Demand for battery-grade nickel is projected to grow significantly by the end of the decade due to rising electric vehicle (EV) adoption. However, the nickel market faced more volatility and uncertainty in November 2024, according to S&P Commodity Insights data. It is largely due to macroeconomic and political developments following Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential election victory.
Trump’s Victory Fuels Nickel Market Volatility
Nickel is vital for producing stainless steel and alloys used in equipment, transport, buildings, and power generation. Major nickel producers include Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, and Australia, with Indonesia having the highest nickel reserves while Australia has the most active mining projects.

Nickel futures are traded on the London Metal Exchange (LME), reflecting its global industrial importance. The LME three-month nickel price dropped to a four-year low of $15,540 per metric ton on November 15.

Concerns over Trump’s potential economic policies, particularly their implications for China, the industrial metals’ top consumer, have fueled investor caution. A stronger U.S. dollar and increased LME nickel inventories further worsen the downward pressure on prices as shown above. This highlights a risk-off sentiment across metals markets.
-
Nickel prices initially saw an uptick after Trump’s election win, rising from $16,007 per metric ton on November 4 to $16,587 per metric ton on November 7.
This temporary boost mirrored gains in U.S. equity markets. However, optimism quickly faded as the trade-weighted U.S. dollar index climbed to a one-year high, fueled by market expectations that Trump’s policies—such as higher tariffs on Chinese imports—could revive U.S. inflation.
The prospect of prolonged high interest rates from the Federal Reserve further strengthened the dollar. This makes nickel and other commodities more expensive for non-dollar investors.
Investor sentiment in the nickel market took another hit following China’s unveiling of a 10 trillion yuan fiscal stimulus package on November 8. The measures failed to meet market expectations for more aggressive economic support. This disappointment, coupled with rising nickel inventories and a nearly 4x increase in net short positions on LME nickel, accelerated the price decline.
By mid-November, the LME three-month nickel price had plunged to levels not seen since November 2020, underscoring the market’s vulnerability to both economic and geopolitical developments.

In late November, nickel rebounded to $16,040 per tonne amid Indonesia’s tighter mining policies. Approved quotas could drop 27% by 2026, while license fees for low-grade ore may be reduced.
According to the Indonesian mining minister, nickel ore imports surged 50-fold, as officials prioritized domestic reserves and warned of dwindling stocks to stabilize prices.
IRA Under Threat: What Trump’s Plans Mean for Nickel and EVs
The implications of Trump’s election for the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) add another layer of uncertainty to the global nickel market.
Signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, the IRA has been a key driver of clean energy initiatives. This includes a $7,500 consumer tax credit for electric vehicles.
However, Trump’s transition team is reportedly considering repealing this tax credit as part of broader tax reform efforts. Such a move could slow the adoption of EVs in the U.S. This could undermine a major driver of global primary nickel demand over the next five years.
Additionally, Trump’s administration may tighten the IRA’s foreign entity of concern (FEOC) guidelines, which currently disqualify companies with significant Chinese ownership from benefiting from the EV tax credit. For instance, Indonesia—a leading producer of nickel—has been working to reduce China’s influence to qualify for IRA incentives.
In a recent deal between PT Vale Indonesia and China’s GEM Co., GEM’s stake in a $1.42 billion nickel plant was capped at 25% to comply with the guidelines. However, stricter FEOC rules could make it even harder for such projects to qualify for U.S. tax incentives. This can potentially limit Indonesia’s ability to expand its nickel exports to the U.S.
China remains a dominant player in Indonesia’s nickel sector. Between January and September 2024, Indonesia exported 129,860 metric tons of nickel sulfate exclusively to China.

If Indonesia faces challenges in accessing U.S. markets due to stricter IRA policies, its reliance on China is likely to deepen. This dynamic could reshape global nickel supply chains, with potential long-term implications for battery manufacturing and EV production.
Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Gain? Nickel’s Future Outlook
Beyond U.S. policy developments, other global factors are contributing to nickel market uncertainty. Escalations in the Russia-Ukraine war have dampened investor confidence, while concerns about slowing economic growth in China continue to weigh on demand projections.
The interplay of these factors has led to reduced risk appetite among investors, as evidenced by the sharp rise in short positions on LME nickel.
Despite these challenges, S&P Global’s fundamental outlook for primary nickel supply and demand remains broadly unchanged from previous forecasts. However, the near-term trading environment is expected to remain difficult.
Amid all these challenging market conditions, an emerging player is targeting U.S. nickel independence. Alaska Energy Metals Corporation (AEMC) is leading efforts to support the U.S. energy transition through its flagship Nikolai project in Alaska. The site holds a significant resource of nickel, copper, cobalt, and platinum group metals essential for renewable energy and electric vehicles.
The Canadian nickel junior’s dual focus on sustainability and critical mineral supply underscores its commitment to reducing U.S. reliance on imports.
With the nickel prices already at a multi-year low, the market’s recovery will depend on clearer policy signals and stronger demand drivers, particularly from the EV and clean energy sectors.
Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: AEMC.
Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.
Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.
The post Nickel Prices Fall to a 4-Year Low: What Causes The Plunge? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

