COP31 Handbook Targets $20 Billion in Climate Finance for Vulnerable Countries

Jennifer L
-
0
COP31 Handbook Targets $20 Billion in Climate Finance for Vulnerable Countries

Climate-vulnerable countries could gain access to US$20 billion in additional annual financing by 2030 through carbon markets. A new handbook aims to help them attract this climate funding ahead of the United Nations climate summit COP31.

Released on October 14, 2026, the Article 6 Senior Officials’ Handbook explains how governments can take part in international carbon markets. The Climate Vulnerable Forum and V20 Finance Ministers (CVF-V20) developed it with the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI).

The initiative addresses a major funding gap. The 77 countries represented by the CVF-V20 face an estimated US$490 billion annual shortfall in financing for their climate plans. Carbon markets could provide another source of funding. But countries need clear rules, strong public institutions, and reliable safeguards to benefit.

The handbook offers practical advice to help governments make informed choices and attract investment. However, the US$20 billion figure is a potential opportunity, not guaranteed funding.

New Handbook Puts Carbon Finance on the COP31 Agenda

The handbook was released in Bangkok during the 2026 Annual Meetings of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund. Its launch came about a month before COP31, which is scheduled for November 9–20 in Antalya, Türkiye.

The timing highlights a key challenge for climate action: countries need money to turn their climate plans into real projects. The United Nations Environment Programme has also stressed the need to improve access to climate finance and help communities facing serious climate risks.

Many developing countries struggle to attract investment, even when they have clear climate goals. They may lack the laws, technical skills, or project plans needed to secure funding.

Carbon markets could help close part of this gap. Countries can earn money by supporting projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gas emissions. These projects may include forest protection, renewable energy, and methane reduction.

However, governments must first decide which projects to support and how to manage carbon credit sales. The new handbook aims to help officials understand these choices before making deals.

How Article 6 Can Help Countries Raise Money

The handbook focuses on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which allows countries to work together to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Article 6.2 allows countries to trade authorized emissions reductions through agreements with other countries. Article 6.4 sets up a United Nations-supervised system for issuing carbon credits under an international framework.

HOW A CARBON CREDIT REACHES DIFFERENT MARKETS
Source: CVF-V20 and VCMI Handbook

These rules can help countries attract foreign investment into climate projects. For example, a government can approve a project that cuts emissions. It can let some verified reductions be sold to a buyer in another country.

However, these transfers require careful accounting. Countries must follow approval and reporting rules and must also apply corresponding adjustments where required. These adjustments help prevent the same emissions reduction from being counted toward two countries’ climate targets.

Governments must also consider how selling carbon credits affects their own climate commitments, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The handbook explains these choices and covers both Article 6.2 agreements and the Article 6.4 mechanism.

Sara Jane Ahmed, Managing Director and Finance Advisor of CVF-V20 Secretariat, remarked:

“This new handbook specifically responds to the needs of climate-vulnerable countries for specialised and tailored support and guidance on participating in carbon markets. By empowering climate-vulnerable member countries with informed leadership and institutional decision-making, this handbook can help build the policy environment needed to attract much-needed investments through Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.”

Eight Modules Guide Governments Through Carbon Market Rules

The handbook contains eight modules for senior government officials involved in carbon markets. It covers several important areas:

  • Project approval: Deciding which projects and emissions reductions can be approved for international transfer.
  • Revenue: Assessing how carbon markets could raise money for national climate plans.
  • Benefit-sharing: Deciding how project income and other benefits should be shared.
  • Environmental and social safeguards: Protecting communities and ensuring projects deliver real climate benefits.
  • Private investment: Creating conditions that encourage companies and investors to take part.
  • Laws and oversight: Setting rules and assigning responsibility for managing carbon markets.

The handbook also provides country examples and explains common challenges. Governments can use it as a checklist to identify missing rules, skills, or systems before entering the market.

This guidance matters because carbon markets involve more than selling credits. Governments must decide who can approve projects, how money will be managed, and how results will be measured. They also need clear rules to protect communities and ensure that projects deliver the benefits they promise.

UN handbook climate finance for vulnerable countries

Why Poor Countries Have Had Limited Access to Carbon Market Investment

The handbook addresses a long-standing problem: many climate-vulnerable countries have struggled to attract carbon market investment.

Forty-five least developed countries made up just 1.5% of projects registered under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, according to the CVF-V20 and VCMI. This figure relates to an earlier carbon market system, not the entire market today. However, it shows how limited participation has been for many poorer countries.

Several barriers help explain this gap. Some countries lack the technical skills to develop projects or the laws needed to manage carbon credit sales. Others face high project costs or struggle to attract buyers.

The handbook aims to help governments address these problems. It encourages them to link carbon market plans with national development goals. This way, they won’t see credit sales as just a separate income source.

This could help direct investment toward clean energy, forest protection, and stronger local economies. But the guidance alone cannot guarantee funding. Countries still need credible projects that buyers are willing to support.

Figure 5 shows that market projections expect compliance demand to outpace voluntary markets over the next decade, a trend sparked first by CORSIA.

ANNUAL DEMAND (CREDITS RETIRED OR CANCELLED)
Source: CVF-V20 and VCMI Handbook

Ghana and the Philippines Show How Deals Can Work

The handbook highlights countries that are already exploring international carbon market cooperation. Ghana and Switzerland will work together to create 8 million tonnes of carbon credits. This effort is expected to bring in about US$300 million in carbon revenue and lead to US$1.1 billion in total investment.

These figures are projected outcomes. They do not mean that all the credits have been issued or that the revenue and investment have already been delivered.

The Philippines has also entered into bilateral carbon market agreements with Japan and Singapore, according to the handbook. These agreements can set the rules for transferring approved emissions reductions and support cooperation between governments.

Bhutan offers another example. It has established the Bhutan Climate Fund and a Carbon Market Information Platform. These tools aim to support funding for climate action and give stakeholders information about carbon market opportunities.

The examples show that countries can take different paths to enter international carbon markets, but results will vary. The amount of funding raised depends on the projects available, buyer demand, government approval rules, and the quality of the emissions reductions.

Can Stronger Rules Turn Carbon Credits Into Reliable Climate Funding?

Carbon markets could bring more money to vulnerable countries, but they also carry risks. Some projects may overstate how much carbon they prevent or remove. Others may fail to deliver promised benefits to local communities. Poor rules can also lead to disputes over who receives the money.

Moreover, governments must weigh the benefits of selling carbon credits against their own climate goals. Transferring emissions reductions to another country can attract investment, but it may also affect how the host country counts progress toward its NDC.

For host countries, fair benefit-sharing and public oversight can help ensure that carbon market income supports national priorities and local communities. The handbook gives officials a framework for managing these issues. However, it cannot replace strong laws, project checks, or long-term investment.

As COP31 approaches, the challenge is to turn better guidance into funded climate projects. The new handbook offers a starting point. Yet, its real value will depend on whether governments can use it to attract funding and deliver clear, measurable benefits for people and the climate.

China’s Farmland Could Remove 350 Million Tonnes of CO₂ a Year, Study Finds

Jennifer L
-
0
China’s Farmland Could Remove 350 Million Tonnes of CO₂ a Year, Study Finds

New research suggests China’s farmland could become a major source of carbon removal using crushed rock. The technique, known as enhanced rock weathering (ERW), speeds up a natural process that removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere.

A study published on October 10, 2026, examined the potential to spread basalt across Chinese croplands. The researchers estimated that a single year of application could remove 440 million to 790 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2100, depending on the modeled conditions.

Separately, another news report stated that sustained deployment could remove up to 350 million tonnes annually. These figures represent modeled potential, not carbon removal already being achieved at scale. 

The findings point to a possible new tool for China’s climate strategy. However, large-scale deployment will depend on costs, suitable farmland, environmental safeguards, and reliable measurement of the carbon removed.

How Basalt Speeds Up Nature’s Carbon Removal Process

ERW speeds up the natural weathering of rocks. Rainwater absorbs CO₂ and reacts with minerals as rocks break down. This process can turn carbon into dissolved bicarbonate, which may flow through rivers toward the ocean.

For ERW projects, developers grind rocks such as basalt into smaller particles and spread them over farmland. The extra surface area helps the minerals react faster with water and CO₂.

The method may also improve soil conditions. Basalt contains minerals that can supply nutrients, and weathering may help reduce soil acidity in suitable fields. But the amount of rock spread on farmland does not equal the amount of carbon removed.

Projects must account for emissions from mining, grinding, transport, and application. They must also measure how much carbon stays stored rather than returning to the atmosphere.

What the China Study Found

The research, by Zeyu Wang and Fei Teng of Tsinghua University and David M. Reiner of the University of Cambridge, assessed ERW potential and costs across China’s croplands.  The study estimated that a single year of basalt application could remove 440 million to 790 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2100. Its modeled net lifecycle cost ranged from US127 to US226 per tonne of CO₂ removed.

The researchers also assessed ERW’s possible contribution to China’s long-term climate goals. Under their modeled scenarios, the approach could meet 5% to 30% of the country’s negative-emissions needs by 2060.

Optimal ERW deployment in China under a basalt only scenario
Source: DOI:10.1038/s43247-026-04136-0

Northeast, Central-South, and East China emerged as priority areas for potential deployment. However, local conditions matter. Weathering rates depend on rainfall, temperature, soil chemistry, and rock type. The study therefore provides an initial national assessment, not a guarantee that every region can achieve the same results. 

China’s Agricultural Land Offers Scale

China has a large agricultural base on which to test the technology. Its official 2025 statistical communiqué reported 119.41 million hectares of sown grain area. This is not the same as the area suitable for ERW, but it illustrates the scale of the country’s farming system. 

Applying basalt to existing farmland could allow carbon removal to work alongside agricultural production. If the material improves soil quality or crop yields, those benefits could help make the process more attractive to farmers.

A 2023 study of farmland ERW in China reported an average crop-yield increase of 13.5%, with an uncertainty range of plus or minus 5.2%. It also modeled an annual national carbon removal potential of 280 million to 400 million tonnes. These are research findings, not guaranteed results for every crop or region. 

Field trials will be important for establishing where basalt works best, how much to apply, and whether the agricultural benefits justify the added costs.

High Costs Could Slow Deployment

ERW requires suitable rock to be sourced, crushed, and transported to farms. Grinding rock into smaller particles uses energy, while moving heavy material over long distances can increase costs and emissions.

The new study’s estimated cost of US$127–US$226 per tonne of CO₂ removed highlights a major challenge for commercial projects. Lower-emission electricity, efficient transport, and access to suitable rock could improve the economics.

National and provincial ERW cost potential analysis
Source: DOI:10.1038/s43247-026-04136-0

Using suitable industrial by-products may also reduce the need for new mining. However, materials must be screened carefully to ensure they contain appropriate minerals and do not introduce harmful contaminants into farmland.

Carbon accounting presents another challenge. Buyers need credible evidence that projects remove additional CO₂ and that the reported removals reflect the full supply chain. Because weathering rates vary, projects also need robust monitoring to estimate how much carbon is captured and retained.

Heavy Metals and Water Quality Require Careful Monitoring

Large-scale basalt application requires safeguards for soil, crops, and water. Some rocks contain potentially harmful elements, including chromium, nickel, zinc, or cadmium. Their presence and availability depend on the material and local conditions.

A 2026 study assessing rock resources in South China identified potential materials for ERW but emphasized the need to monitor environmental risks. It highlighted Fujian as a promising location for initial field trials. 

Researchers also need to track what happens after dissolved carbon leaves the soil. Some carbon may reach rivers and oceans, but the amount that remains stored depends on downstream chemical processes.

Careful selection of rock, appropriate application rates, and long-term monitoring will therefore be essential. These measures can help protect agricultural land while improving confidence in reported carbon removals.

Global ERW Market Shows Promise, But Costs Remain High

The global enhanced rock weathering market is growing as companies explore ways to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. A September 2025 review in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment estimated that enhanced weathering could remove 0.5 billion to 2 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually by 2050. This is a technical potential estimate, not a forecast of confirmed removals.

Corporate buyers are already signing deals with ERW developers. Frontier, a buyer group that funds carbon removal projects, reports 333,000 tonnes of enhanced-weathering removals contracted, worth US$121 million, across seven companies. Its listed average purchase price is US$362 per tonne, with prices ranging from US$270 to US$500. These figures cover contracted purchases, not removals already delivered.

Carbon dioxide removal policies and programmes
Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00713-7

High prices and the difficulty of measuring carbon removal remain key barriers. Projects must prove how much CO₂ they remove, account for emissions from crushing and transporting rock, and monitor possible environmental risks. Lower costs and stronger measurement methods will be essential for ERW to grow from an emerging carbon-removal approach into a larger global market.

Can ERW Become a Scalable Carbon Removal Market?

China’s ERW potential adds another option to the growing range of carbon-removal approaches. The technology could interest buyers seeking measurable removals, particularly if projects can demonstrate strong monitoring and reliable net climate benefits.

However, the market opportunity remains tied to cost and proof. The headline figure of 350 million tonnes of CO₂ per year is a potential scenario, not a current supply estimate. Projects would need to show how much carbon they remove after accounting for emissions from rock processing and transport.

For China, the next steps include field testing, identifying suitable regions, improving measurement methods, and assessing environmental impacts. These efforts could help establish where ERW offers the strongest combination of carbon removal, agricultural value, and cost efficiency.

If those challenges can be addressed, enhanced rock weathering could support China’s wider climate strategy. It would still complement—not replace—direct reductions in fossil-fuel emissions.

NASA and DOE Sign Deal to Advance Space Nuclear Power: Can It Boost Clean Energy on Earth?

Saptakee S
-
0
NASA and DOE Sign Deal to Advance Space Nuclear Power: Can It Boost Clean Energy on Earth?

NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have signed an agreement to accelerate the development of nuclear power and propulsion technologies for future space missions. The partnership aims to help spacecraft travel farther, operate longer, and support a sustained human presence on the Moon.

The agreement, announced on October 8, 2026, establishes a framework for cooperation in nuclear research, fuel production, testing and mission development. It also supports U.S. efforts to strengthen its leadership in advanced nuclear technology.

The deal comes as electricity demand rises across the United States, driven by data centers, artificial intelligence, manufacturing and wider electrification. Although the agreement focuses on space exploration, advances in nuclear science and engineering could create opportunities for wider energy innovation.

NASA and DOE Team Up on Space Nuclear Technology

The partnership combines NASA’s space exploration expertise with DOE’s experience in nuclear science, reactor development, and fuel technology.

Nuclear power could help solve some of the biggest challenges facing deep-space missions. Solar panels become less effective when spacecraft travel far from the Sun or operate in areas with limited sunlight. On the Moon, long periods of darkness make solar power alone unreliable.

Nuclear systems can provide a steady source of energy for spacecraft, scientific equipment, and lunar facilities. They could also support advanced propulsion systems designed to improve future space travel.

The agreement covers two main technologies:

  • Nuclear fission: These systems generate energy by splitting atomic nuclei. They could power spacecraft, provide electricity to lunar bases, and support nuclear propulsion.
  • Radioisotope power systems: These convert heat from radioactive decay into electricity or provide heat to protect equipment in extremely cold environments.

By coordinating research, testing, and mission planning, NASA and DOE aim to move these technologies closer to practical use.

Space Reactor-1 and Lunar Reactor-1 Advance the Plans

One of NASA’s planned missions is Space Reactor-1 Freedom, which is scheduled for launch in 2028. The mission is expected to advance nuclear-powered space exploration and demonstrate technologies for future deep-space operations.

The agencies are also working toward Lunar Reactor-1, a planned fission power system intended to supply electricity to future lunar infrastructure. The U.S. objective is to have a lunar surface reactor ready for launch by 2030.

Reliable electricity will be essential for a long-term human presence on the Moon. Future facilities could need power for habitats, communications, scientific instruments, rovers, and equipment used to process local resources.

  • Nuclear power could help these systems operate through extended periods of darkness. It may also support future missions to Mars, where long distances and demanding conditions make reliable energy supplies important.
  • Radioisotope technology will remain another part of NASA’s plans. Its Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan, scheduled for launch in 2028, will use a radioisotope generator to produce electricity and heater units to keep equipment warm.

NASA and DOE also plan to provide 24 radioisotope heater units for the European Space Agency’s Rosalind Franklin Mars rover.

Rising U.S. Electricity Demand Keeps Nuclear Power in Focus

Although the NASA-DOE agreement focuses on space, it comes as the United States faces growing electricity demand.

  • According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. electricity generation reached approximately 4,430 billion kilowatt-hours in 2025, an increase of 2.8% from 2024. The agency expects generation to continue rising in 2026 and 2027.
  • The EIA’s September 2026 Short-Term Energy Outlook projects U.S. electricity sales of 4,135 billion kilowatt-hours in 2026 and 4,211 billion kilowatt-hours in 2027. These figures measure electricity sold to end users, rather than total generation.

Nuclear energy remains a major source of U.S. electricity. It supplied about 18% of utility-scale electricity generation in 2025, while fossil fuels accounted for approximately 58%.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), in its Electricity 2026 report, expects U.S. electricity demand to grow by close to 2% annually between 2026 and 2030. Data centers are expected to drive around half of the increase in U.S. electricity demand over this period.

EIA electricity generation

These trends highlight the need for reliable electricity supplies. Nuclear plants can generate power around the clock, complementing variable sources such as wind and solar. However, meeting future demand will also require investment in renewable energy, storage, transmission networks, and other power sources.

The NASA-DOE agreement will not directly increase electricity generation on the U.S. grid. Instead, it focuses on developing nuclear technologies for space missions.

Could Space Nuclear Research Support Clean Energy?

Nuclear power is an important low-carbon energy source because reactors generate electricity without directly releasing carbon dioxide during operation. It could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels as electricity demand grows.

However, the benefits of the NASA-DOE agreement for clean energy on Earth will be indirect. Space reactors must meet different requirements from commercial nuclear power plants, so technologies developed for space cannot automatically be used in the electricity sector.

Still, the partnership could strengthen nuclear research, specialized fuel production, materials testing, and engineering capabilities. Some advances could eventually benefit other nuclear applications, depending on their technical and commercial suitability.

The agreement may also support workforce development and domestic supply chains for advanced nuclear technology. These capabilities could become valuable as the United States explores new ways to provide reliable, low-carbon energy.

Safety will remain essential. Nuclear systems used in space must meet strict requirements for fuel handling, reactor performance, launch integration, and reliable operation.

A New Frontier for Nuclear Innovation

The NASA-DOE partnership marks another step toward using nuclear technology to explore the Moon, Mars and beyond. Its immediate goal is to develop dependable power and propulsion systems for future missions.

At the same time, rising electricity demand is increasing the need for reliable, low-carbon energy sources in the United States. Nuclear power could help meet that need alongside renewables, energy storage and grid upgrades.

The agreement is not a direct clean-energy deployment program, and its broader benefits will depend on further research and testing. However, by advancing nuclear science and engineering, it could create opportunities that extend beyond space exploration.

In the long term, the partnership could help strengthen U.S. nuclear capabilities for both space missions and future energy innovation on Earth.

Electricity Generation to Hit 84,000 TWh by 2060: Can Renewables Deliver?

Saptakee S
-
0
Electricity Generation to Hit 84,000 TWh by 2060: Can Renewables Deliver?

Global electricity generation is set to more than double over the next 35 years as renewable energy expands, electric vehicles replace gasoline-powered cars, and demand from artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers increases. However, building enough power generation, transmission lines, and energy storage to support this growth will be a major challenge.

According to DNV’s Energy Transition Outlook 2026, global electricity generation will rise from 33,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2025 to 84,000 TWh by 2060, an increase of 155%. Solar and wind power will drive much of this expansion, gradually replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation.

Yet the transition will not automatically deliver the emissions cuts needed to meet global climate goals. DNV forecasts that the world will experience 2.3°C of warming by 2100 under its most likely energy transition pathway.

The report highlights a central challenge for the global energy market: the world must generate far more electricity while making the energy system cleaner, more reliable and affordable.

Key Findings From DNV’s Energy Transition Outlook 2026

Energy transition
Source: DNV

Electricity Demand Will Surge as Economies Electrify

Electricity is becoming central to the global energy transition. Transport, buildings and industrial facilities are increasingly switching from direct fossil-fuel use to electric alternatives.

DNV forecasts that electricity demand will grow by 80% by 2050.

  • The increase will come from several sources, including electric vehicle charging, space cooling, data centers, and the production of low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen.
  • Buildings will also contribute significantly to this growth. Rising populations, urbanization, and higher living standards will increase building electricity consumption by 75% by 2060, excluding data centers.
  • Meanwhile, the global vehicle fleet is projected to be 84% electric by 2060. As more cars and commercial vehicles use electricity instead of gasoline or diesel, transport will become increasingly dependent on reliable power supplies.

Electricity generation must grow even faster than demand alone might suggest. DNV explains that a power system with a larger share of variable renewable energy also needs additional generation to support storage, system flexibility, and transmission losses.

As a result, the expansion of electricity supply will require investment not only in new power plants but also in the infrastructure needed to deliver electricity reliably.

renewable electricity demand
Source: DNV

Solar and Wind Will Dominate Global Power Generation

Solar and wind are expected to account for most of the growth in electricity generation through 2060.

DNV forecasts that solar power will supply 46% of global electricity by 2060, while wind will contribute 31%. Together, they will generate more than three-quarters of the world’s electricity.

The shift is expected to accelerate during the next decade. DNV projects that combined solar and wind generation will exceed output from all fossil-fuel power plants in 2033.

The forecast reflects the growing competitiveness of renewable energy and the increasing importance of energy security. Countries that depend on imported oil and gas are expanding domestic renewable power to reduce exposure to fuel price swings and supply disruptions.

GRID MIX RENEWABLE S
Source: DNV

Grid Investment Must Keep Pace

DNV reports that annual global spending on renewables increased from $860 billion in 2021 to $1.77 trillion in 2026. The report expects investment in renewable power, electricity grids and storage to triple by 2040.

However, adding renewable capacity is only part of the challenge. Solar and wind output changes with weather conditions and time of day, making grid flexibility and storage increasingly important.

Battery Storage Gains Momentum

Battery storage is expanding rapidly. DNV says installed utility-scale battery storage capacity increased 14-fold over the five years covered by its latest assessment, while twice as much utility battery storage was installed in 2026 as in 2025.

Even so, the report warns that transmission capacity and demand flexibility are not growing fast enough. Without faster infrastructure development, electricity networks could struggle to accommodate the growing volume of renewable power.

AI and Data Centers Add to Power Demand

The rapid expansion of AI is creating another source of electricity demand. Data centers need substantial amounts of power to operate servers, cooling systems, and computing equipment.

DNV estimates that global data centers consumed approximately 400 TWh of electricity in 2025, equivalent to 1.2% of global electricity supply.

The report forecasts that consumption will increase to:

  • 1,100 TWh in 2030.
  • 2,700 TWh in 2040.
  • 5,700 TWh in 2060.

By 2060, data centers will account for 6.8% of global electricity consumption, according to DNV.

AI Data center power demand
Source: DNV

The growth creates opportunities for renewable energy developers, battery storage providers and electricity infrastructure companies. Technology companies will also need reliable power supplies to support expanding computing operations.

However, DNV cautions that access to dependable electricity could become a constraint on data center development. Grid connections, cooling infrastructure, and the availability of firm power will influence how quickly new facilities can be built.

AI demand also remains uncertain. Improvements in computing efficiency could reduce electricity use per task, while greater AI adoption and more intensive computing could push consumption higher.

Fossil Fuels Will Decline, but Emissions Remain a Challenge

The shift toward renewable electricity will reduce the role of fossil fuels, but it will not eliminate them quickly.

DNV forecasts that fossil fuels will account for 51% of global primary energy supply in 2050, down from around 80% historically. Oil demand is expected to decline over the longer term, while natural gas demand is projected to peak around 2035. Coal demand will resume its decline in 2027 and fall by 82% to 2060.

The power sector will deliver substantial emissions reductions as renewable generation replaces fossil-fuel plants. DNV forecasts that energy-related CO₂ emissions will decline 44% from approximately 39 gigatonnes today to 22 gigatonnes in 2050.

  • By 2060, energy-related emissions are projected to fall 65% to 12 gigatonnes annually.
energy related emissions
Source: DNV

However, some industries will be harder to decarbonize. Cement manufacturing, for example, releases CO₂ through chemical reactions involved in production. Switching to renewable electricity cannot eliminate these process emissions on its own.

DNV expects process emissions to decline by only 14% by 2060, compared with a 65% reduction in energy-related emissions. Carbon capture and storage, alternative industrial processes and carbon dioxide removal could help address some of these remaining emissions.

The report forecasts that direct air capture will remove 0.4 gigatonnes of CO₂ annually by 2060, increasing to 3 gigatonnes by 2100. However, the technology must scale considerably to play this role.

Can the Energy Transition Meet Climate Goals?

  • DNV expects global net-zero emissions to be reached around 2098, with warming reaching 2.3°C by 2100. Its forecast suggests that the world will exceed the remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 2°C by approximately 420 gigatonnes of CO₂.

For investors, the outlook points to long-term opportunities in renewable generation, battery storage, transmission infrastructure, electrification and industrial decarbonization. It also highlights the need for carbon capture and removal technologies to address emissions that are difficult to eliminate.

Ultimately, generating 84,000 TWh of electricity will require a major expansion of the global power system. The challenge is ensuring that this growth comes with cleaner generation, stronger grids and faster emissions reductions.

The energy transition is gaining momentum, but DNV’s forecast shows that expanding clean electricity alone will not be enough to meet global climate targets.

TotalEnergies and KKR Add $1.2 Billion Solar Portfolio to U.S. Renewables Venture

Jennifer L
-
0
TotalEnergies and KKR Add $1.2 Billion Solar Portfolio to U.S. Renewables Venture

TotalEnergies and investment firm KKR are expanding their U.S. renewable energy partnership with a solar portfolio valued at $1.2 billion. The deal adds 700 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity to their joint venture, increasing its total renewable energy portfolio from 1.4 gigawatts (GW) to 2.1 GW.

Announced on October 12, 2026, the agreement covers three large solar projects in Texas and Ohio. The assets are expected to begin commercial operations by the first quarter of 2027. TotalEnergies will continue to operate them after the deal closes, which is expected in 2026, subject to customary conditions.

The agreement builds on a partnership formed in 2025. TotalEnergies’ strategy focuses on sharing renewable energy assets with financial investors. They still manage operations and sell the electricity produced.

For KKR, the deal adds more large-scale solar assets to its energy transition investments. For TotalEnergies, it provides another way to expand its electricity business while sharing the cost and financial risks of owning renewable projects.

A $1.2 Billion Deal Adds 700 MW of Solar Power

The new portfolio includes three utility-scale solar projects in Texas and Ohio. Utility-scale projects are large facilities that generate electricity for the power grid or major customers.

The portfolio has an enterprise value of $1.2 billion. Enterprise value measures the value of a business or asset portfolio, taking debt and cash into account. It should not be treated as the cash payment made by KKR alone.

The new assets will join the 50/50 joint venture that TotalEnergies and KKR established in 2025. Before this latest agreement, the venture held 1.4 GW of renewable energy capacity. The additional 700 MW will bring its total to 2.1 GW.

The electricity produced by the three projects is already sold to third parties or will be marketed by TotalEnergies. These arrangements can help connect the projects’ output with customers and provide a route to market for the electricity.

TotalEnergies will continue operating the assets after the transaction closes. The companies have not disclosed the full payment structure for the latest deal.

The projects are expected to reach commercial operation by the first quarter of 2027. This means the assets are moving toward the stage when they can supply electricity as planned, rather than simply being part of a future development pipeline.

Why TotalEnergies Is Sharing Ownership

The latest agreement comes after a deal from September 2025. At that time, TotalEnergies sold a 50% stake in a North American solar portfolio to KKR-managed investment vehicles and accounts.

That earlier portfolio had an enterprise value of $1.25 billion. It included six large solar projects with a combined capacity of 1.3 GW and 41 smaller distributed-generation assets totaling 140 MW.

TotalEnergies said the earlier transaction, together with planned refinancing, was expected to bring it about $950 million at closing. The company retained a 50% stake and continued operating the assets.

This approach is part of the company’s wider business model. TotalEnergies can develop renewable projects, bring in a financial partner, and sell part of its ownership once the assets reach operation and their risks are lower.

Selling a stake can release capital for other investments. Keeping ownership and operating roles lets the company stay connected to the assets and their electricity sales.

In its 2025 announcement, TotalEnergies said it aims for a 12% profitability target for its Integrated Power business. Its strategy includes selling up to 50% of renewable assets after they begin operating and their risks have been reduced.

The latest deal continues that approach. It gives KKR a larger share of U.S. renewable infrastructure while allowing TotalEnergies to remain involved in day-to-day operations.

U.S. Solar Capacity Set for a Major Expansion in 2026

The agreement comes as the United States prepares to add more electricity generation capacity, with solar power expected to account for a large share of new projects.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in February 2026 that developers aimed to add 86 GW of new utility-scale electricity capacity this year. Solar was expected to account for 51% of those planned additions, followed by battery storage at 28% and wind at 14%.

Solar power generation

The EIA projected 43.4 GW of new utility-scale solar capacity for 2026, which would be a 60% increase from 2025 if all planned projects were completed. Texas was expected to account for 40% of the planned solar additions. These are forecasts, not confirmed final installations.

The agency also expects electricity demand to keep growing. In its September 2026 outlook, the EIA forecast U.S. electricity sales of 4,135 billion kilowatt-hours in 2026 and 4,211 billion kilowatt-hours in 2027. It pointed to data center development and increased manufacturing activity as factors behind rising demand.

This creates an important market for new generation projects. Solar can supply electricity during daylight hours, while battery storage can help shift some power to later periods. However, the value of each project depends on local grid conditions, customer contracts, financing costs, and the timing of electricity supply.

The TotalEnergies-KKR portfolio boosts this growing market. However, the companies haven’t shared the expected yearly electricity output for the three projects.

TotalEnergies Builds Its Electricity Business

TotalEnergies is a global energy company with operations in oil, natural gas, biofuels, low-carbon hydrogen, renewable power, and electricity.

Its renewable energy portfolio has grown as the company seeks to build a larger electricity business alongside its traditional energy operations. By the end of June 2026, TotalEnergies reported more than 37 GW of gross renewable power generation capacity worldwide. It aims to produce more than 100 terawatt-hours (TWh) of net electricity annually by 2030.

TotalEnergies Renewable Power Deals by Year (GWh)

In the United States, the company reported about 10 GW of installed renewable power capacity at the end of 2025, including solar, wind, and battery storage. Around 5 GW of that portfolio was in Texas. It also operates flexible power generation assets that can help balance changes in renewable output.

The company’s strategy is not limited to building solar farms. It aims to mix renewable energy with flexible power and trading. This way, it can provide customers with power when and where they need it.

The KKR partnership supports this approach by allowing TotalEnergies to keep operating assets while sharing ownership with an investor. It also gives the company a way to manage the capital needed for its wider portfolio.

What the Deal Means for KKR and the Energy Market

KKR is a global investment firm that invests across areas including private equity, credit, infrastructure, and real assets. Its investment in the joint venture gives it exposure to large-scale renewable energy projects with existing or planned routes to sell electricity.

The latest agreement increases the venture’s portfolio to 2.1 GW, strengthening its position in the U.S. solar market. For investors like KKR, owning renewable assets offers a way to tap into long-term electricity demand. However, returns rely on costs, contracts, project performance, and market conditions.

For TotalEnergies, the deal helps balance growth with capital discipline. The company can retain operational responsibility without keeping full ownership of every asset it develops or acquires.

TotalEnergies and KKR Solar Partnership

The climate benefits will depend on how much electricity the solar projects deliver and which power sources that electricity replaces. Solar panels produce electricity without burning fossil fuels. However, their total lifecycle emissions come from manufacturing, construction, and transporting equipment.

The transaction itself does not guarantee a specific amount of emissions reduction. The companies have not announced a project-level emissions forecast for the three assets.

A Growing Partnership in U.S. Clean Power

The $1.2 billion portfolio deal marks another step in the expansion of the TotalEnergies-KKR joint venture. Adding 700 MW will lift its renewable capacity to 2.1 GW, with the three solar projects expected to reach commercial operation by early 2027.

The agreement also shows how energy companies and financial investors can work together to fund large renewable assets. TotalEnergies retains an operating role and can market electricity, while KKR shares ownership and investment exposure.

As U.S. electricity demand grows and more solar capacity enters the market, such partnerships could remain an important way to finance renewable power. Their long-term success will depend on project delivery, reliable electricity sales, and returns that justify the capital invested.

Silver Supply Is Struggling to Keep Up: What It Means for Sierra Madre

Jennifer L
-
0
Silver Supply Is Struggling to Keep Up: What It Means for Sierra Madre

Disseminated on behalf of Sierra Madre Gold & Silver Ltd.

Silver has posted five consecutive annual market deficits, but the bigger challenge may be how slowly mine supply can respond. With most silver produced as a byproduct of other metals, new primary production is difficult to bring online quickly. Sierra Madre Gold & Silver is taking a different route, expanding an existing Mexican operation while advancing another past-producing mine.

Silver’s supply problem is becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

Global mine production rose 3% to 846.6 million ounces in 2025, according to the World Silver Survey 2026. Recycling added another 197.6 million ounces, lifting total supply by 7%. Yet, total demand still reached 1.13 billion ounces, leaving the market with a 40.3-million-ounce deficit.

silver global supply

It was the fifth consecutive annual deficit. The Silver Institute and Metals Focus expect mine production to remain broadly flat in 2026, with the structural deficit widening to 46.3 million ounces.

The numbers point to a problem that cannot be solved simply by higher prices.

Silver production is unusually dependent on other metals. Roughly three-quarters of mine supply comes from byproduct production, meaning silver is recovered from mines primarily targeting copper, lead, zinc, or gold.

That limits how quickly the industry can respond when silver demand exceeds mine output.

For Sierra Madre, this creates a relevant backdrop. Rather than relying on a completely new mine to add future ounces, the company is expanding La Guitarra, an established Mexican operation, while advancing Del Toro, a past-producing silver complex.

The strategy highlights one potential part of the supply response: getting more production from assets that already have mining and processing infrastructure.

Silver Prices Can Rise Faster Than Mine Supply

The supply constraint is not simply a question of whether silver is valuable enough to mine. The industry needs time to translate higher prices into additional production.

The Silver Institute reported that the average silver price increased 42% in 2025, while mine production grew only 3%. Much of that mine-supply increase came from higher byproduct output from copper operations in Peru and the ramp-up of Polymetal JSC’s Prognoz mine in Russia. 

Silver Supply and Demand

That relationship is important. A higher silver price can improve the economics of primary silver projects, but it does not automatically cause copper, lead, or zinc mines to increase production. Their output decisions are driven primarily by the economics of their main metals.

New primary silver mines face another hurdle: development timelines.

Exploration must lead to a resource, followed by engineering, permitting, financing, construction, and commissioning. Even after construction, a mine needs sufficient grades and throughput to sustain commercial production.

That makes existing operations and past-producing assets relevant to the near-term supply picture. Sierra Madre’s La Guitarra complex is an example of that model.

La Guitarra Shows the Brownfield Approach

The company restarted commercial production at La Guitarra in January 2025, using an existing 500-tonnes-per-day mill. The property is fully permitted and includes underground mining operations in Mexico’s historic Silver Belt.

The company is now increasing capacity rather than building an entirely new processing operation. Its first expansion phase targets 750–800 tpd, while the second phase targets 1,200–1,500 tpd by Q3 2027.

Sierra Madre Project Timeline

The expansion is already moving beyond the original configuration.

Sierra Madre reported in August that modifications to the existing mill and larger-capacity pumps had lifted daily throughput to as much as 672 tpd, a 34% increase over the previous 500-tpd level.

The company subsequently announced on September 28 that the plant had achieved throughput of up to 720 tpd on a steady basis as development at the Guitarra and Nazareno mines accelerated.

Those figures represent progress at an existing mine rather than supply from a newly constructed greenfield operation.

Greg Liller, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Chairman, commented, 

“We continue to advance our Phase 1 and Phase 2 expansions at Guitarra. With the new ball mill now installed, Sierra Madre has also accelerated underground development. We have started groundworks for the permitted dry stack tailings facility expansion, a key component of our Phase 2 plan to increase throughputs to 1,200 tpd to 1,500 tpd. We look forward to updating the market as we advance towards Phase 2 expansion.”

More Mill Capacity Requires More Mine Development

Expanding a processing plant is only one part of increasing silver supply. The mine must also deliver enough ore to keep that capacity utilized.

Sierra Madre is therefore advancing underground development alongside the mill expansion. Its recent work has focused on the Guitarra and Nazareno mines, with the company also developing the Coloso area.

The operating strategy is effectively being built from both ends: increase processing capacity while developing the underground workings needed to supply it. That distinction is important when assessing potential new supply.

A larger mill does not automatically mean proportionally more silver production. Actual output depends on ore availability, grades, recoveries, throughput, and operating performance.

For Sierra Madre, the objective is to turn existing infrastructure and underground resources into a larger operating base over time.

Del Toro Provides a Second Existing Asset

Sierra Madre is pursuing the same broad development philosophy with its second Mexican silver asset.

The company completed its acquisition of the Del Toro Silver Mine in Zacatecas on June 22, 2026, acquiring 100% of the operation from First Majestic Silver for consideration of up to US$60 million.

Del Toro is a past-producing underground silver-lead-zinc complex that First Majestic operated from 2013 to 2019. The property contains three underground mines, more than 62.5 kilometers of existing underground development and a 3,000-tpd processing facility. 

Sierra Madre also describes Del Toro as fully permitted, with access to power, water, roads, and an experienced local workforce. Those existing assets do not make a restart automatic.

Del Toro is currently on care and maintenance, and Sierra Madre still needs to complete additional exploration, resource work, mine planning, and restart activities before production can resume. But the starting point is different from a greenfield project.

The company is working with an established mining complex rather than developing an entirely new operation and processing plant.

Historical Production Gives Del Toro a Starting Point

Del Toro also has an operating history that provides context for its potential. First Majestic operated the complex between 2013 and 2019. Sierra Madre’s acquisition materials cite historical production averaging approximately 2.54 million silver-equivalent ounces per year between 2015 and 2018.

Sierra Madre’s initial plan is to restart Del Toro at approximately 800 tpd, with potential to increase throughput to 1,600 tpd. The company has targeted the start of the restart process for mid-2027, with production currently slated for mid-2028. These are company targets and remain subject to the work required to restart the operation.

Sierra Madre’s approach also includes additional exploration and resource modelling. Del Toro has an exploration database containing 631 drill holes totaling more than 137,000 metres, according to the company.

That existing geological information could help guide future work, although any new resource estimate will need to be established through additional technical work.

Why the Supply Structure Matters

The persistent deficit makes this distinction increasingly relevant.

The 2025 market was short 40.3 million ounces even after recycling contributed nearly 198 million ounces of supply. The Silver Institute expects mine production to remain broadly flat in 2026, with the deficit potentially reaching 46.3 million ounces.

silver global supply forecast

At the same time, the industry’s dependence on byproduct production means that higher silver prices cannot necessarily produce an immediate wave of new mine supply. That leaves several potential sources of additional ounces:

  • Expansion of existing producing mines
  • Restart of past-producing operations
  • Development of advanced projects
  • New greenfield discoveries
  • Higher recycling

Each has different timelines and risks.

For the near term, established assets can potentially move through the development cycle faster than completely new discoveries because some of the required infrastructure and permitting framework may already exist.

La Guitarra and Del Toro fit into that category.

Sierra Madre Is Building Supply From Existing Assets

Sierra Madre is not large enough to change the global silver balance on its own. The significance of its strategy is different.

La Guitarra demonstrates how an existing mine can be restarted and expanded. Its processing capacity has moved from a historical 500 tpd configuration toward a planned 1,200–1,500 tpd operation, with throughput already reaching 720 tpd.

Del Toro provides another established asset, with three underground mines, more than 62.5 kilometers of development and a 3,000-tpd processing facility.

The broader silver market needs many such projects to advance if mine supply is to close the gap with demand. That is the central supply challenge.

Silver can move quickly in financial markets, but physical production moves much more slowly.

For Sierra Madre, the next stage is therefore about converting existing infrastructure into sustained additional output. For the wider market, the question is whether enough expansions, restarts and new projects can arrive quickly enough to narrow a deficit that has persisted for five consecutive years.

DISCLAIMER

New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Sierra Madre Gold and Silver Ltd. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $25,000 to provide marketing services for a term of one month. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.

This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.

Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.

It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.

These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.

Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.

There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2025, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.

For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: None.

Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.

Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.

UN Tightens Cookstove Carbon Credits With New Forest-Loss Reserve

Jennifer L
-
0
UN Tightens Cookstove Carbon Credits With New Forest-Loss Reserve

The United Nations has introduced a new safeguard for clean cooking carbon credits. Projects under its Paris Agreement carbon market must now set aside some credits to cover the risk of forest carbon losses. Approved by the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body in October 2026, the rules apply to projects that help households burn less firewood or charcoal, or switch to cleaner cooking fuels.

Under the system, developers must place a share of their credits in a reserve pool instead of selling them all. The reserve covers the risk that trees saved through lower fuelwood use could later be lost to wildfires, drought, logging, or land clearing.

The change comes as clean cooking gains attention as a climate solution and a source of carbon market funding. However, cookstove credits have faced questions about how projects calculate emissions reductions and prove their climate benefits.

The new rules address the risk of losing forest-related benefits over time. They could also reduce the number of credits available for sale and affect project revenues. Mkhuthazi Steleki, Chair of the Supervisory Body, remarked:

“This decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction. We have a clear mandate from Parties to build a high-integrity mechanism that supports the goals of the Paris Agreement. These methodologies put that mandate into practice, combining pathways for cleaner cooking projects with robust safeguards that support confidence in the mechanism.”

Two UN Methodologies Set New Rules for Clean Cooking

The UN approved two methodologies under Article 6.4, the Paris Agreement mechanism (PACM), for generating and trading carbon credits.

  • The first covers more efficient wood- and charcoal-burning cookstoves. These stoves use less fuel to prepare the same amount of food, potentially reducing emissions and pressure on forests.
  • The second covers projects that help households move to lower-emissions cooking options, including electricity and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

Both methodologies provide rules for measuring emissions reductions and calculating eligible credits. They also establish requirements for monitoring projects and assessing risks.

The methodologies matter because carbon credits can help finance the upfront costs of distributing cleaner cooking equipment. Revenue from credit sales can help expand projects. This is especially important in communities where families struggle to afford new stoves or fuels.

However, credits must represent genuine emissions reductions. If a project overestimates its benefits, it could issue more credits than its activities justify.

Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism PACM

Why Cookstove Projects Need a Credit Reserve

The new reserve addresses the possibility that some climate benefits may not last. Using less firewood can reduce pressure on nearby forests. But the resulting forest benefits may be reversed if trees are later destroyed or cleared.

Under the UN rules, projects must contribute a portion of their credits to a common buffer pool. The pool acts as a safeguard against potential losses rather than allowing developers to sell every credit they generate.

The rules distinguish between natural and human-caused risks. Natural risks include events such as wildfires and drought. Human-caused risks include logging and land clearing.

The system uses scientific modelling to assess natural risks. It sets a default risk value for human-caused forest loss. Countries can reduce this value if they meet certain policy requirements.

The reserve does not mean every cookstove credit is expected to fail. Instead, it creates a financial and environmental safeguard against potential losses across projects.

However, the requirement could affect project economics. Developers may have fewer credits to sell, which could reduce revenue unless stronger credit integrity supports higher prices or attracts more buyers.

How Many Credits Must Projects Set Aside?

The reserve requirement varies according to risk and the conditions a project meets. For human-caused forest-loss risks, the rules establish a default reserve rate of 20%.

Countries can get reductions of up to two-thirds. To qualify, they need a forest emissions-reduction plan, a long-term climate strategy, and a REDD+ framework. REDD+ refers to efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, alongside forest conservation and sustainable management.

A UN source told Climate Home News that improved cookstove projects might need a reserve of at least 9%. This is the case if all policy discounts are applied and risks are low. Projects in higher-risk areas or countries without the required frameworks could face larger deductions.

  • Consider a project that generates 100,000 credits. If its reserve requirement is 9%, it would set aside 9,000 credits and have 91,000 available for sale.

example of new UN PACM rule for cookstove carbon credits

At an illustrative price of $10 per credit, the 9,000 reserved credits would represent $90,000 in potential gross sales revenue. This is an example, not a reported market price, and excludes project costs. The actual financial impact will depend on each project’s reserve rate, credit volume, sale price, and operating costs.

Clean Cooking Has a Large Global Climate Impact

The rules target a major global energy and public-health challenge. The UNFCCC estimates that around 2.1 billion people still cook over open fires or use inefficient stoves and polluting fuels. These practices contribute to household air pollution, fuel consumption, and pressure on forests.

The World Health Organization estimated that household air pollution led to around 2.9 million deaths in 2021. This included over 309,000 deaths of children under five.

Cleaner cooking can help reduce these risks. More efficient stoves use less fuel. Electric cooking lowers household emissions if powered by low-carbon electricity.

The climate benefits depend on the technology, fuel mix, local conditions, and how projects calculate emissions reductions. Switching fuels won’t automatically cut emissions. Developers need to consider the emissions from alternative energy sources.

Carbon finance can help expand access to cleaner cooking equipment, especially where household budgets and infrastructure limit adoption. Projects need reliable monitoring. This shows that the equipment is used correctly and achieves the promised reductions.

UN new rules for cookstove carbon credits

Cookstove Credit Controversy Puts Integrity Under the Spotlight

The new rules arrive amid wider debate about the quality of cookstove credits. In February 2026, the UN issued its first credits under Article 6.4 for a clean-cooking project in Myanmar. The project distributes efficient cookstoves intended to reduce firewood use, household air pollution, and pressure on forests.

The issuance marked an important step for the new UN carbon market, but it also drew scrutiny from civil society groups. In October 2026, 130 civil society organizations urged a pause on issuing, transferring, and using credits from the Myanmar project. They want this action until an investigation is complete.

Their concerns are about:

  • The accuracy of emissions-reduction calculations,
  • Independent verification,
  • Human rights, and
  • Community safeguards.

Campaigners also cited earlier analyses that estimated the project overstated emissions reductions under previous carbon crediting rules. Some estimates showed over-crediting of about 14 times under the Clean Development Mechanism.

Under Article 6.4, the over-crediting was about seven times. These are estimates cited by campaigners, not established findings that should be treated as settled conclusions.

The controversy highlights a central challenge for carbon markets: credits must reflect reductions that can be measured and independently verified. Stricter rules on forest loss address one problem, but they don’t solve all issues. Concerns about project design, monitoring, and community effects remain.

What the New Rules Mean for Carbon Markets

The reserve adds a safeguard to the UN carbon market but may reduce project revenue by limiting the credits available for sale.

Buyers gain a clearer framework for managing forest-loss risks, while developers with lower reserve requirements can sell more credits. Countries may also be encouraged to strengthen forest protection policies to qualify for lower deductions.

However, the reserve does not resolve all concerns about over-crediting, monitoring, or community safeguards. Its effectiveness will depend on consistent enforcement, transparent reporting, and updated risk assessments.

The challenge is to strengthen carbon-credit integrity while keeping clean-cooking projects financially viable, particularly in lower-income communities that rely on carbon finance.

Tesla (TSLA Stock) Turns to Arizona Desert Sun for Its Next Big Clean Energy Project

Jennifer L
-
0
Tesla (TSLA Stock) Turns to Arizona Desert Sun for Its Next Big Clean Energy Project

Tesla is turning to the Arizona desert for a major new source of clean electricity. The project shows how the company is expanding beyond electric vehicles and growing its energy business. The project, called Sterling, is being built in Mohave County, Arizona. It will combine a large solar farm with a battery storage system. Energy company ContourGlobal is developing the facility, while Tesla has agreed to buy most of its expected electricity output.

The project will include 509 megawatts-peak (MWp) of solar capacity and a 360-megawatt battery system. It is expected to produce more than 1.1 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity each year when fully operational. Construction is underway, with completion planned for 2028.

Tesla has signed a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) covering about 90% of the project’s expected electricity output. This deal gives Tesla access to a large supply of solar power without requiring it to own and operate the facility.

The project also shows why batteries are becoming important to the clean energy market. Solar panels produce electricity when the sun shines, while batteries store some of that power for use later in the day.

Inside Tesla’s New Arizona Solar Project

Project Sterling will cover more than 2,000 acres in the Mojave Desert, about 20 miles north of Lake Havasu City. It will include more than 760,000 solar panels and over 300 battery storage containers. The project has several key features:

  • Solar capacity: 509 MWp, equal to 450 megawatts of alternating-current output.
  • Battery power: 360 megawatts, with a total storage capacity of 1.4 gigawatt-hours (GWh).
  • Annual electricity: More than 1.1 TWh expected.
  • Construction jobs: An average of about 400 jobs during construction.
  • Target completion: 2028.

ContourGlobal will build, own, and operate the facility. Tesla will buy most of the electricity under its long-term agreement. According to ContourGlobal, the combined solar and battery system is designed to provide electricity for up to 16 hours a day. Actual supply will depend on sunlight, battery charging, operating conditions, and the terms of the power agreement.

Antonio Cammisecra, President & CEO of ContourGlobal,

“Arizona’s sun has been shining on this land for billions of years. Project Sterling will put it to work by turning sunlight into electricity and storing part of that energy for delivery after sunset. Today’s ceremony marks the visible beginning of our partnership with Mohave County, the State of Arizona, and our customer, Tesla. We are thrilled to celebrate this milestone with them and with the people who will now build this plant safely, with respect for the local community and the land of the Mojave Desert.”

The project will use lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries. This type of battery is widely used in large energy storage systems. The facility will also have liquid cooling and built-in fire protection.

ContourGlobal says Sterling is its largest renewable energy project worldwide and its largest power purchase agreement to date. A group of international banks is supporting the project’s financing through an equity bridge loan, a type of temporary financing used during project development and construction.

Why Tesla Needs Solar Power and Batteries 

Solar power has one major limit: it depends on sunlight. Panels produce electricity during the day, but output falls in the evening and can change with the weather.

Batteries help solve this problem. They store electricity when solar production is high and release it later when demand rises or sunlight fades. This makes solar power more useful for businesses that need electricity at different times of day. It can also help reduce exposure to changing electricity prices. However, the savings depend on market conditions and the terms of each power contract.

For Tesla, Project Sterling offers a long-term source of contracted clean electricity. The deal also shows how companies can support new renewable energy projects by agreeing to buy their power.

However, Tesla will not own the Sterling facility. ContourGlobal is responsible for building and running it, while Tesla is the main buyer under the power agreement.

The deal also does not mean all the electricity Tesla uses will come from renewable sources. The project’s wider impact will depend on how much power it delivers, when that power is used, and how Tesla accounts for its energy use.

Tesla arizona solar project sterling

Arizona’s Solar Boom Meets the Battery Storage Surge

Arizona is well suited to solar power because it receives abundant sunshine. The state already has a large solar industry, and projects that combine solar panels with batteries could help expand its role in the US energy market.

The Solar Energy Industries Association’s March 2026 state profile ranked Arizona third in residential solar capacity and fifth in utility-scale solar capacity. The state had nearly 9,800 solar jobs and attracted about $2.9 billion in solar investment during 2025, according to the association.

Large projects such as Sterling could add more renewable electricity to the region. Batteries may also help supply power when solar output drops, making it easier to use renewable energy at different times of day.

Energy storage is growing across the United States, too. The SEIA and Benchmark Mineral Intelligence reported that the country installed 9.7 GWh of energy storage in the first quarter of 2026, up 32% from the same period a year earlier.

US installed 9.7GWh of new BESS in Q1 2026, SEIA reports

The groups also forecast more than 610 GWh of total installed storage capacity by 2030. These figures cover the wider US market, not just Tesla projects. Still, they show how batteries are becoming a bigger part of the country’s energy system.

Beyond EVs: Tesla Builds Its Energy Business

Tesla is known mainly for electric vehicles, but energy storage is another important part of its business. Its products include Megapack, a large battery system for utilities and businesses, and Powerwall, which helps homes and smaller businesses store electricity.

tesla tsla ev delivery
Source: Tesla

These products can help customers save power for later use, manage their electricity needs, and support the wider power grid. Tesla reported deploying 13.7 GWh of energy storage products in the third quarter of 2026. It also delivered 486,532 vehicles during the quarter. The company had scheduled the release of its full third-quarter financial results for October 21.

Tesla Energy Storage Deployment, Quarterly 2022-2026

Project Sterling is separate from those reported deployments because the facility is still being built. Once completed, it will add another large solar-and-battery project to the market in which Tesla operates.

The deal also shows that Tesla can expand its energy business by working with other companies. ContourGlobal will finance and run the facility, while Tesla will buy most of its electricity.

The project’s financial results will depend on the final cost, the amount of electricity delivered, and how well the facility performs. The companies have not disclosed the price Tesla will pay for the power.

Tesla Stock Shows Recent Gains Despite Volatility

Tesla (TSLA) stock gained 2.05% on October 9, closing at $382.70, after rising from $375 on October 8. Despite the recent rebound, shares remain volatile as investors assess Tesla’s vehicle sales, autonomous-driving plans, and growth prospects.

Tesla TSLA stock

How the Project Could Help Cut Emissions

Solar panels generate electricity without directly burning fossil fuels. Batteries can store that electricity and release it later, which may reduce the need for power from coal or natural gas plants. However, the project’s total climate benefit will depend on which power sources its electricity replaces. Manufacturing solar panels and batteries, building the facility, and producing battery materials also create emissions.

The battery system is important because it allows some solar power to be used after the sun goes down. But batteries do not generate new electricity. They store power produced elsewhere, and some energy is lost when batteries charge and discharge.

The project’s actual emissions savings will therefore depend on how it operates and the wider electricity supply in the region. For Tesla, the agreement provides access to a large amount of contracted clean electricity. For Arizona, the project adds new solar and storage capacity and is expected to support hundreds of construction jobs.

A Bigger Role for Clean Energy

Project Sterling shows how solar power and battery storage can work together to supply electricity at different times of day. Its large capacity, long-term agreement with Tesla, and planned 2028 completion make it an important addition to Arizona’s clean energy pipeline.

For Tesla, the deal offers access to renewable electricity without the need to own the facility. For ContourGlobal, the agreement provides a major customer for its new solar-and-storage investment.

The project’s final climate and financial benefits will depend on how much electricity it delivers, how well the system operates, and which power sources it replaces. Still, projects that combine solar panels with large batteries are playing a growing role in the shift toward cleaner electricity.

LEGO’s New Brick-by-Brick Climate Move: E-Methanol Replaces Fossil-Based Plastic

Jennifer L
-
0
LEGO’s New Brick-by-Brick Climate Move: E-Methanol Replaces Fossil-Based Plastic

LEGO is turning to a renewable chemical to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The toy maker has started using e-methanol to help produce more than 90 types of plastic elements, including connectors, steering wheels, cross axles, and the hands of its famous minifigures.

The move marks a new step in LEGO’s effort to use more renewable and recycled materials. The company says the change follows more than five years of testing and work with suppliers to bring e-methanol into its manufacturing process.

The material offers an alternative to fossil-based ingredients used to make plastic. However, LEGO is not replacing all conventional plastic at once. The new material enters a shared production process where renewable and fossil-based sources are mixed.

The move comes as companies look for ways to cut emissions from materials that are difficult to replace. It also supports LEGO’s wider climate goals: cutting its total greenhouse gas emissions by 37% by 2032, compared with 2019, and reaching net zero by 2050.

LEGO Starts Using E-Methanol in More Than 90 Elements

LEGO’s new material is being used in more than 90 rigid and durable elements. These include small parts that connect pieces, steering wheels, cross axles, and minifigure hands.

These parts may be small, but making them requires plastic materials that meet strict safety and quality standards. LEGO products are made for repeated use. So, any new material needs to have the strength and durability LEGO demands.

The company noted in its release:

“This marks the latest step on our journey to increase the recycled and renewable materials we purchase to make Lego products, without compromising on safety, quality or durability.”

E-methanol gives LEGO another way to reduce its use of virgin fossil-based materials. Virgin fossil materials are made from newly extracted oil or gas rather than recycled or renewable sources. The company has not disclosed how many tonnes of e-methanol it will use, the share of each product made from it, or the expected emissions savings from this first rollout.

That makes the announcement an important manufacturing step, but not yet proof of a specific reduction in LEGO’s total emissions. The wider impact will depend on how quickly the company can increase its use of the material and how much fossil-based input it replaces.

From Renewable Power to Plastic: How E-Methanol Works

E-methanol is a form of methanol made using renewable electricity and captured carbon dioxide (CO₂). Methanol is a chemical used to make many products, including plastics and industrial materials.

The process begins with renewable electricity, which powers equipment that splits water to produce hydrogen. That hydrogen is then combined with captured CO₂ to make methanol.

LEGO’s e-methanol comes from the Kassø facility in southern Denmark. Developed by European Energy and operated with Japanese trading company Mitsui & Co., the plant began commercial production in 2025. The facility has an annual production capacity of 42,000 tonnes and runs on renewable energy. It uses CO₂ from a biogas facility as a key input.

The methanol can then be used to make plastic materials, replacing some of the fossil-based raw materials normally used in production. However, e-methanol is not the same as recycled plastic. It provides an alternative chemical feedstock, while recycling uses existing materials again. Both approaches can help reduce reliance on newly extracted fossil resources.

The climate benefits also depend on how the material is produced. Renewable electricity, the source of captured carbon, manufacturing emissions, and the amount of fossil-based material displaced all affect the final result.

LEGO e-methanol

A Shared Production System Helps Scale the Material

One challenge for LEGO is introducing new materials without disrupting its existing factories and supply chains. The company says its e-methanol enters a continuous production process where conventional fossil-based material is also present. This approach allows suppliers to increase the use of renewable inputs within existing production systems.

LEGO uses a method known as mass balance for some recycled and renewable materials. Under this system, suppliers mix certified renewable or recycled sources with conventional fossil-based inputs. They track the amounts entering and leaving the production system.

LEGO ghg emissions mass balanced
Source: LEGO

The approach can help companies increase the use of alternative raw materials without building an entirely separate manufacturing system.

However, it has an important limitation. LEGO cannot guarantee that each part has a specific minimum percentage of renewable or recycled material because the inputs are mixed. Instead, the company tracks the sources and quantities across the supply chain.

This distinction matters when assessing environmental claims. Using renewable feedstocks can reduce the need for fossil resources, but the exact benefit depends on the amount used and the accounting method.

LEGO says the e-methanol rollout is part of its wider effort to increase renewable and recycled materials without compromising product safety, quality, or durability. The toymaker is also using sustainable packaging materials and processes.

LEGO more sustainable materials
Source: LEGO

LEGO’s Material Shift Supports Its Climate Targets

LEGO has set a science-based target to cut its total greenhouse gas emissions by 37% by 2032, compared with a 2019 baseline. It also aims to reach net zero by 2050. The targets cover emissions from its operations and wider value chain, including suppliers.

The latest figures show why further action is needed. LEGO reported 2.19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e) in total greenhouse gas emissions in 2025. This is a small increase of 0.2% from 2024, based on its market-based reporting method. Most of these emissions came from its wider value chain, classified as Scope 3.

Scope 3 emissions include indirect emissions from activities such as producing purchased materials and transporting goods. These emissions can be harder to reduce because they occur outside a company’s direct control.

LEGO is working with suppliers to lower the impact of the materials it buys. It is also expanding renewable energy use at its factories and improving energy efficiency.

The company reported that 52% of the materials it purchased to make LEGO bricks and elements in 2025 came from recycled and renewable sources. These materials were used in more than 200 different elements, and around half of LEGO sets contained at least one such element. The figure relies largely on the mass-balance approach.

LEGO aims to keep raising that share by 2032, when the company celebrates its 100th anniversary. The e-methanol initiative adds another option alongside other renewable and recycled materials.

LEGO greenhouse gas emissions
Source: LEGO

E-Methanol Faces a Cost Gap as Global Methanol Output Tops 100 Million Tonnes

LEGO’s move reflects a wider effort to replace fossil-based chemicals with lower-carbon alternatives, but renewable methanol remains a small part of the overall market.

European Energy says more than 100 million tonnes of methanol are produced worldwide each year, mainly using natural gas and coal. The Kassø plant can produce 42,000 tonnes a year. This shows how limited current commercial e-methanol production is compared to traditional supply.

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the Methanol Institute have identified renewable methanol as a potential tool for cutting emissions in chemicals and transport. Their 2021 outlook said production costs were high and output was low. However, costs might decrease as technology and supply chains improve.

Current and future production costs of bio- and e-methanol
Source: IRENA

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has also warned that renewable fuel growth remains too slow to meet a net-zero pathway. The 2024 outlook predicts that e-fuel use must increase over ten times by 2030. This is necessary to meet the IEA’s Net Zero by 2050 Scenario. This applies to e-fuels broadly, not only e-methanol for plastics.

High production costs, the need for large amounts of renewable electricity, and limited supply remain major barriers. Companies also need clear ways to verify the source of materials and measure emissions savings.

For LEGO, the supply agreement offers access to a commercial source of e-methanol. Demand from manufacturers can boost investment in production capacity. However, the impact will depend on future contracts and prices.

Can Renewable Feedstocks Deliver Measurable Emissions Cuts?

LEGO’s e-methanol rollout will not immediately transform the materials used across its entire product range. The company has not yet announced the volume it will use or the emissions savings expected from the new material.

Still, the initiative shows how manufacturers can begin replacing fossil-based raw materials without redesigning every product or factory at once. The approach may also help suppliers gain experience with renewable feedstocks and improve production systems.

As LEGO works toward its 2032 emissions target and 2050 net-zero goal, e-methanol adds another tool to its materials strategy. Its long-term value will depend on scaling supply, reducing production costs, and proving that renewable inputs deliver measurable emissions cuts.

South Korea Unveils $747 Billion Green Plan to Decarbonize Industry

Jennifer L
-
0
South Korea Unveils $747 Billion Green Plan to Decarbonize Industry

South Korea has unveiled a 1,000 trillion won ($747 billion) green investment plan to cut emissions, expand clean energy, and help its industries compete in a lower-carbon economy.

The Korean Green Transformation Strategy, known as K-GX, will run from 2026 to 2035. Announced on October 7, 2026, it aims to support cleaner manufacturing, renewable energy, electric vehicles, and new climate technologies.

The government plans to mobilize 1,000 trillion won through public funding and policy-backed climate finance. It also expects a further 220 trillion won in private-sector investment for selected green projects. These are investment targets, not funds already spent.

South Korea’s Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment said:

“This framework guarantees that South Korea will firmly adhere to its global carbon neutrality milestones while actively building domestic green jobs and securing the next generation of energy self-reliance.”

How South Korea Will Fund the Plan

South Korea wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 53% to 61% from 2018 levels by 2035 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050. The new plan is designed to support those goals while protecting the country’s manufacturing and export industries.

The government plans to combine public spending with loans, guarantees, and private investment. Its financing plan includes around 200 trillion won from government budgets and more than 790 trillion won in policy-backed climate finance. This financing aims to support clean energy infrastructure, industrial upgrades, and research into low-carbon technologies.

The government also wants private companies to invest another 220 trillion won in designated projects. Tax incentives, easier access to financing, and public-private partnerships are expected to help attract that money.

The goal is to help companies manage the high cost of changing how they make products. Many factories rely on fossil fuels, and replacing their equipment can take years and require major investment. However, the plan’s success will depend on how much funding reaches actual projects and whether those projects deliver measurable emissions cuts.

Five Industries Face Pressure to Cut Emissions

K-GX focuses on five major industrial groups:

  • steel,
  • petrochemicals,
  • cement,
  • semiconductors and displays, and
  • oil refining.

These industries support South Korea’s economy but can produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. Some also need very high temperatures or specialized industrial gases that are difficult to replace. The government plans to support cleaner production methods across these sectors.

In steelmaking, it aims to demonstrate hydrogen-based iron production at a scale of 30,000 tonnes by 2030. This technology uses hydrogen instead of coal to remove oxygen from iron ore.

Petrochemical and refining companies are expected to explore cleaner fuels, feedstocks, and electric equipment. Cement makers will focus on lower-carbon methods. At the same time, semiconductor and display manufacturers will find ways to cut emissions from industrial gases.

These changes could help South Korean manufacturers supply customers seeking lower-carbon products. But companies will need affordable clean electricity, reliable technology, and suitable infrastructure to make the transition.

South Korea Targets 100 GW of Renewable Power by 2030

South Korea aims to expand its renewable energy capacity to 100 gigawatts by 2030. Solar and wind power are expected to play major roles.

The government plans to upgrade the electricity grid. This will help it carry more renewable power from generation sites to factories and cities.

This is important because building solar and wind farms alone will not be enough. The country also needs transmission lines and other equipment to deliver that electricity where it is needed.

More renewable power could help manufacturers reduce emissions from their electricity use. It could also create opportunities for solar panel makers, wind developers, battery companies, and grid equipment suppliers. Still, meeting the target will depend on construction, permits, financing, and the speed of grid upgrades.

South Korea decarbonization

EVs and Hydrogen Vehicles to Gain Ground

South Korea wants electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles to account for more than 70% of new vehicle sales by 2035. The plan includes support for charging stations and cleaner transport. It also covers buses, rail, construction equipment, ports and ships.

The shift could support South Korean companies that make electric vehicles, batteries and charging equipment. It may also increase demand for better battery technology and related infrastructure.

The government has identified 10 priority green industries for support. These include electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels, wind power, small modular nuclear reactors, power equipment, power semiconductors, heat pumps, hydrogen and carbon capture.

It plans to support research and demonstration projects to help these technologies reach the market. However, growth will depend on costs, customer demand, and competition from other countries.

Can South Korea Cut Emissions Without Losing Industrial Ground?

South Korea’s climate targets require changes across its energy and manufacturing sectors. As a top ten global energy consumer reliant on coal for 33% of its power, the nation faces a steep climb to modernize its massive steel, semiconductor, and petrochemical industries.

Through new transition finance frameworks and stricter ESG reporting, the government aims to channel this capital into renewable energy, hydrogen tech, and low-carbon manufacturing. The ultimate goal is to help corporate giants slash emissions to hit South Korea’s aggressive climate targets: a 40% reduction by 2030 and full carbon neutrality by 2050.

2050 CARBON NEUTRAL STRATEGY South Korea
Source: UNFCCC
The transition will not be simple. Heavy industry depends on equipment that can operate for decades, and replacing it can be expensive. Companies will also need steady supplies of low-carbon energy. The K-GX strategy is intended to help meet those targets while supporting economic growth. 

The plan includes support for workers and regions affected by the shift away from high-emission industries. It also calls for stronger protection against climate risks for industrial sites and sectors such as shipbuilding and logistics.

These measures aim to make the transition easier for businesses and communities while encouraging companies to adopt cleaner technologies.

What the Plan Means for Green Investment

The strategy could create new demand for renewable power, grid upgrades, batteries, and low-carbon industrial equipment.

South Korea has also highlighted projects involving Hanwha Qcells, POSCO Holdings, LG Electronics, and Samsung Electronics. These companies presented projects linked to renewable energy, cleaner industry, and greener buildings at the strategy’s launch.

For investors, the $747 billion headline figure needs context. It represents planned financing to be mobilized over a decade, not a single government payment or guaranteed return.

Actual investment will depend on project approvals, company spending, and the ability of new technologies to compete on cost. Renewable energy growth needs better grid systems. Industrial upgrades must cut emissions effectively.

A Decade-Long Shift Toward a Lower-Carbon Economy

South Korea’s K-GX strategy sets out a 10-year plan to change how the country produces energy, manufactures goods, and moves people and products.

Its main goals are to:

  • Mobilize 1,000 trillion won in financing.
  • Attract 220 trillion won for private projects.
  • Reach 100 GW of renewable energy by 2030.
  • Make electric and hydrogen vehicles over 70% of new sales by 2035.

The plan supports South Korea’s wider target of cutting emissions by 53% to 61% from 2018 levels by 2035 and reaching carbon neutrality by 2050.

Whether it achieves these goals will depend on how quickly funding reaches projects, how much clean energy becomes available, and whether industries can adopt lower-carbon technologies at scale.

1...678...310Page 7 of 310