
The chart from Bloomberg below shows the potential changes under Trump’s current policy moves.
Experts say the U.S. can still recover its position with the right mix of policy and private investment. Restoring tax credits, simplifying permits, and investing in electrolyzer manufacturing can help create a fairer market.
For now, China appears to have the upper hand. Its rapid manufacturing growth and strong state support have created momentum that the U.S. may struggle to match. However, as clean energy technologies mature, global demand will likely outstrip any single country’s supply.
The coming years will decide whether the U.S. remains a key player or becomes a buyer in the green hydrogen market it once hoped to lead.
- FURTHER READING: Element Resources to Build America’s Largest $1.85B Green Hydrogen Plant in California
The post U.S. Green Hydrogen Cuts Give China an Edge in the Clean Energy Race appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Gases2 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change1 year 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
-
Renewable Energy3 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale