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.
Carbon Footprint
Philippines Taps Blue Carbon and Biodiversity Credits to Protect Coasts and Climate
The Philippines is stepping up efforts to protect its coastal ecosystems. The government recently advanced its National Blue Carbon Action Partnership (NBCAP) Roadmap. This plan aims to conserve and restore mangroves, seagrass beds, and tidal marshes. It also explores biodiversity credits — a new market linked to nature conservation.
Blue carbon refers to the carbon stored in coastal and marine ecosystems. These habitats can hold large amounts of carbon in plants and soil. Mangroves, for example, store carbon at much higher rates than many land forests. Protecting them reduces greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Biodiversity credits are a related concept. They reward actions that protect or restore species and ecosystems. They work alongside carbon credits but focus more on ecosystem health and species diversity. Markets for biodiversity credits are being discussed globally as a complement to carbon markets.
Why the Philippines Is Targeting Blue Carbon
The Philippines is rich in coastal ecosystems. It has more than 327,000 hectares of mangroves along its shores. These areas protect coastlines from storms, support fisheries, and store carbon.
Mangroves and seagrasses also support high levels of biodiversity. Many fish, birds, and marine species depend on these habitats. Restoring these ecosystems helps conserve species and supports local food systems.
The NBCAP Roadmap was handed over to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) during the Philippine Mangrove Conference 2026. The roadmap is a strategy to protect blue carbon ecosystems while linking them to climate goals and local livelihoods.
DENR Undersecretary, Atty. Analiza Rebuelta-Teh, remarked during the turnover:
“This Roadmap reflects the Philippines’ strong commitment to advancing blue carbon accounting and delivering tangible impact for coastal communities.”
Edwina Garchitorena, country director of ZSL Philippines, which will oversee its implementation, also commented:
“The handover of the NBCAP Roadmap to the DENR represents a turning point in advancing blue carbon action and strengthening the Philippines’ leadership in coastal conservation in the region.”
The plan highlights four main pillars:
- Science, technology, and innovation.
- Policy and governance.
- Communication and community engagement.
- Finance and sustainable livelihoods.
These pillars aim to strengthen coastal resilience, support community well‑being, and align blue carbon action with national climate commitments.
What Blue Carbon Credits Could Mean for Markets
Globally, blue carbon markets are growing. These markets allow coastal restoration projects to sell carbon credits. Projects that preserve or restore mangroves, seagrass meadows, and tidal marshes can generate credits. Buyers pay for these credits to offset emissions.
According to Grand View Research, the global blue carbon market was valued at US$2.42 million in 2025. It is projected to reach US$14.79 million by 2033, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of almost 25%.
The Asia Pacific region led the market in 2025, with 39% of global revenue, due to its extensive coastal ecosystems and government support. Within the market, mangroves accounted for 68% of revenue, reflecting their high carbon storage capacity.
Blue carbon credits belong to the voluntary carbon market. Companies purchase these credits to offset emissions they can’t eliminate right now. Buyers are often motivated by sustainability goals and environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) standards.
Experts at the UN Environment Programme say these blue habitats can capture carbon 4x faster than forests:
Why Biodiversity Credits Matter: Rewarding Species, Strengthening Ecosystems
Carbon credits aim to cut greenhouse gases. In contrast, biodiversity credits focus on saving species and habitats. These credits reward projects that improve ecosystem health and may be used alongside carbon markets to attract finance for nature.
Biodiversity credits are particularly relevant in the Philippines, one of 17 megadiverse countries. The nation is home to thousands of unique plant and animal species. Supporting biodiversity through market mechanisms can strengthen conservation efforts while also supporting local communities.
Globally, biodiversity credit markets are still developing. Organizations such as the Biodiversity Credit Alliance are creating standards to ensure transparency, equity, and measurable outcomes. They want to link private investment to good environmental outcomes. They also respect the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples.
These markets complement carbon markets. They can support conservation efforts. This boosts ecosystem resilience and protects species while also capturing carbon.
Together with blue carbon credits, they form part of a broader nature-based solution to climate change and biodiversity loss. A report by the Ecosystem Marketplace estimates the potential carbon abatement for every type of blue carbon solution by 2050.
Science, Policy, and Funding: The Roadblocks Ahead
Building blue carbon and biodiversity credit markets is not easy. There are several challenges ahead for the Philippines.
One key challenge is measurement and verification. To sell carbon or biodiversity credits, projects must prove they deliver real and measurable benefits. This requires science‑based methods and monitoring systems.
Another challenge is finance. Case studies reveal that creating a blue carbon action roadmap in the Philippines may need around US$1 million. This funding will help set up essential systems and support initial actions.
Policy frameworks are also needed. Laws and rules must support credit issuance, protect local rights, and ensure fair sharing of benefits. Coordination across government agencies, local communities, and investors will be important.
Stakeholder engagement is key. The NBCAP Roadmap and related forums involve scientists, policymakers, civil society, and private sector partners. This teamwork approach makes sure actions are based on science, inclusive, and fair in the long run.
Looking Ahead: Coastal Conservation as Climate Strategy
Blue carbon and biodiversity credits could provide multiple benefits for the Philippines. Protecting and restoring coastal habitats reduces greenhouse gases, conserves species, and supports local economies. Coastal ecosystems also provide natural defenses against storms and rising seas.
If blue carbon and biodiversity credit markets grow, they could fund coastal conservation at scale while supporting global climate targets. Biodiversity credits could further enhance ecosystem protection by linking nature’s intrinsic value to market mechanisms.
The market also involves climate finance and corporate buyers looking for quality credits. Additionally, international development partners focused on coastal resilience may join in.
For the Philippines, the next few years will be critical. Implementing the NBCAP roadmap, establishing credit systems, and strengthening governance could unlock new opportunities for climate action, sustainable development, and regional leadership in blue carbon finance.
The post Philippines Taps Blue Carbon and Biodiversity Credits to Protect Coasts and Climate appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The global electric vehicle (EV) market is gaining speed again. A sharp rise in oil prices, triggered by the recent U.S.–Iran conflict in early 2026, has changed how consumers think about fuel and mobility. What looked like a slow market just months ago is now showing strong signs of recovery.
According to SNE Research’s latest report, this sudden shift in energy markets is pushing EV adoption faster than expected. Rising gasoline costs and uncertainty about future oil supply are driving buyers toward electric cars. As a result, the EV transition is no longer gradual—it is accelerating.
Oil Price Shock Changes Consumer Behavior
The conflict in the Middle East sent oil markets into turmoil. Gasoline prices jumped quickly, rising from around 1,600–1,700 KRW per liter to as high as 2,200 KRW. This sudden spike acted as a wake-up call for many drivers.
Consumers who once hesitated to switch to EVs are now rethinking their choices. High and unstable fuel prices have made traditional gasoline vehicles less attractive. At the same time, EVs now look more cost-effective and reliable over the long term.
SNE Research noted that even if oil prices stabilize later, the fear of future spikes will remain. This uncertainty is a key driver behind early EV adoption. People no longer want to depend on volatile fuel markets.
EV Growth Forecasts Get a Major Boost
SNE Research has revised its global EV outlook. The firm now expects faster adoption across the decade.
- EV market penetration is projected to reach 29% in 2026, up from an earlier estimate of 27%.
- By 2027, the share could jump to 35%, instead of the previously expected 30%.
- Most importantly, EVs are now expected to cross 50% of new car sales by 2030, earlier than prior forecasts.
The research firm also highlighted a clear timeline shift. EV demand has moved forward by half a year in 2026. By 2027, this lead increases to one full year. From 2028 onward, adoption is expected to accelerate by more than two years. This shows that the global EV transition is happening much faster than industry players had originally planned.
Higher Fuel Costs Improve EV Economics
One of the biggest drivers behind this shift is simple: EVs are becoming cheaper to own compared to gasoline cars.
SNE Research compared two popular models—the gasoline-powered Kia Sportage 1.6T and the electric Kia EV5. The results highlight how rising fuel prices change the equation.
At a gasoline price of 1,600 KRW per liter, it takes about two years to recover the higher upfront cost of an EV. However, when fuel prices rise to 2,000 KRW per liter, the payback period drops to just one year and two months.
So, over a longer period, the savings are even clearer:
- Total 10-year cost of a gasoline car: 59–65 million KRW
- Total 10-year cost of an EV: around 44 million KRW
This large gap makes EVs a smarter financial choice, especially when fuel prices remain high.
Battery Shake-Up: Market Struggles While CATL Surges Ahead
In the first two months of 2026, global EV battery usage reached 134.9 GWh, a modest increase of 4.4% year-over-year. However, not all companies are benefiting equally.
South Korean battery makers—LG Energy Solution, SK On, and Samsung SDI—saw their combined market share fall to 15%, down by 2.2 percentage points. Each company reported declining growth:
- LG Energy Solution: down 2.7%
- SK On: down 12.9%
- Samsung SDI: down 21.9%
This drop was mainly due to weaker EV sales in the U.S. market earlier in the year.
- In contrast, Chinese battery giant CATL continued to expand its lead. Its market share grew from 38.7% to 42.1%, strengthening its global dominance.
SNE Research explained that future competition will depend less on overall EV growth and more on supply chain strategy. Companies that diversify across customers and regions will be in a stronger position.
Automakers Feel the Impact Across Markets
Battery demand also reflects trends in automaker performance. Samsung SDI, for example, supplies batteries to brands like BMW, Audi, and Rivian. However, slower EV sales across these companies reduced overall battery demand.
Some key factors include:
- Lower sales of BMW’s electric lineup, including models like the i4 and iX
- Weak demand for Audi EVs despite new launches
- Declining sales from North America-focused brands like Rivian and Jeep
In some cases, new models even reduced demand for older ones. For instance, Audi’s Q6 e-tron impacted sales of the Q8 e-tron, lowering overall battery usage.
A Structural Shift in the EV Market
Despite short-term fluctuations, SNE Research believes the EV market is entering a new phase. The current surge is not just a reaction to oil prices—it reflects a deeper shift in consumer mindset.
People now see EVs as a safer and more stable option. Energy security, cost savings, and environmental concerns are all playing a role.
As SNE Research’s Vice President Ik-hwan James Oh explained, even if oil prices fall, the memory of sudden spikes will remain. This lasting concern will continue to push EV adoption.
In conclusion, the events of early 2026 have shown how quickly market dynamics can change. A single geopolitical shock has reshaped the global auto industry outlook.
For automakers, the message is clear: EV demand can rise faster than expected. For battery companies, the focus must shift to global expansion and supply chain resilience. For consumers, the decision is becoming easier as EVs offer both savings and stability.
The global EV market is no longer just growing—it is accelerating. And if current trends continue, the shift to electric mobility could arrive much sooner than anyone expected.
The post Global EV Sales Set to Hit 50% by 2030 Amid Oil Shock While CATL Leads Batteries appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
AI Data Centers Power Crisis: Massive Energy Demand Threatens Emissions Targets and Latest Delays Signal Market Shift
The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) is creating a new challenge for global energy systems. AI data centers now require far more electricity than traditional computing facilities. This surge in demand is putting pressure on power grids and raising concerns about whether climate targets can still be met.
Large AI data centers typically need 100 to 300 megawatts (MW) of continuous power. In contrast, conventional data centers use around 10-50 MW. This makes AI facilities up to 10x more energy-intensive, depending on the scale and workload.
AI Data Centers Are Driving a Sharp Rise in Power Demand
The increase is happening quickly. The International Energy Agency estimates that global data center electricity use reached about 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2024. That number could rise to more than 1,000 TWh by 2026, largely driven by AI applications such as machine learning, cloud computing, and generative models. 
At that level, data centers would consume as much electricity as an entire mid-sized country like Japan.
In the United States, the impact is also growing. Data centers could account for 6% to 8% of total electricity demand by 2030, based on utility projections and grid operator estimates. AI is expected to drive most of that increase as companies continue to scale infrastructure to support new applications.
Training large AI models is especially energy-intensive. Some estimates say an advanced model can use millions of kilowatt-hours (kWh) just for training. For instance, training GPT-3 needs roughly 1.287 million kWh, and Google’s PaLM at about 3.4 million kWh. Analytical estimates suggest training newer models like GPT-4 may require between 50 million and over 100 million kWh.
That is equal to the annual electricity use of hundreds of households. When combined with ongoing usage, known as inference, total energy consumption rises even further.
This rapid growth is creating a gap between electricity demand and available supply. It is also raising questions about how the technology sector can expand while staying aligned with global climate goals.
The Grid Bottleneck: Why Data Centers Are Waiting Years for Power
Power demand from AI is rising faster than grid infrastructure can support. Utilities in key regions are now facing a surge in interconnection requests from technology companies building new data centers.
This has led to delays in several major projects. In many cases, developers must wait years before they can secure enough electricity to operate. These delays are becoming more common in established tech hubs where grid capacity is already stretched.
The main constraints include:
- Limited transmission capacity in high-demand areas,
- Slow grid upgrades and long permitting timelines, and
- Regulatory systems not designed for AI-scale demand.
Grid stability is another concern. AI data centers require constant and uninterrupted power. Even short disruptions can affect performance and reliability. This makes it more difficult for utilities to balance supply and demand, especially during peak periods.
In some regions, utilities are struggling to manage the size and concentration of new loads. A single large data center can use as much electricity as a small city. When several projects are planned in the same area, the pressure on local infrastructure increases significantly.
As a result, some companies are rethinking their expansion strategies. Projects may be delayed, scaled down, or moved to new locations where energy is more accessible. These shifts could slow the pace of AI deployment, at least in the short term.
Renewable Energy Growth Faces a Reality Check
Technology companies have made strong commitments to clean energy. Many aim to power their operations with 100% renewable electricity. This is part of their larger environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals.
For example, Microsoft plans to become carbon negative by 2030, meaning it will remove more carbon than it emits. Google is targeting 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030, which goes beyond annual matching to ensure clean power is used at all times. Amazon has committed to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 under its Climate Pledge.
Despite these targets, AI data centers present a difficult challenge. They need reliable electricity around the clock, while renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are not always available. Output can vary depending on weather conditions and time of day.
To maintain stable operations, many facilities rely on a mix of energy sources. This often includes grid electricity, which may still be partly generated from fossil fuels. In some cases, natural gas backup systems are used more frequently than planned.
Battery storage can help balance supply and demand. However, long-duration storage remains expensive and is not yet widely deployed at the scale needed for large AI facilities. This creates both technical and financial barriers.
Thus, there is a growing gap between corporate clean energy goals and real-world energy use. Closing that gap will require faster deployment of renewable energy, improved storage solutions, and more flexible grid systems.
Carbon Credits Use Surge as Tech Tries to Close the Emissions Gap
The mismatch between AI growth and clean energy supply is also affecting carbon markets. Many technology companies are increasing their use of carbon credits to offset emissions linked to data center operations.
According to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2025, carbon pricing now covers over 28% of global emissions. But carbon prices vary widely—from under $10 per ton in some systems to over $100 per ton in stricter markets. This gap is pushing companies toward voluntary carbon markets.
The Ecosystem Marketplace report shows rising demand for high-quality credits, especially carbon removal rather than avoidance credits. But supply is still limited.
Costs are especially high for engineered removals. The IEA estimates that direct air capture (DAC) costs today range from about $600 to over $1,000 per ton of CO₂. It may fall to $100–$300 per ton in the future, but supply is still very small.
Companies are focusing on credits that:
- Deliver verified emissions reductions,
- Support long-term carbon removal, and
- Align with ESG and net-zero commitments.
At the same time, many firms are taking a more active role in energy development. Instead of relying only on offsets, they are investing directly in renewable energy projects. This includes funding new solar and wind farms, as well as entering long-term power purchase agreements.
These investments help secure a dedicated clean energy supply. They also reduce long-term exposure to carbon markets, which can be volatile and subject to changing standards.
Companies Are Adapting Their Energy Strategies: The New AI Energy Playbook
AI companies are changing how they design and operate data centers to manage rising energy demand. Here are some of the key strategies:
- Energy efficiency improvements (new hardware and cooling systems) that reduce data center power use.
- More efficient AI chips, specialized processors, that drive performance gains.
- Advanced cooling systems that cut energy waste and can help cut total power use per workload by 20% to 40%.
- Data center location strategy is shifting, where facilities are built in regions with stronger renewable energy access.
- Infrastructure is becoming more distributed, where firms deploy smaller data centers across multiple locations to balance demand and improve resilience.
- Long-term renewable energy contracts are expanding, which helps companies secure power at stable prices.
A Turning Point for Energy and Climate Goals
The rise of AI is creating both risks and opportunities for the global energy transition. In the short term, increased electricity demand could lead to higher emissions if fossil fuels are used to fill supply gaps.
At the same time, AI is driving major investment in clean energy and infrastructure. The long-term outcome will depend on how quickly clean energy systems can scale.
If renewable supply, storage, and grid capacity keep pace with AI growth, the technology sector could help accelerate the shift to a low-carbon economy. If progress is too slow, however, AI could become a major new source of emissions.
Either way, AI is now a central force shaping global energy demand, infrastructure investment, and the future of carbon markets.
The post AI Data Centers Power Crisis: Massive Energy Demand Threatens Emissions Targets and Latest Delays Signal Market Shift appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits