The first major update of CTC’s carbon-tax model since 2021 is now in the books, calibrated to 2023 emissions and the putative emissions-reducing provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. One result stands out: Without federal legislation mandating a robust national carbon tax, the U.S. won’t come close to achieving the hoped-for 50% decline in carbon emissions (from 2005 levels) in the reasonably foreseeable future.
A $20/$15 carbon tax could halve carbon emissions by 2035
A national carbon tax starting next year at $20/ton and rising annually by $15/ton will cut U.S. CO2 emissions in half from 2005 levels in 2035. To halve emissions by 2030 requires $25/ton for both the starting price and the annual rises.
A national carbon price that took effect in 2025 at $20 per (short) ton and rose by $15 per ton each year would, by 2035, halve U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion: from 6,120 million metric tons (“tonnes”) in 2005, the standard baseline year, to an estimated 3,068 million tonnes in 2035, according to CTC’s model (Excel spreadsheet, 2 MB). That computes to a 50% reduction (rounded from 49.9%).
But without a national carbon price, our model projects U.S. emissions in 2035 of 4,606 million tonnes. That would be just 25% below 2005 emissions, putting the country only halfway to the 50%-reduction goal in 2035. And even that piddling progress entails pushing back the customary 2030 target for halving U.S. emissions to 2035, a 5-year delay.
To be fair, the “halving by 2030” goal is generally construed to encompass not just carbon dioxide but also methane, which is regarded as lower-hanging greenhouse-gas fruit on account of its relative concentration in more easily regulatable oil and gas extraction and transport. This January methane began to be subjected to emissions pricing, through a provision of the Inflation Reduction Act mandating that emissions above a certain threshold be taxed at a rate of $900 per tonne.
But even assuming an optimistic three-fourths reduction in methane and other non-carbon GHG’s, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-burning would have to fall by 44% from 2005 to achieve an overall 50% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Without a national carbon price, the projected CO2 reduction from 2005 is just 17% in 2030 and, as noted, only 25% in 2035, according to CTC’s model.
Halving carbon emissions by 2030 requires a more heroic carbon tax, one starting at $25/ton in 2025 and rising annually by that amount
We also ran the CTC model to determine the carbon price level and trajectory required to halve U.S. 2005 carbon emissions by 2030 rather than 2035. Talk about a tall order! Here’s what the requisite carbon tax would look like:
- The carbon tax would take effect in 2025 (same as in the 2035 scenario).
- The initial price would be $25 per ton of CO2 rather than $20.
- The annual price rise would be the same $25/ton, rather than just $15/ton in the 2035 scenario. That means reaching triple digits in the tax’s fourth year.
- And — this is a bit technical — we’re relaxed the model assumption of the maximum annual tax rise to which the U.S. economy can fully react, from $20/ton previously to $25/ton.
It goes without saying that the present-day American political system isn’t equipped to enact and implement such an “heroic” (an adjective we prefer to “draconian”) carbon tax.
The still-lonely radical center
Prominent voices calling for carbon taxes beyond token amounts (e.g., $10 or $20 per ton with little or no increases) are precious few, not just in absolute terms but relative to the pre-2010 period in which climate concern was widespread and neither the left nor the right had been consumed by their respective demonizations: carbon pricing (on the left) or climate concern of any sort (on the right).
Indeed, here at Carbon Tax Center, we’ve traded in our web pages that previously celebrated carbon tax supporters for pages like Carbon Pricing and Environmental Justice, Progressives and Carbon Pricing, and Conservatives, all of them grouped under a heading of “Politics.” Each is essentially a litany of grievances and rejections of carbon pricing and/or climate action, period.
This attractive chart, though not germane to carbon taxing, is included here to illustrate the wealth of data and perspective available in CTC’s newly updated carbon tax model. Be sure to download it (Excel file) using the link near the start of this post.
This isn’t polarization, it’s a simultaneous disavowal by both ends of the political spectrum of the lone plausible transformational climate-preserving policy measure. (Rather than “ends” I should say “sides” of the spectrum, given that anti-pricing has spilled over from the confines of the respective extremes and now appears to occupy most of the two sides.)
Omens
Consider these two minor but telling signposts from the past week.
One was a NY Times “Sunday Review” guest essay last weekend, I’m a Young Conservative, and I Want My Party to Lead the Fight Against Climate Change, by one Benji Backer, founder-director of the American Conservation Coalition.
Alas, the essay was cut from the same generic cloth as other conservative calls to climate action. Here’s an excerpt:
We cannot address climate change or solve any other environmental issue without the buy-in and leadership of conservative America. And there are clear opportunities for climate action that conservatives can champion without sacrificing core values, from sustainable agriculture to nuclear energy and the onshoring of clean energy production.
Ho-hum. But, most strikingly, zero mention of carbon pricing — not even a nod to the revenue-neutral type such as fee-and-dividend that circumvents right-wing canards about government overreach by “dividending” the carbon revenues to households, thus correcting the market failure driving carbon emissions without “growing the government.”
So much for the right wing. On the left, I had the frustrating experience of meeting a director of an iconic American environmental organization at a public event and bonding with him over our shared dismay at the organization’s post-2016 submission to anti-carbon-pricing rhetoric . . . only to be ghosted when I tried to arrange a meet-up to possibly grow our newfound patch of common ground.
So much for dialogue in service of effective climate policy.
Can’t we bring U.S. emissions down sharply without carbon pricing?
Alas, no. Actual U.S. emission progress perennially falls short of even modest hopes. Almost from the moment the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act — which CTC supported from the git-go — was enacted into law, it has bumped up against a reality calamity of red tape, transmission bottlenecks, NIMBY and other permitting resistance that have demonstrably slowed the march of cleaner energy; not to mention new hellspawns of energy demand like AI processing, cyber-currency computing and ever-larger SUV’s and pickup trucks driven ever more miles, all of which threaten to pile on new carbon emissions almost as fast as incumbent emissions are removed.
As we’ve argued in post after post — just scroll through our monthly archives — these and other decarbonization derailments would be alleviated, if not averted entirely, by the robust carbon taxes we scoped above.
Our updated carbon-tax model shows that U.S. carbon emissions fell by 2.3% from 2022 to 2023. If there weren’t a climate emergency, that might qualify as a decent win. But in our real, overheating world, that rate doesn’t come close to the 4.1% compound annual decline needed to halve 2005 emissions by 2035, much less the 6.9% annual emissions shrinkage required to meet the same goal in 2030.
The insufficiency of even the best-intentioned policies and programs to meet necessary carbon targets without robust carbon taxing can’t be hidden indefinitely. The carbon tax reckoning awaits.
Carbon Footprint
Apple: $94 Billion Record Earnings and the Breakthrough Climate Solutions Fueling Growth
Apple stock (AAPL) has been on an upward trend, fueled by a mix of strategic investments, strong earnings, and a push toward domestic manufacturing. Investors are taking notice as the tech giant positions itself to reduce tariff risks, strengthen its supply chain, and meet rising demand for its products—all while staying true to its sustainability goals.
The Rise of AAPL Stock: Why and How
Several factors are driving the recent rally in Apple (AAPL) shares. The company’s $100 billion expansion of its U.S. manufacturing program, record-breaking quarterly results, partnerships with domestic suppliers, and commitment to recycled materials have combined to create strong investor confidence.
On top of that, bullish technical signals and potential AI collaborations are adding to the market enthusiasm.
“As of August 14, 2025, Apple Inc. (AAPL) is trading at $233.33 USD on the NASDAQ exchange, reflecting a 1.6% increase (+$3.68) from the previous close.”
Let’s dive deeper into this:
$100 Billion Boost to American Manufacturing
Apple recently pledged an additional $100 billion to expand its U.S. manufacturing footprint, raising its total four-year American Manufacturing Program commitment to $600 billion. This plan includes opening new plants, offering supplier grants, and forming partnerships for key components like glass and chips.
The move is seen as a direct response to trade tensions with Washington, particularly past threats from President Donald Trump to impose a 25% tariff if iPhones weren’t made in the U.S. By increasing domestic production, Apple is improving its standing with policymakers and reducing the risk of costly import tariffs.
Key Partnerships Strengthen U.S. Supply Chain
As per media reports, the manufacturing expansion covers a broad network of U.S.-based suppliers and partners:
- Corning (GLW): Expanding smartphone glass production in Kentucky.
- Coherent (COHR): Producing VCSEL lasers for Face ID in Texas.
- TSMC, GlobalFoundries (GFS), and Texas Instruments (TXN): Collaborating on semiconductor production across Arizona, New York, Utah, and Texas.
- GlobalFoundries: Manufacturing wireless charging tech in New York.
Apple says this reshoring effort will enable an “end-to-end” chipmaking process in the U.S., from wafers to finished semiconductors. Over 19 billion chips for Apple products will be made domestically this year.
Rare Earth Partnership with MP Materials
Apple is also investing $500 million in MP Materials (NYSE: MP) to secure a long-term supply of rare earth magnets made entirely from recycled materials. These will be processed and manufactured in the U.S., supporting both supply chain resilience and Apple’s environmental commitments.
Apple’s Strong Earnings Fuel Investor Optimism
Apple’s latest earnings report added fuel to the rally. The company posted record June-quarter revenue of $94 billion—up 10% year over year. Product sales hit $66.6 billion, led by strong demand for the new iPhone 16 lineup and Mac computers.
Services revenue rose 13% to $27.4 billion, showing the company’s ability to diversify beyond hardware and generate steady, high-margin income.
- MORE DETAILS: Apple (AAPL Stock) Rings Up $94B Q3 Win Fueled by iPhones, AI Push, and Climate Smarts
Sustainability at the Core of Apple Products
Apple’s stock story also has a purpose. As per its latest sustainability report, in 2024, 24% of all product materials came from recycled or renewable sources, including:
- 99% recycled rare earth elements in magnets
- 99% recycled cobalt in batteries
- 100% recycled aluminum in many cases
Apple avoided 41 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2024—equal to taking 9 million cars off the road. The company aims for a 75% emissions reduction from 2015 levels.
AI Partnerships Could Add Another Growth Driver
Reports suggest Apple is exploring partnerships with OpenAI and Anthropic to enhance Siri. If successful, these deals could strengthen Apple’s position in the fast-growing AI market.
Can U.S. Manufacturing Plans Keep the Rally Going?
Apple’s reshoring strategy could sustain momentum over the medium term. By resonating with Trump’s “America First” policies and reducing reliance on overseas suppliers, the company is lowering regulatory risks and earning political goodwill.
Nonetheless, challenges remain, but the long-term benefits could outweigh them by securing a more resilient supply chain.
From this analysis, it’s evident that Apple’s recent gains reflect a powerful combination of U.S. manufacturing investments, record earnings, sustainability leadership, and potential AI growth. By strategically aligning with domestic policy and building a stronger supply chain, the company is reducing uncertainty, which is one of the biggest drivers of investor confidence.
The post Apple: $94 Billion Record Earnings and the Breakthrough Climate Solutions Fueling Growth appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced a nearly $1 billion program to strengthen America’s supply of critical minerals and materials. The funding will support mining, processing, and manufacturing within the country. These materials power clean energy technologies and are vital for national security.
This funding builds on President Trump’s Executive Order to Unleash American Energy. It also supports the DOE’s wider Critical Minerals and Materials Program, which focuses on boosting U.S. production, expanding recycling, and strengthening supply chain security.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright remarked:
“For too long, the United States has relied on foreign actors to supply and process the critical materials that are essential to modern life and our national security. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, the Energy Department will play a leading role in reshoring the processing of critical materials and expanding our domestic supply of these indispensable resources.”
From Mines to Magnets: Where the $1B Goes
The DOE’s $1 billion plan targets key minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements. These are essential for electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, and advanced electronics used in defense systems.
The funding is split across several areas:
- $500 million to the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains (MESC) for battery material processing, manufacturing, and recycling projects.
- $250 million to the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management to support facilities producing mineral byproducts from coal and other sources.
- $135 million to boost rare earth element production by extracting them from mining waste streams.
- $50 million to refine materials like gallium, germanium, and silicon carbide, which are crucial for semiconductors and high-performance electronics.
- $40 million through ARPA-E’s RECOVER program to extract minerals from industrial wastewater and other waste streams.
By investing from extraction to refining, the DOE aims to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, especially those in politically unstable regions. The plan also encourages public–private partnerships to scale production faster.
Why Critical Minerals Matter for America’s Future
Critical minerals lie at the heart of America’s economic transformation and defense strategy. In recent years, demand for lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements has grown. This rise comes as clean energy technologies become more important.
The U.S. imports more than 80% of its rare earth elements, and most of this comes from one country – China. This heavy reliance creates risks during trade or geopolitical tensions.
The Trump administration has placed strong emphasis on closing this vulnerability. In March 2025, an executive order highlighted critical minerals as vital for national defense. It also set timelines to boost U.S. production and processing capacity. This aligns with broader economic priorities, including clean energy jobs, green infrastructure, and domestic manufacturing.
The Inflation Reduction Act and infrastructure programs have unlocked billions in grants and tax credits. These funds support electric vehicle manufacturing, battery plants, and renewable energy projects.
The DOE’s $1 billion critical mineral fund supports programs by focusing on materials essential for the clean energy economy. Also, by reusing existing industrial facilities to recover minerals instead of building entirely new ones, the DOE can speed up progress and reduce costs.
EV production is expected to grow faster than any other sector, with demand for minerals likely to be more than 10x higher by 2050. This surge will transform the global supply chain and is critical for the global Net Zero aspirations.
The combined impact of industrial strategy, financial incentives, and supply chain investments shows a clear push to:
- Move production back onshore,
- Boost innovation in materials recycling,
- Support the energy transition, and
- Cut down on foreign imports.
Building on Early Wins
The DOE’s new $1 billion investment boosts earlier funding for critical minerals. This aims to strengthen U.S. industrial capacity.
In 2023, the Department gave $150 million to various clean mineral projects. These include direct lithium extraction in Nevada and early-stage nickel processing partnerships in Oregon.
Since 2021, DOE has invested more than $58 million in research. This work focuses on recovering critical minerals from industrial waste or tailings. They are turning by-products into valuable feedstock.
These R&D projects created pilot facilities. They show how to recover lithium from geothermal brines and rare earths from coal ash. This approach models resource use without needing new mining.
Built on these early successes, the new $1 billion fund signals a shift from pilot programs to scaling proven technologies. It allows U.S. manufacturers to pivot from lab-scale experiments to full commercial operations.
For example, lithium recovery projects are moving from test sites to large extraction facilities. This shift is supported by the technical help from DOE’s national labs.
Likewise, battery recycling pilots are set to grow. More recycling centers are being planned in the Midwest and Southwest.
This funding approach provides continuity. It supports U.S. firms from basic research to commercialization. This helps them quickly move from proof-of-concept to production-ready operations. It also reassures private investors that government backing is strategic and sustained.
McKinsey projects that developing new copper and nickel projects will require between $250 billion and $350 billion by 2030. By 2050, the broader critical minerals sector could grow into a trillion-dollar market to support the net-zero or low-carbon transition.
Washington’s Backing, Industry’s Buy-In
Political backing for the domestic minerals strategy is strong. A recent executive order aims to speed up mining permits and provide federal support.
The Defense Department has also invested $400 million in MP Materials, the largest stakeholder in the only U.S. rare earth mine. This deal includes a new plant to produce magnets for electronics and defense applications.
Industry players are moving in the same direction. Battery maker Clarios is exploring sites for a $1 billion processing and recovery plant in the country. These moves show a shared goal between government and industry to rebuild America’s mineral supply chains.
Opportunities—and the Roadblocks Ahead
The DOE’s program offers major opportunities:
- Less reliance on foreign countries for essential materials.
- Creation of high-quality U.S. jobs.
- Growth in recycling and recovery technologies.
However, challenges remain. Mining and processing must be done without harming the environment. Technology costs need to stay competitive. And benefits must be shared fairly with local and Indigenous communities.
Amid all this, the global race for critical minerals is intensifying. Many countries are already securing their own supplies. The U.S. wants to close its supply gap and become a leader in clean energy manufacturing.
The DOE’s nearly $1 billion plan is a key step toward reshoring America’s critical minerals industry. It builds on earlier successes and aligns with private investments and new policies. If successful, it could make U.S. supply chains more secure, support the clean energy transition, and strengthen national security.
The post U.S. DOE Reveals $1B Funding to Boost Critical Minerals Supply Chain appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Bitcoin Price Hits $124,000 Record High vs Ethereum Price Near $4,800: Which Crypto Is Greener?
Bitcoin price just smashed through $124,000 while Ethereum is closing in on its $4,800 record, fueling fresh excitement in the crypto market. But beyond price charts, the two blockchains have sharply different environmental footprints.
One still runs on an energy-hungry proof-of-work system, while the other has reinvented itself with a proof-of-stake model that slashes energy use by over 99%. The question for climate-minded investors: which crypto comes out greener? Let’s find out.
Crypto’s New Highs, Old Questions
Bitcoin price surged past $124,000 upon writing, setting a new all-time high. Analysts credit several factors:
- strong institutional buying,
- increased inflows into Bitcoin ETFs,
- favorable regulatory changes allowing crypto assets in 401(k) retirement accounts, and
- growing market optimism over expected Federal Reserve interest rate cuts.
The rally reflects both a recovery from previous market downturns and a renewed appetite for digital assets among mainstream investors.
Ethereum, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, is also on the rise. It is now approaching its all-time high of around $4,800, last seen in November 2021.
Investor sentiment is rising because of Ethereum’s role in decentralized finance (DeFi) and NFT marketplaces. Its better environmental profile, thanks to the switch to a proof-of-stake (PoS) model, also helps.
With both tokens in focus, let’s look at their energy use and carbon footprint. This matters for investors and policymakers who care about their climate and environmental impact.
How Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work Consumes Energy
Bitcoin’s network runs on a process called proof-of-work (PoW). Miners around the world compete to solve complex mathematical puzzles. The first to solve it gets to add a block of transactions to the blockchain and earn newly minted Bitcoin. This process secures the network but demands enormous computing power.
That computing power uses a lot of electricity. Bitcoin’s annual energy use is estimated at about 138–178 terawatt-hours (TWh). This is similar to the electricity consumption of countries like Poland or Thailand, and even greater than Norway.
The carbon footprint is equally large, at around 40 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year. To put that into perspective, that’s similar to the emissions of Greece or Switzerland.
On a per-transaction basis, a single Bitcoin payment can use as much energy as a typical U.S. household does in one to two months.
Beyond electricity, Bitcoin mining also generates significant electronic waste. Specialized mining hardware, called ASICs, becomes obsolete quickly—often within two to three years—because faster, more efficient models keep being developed. This turnover contributes thousands of tonnes of e-waste annually.
Ethereum’s Post-Merge Energy Transformation
Before 2022, Ethereum also used proof-of-work, with high energy demands. But in September 2022, the network completed the Merge, switching to proof-of-stake.
Ethereum now uses validators instead of miners. These validators “stake” their ETH tokens as collateral. This helps confirm transactions and secure the network.
This change cut Ethereum’s energy use by over 99.9%. Today, the network consumes an estimated 2,600 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually—roughly 0.0026 TWh. That’s less electricity than a small town of 2,000 homes might use in a year.
The carbon footprint is also tiny compared to Bitcoin—under 870 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent annually. That’s about the same as the yearly emissions of 100 average U.S. households. In environmental terms, Ethereum has gone from being one of the largest blockchain energy consumers to one of the most efficient.
Beyond Electricity: Hidden Environmental Costs
While electricity use is the biggest factor, it’s not the only environmental concern for both cryptocurrencies. Here are the other environmental impacts:
- Water Use:
Large-scale Bitcoin mining facilities often require substantial cooling, which can consume millions of liters of water annually. This can put pressure on local water supplies, particularly in drought-prone regions. Ethereum’s low energy profile greatly reduces such needs. - Heat Output:
Mining facilities generate significant heat. In some cases, waste heat is reused for industrial or agricultural purposes, but in most situations, it is simply released into the environment, adding to local thermal loads. - Land and Infrastructure:
Bitcoin mining operations require large warehouses and access to high-capacity electrical infrastructure. This can limit available industrial space for other uses and put stress on local grids.
By using proof-of-stake, Ethereum avoids most of these impacts. It just needs standard server equipment. This can run in data centers with other low-impact computing tasks.
How the Industry Is Addressing Bitcoin’s Footprint
The crypto industry is aware of Bitcoin’s environmental challenges and is taking steps to address them. Some of the actions taken include:
- Renewable Mining: Some mining operations use only hydro, wind, or solar energy. This is common in areas with plenty of renewable resources.
- Waste Heat Recovery: A few miners capture and reuse waste heat for agriculture (e.g., greenhouse farming) or district heating systems.
- Carbon Offsetting: Companies and mining pools are buying carbon credits to offset emissions. However, how well this works depends on the quality of those credits.
- Policy Proposals: Governments may require Bitcoin miners to share their energy sources or meet renewable energy goals.
SEE MORE: Top 5 Sustainable Bitcoin Mining Companies To Watch Out For
While these efforts are promising, the core challenge remains: proof-of-work’s high energy requirement is built into Bitcoin’s security model.
Why This Matters for ESG-Minded Investors
For investors who care about environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, the difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum is stark. Ethereum’s low-energy proof-of-stake model makes it easier to align with climate goals. Bitcoin’s high energy use and emissions, while partially mitigated by renewable adoption, remain a significant concern.
These factors may influence where ESG-focused funds allocate capital. Companies and institutions wanting exposure to blockchain technology without a large carbon footprint might prefer Ethereum or other PoS networks.
Bitcoin may still attract investors because of its market dominance and value as a store. However, it will likely keep facing environmental concerns.
The Road Ahead for Crypto and Climate
Bitcoin and Ethereum’s price rallies show that investor interest in crypto remains strong. As climate change and sustainability gain importance in policy and investment, environmental performance may play a larger role in the long-term value and acceptance of digital assets.
For now, Ethereum sets the standard for energy efficiency among major blockchains, while Bitcoin represents the ongoing challenge of balancing security, decentralization, and sustainability. Can Bitcoin cut its environmental impact without losing its key features? This will be an important question in the coming years.
The post Bitcoin Price Hits $124,000 Record High vs Ethereum Price Near $4,800: Which Crypto Is Greener? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Change1 year 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”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Renewable Energy2 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban