Sunday’s March to End Fossil Fuels in midtown Manhattan was big, loud and vibrant. The organizers put the tally at 75,000. While that may have been over-generous, the march was far and away the largest U.S. climate assemblage in some time.
It was also an occasion to ponder the goals and tactics of the climate movement.
The customary signs and chants denouncing Big Oil and its funder banks were out in force. What felt new, and unsettling, was the vitriol directed at President Biden. Last year’s passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, with its promise to hasten the transition from fossil fuels by accelerating wind and solar and electrification, might as well have been an hallucination.
This photo by Sarah Blesener ran above the fold in the New York Times’ print edition the next day. The paper’s online caption caught the focus of the march: “Protest organizers used Sunday’s event to send a message to President Biden as he begins his push for re-election: Do more if you want our votes.”
Ganging Up On Joe
The signs and chants castigating the president flowed like a river. Biden: Declare a climate emergency … Cancel Willow … I didn’t vote for fires and floods.
Yikes. Whatever happened to the Inflation Reduction Act’s nearly half-a-trillion dollars worth of tax credits and other subsidies paying down the cost of renewable electricity from solar and wind farms while also cutting consumer costs to purchase electric vehicles, electric heat pumps, and home and commercial electric battery storage?
The intent of the IRA’s myriad and synergistic incentives isn’t just to grow the U.S. green manufacturing base with good-paying green jobs. It’s to displace fossil-fuel use by retiring petrol-fueled engines and furnaces and simultaneously “greening the grid” by speeding the rate at which wind and solar power usurp electricity generation from coal and methane gas.
As the IRA was snaking through Congress last August, energy analysts were scoping the potential carbon and methane reductions from those displacements, along with estimates of increased emissions from new federal oil and gas leasing that Biden committed to expedite to win the tie-breaking Yes vote from West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. One leading think tank, Energy Innovation, concluded that “The bill’s clean energy measures will yield 24 times more emissions reductions than its fossil fuel provisions will increase emissions.” (The firm subsequently raised its 24-to-1 emissions ratio to 28-to-1.)
Seven months later, Biden held up his end of the deal, issuing a permit okaying ConocoPhillips’ $6 billion Willow oil-and-gas drilling venture on Alaska’s North Slope — and threw away the climate good will due him from the IRA. Never mind that the additional carbon emissions from the Biden-Willow “hydrocarbon bomb” will only negate a fraction of the emission reductions from his legislation’s clean electricity and end-use electrification, as I pointed out back in March. Even more poignantly, those additional emissions are more properly estimated to be close to zero. Why? Because what actually burns the carbon fuels and puts the CO2 into the atmosphere is fossil fuel consumption, not supply. If Biden had rejected Willow, the same supply would have been called forth from Nigeria, or Kuwait or some other oil region or state to fill U.S. cars, planes and trucks.
In other words, Willow or any new U.S. drilling activity is nearly irrelevant from a climate standpoint because, as we wrote then, “demand finds a way to create supply,” rather than the reverse.
As we marched, I asked a smattering of anti-Biden sign-holders if the president merited praise for the green energy unleashed by his IRA, rather than criticism for okaying Willow or the other contentious project, the Mountain Valley Pipeline through West Virginia. The typical response was No, we’re in a climate emergency. Any new fossil-fuel infrastructure is too much.
To be sure, trade-offs are hard to wrestle with even in calm moments, much less among a big crowd on the move. But the blank stares about the IRA and occasional flashes of venom against Biden were disquieting, nonetheless. The Times‘ headline for its print report on the march was all too accurate: “Fingers Pointed at President, Protesters Demand End to Fossil Fuels.” Left unsaid is whether protesting Biden climate bombs will seed electoral bombs in 2024, placing our democracy as well as climate in irredeemable peril.
Who’s Really Funding Fossil Fuels?
If the anti-Biden sentiment was novel, the anti-big banks rhetoric was old hat. Blaming the climate crisis on Big Oil and demanding that universities, pension funds and the like “divest” by dumping fossil fuel securities from their holdings, has been a staple of climate organizing for nearly a dozen years, as I decried a year-and-a-half ago, in Exxon doesn’t care if you divest. Neither does climate:
When the writer and climate activist Bill McKibben kicked off the [divestment] campaign in a July 2012 Rolling Stone article, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, the rationale was three-fold: (1) dry up capital and make it harder for the fossil fuel industry to create new mines, wells, pipelines and terminals; (2) weaken the industry’s social and political standing so it couldn’t easily block pro-climate policy; and (3) by hanging a “Dump Me” sign around Big Oil, amp up climate organizing. Not for nothing did McKibben subtitle his Rolling Stone article, “Make clear who the real enemy is.” It was Exxon and its brethren.
A climate marcher with Third Act helpfully displayed the biggest U.S. banks’ fossil-fuel financing over the past seven years.
That path has proven to be a dead-end, I concluded in my post. One piece of evidence was a simple graph showing that Exxon-Mobil’s share price had outperformed the stock market as a whole since the onset of the Covid pandemic. More evidence, if any were needed, was available in the wonderfully wonky signboard at left that was borne by one of yesterday’s marchers, a vibrant senior citizen affiliated with the McKibben-inspired Third Act.
The amounts that the four banks — Chase, Citi, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo — have funneled into fossil fuels since the start of 2016 sum to an impressive-seeming $1.27 trillion ($1,270,000,000,000). Yet over the same period, consumption of petroleum products by U.S. families and businesses earned the oil companies a revenue haul nearly three-and-a-half times as great: an estimated $4.29 trillion ($4,290,000,000,000).
[I calculated that figure from the average 19.9 million barrels per day of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and other petroleum products kerosene and so forth consumed per day over the same seven years, 2016-2022. (See Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 3.5 Petroleum Products Supplied by Type.) Factoring in (1) there are 42 gallons of petrol per barrel, (2) the seven years total 2,555 days (365 x 7), and 3) an average retail price per gallon sold of $2.00 — a conservative markdown from the actual $2.82 average retail price of gasoline over that period — yields $4.29 trillion.]
Who’s really funding fossil fuels? American households, businesses and institutions, locked into grotesque consumption levels that U.S. climate activists studiously ignore.
To be sure, my dollar comparison has apples-and-oranges elements. Only some of the $4 trillion or more in petrol sales is available for investment in exploration and other petroleum infrastructure. And other banks beyond the Big Four also fund oil investment. On the other hand, U.S. consumption of methane gas and coal fossil fuels now exceeds consumption of petroleum on a Btu basis by 20 percent, suggesting that total fossil fuel revenues over the past six years was probably in the vicinity of $8 billion rather than the $4.3 billion from petroleum products alone.
My point is that bank financing is a much weaker linchpin for creating new fossil fuel infrastructure than most climate activists suppose. What really makes fossil supply possible is the lock-in of consumption of fossil fuels themselves, in billions of routine purchases that, day in and day out, fork over many more dollars to the fossil fuel industry than do the banks.
(Owens was responding to a Cameron Murray, PhD, who was decrying the idea of asking Americans to take some responsibility for their personal carbon footprint.)
Or, as Darrell Owens, an analyst with CA YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard), the pro-housing group that has spearheaded the recent revolution of expansionary zoning in California, put it recently on Twitter, “Oil drilling [and such] isn’t for fun, it’s in service of carbon intensive demand that can be stopped.” Stopped how? By undoing automobile dependence, incentivizing smaller vehicles, densifying suburbia, introducing congestion and road pricing, and of course, federal-level carbon taxing, as I detailed last year for The Nation magazine (The Climate Movement In Its Own Way).
Uprooting the Source: Carbon Consumption
Happily, some at Sunday’s march saw past Biden and the banks and critiqued the structures of consumption that enforce dependence on fossil fuels, whether directly at the gas pump or the furnace or stove, or indirectly in purchases of products whose manufacture and transportation entail massive quantities of fuel, or in inefficient or indulgent use of electricity, most of which is still made by burning coal or methane gas.
These included stalwarts from Citizens Climate Lobby, including an enthusiastic contingent from Pittsburgh as well as folks from across the Northeast; and individuals whose handcrafted signs called out U.S. car culture not only for its gasoline profligacy but for its stifling of human life and health.
Some marchers saw beyond Biden and bankers to demand enduring solutions: carbon fee-and-dividend and liberation from automobiles.
“Tax Pollution, Pay People” packs so much into four words, I said to the sign-holder, a CCL member from Pittsburgh, who told me his name, which I failed to write down. When I told him mine, he nearly jumped out of his shoes and shouted it to his fellow CCL’ers as if I was Greta Thunberg and Steelers legend Franco Harris rolled into one.
I started to apologize for CTC’s relative quiescence over the past year or two and to explain that I’ve been consumed with helping get NYC’s congestion pricing plan across the goal line. He stopped me short, thanking me for CTC’s work and insisting that, together, we’ll win a nationwide price on carbon before it’s too late.
So there’s my take. Singling out Biden for attack felt excessive and worrisome, since any falloff in enthusiasm will crimp the chances of small-d democratic, climate-aware outcomes in the elections next year. Similarly, more than a decade’s worth of targeting Big Oil and the banks doesn’t appear to have moved the needle for effective climate policy. Going after “luxury carbon,” as Extinction Rebellion did in a small but resonant climate action last week that I helped organize, feels to me like a more empowering path, one that might capture both the populist moment and climate urgency in a single stroke.
But notwithstanding the mis-directions, it was uplifting to be amidst tens of thousands with a like mind: A better world is possible. A better world is necessary. I want a fossil-free president. Amen to that!
Carbon Footprint
Climate Impact Partners Unveils High-Quality Carbon Credits from Sabah Rainforest in Malaysia
The voluntary carbon market is changing. Buyers are no longer focused only on large volumes of cheap credits. Instead, they want projects with strong science, long-term monitoring, and clear proof that carbon has truly been removed from the atmosphere. That shift is drawing more attention to high-integrity, nature-based projects.
One project now gaining that spotlight is the Sabah INFAPRO rainforest rehabilitation project in Malaysia. Climate Impact Partners announced that the project is now issuing verified carbon removal credits, opening access to one of the highest-quality nature-based removals currently available in the global market.
Restoring One of the World’s Richest Rainforest Ecosystems
The project is located in Sabah, Malaysia, on the island of Borneo. This region is home to tropical dipterocarp rainforest, one of the richest forest ecosystems on Earth. These forests store huge amounts of carbon and support extraordinary biodiversity. Some dipterocarp trees can grow up to 70 meters tall, creating habitat for orangutans, pygmy elephants, gibbons, sun bears, and the critically endangered Sumatran rhino.
However, the forest within the INFAPRO project area was not intact. In the 1980s, selective logging removed many of the most valuable tree species, especially large dipterocarps. That caused serious ecological damage. Once the key mother trees were gone, natural regeneration became much harder. Young seedlings also had to compete with dense vines and shrubs, which slowed the forest’s recovery.
To repair that damage, the INFAPRO project was launched in the Ulu-Segama forestry management unit in eastern Sabah.
- The project has restored more than 25,000 hectares of logged-over rainforest.
- It was developed by Face the Future in cooperation with Yayasan Sabah, while Climate Impact Partners has supported the project and helped bring its credits to market.
Why Sabah’s Carbon Removals are Attracting Attention
What makes Sabah INFAPRO different is not only the size of the restoration effort. It is also the way the project measured carbon gains.
Many forest carbon projects issue credits in annual vintages based on year-by-year growth estimates. Sabah INFAPRO followed a different path. It used a landscape-scale monitoring system and waited until the forest moved through its strongest natural growth period before issuing removal credits.
- This approach gives the credits more weight. Rather than relying mainly on short-term annual estimates, the project measured carbon sequestration over a longer period. That helps show that the forest delivered real, sustained, and measurable carbon removal.
The scientific backing is also unusually strong. Since 2007, the project has maintained nearly 400 permanent monitoring plots. These plots have allowed researchers, independent auditors, and technical specialists to observe the full growth cycle of dipterocarp forest recovery. The result is a large body of field data that supports carbon calculations and strengthens confidence in the credits.
In simple terms, buyers are not just being asked to trust a model. They are being shown years of direct forest monitoring across the project landscape.
Strong Ratings Support Market Confidence
Independent assessment has also lifted the project’s profile. BeZero awarded Sabah INFAPRO an A.pre overall rating and an AA score for permanence. That places the project among the highest-rated Improved Forest Management, or IFM, projects in the world.
The rating reflects several important strengths. First, the project has very low exposure to reversal risk. Second, it has a long and stable operating history. Third, its measured carbon gains align well with peer-reviewed ecological research and independent analysis.
These points matter in today’s market. Buyers have become more cautious after years of debate over the quality of some forest carbon credits. As a result, they now look more closely at durability, transparency, and third-party validation. Sabah INFAPRO’s rating helps answer those concerns and makes the project more attractive to companies looking for credible carbon removal.
The project is also registered with Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard under the name INFAPRO Rehabilitation of Logged-over Dipterocarp Forest in Sabah, Malaysia. That adds another level of market recognition and verification.
A Wider Model for Rainforest Recovery
Sabah INFAPRO also shows why high-quality nature-based projects are about more than carbon alone. The restoration effort supports broader ecological recovery in one of the world’s most important rainforest regions.
Climate Impact Partners said it has worked with project partners to restore degraded areas, run local training programs, carry out monthly forest patrols, and distribute seedlings to support rainforest recovery beyond the project boundary. These efforts help strengthen the wider landscape and expand the project’s environmental impact.
That broader value is becoming more important for buyers. Companies increasingly want projects that support biodiversity, ecosystem health, and local engagement, along with carbon removal. Sabah INFAPRO offers that mix, making it a stronger fit for the market’s shift toward higher-integrity credits.
Why IFM is Getting More Attention in the Carbon Market
The project’s launch also fits a wider shift in the voluntary carbon market. Improved Forest Management refers to practices that help existing forests store more carbon or avoid emissions through better stewardship. Unlike afforestation or reforestation, which involve creating or replanting forests, IFM focuses on improving the way current forests are managed.
These practices can help forests grow older, become more diverse, and stay healthier under climate stress. They can also support timber production in some cases by improving harvest cycles rather than stopping forest use altogether.
Because IFM projects often operate over very long periods, sometimes 100 years or more, they can generate lasting climate benefits. Still, buyers must be careful. Quality varies widely across projects, and strong due diligence remains essential.
That is why Sabah INFAPRO is drawing attention. Although IFM supply has grown in recent years, truly high-quality carbon removal credits within the category remain limited.
Nature-Based Carbon Removal Still Leads the Market
Nature-based carbon removal continues to dominate the spot market, as reported by Carbon Direct. In 2025, about 95% of all carbon dioxide removal credits issued in the voluntary carbon market came from nature-based pathways. Only 5% came from higher-durability pathways such as biochar or BECCS.
This shows two things at once. First, nature-based carbon removal still plays the leading role in today’s market. Second, high-durability removal technologies are still at an early stage of deployment.
Demand Side:
Within nature-based credits, supply conditions differ sharply by project type.
- Afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation, known as ARR, have remained tight. Over the past four years, ARR issuances and retirements have stayed close to a 1:1 ratio, while annual issuance has held nearly flat at around 7 million to 8 million metric tons. That has left limited ARR inventory available for spot buyers.
- IFM has followed a different path. Issuances have grown about 2.5 times since 2023, making it one of the biggest growth areas in nature-based carbon credits. Even so, the supply of top-tier IFM carbon removal credits remains much smaller than headline volumes suggest.
Supply Side:
At the same time, buyer behavior is shifting. Demand has moved away from many older REDD+ projects and toward IFM, ARR, agriculture-based projects, and other credit types viewed as more credible or better aligned with corporate climate goals.
Retirements have dipped slightly, but that does not necessarily mean interest is fading. Buyer participation has remained steady. What changed is the purchasing strategy. Companies are becoming more selective about what they buy, when they buy, and how much they are willing to pay for quality.
Meanwhile, long-term nature-based offtakes and purchase commitments have risen above 90 million tons of future delivery. Most of those commitments are concentrated in ARR projects. That trend shows both how tight ARR supply is today and how seriously buyers are trying to secure future volume.
Against that backdrop, Sabah INFAPRO enters the market at the right time. It offers a rare mix of long-term monitoring, strong scientific backing, high biodiversity value, and verified removals. For buyers looking for high-quality nature-based carbon removal, this Malaysian rainforest project may become an important benchmark.
The post Climate Impact Partners Unveils High-Quality Carbon Credits from Sabah Rainforest in Malaysia appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Bitcoin’s recent drop below $70,000 reflects more than short-term market pressure. It signals a deeper shift. The world’s largest cryptocurrency is becoming increasingly tied to global energy markets.
For years, Bitcoin has moved mainly on investor sentiment, adoption trends, and regulation. Today, another force is shaping its direction: the cost of energy.
As oil prices rise and electricity markets tighten, Bitcoin is starting to behave less like a tech asset and more like an energy-dependent system. This shift is changing how investors, analysts, and policymakers understand crypto.
A Global Power Consumer: Inside Bitcoin’s Energy Use
Bitcoin depends on mining, a process that uses powerful computers to verify transactions. These machines run continuously and consume large amounts of electricity.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows Bitcoin mining used between 67 and 240 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2023, with a midpoint estimate of about 120 TWh.
Other estimates place consumption closer to 170 TWh per year in 2025. This accounts for roughly 0.5% of global electricity demand. Recently, as of February 2026, estimates see Bitcoin’s energy use reaching over 200 TWh per year.
That level of energy use is significant. Global electricity demand reached about 27,400 TWh in 2023. Bitcoin’s share may seem small, but it is comparable to the power use of mid-sized countries.
The network also requires steady power. Estimates suggest it draws around 10 gigawatts continuously, similar to several large power plants operating at full capacity. This constant demand makes energy costs central to Bitcoin’s economics.
When Oil Rises, Bitcoin Falls
Bitcoin mining is highly sensitive to electricity prices. Energy is the highest operating cost for miners. When power becomes more expensive, profit margins shrink.
Recent market movements show this link clearly. As oil prices rise and inflation concerns persist, energy costs have increased. At the same time, Bitcoin prices have weakened, falling below the $70,000 level.
This is not a coincidence. Studies show a direct relationship between Bitcoin prices, mining activity, and electricity use. When Bitcoin prices rise, more miners join the network, increasing energy demand. When energy costs rise, less efficient miners may shut down, reducing activity and adding selling pressure.
This creates a feedback loop between crypto and energy markets. Bitcoin is no longer driven only by demand and speculation. It is now influenced by the same forces that affect oil, gas, and power prices.
Cleaner Energy Use Is Growing, but Fossil Fuels Still Matter
Bitcoin’s environmental impact depends on its energy mix. This mix is improving, but it remains uneven.
A 2025 study from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance found that 52.4% of Bitcoin mining now uses sustainable energy. This includes both renewable sources (42.6%) and nuclear power (9.8%). The share has risen significantly from about 37.6% in 2022.
Despite this progress, fossil fuels still account for a large portion of mining energy. Natural gas alone makes up about 38.2%, while coal continues to contribute a smaller share.
This reliance on fossil fuels keeps emissions high. Current estimates suggest Bitcoin produces more than 114 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. That puts it in line with emissions from some industrial sectors.
The shift toward cleaner energy is real, but it is not complete. The pace of change will play a key role in how Bitcoin fits into global climate goals.
Bitcoin’s Climate Debate Intensifies
Bitcoin’s growing energy demand has placed it at the center of ESG discussions. Its impact is often measured through three key areas:
- Total electricity use, which rivals that of entire countries.
- Carbon emissions are estimated at over 100 million tons of CO₂ annually.
- Energy intensity, with a single transaction using large amounts of power.
At the same time, the industry is evolving. Mining companies are adopting more efficient hardware and exploring new energy sources. Some operations use excess renewable power or capture waste energy, such as flare gas from oil fields.
These efforts show progress, but they do not fully address the concerns. The gap between Bitcoin’s energy use and its environmental impact remains a key issue for investors and regulators.
- MUST READ: Bitcoin Price Hits All-Time High Above $126K: ETFs, Market Drivers, and the Future of Digital Gold
Bitcoin Is Becoming Part of the Energy System
Bitcoin mining is now closely integrated with the broader energy system. Operators often choose locations based on access to cheap or excess electricity. This includes areas with strong renewable generation or underused energy resources.
This integration creates both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, mining can support energy systems by using power that might otherwise go to waste. It can also provide flexible demand that helps stabilize grids.
On the other hand, it can increase pressure on local electricity supplies and extend the use of fossil fuels if cleaner options are not available.
In the United States, Bitcoin mining could account for up to 2.3% of total electricity demand in certain scenarios. This highlights how quickly the sector is scaling and how closely it is tied to national energy systems.
Energy Markets Are Now Key to Bitcoin’s Future
Looking ahead, the connection between Bitcoin and energy is expected to grow stronger. The network’s computing power, or hash rate, continues to reach new highs, which typically leads to higher energy use.
Electricity will remain the main cost for miners. This means Bitcoin will continue to respond to changes in energy prices and supply conditions. At the same time, governments are starting to pay closer attention to crypto’s environmental impact, which could shape future regulations.
Some forecasts suggest Bitcoin’s energy use could rise sharply if adoption increases, potentially reaching up to 400 TWh in extreme scenarios. However, cleaner energy systems could reduce the carbon impact over time.
Bitcoin is no longer just a financial asset. It is also a large-scale energy consumer and a growing part of the global power system.
As a result, understanding Bitcoin now requires a broader view. Energy prices, electricity markets, and carbon trends are becoming just as important as market demand and investor sentiment.
The message is clear. As energy markets move, Bitcoin is likely to move with them.
The post Bitcoin Falls as Energy Prices Rise: Why Crypto Is Now an Energy Market Story appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The LEGO Group is giving its new Virginia factory a major clean energy upgrade. The company plans to build a large on-site solar park at LEGO Manufacturing Virginia in Chesterfield County. At the same time, it will add thousands of rooftop solar panels across the site.
Together, these projects mark a big step toward LEGO’s goal of covering 100% of the facility’s yearly electricity needs with renewable energy. The move also shows how the toy giant is tying factory expansion to its wider climate strategy.
A Big Solar Build for a Big Factory
The company announced that its Virginia site is one of its biggest investments in the U.S, having more than 28 MWp of on-site solar capacity in total. Now it is also becoming one of its most important clean energy projects.
- Construction on the solar park should begin in summer 2026. The ground-mounted system will include more than 30,700 solar panels and deliver 22 megawatt-peak (MWp) of capacity.
- The solar park will spread across nearly 80 acres at the Chesterfield factory site. On top of that, LEGO plans to install 10,080 rooftop solar panels, adding another 6.11 MWp.
Thus, it is a core part of how the company wants this factory to operate from the start.
Lego also said the solar build is a major milestone in its effort to source renewable energy for the plant’s annual needs. That matters because the factory is being designed as a long-term manufacturing hub, not just a packaging or distribution site.
Jesus Ibañez, General Manager of LEGO Manufacturing Virginia, said:
“We’re proud of the progress we continue to make. These initiatives are key to increasing our use of renewable energy and support our ongoing commitment towards more sustainable operations.”
Using Mass Timber for Low- Carbon Factory
The solar park is only one part of the Virginia story. LEGO is also trying to reduce the site’s footprint through the building design itself.
Construction is moving ahead on schedule after the main factory reached its steel topping-out milestone in October 2025. The site’s office space, built with mass timber, is expected to top out later in spring 2026. Mass timber matters because it is a renewable material and can store carbon, unlike many traditional building materials that come with heavier emissions.
Focuses on Energy, Waste, and Better Materials
LEGO also wants the facility to earn LEED Platinum certification once completed. That target covers energy, water, and waste performance. The company further said the Virginia site shares the same goal as all LEGO operations: zero waste to landfill.
In simple terms, it wants almost all factory waste to be reused, recycled, composted, or sent to non-landfill treatment.
These details matter because clean power alone does not make a factory sustainable. Companies also need smarter materials, better energy use, and stronger waste systems. LEGO seems to be taking that broader route here.
Long-Term Impact: Jobs and Local Growth
The Virginia factory is not just about energy. It is also a major job project.
More than 500 people already work across the factory under construction and LEGO’s temporary packing facility. That number is expected to rise to about 900 by the end of 2026 as the company gets ready to run highly automated molding and packing equipment.
The overall investment in the site and regional distribution center is more than $1.5 billion. The full campus covers 340 acres and includes 13 buildings with roughly 1.7 million square feet of space. LEGO has said the site is expected to create more than 1,700 jobs over 10 years.
The company is also trying to build stronger local ties while construction continues. In February 2026, LEGO announced more than $1.3 million in grants for eight nonprofit groups in the Greater Richmond area. Since 2022, it has provided more than $3.5 million in local grants through the LEGO Foundation.
So, the Virginia site is becoming more than a factory. It is shaping up as a long-term regional base for manufacturing, jobs, and community funding.
Is LEGO’s Net-Zero Plan Still A Work in Progress?
The company has committed to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 across its full value chain. The Virginia solar project also fits into LEGO’s bigger climate plan.
It also has near-term targets validated by the Science Based Targets initiative, aiming to cut absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 37% by 2032 from a 2019 baseline, and reduce Scope 3 emissions by the same amount. Those targets align with the 1.5°C pathway.
However, the toy maker’s emissions rose in 2024 as consumer sales grew faster than expected. Its greenhouse gas emissions are approximately 144,400 metric tons of CO₂‑equivalent (around 144.4 million kg CO₂e) globally.
The company noted that higher product demand pushed carbon emissions 3.9% above target, even as it increased spending on more sustainable manufacturing. This means that when a business grows fast, cutting emissions gets harder, not easier.
Even so, LEGO says it remains committed to its climate goals and is investing in local solutions at each factory rather than using a one-size-fits-all model. That approach makes sense because every site has different energy systems, weather, and infrastructure options.
Renewable Growth Spreads Across Global Sites
The company also expanded renewable energy projects at other locations in 2024. It added 6.64 MWp of solar capacity across operations globally, a 43% increase from the previous year.
- In Kladno, Czech Republic, it expanded rooftop solar by 1.5 MWp, bringing total capacity there to 2.5 MWp.
- In Billund, Denmark, it added 4.4 MWp, bringing the site’s total solar capacity to 5.5 MWp.
It also cut Scope 1 emissions in Billund by moving 11 buildings from natural gas to district heating, saving about 1,064 tonnes of CO2e each year. Meanwhile, LEGO launched a geothermal project in Hungary and upgraded heat-recovery systems in Jiaxing, China, to reduce gas use.
Progress in Waste Reduction
- In 2024, its manufacturing sites generated a total of 25,859 tonnes of waste, which was 7.6% below the target of 28,000 tonnes.
As a remedy for this situation, factories in Denmark, China, and Mexico improved moulding processes to recover more raw materials and cut waste. These efforts reduced scrap by more than 160 tons, helped by digital tools that identified materials for reuse and improved efficiency.
Additionally, in the Czech Republic, it also introduced more circular packing methods. The factory reused 39% of cardboard tube cores from suppliers and tested returnable inbound packaging, cutting waste by more than 39 tons a year.
Of course, none of this solves LEGO’s full emissions challenge overnight. Scope 3 emissions across the supply chain will still be the harder part.
However, taken together, these efforts show a company trying to clean up its manufacturing footprint piece by piece. The Virginia project stands out because of its scale, but it is part of a wider pattern. Even though it is still under construction, it already shows what modern industrial planning can look like: on-site renewables, lower-carbon materials, waste reduction, and job creation in one package.
But this project gives LEGO something important: a real, visible step forward. And in climate action, visible progress matters.
The post LEGO’s Virginia Factory Goes Big on Solar as Net-Zero Push Speeds Up appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 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
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy2 years ago
GAF Energy Completes Construction of Second Manufacturing Facility