On March 14, 2025, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the end of Canada’s federal consumer carbon tax, effective April 1. This move marks a major shift in the country’s climate strategy. While the government insists it’s still committed to cutting emissions, the big question remains—how will Canada meet its climate goals without a direct tax on consumers?

Let’s take a closer look at Canada’s carbon tax battle, its impact on citizens, and what it means for the country’s climate goals.

No More Carbon Tax! What’s Carney Really Up To?

Canada launched its carbon pricing system in 2019 under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The goal was to cut emissions by charging businesses and consumers for pollution. This encouraged a shift away from fossil fuels.

B.C.’s 2025 budget estimated that the consumer carbon tax would bring in about $2.8 billion. Out of this, around $1 billion would be given back to the public through the Climate Action Tax Credit.

However, rising fuel costs and inflation frustrated many Canadians. They saw the tax as an extra burden. To ease the strain, the government scrapped the consumer carbon tax.

• The carbon price started at CAD 20 per ton in 2019 and increased annually, reaching CAD 80 per ton in 2024. It was set to climb to CAD 170 per ton by 2030.

News agency National Post highlighted Carney’s statements. He said,

“We have already taken a big decision as this cabinet because this is a cabinet that’s focused on action, it’s focused on getting more money in the pockets of Canadians, it’s focused on building this economy.”

Politics played a big role in scrapping the tax. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre made it a key promise, saying it raised costs for families and raised inflation. However public opinion was divided. Some saw the tax as costly and ineffective, while others believed it helped reduce emissions.

• MUST READ: A Tale of Two Climate Policies: Canada Rethinks Consumer Carbon Pricing While U.S. Drops Social Cost of Carbon

The Political Battle Over Carbon Pricing

The heat of a political showdown is already palpable. Pierre Poilievre wants to go further. He vows to eliminate all carbon pricing, including taxes on big polluters. He argues the policy hurts businesses and workers, making Canada less competitive.

Reuters reports that Conservatives claim the carbon tax fuels inflation. But the tax is revenue-neutral, and about 80% of Canadians get more in rebates than they pay.

The Wall Street Journal covered Poilievre’s campaign-style event at a steel plant near Ottawa. He warned that Carney’s government might raise industrial emissions taxes to make up for lost consumer carbon tax revenue.

“The combination of Trump’s tariffs and Carney’s carbon taxes would be a disaster for the workers. Workers would lose wages, consumers would pay more money, and jobs would leave Canada, making us even more dependent on the Americans, just like Trump wants.” said Poilievre

He also vowed to repeal all carbon pricing measures if elected, saying,

“Technology, not taxes, is the best way to fight climate change and protect our environment.”

Carnie also defended his action saying cutting the consumer tax doesn’t mean abandoning emissions goals. Heavy polluters will have to still pay. His proposal shifts costs to industries while funding green programs like EV rebates and home energy upgrades.

Carbon Tax Cut: Relief for Households, Concerns for Climate

Even within the Liberal Party, concerns grew over the carbon tax’s impact. In 2023, the government removed the tax on home heating oil, recognizing that lower-income families were struggling. With an election coming up, cutting the consumer tax may have been a strategic move to win back voter support.

Carney said,

“Based on the discussion we’ve had and consistent with a promise that I made and others supported during the (Liberal) leadership campaign, we will be eliminating the Canada fuel charge, the consumer fuel charge, immediately.”

The removal of the consumer carbon tax brings some immediate changes for Canadian households.

• Fuel prices will drop, making gasoline, diesel, and home heating more affordable.
• Propane and natural gas will no longer be taxed.
• Households that received Canada Carbon Rebate payments will get their final installment in April 2025.

For many Canadians, these savings are a relief amid the rising cost of living. However, climate advocates worry that fossil fuel use could increase without financial incentives to cut emissions.

Big industries like steel will still pay carbon fees, and government rebates for EVs, heat pumps, and home energy upgrades will continue. Some provinces, like British Columbia and Quebec, may also keep their carbon pricing systems.

Can Canada Reach Its Climate Goals Without the Carbon Tax?

Canada aims to cut emissions by 40-45% from 2005 levels by 2030 under the Paris Agreement and reach net-zero by 2050. The Canadian Climate Institute estimated that the carbon tax would have reduced emissions by 8-14% by 2030. Without it, new policies will be needed to stay on track.

The consumer carbon tax covered emissions from transportation and buildings. While the tax is gone, government rebates for EVs and home upgrades will continue to help cut emissions in these sectors.

Carney says this change is part of a bigger plan to fight climate change and keep Canada’s economy strong. He has suggested other ideas, like better clean energy incentives and tougher rules for big polluters. Meanwhile, Poilievre wants to replace carbon taxes with expanded tax credits for green technology.

One thing is clear, Canada’s carbon tax may be changing, but the country’s climate policies will remain a key political battleground. The bottom line is simple—if it benefits both citizens and the climate, it’s a win.

• FURTHER READING: Canada’s 2035 Emissions Reduction Goal: Everything You Need to Know

The post Carney Scraps Carbon Tax—Can Canada Reduce Emissions Without It? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

China has reopened its voluntary carbon credit market after eight years. This has caused sharp price swings. A Bloomberg report showed that the new China Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) credits rose to 107.36 yuan ($14.82) per ton.

This price was 21% higher than mandatory carbon allowances. However, it then fell to 72.81 yuan, a 17% discount.

The price shifts reflect strong initial demand and a limited credit supply. In the first five days, traders exchanged 911,000 tons of credits. That’s almost three times the volume of China’s mandatory emissions market.

Understanding the CCER Program

China’s Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) program is key to the country’s carbon market. It allows companies to trade carbon credits, supplementing the Emissions Trading System (ETS). CCER allows firms to create and sell carbon credits voluntarily.

However, this is different from the ETS, which sets limits on emissions. This approach promotes investments in clean energy and emission reduction projects.

The Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) manages the CCER program. Project operators and verification agencies maintain transparency. On January 23, 2024, China’s voluntary carbon market saw its first transaction. China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) bought 250,000 tons of carbon credits.

CCER credits fall into two categories:

• Emission allowances: Government-allocated quotas that companies must follow.

• Certified carbon credits (CCER credits): Tradeable credits from emission reduction projects.

The program helps industries reduce emissions, manage carbon credits, and trade them for financial gain. High-emission sectors can offset quotas, while low-emission industries can trade credits and enhance their reputation. Renewable energy companies can use carbon credit revenue to improve profits.

A New Beginning for CCER Credits

The CCER program started in 2012 to reward projects that cut greenhouse gas emissions. China paused it in 2017 because of worries about project approvals. In 2024, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment revived the program.

It now focuses on four areas: afforestation, solar thermal power, offshore wind power, and mangrove restoration. This effort aims to promote green projects and help China meet its carbon neutrality goals.

Notably, the China Beijing Green Exchange (CBGEX) believes China’s carbon market will expand significantly because of financialization. The estimated quota is 7 to 8 billion tons. Annual trading volumes could exceed 10 billion tons. Transaction values might top RMB 1 trillion (US$140 billion).

China’s Carbon Emissions: 2025

China’s emissions surged in 2023, putting the country off track from its goal of reducing carbon intensity by 18% under the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25). To stay on course for its 2060 carbon neutrality target, CO2 emissions must now drop by 4-6% by 2025.

• RELATED: Experts Say China’s Emissions Peak Is Near: How EVs and Renewables are Playing a Big Part

Expanding the Carbon Credit Market

The Bloomberg report further revealed more details about China’s expansion of its carbon credit market.

• China approved nine new projects expected to supply 9.5 million tons of carbon credits in 2025.

These projects include seven deepwater offshore wind farms and a solar thermal plant. Key state-owned companies leading these initiatives are China Three Gorges Corp, State Power Investment Corp, China Energy Investment Corp, and China General Nuclear Power Corp.

China’s national carbon market, launched in 2021, initially covered power utilities. However, low liquidity and oversupply kept prices below European levels. It plans to include steel, aluminum, and cement producers by the end of 2025, expanding coverage to a larger share of national emissions.

BloombergNEF analyst Layla Khanfar explained that the market activity picked up a bit in February after a slow start. However, supply and demand are still lower than in early 2023.

Strengthening ETS to Counter CBAM Impact

China is a top exporter of CBAM-liable goods. From 2026 to 2040, it will likely ship about 868.94 million metric tons of these commodities, according to a forecast from S&P Global Commodity Insights. Iron and steel account for 42% of these exports, cement 8%, and aluminum 6%.

The country’s ETS (launched in 2021) now covers 40% of emissions and is set to expand to 8 billion tons. Major 2024 reforms include stricter allowance banking rules, a shorter compliance cycle, and the addition of CBAM-affected industries.

Clear Blue Market forecasted that the China Emissions Allowance (CEA) price, averaging 98 yuan (€13) in 2024, is projected to reach 100 yuan (€13) in 2025 and 200 yuan (€25) by 2030, with a market deficit expected by 2026.

To meet CBAM regulations, China requires factories emitting over 26,000 tons of CO₂ annually to verify emissions data. Thus, China is challenging the EU’s CBAM at the WTO while reinforcing its ETS to align with global carbon pricing.

China is expanding carbon credits. The above-explained actions show a global push to regulate emissions. However, price volatility and economic concerns remain challenges. As carbon prices rise and regulations tighten, businesses must adapt to remain competitive. Lastly, the effectiveness of carbon markets in reducing emissions will be closely monitored.

• READ MORE: China’s Renewable Energy Boom: A Record-Breaking Shift or Still Chained to Coal?

The post China Revives Its Carbon Credit Market: Price Swings & Future Outlook appeared first on Carbon Credits.

The Large Energy Users Pledge was announced on March 12 at the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston, Texas. Big companies like Google, Amazon, and Meta have joined a pledge to triple nuclear energy use by 2050.

These tech giants have teamed up with Dow, Allseas, OSGE, and Occidental to push for more nuclear power. This is the first time major businesses outside the nuclear sector have publicly supported such a big nuclear expansion.

The pledge started in September 2023 and already has support from 31 countries, 14 major global banks, and 140 nuclear industry companies.

Nuclear Energy: A Reliable and Scalable Solution

Sama Bilbao y León, Director General of the World Nuclear Association (WNA), said,

“The unprecedented support announced today by some of the world’s most influential companies to at least triple global nuclear capacity by 2050 sends a clear signal to accelerate policy, finance and regulatory changes that enable the rapid expansion of nuclear power. The global shift towards more nuclear highlights this is the only way we’ll deliver the abundant firm clean energy required to power growth and innovation in technology, a host of other industries and the entire economy.”

The pledge highlights nuclear energy’s benefits like:

• Offering stable and reliable power 24/7.
• Not affected by weather conditions like wind or solar.
• Helps industries reduce costs and offers a steady supply of heat for factories and chemical plants.

Other notable companies who have also joined the nuclear pledge are Allseas, Bureau Veritas, Carbon3Energy, Clean Energy Buyers Alliance, Core Power, Dow, Fly Green Alliance, Lloyd’s Register, Occidental, OSGE, and Siemens Energy.

The WNA expects even more businesses to sign the pledge soon. Industries like maritime, aviation, chemicals, and hydrocarbons are showing more interest in nuclear energy.

Dow Energy & Climate Business Vice President Edward Stones said,

“Energy is the lifeblood of global manufacturing and therefore investing and expanding access to clean, reliable, cost-competitive nuclear energy is critical to industrial progress. Dow considers nuclear energy, especially the promising technology of advanced small modular nuclear, to be a long-term competitive source of safe, firm and clean energy.”

The Large Energy Users Pledge

The pledge highlights nuclear power’s role in energy security and economic growth. It calls for a stronger, more reliable energy system with nuclear alongside other clean energy sources.

Here’s a snapshot of the pledge.

Big energy users want to triple nuclear power by 2050 to meet rising energy needs and help economies grow. Their strategy also includes new reactors, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced designs.

How Is Nuclear Power Shaping Global Energy Consumption?

Nuclear energy has been a critical part of the world’s power supply for decades. Today, it provides about 10% of global electricity, with over 400 reactors operating in more than 30 countries.

Some countries, such as France, depend on nuclear power for over 70% of their electricity. The United States and China are also increasing their nuclear capacity. They want to rely less on fossil fuels.

Compared to fossil fuel plants, nuclear power plants operate at a higher capacity factor. This means they produce electricity more efficiently and consistently.

While coal and natural gas plants may run at about 50–60% capacity, nuclear plants often reach 90% or higher. This makes nuclear energy one of the most reliable sources of electricity in the world.

However, some countries are rethinking their nuclear investments. Germany, for example, closed its last nuclear plants in 2023. But now, rising energy costs and supply worries have sparked talks about restarting nuclear programs.

• MUST READ: What Does the U.S. Need to Triple Its Nuclear Capacity by 2050? DOE Explains…

Why Tech Giants Want to Invest in Nuclear?

In 2023, nuclear power plants worldwide generated around 2,600 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity. As electricity demand continues to rise, countries are prioritizing nuclear energy as a reliable solution.

Countries such as the USA and China are leading nuclear expansion efforts, with multiple reactors under construction. It’s for the same reason that big companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Oracle are making this shift toward nuclear to reach their net-zero goals.

Explaining further, the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) is driving up energy use in data centers. Right now, they make up about 2% to 3% of total U.S. power consumption. This number could reach 9% by 2030. This rise is putting pressure on current power systems. As a result, tech giants are looking for new energy sources to meet their increasing demands.

To tackle these challenges, they are looking at nuclear energy, especially small modular reactors. The SMRs can be placed near data centers, ensuring a steady energy supply and reducing environmental impact.

More significantly, one of the biggest advantages of nuclear power is that it is a low-carbon energy source. Unlike coal and natural gas, nuclear reactors do not produce greenhouse gas emissions during operation.

• According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), nuclear energy prevents over 2 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. This makes nuclear power an essential tool in the fight against climate change.

Google’s SMR Investments

Google is looking at nuclear energy to help meet its 2030 net-zero emissions goal, says CEO Sundar Pichai. The company is investing in clean energy, including solar and small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).

In 2023, Google’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reached 14.3 million tCO2e. This was a 13% increase from the previous year and a 48% jump from 2019. Emissions have been rising since 2020.

Thus, Google made a deal with Kairos Power in October 2025. They plan to build several SMRs to power AI data centers. The first reactor could be running this decade, depending on approvals. More reactors are expected by 2035. This move helps Google lower its carbon footprint while meeting the energy needs of its growing AI operations

Meta Bets on Nuclear for Reliable Clean Energy

Meta has been using 100% renewable energy for its global operations since 2020. Now, the company is exploring nuclear power to meet rising energy demands and support its AI and environmental goals.

Meta’s Urvi Parekh, Head of Global Energy, noted,

“As global economies expand, the need for a reliable, clean, and resilient energy supply is paramount. Nuclear energy, with its ability to provide continuous power, can help meet this rising demand. We’re excited to join alongside this multi-organisational effort with the Tripling Nuclear Pledge to reiterate our commitment to nuclear energy.”

On December 3, Meta announced plans to work with nuclear power developers. The company believes that nuclear energy provides a steady power supply unlike solar and wind energy, making it crucial for grid stability and AI workloads.

Since 2021, Meta has cut emissions by 16.4 million metric tons of CO2e through renewable energy. In 2023, its net emissions were 7.4 million metric tons.

In 2023 alone, the company’s renewable energy initiatives helped cut operational emissions by 5.1 MMTCO2e, while value chain emissions were reduced by 1.4 MMTCO2e. Thus, Meta is optimistic about hitting its net-zero target by adding nuclear energy to its clean energy portfolio.

Amazon’s SMR Strategy

Amazon is adding nuclear power to supply carbon-free energy to AWS data centers and is investing over $52 billion across three U.S. states as part of its massive data center expansion.

The company has signed three key deals to explore and build small modular reactors (SMRs). AWS CEO Matt Garman believes SMRs can provide scalable and reliable power for growing data needs.

In 2023, Amazon’s carbon footprint was nearly 69 million metric tons of CO2—lower than its 2021 peak but still significant.

AWS is working to reduce emissions, betting on SMRs. They hope nuclear could be a game changer, offering a sustainable energy source for the future.

Amazon Web Services’ Brandon Oyer, Head of Americas Energy and Water, said,

“Accelerating nuclear energy development will be critical to strengthening our nation’s security, meeting future energy demands, and addressing climate change. Amazon supports the World Nuclear Association’s pledge, and is proud to have invested more than USD1 billion over the last year in nuclear energy projects and technologies, which is part of our broader Climate Pledge commitment to be net-zero carbon by 2040.”

Global Investment in Nuclear Energy: 2050 Forecast

Notably, global investment in nuclear energy is set to rise. Right now, it’s about $65 billion each year. As per IEA, by 2030, it could hit $70 billion with current policies. Nuclear capacity is expected to grow by over 50% to nearly 650 GW by 2050.

Amazon, Meta, Google, and other companies that have joined the pledge are aware that even with better energy use, industries will still need a lot more power. However, nuclear projects require high upfront costs, long development times, and strict regulations. Despite these challenges, their long lifespan and low carbon emissions make them a strong choice for long-term energy planning.

• LATEST: Canada’s Nuclear Boom: Big Investments in CANDU and SMRs 

The post Meta, Google, and Amazon Join Global Pledge to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050 appeared first on Carbon Credits.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Trump administration, canceled $20 billion in climate grants that were part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). This program was created under a previous administration’s climate law to support clean energy projects. The money was meant for community organizations, nonprofits, credit unions, housing agencies, and solar energy initiatives across the country.

How does this cancellation impact clean energy projects, emission reductions, and economic growth in affected areas? Let’s find out.

What Was the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund?

The GGRF was set up in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. It was made to be a national green bank. It allocated $27 billion to the EPA for clean energy projects. These projects aim to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The goal was to bring together public and private money to invest in clean energy, especially in low-income areas that are most affected by climate change.

The fund aimed to reduce pollution, boost energy efficiency, and create jobs. It focused on building clean energy infrastructure. It supported projects like installing residential heat pumps, improving home energy efficiency, setting up electric vehicle charging stations, and creating cooling centers in communities.

The “Solar for All” program aims to help over 900,000 low-income households access solar energy. This could save these families about $350 million each year on energy bills. 

EPA Pulls the Plug—But Why?

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the decision to cancel the grants, saying there were concerns about fraud, waste, and misuse of funds. He said the money went to nonprofits linked to politics. There wasn’t enough oversight, which raised questions about the program’s management.

Zeldin said in a video:

“This termination is based on substantial concerns regarding program integrity, objections to the award process, programmatic fraud, waste and abuse and misalignment with the agency’s priorities, which collectively undermine the fundamental goals and statutory objectives of the awards.”

The EPA had already put a freeze on the funds due to these concerns. After a review, the agency said it found “serious problems” that made it too risky to continue with the grants, so they decided to cancel them entirely.

Legal and Political Firestorms

The decision has led to legal action and political controversy. Three nonprofit groups, including the Climate United Fund, have sued the EPA and Citibank. They claim that stopping the payments breaks legal agreements.

Democrats have pushed back against the move, saying the EPA does not have the legal authority to cancel funding that was approved by Congress. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said there was no real evidence of fraud and accused Zeldin of blocking money that was meant to help lower energy costs, create jobs, and reduce pollution.

The Justice Department and FBI are also looking into the program. A federal investigation into possible fraud has added to the debate over whether the EPA was justified in canceling the grants.

Impact on Emission Reductions and Net-Zero Goals: A Setback for Climate Progress?

Canceling these grants could slow down efforts to cut pollution and meet net-zero goals. The GGRF was supposed to help fund projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Without this money, some of those projects may not happen, making it harder for the U.S. to move toward a cleaner energy future.

Who Loses the Most?

The GGRF aimed to support disadvantaged communities. These areas often face high pollution levels and lack resources for clean energy. Many areas will get funding for projects. This includes solar panel installations, home energy upgrades, and new transportation options. Without this money, these communities might find it hard to cut emissions and lower energy costs.

Clean Energy Takes a Hit

Withdrawing $20 billion in funding could slow the growth of clean energy infrastructure. Many projects, such as expanding electric vehicle charging networks and installing energy-efficient systems in homes and businesses, depend on federal support. 

In 2025, global cleantech energy supply spending could hit $670 billion, according to S&P Global analysis. This investment will grow further by 2030, widening the gap between clean energy and oil and gas funding.

Solar PV will dominate, making up half of the total investment and two-thirds of the newly installed capacity. This shift highlights the accelerating move toward renewable energy sources.

Losing the EPA grants will slow down the adoption of these clean energy technologies. These technologies are vital for reducing emissions and reaching national climate goals.

• RELATED: 2025: The Year Clean Energy Dominates with Record $670 Billion Investment, Trumping Oil & Gas

Billions Lost, Jobs at Risk

Beyond environmental concerns, canceling the grants could have economic effects. The GGRF-backed clean energy projects aimed to create jobs, boost local economies, and lower energy costs for consumers.

Without funding, some benefits might vanish. This could harm jobs and slow economic growth in communities that needed support.

Pulling back these grants could also make investors hesitant to put money into clean energy projects. Private companies often get government help to lower risks in big infrastructure projects.

The sudden policy change might make investors uncertain about future government commitments, which could reduce financial backing for renewable energy projects.

Judge to EPA: Show the Receipts

A U.S. judge has demanded that the Trump administration provide evidence of fraud, waste, and abuse to justify terminating the $20 billion in climate grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the administration to submit a sworn statement by Monday detailing the alleged wrongdoing. During a hearing, she criticized government lawyers for failing to present any proof of misconduct.

The Climate United Fund seeks an emergency order to release the funds, warning that it may run out of money by Friday. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has defended the decision, stating that the program did not align with the agency’s priorities.

In a separate move, the EPA announced plans to shut down its Office of Environmental Justice and Civil Rights, which advocates say could harm minority and low-income communities affected by pollution.

What’s Next?

The EPA’s decision to cancel $20 billion in climate grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund has major consequences. It disrupts funding for key clean energy projects, especially in low-income areas. This could slow progress in cutting pollution and achieving net-zero emissions.

The legal battles, economic effects, and delays in clean energy projects highlight the challenges of this decision. As the situation unfolds, both government and private organizations will have to find ways to move forward and ensure that clean energy goals remain a priority if the country seeks to achieve its climate goals. 

• READ MORE: Clean Energy Investment Hits $2.1 Trillion: A Step Closer to Net Zero or a Missed Mark?

The post Trump’s EPA Cancels $20 Billion in Climate Funding: What It Means for Clean Energy appeared first on Carbon Credits.