Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

Next month will mark four years since the Indian Point nuclear power plant north of New York City began to be shut down.

Indian Point 2 was closed on April 30, 2020. Indian Point 3’s closure followed a year later. The two units, rated at roughly 1,000 megawatts each, started operating in the mid-1970s. A half-century later, their reactor cores lie dismembered. Both units are irretrievably gone, for better or worse.

I believe the closures are for the worse — and not by a little. The loss of Indian Point’s 2,000 MW of virtually carbon-free power has set back New York’s decarbonization efforts by at least a decade.

I hinted at this in Drones With Hacksaws: Climate Consequences of Shutting Indian Point Can’t Be Brushed Aside, a May 2020 post in the NY-area outlet Gotham Gazette. Soon I grew more outspoken. In two posts for The Nation in April 2022 (here and here) I invoked Indian Point to urge Californians to revoke a parallel plan to close Pacific Gas & Electric’s two-unit Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which I followed up with a plea to Gov. Gavin Newsom to scuttle the shutdown deal, co-signed by clean-air advocate Armond Cohen and whole-earth avatar Stewart Brand. Which the governor did, last year.

Once I had regarded nuclear plant closures as no big deal. Now I was telling all who would listen that junking high-performing thousand-megawatt reactors on either coast was a monstrous climate crime, the carbon equivalent to decapitating many hundreds of giant wind turbines — a metaphor I employed in my Gotham Gazette post. My turnaround rested on two clear but overlooked points.

One was that nearly all extant U.S. nukes had long ago morphed from chronic inconsistency into rock-solid generators of massive volumes of carbon-free kilowatt-hours, with “capacity factors” reliably hitting 90% or even higher. This positive change should have put to rest the antinuclear movement’s shopworn “aging and unsafe” narrative about our 90-odd operating reactors. It also elevated the plants’ economic and climate value, making politically forced closures far more costly than most of us had imagined.

The other new point is connected to carbon and climate: The effort to have “renewables” (wind, solar and occasionally hydro) fill the hole left from closing Indian Point or other nuclear plants isn’t just tendentious and difficult. Rather, the very construct that one set of zero-carbon generators (renewables) can “replace” another (nuclear) with no climate cost is simplistic if not downright false, as I explain further below.

These new ideas came to mind as I read a major story this week on the consequences of Indian Point’s closure in The Guardian by Oliver Milman, the paper’s longtime chief environment correspondent. To his credit, Milman delved pretty deeply into the impacts of reactor closures — more so than any prominent journalist has done to date. Nonetheless, it’s time for coverage of nuclear closures to go further. To assist, I’ve posted Milman’s story verbatim, with my responses alongside.

A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up.

By Oliver Milman, The Guardian, March 20, 2024

When New York’s deteriorating and unloved Indian Point nuclear plant finally shuttered in 2021, its demise was met with delight from environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.

But there has been a sting in the tail – since the closure, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up.

Castigated for its impact upon the surrounding environment and feared for its potential to unleash disaster close to the heart of New York City, Indian Point nevertheless supplied a large chunk of the state’s carbon-free electricity.

Guardian graphic using eGRID data for NYCW subregion. The chart’s other half was excised to fit the available space.

Since the plant’s closure, it has been gas, rather then clean energy such as solar and wind, that has filled the void, leaving New York City in the embarrassing situation of seeing its planet-heating emissions jump in recent years to the point its power grid is now dirtier than Texas’s, as well as the US average.

“From a climate change point of view it’s been a real step backwards and made it harder for New York City to decarbonize its electricity supply than it could’ve been,” said Ben Furnas, a climate and energy policy expert at Cornell University. “This has been a cautionary tale that has left New York in a really challenging spot.”

The closure of Indian Point raises sticky questions for the green movement and states such as New York that are looking to slash carbon pollution. Should long-held concerns about nuclear be shelved due to the overriding challenge of the climate crisis? If so, what should be done about the US’s fleet of ageing nuclear plants?

For those who spent decades fighting Indian Point, the power plant had few redeeming qualities even in an era of escalating global heating. Perched on the banks of the Hudson River about 25 miles north of Manhattan, the hulking facility started operation in the 1960s and its three reactors at one point contributed about a quarter of New York City’s power.

It faced a constant barrage of criticism over safety concerns, however, particularly around the leaking of radioactive material into groundwater and for harm caused to fish when the river’s water was used for cooling. Pressure from Andrew Cuomo, New York’s then governor, and Bernie Sanders – the senator called Indian Point a “catastrophe waiting to happen” – led to a phased closure announced in 2017, with the two remaining reactors shutting in 2020 and 2021.

The closure was cause for jubilation in green circles, with Mark Ruffalo, the actor and environmentalist, calling the plant’s end “a BIG deal”. He added in a video: “Let’s get beyond Indian Point.” New York has two other nuclear stations, which have also faced opposition, that have licenses set to expire this decade.

But rather than immediately usher in a new dawn of clean energy, Indian Point’s departure spurred a jump in planet-heating emissions. New York upped its consumption of readily available gas to make up its shortfall in 2020 and again in 2021, as nuclear dropped to just a fifth of the state’s electricity generation, down from about a third before Indian Point’s closure.

This reversal will not itself wreck New York’s goal of making its grid emissions-free by 2040. Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027, while the state is pushing ahead with new offshore wind projects – New York’s first offshore turbines started whirring last week. Kathy Hochul, New York’s governor, has vowed the state will “build a cleaner, greener future for all New Yorkers.”

Even as renewable energy blossoms at a gathering pace in the US, though, it is gas that remains the most common fallback for utilities once they take nuclear offline, according to Furnas. This mirrors a situation faced by Germany after it looked to move away from nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, only to fall back on coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, as a temporary replacement.

“As renewables are being built we still need energy for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining and most often it’s gas that is doing that,” said Furnas. “It’s a harrowing dynamic. Taking away a big slice of clean energy coming from nuclear can be a self-inflicted wound from a climate change point of view.”

With the world barreling towards disastrous climate change impacts due to the dawdling pace of emissions cuts, some environmentalists have set aside reservations and accepted nuclear as an expedient power source. The US currently derives about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear power.

Bill McKibben, author, activist and founder of 350.org, said that the position “of the people I know and trust” is that “if you have an existing nuke, keep it open if you can. I think most people are agnostic on new nuclear, hoping that the next generation of reactors might pan out but fearing that they’ll be too expensive.

“The hard part for nuclear, aside from all the traditional and still applicable safety caveats, is that sun and wind and batteries just keep getting cheaper and cheaper, which means the nuclear industry increasingly depends on political gamesmanship to get public funding,” McKibben added.

Wariness over nuclear has long been a central tenet of the environmental movement, though, and opponents point to concerns over nuclear waste, localized pollution and the chance, albeit unlikely, of a major disaster. In California, a coalition of green groups recently filed a lawsuit to try to force the closure of the Diablo Canyon facility, which provides about 8% of the state’s electricity.

“Diablo Canyon has not received the safety upgrades and maintenance it needs and we are dubious that nuclear is safe in any regard, let alone without these upgrades – it’s a huge problem,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director of Friends of the Earth, which was founded in 1969 to, among other things, oppose Diablo Canyon.

Templeton said the groups were alarmed over Diablo Canyon’s discharge of waste water into the environment and the possibility an earthquake could trigger a disastrous leak of nuclear waste. A previous Friends of the Earth deal with the plant’s operator, PG&E, to shutter Diablo Canyon was clouded by state legislation allowing the facility to remain open for another five years, and potentially longer, which Templeton said was a “twist of the knife” to opponents.

“We are not stuck in the past – we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” she said. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything. The main beneficiary of all this is the corporation making money out of this plant remaining active for longer.”

Meanwhile, supporters of nuclear – some online fans have been called “nuclear bros” – claim the energy source has moved past the specter of Chernobyl and into a new era of small modular nuclear reactors. Amazon recently purchased a nuclear-powered data center, while Bill Gates has also plowed investment into the technology. Rising electricity bills, as well as the climate crisis, are causing people to reassess nuclear, advocates say.

“Things have changed drastically – five years ago I would get a very hostile response when talking about nuclear, now people are just so much more open about it,” said Grace Stanke, a nuclear fuels engineer and former Miss America who regularly gives talks on the benefits of nuclear.

“I find that young people really want to have a discussion about nuclear because of climate change, but people of all ages want reliable, accessible energy,” she said. “Nuclear can provide that.”

The forces that won Indian Point’s closure were blind to the climate cost. 

By Charles Komanoff, Carbon Tax Center, March 23, 2024

New Reality #1: Indian Point wasn’t “deteriorating” when it was closed.

“Deteriorating and unloved” is how Milman characterized Indian Point in his lede. “Unloved?” Sure, though probably no U.S. generating station has been fondly embraced since Woody Guthrie rhapsodized about the Grand Coulee Dam in the 1940s.

But “deteriorating”? How could a power plant on the verge of collapse run for two decades at greater than 90% of its maximum capacity?

Calculations by author from International Atomic Energy Agency data. Diablo Canyon has also averaged over 90% CF since 2000.

Had Indian Point been less productive, the jump in the metropolitan area’s carbon emission rate would have been far less than the apparent 60 percent increase in the Guardian graph at left. Though the “electrify everything” community is loath to discuss it, the emissions surge from closing Indian Point significantly diminishes the purported climate benefit from shifting vehicles, heating, cooking and industry from combustion to electricity .

The impetus for shutting Indian Point largely came through, not from then-Gov. Cuomo.

Milman pins the decision to close Indian Point on NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Vermont’s U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. While Cuomo backed and brokered the deal (which Sanders had nothing to do with), the real push came from a coalition of NY-area environmental activists led by Riverkeeper, who, as he notes, “spent decades fighting Indian Point.” And it was relentless.

The wellsprings of their fight were many, from Cold War fears of anything nuclear to a fierce devotion to the Hudson River ecosystem, which Indian Point threatened not through occasional minor radioactive leaks but via larval striped bass entrainment on the plant’s intake screens. Their fight was of course supercharged by the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor meltdown in Pennsylvania and, later, by the 9/11 hijackers’ Hudson River flight path. But as I pointed out in Gotham Gazette, few shutdown proponents had carbon reduction in their organizational DNA. None had ever built anything, leaving many with a fantasyland conception of the work required to substitute green capacity for Indian Point.

And while the shutdown forces proclaimed their love for wind and solar, their understanding of electric grids and nukes was stuck in the past. To them, Indian Point was Three Mile Island (or Chernobyl) on the Hudson — never mind that by the mid-2010s U.S. nuclear power plants had multiplied their pre-TMI operating experience twenty-fold with nary a mishap.

No, in most anti-nukers’ minds, Indian Point would forever be a bumbling menace incapable of rising above its previous-century average 50% capacity factor (see graph above). Most either ignored the plant’s born-again 90% online mark or viewed it as proof of lax oversight by a co-opted Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Note too that the “hulking facility,” as Milman termed Indian Point, lay a very considerable 35 air miles from Columbus Circle, rather than “25 miles north of Manhattan,” a figure that references the borough’s uninhabited northern tip. NYC residents had more immediate concerns, leaving fear and loathing over the nukes to be concentrated among the plant’s Westchester neighbors (Cuomo’s backyard). Which raises the question of why in-city environmental justice groups failed to question the shutdown, which is now impeding closure of polluting “peaker” plants in their own Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx backyards.

Still, the shutdown campaigners’ most grievous lapse was their failure to grasp that the new climate imperative requires a radically different conceptual framework for gauging nuclear power.

New Reality #2: Wind and solar that are replacing Indian Point can’t also reduce fossil fuels.

It’s dispiriting to contemplate the effort required to create enough new carbon-free electricity to generate Indian Point’s lost carbon-free output. Think 500 giant offshore wind turbines, each rated at 8 megawatts. (Wind farms need twice the capacity of Indian Point, i.e., 4,000 MW vs. 2,000, to offset their lesser capacity factor.)

What about solar PV? Its capacity disadvantage vis-a-vis Indian Point’s 90% is five- or even six-fold, meaning 10,000 or more megawatts of new solar to replace Indian Point. I won’t even try to calculate how many solar buildings that would require. But this is where Indian Point’s 90% capacity factor is so daunting; had the plant stayed mired at 60%, the capacity ratios to replace it would be a third less steep.

But wait . . . it’s even worse. These massive infusions of wind or solar are supposed to be reducing fossil fuel use by helping the grid phase out gas (methane) fired electricity. Which they cannot do, if they first need to stand in for the carbon-free generation that Indian Point was providing before it was shut.

So when Riverkeeper pledged in 2015-2017, or Friends of the Earth’s legal director told the Guardian‘s Milman that “we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” they’re misrepresenting renewables’ capacity to help nuclear-depleted grids cut down on carbon. Shutting a functioning nuclear power plant puts the grid into a deep carbon-reduction hole — one that new solar and wind must first fill, at great expense, before further barrages of turbines and panels can actually be said to be keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

I suspect that not one in a hundred shut-nukes-now campaigners grasps this frame of reference. I certainly didn’t, until one day in April 2020, mere weeks before Indian Point 2 would be turned off, when an activist with Nuclear NY phoned me out of the blue and hurled this new paradigm at me. Before then, I was stuck in the “grid sufficiency” framework that was limited to having enough megawatts to keep everyone’s A/C’s running on peak summer days. The idea that the next giant batch or two of renewables will only keep CO2 emissions running in place rather than reduce them was new and startling. And irrefutably true.

To be clear, I don’t criticize Milman for missing this new paradigm. He’s a journalist, not an analyst or analyst. It’s on us climate advocates to propagate it till it reaches reportorial critical mass.

I credit Milman for giving FoE’s legal director free rein about Diablo. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything,” she told him.

Goodness. Everyone [who? California government? PG&E? green entrepreneurs?] didn’t do anything to switch over to solar and wind. Welcome to reality, Friends of the Earth!

I knew FoE’s legendary founder David Brower personally. I and legions of others were inspired in the 1960s and 1970s by his implacable refusal to accede to the world as it was and his monumental determination to build a better one. But reality has its own implacability. The difficulty of bringing actual wind and solar projects (and more energy-efficiency) to fruition has the sad corollary that shutting viable nuclear plants consigns long-sought big blocks of renewables to being mere restorers of the untenable climate status quo.

In closing: Contrary to Milman (and NY Gov. Kathy Hochul), Indian Point’s closure will wreck NY’s goal of an emissions-free grid by 2040.

“Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027,” Milman wrote, referencing the Champlain-Hudson Power Express transmission line and Clean Path NY. But their combined annual output will only match Indian Point’s lost carbon-free production. Considering that loss, the two ventures can’t be credited with actually pushing fossil fuels out of the grid. That will require massive new clean power ventures, few of which are on the horizon.

I’ve written about the travails of getting big, difference-making offshore wind farms up and running in New York. I’ve argued that robust carbon pricing could help neutralize the inflationary pressures, supply bottlenecks, higher interest rates and pervasive NIMBY-ism that have led some wind developers to deep-six big projects.

Though I’ve yet to fully “do the math,” my decades adjacent to the electricity industry (1970-1995) and indeed my long career in policy analysis tell me that New York’s grid won’t even reach 80% carbon-free by 2040 unless the state or, better, Washington legislates a palpable carbon price that incentivizes large-scale demand reductions along with faster uptake of new wind, solar and, perhaps, nuclear.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

CSRD for SME Suppliers: How to turn data requests into a competitive advantage

Published

3 days ago

on

December 4, 2025

By

Across Europe, a quiet but decisive shift is reshaping how companies work with their suppliers. As the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) comes into force, large organisations are under mounting pressure to disclose detailed, verifiable sustainability information—not only about their own operations, but across their entire value chain. And because up to 80% of a company’s emissions often come from its supply chain, the spotlight naturally turns to SMEs.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Lithium Prices Surge Amid Strong Demand Forecasts, Could Reach Up to $28,000/Ton by 2026

Published

6 days ago

on

December 1, 2025

By

Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals Inc.

Lithium prices have jumped sharply overnight, catching the attention of investors, automakers, and battery makers. In China, lithium carbonate futures on the Guangzhou Futures Exchange hit about 95,200 yuan (≈$13,400 USD) per metric ton. This marks a rebound from earlier lows caused by oversupply.

Historically, lithium prices have been volatile. Peak prices reached around 150,000 yuan per ton in 2022, followed by a slump during the oversupply period in 2023–2024.

The recent spike followed comments from the chairman of Ganfeng Lithium, Li Liangbin, who projected a 30–40% rise in global demand by 2026. He suggested prices could reach between 150,000 and 200,000 yuan per ton if this growth materializes.

The surge highlights lithium’s critical role in powering electric vehicles (EVs) and large-scale energy storage.

Growing Demand for Lithium: What Drives the Boom?

Electric vehicles remain the largest driver of lithium demand. Around 16 million EVs were on the road globally in 2024, up from 10 million in 2022. Sales are forecast to exceed 25 million units by 2026 and reach over 50 million by 2030. Longer-range vehicles require larger batteries, which increases lithium use.

Energy storage systems are another fast-growing source of demand. Utilities expanding solar and wind energy need lithium-based batteries to store surplus electricity. Heavy-duty electric trucks and buses have larger batteries. This means they use more lithium per vehicle compared to passenger EVs.

Long-term trends toward decarbonization and renewable energy growth further support lithium demand. Analysts say that EV batteries make up about 70% of lithium demand. Grid storage accounts for 15%. Electric trucks use 10%, and other uses, like electronics and specialty chemicals, are around 5%.

Supply Challenges Keep Prices Elevated

Lithium carbonate prices in China have climbed dramatically, moving from $8,259/tonne on June 23, 2025, to $12,791/tonne on November 19, 2025 – a rise of about 55% over five months. 

This recent rally is primarily attributed to tight supply conditions, with major Chinese mines, including those operated by CATL, pausing operations due to falling prices earlier in the year. As output was reduced or shut in, inventories were gradually drawn down, tightening available supply.

lithium carbonate price

Moreover, lithium production is highly concentrated. Australia leads with around 60,000 tonnes LCE annually, followed by Chile (35,000 tonnes), China (25,000 tonnes), Argentina (18,000 tonnes), and the U.S. (≈5,000 tonnes). Geographic concentration adds risk: environmental regulations, political tensions, or operational issues could tighten supply.

Restarting idled mines or opening new projects takes 2–5 years. Inventories from the oversupply period act as a buffer. Current estimates show global lithium stocks at about 350,000 tonnes LCE. This amount can help with short-term supply issues, but it’s not enough for long-term growth.

The factors that keep pushing lithium demand higher include:

Lithium makes up about 20–25% of total EV battery costs. So, price changes can greatly impact EV production costs. Also, battery chemistry trends show that sodium-ion and solid-state batteries might take a small share of the market by 2030. However, lithium-ion will remain the leader for now.

Lithium carbonate prices in China have climbed sharply, as shown in the chart. Prices rose more than 17% this month as investors bet on accelerating demand from the energy storage sector.

What Analysts Say: Forecasts and Future Trends

Fastmarkets predicts a small surplus in 2025, shifting to a deficit of 1,500 tonnes LCE by 2026. A few years ago, the market had a surplus of about 175,000 tonnes in 2023 and 154,000 tonnes in 2024. Cuts in production at high-cost or marginal mines and rising demand from EVs and storage systems are driving this rebalancing.

Arcane Capital forecasts global demand could hit 4.6 million tonnes LCE by 2030, led by EVs, grid storage, and heavy-duty transport.

Benchmark Mineral Intelligence expects lithium carbonate prices to stay between $15,000 and $17,000 USD per ton in 2025, but prices may be lower in 2026 if supply increases faster than demand.

Still, the chart from Katusa Research highlights a growing deficit in lithium supply and demand. This supply deficit will likely underpin upward pressure on lithium prices moving toward 2030.

lithium supply deficit KR
Source: Katusa Research

Production in Australia, China, and South America should grow by about 10% each year, per industry estimates. However, delays or cost overruns might slow this growth. 

Risks to the Price Recovery

Lithium prices face several risks. EV adoption could slow if subsidies or incentives drop. Battery makers might adopt sodium-ion or other chemistries if costs rise. Rapid restarts of idled mines or new production could oversupply the market.

Regulatory hurdles, environmental restrictions, and trade tensions could also disrupt supply. Recent price spikes were partly due to speculative trading, highlighting the market’s sensitivity to sentiment.

Who Wins and Who Loses?

Higher lithium prices may hurt automakers and battery makers, pushing them to secure contracts or invest in recycling. Mining companies benefit from higher prices but must manage timelines and costs.

Meanwhile, investors have opportunities, though volatility is high. Policymakers consider lithium a strategic resource and are encouraging domestic production, recycling, and robust supply chains.

With global supply growth uncertain, focus is turning to projects that provide steady, long-term output. This is especially true in areas aiming to boost domestic supply chains, where Surge Battery Metals comes in.

Spotlight: Surge Battery Metals – US Lithium Hero

Surge Battery Metals (TSX-V: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF) is emerging as a key U.S. lithium developer. Its Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) hosts the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the United States, with an Inferred Resource of 11.24 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) grading 3,010 ppm lithium (NI 43-101, September 24, 2024).

Surge Nevada lithium clay comparison
Source: Surge Battery Metals

A Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) on the project outlines robust economics, including:

  • After-tax NPV₈%: US$9.21 billion
  • After-tax IRR: 22.8%
  • Low operating costs: US$5,243 per tonne LCE

NNLP benefits from access to regional infrastructure, including established roads and nearby power, supporting future development. 

Surge’s leadership team includes veterans from Millennial Lithium, a company acquired for US$490 million in 2022. The company has also secured a staged C$10 million JV funding agreement with Evolution Mining to advance NNLP toward Pre-Feasibility while maintaining majority ownership.

How Nevada North Fits into the Global Picture

The Nevada North Lithium Project demonstrates the potential to become a globally significant lithium operation. According to comparative analysis from 3L Capital and S&P Global, NNLP’s Life-of-Mine (LOM) average production of 86 kt LCE per year—as outlined in the PEA—would rank the project as the 5th largest lithium-producing project in the world compared with 2024 producers and developers.

Lithium demand vs supply
Source: Surge Battery Metals

Even in its first year, NNLP is projected to produce 26 kt LCE, placing it among the top 16 lithium projects globally on a 2024 comparative basis. This combination of scale, grade, and location underscores NNLP’s potential as a strategic U.S. supply source in a market seeking domestic, high-quality lithium to reduce dependence on overseas imports.

top lithium producing companies 2024
Source: Surge Battery Metals

If advanced through feasibility, permitting, and construction decisions, NNLP has the potential to become a competitive, American-based lithium operation—supporting both EV manufacturing and large-scale energy storage with “American-made” battery-grade feedstock.

Lithium Surges, Supply Matters, and America Prepares

Prices are shaped by several key factors. These include updates on production from major mines, trends in EV adoption, grid storage deployment, new battery technologies, and changes in policy. Inventory levels and market speculation will continue to influence short-term volatility.

Lithium prices have jumped, signaling a possible market turning point after past oversupply. High demand from EVs, grid storage, and heavy-duty transport, along with limited production and geographic concentration, is pushing prices up.

Industry stakeholders, investors, and policymakers have to monitor developments closely as lithium continues to play a central role in the global energy transition. Surge Battery Metals shows the type of domestic production needed to meet rising demand and strengthen supply chains in a rapidly evolving market.


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 $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two 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 the 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, 2024, 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.

Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: None.

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 Lithium Prices Surge Amid Strong Demand Forecasts, Could Reach Up to $28,000/Ton by 2026 appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Canada’s Carbon Pricing Reset in 2026: Will Industry Step Up or Stall Climate Progress?

Published

6 days ago

on

December 1, 2025

By

Canada’s Carbon Pricing Reset in 2026: Will Industry Step Up or Stall Climate Progress?

Canada is at a key moment in its fight against climate change. Carbon pricing has been the central tool used to cut emissions, but recent policy changes and differences across provinces have created uncertainty.

This article examines how Canada’s carbon pricing system works now. It covers expert concerns and what the key federal review in 2026 might mean for both industry and the country’s journey toward a lower-carbon future.

How Canada Prices Pollution

Canada uses carbon pricing to encourage companies and people to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Under that system, there are two main parts.

For ordinary people and small businesses, there used to be a “fuel charge” or carbon tax on fossil fuels. For large industrial emitters, there is a program called the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS).

Under the OBPS, factories or facilities that produce a lot of emissions get a limit based on how much they produce. If they emit more than their limit, they must pay; if they emit less, they earn credits that they can sell or use later.

This approach aims to reduce carbon pollution while trying to protect industries that compete globally. The goal is to cancel out the risk that companies might move to other countries with weaker climate rules.

From Gas Pumps to Smokestacks: A Major Policy Shift

In 2025, the federal government made important changes. It removed the “consumer-facing” carbon tax — the fuel charge — effective April 1, 2025. This means people pay no extra carbon tax when buying gasoline or heating fuel.

Canada carbon price per tonne yearly
Source: RBN Energy LLC website

Instead, the focus shifted more clearly onto industrial carbon pricing. The government said it would review the carbon pricing “benchmark” in 2026. This review could change how industrial carbon pricing operates.

A recent analysis by ClearBlue Markets shows that Canada’s carbon pricing for industry is now fragmented. Fragmentation has caused uncertainty. This is a problem for companies that need stable cost signals before they invest in cleaner technology.

The ClearBlue report stated:

“The federal benchmark review will therefore trigger extensive engagement between the federal government and the provinces, aimed at aligning key benchmark elements such as coverage, pricing stringency, and competitiveness protections. Negotiations are likely to be complex and politically charged, particularly with provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, which have already taken strong positions. These types of unilateral decisions reflect ongoing tensions and highlight the difficulty of achieving a truly aligned national approach.”

Carbon pricing today: A patchwork across Canada

Because Canada is large and its provinces have different rules, carbon pricing for industry is not the same everywhere. ClearBlue Markets shows that credit prices—what companies pay or earn—vary a lot by province or system.

Here are specific examples:

In Alberta, the Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency has seen a big drop in credits under its Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Program (TIER). Despite a compliance price of CAD 95 per tonne, market credits trade at around CAD 18 per tonne. This shows a credit surplus and weak demand.

In British Columbia (B.C.), the new B.C. Output-Based Pricing System (B.C. OBPS) began to be applied recently. Credits are trading at about CAD 65 per tonne, a discount compared with the regulatory level of CAD 80.

In Ontario, the Emissions Performance Standards (EPS) system governs industrial emissions. Because the program does not allow offset credits, supply is tighter — units (EPUs) recently traded at around CAD 72 per tonne.

In areas where the federal OBPS still applies, like some territories and small provinces, cheap carbon offset credits from Alberta’s TIER have lowered prices. Now, they can be as low as about CAD 37.50 per tonne.

Canada carbon prices per jurisdiction
Data source: ClearBlue Markets

The true cost of carbon emissions differs greatly by industry and province. The federal government aims to raise the carbon price to CAD 170 per tonne by 2030 for direct pricing systems.

The 2026 Showdown: Can Canada Fix Its Carbon Market?

The upcoming review of the federal benchmark is seen as a turning point. It could lead to stronger, more aligned carbon pricing across all provinces. As ClearBlue Markets notes, the review may address issues such as:

  • Align different provincial systems under a common design. This way, credits and compliance will act more alike.
  • Improving transparency in reporting credit inventories, trades, and emission reductions.
  • Possibly introducing a “floor price” — a minimum cost for carbon credits — to avoid extreme price drops like those seen in some programs.
  • Setting a long-term carbon price path past 2030 helps industries plan investments more clearly. This is especially important for clean technologies.

All of these could make carbon pricing more predictable and effective. If the review doesn’t meet expectations, patchwork and uncertainty may persist. This could weaken the carbon price signal and confuse investment in clean technology.

This patchwork of provincial and federal carbon pricing programs has created a corresponding patchwork of compliance offset markets. The image below shows how these offset markets are distributed across Canada.

Canada Offset Credit Issuances
Source: ClearBlue Markets

Global Pressure Is Rising: Europe Could Hit Canada with Carbon Tariffs

One major external risk comes from the global trade environment. Starting in 2026, the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will impact imports based on their carbon emissions.

For Canadian exporters, this raises a key question:

  • Will EU authorities accept the compliance credits or offsets generated under Canada’s various carbon pricing systems as evidence of “carbon price paid”?

If not, Canadian exports might face extra tariffs. This could double the carbon cost or hurt competitiveness.

This makes it even more important for Canada to standardize and strengthen its carbon pricing framework before 2026. This is to ensure that its pricing and credits are recognized internationally. Otherwise, Canadian industries like steel, aluminum, and cement might find it hard to compete. This is especially true in markets with strict climate-related import rules.

Strengths and Challenges of Canada’s Carbon Pricing

Carbon pricing works to link environmental costs with economic decision-making. For large emitters, it encourages improved efficiency. Carbon pricing revenue, especially from the OBPS, can fund clean energy projects. It also supports carbon capture and investments in low-carbon infrastructure.

A recent evaluation by the government highlights that industrial carbon pricing helps reduce emissions with minimal impact on households.

But there are major challenges too. The system varies by province, so many industries might have low carbon costs. This means there is little motivation for real change.

A 2022 report from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) found that weak rules in provincial large-emitter programs lower the impact of carbon pricing. Also, the unclear use of carbon revenues and the long-term price outlook have made some firms hesitant to invest in cleaner technologies.

The Stakes: Canada’s Climate Credibility and Industrial Future

The 2026 benchmark review could reshape Canada’s carbon pricing for decades. Key signs to watch are:

  • Whether the government sets a new, clear carbon price path beyond 2030 — possibly up to 2050, that would give firms confidence to invest in long-term clean solutions.
  • Whether provincial carbon pricing systems become more harmonized. This means similar rules, credit prices, and transparency everywhere.
  • Introducing a price floor or other methods can help prevent deeply discounted carbon credits. This ensures a strong carbon price signal.
  • Will Canadian industrial credits and compliance be set up to gain recognition under global systems like CBAM? This could help keep Canadian exports competitive.

Canada’s carbon pricing, especially for industry, is at a crossroads. The removal of the consumer carbon tax in 2025 reflects a shift toward focusing on industrial emissions. Meanwhile, the upcoming 2026 benchmark review offers a chance to make this system stronger, fairer, and more predictable.

However, much depends on political and regulatory will. Without clear pricing, rules, and long-term certainty, the carbon price might be too weak. This puts Canada’s climate goals and global competitiveness at risk. But if the government and provinces act quickly, carbon pricing can help Canada shift to a low-carbon economy while also keeping industries competitive.

The post Canada’s Carbon Pricing Reset in 2026: Will Industry Step Up or Stall Climate Progress? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com