NY Gov. Kathy Hochul last month vetoed a bill that could have expedited a huge wind farm in the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island. Her veto imperils not just the project, called Empire Wind, but New York State’s hopes to decarbonize its electric grid and validate its claim to national climate leadership.
I’ll argue here that a state or federal carbon price — one more substantial than the relative pittance of $15 per ton now being charged for electricity sector emissions under the RGGI compact — could have helped the developers beat back the NIMBYs whose rabble-rousing helped force Hochul’s hand. Let’s review the project and then explain how its difficulties are connected to the absence of robust carbon pricing.
Empire Wind Will Be Large
There will be 138 turbines, identical and gigantic. At 387 feet, each turbine blade will be the length of a football field including the end zones. The distance from water surface to blade tip at full height will be 886 feet, roughly the extent of two celebrated Manhattan towers that a century ago were the world’s tallest buildings: the 792-foot Woolworth Building (#1 from 1913 to 1930) and the 1,046-foot Chrysler Building (1930-1931). An even funner fact, from the developer’s spec sheet, is this: just one complete rotation by one turbine’s three blades will “power a New York home for about 1.5 days.”
The anticipated annual electrical generation from Empire Wind 1 and 2 combined is 7.25 TWh (or, if it’s easier, 7,250,000,000 kilowatt-hours),assuming a 40% yearly capacity factor. Here are four alternative ways of visualizing the significance of that output:
- Empire Wind’s 7.25 TWh is half again as great (i.e., 1.5x as large) as the entire production by New York State wind turbines in 2022 (that figure was 4.8 TWh);
- 7.25 TWh is 5 to 6 percent as great as all electricity generated from all state sources in 2022 (130.5 TWh);
- 7.25 TWh is one-sixtieth (1/60) as much as all U.S. wind-generated electricity last year (435 TWh), a figure that itself constituted a tenth of U.S. electricity production from all sources;
- 7.25 TWh is close to (12 percent less than) the average annual 2010-2019 output of either of the twin Indian Point reactors in suburban Westchester County that until their recent forced retirement were downstate New York’s lone large-scale source of carbon-free electricity. (The entire Indian Point station’s average annual output over its final decade, 2010-2019, was 16.5 TWh.)
Putting aside that last benchmark — which is intended as a reminder of the carbon disaster of shutting Indian Point (and a cautionary tale against shutting its West Coast doppelganger, Diablo Canyon) — Empire Wind looms large in New York state’s goal of attaining a 70 percent carbon-free grid in 2030.
The state’s 2022 carbon-free electricity share was just 48 to 49 percent, down from 60 percent in 2019, before Indian Point’s closure commenced. If Empire Wind’s output were available today, the statewide share would stand at 54 percent, indicating that this single (albeit two-part) project can close a quarter of the gap from the current clean percentage to the 2030 target.
Hochul and the NIMBYs
Along with infusing the grid with billions of clean kilowatt-hours, building and servicing Empire Wind 1 and 2 is expected to create 1,300 permanent onshore jobs — 300 to manufacture turbine components at the Port of Albany, and 1,000 in operation and maintenance at the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, according to Equinor, the developer. These numbers, along with the clean electricity, ought to be catnip for any Democratic politician.
Why, then, did Hochul on Oct. 20 veto a bill that could have cleared the path for the Empire Wind 2 power cable to run under Long Beach and connect to the electric grid in Oceanside?
There’s no shortage of possible rationales. Long Island flipped from shaky blue to all red a year ago, as Democrats lost all four Congressional races and a number of state legislative seats while Hochul herself was outvoted there in her unnervingly close re-election. She may be seeking to preserve political capital for a possible renewed push to undo exclusionary zoning that that keeps housing in Nassau and Suffolk counties unaffordable for newcomers or those without generational wealth. Moreover, Empire Wind itself has faced financial headwinds due to supposed supply chain bottlenecks and spiraling financing costs, with the latter due in no small part to the regulatory delays.
Whatever the reasons, Hochul went all NIMBY-friendly. Her veto message faulted Equinor for running roughshod over Long Beach residents (see pull quote at left) rather than calling out the obstructionists for teeing up a replay of 2012’s Superstorm Sandy that devastated the very communities that now are clamoring for the wind project to go away.
In her message, the governor ignored the tinfoil-hat essence of most anti-wind opposition, which one observer, a former New York City chief climate policy advisor, characterized as combining “propaganda from the fossil fuel industry, rumor mongering in local communities, and basic nimbyism.” As NY Focus helpfully reported in Long Island Politicians Claim Victory for Hochul Wind Power Veto, objections to the Empire Wind farm and cables run the gamut from shopworn (ocean views sullied by turbines 15 miles offshore) to debunked (health-harming electromagnetic radiation from the power cables) to chronologically impaired (“We’ve had a huge number of [dead] whales that are showing up on our beaches,” a state senator fretted, yet not even a single offshore wind turbine has begun operating on the Atlantic Coast).
Entire cable route through Long Beach is underground. Yet NIMBYs are holding hostage a not-quite-in-their-backyard project that would more than double NY wind power production. Incidentally, I was born and grew up in a house on Washington Blvd, just a few blocks past the left edge of the map. Equinor map adapted by CTC.
Hochul and her staff seem unaware that there is no placating NIMBYs, whether their sights are trained on giant offshore wind projects or small-bore items like transit-friendly higher-rise housing or bike lanes. To the naysayers, any palpable change in their way of life is either Armageddon in itself or a pathway to purgatory. The only way to deal with them is to give pro-development, pro-change forces the strength to vanquish the NIMBYs outright — which is where carbon pricing comes in.
Would You Like $240 Million in (Annual) Carbon Benefits With Your Order?
Offshore wind’s chief virtue — in some respects, its true raison d’être — is its ability to take the place of dirty, fossil-fuel electricity generation in the grid. This asset is particularly salient in the case of Empire Wind, insofar as the downstate New York grid, with only modest interconnections to greener grids upstate or elsewhere, obtains more than 90 percent of its annual electricity by burning methane (“natural”) gas.
As a result, nearly every kilowatt-hour from Empire Wind will directly displace a kWh from burning fracked gas. And though the 90% share will decline when the new Champlain-Hudson Power Express transmission line enters service, perhaps in 2026, nearly all of the “incremental,” hour-by-hour power production actually avoided by generation from Empire Wind will still be gas-fired when the project’s two parts come on line in 2028 and 2029.
Now picture a federal or state carbon tax — or “price” if you prefer. Set it at $100 per metric ton (“tonne”) of CO2, which is both a round number and the level the Carbon Tax Center has been advocating since our inception, to be reached after a ramp-up taking half-a-dozen years. Now apply the carbon tax to the CO2 emitted from one kWh generated by burning gas. You’ll find that the carbon tax associated with each such kilowatt-hour is 3.9 cents.
Calculations: 659 x 10^6 tonnes (CO2 emissions from 2022 U.S. gas-fired electricity) divided by 1.689 x 10^12 kWh (U.S. electricity generated with gas in 2022) multiplied by 10^4 ¢ charged per tonne yields 3.90¢/kWh.
Let’s bring that figure down to earth: With a $100/ton (okay, tonne) carbon tax, each gas-fired kWh in competition with Empire’s offshore wind would cost 3.9 cents more to generate than at present. (To keep the discussion simple, I’ve refrained from counting an additional tax on methane.) We trim that to 3.3¢/kWh because the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) already charges a carbon price on fuels used to generate electricity in New York and neighboring states; in the most recent (September) quarterly auction, that price reached $13.85 per short ton, equivalent to $15.25 per metric ton, which we deduct from our aspirational $100/tonne carbon price to avoid double-counting, reducing it by just over 15 percent.
The hypothetical 3.3¢/kWh additional carbon charge for gas-generated electricity (stemming from the $100 carbon price) multiplied by Empire Wind’s 7.25 TWh annual output yields $240 million per year. Those dollars represent a first estimate of the additional annual revenue Equinor could have sought in its 2018 and 2020 bids responding to NYSERDA’s solicitations to prospective developers of offshore wind projects. With a robust NY carbon price, in other words, Equinor’s Empire Wind venture would enjoy a far higher profit margin.
Offshore Wind’s Missing Carbon Price
Imagine what Equinor might have done with $240 million a year in additional Empire Wind revenue. It could have banked, say, half that amount to offset the price escalation and higher interest costs that this year lowered its prospective profit margins and compelled it to appeal to NY State to grant a higher price for its production. (Incidentally, the NY Public Service Commission’s Oct. 12 order denying Equinor’s petition seeking renegotiation of its power contract with NYSERDA provides a good capsule summary of NY state offshore wind activity; it can be found via this link; search for Cases 15-E-0302 and 18-E-0071.)
The other $120 million, or a good chunk of it, could have been used — and might still be — to provide economic benefits to Long Beach and other communities that consider themselves “affected” by Empire Wind’s turbines or cables.
Empire Wind website paragraph about Taxes makes no mention of payments — voluntary or mandatory — to Long Beach and other communities.
As a thought-experiment, consider that $120 million distributed equally to Long Beach’s 11,700 households (assuming the city’s 35k population resides 3 per household) could provide recurring yearly dividends of around $10,000 per household, once the electricity began to flow. Perhaps more practical would be to set aside $75 million as a one-time payment to retire the so-called Haberman Judgment holding Long Beach financially responsible for blocking a proposed real-estate venture near the boardwalk and ocean beach several decades ago (see City of Long Beach 2023-2024 adopted budget, pages ii-iii).
Of course there are any number of other “improvements” that Long Beach, Island Park and Oceanside might elect to be funded by Equinor “payments in lieu of taxes.” I was surprised that Empire Wind’s online materials do not mention any such payments.
The idea is not to “win over” the NIMBYs — I consider that a fool’s errand — but to neutralize and politically overpower them by appealing to the larger community’s enlightened self-interest. Not so much the members of the Long Beach city council — who apparently (and astoundingly) went from 5-0 in favor of permitting the cable route to 0-5 between spring and fall of 2023 — but the citizenry that holds sway over them.
This isn’t the first time I’ve written about linking carbon pricing to big, hence potentially intrusive, green-energy projects. I struck that note in 2006, in Whither Wind, a long-form piece on wind and other green power for Orion magazine:
[I]if carbon fuels were taxed for their damage to the climate, wind power’s profit margins would widen, and surrounding communities could extract bigger tax revenues from wind farms. Then some of that bread upon the waters would indeed come back — in the form of a new high school, or land acquired for a nature preserve.
The urgency now is far greater. Today, as I was wrapping this post, the New York Times reported that the Danish offshore wind company Orsted is pulling out of a giant wind farm it was developing off New Jersey’s Atlantic coast, citing the same combination of faltering economics and local opposition (which of course weakens the economics further through delays) that is besetting Equinor and Empire Wind. Note too that even though Empire Wind 1’s interconnection to the grid, also under the seabed but through Brooklyn, is not (now) threatened, the economics will almost certainly kill Part 1 if Empire Wind 2 through Long Beach goes down.
Long-time CTC followers will recall my standing frustration over wind and solar entrepreneurs’ lack of interest in pushing carbon pricing. Efficiency gains, cost reductions and the magical appeal of green power would carry them over any and every threshold, they imagined. Will today’s NJ offshore wind defeat and the one looming in NY be enough to convince clean-power developers that they need a carbon tax every bit as much as the climate does?
Carbon Footprint
Silver’s New Role in the Clean Energy Era – and What It Means for Sierra Madre Investors
Disseminated on behalf of Sierra Madre Gold & Silver Ltd.
Silver is prized for its beauty and use in jewellery, but its true value today lies in technology. Silver is now a key material as the world shifts to renewable energy, electric vehicles, and advanced electronics. Its high conductivity and reflectivity make it essential for solar panels, EV batteries, and 5G networks.
For investors, this shift marks a new chapter for the silver market – one driven less by fashion and more by function. Companies like Sierra Madre Gold & Silver are ready to meet this growing demand for industrial and investment needs.
Rising Demand from the Green Transition
The clean energy transition is rapidly changing how silver is used. The Silver Institute reports that global silver demand hit a record 1.2 billion ounces in 2024. More than 30 percent of this was for industrial uses, mainly in solar power and electronics. That figure is set to rise as countries expand renewable energy capacity.
In 2024, industrial silver use hit an all-time high of 680.5 million ounces, driven by solar manufacturing, electric vehicles, and electronics. Solar energy alone now accounts for more than 30 percent of industrial demand.
Each photovoltaic (PV) panel has 15–25 grams of silver. By 2030, solar installations may top 500 gigawatts each year. This could mean the sector needs 250 million ounces of silver annually.
Electric vehicles are another major source of growth. A single EV uses up to 50 grams of silver, roughly twice that of a traditional car. As production expands, the automotive sector’s silver demand could triple by 2030.
These trends are tightening the global silver market. Inventories are falling, and analysts warn of persistent supply deficits through the end of the decade.
The Supply Challenge: Falling Mine Output
While demand surges, mine output is not keeping pace. The Silver Institute estimates global silver production at about 819.7 million ounces in 2024, up less than 1 percent from the previous year.
Even with this small rise, the world will have a 117.6 million-ounce supply deficit in 2025. This shows ongoing long-term shortages.
Mexico remains the world’s largest silver producer, contributing about 23 percent of global output. But much of this comes from aging or polymetallic mines, where silver is a by-product. New producers like Sierra Madre Gold & Silver attract investors. They blend modern exploration with production. This is happening in one of the richest silver belts on Earth.
Sierra Madre’s Portfolio: Reviving Proven Silver Assets
Sierra Madre Gold & Silver Ltd. (TSXV: SM, OTCQX: SMDRF) is advancing two key projects in Mexico’s Sierra Madre mineral belt: La Guitarra and Tepic. Together, they represent a blend of production and exploration upside.
- La Guitarra Mine (State of Mexico):
La Guitarra, acquired from First Majestic Silver Corp., is a fully permitted and producing underground operation. It already has processing infrastructure in place. The company reached commercial production at 500 tonnes per day in January 2025, with plans to expand to up to 1,500 tonnes per day by 2027. La Guitarra could restore one of Mexico’s best-known silver mines to its former prominence. - Tepic Project (Nayarit):
Tepic is a high-grade epithermal gold-silver deposit. It has near-surface mineralization, which means there’s great exploration potential. This also allows for options for future growth.
Sierra Madre cuts costs and timeline risks by targeting assets with established infrastructure and clear development paths. This approach is safer than working with early-stage explorers.
Positioned for the New Industrial Cycle
The global shift to cleaner energy sources is reshaping the silver market into something closer to a strategic commodity. Governments and industries now view silver as vital to achieving energy-transition goals. As demand outpaces supply, producers with near-term restart potential stand to benefit most.
Sierra Madre fits neatly into that narrative. The La Guitarra project has restarted production much quicker than greenfield developments. Those often need years for permits and construction. At the same time, its exploration project adds scalability and long-term growth potential.
Mexico has a strong mining infrastructure and a skilled workforce. It’s also close to North American industrial hubs. This gives Sierra Madre a big logistical advantage. The U.S. is putting policies in place to secure supply chains for key materials. This makes Mexico a more important and reliable supplier.
Market Dynamics: Silver as a Strategic Metal
Silver’s 2025 price action underscores profound shifts in its role within both industrial and investment spheres. After climbing nearly 25 percent year-to-date, silver shattered previous records by reaching its all-time high of $54.24 per ounce in October before correcting and settling in the high-$40 range.
Major analysts such as Metals Focus project that prices could breach the US$60 mark by late 2026 if current supply deficits and clean energy demand trends persist, citing strong industrial momentum – particularly in solar and electronics – as critical drivers.
Supporting this rally, silver exchange-traded products (ETPs) absorbed 95 million ounces in the first half of 2025, pushing global holdings to 1.13 billion ounces – just 7 percent below their all-time peak.
According to data from the World Silver Survey 2025, industrial fabrication demand reached a new record of 680.5 million ounces in 2024, maintaining upward momentum through 2025. The supply side remains structurally tight: analysts project a market deficit of roughly 149 million ounces this year, marking five consecutive years where demand has outpaced annual mine production.
Why Sierra Madre Stands Out
- Production: La Guitarra restart completed, targeting output ramp-up in 2026 and 2027.
- High-Quality Assets: Two projects in Mexico’s most productive silver-gold belt.
- Operational Readiness: A fully permitted plant and infrastructure at La Guitarra reduced start-up costs.
- Strong Market Tailwinds: Silver demand from solar, EVs, and electronics continues to set records.
- Experienced Leadership: Proven management team with expertise in Mexican mining operations.
These factors make Sierra Madre a unique mix of production, exploration, and expansion potential, and access to one of the fastest-growing industrial metals globally.
A New Chapter for Silver – and for Sierra Madre
Silver’s growing role in the clean-energy transition marks a turning point for the mining industry. Once seen mainly as a precious metal, it is now a cornerstone of the technologies driving global decarbonization.
Sierra Madre Gold & Silver is one of the few junior miners that successfully restarted a permitted mine in Mexico’s silver heartland and is planning a near-term expansion. This positions them well to benefit from the current structural shift. With rising demand and limited supply, the company is ready to continue with its strategy for La Guitarra. This move connects Mexico’s rich mining history with a clean-energy future.
- READ MORE: Reviving Mexico’s Silver Belt: How Sierra Madre’s La Guitarra Mine Is Leading the Comeback
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. Sierra Madre Gold and Silver Ltd. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $25,000 to provide marketing services for a term of one month. 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.
For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
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 Silver’s New Role in the Clean Energy Era – and What It Means for Sierra Madre Investors appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Indonesia Aims to Sell $1B Carbon Credits at COP30, While Other Countries Step Up Their Carbon Plans
Indonesia is making one of the biggest moves at COP30 in Belém, Brazil. The government aims to reach about US$1 billion (Rp 16 trillion) in carbon credit deals during the summit. The plan includes around 90 million tonnes of carbon credits from forestry, energy, and industry projects.
This goal is part of a wider plan to grow Indonesia’s carbon trading system. It follows new rules under Presidential Regulation No. 110 of 2025 on carbon economic value. It also comes after the country allowed international carbon trading again, following a four-year pause. These steps show that Indonesia wants to become a major player in climate finance and green investment in Asia.
At COP30, other countries are also stepping up their climate plans and carbon market initiatives. Nations like Brazil, Iraq, Singapore, Kenya, and the United Kingdom unveiled new projects, partnerships, and rules to boost verified carbon trading and ensure benefits reach local communities.
Building Stronger Rules and Partnerships
Indonesia used COP30 to prove it can build a fair and trusted carbon market system. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry introduced four new rules to improve how projects are managed and approved. The changes aim to make sure that money from carbon sales reaches local people, including indigenous groups.
To raise global trust, Indonesia signed new partnerships with leading organizations. It formed a Mutual Recognition Agreement with Verra, one of the world’s biggest carbon credit certifiers. This deal allows up to 50 million tonnes of CO₂ credits to enter global markets.
Indonesia also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM). This will help the country follow global standards for transparency and quality.
Indonesia is presenting 40 carbon projects at COP30. These include forest recovery work, renewable energy plants, and waste reduction programs. Together, they could generate more than 90 million credits once fully certified.
Officials see this as part of a long-term plan. The Forestry Ministry estimates that Indonesia’s carbon credit potential could reach 13.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ by 2050. That could bring yearly income of $2.8 billion to $8.6 billion, depending on carbon prices.
Economic gains and environmental wins
Government estimates show that Indonesia can cut emissions by 31.8% on its own and by 43.2% with global support. Carbon trading could help meet these goals by linking domestic projects with international buyers.
Indonesia’s projects range from mangrove restoration to geothermal power and the low-carbon industry. This diversity makes the country one of Asia’s most promising suppliers of carbon credits. However, success will depend on good governance, fair profit-sharing, and public trust.
If Indonesia reaches its US$1 billion target, it would be one of the largest carbon trade achievements for a developing nation. It could also inspire other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, to follow similar paths.
Global Carbon Moves at COP30: What Other Countries Are Doing
Indonesia is not alone in expanding carbon markets. At COP30, several other countries also announced new plans to link climate action with trade and investment.
Brazil, the host nation, launched an Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets. The group now includes 11 countries, such as China, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and members of the European Union.
The coalition wants to connect national markets and create shared standards for tracking and reporting emissions. It also aims to stop “double-counting” of credits and make global trading more transparent.
Brazil is working on its own national cap-and-trade system that will cover energy, transport, and industry. Officials say the plan will help the country use its vast forests to generate high-quality credits. They also promise that indigenous and local communities will share in the profits from these projects.
In the Middle East, Iraq announced its first national carbon market during COP30. This is a big shift for a country still dependent on oil and gas. Iraq plans to use carbon market funds to support renewable energy, modernize infrastructure, and cut emissions from heavy industry. It hopes to attract international investors to help build new low-carbon projects.
-
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, Kenya, and Singapore launched a joint campaign to grow corporate demand for trustworthy carbon credits. Their goal is to set clear rules for how companies buy carbon offsets and ensure that every credit represents a real emissions cut.
Singapore is already one of Asia’s key carbon market hubs. It runs the Climate Impact X exchange and has signed several carbon trade deals under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The country acts as a bridge between credit producers in Southeast Asia and buyers in major financial markets.
Kenya is focusing on fairness and inclusion. It wants to make sure that African countries and local communities get a fair share of income from carbon projects. The country is building its own carbon credit export system based on lessons from other African nations.
Together, these efforts show that countries are now moving from promises to action. Each one is shaping its carbon market plan based on its strengths—Brazil’s forests, Singapore’s financial networks, Iraq’s energy sector, and Indonesia’s vast natural resources.
A Growing Global Network, Despite Challenges
Even as interest grows, carbon markets face challenges. Some projects have been criticized for exaggerating their climate impact or failing to help local communities. These issues have raised doubts about the real value of some credits.
“High-integrity” carbon credits were a major topic at COP30. Many delegates agreed that only verified, transparent credits would attract global investors. But developing nations also want flexible rules so smaller projects can join the market more easily. Finding a balance between strong oversight and easy access will be crucial.
The nations’ various moves reflect a shift toward teamwork. Countries and companies are learning that trading carbon credits can support both climate goals and economic growth.
The chart above shows the projected global carbon credit market size from 2025 to 2050. The range shows lower and upper bounds for 2030 and 2050 only, reaching up to $250 billion by 2050 (in 2024 prices).
Growth depends on demand: high demand with loose supply drives the market upward, while low demand with loose supply results in the lower bound. The range widens significantly by 2050, reflecting uncertainty in future policy, technology, and corporate demand.
Indonesia’s $1 billion carbon-trade goal at COP30 shows how fast the global carbon market landscape is changing. The country’s mix of policy reforms, new partnerships, and project pipelines demonstrates leadership among developing nations.
At the same time, efforts by Brazil, Iraq, Singapore, Kenya, and the United Kingdom reveal a broader global trend. Carbon markets are no longer experimental—they are becoming a major part of climate finance.
If these systems stay transparent and fair, COP30 could mark the start of a new phase for global carbon trading, one where countries and companies work together to cut emissions and invest in carbon markets.
The post Indonesia Aims to Sell $1B Carbon Credits at COP30, While Other Countries Step Up Their Carbon Plans appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Tencent to Form Carbon Credit Buyers’ Alliance: How Could it Transform China’s Carbon Market?
Tencent, one of China’s largest technology firms, plans to form a carbon credit buyers’ alliance to help expand the supply of credits in the market. The company aims to launch this initiative by the end of 2025.
Carbon credits allow companies to offset greenhouse gas emissions by supporting projects that reduce or remove carbon. As firms face growing climate targets, the supply of high-quality carbon credits is becoming a key issue. Tencent’s initiative may help meet demand while improving market trust.
Tencent’s Scale and Market Muscle
Tencent is well placed to lead such an initiative. In 2024, the company reported revenue of RMB 660.3 billion (almost US$92 billion), up 8% year-on-year. Its gross profit rose by 19%.
With such scale and financial strength, Tencent has the capacity to invest in market mechanisms and alliances. Its size gives it market power. This can attract other corporations, project developers, and tech partners to join the alliance.
Tencent’s share price has shown a notable rise year‑to‑date, with a gain of around 50 % over the past 12 months. On a more recent weekly basis, the stock recorded a smaller uptick of approximately 2 % over the past five trading days.
What Tencent Aims to Achieve
The news was revealed by Ella Wang, a senior program director at Tencent’s Climate Innovation Hub, in an interview at the United Nations’ COP30 climate summit in Brazil.
The alliance will bring together corporations, investors, and carbon project developers. Tencent’s main aim is to make more carbon credits available for companies that want to reduce their net emissions. Many businesses now have a hard time finding certified credits. They especially seek high-quality ones from verified projects.
Tencent also plans to introduce digital tools to track carbon credit projects. These tools will make it easier for buyers to verify that credits are genuine and that projects deliver real environmental benefits.
The company envisions a market where credits are easier to trade and pricing is more predictable. The alliance can standardize processes and verification methods. This will help prevent disputes and reduce market confusion.
Moreover, the use of credible carbon credits is part of Tencent’s strategy to reach its carbon neutrality goal.
How the Alliance Will Work
Tencent expects its carbon credit alliance to bring together firms from the technology, manufacturing, and consumer sectors across Asia. The aim is to boost supply from Global South countries and to create a collective demand signal.
The company signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with GenZero. GenZero is a decarbonization investment platform owned by Temasek. Under this MoU, Tencent can offtake at least one million verified carbon credits over 15 years. This means at least one million tonnes of greenhouse gases will be avoided or removed.
Digital tools will play a key role. Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) technologies, possibly leveraging blockchain or advanced data, will help ensure that credits are real, measurable, and traceable. That helps raise trust in credits and the market. The alliance will also likely help:
- Support project developers to fund, certify, and issue credits.
- Ensure credits meet common quality standards.
- Create easier market access for buyers and sellers, reducing transaction costs and risks.
The Carbon Credit Market: China and Global Context
China’s carbon market is already big and growing. In 2021, the government started a national carbon trading system. This system includes key industries like power generation, cement, and steel. It allows companies to trade emission allowances and provides financial incentives to reduce pollution.
China’s national emissions trading system (ETS) includes over 5 billion metric tons of CO₂. This accounts for more than 40 percent of the country’s emissions.
Experts say that the use of digital tools and alliances like Tencent’s could help scale the market faster. Improved tracking and verification can make carbon trading more credible. Companies that were previously cautious may feel more confident in participating.
A recent study shows that China’s market contributes more than half of the global total among trading markets. The global voluntary carbon credit market is set to grow fast.
One estimate puts its value at $2.1 billion in 2025. It could reach $19.8 billion by 2035. Another forecast says the global carbon market could reach up to $250 billion by 2050 under the most favorable conditions.
Where Credits Fall Short and Prices Swing
The demand for verified, high-quality carbon credits currently appears to exceed supply in many markets. For example, when China reopened its voluntary carbon credit market in 2024, the price of the new China Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) credits briefly rose to 107.36 yuan (≈USD 14.82) per ton and then fell to 72.81 yuan (≈USD 10).
These swings reflect a mismatch of demand and supply, as well as price uncertainty. On the compliance side, China’s ETS currently covers over 2,200 power plants and industrial firms. Analysts say that as the market grows in steel, cement, and aluminum, it could cover about 8 billion metric tons. This is over 60% of China’s emissions.
Given this, companies that need credits to meet their emissions targets may face a tight supply of trusted credits. Tencent’s buyers’ alliance could close the gap. It would pool demand, aid verification, and boost supply.
Why Corporations Are Joining
Companies are under increasing pressure to meet net-zero or carbon reduction goals. High-integrity carbon credits give them a way to offset unavoidable emissions. By joining Tencent’s alliance, firms can:
- get access to a larger pool of credits,
- reduce the risk of buying low-quality or unverifiable credits,
- shape market standards together with peers, and
- benefit from the credibility boost of a coordinated group.
For smaller companies, the alliance can help them get credits at a lower cost. It can also allow for shared purchasing. In turn, stronger credit supply and verification can boost companies’ confidence in meeting climate goals. This may also help attract investors, regulators, and customers.
What This Means Beyond China
If the alliance succeeds, it may influence carbon credit markets beyond China. A reliable mechanism in China for verified credits can:
- attract international buyers seeking high-quality credits,
- set an example for digital verification and collaboration in Asia and other emerging markets,
- encourage more supply from Global South countries by signalling demand, and
- potentially increase cross-border trade in credits as integrity improves.
Given that the global voluntary credit market is expected to grow strongly, improvements in supply, standards, and transparency matter. This initiative may help bridge the gap between compliance systems and voluntary offset markets.
Tencent’s Bold Step Forward
Tencent’s plan to form a carbon credit buyers’ alliance comes at a time when corporate demand for verified credits is rising, and the supply side still faces challenges. With remarkable revenue and financial results, Tencent has the capacity to lead such an initiative.
By pooling demand, supporting verification, and using digital tools, the alliance may help improve supply and market trust. For corporations, this offers a path to more reliable offsets and could serve as a model for boosting high-integrity credits.
How well the alliance deals with the challenges will shape its impact. But as an effort, this marks a meaningful step toward more organized, transparent, and scalable carbon credit markets in China and beyond.
The post Tencent to Form Carbon Credit Buyers’ Alliance: How Could it Transform China’s Carbon Market? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Terra-GEN, Nordex & Siemens Gamesa Improve
Week One at COP30: Reflections from the Amazon
COP30: Spain’s unions say just transition means renewing communities beyond jobs
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change3 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases3 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
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 Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy4 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale