Carbon credit projects are gaining significant attention as businesses aim to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while maintaining profitability. These projects offer a pathway for companies to offset emissions, improve sustainability, and tap into new revenue streams.
But how do they do that? This guide explores the types, benefits, challenges, and future trends of carbon credit projects, helping businesses navigate this critical climate solution.
5 Key Types of Carbon Credit Projects
Carbon credit projects include a range of activities designed to either reduce or capture GHG emissions. Here are the five primary types, each with specific mechanisms and benefits:
1. Reforestation & Afforestation
Reforestation involves replanting trees in deforested areas, while afforestation refers to planting trees in regions that have not been forested for extended periods. These projects sequester carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere as trees absorb CO₂ during photosynthesis, storing carbon in their biomass and soil.
Reforestation and afforestation projects continue to play a crucial role in carbon sequestration. Some large-scale reforestation projects are financially backed by multinational corporations such as this Amazon reforestation initiative by Mombak.
However, there are also a lot of small nature conservation projects worldwide that need funding to scale up. Some of them are still in the development stage but offer innovative approaches to reforesting degraded lands.
One example in Asia is a re-greening project that aims to reforest hectares of deforested land. Using innovative seed ball technology and drone deployment, the project will disperse seeds across vast areas, promoting large-scale forest restoration. This initiative will not only sequester CO₂ but also support local biodiversity and provide economic opportunities for surrounding communities.
Reforestation and afforestation projects are pivotal in global carbon sequestration efforts. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), forests absorb approximately 2.6 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually. This figure offsets about ⅓ of the CO₂ released from burning fossil fuels. Such projects also contribute to biodiversity conservation, soil preservation, and the enhancement of water resources.
2. Renewable Energy Projects
Renewable energy projects involve the development of energy sources that do not emit GHGs during operation. Common examples are wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. By replacing fossil fuel-based energy generation, these projects significantly reduce CO₂ emissions.
Renewable energy projects remain a significant source of carbon credits. In 2024, renewable energy credits represented 31% of total retirements, with 51.1 million credits retired. This result indicates a continued commitment to clean energy initiatives.
For instance, one of the world’s largest solar energy projects, the Noor Ouarzazate Solar Complex in Morocco covers 3,000 hectares. It has a total capacity of 580 MW, supplying power to over a million people. The project reduces CO₂ emissions by approximately 760,000 tonnes annually.
The Gansu Wind Farm in China is another example. It is one of the world’s largest wind power projects, with a planned capacity of 20 GW. Located in the Gobi Desert, it currently produces over 8 GW of electricity, powering millions of homes. The project reduces CO₂ emissions by millions of tonnes annually and plays a crucial role in China’s renewable energy expansion.
Since 2010, over 750 million voluntary carbon credits have been issued by over 1,700 renewable energy projects worldwide. Wind projects contribute 40% of these credits, followed by hydro (30%) and solar (15%). These projects play a crucial role in diversifying energy portfolios and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
3. Methane Capture & Destruction
Methane (CH₄) is a potent GHG with a global warming potential about 28 times greater than that of CO₂ over a 100-year period. Projects that capture methane aim to collect and use or destroy methane emissions from sources like landfills, agricultural activities, and wastewater treatment facilities.
In the U.S., numerous landfill gas-to-energy projects have been established to capture methane produced by decomposing organic waste. The captured methane is then used to generate electricity or heat, thereby reducing GHG emissions and providing a renewable energy source.
As of 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports 542 operational landfill gas (LFG) energy projects nationwide. These projects harness methane emissions from landfills to generate energy, thereby reducing GHG emissions and providing a renewable energy source.
One company, Zefiro Methane, focuses on sealing abandoned oil and gas wells across the U.S. to prevent methane leaks. By capping and properly decommissioning these wells, Zefiro reduces emissions and generates carbon credits that can be traded in voluntary markets. Their work supports climate goals while addressing the millions of abandoned wells contributing to methane pollution.
The Global Methane Pledge, launched in 2021, aims to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030. Achieving this target could reduce warming by at least 0.2°C by 2050, demonstrating the significant impact of methane capture initiatives.
4. Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS)
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) involves capturing CO₂ emissions from industrial processes or directly from the atmosphere and storing them underground in geological formations. This technology prevents CO₂ from entering the atmosphere, thereby mitigating climate change.
CCS technologies have seen advancements, with increased investments in projects aimed at capturing CO₂ emissions from industrial processes. In 2024, significant policy developments, including breakthroughs on Article 6 at COP29, are expected to shape the global market for carbon credits, potentially influencing the implementation of CCS projects.
A popular example of CCS is Northern Lights, a joint venture by Equinor, Shell, and TotalEnergies. It is a large-scale carbon capture and storage project in Norway.
- SEE MORE: The “Northern Lights” Shines: Shell, Equinor, and TotalEnergies JV Powers the Norway CCS Project
It captures CO₂ emissions from industrial sources, liquefies them, and transports them for permanent storage under the North Sea. The project aims to store up to 1.5 million tons of CO₂ annually in its first phase, with expansion plans for up to 5 million tons per year, helping industries decarbonize while generating carbon credits.
As of 2024, the global CCS landscape has seen significant growth. There are now 50 operational CCS facilities worldwide, capturing around 50 million tonnes of CO₂ annually. Additionally, 44 facilities are under construction, and 534 are in various stages of development, indicating a robust expansion in CCS initiatives.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) emphasizes that to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, CCS capacity needs to increase to 1.6 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually by 2030.
5. Community & Land Management Initiatives
These projects focus on sustainable land use practices, conservation, and community-driven efforts to enhance carbon sequestration and support local economies.
Community-driven projects focusing on sustainable land management have been instrumental in generating carbon credits. These initiatives often involve agroforestry and conservation efforts that not only sequester carbon but also provide socio-economic benefits to local communities.
A great example is the Kasigau Corridor project protects over 200,000 hectares of dryland forest in southeastern Kenya. By preventing deforestation and promoting sustainable land management, the project has generated over 1 million carbon credits. It also provides employment opportunities, supports education, and funds community development initiatives, benefiting approximately 100,000 local people.
Community and land management projects are integral to the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) program under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These initiatives sequester carbon as well as promote biodiversity conservation and enhance the livelihoods of local communities
4 Benefits of Carbon Credit Projects for Businesses
Environmental Impact & Carbon Reduction
Participating in carbon credit projects enables businesses to offset their carbon footprint effectively. In 2023, global carbon pricing revenues reached a record $104 billion, reflecting increased corporate engagement in emission reduction initiatives.
Beyond compliance, carbon credit projects play a crucial role in meeting global climate goals. According to the IEA, the world must cut emissions by 45% by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Businesses that invest in high-quality credits contribute to this target while mitigating their own climate risks and cutting carbon emissions.
Additionally, some programs, like REDD+ help protect biodiversity and improve land-use practices, making them doubly beneficial.
Financial Benefits & Revenue Streams
The carbon credit market has become a substantial financial avenue for businesses. In 2024, credits worth a total of $1.4 billion were utilized by corporations, underscoring the market’s potential for generating additional revenue streams.
Companies not only purchase credits to offset emissions but also develop their own projects to sell verified carbon offsets.
For instance, major corporations like Microsoft and Shell invest in carbon capture projects to generate high-value credits. According to Allied Market Research, the global voluntary carbon market is projected to reach $100 billion by 2030, presenting lucrative opportunities for businesses that engage early. While MSCI data suggests that voluntary carbon credit market could reach up to $250 billion by 2050.
Enhancing Corporate Reputation
Engaging in carbon credit projects enhances a company’s reputation by demonstrating a commitment to sustainability. This proactive approach improves brand image and fosters customer loyalty, as consumers increasingly prefer environmentally responsible companies.
A 2023 survey by IBM found that 70% of consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable brands, highlighting the competitive advantage of climate-conscious business strategies.
Moreover, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing has surged, with global ESG assets expected to surpass $40 trillion by 2025. Companies that actively reduce their carbon footprint through verified credit projects are more likely to secure funding from institutional ESG-focused investors.
Regulatory Compliance & Market Demand
With the implementation of stricter environmental regulations worldwide, carbon credits assist businesses in complying with emission targets. The expansion of carbon pricing instruments, now totaling 75 globally, indicates a growing market demand for sustainable practices.
Governments are tightening emission policies, making carbon credits a crucial tool for avoiding hefty fines and maintaining operations.
The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), set to be fully implemented by 2026, will require importers to pay for embedded emissions in products like steel and cement. Similarly, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes billions in incentives for clean energy projects and carbon capture. These policies create a clear incentive for companies to invest in carbon credits to maintain regulatory compliance and gain a competitive edge.
3 Steps To Implementing A Successful Carbon Credit Project
If you’re planning or simply thinking about how to have a carbon credit project that emerges successfully, here are the three major steps to follow:
1. Identifying Project Scope & Goals
Start by defining your carbon credit project’s objectives. What are you aiming to achieve? This could range from reducing carbon emissions to generating new revenue streams or ensuring compliance with regulatory frameworks. Each objective should be clear and measurable to track progress.
Once your goals are set, choose the right project type. Whether it’s reforestation, renewable energy generation, or methane capture, aligning your project’s nature with your goals is essential. For instance, if emission reductions are a priority, a renewable energy project may be the best fit. Careful selection of the project type will streamline efforts and maximize impact.
2. Verifying Carbon Offset Credits & Certification
Next, focus on obtaining certification for the carbon credits you generate. Certification from established, recognized standards—such as the Gold Standard or Verra—validates the legitimacy of your carbon credits. Stick to proven methodologies and ensure full transparency in your project’s implementation.
Rigorous monitoring and reporting will ensure that your carbon credits are verified correctly and gain credibility in the marketplace. Remember, the higher the standard of certification, the more trustworthy your credits will appear to buyers, enhancing their marketability.
3. Market Engagement & Carbon Credit Trading
Finally, engage with carbon credit trading platforms to bring your credits to market. Established marketplaces, such as those launched by governments or private entities, allow for easy buying and selling of carbon credits. For example, Indonesia’s entry into the global carbon market in 2024 was a significant step toward green energy funding.
By listing your credits on such platforms, you can contribute to the global effort against climate change while monetizing your efforts. The carbon trading landscape is growing, making it crucial for businesses to stay informed and ready to leverage these platforms for maximum impact.
5 Challenges in Managing Carbon Credit Projects
After knowing the benefits of and the steps needed to implement a carbon credit project, it’s also wise to learn the challenges involved.
-
Ensuring Project Validity & Monitoring
Rigorous monitoring and validation are necessary to maintain project integrity and avoid issues like double counting. This ensures that emission reductions are genuinely achieved.
-
Avoiding Double Counting
Implementing robust tracking systems is crucial to prevent the same carbon credit from being counted multiple times, preserving the credibility of carbon offset claims.
-
Managing Volatile Market Prices
The carbon credit market can experience price fluctuations, impacting the financial sustainability of projects. Staying informed about market trends and diversifying project portfolios can help mitigate these risks. Go over this carbon price page to stay informed.
-
Meeting Strict Regulatory Standards
Compliance with evolving environmental regulations requires businesses to stay updated. Engaging with policy developments, like the breakthroughs in Article 6 at COP29 in 2024, ensures projects align with international standards.
-
Securing Long-Term Financing
Attracting and maintaining investment for carbon credit projects can be challenging. However, by the end of the third quarter of 2024, $14 billion had been raised or committed, reflecting increasing investor interest and confidence in the market.
3 Future Trends in Carbon Credit Projects
Finally, it helps to know what trends are unfolding in the market and learn how to leverage them, namely:
Innovations in Carbon Capture Technologies
As carbon capture technologies evolve, they are expected to significantly improve the efficiency and scalability of emission reduction efforts. Innovations like Direct Air Capture (DAC) are poised to capture carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, making it easier to offset emissions from difficult-to-decarbonize sectors.
These advancements will drive the development of high-quality carbon credit projects that can scale rapidly to meet global climate goals. The global carbon capture market could reach $7.3 billion by 2030, highlighting its growing potential as a major player in carbon credit generation.
Expansion of Carbon Credit Marketplaces
The emergence of new carbon credit marketplaces is a key trend shaping the future of carbon trading. Platforms like Indonesia’s IDX Carbon, launched in 2024, are increasing global participation in emission reduction initiatives. Such marketplaces are making carbon credit trading more accessible, especially for emerging economies looking to fund sustainability projects through carbon sales.
There are over 60 carbon trading platforms now active worldwide. The expansion of these digital platforms is expected to drive greater liquidity and efficiency in the carbon market, enabling more businesses to engage in carbon offsetting.
Increasing Focus on Quality & Additionality
Looking ahead, the carbon credit market will place an increasing emphasis on the quality of credits and additionality. Additionality ensures that carbon reduction projects would not have happened without the credit system, proving their real-world impact.
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) is leading efforts to create new benchmarks for high-quality carbon credits. As sustainability-conscious investors and businesses seek reliable offsets, there will be a stronger demand for verified, additional, and impactful carbon credit projects.
Conclusion
Carbon credit projects are vital tools for achieving sustainability and profitability in today’s business landscape. By understanding the different types, benefits, and challenges, companies can effectively implement these projects to reduce their carbon footprint, meet regulatory standards, and enhance their market position. With innovations and growing market opportunities, these projects would be pivotal in the global effort to combat climate change.
- FURTHER READING: Is the Voluntary Carbon Market Dead?
The post How Carbon Credit Projects Contribute To Sustainability and Profitability appeared first on Carbon Credits.
A few months ago I went to a climate change forum at the Center for Brooklyn History. The panel I attended, “Confronting Climate Change: Understanding Deniers,” featured the prominent climate activist, Bill McKibben.
Bill McKibben. Courtesy https://billmckibben.com/.
I was curious to hear McKibben’s take on climate change deniers. I don’t regard the true deniers as a big problem – they’re only 11-15% of our country, according to most polls. Rather, I wondered if McKibben would label as “climate deniers” people who agree that climate change is a significant problem but disagree with his framing and his proposed solutions. I have worked for decades on energy and climate matters as an energy lawyer. Now, more than ever, I believe that to address climate change we need to build a big tent.
In the Q&A I tested where McKibben is on this by asking if he would label as a climate denier someone who subscribes to the main tenets of climate change science yet holds that natural gas has a role to play as a bridge fuel. (Our exchange starts at 1:12:45 of the video.)
This could have been a chance for McKibben to make clear that such a view isn’t climate denialism, even if he feels it’s misguided. But he punted, saying “I don’t care whether they’re deniers or not.” For good measure, he threw in his long-standing refrain that swapping coal for natural gas makes climate change worse, despite coal’s far higher carbon content per unit of energy.
674-MW methane-powered generating station, Salem, MA.
As you can hear in the recording, McKibben’s claim that gas is worse than coal draws on the work of Cornell scientist Robert Howarth. Yet McKibben didn’t mention that Howarth’s work is controversial and disputed by many scientists. The crux of the dispute is whether methane’s impact on warming should be measured with a 20-year or 100-year time frame.
Methane is a relatively short-lived greenhouse gas, with a lifetime of around 10 years, versus the 100-year life applicable to carbon dioxide. But each ton of methane is far more potent while in the atmosphere, trapping roughly 100 times as much heat as a ton of CO2. These cross-cutting facts about atmospheric methane — shorter life but greater potency than CO2 — have resulted in two opposing camps: one insisting on a 20-year timeframe for greenhouse gas accounting, the other adhering to the established 100-year frame. This matters because with a 20-year timeframe, generating electricity with natural gas (which, chemically speaking, is essentially all methane) is more damaging to climate than coal-fired electricity.
McKibben blew past this dispute. To hear him at the Center for Brooklyn History, one would have no inkling that there’s an active disagreement over which timeframe to use, that there are staunch climate activists who favor the 100-year time frame, and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) generally uses the 100-year timeframe.
McKibben’s latest (2025) book. Published by W.W. Norton & Company.
McKibben also insisted that a discussion about natural gas’s potential role in mitigating climate change as a replacement for coal is irrelevant because solar “is now our cheapest resource.” McKibben’s claim, of course, suffuses “Here Comes the Sun,” his 2025 book that extols solar power as the cheapest solution for all of our energy needs. But this too is questionable, because it’s based on cost comparisons between solar farms and natural gas power plants (or nuclear power plants) that fail to consider that electricity supply and delivery is a complex system of wires and plants rather than individual power plants. Based on his remarks, McKibben is choosing to ignore studies such as the comprehensive 2025 report from the Clean Air Task Force that concluded that plant-level cost comparison “is a good metric to track historical technology cost evolution [but] is not an appropriate tool to use in the context of long-term planning and policymaking for deep decarbonization.” And the task force is not alone in finding that when electricity is treated as a system, solar loses its place as the cheapest low-carbon resource.
The dogmatism McKibben displayed at the Brooklyn meeting was unfortunate. We’re in a time when efforts to combat climate change are in retreat. A unified front is required to turn the tide. Instead of doubling down on absolutist positions, activists like McKibben who seem convinced that the solution to climate change is all-renewables, end of discussion, should be seeking common ground with others who want climate action but believe that nuclear power and natural gas must also play a role.
NYC Climate March, Sept 17, 2023. Photo: C. Komanoff.
Climate change activists need to build a bigger tent, rather than call anyone who disagrees with their positions a climate change denier. It is striking that McKibben stuck to his guns after saying in the same talk that the most important goal for everyone right now is to help climate change realists win more House and Senate seats in this year’s midterms. As some have noted, an absolutist position on natural gas appears less likely to achieve that win and politicians are following that advice.
Will McKibben evolve? He has demonstrated that he knows how to build a national climate movement centered around issues like divestment. Given the current political situation, he should focus on building an even bigger tent by welcoming all of the 85% who believe that we need to address climate change but do not agree with his ideological positions.
Rich Miller is an energy lawyer who has worked for a variety of stakeholders and now gives walking tours in lower Manhattan on the history of electricity.
Image generated with Claude. Why have we juxtaposed a bicycle with balcony solar? Read on.
First it was Plug-In Solar. Then it was Balcony Solar. Now it’s Guerrilla Solar, at least according to Inside Climate News, which yesterday proclaimed that The ‘Guerrilla Solar’ Era Has Arrived.
“It,” of course, is Modular solar panels. They’re the hot new photovoltaic solution: cheap enough to buy at Home Depot, easy to hang or prop to catch maximum rays, and small enough to fit on a balcony (if you’ve got one) and plug into your “home grid.” But, alas, too meager a generator of electricity to be more than a bit player in decarbonizing most U.S. homes.
How do I know? I’ve done the math.
A standard, lower-end 220-watt balcony solar array will produce 337 kilowatt-hours a year, or 28 kWh a month averaged over the course of a year. That’s for a 220W unit measuring 3.5 feet by 3.5 feet. (220W x 1/1000 x 17.5% x 8760 hours per year = 337 kWh. Calculation assumes a 17.5% full-year capacity factor, which is arguably generous for New York, where I live. )
Our balcony solar mashup. Top: an install in Germany. Bottom: Home Depot advert.
A typical U.S. home consumes 10,500 kWh a year, or 28 to 29 kWh per day, says Solartech, drawing on U.S. Energy Information Administration data. That puts a home’s daily power needs on par with a balcony solar unit’s monthly output. In effect, once each month the balcony array gifts a homeowner or renter a bit more than day’s full complement of electricity. And earth’s atmosphere gets the same respite: a 3 percent reduction in carbon emissions caused by the home’s electricity usage.
(The 3 percent figure could also be calculated directly by dividing 337 kWh per year of solar production by 10,500 kWh per year to run the home. For bigger or smaller arrays, just prorate your assumed wattage by my 220W; for 440W, say, double my figures.)
Balcony Solar metrics
Why write about balcony solar if it’s so inconsequential? CTC’s mission includes puncturing would-be climate balloons before they ascend too far. In the same vein, we practice quantification to make clear what does and doesn’t move the climate needle. (More on that further below.)
The best way to depict balcony solar’s climate value is to express it in terms of tangible metrics. We’ve selected two. Both assume the basic, lower-end PV array I assumed at the top: a 3.5 foot-square array whose peak output is 220 watts.
1. It would take 50 million 220W balcony solar units (bsu’s) to restore the climate benefit we destroyed in 2020-2021 when we shut the high-performing Indian Point nuclear power plant 32 miles from Midtown Manhattan.
2. A single person cutting back their driving by a mile a day would provide the same climate benefit over the course of a year as a single 220W bsu.
(Calculations in sidebar. Now you know why we led with images of an urban dweller as cyclist and balcony solar user.)
Yes, it’s dense — as befits a sidebar. The numbers tell a story. Follow the color co-ordination.
Ponder that: It would take fifty million smallish bsu’s to level up to the fossil fuel carbon emissions that Indian Point was keeping at bay by supplying the New York City area year in and year out with abundant carbon-free power. Deploying that many balcony solar units would entail 10 bsu’s for each of the 5 million households in the MTA’s service territory. (The Metropolitan Transportation Authority provides subway, bus and commuter rail transit in the five boroughs and seven suburban counties.) Or, if those same households upgraded to 1100-watt bsu’s, collectively they would still make up only half of the lost Indian Point power.
The second comparison, involving driving, is perhaps trickier to grasp but more interesting, since it relates to people’s behavior. Living differently isn’t part of public discourse, at least not in the USA, and especially when what’s being served up is using less. But “reducing,” as we might call it (remember “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”? or, “Insulate, then Insolate”?) is just as potent for cutting emissions as switching to renewables — even more so when the reducing means driving less, considering the multitude of benefits that accrue from diminishing cars’ imprints on our communities. Still, staying on topic: driving just one fewer mile per day brings about the same shrinkage in carbon emissions as deploying one 220W solar array.
What Balcony Solar boosters are really saying
To be fair, our friends at Inside Climate News and, yes, The New York Times appear to be trying to modulate their balcony solar enthusiasm.
ICN‘s Dan Gearino, whom we cited up front, said he looked to Germany, the birthplace of balcony solar, to see if the units made sense for U.S. households. His takeaway: “It may make more sense financially to spend the cost of plug-in solar on insulation, air sealing or other basic measures to reduce energy use.” Hooray: insulate before you insolate.
Gearino helpfully interviewed renewables guru (and U.S. emigré) Craig Morris, who currently heads Germany’s plug-in solar trade association, Bundesverband Steckersolar. To Morris, balcony solar’s main advantages are that it provides power without taking up land, and that it affords people a way to “become participants in the transition to clean energy.” Behold, guerrilla solar. That, in turn, bolsters “the political consensus that supports the transition.” But Morris also made clear that widespread adoption of plug-in solar would only meet “about 2 percent of Germany’s electricity demand.”
Morris’s “about 2 percent” feels right for Germany. But not for the U.S., where widespread adoption of virtually any individual carbon alternative seems forever out of reach, and where the energy pie is so much larger — think giant fridges, freezers for beer, steroidal homes bursting with piles of powered toys, not to mention industrial and institutional electricity use that Morris correctly excluded from his figure.
Don’t forget to micro-dose. NYT headline + image for David Wallace-Wells’ guest essay (see text). Image by Rui Pu.
Both Gearino and Morris seem more measured than climate journalist Robinson Meyer, founding editor of Heatmap and frequent contributor to The Times, where he wrote about balcony solar in mid-June.
“New zero-carbon power kits will allow Americans to make their own energy choices,” declares the callout to the print version of Meyer’s NYT guest essay, The Tiny Solar Panel That Could Change America. (The even more expansive print headline invites us to “Forget Roofs. Backyard Solar Is the Next Frontier.”)
Wallace-Wells is of two minds. He calls balcony solar “a small way that apartment- and condo-dwelling Americans can take ownership of their energy choices and cut down their pollution on the margins.” No quarrel there, thanks to his qualifiers “small” and “on the margins.” Earlier, though, he opines that balcony solar units “have the potential to change how Americans understand and consume energy,” But read further and you’ll again see Wallace-Wells cautioning that “Balcony solar will play one small role in [the] drama” of transiting to the new world of clean, abundant energy.
Any such caveats are welcome these days, amid widespread solar hoopla. Still, it doesn’t seem to be in Wallace-Wells’ toolkit — or that of Inside Climate News and other mainstream climate journalists — to tutor their audiences as to the true limits of balcony solar and other panaceas. Just like it wasn’t in their field of vision a decade ago to lay out the true stakes of shutting Indian Point as Riverkeeper was singing its siren song.
What’s Next for NY Balcony Solar
Meantime, as Canary Media reported recently (and helpfully), New Yorkers concerned with climate and affordability are waiting for NY Gov. Kathy Hochul to sign the recently passed SUNNY (Solar Up Now New York) Act legalizing balcony and other plug-in solar. It would be head-spinning (and politically suicidal) if she didn’t, given near-universal support ranging from Con Edison to DSA Assembly Member Emily Gallagher, who told Canary Media, “This is the most popular bill I’ve [ever] worked on.”
My guess is that Hochul is waiting for the right moment, and perhaps the right “package,” that can advance and not undercut her push to launch five large new nuclear power plants around the state — one to be built by the public New York Power Authority, the others to be constructed and operated privately. A little bit of math, a la what we offered here a la Indian Point, might help her out.
The governor also must manage the veritable hot potato of her deferred implementation of the landmark 2019 Community Leadership and Climate Protection Act. She might do well to consider jettisoning the act’s unwieldy cap-and-invest centerpiece in favor of a straight-up carbon tax (with the revenues distributed pro rata to the state’s households) in its place. That, far more than balcony (or guerrilla) solar, could blow open the door to the “innovations and technologies we cannot yet imagine” that Wallace-Wells fantasized about in his Times essay.
On 11 June 2026, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) published the most substantial revision of its flagship corporate framework since its introduction. The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 takes effect on 1 February 2027 and reshapes the way companies approach their net-zero targets.
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 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 Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测