You probably couldn’t pick Kazakhstan out on a map—even though it’s the ninth-largest country in the world.
But Kazakhstan is a superpower in its own right.
This little-known former Soviet state hosts seven of the twelve largest producing uranium deposits in the world.
Kazakhstan, using American technology, went from producing 1 million pounds annually to over 46 million pounds annually in 20 years and becoming the world’s largest producer of uranium.
In 2022, it was the top uranium producer, mining 43% of the world’s uranium at 46.8 million pounds. To put that in context: Kazakhstan produced more uranium than the next four countries combined.
The renewed proliferation of nuclear power around the world has made Kazakhstan a hot commodity.
Only it hasn’t controlled its own uranium destiny.
Kazakhstan needed two crucial things to be able to secure a pathway to monetization of its uranium riches:
uranium refinement and enrichment infrastructure, and
trade agreements to access uranium sales to utilities around the world
Russia took quick advantage of Kazakhstan’s plight, providing both trade routes and uranium processing infrastructure. Certain companies in the west, like Cameco, took advantage also, which we will get to later.
For the last three decades, one-third of global uranium supply has been under the control of Rosatom, the state-owned Russian company created under the Russian President, Vladimir Putin’s watch.
But this is now changing in real time…
Russia has tried to implement a different kind of nuclear warfare: control over the energy security of the United States.
You see, Rosatom provides nearly one-third of the enrichment services and one-fifth of the uranium for U.S. nuclear power plants.
“Currently, we’re reliant on Russia for nuclear fuel.”
– former ExIm Bank Advisor Rich Powell
What does that mean?
1 in every 10 homes in America is powered by Russian enriched uranium.
Russia has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use that reliance as leverage—as when it threatened to cut off nuclear fuel access in 2014, or when it did cut off natural gas supplies to Europe in 2022.
That alone is a grave national security threat to the U.S. But it gets worse…
The uranium that Russia doesn’t have direct control over is rapidly coming under the domain of another country—one that is even more likely to use it as a weapon, China.
Never Wake a Sleeping Giant
In the last decade, China has increased its nuclear power generation by 400%. And they’re somehow still accelerating their nuclear buildout.
Currently, one-third of global nuclear reactors under construction in the world are in China.
And they’re planning to build at least 100 more.
It’s all part of a plan to become the largest producer of nuclear power in the world in just seven years.
But China has struggled to produce the uranium required to fuel those reactors. In 2023, it’s expected to mine just 15% of its domestic uranium demand.
And its uranium resources are rapidly shrinking.
Chinese Uranium Resources Declining
At the current rate of decline, China’s entire uranium resources at any price point will last less than a decade. And that’s if it builds zero new reactors.
China is well aware that to secure its economic growth it must be able to secure lower cost clean base load energy.
Has America lost its Nuclear Advantage?
The U.S. could power about four of its nuclear reactors with domestic uranium production.
The other 92 require imported uranium.
From where? Mother Russia.
In 2021, 54% of U.S. uranium purchases came from Russia or former Soviet states (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan).
The U.S. can’t buy more from Canada and Australia, the other two main producers as those nation producers have sold and hedged their production in long term contracts.
China has bought the dragon’s share of uranium in every other major producing country.
Here’s the bottom line…
If the U.S. does not immediately build a domestic uranium industry, Russia and China could easily destroy the United States’ secure supply of nuclear power.
U.S. leadership, including Trump, Biden, Congress, and the Secretary of Energy, recognizes the danger this presents.
Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette says that the current state of uranium production “threatens our national interest and our national security.”
So last year, a bill was introduced in the House and Senate: the National Opportunity to Restore Uranium Supply Services In America Act of 2022.
In case you missed the acronym, the bipartisan message is loud and clear: NO RUSSIA. Russia’s influence will be expelled from the U.S. uranium market.
Almost 30 years to the day that the Russian US HEU agreement was inked in Washington DC, Senator Joe Manchin introduced Bill S.452 on February 2, 2023.
If passed in Senate, it would require the Secretary of Energy to establish a Nuclear Fuel Security Program.
The bill passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate then requires president’s signature.
The U.S. government has officially reset the domestic uranium industry. And with that, power 91 nuclear power reactors that in total require over 50 million pounds of uranium to run rain or shine, day or night and supply its military nuclear fuel needs.
We have found a “value investors dream”.
This company we are highlighting in the report below has in the past valued the portfolio at almost a $1 Billion valuation.
Today, the company enterprise value (Market price minus cash and equitable securities) can be obtained for less than $30 Million.
Yet, just one of its assets, a uranium asset in the highest grade producing region in the world would be valued at $75 Million using a comparable peer valuation based on the $600 per hectare valuation the bankers just valued a large three way merger in the same mining district.
This is rare, unique and how one goes about value investing in the Energy Transition by finding discount to current value with considerable value in low risk jurisdictions that will benefit from Americas Nuclear Renaissance and Energy Transition.
As the world continues to grapple with climate change, forest carbon offsets have emerged as a promising solution. By preserving and protecting forests, we can capture and sequester carbon from the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not only does this benefit the environment, but it also creates economic opportunities for communities that rely on the forest for their livelihoods.
Introduction to Forest Carbon Offsets
For years, companies have been given an option to deal with their environmental impact: cancel out their carbon pollution by paying for efforts that protect the forests. That’s essentially the idea behind forest carbon offsets.
If you’re a landowner who wants to earn extra from keeping your trees standing, forest offsets suit you well. Or perhaps you’re a company owner willing to support forest protection initiatives, forest carbon offsets are perfect for you.
Either way, let’s help you understand everything you need to know about this kind of carbon offset credit. From providing a detailed explanation of it to identifying its benefits and how to purchase it for your offsetting needs.
What are Forest Carbon Offsets?
Forest carbon offsets involve a process where a forest, at risk of being chopped down or for other purposes, is protected in exchange for payment. This payment goes to the forest owner, which could be a government or private landowner, to prevent deforestation.
Once the owner and buyer close the deal, the forest area becomes a “carbon credit project.” Their agreement involves a commitment not to cut down the trees or be destroyed by fire. The organization or person managing this project sells these commitments and takes a portion of the money earned.
On the other side, a company that pollutes can buy these credits to neutralize their emissions by a certain amount.
Trees are excellent at storing carbon in their structure, so when a tree grows larger, it can hold more carbon. This carbon storage also happens in soils and other vegetation.
However, when a tree is cut down, the carbon it stores is released into the air. If the tree is used for timber, some carbon remains stored, but a significant portion is released into the atmosphere.
A forest carbon offset, therefore, represents a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of avoided or sequestered carbon. Emitters buy the offsets to compensate for their carbon emissions happening elsewhere.
What are the Types of Forest Carbon Offsets?
Currently, three forest project types qualify to generate carbon offsets: afforestation or reforestation, avoided conversion, and improved forest management (IFM).
Each forest project type comes with its unique costs, benefits, and ways of accounting for carbon. Determining which one suits your property best is the initial stage in the exploration process. So, let’s differentiate each type to guide your climate mitigation decision.
Afforestation/Reforestation
Afforestation, a vital environmental effort, revolves around reinstating tree cover on lands that were previously devoid of forests. These projects are fundamental in addressing deforestation, enhancing biodiversity, mitigating climate change, and contributing to ecosystem restoration.
However, embarking on afforestation initiatives often incurs substantial costs due to the comprehensive processes involved, including land preparation, tree planting, maintenance, innovation and technology, and long-term investment.
Avoided Conversion
Avoided Conversion projects are crucial initiatives aimed at preventing the transformation of forested areas into non-forested landscapes. These projects, also called REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), help fight climate change by safeguarding existing forest cover.
But for this project to be considered eligible for carbon offset programs, project developers must substantiate that the land faces a substantial and imminent threat of conversion.
IFM initiatives focus on optimizing the management practices of forested areas to enhance carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and overall ecosystem health. They aim to increase or maintain the carbon stored within forests, contributing to climate change mitigation efforts while ensuring sustainable use of forest resources.
Among these three forest types, IFM projects are the most frequently traded compliance offsets in California’s cap and trade program.
According to a research by Haya et al. (2023), IFM projects provided 193 million carbon offset credits since 2008. This accounts for 28% of the total credits from forest projects and 11% of all credits generated in voluntary carbon markets.
Source: Haya et al. (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.958879
Developers of IFM projects must demonstrate that their forests are capturing more carbon than what would happen in a ‘business-as-usual’ situation across these carbon credit types.
Benefits of Forest Carbon Offsets
Well-designed and effectively executed forest carbon offsets can serve as incentives to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. They also aid in enhancing forest governance while promoting support for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities.
Supporting forestry projects through carbon offsets offers the following benefits:
Preserving intact forests and those that are mostly untouched to safeguard biodiversity and the services provided by ecosystems. Indigenous peoples’ territories are crucial in this regard, as they have a proven track record of effectively conserving forests.
Improving the management of production forests and plantations to supply essential materials, enabling a shift from a fossil-fuel-based to a bio-based economy. This involves developing alternatives for materials like cement and steel, which have a high carbon impact.
Boosting tree presence in agricultural lands by implementing diverse agroforestry systems and offering stronger financial and social incentives to communities.
Reviving degraded land across the planet to enhance ecosystem-based services. Similar to other nature-based solutions, this restoration should always be done collaboratively with local communities in ways that suit the local context.
Each of these aspects could be integrated into a program providing forestry carbon offsets. They represent a more effective approach to land stewardship, resulting not only in carbon storage but also in numerous advantages.
Forest Carbon Offsets in Climate Change Mitigation Strategies
Managing forests to capture carbon presents an opportunity to reverse the impacts of man-made climate change. Global greenhouse gas (GHG) levels have swiftly risen, with almost half of these emissions happening in the last 40 years.
Forecasts from climate models foresee rising global temperatures, higher sea levels, and shifts in weather patterns. These shifts result in severe droughts, floods, and the intrusion of rising sea levels into freshwater reserves, threatening drinking water sources.
Research indicates that communities dependent on agriculture or in coastal regions will likely face significant challenges due to global warming.
Studies suggest that capturing carbon in forests can play a substantial role in lessening the effects of climate change. Currently, according to the US Forest Service, forests in the US absorb around 16% of the nation’s emissions generated from burning fossil fuels.
Furthermore, forests deliver diverse ecosystem services to the public, like managing water quality and quantity while providing habitats fostering biodiversity.
Market for Forest Carbon Offsets
In 2022, about 30% of all carbon offset credits for forestry projects came from voluntary registries. These projects, like IFM, REDD+, and afforestation, include various types.
The research by Haya et al. also pointed out that the U.S. was the main contributor to forest offset credits from IFM projects, accounting for 94% of them. Most of these credits were registered under the CARB (California Air Resources Board) compliance carbon offset program, with almost half originating from U.S. forest projects.
So far, most forest offset credits from all registries have been given to projects that reduce tree harvesting significantly, aiming to prevent carbon losses in forests compared to standard scenarios.
To date, sellers of forest carbon are big forestland owners seeking to diversify their forest-based revenue streams.
Pricing of Forest Carbon Offsets
Prices for carbon offset credits in voluntary markets have dropped in the past year. Forest carbon offsets belong to nature-based solutions represented by the Nature-Based Global Emissions Offsets (NGEOs).
While the prices of all VCM offsets have been hit, the decline in NGEO prices stands out because of the premium they were trading at over the other offsets last year.
Several reasons caused this decline. Global economic challenges, such as high inflation, ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine, and lasting pandemic effects slowed economic growth in 2022 and continued into 2023.
Moreover, there hasn’t been progress on a unified standard for carbon credit markets globally at COP27. This lack of advancement is holding back growth in voluntary markets.
Nonetheless, emitters are actively seeking ways to offset their residual emissions, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors. If you’re one of them, the following section will help guide you on how to buy forest carbon credits for your offsetting needs.
Process of Purchasing Forest Carbon Offsets
Buying forest carbon offsets is pretty much similar to purchasing other types of carbon credits. You can opt for directly getting them from project developers, which means from a forestland owner. You can also buy the offsets from other providers.
For instance, you can look for a broker. Brokers can make it easier and quicker for you to get the offsets you need, especially if you need a lot of them.
A broker also handles all the transactions on your behalf, and this purchasing process doesn’t require long-term contracts. But it would cost you a bit more.
Another provider would be the retailers, who can give you at least basic information about the offsets they’re selling. Usually, they hold an account on a carbon registry and retire the offsets on your behalf.
Alternatively, you can also buy forest carbon offsets from an exchange. There are several carbon exchanges or trading platforms that provide these offsets. They often collaborate with registries to enable trading transactions.
Purchasing forest offsets from a trading platform would be easy and fast, and may cost less than brokers. However, you might find it more challenging to evaluate the quality of the offsets.
Calculating Your Carbon Footprint
But before you look for the right offset provider, it’s best that you know how many credits you need. And that means calculating your carbon footprint first and deciding how much of it you have to offset.
Remember that one forest carbon offset represents one tonne of carbon emission. So, if you or your company emitted a thousand tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in one year, you’ll need 1,000 offsets to neutralize all of them.
After calculating your total footprint, you can then determine the amount of offsets to purchase. Below is our comprehensive guide on how to calculate how many offset credits you need.
Once you have purchased the offsets, using them does not just involve writing off your carbon footprint. It also includes some kind of responsibility and a couple of considerations.
For instance, you need to be confident that the offset credits are from projects that deliver real carbon emission reductions. That entails knowing the project details (e.g. type, location, environmental impacts, carbon reduction/removal, etc.).
You also have to ensure that the offsets are generated following credible and trusted carbon credit methodologies. This is crucial to make sure that you get the real value of each dollar you invest in the offsets.
More remarkably, forest carbon offsets are now under growing scrutiny as some projects are found to underdeliver the claimed reductions. This brings us to the last part of this guide.
Criticisms & Drawbacks of Forest Carbon Offsets
One major issue is additionality. It refers to whether or not the reductions would have happened even without the offset project. For example, a forestry project wouldn’t provide additional action on climate if it’s protecting a forest that was never in threat of being chopped down.
Another drawback of these offsets is permanence. It means the carbon reduction or removal should remain for 100 years to be permanent.
While some forest projects are capable of achieving that, others are at risks of reversal. This happens when different factors come into play that destroy the forests. Wildfires are the biggest culprit.
Several forestry projects have been burned down by fires, reversing the reductions they promise to offer. For example, a study suggested that California’s buffer pool, a kind of self-insurance program to cover reversal, severely lacks capital.
So long as the buffer pool stays solvent, the permanence of carbon offsets remains intact. But the study showed that the buffer pool for California’s forest carbon offset projects is unlikely to insure its integrity for a century.
Additionally, the buffer pool didn’t account for the increase in wildfire risks. Failure to do so means that the forest fire-prone state will most likely see high offset reversals.
Both Quality and Quantity Matter
There’s also the issue surrounding the mathematics on how much carbon is really captured and stored in a specific area.
Forests vary widely—from tropical to temperate and boreal, each with unique ecosystems, species, and risks. They also store different amounts of carbon that can change due to seasons, events like tree cutting, wildfires, and droughts.
Moreover, calculating carbon in forests is complex. It depends not just on science but also on policy choices about data use, which changes to consider, and which forests to involve. Some worry that certain governments’ practices might let companies sell offsets from replanting after they cleared forests initially.
The case of Canada’s forest carbon accounting offers an example. According to a report from the country’s Natural Resources Defense Council, the calculation used is misleading and damaging.
The authors noted that the government didn’t account for the carbon released by wildfires. However, it includes the carbon captured by forest regrowth even if there’s no logging and no human activities at play.
Finally, the biggest criticism thrown at forest carbon offsetting projects is their ineffectiveness in actually reducing carbon emissions. A group of investigative journalists claimed that more than 90% of Verra’s REDD+ projects likely do not represent real reductions.
The studies that journalists used for their analysis involve different methods and time periods. They also considered various ranges of Verra REDD+ projects, while noting that such studies do have some limitations. Yet, they noted that the data indicated consensus on the lack of effectiveness of the projects versus what Verra had approved.
Forestry Carbon Offsets: Closing Thoughts
Forestry carbon offsets have emerged as a promising tool in combating climate change by preserving and protecting forests to capture and sequester carbon. This multifaceted approach not only benefits the environment by reducing carbon emissions but also presents economic opportunities for forest-dependent communities.
However, the market for forest offsets faces challenges, including pricing discrepancies, additionality concerns, and complexities in measuring carbon sequestration. Issues related to permanence and accurate quantification also remain critical areas demanding attention and robust evaluation within the offsetting paradigm.
Amidst these complexities, forest carbon offsets present both opportunities and challenges in achieving carbon neutrality. Collaborative efforts among governments, project developers, and market stakeholders are essential to address concerns, establish transparent methodologies, and ensure the credibility and effectiveness of forest carbon offset projects.
Bruce Power has introduced the inaugural carbon offset protocol for nuclear generation, marking a pioneering move in the industry.
The announcement was made by the Ontario-based power company at the United Nations climate conference, COP28, happening in Dubai.
Bruce Power delivers clean, reliable nuclear power to families and businesses across the Canadian province. It aims to be the first nuclear plant in North America to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2027.
The company’s Executive Director of Corporate Affairs, Pat Dalzell, highlighted the significance of this milestone in positioning the nuclear industry as a leader in clean energy, saying:
“This groundbreaking carbon offset protocol is yet another step in the right direction for the nuclear industry as a clean energy leader. Bruce Power is taking this next step to help battle climate change and achieve net zero goals…
Pioneering Nuclear Carbon Offset Protocol
Bruce Power has partnered with GHD, a global energy company, to develop the carbon offset protocol for nuclear generation.
This initiative follows the firm’s recent sale of Clean Energy Credits and aligns with their ambitious 2027 net zero target. The ultimate goal is to contribute to climate change efforts while fostering economic benefits for Canadian firms.
To achieve its net zero by 2027 goal, Bruce Power has the following interim net reduction targets using 2019 baseline:
Each day Bruce Power produces 30% of Ontario’s electricity and avoids about 19 million tonnes of greenhouse gasses a year. By helping Ontario phase out coal, it’s like taking 7 million cars off the road.
The power company noted that it can avoid 15% of GHG emissions, reduce 18% through the use of lower carbon fuels, and substitute 36% of emissions for renewable/clean energy. 30% of its net zero efforts will involve purchasing carbon offsets.
Bruce Power Net Zero Strategy
Carbon offsets represent a certain amount of reduced or removed carbon dioxide or its equivalent. While these offsets have been used by companies in their decarbonization strategies, this is the first that they’ll be used for nuclear power generation.
Ontario’s Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, emphasized Bruce Power’s pivotal role in transitioning the province away from coal-fired generation.
The company’s experience in clean energy, financial collaborations for its Green Bond program, and active engagement in Ontario’s Clean Energy Credit program reinforce the importance of credible, additional, and tangible clean energy credits and carbon offsets.
Nuclear power offers a clean energy alternative to fossil fuel while providing broader impacts to the grid’s stability.
Bruce Power’s new carbon offset protocol, presently undergoing third-party validation, aims to leverage clean nuclear energy to meet growing demands. It will also enable consumers and businesses to continue their decarbonization journey through electrification.
Amplifying Nuclear Power’s Clean Energy Impact
Bruce Power plans to increase its electricity production without adding more greenhouse gasses. They will do this by enhancing their systems, making them more efficient, and upgrading nuclear units equipment through Project 2030.
The initiative seeks to optimize the output of their current assets, aiming to boost electricity generation from 6,550 MW to 7,000 MW by the 2030s. Project 2030’s main targets include:
This increase in nuclear power output at the Bruce Power site will lead to less use of emissions-heavy electricity produced from natural gas in the region. The main objectives of Project 2030 are to:
Lower the GHG emissions produced by Ontario’s grid by substituting some electricity generated by natural gas power plants.
Enhance the stability of Ontario’s electricity grid by diversifying the sources of electricity production.
Bruce Power’s groundbreaking news has never been more timely. Nuclear gained victory at COP28 climate talks where countries pledged big time commitment to this energy source.
In fact, the world’s nuclear energy capacity will triple by 2050, a massive deal to reduce emissions and decarbonize economies. This global agreement, called the Net Zero Nuclear Industry Pledge, reflects the surging global demand for nuclear energy.
Another innovative Canadian company, Uranium Royalty Corp. (NASDAQ: UROY, TSX: URC), showed support for the pledge, endorsed by 120 industry members at COP28. These include the US, UK, France, UAE, Japan, South Korea, and Canada.
URC’s CEO, Scott Melbye, expressed enthusiasm for nuclear energy’s role in curbing climate change, emphasizing URC’s readiness to support uranium demands as part of this clean energy push.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) projected that worldwide nuclear installed capacity by 2030 will stand at 496 GW. In North America, that would be at 111 GW at the maximum, making it the second largest nuclear producing region.
Bruce Power’s introduction of the carbon offset protocol for nuclear generation marks a significant milestone in clean energy initiatives. Moreover, URC’s endorsement of nuclear power’s net zero pledge cements the industry’s leadership in the clean energy transition. These developments suggest a growing interest in nuclear power across different sectors, unlocking investment opportunities for sustainable energy.
The Global Carbon Council (GCC) and Global Environmental Markets Ltd. (GEM) joined forces to buy the Global Carbon Registry® (GCR). This registry will be used by GCC to manage carbon credits, making it easier to issue, transfer, and retire these credits. It’s also set up to handle Article 6.2 credits for countries interested in that.
GCC is an international carbon credit and sustainable development program.
The GCR is an advanced system that helps track Article 6.2 credits, which are important for global climate efforts. It’s part of the voluntary carbon market (VCM) and offers several features to make transactions smoother and simpler.
Revolutionizing VCM with Global Carbon Registry
GCR is significant in reporting Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) or the Article 6.2 credits.
ITMO is a carbon emissions trading system where countries can buy or sell carbon credits with other countries. This can open doors for developing new carbon markets and further reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.
The innovative registry isn’t just for GCC; it’s also designed for governments and countries. They can create their own carbon registries using this system and thus, further develop VCM solutions.
GCC’s founding chairman, Dr. Yousef, highlighted the importance of acquiring GCR in carbon markets, noting that:
“It represents a significant leap forward in seamlessly integrating carbon credit certifications and insurance. Our partnership not only revolutionizes the issuance of carbon credits but also empowers nations to shape their own registries, influencing the very structure of carbon markets.”
The GCR streamlines carbon market transactions. It manages everything from issuing credits to transferring and retiring them. It has a user-friendly interface that stands out in the carbon market industry.
Moreover, the registry connects with other platforms, making it easier for users to access and expand their market reach. It also meets requirements set by CORSIA, a regulatory program, ensuring that users comply with regulations while participating in the market.
Pioneering Solutions for Robust Carbon Markets
The Global Carbon Registry® and GCC have created a comprehensive solution that connects with exchanges and auctions. It would also link with CAD Trust (Climate Action Data Trust), and other registries.
Wayne Sharpe, CEO of GEM, expressed pride in partnering for a promising future in carbon markets. Nations worldwide seek a robust registry, and with the Global Carbon Registry®, they get cutting-edge technology and top-notch credit standards. This technology supports nations in setting up sub-registries affordably.
The announcement aligns with Global Carbon Council’s presence at COP28. They’re focusing on key topics like implementing Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement, improving carbon credit integrity, and enhancing efficiency through digitization in carbon markets.
Just over a week ago, Nasdaq also revealed a revolutionary technology aimed at securely digitizing the issuance, settlement, and safekeeping of carbon credits. The move shares the same goal with GCC’s acquisition of GCR: foster the growth and institutionalization of global carbon markets.
Amid over 118 governments pledging to triple renewable energy by 2030, GCC emphasizes the crucial role carbon markets play in financing this global transition.
In a separate deal, the Gulf Organisation for Research & Development (GORD), overseeing the GCC, has simultaneously introduced a pivotal initiative – the Climate Action Center of Excellence (CACE).
The strategic launch aims to accelerate the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. It’s one of the cornerstones as part of the GCC’s strategy to mitigate climate change.
The main objective of CACE is to offer robust, impactful solutions that empower businesses and governments in mitigating carbon emissions. Additionally, it strives to mobilize climate finance efficiently, ensuring optimal use of investor funds while generating new sustainable projects.
The launch of CACE coincides with the staggering financial need estimated at around $ 4.4 trillion for developing countries to fulfill their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This underscores the critical role of the private sector in funding and supporting emission reduction activities needed by nations.
This is where the CACE framework comes in to channel substantial funding into projects that curb emissions.
The acquisition of GCR by GCC promises to enhance transparency, ease transactions, and foster the growth of global carbon markets, playing a pivotal role in the pursuit of sustainable development and climate change mitigation.
Boosting Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is crucial alongside rapidly cutting emissions to meet the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. A detailed report, analyzing the industry’s various key aspects, looks at the current state of the CDR.
The authors found that there’s a big difference between what countries plan to do and what’s needed to meet the global climate goals.
The report is done by experts in the field of CDR, who are authors of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and lead major CDR research projects.
Bridging the Carbon Removal Gap
To keep warming below 2°C, the world needs to remove vast amounts of CO2 from the air. CDR includes ways to capture CO2 and keep it stored in places like soil, oceans, or products. Examples include planting more trees, using certain technologies to capture carbon and storing it.
For the first time, the report estimated the total amount of CDR currently being deployed globally. It found that most current CDR (2 billion tonnes of CO2 a year) comes from traditional methods like planting trees. That translates to 99.9% of virtually all current CDR, primarily through afforestation and reforestation.
Only a very small fraction – 0.1% or 0.002 GtCO₂/year – comes from new CDR methods, as shown below. Examples of novel CDR are Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), biochar, and Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS).
But to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C, these removal methods and reducing deforestation must increase by a lot in the next few decades. By 2050, land-based removals double in 1.5°C pathways and increase by 50% in 2°C pathways relative to 2020 levels.
Countries need to work hard to meet these goals by using policies and better land management to amplify these efforts. It’s a big challenge, but it’s essential to tackle climate change.
The “CDR gap” size varies among scenarios based on how the world shapes the global economy toward net zero emissions. But right now, countries have limited plans to increase CDR beyond current levels, creating a significant shortage.
National Commitments vs. Concrete Plans
According to the report, around 120 national governments have a net zero emissions target, implying the use of CDR for residual emissions. However, only a few have actionable plans for developing CDR in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), particularly for new methods.
The chart above shows that CDR is crucial in scenarios to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal, alongside emission reductions.
Closing the CDR gap, illustrated below, needs rapid growth of novel carbon removal methods.
The analysts suggest that novel CDR grows by a factor of 30 by the decade end and as much as 540 in certain scenarios. That growth goes up to a factor of 1,300 and as much as 4,900 in certain scenarios by 2050.
Innovation in CDR approaches has expanded significantly in recent years. It is evident in >$4 billion of public funds injected into Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) on CDR. Moreover, a total of about $200 million was invested in CDR from 2020 to 2022.
Buyers of CDR credits have also shown growing support for novel methods. CDR purchases soared 437% in the first half of 2023.
Public discussions about CDR are also increasing, yet awareness about it remains lower compared to other climate change aspects. Studies show that while people support research on CDR, they worry about its large-scale implementation.
In particular, methods like afforestation, which seem more natural, receive better public perception compared to other CDR approaches. On Twitter, talks about CDR are rising, with most methods garnering positive sentiment, except for BECCS.
The Rising Profile of Carbon Removal
Given the uncertainties surrounding scaling up CDR, emitters can reduce reliance on it by swiftly cutting emissions and using energy more efficiently.
Scientific scenarios outline various pathways to meet climate goals, suggesting various strategies like reducing fossil fuel use, switching to electric power in most sectors, stopping deforestation, and deploying both traditional and new CDR methods on land.
Notably, new and innovative startups in the carbon removal sector show a strong dedication to fighting climate change by creating practical solutions to store CO2 in various environments.
Though there are doubts about how well these methods can be scaled up, the substantial investments going into these projects highlight a growing belief in their crucial role in tackling climate change.
The global effort to limit temperature rise requires a robust strategy to close the Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) gap. Balancing traditional methods with innovative techniques is essential. Governments and industries must prioritize CDR development alongside emission reductions for a sustainable, low-carbon future.
We wanted to share some exciting news from the recent COP28 summit that could be a game-changer in the energy market.
At the recent COP28 summit, a pivotal decision emerged that stands to reshape the global energy landscape: a commitment to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
This marks a significant victory in the global fight against emissions reductions, signalling a robust shift towards cleaner, more sustainable power sources.
Nuclear energy’s role in this transformation cannot be overstated. It offers a high-output, low-carbon alternative to traditional fossil fuels, positioning it as a key player in efforts to curb global warming.
Here’s the scoop:
By 2050, the world’s nuclear energy capacity is set to triple. This is a huge deal in our fight against emission reductions and decarbonization.
Here are the key takeaways:
Nuclear Energy Capacity to Triple: Countries are committing big time to nuclear energy. This move shows a serious effort to cut down emissions and limit global warming.
USA Joins the Party: With John Kerry at the helm, the US is all in. This global unity means more support and potential funding for nuclear projects.
Demand for Nuclear is Soaring: As demand grows, so do opportunities in nuclear technology and infrastructure. It’s the kind of stable, sustainable energy source we’ve been looking for.
New Investment Doors Opening: Top players like Google and BNB Paribas are getting involved. We’re talking about a broader, more exciting investment landscape in nuclear energy.
IAEA’s Solid Backing: The International Atomic Energy Agency is fully supporting nuclear power. That kind of endorsement is great news for investor confidence.
This isn’t just policy talk; it’s a real shift towards a new era of energy. And for us, it means watching a market that’s set to grow significantly.
The consensus reached at COP28, which saw major nations including the United States rally behind nuclear power, underscores the growing recognition of its potential in achieving long-term baseload and low carbon forms of power. It means we’re moving away from fossil fuels and embracing a cleaner, more powerful energy source.
Why is this important for us? Well, nuclear energy is not just clean – it’s also reliable and cost-effective. And it has a massive effect on carbon emissions reduction.
This shift has major players like the US on board, signalling strong government support and funding opportunities. In short, it’s a growing market ripe for investment.
Key highlights from this event include:
Tripling Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050: A historic declaration was made at COP28, where multiple countries committed to tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050. This ambitious goal underscores the crucial role of nuclear energy in achieving net-zero emissions and limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This shift towards nuclear energy represents a growing market with substantial investment potential.
United States’ Active Involvement: The United States, led by U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, joined forces with leaders from various continents to support this nuclear energy initiative. This action reflects a burgeoning international consensus on nuclear power as an essential component of global climate strategy, signaling potential for increased governmental support and funding in the sector.
Surging Global Demand for Nuclear Energy: The global agreement to enhance nuclear power production threefold by 2050 mirrors the rising demand for nuclear energy, recognized for its cleanliness, reliability, and cost-effectiveness. This surge in demand aligns with our investment focus on sustainable and stable energy sources and represents a growing market for nuclear technology and infrastructure.
Expanding Investment Opportunities: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) hosted a significant event at COP28, featuring representatives from Google, BNB Paribas, OECD/NEA, and the World Nuclear Association. They discussed strategies to unlock investments for a sustainable nuclear future. This indicates a broadening interest in nuclear energy across various sectors, opening new avenues for investment.
Backing from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): The IAEA’s Director-General, Rafael Mariano Grossi, strongly endorsed nuclear power at COP28. This support from a leading atomic authority emphasizes the vital role of nuclear energy in tackling climate change and energy security challenges, further boosting investor confidence in this sector.
We featured a very unique, fast moving company earlier this week, GoldMining Inc (GLDG), and these developments are welcome news for their high-value assets.
As this year’s United Nations climate summit, COP28, continues to deliberate the most pressing climate change concerns, we’re sharing the top updates impacting the future of climate finance. Here are the top four highlights that stand out.
Oil and Gas Charter Aims 2050 Zero Methane
Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and the UAE’s ADNOC, along with 29 other national oil companies, signed a non-binding agreement to target zero methane emissions and end routine flaring by 2030.
Overall, 50 oil and gas companies, which represents 40% of global production, committed to decarbonize their operations by 2050.
While Aramco and ADNOC have announced carbon reduction objectives, these targets don’t include emissions from customer fuel use. Sultan Al Jaber, ADNOC’s CEO and CO28 President, emphasized the need for more action, despite many national oil companies setting net zero emissions 2050 targets.
This initiative, called the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, saw companies like PetroChina, Brazil’s Petrobras, TotalEnergies of France, ExxonMobil of the US, and BP and Shell from Britain signing on. However, unlike COP28 decisions, these commitments are voluntary.
Prepared ahead of COP28, these pledges aim to expedite the energy industry’s decarbonization. Yet, a non-profit representative noted that voluntary commitments from the industry may not be enough to address climate change adequately. What is more crucial is having government policies in place to drive swift and equitable transition away from fossil fuels.
Canada Aims to Slash Methane Emissions by 75%
Canada has shared a new plan to cut methane pollution from its oil and gas industry by at least 75%. The potent gas contributed about 13% of Canada’s total emissions in 2021.
The country’s Environment Minister made this announcement on the sidelines of COP28.
Canada ranks among the top oil producers globally, with most methane emissions coming from oil and gas, agriculture, and waste.
Two years ago, the nation promised to create a plan to significantly lower methane emissions from oil and gas by 2030, aligning with the Global Methane Pledge.
The new draft involves stricter rules for Canada’s oil and gas sector, following global suggestions. It aims to stop routine venting and flaring, which emit methane, and introduce better leak detection methods.
The federal government estimates that these new regulations will reduce emissions by 217 million metric tonnes of CO2e from 2027 to 2040. The government also plans to invest $30 million in a Methane Centre of Excellence.
The proposed regulations also include third-party inspections and safety exemptions. However, Alberta and Saskatchewan, provinces rich in oil and gas, criticized the plan, calling it too costly and challenging. They argue that the federal government is intruding on provincial control.
The draft regulations will roll out in 2027, but opposition from the provinces may lead to further discussions and revisions.
Bhutan is The First National Registry Under CAD Trust
The Kingdom of Bhutan has become the inaugural national registry to achieve full integration with the Climate Action Data Trust (CAD Trust) Metadata Layer, marking a significant milestone announced at COP28.
This development positions Bhutan as a leader in regional climate action and aligns with the Paris Agreement’s Article 6 objectives.
Launched in December 2022, CAD Trust is an initiative led by the World Bank, the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), and the Government of Singapore. It operates as a decentralized blockchain-based platform, aiming to promote transparent carbon market accounting, in accordance with the Paris Agreement.
Bhutan, known for its vast forests occupying over 72% of its land, holds a pivotal role as a ‘carbon bank’. The country contributes to global biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
As the world’s first carbon-negative country, Bhutan’s integration into CAD Trust underscores its commitment to climate mitigation and proactive measures.
This integration ensures Bhutan’s climate mitigation efforts adhere to Article 6 guidelines by leveraging innovative digital infrastructure, including blockchain technology. This is to safeguard the accuracy of carbon credit data and prevent duplication, a critical principle of Article 6.
The development marks the beginning of an expanding network for CAD Trust. The platform will connect with other national and independent carbon market standards over the coming weeks and months.
Tanzania’s Major Carbon Credit Deal
Tanzania has signed a significant carbon credit deal at COP28 covering 6 national parks across 1.8 million hectares. Parks included are Burigi-Chato, Katavi Plains, Ugalla River, Mkomazi, Gombe Stream, and Mahale Mountains.
The agreement involves Tanzania’s national park agency, Tanapa, and a local company, Carbon Tanzania. The country boasts 48 million hectares of reserved forests, which offers significant opportunities for carbon trading.
In a move coinciding with COP28, the deal aims to trade carbon credits while also preserving and managing the national parks, safeguarding their natural ecosystems and wildlife. This move positions the country as a key player in Africa’s carbon credit market.
Mohammed Enterprises Tanzania Limited, led by businessman Mohammed Dewji, will provide funding for the project. This deal follows an earlier preliminary agreement encompassing 8.1 million hectares in Tanzania, also directed towards carbon credit initiatives. That area represents about 8% of the East African nation’s total land mass.
However, these deals have faced criticism for their potential impact on local lands and communities, drawing concern about neocolonialism. While developers assert that their projects follow stringent regulations and offer community benefits, critics question the agreements’ true impact.
Despite the criticism, these agreements could see vast land areas dedicated for carbon credit projects across Africa once finalized.
As COP28 unfolds, pivotal strides in carbon credit market and climate finance are apparent, spanning from oil and gas industry pledges to national initiatives and global registry integration. These developments emphasize the imperative role of collaborative efforts and policy implementations in tackling climate change.
Alcove, a New York-based carbon credit management company, launches a new app for Shopify. This app helps people who create projects to reduce or avoid carbon emissions. They can use the app to manage and sell the credits they earn from these projects.
Alcove has over 50 million tons of CO2e inventory on its platform. Its application for Shopify unlocks fully-integrated and sales capabilities to scale carbon credits.
Alcove’s mission is to bridge the carbon market’s most difficult data gaps. It brings powerful carbon specificity and guardrails to build trust, transparency, and speed for stakeholders across the value chain.
Carbon Credit Sales Made Simple
The integration makes it easier for buyers to purchase carbon removals. It connects Alcove’s checked inventory with a sales function. This way, buyers can trust where the credits come from and easily buy them like any other online purchase.
Developers working on projects often find it hard to keep track of their carbon credits and sell them. But now, with Alcove and Shopify working together, it’s simpler.
Alcove’s platform helps developers manage their credits better. They can forecast, allocate, and deliver credits more easily.
Plus, they get detailed info about these credits, which is then organized and shown on the platform. This helps to keep track of when credits were made and bought.
Thanks to the Shopify integration, Alcove users can sell their credits more easily. They don’t need to rely on a separate marketplace. They can set up their own online store and reach different kinds of buyers, making it easier to earn money from their credits.
One of the founders and CEOs of Alcove, Mars Gaza, highlights the importance of this development in carbon management, saying:
“With the release of the Alcove application for Shopify, project developers using the Alcove inventory management platform are able to seamlessly integrate the full capabilities of Shopify to manage, promote, and sell their credits directly to new buyer segments.”
Streamlining Carbon Management
Through the Alcove platform, important tasks for managing carbon credits become automated for top project developers. This includes accurately predicting and assigning carbon credits, fulfilling delivery promises, integrating data from various sources like sensors and meters, and automating inventory alignment throughout the sales process.
Alcove designed this integration to help project developers using their carbon-focused system to make the most of Shopify’s commerce platform.
The leading ecommerce company has been supporting carbon removal companies with tens of millions of investment through its Sustainability Fund. It’s one of the largest carbon removal credits purchasers to date, particularly prioritizing startups offering new carbon removal approaches.
Within three years of the Fund’s establishment, Shopify has generated interest in carbon removal where there wasn’t any previously. More buyers are now interested in this market.
Additionally, carbon removal companies have expanded their growth with financial support from Shopify. They’ve significantly increased their ability to remove carbon, up to 80x more, and expanded their customer base by 40x.
Shopify’s latest collaboration with Alcove cements its commitment to using carbon credits for scalable climate actions.
The company will assist Alcove users in several ways, including:
Organizing commercial processes specifically for carbon-related activities.
Simplifying the buying experience for carbon removal.
Creating personalized online shops and finding new buyers, whether they are big companies or small businesses, to sell more carbon credits and make income from different sources.
Maintaining control over buyers without having to share money and information through third-party marketplaces.
Making transactions smoother by handling payments automatically through Shopify.
Alcove’s new Shopify app revolutionizes carbon credit management, providing project developers with an all-in-one platform to sell and manage their carbon credits effortlessly. This integration not only simplifies sales but also ensures transparency and trust in the carbon credit marketplace.
Many fail to realize this is not the first energy transition.
Although the media have made it appear as if it’s the first energy transition, it’s not.
For example, the nuclear energy industry development which started in WW2 was a major energy transition. In today’s dollars, half a trillion dollars went into the research and development of nuclear reactors along with uranium mines and fabrication plants that would feed the operating nuclear reactors.
In fact, one of the most fascinating stories of collusion, corruption and cartels happened as America was developing its first energy transition. Amazingly, it almost “destroyed” the nuclear industry.
So, before you think the current Energy Transition has failed (which it is not over and will happen) let’s explain the drama that almost took down the first major Energy Transition in America.
Everyone knows about the oil cartel called OPEC. But did you know that in the 1970s, a uranium cartel was conspired by one of the largest mining companies in the world and the Canadian government?
From 1955 through 1970 hundreds of billions of dollars were being committed by the US, France, Sweden, Japan and West Germany to build nuclear power plants. The Yellow Cartel started in 1971 with the London based mining giant, Rio Tinto approaching the Canadian government concerning the formation of a cartel for controlling uranium market pricing.
The first official meeting occurred in February 1972, in Paris, and the International Uranium Cartel was created.
Eventually, 29 producing companies would become members of the International Uranium Cartel, which was nicknamed the ‘Yellow Cartel” for the color of yellowcake that the cartel was colluding to price fix.
Rio Tinto, Uranerz (the large German uranium producer in the 70s), the Canadian Government and ultimately a total 29 uranium producers made up the Uranium Cartel.
The Uranium Cartel was successful in increasing the price of uranium almost 10-fold in a few short years by deploying illegal tactics such as price fixing schemes.
Later, the Canadian government would form two uranium entities which would lead to the creation of Cameco, a top 5 uranium producer worldwide.
There were two real catalysts that caused the formation of the International Uranium Cartel. But why did Rio Tinto pitch this plan that almost would turn the energy world upside down and risk America’s energy security and the first major energy transition?
The first catalyst was the move by the US government to place an embargo on all foreign uranium in 1964 to protect its own uranium mines.
At that time, the United States consumed about 70% of the global uranium production (for both its military and energy needs) and with that demand for uranium now gone outside the USA, the price of uranium crashed to $5 per pound in 1970.
But because the price of uranium was so high during the 1950s and first half of the 1960s, significant amounts of risk capital was spent on exploration for new uranium deposits globally. As a result of all this new uranium exploration was major uranium discoveries were made in places like Niger and Australia.
By the late 1960s significant uranium deposits would be discovered in Australia such as Jabiluka 1 & 2.
Eventually the massive discovery of Olympic Dam which would become one of the largest polymetallic mines (including uranium) in the world. Olympic Dam would soon replace the depleting uranium from the Rum Jungle Mine in Australia which was producing uranium since 1954 and was shut down for good in 1971.
Because of and other events such as those mentioned above, by 1971, there was over 220 Million pounds of global uranium production and only 55 Million pounds of uranium global demand. The uranium market was oversupplied by 400%.
Because of both the US embargo on foreign supplies of uranium and an oversupply of uranium production to demand by 400%, the price of uranium was hovering around $5/pound in 1971.
But because of the price fixing tactics of the Uranium Cartel, the price of uranium surged to $40/pound.
The move in uranium prices brought down the world’s largest nuclear reactor builder in the world, Westinghouse Electric Corp. on September 8, 1975.
Westinghouse was able to become the world’s largest developer and installer of nuclear reactors because it had the best track record, nuclear technology and most importantly it promised a long-term supply of uranium feed to power the Westinghouse PWR reactors. A dream trifecta for large utilities and government entities alike.
To put things in perspective, half of the world’s current operating nuclear power plants are using the basis of Westinghouse’s PWR reactor technology. Between 1960 and 1970, Westinghouse was able to secure US government backed utility contracts (and same in Sweeden) worth tens of billions of dollars because Westinghouse committed to supply 65 million pounds to the American and Swedish nuclear reactors with a fixed price contract.
But things quickly turned very bad for Westinghouse. The utilities, citizens and the American Government. Because the price of uranium increased 10X (1000%) from when Westinghouse signed those fixed price utility contracts, on September 8th, 1975 Westinghouse announced that it would not honor the 65 million pounds of uranium it committed to the American and Swedish utilities.
It was revealed in legal documents that the American consumer ended up paying billions of dollars in additional electricity costs due to the Uranium Cartels actions. In fact, New York state alone paid over $1Billion in electricity prices shortly after the Yellow Cartel activities.
On October 15, 1976, Westinghouse took matters into its own hands. It filed for conspiracy, in violation of United States anti-trust laws against the 29 producing uranium companies that made up the International Uranium Cartel estimating damages between $4-6 Billion.
Uranium continued to soar after 1976, surpassing $100 per pound throughout the late seventies.
Around that time, people called for the end of the energy transition citing the negative impact caused by the Uranium Cartel. This was just one of many attacks survived by the uranium industry. In fact, the nuclear sector not only survived the Uranium Cartel fiasco, but Chernobyl, Fukushima and countless other project and sector setbacks over the years.
Right now, we are in the greatest energy transition in human history. Tens of trillions of dollars will be spent worldwide on energy transition and decarbonization. Nuclear is a big part of the solution.
In fact, without uranium, there is no clean, long term base load nuclear power. Which is why we are currently in one of the greatest uranium bull markets of all time.
There are three uranium giants in global uranium production. The largest global producer came out of the fall of the Soviet Union, Kazatomprom. The third largest global uranium producer, as described above, was the result of the Canadian Government merging two state owned enterprises and created Cameco.
But do you know who the second largest producer of uranium globally is?
And the major moves this company is making after almost blowing itself up?
In an upcoming feature article, we will bring to the forefront the under the radar moves that the second largest producer of uranium is doing and how investors can benefit.
The Coal to Clean Credit Initiative (CCCI), with help from The Rockefeller Foundation, teams up with ACEN Corporation to look into a pilot project in the Philippines, it revealed at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai. This plan aims to use credits earned from reducing carbon emissions to shut down a coal-powered plant.
COP28, happening until December 12, is the largest conference to find solutions to shift the world away from fossil fuels. The consortium wants to replace the carbon-intensive plant with renewable energy while also helping out people who might be struggling. It is the first of its kind, aiming to move away from coal plants following the Paris Agreement.
CCCI and ACEN are working with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to move this plan forward.
From Coal to Clean: A Paradigm Shift
If the world keeps relying too much on coal, these plants will release a massive amount of carbon emissions. In particular, current and planned coal-fired power plants will emit 273 billion tons of carbon dioxide over their lifetimes, according to the Rockefeller Foundation’s President, Dr. Rajiv J. Shah.
Annual Emission Reduction in Unabated Coal-Fired Generation
Achieving such massive feat requires encouraging plant owners and communities to retire coal plants. And the CCCI agreement would be a way to do it in the Philippines.
The project is focused on the South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation (SLTEC) coal plant. It could be the first coal plant in the world to use carbon credits to shut down early.
While there are financial methods to support closing coal plants and switching to clean energy, it’s tough to use these methods in developing countries. The partners are checking if they can retire this plant early and change it to cleaner energy sources by 2030. That’s 10 years earlier than its originally planned retirement.
CCCI started in June 2023 with the aim to reward moving away from coal and shifting to clean energy in developing countries. They will incentivize such transition through ‘coal-to-clean’ credits, also called ‘transition credits’.
Accelerating Energy Transition with Carbon Credits
In a similar direction, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) announced that it had tentatively agreed to shut down an Indonesian power plant much earlier than scheduled through its Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM).
The CCCI plans to work with programs like the ETM to accelerate the closure of power plants in the Philippines by using the credits. Vikram Widge, formerly in charge of carbon finance at the World Bank and involved in this initiative, shared this information.
A preliminary method for verifying these coal-to-clean credits has been put forward for public consultation. Verra, the leading global carbon standard, will approve the methodology.
The method allows organizations to create customized projects shifting from coal to clean energy. These projects focus on what local communities need and then offer transition credits to buyers worldwide.
After public consultation, which runs until January 16, 2024, CCCI’s method is likely to be completed. Once finalized, it’s expected to enable one of the initial transactions involving transition credits in the global carbon markets.
Entities can use these carbon credits voluntarily to mitigate their emissions or for meeting certain regulations. This initiative would assist in putting into action Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. It supports countries’ efforts to control global warming and keep the temperature rise within 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Global Collaboration for Climate Resilience
Authorities are aiming for stricter evaluation of carbon credits, as many environmental groups have criticized them for enabling the ongoing use of fossil fuels instead of decreasing emissions.
During COP28, numerous representatives suggested that establishing a global carbon price could be a part of the solution. Businesses argue that this could offer clarity for planning, but creating such a price has been challenging for many years.
Highlighting their innovative collaboration, Eric Francia, President & CEO of ACEN Corporation remarked during the announcement:
“Today’s development marks a critical contribution to accelerating a global energy transition. Without a rapid and proactively managed transition away from coal-fired power, the world will not meet its climate goals; the urgency of solving this problem cannot be understated.”
ACEN Corporation operates around 4,500 megawatts (MW) of energy in the Philippines, Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and India. Its renewable energy contribution is one of the highest in the region.
The CCCI news aligns with the Energy Transition Accelerator (ETA) set to launch in April. The ETA, created by the Rockefeller Foundation and other organizations, shares a similar goal of speeding up the move away from coal. Days ago, the philanthropic organization announced a target to bring its $6 billion endowment to net zero emissions by 2050.
The ETA plans to achieve the clean transition by using what they claim are top-quality carbon credits. Their initial estimates suggest this approach could generate over $200 billion in transition finance by 2035.
CCCI is teaming up with the COP28 Presidency to attract more interest from governments and get power companies in developing countries more involved. This effort aims to make the use of ‘transition credits’ a reality in transitioning the world towards cleaner and sustainable energy.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkNoPrivacy policy
The renewed proliferation of nuclear power around the world has made Kazakhstan a hot commodity.
And they’re planning to build at least 100 more.
