Climate change is a big problem we’re all facing. It’s causing warmer weather, melting ice, rising sea levels, floods, and stronger storms. These changes hurt our planet and everything living on it. To fight this, we need to reduce the gasses that warm the earth, mainly carbon dioxide. This is where carbon credits come in. They are a way for businesses and people to do less harm to the environment. By using carbon credits, we can fund projects that make the air cleaner, like planting trees or using energy from the sun and wind. This helps us create a better future for everyone.
Now that we understand how climate change affects us, let’s dive into what carbon footprints are and how they play a role.
Carbon Footprint: Measuring Our Impact on the Planet
The most significant driver of climate change is the release of greenhouse gasses,primarily carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Carbon footprints are a measure of how an organization is contributing to this detrimental process through its responsibility for the total amount of greenhouse gasses emitted directly or indirectly by the organization’s activities.
Carbon footprints take into account direct emissions from burning fossil fuels and indirect emissions from the production and consumption of goods and services such as:
- Energy use
- Transportation
- Waste management
- Deforestation
- Other forms of pollutants
After seeing how our activities create carbon footprints, it’s clear why we need standards to measure and reduce them effectively.
Setting Standards: How to Measure Your Carbon Footprint
Carbon footprint standards ensure consistency and comparability across different organizations and projects. They provide guidelines for calculating emissions, setting emission reduction targets, and reporting results. This framework spans various activities and sectors taking into account factors such as energy use, transportation, waste management, and production processes. By following these standards, businesses and individuals can ensure that their carbon footprint calculations are reliable and credible.
With these standards in place, we can explore how carbon credits work to make a real difference in reducing our carbon footprints.
Bridging the Gap: Carbon Credits and Carbon Footprint Reduction
Carbon credits are a market-based mechanism designed to encourage organizations to reduce their carbon footprints, and effectively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, by providing a global monetary incentive framework for activities that reduce or remove harmful greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.
The basic principle behind carbon credits is that for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions reduced or removed by an activity or project, a carbon credit is generated. These credits can then be bought and sold on the carbon market, and the revenue generated provides a financial incentive for environmentally responsible behaviors. This is the goal of the carbon credit system – To create the financial incentives to drive organizations to reduce their carbon footprints. Putting a price on carbon emissions, and turning them into an expense encourages the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices, ultimately leading to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a safer planet.
Understanding carbon credits leads us to see how they can actually lower the harmful gasses we release into the air.
Carbon Credits: A Path to Less Pollution
Let’s take a closer look at the ways in which carbon credits drive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions:
Carbon Credits: Fueling a Cycle of Improvement
Incentivizing emission reduction projects by putting a price on carbon emission encourages the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices, leading to reductions in greenhouse gasses. Revenue generated from sale of carbon credits is then used to further finance emission reduction projects. The more credits sold, more funding is available for new projects, further shrinking greenhouse gas emissions.
Innovating for the Planet with Carbon Credits
Providing value to emission reductions incentives businesses and individuals to develop and implement new technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This drives the development of more efficient energy systems, cleaner transportation options, and more sustainable practices and technologies across various sectors.
Seeing the positive impact of carbon credits, let’s look at how they help start and support projects that are good for our planet.
How Carbon Credits Fund a Greener Future
Carbon credits also play a crucial role in driving sustainable projects by providing the financial incentive for businesses and individuals to invest in emission and pollution reduction initiatives. Businesses can show that promoting renewable energy, driving for energy efficiency, and even supporting afforestation, and other sustainable practices, translates into real gains on balance sheets, and greater value for both stakeholders and shareholders alike.
Now, let’s explore some specific projects that can benefit from carbon credits, contributing further to our planet’s health.
Green Projects: How They Earn Carbon Credits
While every sustainable project capitalizes on carbon credit opportunities in different ways, there’s a shared underlying logic for their execution and lifetime management wherein these projects help manifest a tangible saving and reduction in the overall amount of greenhouse gasses driving climate change outcomes. Let’s consider a few examples:
Renewable energy
Renewable energy projects involve the generation of electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal power. These projects help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by displacing fossil fuel-based power generation. Renewable energy projects such as wind farms generate carbon credits based on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions they displace compared to conventional fossil fuel-based power generation. These credits can then be sold on the carbon market, providing an additional source of revenue for the project and making it even more financially viable.
Energy efficiency
Energy efficiency projects aim to reduce energy consumption and improve energy efficiency in buildings, industries, and transportation. By implementing energy-saving measures such as upgrading insulation, installing efficient lighting systems, or optimizing industrial processes, businesses can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with energy use, reduce their carbon footprints, and earn carbon credits (we recently covered how these steps help make SMEs more environmentally friendly). This carbon credit income can offset some of the required upfront investment, while longer term operational cost savings provide the justification for the rest.
Afforestation
Trees act as carbon sinks, sequestering carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. Afforestation and reforestation projects help offset emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation because trees trap greenhouse gasses that would otherwise be free in the atmosphere. This is the logic through which creating new forests or restoring degraded ones are activities that are also eligible for earning carbon credits.
Methane capture
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a much higher warming potential than carbon dioxide. Methane gas is usually emitted during the production and transport of coal, oil, and natural gas. By capturing methane emissions from sources such as landfills or livestock operations and using it as a fuel or converting it into other products, methane capture and utilization projects help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainability goals, and are therefore eligible for earning carbon credits. With these projects in mind, we’ll understand why investing in carbon credits is not just good for the environment but can also be beneficial for us.
The Benefits of Investing in Carbon Credits
Now that we’ve understood the rationale and methodologies for creating carbon credits, let’s examine another important aspect of how they help drive sustainable projects by looking at some of the reasons for investing in carbon credits:
Financial gains
Carbon credits are a tradable commodity, and as such they can be traded for gains on the open market, , like any other commodity.
Environmental impact
For many companies reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting sustainable projects isn’t so much a matter of choice, but rather a matter of necessity. These types of initiatives are increasingly becoming compliance requirements driven by legal frameworks and/or shareholder preferences.
Social responsibility
By taking action to reduce their carbon footprints, businesses and individuals show their commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship. This can enhance their reputation and brand image, attracting environmentally conscious customers and stakeholders.
Even with all these benefits, the road to sustainable development using carbon credits isn’t without its challenges. Let’s take a closer look.
Overcoming Challenges in the Carbon Credit Market
In the quest for sustainability, carbon credit markets play a pivotal role but face significant hurdles. At the core, the absence of uniform standards muddles the market’s clarity, making it tough for firms to confidently offset emissions. Organizations like the Verified Carbon Standard strive to bring rigor and reliability, yet challenges persist.
Market volatility adds another layer of complexity, with regulatory shifts causing price swings that disrupt financial forecasts. The intricate process of measuring and verifying emissions adds to the administrative load, especially for resource-strapped companies. Furthermore, the balance of carbon allowances is fragile, where overallocation or scarcity can tilt the market, affecting affordability and compliance.
The integrity of carbon offsets is under scrutiny too. Projects must prove their emission reductions are additional and verified, a task demanding stringent checks to uphold market credibility. Addressing these issues requires solid frameworks for transparency and accountability, ensuring carbon credits genuinely contribute to sustainable development.
Despite the obstacles, the carbon credit market’s potential to drive sustainability is undeniable, poised for growth as global consciousness around climate change rises.
Despite these hurdles, the opportunities within the carbon credit market for sustainable growth are vast and promising.
Seizing Opportunities: Carbon Credits and Sustainable Growth
Carbon credit markets offer big chances to help the planet and grow our economy by encouraging less pollution and supporting important projects for a healthier environment:
Engaging the Private Sector
Carbon credit markets are key for getting companies to invest in clean and green projects, helping fight climate change. Carbon credit markets unveil remarkable opportunities for fostering sustainable development by funding climate initiatives and motivating emission reductions. These markets draw private sector investments into climate action, steering capital towards clean energy and resilience projects, particularly in communities that host these projects. This mechanism not only mobilizes climate finance from affluent regions to those in dire need but also propels funding towards net-zero initiatives across continents like Africa, enhancing sustainable development and generating valuable export revenues.
Driving Climate Finance and Innovation
These markets are changing how money is used to fight climate change. They bring new tech and clear information, making it easier to trust and invest in these projects. Technological innovations, including data analytics and blockchain, are refining the transparency and reliability of carbon markets. Such advancements ensure the quality of carbon credits, bolstering the market’s credibility and effectiveness in supporting sustainable development. Additionally, carbon credit projects, particularly those based on nature, like reforestation, extend benefits beyond emission reduction. They contribute to biodiversity conservation, pollution prevention, public health, and job creation, presenting a multi-faceted approach to combating climate change.
Beyond Emission Reductions
Looking closer at carbon credit projects shows us they do a lot more than just cut down on pollution. They also make our air cleaner, protect nature, and create jobs, making our world a better place. As carbon markets evolve, they encourage investment in a variety of projects, including nature-based solutions and clean technologies, leading to a low-carbon economy. The expansion of these markets into new regions promises not just environmental benefits but also rural development, technology transfer, and improved livelihoods, making carbon credit markets a cornerstone in the global pursuit of sustainable development goals.
Carbon Credits’ Role in a Shared Green Future
Tackling climate change requires practical, impactful actions, and carbon credits are a key part of the solution. By supporting projects like the EKI Wind Power Project, the Sichuan Household Biogas Project, and the Inner Mongolia Forest Conservation, we’re directly contributing to reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainability.
The EKI Wind Power Project is a clear example of how investing in renewable energy can have a major impact on cutting down our carbon footprint. On the other hand, the Sichuan Household Biogas Project shows the importance of small, local solutions in making a difference, by turning waste into energy and reducing the need for polluting fuels. Meanwhile, the Inner Mongolia Forest Conservation effort highlights the critical role of forests in capturing carbon and preserving biodiversity.
Investing in these types of projects through carbon credits doesn’t just help balance out emissions; it’s a step towards a more sustainable and healthier planet. It’s about making smart choices now that will pay off for future generations.
David Attenborough put it simply and powerfully: “The future of humanity and indeed, all life on Earth, now depends on us.” It’s a call to action for all of us to make informed decisions and invest in a sustainable future, using proven solutions like carbon credits to make a real difference. If you believe you have a sustainable project that can be certified for carbon credit issuance, and would like to learn about how such projects are conceived and conducted, please feel free to contact us for guidance.
FAQs:
What are carbon credits?
Carbon credits are a type of tradeable permit that allows organizations to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses. One carbon credit is equal to one tonne of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gasses.
How do carbon credits support sustainability projects?
Carbon credits provide a financial incentive for organizations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. By purchasing carbon credits, organizations can offset their emissions by supporting sustainability projects such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, and reforestation.
Who can purchase carbon credits?
Any organization or individual can purchase carbon credits to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. This includes businesses, governments, non-profit organizations, and individuals.
How are carbon credits verified?
Carbon credits are verified by independent third-party organizations that assess the emissions reduction projects and ensure that they meet specific standards. These standards include additionality, permanence, and verifiability.
What are the benefits of using carbon credits?
Using carbon credits can help organizations reduce their carbon footprint, support sustainability projects, and demonstrate their commitment to environmental responsibility. It can also help organizations comply with regulations and meet sustainability targets.
What types of sustainability projects can carbon credits support?
Carbon credits can support a wide range of sustainability projects, including renewable energy projects such as wind and solar power, energy efficiency projects such as building retrofits and efficient lighting, and reforestation and afforestation projects.
Image credit:
Photo by Marcin Jozwiak on Unsplash
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.
DeBriefed 3 July 2026: US faces scorching Independence Day | Record ocean temperatures | Vietnam’s EV surge
Q&A: How will the World Bank’s abandoned finance goal affect climate action?
As food shocks spread, citizens are showing more leadership than governments
-
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