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
Thacker Pass Is Being Built: Here Is Why That Is the Best News NILI Investors Have Heard All Year.
Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals.
Lithium Americas (LAC) has officially broken ground at Thacker Pass, Nevada. The project is advancing toward its first production target in 2028. LAC CEO Jonathan Evans said in the company’s news release that the project should be mechanically complete by the end of 2026. Commissioning will happen through 2027, with commercial production starting in 2028.
For investors watching Nevada clay lithium, this milestone is more than an update. It’s a market signal that could change the investment landscape.
De-Risking the Clay Lithium Category
For years, clay-based lithium has faced a single recurring objection: “It has never been done at a commercial scale.” Unlike brine or hard-rock lithium, sedimentary clay deposits presented a technological and operational unknown. Investors and lenders were cautious, capital costs were higher, and early-stage projects struggled to secure financing.
Thacker Pass changes that narrative. Once LAC makes battery-grade lithium carbonate from sedimentary clay at a commercial scale, it reduces risks for the whole category. Projects in Nevada now have clear proof that clay-based lithium can be mined and processed effectively.
The historical precedent is instructive. In Chile’s Atacama region, the first brine lithium projects proved the chemistry and cost-effectiveness of large-scale lithium extraction. Later projects attracted capital more easily and on better terms. This created a ripple effect, speeding up the region’s lead in global lithium supply.
Thacker Pass is playing that same role for sedimentary clay. Its success is not just a win for LAC. It marks a key milestone for the whole Nevada clay lithium sector, including the Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) of Surge Battery Metals (TSX-V: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF).
Understanding the Technical Landscape
Thacker Pass Phase 1 has lithium levels of 1,500–2,500 ppm. They plan to extract it using sulfuric acid leaching to create battery-grade lithium carbonate. The project is important both geographically and operationally.
It features a large pit, a big processing facility, and integrated infrastructure. This covers access roads, water supply management, and energy sources that meet Nevada’s rules.
While Thacker Pass shows commercial viability, it is crucial to note that NNLP and Thacker Pass are not technically the same. NNLP employs a different beneficiation approach and reagent chemistry to optimize recovery.
NNLP: The Higher-Grade, Next-Generation Project
Thacker Pass shows clay lithium on a large scale. NNLP positions itself as the next evolution of this asset class, with clear geological advantages:
- Grade: NNLP averages 3,010 ppm lithium, significantly higher than Thacker Pass Phase 1 material. Recent drilling results show that step-out drilling found a 31-meter intercept with 4,196 ppm lithium from surface. This gives NNLP a potential extraction advantage.
- Strip Ratio: NNLP’s 1.16:1 strip ratio is among the lowest in the sedimentary clay peer group. This indicates that it has favorable material movement requirements relative to ore recovered.
- Operating Costs: NNLP’s estimated OPEX is US$5,097/t LCE, lower than Thacker Pass guidance of ~US$6,200/t C1. It suggests that it has competitive economic positioning within the peer group.
Both projects produce battery-grade lithium carbonate using sulfuric acid leaching. However, each method is customized for the specific geology of the project. NNLP is not a copy of Thacker Pass. Rather, it is a next-generation clay project designed to leverage lessons learned while improving key parameters.
Moreover, infill drilling showed a steady, thick, high-grade core. It included intercepts like 116 meters at 3,752 ppm Li and 32 meters at 4,521 ppm Li. These results support future resource expansion. They also highlight the project’s scale, quality, and technical readiness as it prepares for a Pre-Feasibility Study.
- SEE MORE: Surge Battery Metals Strengthens Nevada North With High-Grade Expansion and Infill Success
Why Category De-Risking Matters for Investors
In emerging resource sectors, de-risking is often more valuable than the resource itself. Projects that validate a new extraction method or commodity unlock several market advantages:
- Lower financing risk: Investors are more willing to fund projects once proof of concept exists.
- Improved capital terms: Lending rates and equity expectations can improve when technology and economics are validated.
- Accelerated project development: Developers can move faster, reduce contingencies, and focus on optimization rather than proving viability.
Thacker Pass’s progress effectively removes the “first-mover risk” from sedimentary clay projects. NNLP has higher grades, near-surface mineralization, and competitive OPEX. Now, it can be assessed on its own merits, not on doubts about large-scale clay processing.
Strategic Significance in the U.S. Lithium Market
The timing of Thacker Pass’s construction and NNLP’s development aligns with broader policy and market trends. Lithium is a critical input for electric vehicles, grid-scale storage, and advanced defense technologies. The U.S. government has emphasized domestic lithium production as a strategic priority.
In March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order called “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production.” This order directs federal agencies to speed up permitting and support domestic projects. It also aims to lessen dependence on foreign supply chains for critical minerals.
Projects like Thacker Pass and NNLP benefit from this policy. They provide secure domestic sources that boost the lithium supply chain.
Nevada is central to this strategy. Its clay deposits are among the largest and best in the U.S. They provide a stable base for domestic lithium production, which supports electrification goals and helps reduce reliance on imports.
Thacker Pass’s progress also sends a signal beyond the Nevada clay sector. It demonstrates that investors and capital markets are willing to back sedimentary clay projects at scale. That validation reduces perceived risk for future projects. It also speeds up permitting and development timelines as well as strengthens valuation metrics.
NNLP, with its superior grade and shallower resource, stands to benefit disproportionately. It is no longer constrained by questions of category viability. It can now be evaluated based on its geological quality, operational efficiency, and potential returns.
NNLP’s advantages, combined with the category de-risking effect of Thacker Pass, position it as a next-generation investment opportunity in Nevada’s clay lithium space.
Looking Ahead: Domestic Lithium’s Role in Energy Transition
Lithium demand is set to grow rapidly as electric vehicles, battery storage, and renewable systems expand. Securing a high-quality, domestic supply is critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in clean energy technology.
Thacker Pass proves that commercial-scale sedimentary clay lithium is achievable. NNLP demonstrates the potential for even higher efficiency and superior economics within the same category. Together, these projects show how local resources can support the energy transition while providing compelling investment opportunities.
NNLP’s higher grades, near-surface mineralization, low strip ratio, and competitive OPEX position it as a leading asset within a now-validated category.
For NILI investors, the message is clear: the clay lithium category is no longer theoretical, and NNLP is positioned to capitalize on the proof-of-concept success. The best news of the year is here—and it’s grounded in both science and strategy.
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 $90,000 to provide marketing services for a term of three 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 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, 2025, 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: .
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 Thacker Pass Is Being Built: Here Is Why That Is the Best News NILI Investors Have Heard All Year. appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Boeing Locks in 40,000 Tons of Soil Carbon Removal with Texas-Based Grassroots Carbon
The aviation industry is under pressure to cut emissions while demand for air travel continues to grow. Against this backdrop, Boeing’s latest agreement with Grassroots Carbon signals a clear shift in how large emitters approach climate action. Instead of relying heavily on traditional offsets, the company is now backing high-quality carbon removal rooted in nature.
This multi-year deal focuses on verified soil carbon removal. It reflects a broader industry trend: moving from compensation to actual carbon removal. More importantly, it connects climate goals with real economic benefits for rural communities.
Boeing’s Shift: From Offsets to Real Carbon Removal
Boeing’s agreement to purchase at least 40,000 metric tons of carbon removal credits marks more than just another sustainability initiative. It shows a deeper transition in its carbon strategy.
Earlier, many companies relied on carbon offsets to balance emissions. However, Boeing has refined its approach. It now follows an “avoid first, remove second” model. This means the company prioritizes cutting emissions directly—through renewable electricity and sustainable aviation fuel—before addressing the remaining footprint.
Targeting Scope 3 Emissions
Still, not all emissions can be eliminated. Business travel, classified under Scope 3 emissions, remains difficult to reduce. This is where carbon removal comes in. By investing in verified soil carbon credits, Boeing aims to tackle these residual emissions more credibly.
At the same time, this approach aligns with growing scrutiny in voluntary carbon markets. Buyers are increasingly looking for durable, science-backed solutions. Soil carbon, when properly measured and maintained, can meet these expectations.
Allison Melia, vice president, Global Enterprise Sustainability, Boeing, said:
“We’re proud to work with Grassroots to accelerate carbon-removal technology that will benefit the entire global aviation industry. Enabling the long-term growth of air travel and supporting our airline customers’ emissions reduction targets are key priorities for Boeing.”
Regenerative Ranching: Turning Soil into a Climate Asset
At the core of this agreement lies regenerative ranching—a land management approach that restores ecosystems while capturing carbon.
Unlike conventional grazing, regenerative systems mimic natural herd movements. Ranchers rotate livestock across pastures. This prevents overgrazing and allows vegetation to recover. As a result, plant roots grow deeper and stronger.
This process plays a critical role in carbon sequestration. Through photosynthesis, grasses absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They then transfer this carbon into the soil through roots and organic matter. Over time, this builds stable soil carbon that can remain stored for decades.
Additionally, grazing itself can enhance this process. When managed properly, it stimulates plant growth and increases carbon storage below ground. Studies suggest these systems can capture between 1 to 5 tons of CO2 per hectare each year.
However, the benefits go beyond carbon. Healthier soils improve water retention, reduce erosion, and support biodiversity. Ranchers also see improved productivity and greater resilience to climate extremes.
This makes regenerative ranching a rare win-win solution. It supports climate goals while strengthening agricultural systems.
Soil Carbon Credits Are Gaining Credibility
Carbon credits often face criticism for lacking transparency or permanence. However, soil carbon credits are evolving quickly.
In this case, credits are generated by tracking changes in soil carbon over time. Projects establish a baseline and then measure improvements driven by regenerative practices. Each credit corresponds to one metric ton of CO2 removed or avoided.
To ensure credibility, projects use a combination of soil sampling, satellite monitoring, and modeling. Independent verification further strengthens trust. Many of these credits meet standards set by leading registries such as Verra and the Climate Action Reserve.
Durability remains a key question. Soil carbon is considered a long-term storage solution, especially when supported by ongoing land management. In many cases, carbon can remain stored for 25 to 100 years or more.
For corporate buyers, this level of integrity is critical. It allows them to make credible climate claims while supporting real-world impact.
How Grassroots Carbon Is Scaling a Natural Climate Solution
The United States holds a unique advantage in this space. Its grasslands cover roughly 655 million acres—nearly 40% of the country’s land area. These landscapes represent one of the largest untapped carbon sinks.
If managed effectively, they could remove up to 1 billion tons of CO2 equivalent annually. That potential makes soil carbon one of the most scalable nature-based solutions available today.
Grassroots Carbon is working to unlock this opportunity. The company partners with ranchers across more than 2.2 million acres in 22 states. It supports them in adopting regenerative practices while ensuring measurable climate outcomes.
Importantly, the company focuses on scientific rigor. It measures soil carbon directly, often up to one meter deep. Then, independent third parties verify the data using recognized standards. This process ensures that each carbon credit represents real and additional carbon removal.
- The company has already delivered 1.9 million tons of verified carbon removals. A large portion of these credits has been retired by corporate buyers, reflecting strong market demand.
This scale matters. It shows that soil carbon is not just a niche solution. Instead, it can operate at a level relevant to global climate goals.
Supporting Rural Economies
Moving on, regenerative ranching supports rural communities by creating new revenue streams. Ranchers can earn income from carbon credits while improving their land. This reduces financial pressure and encourages long-term stewardship.
Moreover, healthier ecosystems provide broader benefits. Improved soil structure enhances water retention, which is critical in drought-prone areas. Restored grasslands also support wildlife habitats, including bird populations.
Grassroots Carbon works with partners such as conservation groups and research institutions to ensure these outcomes. This collaborative approach strengthens both environmental and social impact.
Aviation’s Broader Climate Challenge
The aviation sector faces one of the toughest decarbonization challenges. Unlike power generation or road transport, it cannot be easily electrified. Aircraft require high-energy-density fuels, which limit near-term options.
Sustainable aviation fuel offers a partial solution. However, supply remains limited, and costs are high. As a result, carbon removal will likely play a growing role in the sector’s strategy.
AlliedOffsets estimates that carbon credit buyers will spend around $2.27 billion per year. Aviation and energy are expected to contribute the most.
- The aviation sector alone has a budget of over $800 million per year, which is about one-third of the total.
Boeing, by supporting soil carbon projects, diversifies its approach to emissions reduction. The biggest advantage is that soil carbon removal is both scalable and immediately deployable. Unlike emerging technologies, it does not require decades of development. Instead, it builds on existing agricultural practices.
At the same time, this move sends a signal to the market. Large buyers can drive demand for high-quality carbon removal. This, in turn, encourages more investment and innovation in the space.
However, scaling this solution will require continued investment, strong verification, and supportive policies. It will also depend on maintaining trust in carbon markets. However, as demand for carbon removal grows, partnerships like this could become a cornerstone of global decarbonization efforts.
The post Boeing Locks in 40,000 Tons of Soil Carbon Removal with Texas-Based Grassroots Carbon appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Tesla has reclaimed the global electric vehicle (EV) sales crown, overtaking BYD in early 2026. In the first quarter of 2026, Tesla delivered 358,023 EVs worldwide. This figure edged out BYD’s 310,389 EV deliveries, giving Tesla back the lead in pure battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales and sending stock slightly upward.
Tesla’s sales in this period rose about 6.3% year‑over‑year, showing a rebound from slower parts of 2025. This shift matters because the EV giant lost the annual global BEV sales lead in 2025.
Last year, BYD’s annual pure electric vehicle sales were higher than Tesla’s, largely due to China’s strong EV demand and policy changes.
The recent growth in Tesla’s sales shows high demand for its main models. The Model Y and Model 3 made up most of the deliveries in Q1 2026.
Battle of the EV Titans: Tesla vs. BYD
Competition between Tesla and BYD has become one of the defining stories in global EV markets.
BYD expanded rapidly over the past few years. It has a broad lineup of EVs and plug‑in hybrids and benefits from strong domestic sales in China. In 2025, BYD reported high sales growth as it strengthened its footprint outside China.
Tesla, by contrast, focuses on a narrower range of pure EVs but scales production efficiently. It has manufacturing plants in the United States, China, and Europe. These facilities help cut costs and serve major markets more quickly.
The rivalry pushes both companies to improve pricing, technology, and production capacity. Tesla’s price cuts in some markets and BYD’s aggressive growth have kept competition tight.
The EV Boom: Markets on Overdrive
The global EV market keeps growing strongly. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), electric car sales reached more than 17 million units globally in 2024. EVs made up more than 20% of total new car sales that year — up from earlier levels.
Data from the IEA’s Global EV Outlook 2025 shows that electric light‑duty vehicle sales are expected to reach about 40% of total vehicle sales by 2030 under current policy trends.
The stock of EVs on the road is also growing. The global EV fleet could expand to around 245 million vehicles by 2030 under stated policies.
Growth is strongest in China, Europe, and the United States. China remains the largest EV market, accounting for more than half of global EV sales in recent years.
Battery cost declines also fuel adoption. Average lithium‑ion battery prices have fallen significantly over the past decade, making electric vehicles more affordable. Governments around the world are also boosting EV uptake with incentives and stricter emissions standards.
Tesla’s Playbook: Scale, Tech, and Price Moves
Tesla’s return to the top reflects its focus on production scale and cost efficiency. The company has reduced vehicle prices in key markets to stay competitive. These price cuts helped increase demand, though they also put pressure on profit margins.
Elon Musk’s EV company continues to invest in manufacturing technology. Its “gigafactories” use advanced automation and large casting techniques to reduce production costs. Newer facilities in the U.S. and abroad help Tesla maintain output even as demand shifts.
The company is also developing next‑generation vehicles. These include plans for more affordable EV models designed to attract a wider range of buyers.
Tesla is expanding its energy business as well. This includes battery storage systems and solar products that align with the company’s broader clean energy goals.
Software remains a strength for Tesla. Features like over‑the‑air updates and driver assist systems add value for customers and differentiate Tesla’s vehicles from competitors.
Wall Street Watches, TSLA Reacts
Tesla’s stock, traded as TSLA, has shown volatility in response to sales news.
After Tesla’s delivery numbers in Q1 2026 showed the company regaining the BEV sales lead, its shares saw some short‑term gains. However, the stock has remained volatile. Broader concerns about pricing pressure, excess inventory, and competition have kept investor sentiment cautious.
In early 2026, shares pulled back after production exceeded deliveries and analysts noted weaker-than-expected margins. Tesla produced 408,386 vehicles in Q1 2026 but delivered 358,023, leaving some inventory unsold. This gap contributed to stock pressure.
Despite these swings, Tesla remains one of the highest‑valued automakers in the world. Its market capitalization continues to reflect expectations about future EV adoption and the company’s role in clean energy.
Market watchers note that Tesla’s ability to maintain leadership in BEV sales affects its valuation. Strong delivery figures help support confidence in Tesla’s long‑term strategy, even as competition increases.
Beyond sales and competition, Tesla’s EVs also play a key role in the global effort to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change.
EVs Fighting Climate Change, One Mile at a Time
Electric vehicles help cut carbon emissions from transport. Road transport is a major source of energy‑related emissions. In recent years, EVs made up more than 20% of global car sales, according to the IEA.
EVs reduce oil demand and lower emissions. The global EV fleet could rise to nearly 245 million vehicles by 2030 under stated policy scenarios, significantly displacing traditional gasoline and diesel cars.
As EV adoption grows, the carbon intensity of the electricity grid becomes more important. EVs charged with cleaner power produce larger net emission benefits.
Even with mixed grid emissions, EVs still reduce lifetime greenhouse gas output compared with internal combustion vehicles.
Governments around the world support EV adoption with stricter fuel standards, tax incentives, and expanded charging networks. These policies help ensure electric vehicles contribute to global decarbonization and climate goals.
Outlook: Growth, Competition, and Innovation
The EV market is expected to grow strongly in the coming years. Demand is supported by climate goals, advancing technology, and consumer interest in cleaner mobility.
Tesla’s return to the top in early 2026 shows that it remains a central player in the electric transition. Its focus on pure electric vehicles, global scale, and continuous innovation continues to fuel its position.
However, the gap between Tesla and competitors like BYD is narrowing. BYD’s strong EV growth, especially in China and expanding export markets, shows that competition remains intense.
Future leadership in the EV industry will depend on cost, technology, charging infrastructure, and the ability to scale production efficiently. Companies that balance these factors well will shape the next phase of the global EV market.
For now, Tesla’s rebound highlights both the rapid growth of the sector and the increasing intensity of competition among the world’s leading EV makers.
The post Tesla Reclaims EV Sales Crown from BYD in Q1 2026, Heating Up the EV Race appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits