Copper prices hit new multi-year highs in 2026. This rise is due to supply disruptions, increased industrial demand, and structural shortages in global mining markets.

On the London Metal Exchange (LME), copper rose to $14,153 per metric ton on May 13, 2026. This marks its first time over $14,000 since January. It’s now approaching its all-time high, which is above $14,500 per ton.

In the United States, COMEX copper futures also hit a record near $6.64 per pound on May 13, 2026, marking one of the strongest rallies in recent years.

Canada has reached a new agreement with Alberta that reshapes the country’s industrial carbon pricing system. The deal involves a financial commitment of up to C$600 million from each party, the federal government and Alberta. This agreement is represented by Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney.

The funds will support carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects between 2030 and 2040. These projects aim to reduce emissions from heavy industry, especially oil and gas operations in Alberta.

At the center of the agreement is a broader policy shift. Alberta will raise its industrial carbon price. The goal is $130 per tonne by 2040. Interim increases will begin this decade.

The deal also connects carbon pricing with future energy infrastructure plans. This includes potential pipeline development, which remains politically sensitive across Canada.

Taken together, the agreement signals a new phase in Canada’s climate strategy. It links emissions pricing, industrial competitiveness, and large-scale infrastructure planning in one policy framework.

How Canada’s Industrial Carbon Pricing System Is Changing

Canada already has a national carbon pricing system, but provinces can design their own frameworks if they meet federal standards. This creates a mixed system that combines federal oversight with provincial flexibility.

Under the new Alberta–Ottawa agreement, the industrial carbon price will rise gradually over time. The goal is to increase predictability for companies while still pushing long-term emissions reductions.

Key elements of the plan include:

• A rising carbon price path toward $130/t by 2040
• Annual benchmark increases through the 2030s
• Stronger compliance rules under Alberta’s TIER system
• Support for carbon capture investment through public funding

This structure reflects a shift away from short-term carbon pricing signals. Instead, Canada is moving toward long-term “price certainty” for industrial emitters. 

Economists often argue that stable carbon prices are more effective than volatile systems. They allow companies to plan long-term investments in cleaner technology. However, critics say the pace of change is still too slow to meet climate targets.

CCS Becomes Canada’s Bridge Between Oil and Net Zero

A central feature of the agreement is the joint investment in carbon capture and storage. Under Friday’s agreement, Alberta and the federal government will jointly invest up to C$1.2 billion in carbon capture and storage projects, with the cost split equally between both parties.

This means each side will contribute up to C$600 million to support CCS deployment. Carbon capture is a technology that traps CO₂ emissions from industrial facilities. The gas is then stored underground in geological formations.

In Alberta, CCS is mainly focused on oil sands and heavy industry. These sectors are among the most carbon-intensive parts of Canada’s economy.

Supporters argue that CCS is necessary because emissions from these industries are difficult to eliminate quickly. They say it can reduce emissions while keeping industrial production active.

But CCS remains expensive. Global projects often depend on government support to remain viable. Costs can vary widely depending on location, technology, and storage conditions. The DNV report forecasts the CCS costs in North America and Europe as follows:

The Canadian government has also linked CCS investment to future industrial development. In some cases, it is seen as a condition for infrastructure approvals, including potential pipeline expansion. 

Canada already operates several large-scale CCUS facilities, mainly in Alberta and Saskatchewan. One of the largest is the Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project in Alberta, which captures and stores about 1 million tonnes of CO₂ annually.

The North American country is also emerging as a major player in the global CCUS market. Canadian projects account for roughly 11.5% of planned global carbon capture storage capacity.

National CCUS capacity could grow from about 4.4 million tonnes of CO₂ per year today to around 16.3 million tonnes annually by 2030. The federal government is also supporting the sector through programs like the Energy Innovation Program, which funds CCUS research, clean energy technologies, and smart grid development to help support Canada’s 2050 net-zero target.

Industrial Climate Policy Moves From Short-Term to Long Horizon

Canada has long committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. However, industrial emissions remain one of the hardest challenges. 

Oil and gas production accounts for roughly a quarter of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to federal climate data. This makes Alberta central to national climate policy.

At the same time, Canada is trying to expand energy exports. This creates a policy tension between climate goals and economic growth. The new agreement tries to balance both sides. It keeps the long-term net-zero target while allowing continued fossil fuel development under stricter carbon pricing rules.

Recent policy changes also show this balancing act. Canada has rolled back some emissions caps for the oil and gas sector while strengthening carbon pricing mechanisms.

Officials say this approach aims to maintain investment while still driving emissions reductions over time. Critics argue that delaying stricter limits could slow Canada’s progress toward its climate goals.

• SEE MORE: Canada’s Carbon Pricing Reset in 2026: Will Industry Step Up or Stall Climate Progress?

Economic Pressure on Heavy Industry

One of the biggest drivers of the deal is economic pressure on Alberta’s energy sector. High-emission industries face rising compliance costs under carbon pricing systems. As carbon prices increase, companies must either reduce emissions or pay higher fees.

Current provincial systems already impose costs on large emitters. The federal system also sets a minimum price that rises over time.

According to government data, Canada’s carbon price floor is scheduled to increase gradually toward higher levels by 2030 and beyond. For Alberta, this creates both risk and opportunity.

On one hand, higher carbon prices increase operating costs for oil and gas producers. On the other hand, they create incentives for cleaner technologies and efficiency upgrades.

Industry groups often warn that higher carbon costs could reduce competitiveness compared to countries with weaker climate rules. However, supporters of carbon pricing argue that it helps align Canada with global climate standards and reduces long-term transition risks.

Infrastructure, Pipelines, and Climate Policy Are Now Linked

The agreement also ties climate policy more closely to energy infrastructure development. Reports suggest the deal could help support future pipeline expansion tied to Canadian oil exports.

Canada remains one of the world’s largest oil producers, exporting roughly 4 million barrels per day to global markets. At the same time, the oil and gas sector accounts for about 31% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

The federal government has said future infrastructure growth must align with stricter carbon pricing and emissions reductions, including carbon capture deployment. This reflects a broader shift where climate policy is increasingly linked to industrial investment and export strategy.

Canada’s Carbon Market Is Entering a New Phase

Canada’s carbon pricing system is becoming more long-term and industry-focused, with Alberta now playing a central role through its Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) system.

Alberta’s TIER market is already one of Canada’s largest compliance carbon systems. Large industrial emitters that cut emissions below required levels can earn carbon credits.

In contrast, those with higher emissions must buy credits or pay compliance costs. The federal carbon benchmark is also set to rise to C$170 per tonne by 2030.

The changes come as carbon pricing expands globally. According to the World Bank, carbon pricing systems now cover about 24% of global greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

At the same time, Canada is increasingly linking carbon pricing, carbon credits, carbon capture, and energy infrastructure into one broader industrial strategy. The goal is to reduce emissions while giving companies more certainty for long-term investment and competitiveness.

The new Ottawa-Alberta carbon agreement reflects a political and economic compromise. It supports continued industrial activity while seeking to strengthen the credibility of climate policy.

The success of this approach will depend on how effectively carbon capture technologies scale, how industries respond to rising carbon prices, and whether long-term investments in clean infrastructure deliver real emissions reductions.

• READ MORE: Canada Doles Out Almost C$29M for CCUS and Renewables as Clean Energy Market Surges

The post Canada’s $600M Carbon Pricing Deal Signals a New Push for Carbon Capture appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Europe’s two largest automakers, BMW and Volkswagen, are moving in very different directions on electric vehicles and emissions compliance. One is scaling EV production at speed. The other is facing rising regulatory costs linked to carbon targets.

Together, their latest results highlight a shifting global auto industry. Growth in electric vehicles is accelerating. But so are the financial risks tied to emissions rules.

Volkswagen’s Carbon Bill Keeps Growing Under Tougher EU Rules

Volkswagen Group is under growing pressure from Europe’s tightening emissions rules. During its Q1 2026 earnings call, the company said it expects to pay up to €1.5 billion ($1.75 billion) in CO₂ fines between 2025 and 2027. These penalties are linked to failure to meet EU fleet-wide emissions targets.

CFO Arno Antlitz said annual costs will likely range between €300 million and €500 million per year over the compliance period. Even with new EV models coming to market, Volkswagen said it will still fall short of EU requirements.

The financial impact comes at a weak earnings moment. Volkswagen’s operating profit fell 14.3% year-on-year to about €2.5 billion, while revenue came in at €75.66 billion, below expectations. Net profit also dropped 28% to €1.56 billion.

CEO Oliver Blume pointed to several pressures, including geopolitical tensions, trade barriers, and strict regulations. He also confirmed that Volkswagen is cutting costs, including plans to eliminate 50,000 jobs in Germany by 2030.

Following these results, Volkswagen’s stock price went down but started to recover in May.

The company is also facing a long-term challenge. EU rules will tighten further. By 2030, automakers must cut CO₂ emissions by 55% versus 2021 levels, and by 2035 the reduction target rises to 90%.

Even with cheaper EV models coming, Volkswagen has admitted that electric vehicles still generate up to 30% lower profit margins than combustion engines. This makes the transition financially difficult in the short term.

BMW Hits 2 Million EVs as Production Accelerates

While Volkswagen faces penalties, BMW is scaling electric production quickly.

The BMW Group confirmed it has now produced its two millionth fully electric vehicle. The milestone vehicle was a BMW i5 M60 xDrive, built at Plant Dingolfing in Germany and delivered to a customer in Spain.

BMW’s EV ramp-up has accelerated sharply. It took the company nearly 11 years to reach its first one million EVs after the launch of the i3 in 2013. The second million took just about two years.

This reflects a major shift in production speed and demand alignment.

Plant Dingolfing is now BMW’s key EV hub. Since 2021, it has produced more than 320,000 electric vehicles, including models like the iX, i5, and i7. In 2025, more than 25% of production at the site was fully electric.

BMW is also using a flexible production system. It builds electric, hybrid, and combustion models on shared production lines. This allows the company to adjust faster to market demand. The luxury carmaker also aims for EVs to make up more than 50% of total annual sales by 2030.

Mixed Global EV Demand Shapes Industry Strategy

Despite production growth, EV demand remains uneven across regions for BMW. In 2025, BMW delivered 442,072 fully electric vehicles worldwide, showing moderate overall growth.

Europe remains the strongest market. EV sales there rose 28%, and now about one in five cars sold in the EU is fully electric. But performance is weaker in other regions.

• U.S. EV sales fell 16.7% to 42,484 units
• Fourth-quarter sales dropped 45.5%, after EV tax credits were removed
• China sales also declined by double digits

At the same time, plug-in hybrid sales in the U.S. rose by more than 30%, showing that many buyers are shifting to partial electrification instead of full EV adoption.

This uneven demand is shaping automaker strategies. Companies are balancing full EV expansion with hybrid production to manage risk.

Two Auto Giants, Two Very Different ESG Paths

The contrast between BMW and Volkswagen also reflects different ESG outcomes.

Volkswagen is facing rising regulatory costs linked to Europe’s stricter emissions rules. At the same time, the company targets net-zero emissions across its value chain by 2050 and plans to become carbon neutral in Europe by 2040.

The automaker claims it cut production CO₂ emissions per vehicle by over 50% since 2018. This was achieved using renewable electricity, improving energy efficiency, and adopting lower-carbon manufacturing.

However, Volkswagen still faces pressure from slower EV profitability and the high cost of transitioning away from combustion-engine vehicles. The company has acknowledged that some EV models generate lower margins than traditional gasoline vehicles.

BMW, meanwhile, continues expanding EV production without facing similar emissions penalties. The company aims to cut lifecycle CO₂ emissions per vehicle by at least 40% by 2030 versus 2019 levels and targets climate neutrality across its value chain by 2050.

The carmaker says it has already reduced operational CO₂ emissions by more than 70% since 2006 and now sources 100% renewable electricity for its global production network.

BMW is also increasing the use of recycled materials in batteries and vehicle production. The company says its Neue Klasse EV platform will reduce production emissions by up to 40% per vehicle compared with current models.

Both automakers remain under growing pressure to decarbonize further. By 2035, Europe plans to phase out most new combustion-engine vehicle sales entirely.

Transport & Environment (T&E) said the EU’s proposed 45% electrification target for new company cars is too low to fully boost EV demand. The group analyzed a higher 69% target that excludes plug-in hybrids and found it would significantly increase EV sales for major automakers. Under this scenario, BMW could secure 72% of its EV sales from corporate fleets, while Volkswagen Group could secure 61%, and Volvo Cars about 59%.

Industry Competition Intensifies as EV Transition Speeds Up

Competition across the global auto industry is increasing as EV adoption grows. Volkswagen recently reached its own milestone of 2 million EVs produced, just months after hitting its first million. This shows how quickly production is scaling across major automakers.

However, speed alone is not enough. Companies must also manage costs, margins, and regulatory compliance.

BMW’s approach focuses on gradual scaling with flexible production systems. Volkswagen’s approach is more aggressive but comes with higher financial pressure from emissions fines and restructuring costs.

Both companies now face a similar long-term challenge. EVs must become profitable while also meeting strict carbon reduction rules.

A Tale of Two EV Strategies

BMW and Volkswagen show two different paths through Europe’s EV transition. BMW is scaling production quickly and steadily increasing EV share across its plants and markets. It is avoiding major emissions penalties while gradually shifting its product mix.

Volkswagen is moving through a more difficult transition. It faces up to €1.5 billion in CO₂ fines, weaker profits, and rising restructuring costs as it adapts to EU climate rules.

Both companies are moving toward the same endpoint: lower emissions and higher EV adoption. But their financial and operational journeys are very different.

As EU regulations tighten further toward 2030 and 2035, the gap between compliance leaders and laggards may widen even more.

For the global auto industry, the message is clear. EV transition is no longer optional. It is now a regulated, high-cost transformation that is reshaping profitability, production, and long-term strategy.

• READ MORE: BYD’s Global EV Surge Masks Profit Pressure as Europe Drives Record Demand

The post BMW Hits 2M EV Milestone as Volkswagen Faces €1.5B Carbon Compliance Crisis appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Disseminated on behalf of Alaska Energy Metals Corporation.

The global energy narrative has shifted again. What began as a climate-driven transition is now increasingly shaped by geopolitics, supply chain risks, and national security concerns. In 2026, energy security and decarbonization have become the dominant drivers of policy and investment decisions.

According to the IEA, nearly 80% of energy experts ranked energy security as a top priority in 2025, ahead of emissions reduction and affordability. This shift is transforming how markets value critical minerals. Among them, nickel is emerging as a strategic asset, not just a commodity.

The Return of Energy Security – and Why Nickel Is at the Center

Recent geopolitical shocks have exposed vulnerabilities in global energy systems. Disruptions in oil and gas flows and ongoing global tensions have pushed prices higher and accelerated demand for alternative energy systems. However, electrification brings its own dependencies, particularly on battery metals.

• Nickel sits at the core of this transition because it plays a critical role in high-energy-density EV batteries, especially nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) chemistries.
• It improves battery range, efficiency, and performance, making it essential for electric vehicles, grid storage, and industrial electrification.

Demand trends reflect this growing importance. Nickel demand for clean energy is expected to more than double by 2030, while battery-grade nickel demand continues to grow at a double-digit pace annually. At the same time, the global nickel market is expanding rapidly in value terms, highlighting strong long-term fundamentals.

Yet supply remains fragile. A large portion of global nickel production and processing is concentrated in Indonesia and China. This concentration creates geopolitical exposure and environmental concerns. Even when supply is available, refining constraints and processing complexities can limit the availability of battery-grade material.

As a result, nickel is no longer priced purely on traditional supply-demand dynamics. Instead, it is increasingly valued based on security, reliability, and strategic access.

• MUST READ: Nickel Demand for EVs Could Flip the 2030 Market Balance 

Quality Over Quantity: The Strategic Premium of Sulphide Nickel

The nickel market is no longer just about volume. It is now about quality. A key distinction has emerged between laterite nickel and sulphide nickel, and this difference is shaping investment decisions.

Laterite deposits are more abundant but require complex and energy-intensive processing methods. In contrast, sulphide deposits are easier to process into high-purity Class 1 nickel, which is required for EV batteries. This simpler processing route reduces costs, emissions, and technical risks.

Sulphide nickel also aligns better with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. It produces fewer emissions and integrates more easily into clean energy supply chains. However, sulphide deposits are relatively rare, and most known high-quality resources have already been developed.

This scarcity is creating a premium for sulphide-based projects. Automakers and battery manufacturers are increasingly prioritizing high-purity, low-carbon, and geopolitically secure supply sources. The focus has shifted from simply securing more nickel to securing the right kind of nickel.

• MORE DETAILS: EV Batteries Need Nickel: Why Class 1 Supply Is Becoming Critical Amid Global Conflict

AEMC’s Nikolai Project: From Mining Asset to Strategic Infrastructure

Alaska Energy Metals Corp.’s Nikolai project stands out in this evolving landscape. It is not just a mining project but a strategic asset that aligns closely with the United States’ energy security priorities.

Proximity to U.S. Gigafactories

The United States is rapidly expanding its domestic battery manufacturing capacity. New gigafactories are being developed to support electric vehicle production and energy storage systems. As a result, the need for secure, local sources of critical minerals is increasing.

Nikolai’s location in Alaska provides a geographic advantage. It sits within reach of North American battery hubs, reducing reliance on long and vulnerable international supply chains. This proximity lowers transportation risks and supports the broader push toward supply chain localization.

Stable Jurisdiction and Permitting Advantage

The United States offers a strong regulatory framework, transparent permitting processes, and growing policy support for critical minerals. The nickel junior is advancing its Nikolai project with support from the U.S. government.

In its latest press release, AEMC said it is continuing to work with the U.S. Administration and key government agencies to advance its critical minerals strategy. The company is exploring strategic funding opportunities, partnerships, and policy programs designed to support domestic mineral production and build more resilient supply chains.

AEMC also said that, through the Department of Defense’s Defense Industrial Base Consortium (DIBC), it responded to a new call for projects eligible for Defense Production Act Title III funding. The company submitted a proposal for its Nikolai project, which received a “MET” rating. AEMC noted that requests for more detailed proposals under this funding program could begin as early as May 2026.

Thus, Nikolai is more than a nickel project. It is becoming a strategic U.S. asset. It supports both clean energy goals and defense supply chain security.

Low-CO₂ Sulphide Resource: Built for the Energy Transition

Nikolai’s sulphide-style mineralization is a key advantage. Compared to laterite operations, sulphide deposits require less energy-intensive processing, resulting in lower carbon emissions.

This is increasingly important as automakers face pressure to reduce emissions across their entire value chains. It is no longer enough to produce zero-emission vehicles. The materials used in those vehicles must also meet strict environmental standards.

A low-carbon nickel source with clear traceability and strong ESG credentials becomes highly attractive in this context. Nikolai fits well within this requirement, positioning it as a future-ready supply option.

Multi-Metal Exposure: A Full Energy Transition Package

The Nikolai project also offers exposure to multiple critical metals beyond nickel. These include copper, cobalt, and platinum group metals, all of which play essential roles in the energy transition.

These materials are used in electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, and emerging technologies such as hydrogen production. This multi-metal profile enhances the project’s strategic value and reduces reliance on a single commodity.

It positions Alaska Energy Metals Corp. as a broader participant in the clean energy supply chain rather than just a nickel-focused company.

The Bigger Shift: From Commodity Cycles to Strategic Positioning

The nickel market is undergoing a structural transformation. Historically, it was driven by stainless steel demand and cyclical economic trends. Today, it is increasingly shaped by energy policy, geopolitics, and technological change.

Buyers are securing long-term supply agreements to reduce risk and ensure stability. Companies are also willing to pay a premium for materials sourced from stable jurisdictions with strong environmental credentials. At the same time, vertical integration across the supply chain is accelerating.

This shift means that nickel assets are now evaluated on more than just cost and scale. Location, carbon footprint, processing efficiency, and alignment with national strategies are becoming equally important.

Conclusion: Nickel as Energy Infrastructure, Not Just a Metal

The return of energy security concerns has fundamentally reshaped the role of critical minerals in the global economy. Nickel has moved beyond its identity as a commodity and is now seen as a foundational element of clean energy systems.

Projects like AEMC’s Nikolai are positioned at the intersection of energy transition, industrial policy, and national security. With its proximity to U.S. gigafactories, stable jurisdiction, and low-carbon sulphide resource, it represents more than a mining opportunity.

It is part of a broader infrastructure layer that will support the next phase of global electrification. As geopolitical tensions persist and demand for clean energy accelerates, a secure and sustainable nickel supply will become increasingly valuable.

In this new landscape, success will depend not just on production volumes but on strategic positioning. And that is where projects like Nikolai are beginning to stand apart.

• READ MORE: Alaska Energy Metals’ Nikolai Project Ranks Among Largest U.S. Nickel Resources After 2025 Estimate

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. Alaska Energy Metals. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $75,000 to provide marketing services for a term of three months. 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.

The post Energy Security Fears Are Back – And Nickel Is Now a Strategic Asset in the Clean Power Race appeared first on Carbon Credits.