Disseminated on behalf of West Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd.
Investors have long considered gold a safe-haven asset and a reliable store of value. Today, its appeal is growing as geopolitical dynamics shift dramatically, inflation returns, and investors navigate volatile and uncertain markets.
Here’s why now is the opportune time to consider gold as a strategic component of your investment portfolio.
The East-West Divide: Reshaping the Gold Landscape
The gold market is shifting as Eastern and Western investors, who have taken different approaches to gold in recent years, start to converge.
In the last five years, gold prices have risen mostly because of strong demand from central banks and investors in China, India, and the Middle East. But while gold prices made this steady ascent to record highs, equity investments in gold-related stocks remained surprisingly low.
The chart above highlights a clear disconnect between rising gold prices and investor participation in gold equities, suggesting untapped growth potential. If capital shifts even slightly from other sectors into gold stocks, it could significantly boost valuations in the market.
Picture this:
- The top 100 gold mining companies worldwide have a combined market capitalization of approximately $600 billion, while the top 5 tech stocks boast a market capitalization of around $15 trillion.
If just 1% of investments from these tech giants moved to gold-mining companies, the gold-mining sector’s market cap could rise by 25%. This shows the huge potential for gold stocks. If general investors put just a little of their money into this sector, it could pay off big.
Gold’s Growing Demand in the East
Many central banks are reducing their reliance on the U.S. dollar to gain more economic control and avoid risks from U.S. policies and sanctions. As global tensions rise, gold offers a stable and independent asset, protecting against trade and financial disruptions. This shift is reflected in the steady increase in gold reserves, showing a long-term strategy for financial security.
In Asia, gold is deeply tied to culture, playing a key role in weddings, festivals, and religious events. This cultural connection keeps demand strong, regardless of market conditions.
In addition, in recent years, many key Asian investment arenas have failed, such as real estate, domestic stocks, and interest rate-based holdings in China. Investors thus compelled to seek returns elsewhere have remembered gold as a trusted way to protect wealth, especially amidst inflation concerns. As Asia’s middle class grows, more people are buying gold as both an investment and a symbol of security.
In the Middle East, gold remains a safe choice amid political and economic instability. It protects wealth from conflicts, currency fluctuations, and financial risks, which have become top of mind of late.
Gold also aligns with Islamic finance, making it a preferred investment. This applies to individual investors, sovereign wealth funds, institutions, and large domestic corporations – all are increasing gold holdings to strengthen their portfolios and prepare for future uncertainties.
All of this gold interest propelled the yellow metal to new heights over the last few years. Meanwhile, Western interest has been essentially absent. A resolution to this divide is setting gold and gold stocks up for what could be some big days ahead.
Western Investors: A Shift in Sentiment Driven by Emerging Realities
For most of the last ten years, Western investors focused on growth stocks, especially in tech. With that focus generating great returns, Western investors had no reason to add gold to their portfolios.
Now, amid growing economic uncertainty, heightened recession risks, and increased market volatility, investors are increasingly turning to gold as a hedge. President Trump’s tariff policies, particularly the recent escalation of tariffs on China alongside a temporary pause for other nations, have amplified concerns about potential inflation and broader economic instability, prompting a flight to safety.
Consequently, gold, a traditional safe-haven asset, has seen prices surge to new record highs. On April 22, 2025, the spot gold price reached a new record high of $3,424 per ounce, and by early May 2025, gold briefly touched $3,432 per ounce before settling above $3,200, as shown in the latest market data. This sharp increase was fueled by the intensifying trade conflict, a concurrent decline in the U.S. dollar, and robust demand from both institutional and retail investors.
Year-over-year, gold has appreciated significantly, reflecting strong investor demand for stability and long-term value preservation amid turbulent markets. The bullish trend is further supported by persistent inflation fears, ongoing geopolitical tensions, speculation about potential U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, and continued buying by central banks and exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
Reflecting these dynamics, Goldman Sachs has revised its gold price forecast multiple times in 2025. The bank now anticipates gold will trade in a range of $3,650 to $3,950 per ounce by the end of 2025, with the possibility of reaching $4,000 by mid-2026. In a more bullish scenario, where recession risks and central bank demand intensify, Goldman Sachs sees gold potentially hitting $4,500 per ounce by the end of 2025.
Meanwhile, billionaire investor John Paulson has issued one of the most optimistic forecasts in the market, predicting gold could approach $5,000 per ounce by 2028. Paulson attributes this outlook to sustained central bank gold buying, global trade tensions, and a shift in reserve management strategies following the seizure of Russian assets by Western nations. He argues that if confidence in the U.S. dollar continues to erode, gold will become an increasingly attractive reserve asset, further supporting its upward trajectory.
This is all piling on top of risks that have been rising for years and are now, with major macroeconomic instability creating real recession risk, impossible to ignore.
- Rising Recession Risk. Even before the latest tariff escalations and trade tensions, slowing economic growth, weak consumer confidence, and persistent inflation had already heightened fears of an impending recession. These vulnerabilities have only been amplified by recent policy shocks, making economic contraction a growing concern for investors.
- Mounting Debt Concerns. Unsustainable levels of public and private debt in many developed economies continue to be a significant concern. Governments are taking on ever more debt, which increases the risk of debt crises and currency devaluations. As a result, investors look for safe assets that hold their value during tough economic times.
- Anticipated Interest Rate Cuts. The expectation of future interest rate cuts by central banks is a significant driver of renewed interest in gold. Gold prices usually go up when interest rates drop. Lower rates make holding gold, which doesn’t earn interest, less costly. This inverse correlation has been observed in numerous instances throughout history.
- Resurgent Inflation. Even with steps taken to reduce inflation, worries remain. Prices may rise again, which could lessen the value of fiat currencies. Gold is widely regarded as a hedge against inflation, preserving wealth during periods of rising prices.
- Dollar Debasement Fears. Discussions about policies aimed at weakening the U.S. dollar have further fueled the argument for diversifying into gold. A weaker dollar makes gold more appealing to international investors. This can increase demand and raise prices.
These factors, combined with the increasing recognition of the need for portfolio diversification, are prompting Western investors to take a fresh look at gold. And when Western investors look at gold, they look at both the metal and the companies that find and produce it. This is precisely the investor interest that has been missing from gold stocks for years – but it looks set to return in the coming weeks and months.
A Bank of Montreal report from March 2025 lists precious metals projects set to start production this year. These projects present exciting gold-plus-growth opportunities.
Included is the Madsen Mine in Canada. It is operated by West Red Lake Gold Mines (TSXV: WRLG) (OTCQB: WRLGF), which is targeting production in H2 2025.
With so much economic uncertainty, traditional investments are facing challenges. So, gold is viewed more and more as a key asset. It offers both stability and potential returns. West Red Lake Gold is set to begin production at its Madsen Mine, which amplifies the potential for this gold stock to offer returns as it goes from building a mine to producing gold.
The Generational Opportunity to Grab
The convergence of rising gold prices, shifting Western investor sentiment, and the potential for significant capital inflows creates a generational opportunity to invest in a gold bull market. For those seeking exposure to high-growth potential, near-term producers represent a particularly compelling option.
Near-Term Producers: Riding the “Golden Runway”
Companies transitioning from development to production are often poised for substantial gains, according to the Lassonde Curve, which maps the life cycle of a mining company. This model shows how valuations typically decline as a company grinds through the years-long efforts needed to get a discovery ready and permitted to become a mine. For companies that survive that grind, valuations often then surge as production nears and revenue starts flowing in.
West Red Lake Gold Mines is a prime example of a near-term producer set to benefit from this dynamic. With its flagship Madsen Mine in Canada targeting production in H2 2025, WRLG is rapidly moving toward becoming a producing gold miner.
WRLG’s progress at Madsen has already drawn investor interest, given its high-grade resource base and historical production. As it moves closer to full-scale mining operations, the company stands to benefit from the surge in gold demand and potential sector-wide capital inflows.
Recent Success Stories
Several companies that have recently transitioned from development to production have demonstrated strong upside potential in the sector:
- SilverCrest Metals: Following the successful production start at the Las Chispas Mine in Mexico in November 2022, SILV shares skyrocketed 89%, leading to a $1.7 billion buyout in October.
- G Mining Ventures: The company’s Tocantinzinho Gold Project in Brazil has seen a 279% increase in share price since construction began. The first gold was poured in July 2024, further boosting investor confidence.
- Artemis Gold: Shares have surged 225% since June 2023 as the company advances its Blackwater Mine in British Columbia, Canada, towards its production phase.
These examples show that companies about to start production often see their stock prices rise a lot. This creates great chances for investors wanting to take advantage of the booming gold market.
Conclusion
Gold is becoming a top investment choice as economic uncertainty grows. It remains a safe haven against inflation, trade risks, and market instability.
Western investors are shifting toward gold due to rising debt concerns and lower interest rates. Beyond holding gold, companies like West Red Lake Gold Mines offer strong growth potential.
Since gold equities are a small market, even slight investment shifts could drive major gains. With the right conditions in place, now is a rare opportunity to invest in gold for both stability and growth.
- READ MORE: Madsen: A New High-Grade Gold Mine in 2025
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. West Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd. made a one-time payment of $30,000 to provide marketing services for a term of 1 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 in the companies mentioned. This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. This 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 an arbitrarily chosen time period 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 constitute 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 reading 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 it.
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”, “planned”, 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 the forward-looking information in this news release and include without limitation, statements relating to the plans and timing for the potential production of mining operations at the Madsen Mine, the potential (including the amount of tonnes and grades of material from the bulk sample program) of the Madsen Mine; the benefits of test mining; any untapped growth potential in the Madsen deposit or Rowan deposit; and the Company’s future objectives and plans. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information.
Forward-looking information involve 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 the financial markets for the Company’s securities; fluctuations in commodity prices; timing and results of the cleanup and recovery at the Madsen Mine; and changes in the Company’s business plans. Forward-looking information is based on a number of key expectations and assumptions, including without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and its ability to raise additional capital to proceed. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, 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 from those anticipated in such forward-looking information. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024, and the Company’s 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 that are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.
The post Why Gold, Why Now? A Generational Opportunity appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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 Energy8 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