The Bonn climate talks, held from June 16 to 26, 2025, provided a crucial bridge to the upcoming COP30 in Belém, Brazil. While tangible victories were limited, the sessions clarified where global climate efforts stand—and where they need to be stronger.
Delegates discussed many topics covering national climate plans, climate finance, and just transition. They also talked about adaptation and energy sector reform. Here are the key takeaways to note in line with the upcoming COP30 talks.
1. National Climate Plans: The 1.5°C Gap
One of the most urgent issues at Bonn was the slow pace of updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Most countries missed the February 2025 deadline, which slowed efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Brazil, the host of COP30, asked nations to submit stronger NDCs by September. This way, the NDCs can be reviewed before the summit in November.
Yet, those early submissions fall far short of what’s needed. Delegates warned that current NDCs would still result in warming well above 1.5°C, and possibly near 2°C. With no plan B, COP30 will need to push for NDC 3.0, urging countries to adopt bolder actions by 2025.
2. Climate Finance: Debt Over Diplomacy
Bonn was marred by bitter disputes over climate finance. Developing nations pressed wealthier countries to fulfill previous pledges—such as mobilizing $1.3 trillion per year by 2035—to support adaptation and loss & damage. A South African delegate remarked bluntly, “There is no money,” highlighting how little has materialized.
Developed countries said private finance can help. But critics argued that public grants, not loans, are what really matter. Without firm commitments and timelines, many adaptation plans for vulnerable countries may remain unfunded.
According to an analysis, the world needs around $9 trillion annually to close the financing gap by 2030, and more by 2050.
3. A Just Transition Wins Ground
Bonn made real progress on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP). This program helps workers and communities affected by moving away from fossil fuels.
Caroline Brouillette, Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada highlighted the importance of this program, noting:
“The UNFCCC feels increasingly disconnected from the real world. Amidst the dark clouds of these existential challenges to the planet and to this process, there is a ray of sunshine: parties are finding common ground around a Just Transition. The text forwarded to Belem offers us a fighting chance to a COP30 outcome that truly connects workers, communities and Peoples with the Paris Agreement.”
Negotiators agreed to create a Belém Action Mechanism, which will share strategies for fair and inclusive economic transitions. This breakthrough gives civil society more influence and sets a foundation for stronger action at COP30.
4. Reforming UN Climate Governance
The Bonn talks focused on procedural issues for days. They debated what should be on the agenda and how to make the negotiation process smoother. Countries proposed to limit agenda items, cap delegation sizes, and rush old initiatives toward their end.
The goal:
“to make UN climate talks less bureaucratic and more action-oriented—an issue now officially flagged for COP30.”
5. Adaptation and Gender Equity: Quiet Wins
Though overshadowed by finance fights, Bonn achieved meaningful progress on adaptation and gender equity. Delegates improved indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). They also outlined steps for National Adaptation Plans. They also began drafting a Gender Action Plan, pushing for more inclusive and representative climate policymaking.
Richer countries often blocked funding indicators. This raised concerns that adaptation gains might not have enough resources to succeed.
6. Fossil Fuel Language and Methane Agenda Lag
Decades after the fossil-fuel phase-out entered UN discussions, Bonn again failed to adopt strong language on it. Fossil-energy interests continue to slow reforms. Meanwhile, calls to include methane targets in NDCs gained traction, despite slow movement on actual text or enforcement measures.
7. What These Results Mean Ahead of COP30
The outcomes of the Bonn Climate Conference 2025 are crucial as the world heads toward COP30 in Belém, Brazil. The climate talks didn’t bring big breakthroughs. However, it helped shape important choices about climate goals, funding, and global cooperation.
The talk also highlighted continued tensions between developed and developing nations. The former urged stronger emissions cuts, while the latter stressed the need for greater financial and technical support.
Progress on the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) for climate finance was limited. The $100 billion target, first set in 2009, has been missed for years. Many vulnerable nations are now calling for a new target in the trillions, not billions, to fund adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage.
The conference also moved forward technical discussions on the Loss and Damage Fund, created at COP28. However, disagreements remain on how to fund it long-term and ensure fairness in access and governance.
Carbon markets were another hot topic. Talks under Article 6 showed big gaps in transparency and environmental integrity. Still, there’s momentum to finalize rules that could attract more private-sector investment.
- INTERESTING READ:COP29 Breakthrough: UN-Backed Global Carbon Market Takes Shape
Finally, Bonn served as a key follow-up to the Global Stocktake, which warned that current climate action is far off-track. COP30 is now expected to be a major “course correction” moment where countries must align policies with the 1.5°C goal.
In summary, Bonn laid the groundwork but left tough choices for COP30—where ambition, equity, and accountability will be at the heart of the talks.
Heading to Belém: What to Watch at COP30 Summit
The upcoming COP30 in November now faces big tests:
- NDC Submission: Will countries deliver substantial, 1.5°C-aligned plans by September?
- Climate Finance Roadmap: Can Brazil and global north nations agree on timelines and sources for $1.3 trillion/year target?
- Just Transition Showcasing: Will the Belém mechanism emerge with concrete funding and implementation plans?
- Fossil Fuel and Methane Language: Will COP30 firm up phase-out commitments and stronger methane cuts?
- UN Process Reform: Will Belém adopt streamlined, efficient formats for future conferences?
Fragile Gains, High Stakes: The Path Forward
Bonn laid important groundwork—but left most major questions unresolved. Delivering a just transition and better adaptation indicators shows that civil groups can shift priorities. However, the lack of NDCs, weak finance plans, and fossil fuel resistance could undermine COP30.
The upcoming climate summit must show dramatic progress. COP30 presents an important opportunity to move from fragmented pledges toward more unified climate action and to reinforce confidence in the Paris Agreement.
The outcomes of the summit will have significant impact for vulnerable nations, workers, and global stability, highlighting the importance of translating commitments into tangible results.
The post Key Takeaways from Bonn’s Climate Talks Ahead of COP30 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
History Repeating Itself: Why Middle East Conflict at the Pump Should Be a Wake-Up Call for North America
Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals.
Every time instability erupts in the Middle East, North Americans feel it where it hurts most—at the gas pump. It happened in 1979, when the Iranian Revolution sent shockwaves through global energy markets. Oil supplies tightened. Prices surged, and inflation followed. Entire economies slowed under the pressure.
For millions of households, the crisis’s impact was personal. It showed up in longer lines at gas stations and rising costs across daily life.
Nearly five decades later, the pattern is repeating.
Renewed tensions across key oil-producing regions are once again tightening global supply. Prices are rising. Consumers are feeling the impact. And once again, events unfolding thousands of miles away are shaping the cost of energy at home.
This pattern suggests a persistent structural vulnerability in North America’s exposure to global oil‑supply shocks. The region still depends heavily on global oil markets. That means supply disruptions, no matter where they occur, can quickly ripple through the system.
The result is a familiar cycle: geopolitical instability leads to supply concerns, which drive up prices, which then feed directly into the cost of living.
A Cycle Consumers Know All Too Well
When prices spike, households adjust. Commuters rethink travel. Businesses absorb higher costs or pass them on. Inflation pressures build. The impact spreads far beyond the energy sector.
With average gasoline prices currently around $4 per gallon in the US ($5.50 in California), or roughly $1.05 US per liter ($1.45 in California), the connection between global events and local fuel prices is no longer theoretical – it is a lived experience. This is why energy security is increasingly framed as both a policy concern and a kitchen‑table issue.
The events of 1979 were a warning. Today’s rising prices are another. The difference is that North America now has more options than it did back then.
Electric vehicles, battery storage, and renewable power systems are no longer future concepts. They are already part of the energy mix. And for those who have made the shift, the experience is very different, and the transition is already complete.
Instead of watching fuel prices climb, they are plugging in.
Graham Harris, Chairman of Surge Battery Metals, has spoken openly about this shift in practical terms. While rising oil prices create uncertainty at the pump, he charges his electric vehicle at home.
The contrast between gasoline dependency and electrification is becoming more visible.
When oil prices rise, gasoline costs follow. But electricity prices tend to be more stable, especially when supported by domestic generation and renewable sources. That difference is simple but powerful. It changes how people experience energy volatility.
One system is exposed to global shocks. The other is increasingly tied to domestic infrastructure. This contrast highlights how the energy transition is reshaping exposure to global price shocks.
Some analysts increasingly frame the energy transition not only as a climate imperative but also as a strategy to reduce exposure to external risk. It relates to questions of control over where energy comes from, how it is produced, and how stable it is over time.
And at the center of that transition is one critical material: lithium.
Lithium: The Foundation of Energy Independence
Lithium is the core component of modern battery technology. It powers electric vehicles, supports grid-scale energy storage, and plays a growing role in advanced defense systems.
As electrification expands, demand for lithium is rising across multiple sectors.
But here is the challenge: much of today’s lithium supply still comes from outside the United States. This creates a familiar dynamic.
Just as oil dependency has long exposed North America to geopolitical risk, reliance on foreign lithium supply introduces a new layer of vulnerability. The commodity is different, but the structure is similar.
The United States imported the majority of its lithium from Chile and Argentina in 2024. Together, they accounted for roughly 98% of the total supply. Smaller volumes were sourced from the UK, France, and China.
That is why domestic production is becoming a central focus of energy and industrial policy.
In March 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production.” The directive called for faster permitting, expanded development, and reduced reliance on foreign supply chains for critical minerals.
The message of the order was clear: building domestic capacity is now a strategic priority.
- RELATED: Live Lithium Prices Today
A Domestic Resource Takes Shape in Nevada
Within this broader shift, projects like Surge Battery Metals’ (TSX-V: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF) Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) are gaining attention.
NNLP hosts a measured and indicated resource of 11.24 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at an average grade of 3,010 ppm lithium, based on company disclosures. This makes it the highest-grade lithium clay resource identified in the United States to date.
A 2025 Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) outlines the project’s scale:
- After-tax NPV (8%): US$9.21 billion
- Internal Rate of Return (IRR): 22.8%
- Mine life: 42 years
- Average annual production: ~86,300 tonnes LCE
- Employment: ~2,000 construction jobs and ~350 long-term operational roles
These figures indicate potential in terms of scale, longevity, and the ability to contribute to domestic supply if the project moves forward. At full production, NNLP has the potential to rank among the larger lithium-producing assets globally, based on third-party analysis.
Recent drilling results announced by Surge Battery Metals have further strengthened NNLP’s profile as a standout asset. In February 2026, step-out drilling found a 31-meter intercept with 4,196 ppm lithium from surface. This is much higher than the project’s average of 3,010 ppm Li. It also extends high-grade mineralization nearly 640 meters beyond the current resource boundary.
Infill drilling showed a steady, thick, high-grade core. It included intercepts like 116 meters at 3,752 ppm Li and 32 meters at 4,521 ppm Li. These results support future resource expansion. They also highlight the project’s scale, quality, and technical readiness as it prepares for a Pre-Feasibility Study.
Beyond the project itself, it reflects a broader policy and industry shift toward building more domestically anchored energy systems.
From Oil Dependency to Mineral Security
The connection between oil and lithium is not always obvious at first glance. Oil fuels internal combustion engines, while lithium supports batteries and energy‑storage systems, with distinct technologies and supply chains.
But the underlying issue is the same. Dependence on external sources creates exposure to external risk.
In the case of oil, that risk has played out repeatedly over decades. Supply disruptions, price shocks, and geopolitical tensions have all shaped the market.
With lithium, the industry is earlier in its development. But the stakes are rising quickly.
Global demand for lithium grew about 30 % in 2024, driven mainly by batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage, according to IEA data. Demand in 2025 continued at high rates, and under current policies, lithium demand is projected to grow fivefold by 2040 compared with today.
At the same time, supply growth is struggling to keep pace with demand forecasts. These trends show that ensuring a stable, secure supply is becoming just as important as expanding production.
That is where domestic projects come in, such as Surge Battery Metals’ NNLP.
They may not eliminate global market dynamics, but they can reduce exposure to them. They can provide a buffer against volatility. And they can support a more stable, self-reliant energy system.
A Turning Point – or Another Warning?
While history does not repeat in the same way, similar patterns can be observed.
The oil shocks of the 1970s revealed a vulnerability that shaped energy policy for decades. Today’s market signals are pointing to a similar challenge—this time at the intersection of oil dependency and critical mineral supply.
The difference is that the range of policy and technological options available today is broader. Electrification is already underway. Battery technology is advancing. Domestic resource development is gaining policy support. The pieces are in place.
Data from the International Energy Agency’s Global EV Outlook 2025 shows that global battery demand reached a historic milestone of 1 terawatt-hour (TWh) in 2024. This surge was mainly due to the growth of electric vehicles (EVs).
By 2030, demand is expected to more than triple, exceeding 3 TWh under current policies. This reflects not only rising EV adoption but also expanding stationary storage demand. Both of which rely on critical minerals like lithium.
Electric vehicles continue to displace traditional oil use as well. The same IEA analysis shows that by 2030, EVs will replace over 5 million barrels of oil daily. This is about the size of a major country’s transport sector, highlighting how electrification is changing energy markets.
What remains uncertain is the pace at which these changes will occur.
Will rising fuel prices once again fade as markets stabilize? Or will they serve as a catalyst for deeper structural shifts?
That question matters not just for policymakers or investors, but for everyday consumers.
Because at the end of the day, energy transitions are not measured in policy papers. They are measured in daily decisions—how people power their homes, fuel their vehicles, and respond to rising costs.
DISCLAIMER
New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $75,000 to provide marketing services for a term of three months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.
This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.
Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.
It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.
These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.
Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.
There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2025, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.
The post History Repeating Itself: Why Middle East Conflict at the Pump Should Be a Wake-Up Call for North America appeared first on Carbon Credits.
“…Human subtlety… will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature, because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous…”
Corporate climate strategy has decisively shifted from a specialized sustainability function to a central pillar of enterprise risk management. Today, boards of directors and executive teams face intensifying pressure from investors, regulators, and customers to deliver defensible, science-aligned decarbonization plans. In this environment, vague sustainability marketing and weak carbon claims are no longer just ineffective—they are significant reputational and compliance liabilities.
As you evaluate pathways to net zero, Nature Based Solutions are frequently presented as a crucial mechanism. But for executive decision-makers, navigating the noise around these solutions requires a clear, commercially grounded understanding of what they actually mean, how they mitigate risk, and how they fit into a rigorous corporate climate strategy.
Beyond the Hype: Defining Nature Based Solutions
The term “Nature Based Solutions” is often misused as a catch-all phrase for any environmental project, leading to justified skepticism among risk-aware leaders. According to the globally recognized framework established by the UN Environment Assembly and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), true Nature Based Solutions are strictly defined. They are actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems in ways that effectively address societal challenges, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.
When properly designed, these solutions are a powerhouse for climate mitigation. Research indicates that agriculture, forestry, wetlands, and bioenergy could feasibly contribute about 30% of the global mitigation needed to limit warming to 1.5°C by 2050, and up to 37% of the emissions mitigation needed by 2030.
However, the commercial reality is that not all nature-focused projects meet this high standard. Poorly executed initiatives, such as planting monoculture non-native forests solely for rapid carbon sequestration, can actually increase a region’s exposure to hazards like wildfires, exacerbate biodiversity loss, and alienate local communities. For your organization, investing in low-quality projects translates directly into stranded assets and accusations of greenwashing. High-integrity Nature Based Solutions require a holistic approach that balances carbon sequestration with ecological stability, inclusive governance, and strict safeguards.
The Commercial Case: Risk Management and Enterprise Value
For CEOs, CFOs, and supply chain leaders, the value of Nature Based Solutions extends far beyond greenhouse gas accounting. These interventions serve as highly effective tools for managing acute and chronic business risks driven by climate change.
Consider physical risk and supply chain resilience. Companies highly dependent on natural capital can utilize Nature Based Solutions to secure their operations against environmental shocks. For example, a food and beverage company might invest in restoring degraded landscapes ecologically linked to its agricultural sourcing, thereby mitigating the risk of supply disruptions and price volatility caused by shifting precipitation and extreme weather. Similarly, restoring coastal ecosystems like mangroves can provide billions of dollars globally in avoided losses from coastal flooding, directly protecting adjacent manufacturing facilities and infrastructure.
Beyond physical risk, these solutions protect long-term enterprise value by addressing shifting market expectations. Demonstrating a tangible commitment to the climate and nature crises helps secure your organization’s social license to operate, avoiding costs linked to stakeholder backlash. It also serves as a powerful differentiator in talent acquisition and retention, particularly among younger demographics who increasingly prioritize corporate purpose when choosing employers.
Furthermore, financial markets are rapidly integrating nature-related risks into their capital allocation models. Integrating Nature Based Solutions into your transition planning signals to investors that you are proactively managing systemic risks and positioning your firm favorably within a nature-positive global economy. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) provides a structured LEAP approach—Locate, Evaluate, Assess, and Prepare—enabling businesses to rigorously quantify how ecosystem degradation threatens future cash flows and where strategic interventions can mitigate these financial risks.
Integrating Nature into a Defensible Net Zero Plan
Understanding the strategic value of Nature Based Solutions is only the first step. The critical challenge is integrating them into a credible corporate climate strategy without exposing your brand to claims of offsetting out of convenience.
Leading frameworks, including the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), establish a clear mitigation hierarchy: your primary imperative must be deep, rapid decarbonization within your own value chain. You cannot simply buy your way out of your direct emissions footprint. However, the science is equally clear that solving the climate crisis requires both internal abatement and external investment.
This is where the deployment strategy diverges based on your business model:
- Insetting for Land-Intensive Sectors: If your company operates within the Forest, Land and Agriculture (FLAG) sector, you can deploy Nature Based Solutions directly within your own supply chain. This practice, known as “insetting,” involves working with suppliers to implement regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, or conservation practices that actively reduce your Scope 3 emissions while increasing the resilience of your raw materials.
- Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM): For companies outside the FLAG sector, or for investments made above and beyond internal targets, Nature Based Solutions fall under Beyond Value Chain Mitigation. The SBTi emphasizes that the private sector must engage in BVCM to avert devastating climate impacts. By channeling finance into high-impact jurisdictional forest protection or wetland restoration, you help protect irrecoverable carbon sinks and scale up the carbon dioxide removal technologies needed to neutralize global residual emissions by 2050.
Navigating Carbon Markets with High Integrity
For organizations looking to execute these strategies, the voluntary carbon market offers a mechanism to finance Nature Based Solutions globally. Yet, the market’s historical lack of transparency has made many compliance leaders and Corporate Affairs teams hesitant to engage.
To safely utilize carbon credits, your organization must adopt a stringent, data-driven approach centered on high integrity. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) has established the Core Carbon Principles (CCPs), setting a global benchmark to ensure credits create real, verifiable climate impact. High-quality carbon credits must be strictly additional—meaning the mitigation would not have occurred without the carbon finance—and they must ensure permanence while preventing emissions leakage to other areas.
On the demand side, how you communicate your investments matters just as much as the investments themselves. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) Claims Code of Practice outlines clear rules for how companies can make credible claims about their use of carbon credits. Under these rules, Carbon Integrity Claims (Silver, Gold, or Platinum) are reserved for companies that maintain transparent emissions inventories, set science-aligned near-term reduction targets, and use high-quality credits to go above and beyond their internal decarbonization trajectory.
Following these guidelines ensures that your claims are transparent, traceable, true, and verifiable. It fundamentally separates your brand from competitors relying on weak “carbon neutral” marketing, transforming your climate strategy into a defensible demonstration of environmental leadership.
The Path Forward
Navigating the intersection of net-zero planning, climate finance, and environmental markets is undeniably complex. Distinguishing between a high-impact Nature Based Solution and a high-risk carbon project requires deep technical evaluation of greenhouse gas accounting methodologies, biodiversity co-benefits, and regulatory governance.
However, the risks of inaction—or poorly guided action—far outweigh the challenges of implementation. Nature Based Solutions offer a scientifically rigorous, commercially viable pathway to manage climate risk, secure supply chains, and prepare your organization for the impending wave of climate and nature disclosures.
At Carbon Credit Capital, we help organizations understand, evaluate, and confidently integrate high-integrity carbon credits and Nature Based Solutions into defensible net-zero strategies. We bring the domain expertise required to mitigate reputational risk, clarify complex market developments, and ensure your climate investments deliver measurable value to both the planet and your enterprise.
Schedule a consultation with carboncreditcapital.com today to learn how we can help you build a resilient, high-integrity corporate climate strategy.
Most businesses have a clear picture of what happens inside their own operations. They track energy consumption, manage waste, and monitor the emissions produced on-site. What they often cannot see is everything that happens before a product reaches their facility, and everything that happens after it leaves.
History Repeating Itself: Why Middle East Conflict at the Pump Should Be a Wake-Up Call for North America
Analysis: Record wind and solar saved UK from gas imports worth £1bn in March 2026
China Briefing 2 April 2026: EV profits rise | Ming Yang rejected | Iran war
-
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 Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits