The remedy to global environment and development problems lies not in reducing growth, but in breaking the connection between expanded prosperity and depleted resources.
Greenhouse gas reporting is the process of measuring, documenting, and disclosing emissions that contribute to climate change. This practice is crucial for identifying emission sources and tracking progress towards reduction goals. As global awareness of environmental issues grows, the importance of structured frameworks for reporting emissions becomes evident.
Emerging policies and regulations are driving the need for standardized greenhouse gas reporting. These frameworks ensure that data is accurate, transparent, and comparable across different sectors. Effective reporting not only aids in regulatory compliance but also promotes informed decision-making for climate change mitigation.
In this blog post, we will explore key aspects of greenhouse gas reporting within the context of emerging policies. Topics include:
- The significance of accurate data
- The role of different sectors
- The necessity for international collaboration
Understanding Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting involves the process of measuring, documenting, and disclosing greenhouse gas emissions. This systematic approach is crucial for tracking an organization’s carbon footprint, enabling stakeholders to assess environmental impact accurately.
Key Elements of GHG Reporting:
- Measurement: Quantifying emissions from various sources within an organization.
- Documentation: Keeping detailed records of emission data and methodologies used.
- Disclosure: Publicly sharing emission data to ensure transparency and accountability.
Reliable data management and transparent methodologies are essential components of effective GHG accounting. Accurate measurement and documentation foster trust among stakeholders, while transparent reporting practices enhance the credibility of climate action efforts. Robust GHG accounting frameworks underpin these processes, guiding organizations in consistent and comprehensive emission tracking.
The Link Between GHG Reporting and Climate Change Mitigation
Greenhouse gas reporting is essential in addressing climate change as it helps with making informed decisions and setting specific targets. By accurately reporting emissions, organizations can:
- Identify Main Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Understanding the primary sources of emissions within an organization is the first step toward effective management. This identification process enables businesses to pinpoint high-emission activities and areas for improvement.
- Monitor Progress Over Time: Consistent reporting allows for continuous tracking of emission levels, helping organizations to measure the effectiveness of their climate strategies and make necessary adjustments.
- Implement Effective Strategies to Reduce Emissions: With a clear understanding of their emission profiles, organizations can develop and implement targeted strategies that address specific sources of greenhouse gasses, thereby enhancing overall efficiency.
Advantages of Greenhouse Gas Reporting
This process offers several advantages:
- Informed Decision-Making: Provides data-driven insights for developing policies and measures to cut emissions. Reliable data helps decision-makers prioritize actions that achieve the greatest impact.
- Target Setting: Facilitates the creation of realistic and measurable emission reduction targets, aligning with international climate goals. Organizations can set benchmarks that are both ambitious and achievable, ensuring steady progress toward sustainability.
- Risk Management: Identifies potential risks related to regulatory changes, market shifts, or environmental impacts. Proactive reporting helps businesses anticipate and mitigate these risks effectively.
Enhancing Accountability
Accountability ensures that businesses and governments are held accountable for their climate commitments, fostering transparency. This accountability is crucial for several reasons:
- Stakeholder Trust: Transparent reporting builds trust among stakeholders, including investors, customers, and regulatory bodies. It demonstrates a commitment to environmental responsibility.
- Compliance: Helps organizations comply with national and international regulations regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Adhering to these standards avoids legal repercussions and enhances corporate reputation.
- Performance Benchmarks: Allows for benchmarking against industry standards or competitors. Organizations can gauge their performance relative to others in their sector, driving continuous improvement.
By integrating these practices into their operations, organizations not only contribute to global climate goals but also position themselves as leaders in sustainability.
Frameworks for Effective Greenhouse Gas Reporting
In an era where sustainability and environmental responsibility are paramount, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) stand out as pivotal frameworks for businesses and governments. These initiatives help entities worldwide understand, manage, and communicate their impacts on critical sustainability issues, particularly greenhouse gas emissions. By providing standardized methods for measurement and disclosure, GRI and CDP aim to promote transparency and accountability, fostering a more sustainable future. This article delves into the strengths and limitations of both frameworks, examining their roles in driving climate action and supporting the evolving regulatory landscape.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) aims to help businesses and governments worldwide understand and communicate their impact on critical sustainability issues. It provides standardized methods for organizations to measure, manage, and disclose their greenhouse gas emissions.
Strengths:
- Comprehensive Approach: Covers a wide range of sustainability topics beyond just greenhouse gas emissions.
- Global Reach: Widely adopted across various sectors and regions, enhancing comparability.
Limitations:
- Complexity: Detailed guidelines can be challenging for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) due to resource constraints.
- Flexibility: High flexibility in reporting can lead to inconsistencies.
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) focuses on driving companies and cities to measure, disclose, manage, and share vital environmental information. It also provides standardized methods for organizations to measure, manage, and disclose their greenhouse gas emissions.
Strengths:
- Focus on Climate Change: Specifically tailored towards climate-related disclosures, aiding targeted climate action.
- Investor Influence: Strong influence among investors encourages corporate transparency.
Limitations:
- Voluntary Nature: Being a voluntary initiative may result in selective participation, potentially skewing data reliability.
- Cost Implications: Participation fees can be a barrier for smaller organizations.
Both GRI and CDP play crucial roles within emerging policies by providing structured approaches to greenhouse gas accounting. They promote consistent and comparable data collection, essential for credible reporting. As regulatory landscapes evolve, these frameworks will likely adapt to ensure they continue supporting robust climate action efforts.
Sector-specific Challenges and Opportunities in Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting presents unique challenges and opportunities across sectors, each requiring tailored approaches for accurate emissions measurement and disclosure.
Power Generation
This sector is crucial in GHG reporting due to its significant global emissions. Challenges include:
- Complex Emission Sources: Emissions come from fossil fuels, renewables, and nuclear energy.
- Data Detail: Accurate reporting needs detailed data on energy production and consumption.
Industry
Manufacturing and mining face distinct challenges:
- Diverse Emission Profiles: Various processes emit different GHGs, complicating measurement.
- Technological Costs: Implementing new emission-reducing technologies can be expensive.
Transport
Heavy reliance on fossil fuels makes this sector’s reporting challenging:
- Mobile Sources: Tracking emissions from vehicles, ships, and aircraft is complex.
- Infrastructure Gaps: Lack of infrastructure for electric vehicles (EVs) hinders emission reductions.
Agriculture
Agriculture has unique challenges due to complex biological processes:
- Methane Emissions: Livestock farming produces significant methane.
- Land Use Changes: Deforestation for agriculture impacts carbon sequestration.
Each sector’s specific characteristics highlight the need for specialized GHG reporting approaches. Addressing these challenges with innovative solutions can significantly reduce global emissions.
Addressing Data Limitations and Uncertainties in Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Accurate greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting depends on having access to good quality data. However, many organizations face significant challenges in this area, including:
- Data Gaps: Incomplete or missing data can compromise the integrity of emissions inventories.
- Quality Assurance: Making sure that the data is accurate often requires strict quality control measures which can be time-consuming and expensive.
- Indirect Emissions: Scope 3 emissions, which are indirect emissions from activities like supply chain operations, are particularly difficult to measure because they are spread out and involve multiple parties.
Strategies for Improving Data Robustness
To make GHG reporting more reliable, organizations can use several strategies:
- Scenario Analysis: This involves creating multiple scenarios to account for uncertainties in data, providing a range of potential outcomes rather than a single figure.
- Third-Party Verification: Getting independent auditors to review and validate data can significantly improve its credibility and help identify areas for improvement.
By addressing these challenges through robust methodologies and leveraging external expertise, companies can improve the integrity of their GHG reporting and contribute more effectively to global climate goals.
Incorporating Climate Risk Disclosure into Greenhouse Gas Reporting
The changing landscape of climate-related financial reporting is becoming more connected to GHG disclosure efforts, showing the importance of being transparent. Climate risk disclosure requires organizations to assess and disclose how climate change affects their financial health and operational stability.
Key aspects include:
- Financial Impacts: Understanding how climate risks affect revenue streams, asset values, and liabilities.
- Operational Risks: Identifying vulnerabilities in supply chains and production processes due to climate change.
- Strategic Planning: Aligning business strategies with long-term sustainability goals to mitigate climate-related risks.
These elements ensure that stakeholders can make informed decisions while promoting accountability in corporate practices.
Driving Corporate Leadership Through Science-Based Targets and Net-Zero Commitments
Ambitious emissions reduction targets play a critical role in driving corporate climate action. The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) provides companies with a clear pathway to achieve emissions reductions that align with the latest climate science. By setting science-based targets, businesses can ensure their strategies are robust, transparent, and consistent with global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.
Net-zero commitments further amplify this corporate responsibility. The Net-Zero by 2050 campaign encourages organizations to adopt comprehensive decarbonization plans aiming for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century. This includes reducing direct emissions and investing in carbon removal solutions.
The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi)
The SBTi offers detailed guidance and resources to help companies set emissions reduction targets. This includes sector-specific methodologies and tools tailored to various industries, ensuring that each business can develop strategies aligned with scientific requirements. By following these guidelines, organizations can create robust plans that are actionable and effective.
Companies committing to science-based targets benefit from an external review process. This third-party validation ensures that the targets are ambitious, yet achievable, and align with the latest climate science. The SBTi’s endorsement not only boosts a company’s reputation but also builds trust among stakeholders, investors, and consumers by demonstrating a genuine commitment to sustainability.
The Net-Zero by 2050 Campaign
The Net-Zero by 2050 campaign pushes companies to develop comprehensive plans that address all aspects of their carbon footprint. This includes reducing emissions from direct operations (Scope 1), indirect emissions from energy consumption (Scope 2), and other indirect emissions throughout the value chain (Scope 3). By considering these varied sources, businesses can implement more integrated and effective decarbonization efforts.
Setting a target for net-zero emissions by 2050 helps organizations align their short-term actions with long-term sustainability objectives. This forward-looking approach ensures that immediate measures contribute to broader environmental goals, fostering resilience and adaptability in the face of evolving climate-related risks. It also provides a clear, strategic direction that can guide investments in innovation and sustainable technologies.
Moreover, participating in the campaign often involves adopting science-based targets, which are essential for ensuring that corporate actions are grounded in the latest climate science. This alignment not only enhances credibility but also supports global efforts to limit temperature rise, thereby safeguarding ecosystems and communities.
Additionally, engaging with the Net-Zero by 2050 initiative can enhance stakeholder relationships. Transparent reporting and progress on climate commitments can build trust with investors, customers, and regulatory bodies. Demonstrating leadership in sustainability can differentiate a company in the marketplace, attract environmentally conscious consumers, and potentially lead to financial incentives or support from green investment funds.
By integrating these initiatives, companies not only contribute to global climate goals but also gain competitive advantage through improved resilience and stakeholder trust.
Conclusion
Advancing greenhouse gas reporting practices in alignment with emerging policy frameworks remains critical for addressing the urgent challenges of climate change. Accurate and transparent GHG reporting enables informed decision-making, setting the stage for effective mitigation strategies.
Key Takeaways
- Prioritize Transparency: Ensuring transparency and accountability in greenhouse gas reporting within your organization fosters trust and drives impactful climate action.
- Advocate for Stronger Regulations: Supporting stronger government regulations and international cooperation can lead to more consistent and robust emission reduction efforts.
- Embrace Technological Innovations: Leveraging advancements in technology, such as blockchain and remote sensing, can significantly enhance data accuracy and transparency.
By prioritizing these elements, organizations can play a pivotal role in the global effort to mitigate climate change. The collaboration between businesses, governments, and international bodies is essential for creating a sustainable future. For more on how best to manage your greenhouse gas accounting feel free to contact us.
A few months ago I went to a climate change forum at the Center for Brooklyn History. The panel I attended, “Confronting Climate Change: Understanding Deniers,” featured the prominent climate activist, Bill McKibben.
Bill McKibben. Courtesy https://billmckibben.com/.
I was curious to hear McKibben’s take on climate change deniers. I don’t regard the true deniers as a big problem – they’re only 11-15% of our country, according to most polls. Rather, I wondered if McKibben would label as “climate deniers” people who agree that climate change is a significant problem but disagree with his framing and his proposed solutions. I have worked for decades on energy and climate matters as an energy lawyer. Now, more than ever, I believe that to address climate change we need to build a big tent.
In the Q&A I tested where McKibben is on this by asking if he would label as a climate denier someone who subscribes to the main tenets of climate change science yet holds that natural gas has a role to play as a bridge fuel. (Our exchange starts at 1:12:45 of the video.)
This could have been a chance for McKibben to make clear that such a view isn’t climate denialism, even if he feels it’s misguided. But he punted, saying “I don’t care whether they’re deniers or not.” For good measure, he threw in his long-standing refrain that swapping coal for natural gas makes climate change worse, despite coal’s far higher carbon content per unit of energy.
674-MW methane-powered generating station, Salem, MA.
As you can hear in the recording, McKibben’s claim that gas is worse than coal draws on the work of Cornell scientist Robert Howarth. Yet McKibben didn’t mention that Howarth’s work is controversial and disputed by many scientists. The crux of the dispute is whether methane’s impact on warming should be measured with a 20-year or 100-year time frame.
Methane is a relatively short-lived greenhouse gas, with a lifetime of around 10 years, versus the 100-year life applicable to carbon dioxide. But each ton of methane is far more potent while in the atmosphere, trapping roughly 100 times as much heat as a ton of CO2. These cross-cutting facts about atmospheric methane — shorter life but greater potency than CO2 — have resulted in two opposing camps: one insisting on a 20-year timeframe for greenhouse gas accounting, the other adhering to the established 100-year frame. This matters because with a 20-year timeframe, generating electricity with natural gas (which, chemically speaking, is essentially all methane) is more damaging to climate than coal-fired electricity.
McKibben blew past this dispute. To hear him at the Center for Brooklyn History, one would have no inkling that there’s an active disagreement over which timeframe to use, that there are staunch climate activists who favor the 100-year time frame, and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) generally uses the 100-year timeframe.
McKibben’s latest (2025) book. Published by W.W. Norton & Company.
McKibben also insisted that a discussion about natural gas’s potential role in mitigating climate change as a replacement for coal is irrelevant because solar “is now our cheapest resource.” McKibben’s claim, of course, suffuses “Here Comes the Sun,” his 2025 book that extols solar power as the cheapest solution for all of our energy needs. But this too is questionable, because it’s based on cost comparisons between solar farms and natural gas power plants (or nuclear power plants) that fail to consider that electricity supply and delivery is a complex system of wires and plants rather than individual power plants. Based on his remarks, McKibben is choosing to ignore studies such as the comprehensive 2025 report from the Clean Air Task Force that concluded that plant-level cost comparison “is a good metric to track historical technology cost evolution [but] is not an appropriate tool to use in the context of long-term planning and policymaking for deep decarbonization.” And the task force is not alone in finding that when electricity is treated as a system, solar loses its place as the cheapest low-carbon resource.
The dogmatism McKibben displayed at the Brooklyn meeting was unfortunate. We’re in a time when efforts to combat climate change are in retreat. A unified front is required to turn the tide. Instead of doubling down on absolutist positions, activists like McKibben who seem convinced that the solution to climate change is all-renewables, end of discussion, should be seeking common ground with others who want climate action but believe that nuclear power and natural gas must also play a role.
NYC Climate March, Sept 17, 2023. Photo: C. Komanoff.
Climate change activists need to build a bigger tent, rather than call anyone who disagrees with their positions a climate change denier. It is striking that McKibben stuck to his guns after saying in the same talk that the most important goal for everyone right now is to help climate change realists win more House and Senate seats in this year’s midterms. As some have noted, an absolutist position on natural gas appears less likely to achieve that win and politicians are following that advice.
Will McKibben evolve? He has demonstrated that he knows how to build a national climate movement centered around issues like divestment. Given the current political situation, he should focus on building an even bigger tent by welcoming all of the 85% who believe that we need to address climate change but do not agree with his ideological positions.
Rich Miller is an energy lawyer who has worked for a variety of stakeholders and now gives walking tours in lower Manhattan on the history of electricity.
Image generated with Claude. Why have we juxtaposed a bicycle with balcony solar? Read on.
First it was Plug-In Solar. Then it was Balcony Solar. Now it’s Guerrilla Solar, at least according to Inside Climate News, which yesterday proclaimed that The ‘Guerrilla Solar’ Era Has Arrived.
“It,” of course, is Modular solar panels. They’re the hot new photovoltaic solution: cheap enough to buy at Home Depot, easy to hang or prop to catch maximum rays, and small enough to fit on a balcony (if you’ve got one) and plug into your “home grid.” But, alas, too meager a generator of electricity to be more than a bit player in decarbonizing most U.S. homes.
How do I know? I’ve done the math.
A standard, lower-end 220-watt balcony solar array will produce 337 kilowatt-hours a year, or 28 kWh a month averaged over the course of a year. That’s for a 220W unit measuring 3.5 feet by 3.5 feet. (220W x 1/1000 x 17.5% x 8760 hours per year = 337 kWh. Calculation assumes a 17.5% full-year capacity factor, which is arguably generous for New York, where I live. )
Our balcony solar mashup. Top: an install in Germany. Bottom: Home Depot advert.
A typical U.S. home consumes 10,500 kWh a year, or 28 to 29 kWh per day, says Solartech, drawing on U.S. Energy Information Administration data. That puts a home’s daily power needs on par with a balcony solar unit’s monthly output. In effect, once each month the balcony array gifts a homeowner or renter a bit more than day’s full complement of electricity. And earth’s atmosphere gets the same respite: a 3 percent reduction in carbon emissions caused by the home’s electricity usage.
(The 3 percent figure could also be calculated directly by dividing 337 kWh per year of solar production by 10,500 kWh per year to run the home. For bigger or smaller arrays, just prorate your assumed wattage by my 220W; for 440W, say, double my figures.)
Balcony Solar metrics
Why write about balcony solar if it’s so inconsequential? CTC’s mission includes puncturing would-be climate balloons before they ascend too far. In the same vein, we practice quantification to make clear what does and doesn’t move the climate needle. (More on that further below.)
The best way to depict balcony solar’s climate value is to express it in terms of tangible metrics. We’ve selected two. Both assume the basic, lower-end PV array I assumed at the top: a 3.5 foot-square array whose peak output is 220 watts.
1. It would take 50 million 220W balcony solar units (bsu’s) to restore the climate benefit we destroyed in 2020-2021 when we shut the high-performing Indian Point nuclear power plant 32 miles from Midtown Manhattan.
2. A single person cutting back their driving by a mile a day would provide the same climate benefit over the course of a year as a single 220W bsu.
(Calculations in sidebar. Now you know why we led with images of an urban dweller as cyclist and balcony solar user.)
Yes, it’s dense — as befits a sidebar. The numbers tell a story. Follow the color co-ordination.
Ponder that: It would take fifty million smallish bsu’s to level up to the fossil fuel carbon emissions that Indian Point was keeping at bay by supplying the New York City area year in and year out with abundant carbon-free power. Deploying that many balcony solar units would entail 10 bsu’s for each of the 5 million households in the MTA’s service territory. (The Metropolitan Transportation Authority provides subway, bus and commuter rail transit in the five boroughs and seven suburban counties.) Or, if those same households upgraded to 1100-watt bsu’s, collectively they would still make up only half of the lost Indian Point power.
The second comparison, involving driving, is perhaps trickier to grasp but more interesting, since it relates to people’s behavior. Living differently isn’t part of public discourse, at least not in the USA, and especially when what’s being served up is using less. But “reducing,” as we might call it (remember “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”? or, “Insulate, then Insolate”?) is just as potent for cutting emissions as switching to renewables — even more so when the reducing means driving less, considering the multitude of benefits that accrue from diminishing cars’ imprints on our communities. Still, staying on topic: driving just one fewer mile per day brings about the same shrinkage in carbon emissions as deploying one 220W solar array.
What Balcony Solar boosters are really saying
To be fair, our friends at Inside Climate News and, yes, The New York Times appear to be trying to modulate their balcony solar enthusiasm.
ICN‘s Dan Gearino, whom we cited up front, said he looked to Germany, the birthplace of balcony solar, to see if the units made sense for U.S. households. His takeaway: “It may make more sense financially to spend the cost of plug-in solar on insulation, air sealing or other basic measures to reduce energy use.” Hooray: insulate before you insolate.
Gearino helpfully interviewed renewables guru (and U.S. emigré) Craig Morris, who currently heads Germany’s plug-in solar trade association, Bundesverband Steckersolar. To Morris, balcony solar’s main advantages are that it provides power without taking up land, and that it affords people a way to “become participants in the transition to clean energy.” Behold, guerrilla solar. That, in turn, bolsters “the political consensus that supports the transition.” But Morris also made clear that widespread adoption of plug-in solar would only meet “about 2 percent of Germany’s electricity demand.”
Morris’s “about 2 percent” feels right for Germany. But not for the U.S., where widespread adoption of virtually any individual carbon alternative seems forever out of reach, and where the energy pie is so much larger — think giant fridges, freezers for beer, steroidal homes bursting with piles of powered toys, not to mention industrial and institutional electricity use that Morris correctly excluded from his figure.
Don’t forget to micro-dose. NYT headline + image for David Wallace-Wells’ guest essay (see text). Image by Rui Pu.
Both Gearino and Morris seem more measured than climate journalist Robinson Meyer, founding editor of Heatmap and frequent contributor to The Times, where he wrote about balcony solar in mid-June.
“New zero-carbon power kits will allow Americans to make their own energy choices,” declares the callout to the print version of Meyer’s NYT guest essay, The Tiny Solar Panel That Could Change America. (The even more expansive print headline invites us to “Forget Roofs. Backyard Solar Is the Next Frontier.”)
Wallace-Wells is of two minds. He calls balcony solar “a small way that apartment- and condo-dwelling Americans can take ownership of their energy choices and cut down their pollution on the margins.” No quarrel there, thanks to his qualifiers “small” and “on the margins.” Earlier, though, he opines that balcony solar units “have the potential to change how Americans understand and consume energy,” But read further and you’ll again see Wallace-Wells cautioning that “Balcony solar will play one small role in [the] drama” of transiting to the new world of clean, abundant energy.
Any such caveats are welcome these days, amid widespread solar hoopla. Still, it doesn’t seem to be in Wallace-Wells’ toolkit — or that of Inside Climate News and other mainstream climate journalists — to tutor their audiences as to the true limits of balcony solar and other panaceas. Just like it wasn’t in their field of vision a decade ago to lay out the true stakes of shutting Indian Point as Riverkeeper was singing its siren song.
What’s Next for NY Balcony Solar
Meantime, as Canary Media reported recently (and helpfully), New Yorkers concerned with climate and affordability are waiting for NY Gov. Kathy Hochul to sign the recently passed SUNNY (Solar Up Now New York) Act legalizing balcony and other plug-in solar. It would be head-spinning (and politically suicidal) if she didn’t, given near-universal support ranging from Con Edison to DSA Assembly Member Emily Gallagher, who told Canary Media, “This is the most popular bill I’ve [ever] worked on.”
My guess is that Hochul is waiting for the right moment, and perhaps the right “package,” that can advance and not undercut her push to launch five large new nuclear power plants around the state — one to be built by the public New York Power Authority, the others to be constructed and operated privately. A little bit of math, a la what we offered here a la Indian Point, might help her out.
The governor also must manage the veritable hot potato of her deferred implementation of the landmark 2019 Community Leadership and Climate Protection Act. She might do well to consider jettisoning the act’s unwieldy cap-and-invest centerpiece in favor of a straight-up carbon tax (with the revenues distributed pro rata to the state’s households) in its place. That, far more than balcony (or guerrilla) solar, could blow open the door to the “innovations and technologies we cannot yet imagine” that Wallace-Wells fantasized about in his Times essay.
On 11 June 2026, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) published the most substantial revision of its flagship corporate framework since its introduction. The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 takes effect on 1 February 2027 and reshapes the way companies approach their net-zero targets.
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change11 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”
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测