A Dubai-based company, Blue Carbon, inked a deal with Zimbabwe to create carbon credits from offsetting projects in the African country involving almost a fifth of its total landmass. 

The two parties signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) worth $1.5 billion to fund forest protection and rehabilitation projects. The carbon sequestered of the forests will generate the corresponding amount of carbon credits. 

Carbon credits are a tradable instrument that allows companies and other entities to compensate for their carbon emissions by financing projects that reduce or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. A credit represents a ton of CO2 removed.

Blue Carbon’s Expansive Carbon Credit Deals

Zimbabwe is Blue Carbon’s 4th foray into the African region this 2023. Launched only last year, the nature-based carbon offsets company also has a similar deal with Liberia in March. Their agreement will offset emissions generated from 10% of the West African nation. 

A member of Dubai’s royal family, Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, led Blue Carbon. He is leading the company to invest in energy projects across Africa and the Middle East.

Back in February, the Dubai firm also partnered with Zambia and Tanzania to conserve 8 million hectares of forests in each of the African countries. Both agreements are for generating carbon credits that the company will sell on the global carbon markets.

Industry projections show that demand for carbon credits for offsetting purposes will grow exponentially. 

The Dubai firm’s latest carbon credit deal with Zimbabwe covers the country’s 150,000 sq. miles landmass. They believe that the partnership will bring the African nation $1.5 billion in climate finance. 

With these deals, Blue Carbon earned the right to develop carbon offset projects across 24.5mln hectares of land in Africa. 

High-Quality Carbon Credits for Zimbabwe

For Al Maktoum, their carbon credit agreement with Zimbabwe signifies a powerful alliance between Dubai and the African country “in the face of a shared global challenge”.

Their project will cover an area of over 7 million hectares, bringing hundreds of millions of dollars to Zimbabwe. A huge portion of the sale from carbon credits will be for community engagement and the local people. 

President Emmerson Mnangagwa said that Blue Carbon will engage in reforestation and forest conservation projects. At the signing ceremony of their carbon credit deal, Mnangagwa said that:

“The project is anticipated to close the Government of Zimbabwe’s financing gap to the tune of $200 million while enabling the country to generate high-quality carbon credits for use on the international carbon market.” 

Companies and governments can buy those credits to use toward their climate goals such as net zero emissions. 

This agreement with UAE’s firm is a boost for Zimbabwe’s controversial decision in May when it scrapped existing carbon projects. Then it would get 50% of all the revenue from these projects, scaring away investors and worrying developers. 

But last month, the government amended its carbon laws, indicating that project developers can keep their total profit share (70%). It will instead keep its 30% share which will go to various stakeholders. 

Zimbabwe has close ties with the UAE, the largest destination for the African country’s exports. On the carbon front, the UAE Carbon Alliance has pledged to buy $450 million carbon credits from the African Carbon Markets Initiative (ACMI) by 2030.

The deal happened at the first Africa Climate Summit earlier last month where president and chief executive of the UAE Independent Climate Change Accelerators (UICCA) inked a letter of intent with ACMI.

UAE will host this year’s UN Climate Change Conference, COP28, in November-December. 

The partnership between companies like Blue Carbon and nations like Zimbabwe not only contribute significantly to reducing global carbon emissions. It also provides essential funding for climate finance and nature conservation efforts and support for local communities. As demand for carbon credits continues to skyrocket, such collaborations are crucial in the collective efforts to combat climate change.

The post Dubai’s Firm Inks $1.5B Carbon Credit Deal with Zimbabwe appeared first on Carbon Credits.

As part of the world’s continued efforts to combat climate change and transition towards net zero, one important piece of the puzzle is new regulations and government policies.

Government regulation covers just about every sector, both public and private, and has been related to some of the most important shifts in industry.

The oldest of the U.S. government’s various consumer protection agencies, for instance, is the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA.

Its origins begin with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Division of Chemistry, a research wing with no regulatory powers that existed in the late 19th century.

After a number of food- and drug-related scandals such as Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle exposé on working conditions in animal feeding operations or the diphtheria antitoxin contamination incident in 1901 that resulted in the deaths of a dozen children, new laws were implemented that would lead to President Roosevelt signing the Food and Drug Act in 1906.

Since its inception, the FDA has given rise to countless regulations that benefit the general public. Some examples include:

Banning radioactive drinks and harmful “drugs” like Elixir of Sulfanilamide
Establishing canning and packaging standards
Allowing for the prosecution of responsible officials of a corporation, as well as the corporation itself, for violations
Authorizing the inspection of factories
Regulating drugs before they hit the market

You can thank the FDA for the fact that this isn’t available for sale anymore.

The FDA has by no means exhausted the list of changes it has brought to an industry that state laws previously only protected in a patchwork manner.

Today, it’s very unlikely for someone to go out to a grocery store or restaurant and get sick from something relating to the ingredients. This wasn’t always the case a century ago. And we have the extensive protections put in place by the FDA to thank for that.

In the modern day, the fight against climate change is the next place where government intervention has to force compliance in a timely manner.

After all, oil and gas companies like Exxon already knew about climate change back in the ‘70s. They spent millions on research, hiring top scientists and building their own climate models. All to cover it all up when it turned out that the truth could hurt their bottom line.

(Exxon is famous for being one of the leaders behind the Global Climate Coalition. It was established in 1989 to question the science behind climate change and raise skepticism.)

Climate disclosure rules are merely one small piece required to put the world onto a net zero pathway. Climate disclosure will enable informed investor decisions and compel companies to reveal their true operations, similar to FDA-imposed nutrition labels.

What is Climate Disclosure?

Simply put, climate disclosure standards are legislation put in place to make it mandatory for companies to disclose how much their business operations impact climate change – and even how climate change impacts them.

Currently, corporations already adhere to a number of different reporting standards. Financial reporting is one of the most well-known, as quarterly earnings reports and such often impact share prices and market valuations.

Non-financial reporting metrics such as ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance)-related reporting have risen greatly in the past few years. Simply because investors have started viewing corporate responsibility as a key component of an attractive investment.

Climate disclosure certainly falls under the “E” in ESG. Many major companies are already voluntarily disclosing their emissions and other related information. But many use different metrics for reporting, while others may straight up leave out important details.

Proper climate disclosure regulation would require a standard framework that companies would be forced to follow when reporting their emissions and other climate-change-related details of their operations. It would work similarly to how the U.S. SEC mandates annual 10-K and quarterly 10-Q reports to be filed by listed companies according to U.S. GAAP accounting standards.

As an aside, something often used in emissions reporting are the terms “Scope 1”, “Scope 2”, and “Scope 3” emissions, also known as S1, S2, and S3.

These terms come from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a third-party emissions reporting standard that many companies use for calculating their emissions.

S1 emissions covers the emissions directly resulting from a company’s operations. It’s from sources they own and control, such as any buildings they occupy or vehicles they have.

S2 emissions are indirect emissions that include the emissions produced from the energy the company uses. Examples of this would be the emissions generated by the electricity used to power the company’s offices. Or it can be the emissions produced when extracting the oil used by their employees to drive to said offices.

Lastly, S3 emissions are indirect emissions that cover the entire rest of a company’s value chain, both upwards and downwards. What this means is that all emissions from any products or services used or produced by the company would be covered.

This would include the emissions required to produce any parts or supplies the company uses in its business operations. The emissions the company’s products would produce down the line are also part of S3. 

Let’s take an auto manufacturer as an example here. Their S1 emissions would include the emissions produced by the company’s offices, manufacturing plants, and fleet of delivery/service vehicles. Their S2 emissions would include the emissions generated by the electricity required to power said plants, and the oil to run their fleet of vehicles.

Finally, their S3 emissions would include the emissions involved in mining and producing all the materials and parts the company needs to actually make their cars, as well as all of the emissions produced by their cars in the future when their customers drive them.

As you can see, S3 emissions can be a big deal when compared to a company’s “operational” S1+S2 emissions! This is part of the reason why proper climate disclosure regulations are needed.

Why is Climate Disclosure Important?

Right now, in the U.S. and many other countries, there’s no single unifying standard for climate disclosure. Again, while many companies voluntarily do so, some may be trying to report their emissions in such a way as to make themselves look better.

One example of this comes from the oil and gas industry, where all of the biggest companies like Shell, Chevron, Exxon, and even Saudi Aramco only report S1+S2 emissions in their disclosures.

After all, it hardly matters how cleanly a company can extract oil and gas from the ground. What really matters is how all that oil and gas ends up getting burned as fuel, releasing significant carbon emissions that would fall under the company’s S3 emissions… which simply go unreported.

Currently, it’s estimated that S3 emissions account for 80-95% of the total carbon emissions from oil and gas companies, as shown above. So, by ignoring them, oil and gas companies can make themselves look better.

Another potentially surprising example comes in the form of Tesla, the electric vehicle (EV) company.

Prior to 2023, Tesla also refused to report its S3 emissions related to the various suppliers and vendors who produce parts for its cars.

In its most recent impact report, however, Tesla finally reported its S3 emissions alongside its operational S1+S2 emissions. To no surprise: its S3 emissions accounted for 98% of the company’s total emissions footprint.

One thing you might not know is that currently, the process of making an EV is actually more carbon intensive than making a gas-powered vehicle. This is due to a number of factors, such as the complicated process of making an EV battery as well as the relative lack of economies of scale when comparing EV manufacturing with traditional car manufacturing.

Of course, the lifetime emissions of an EV still wind up being significantly lower than that of a gas car. That’s because a gas car will continue to produce carbon while in use over its lifespan.

Still, Tesla may have wanted to hide the fact that right now, making an EV produces more emissions than making a regular car by hiding their S3 emissions.

You can think of proper climate disclosure like the nutrition labels on food packaging. It provides additional information regarding each product and allows extra transparency and metrics for the consumer to choose based on their preferences.

For instance, when grocery shopping, some people always choose the cheapest option, whereas others are happy to pay the premium for locally sourced organic produce. Some might prioritize fresher products, while others may have a preferred brand they go for.

Climate disclosure will allow for investors to do the same thing with companies they choose to invest their money in.

Let’s say you do your research on two different companies offering similar products or services. If the pros and cons of each respective company balance each other out, the fact that one company emits twice as much greenhouse gas (GHG) as the other might just be the factor that tips the scales in the other company’s favor.

This extra climate data transparency will also allow for governments to better meet their country-level climate change targets. Also known as their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as per the Paris Agreement.

And on the subject of GHG emissions, don’t forget – we’re already entering an era where climate disclosure may actually have significant material impact on a company’s operations.

In Europe, for example, the Emissions Trading System (ETS) covers roughly 40% of total GHG emissions in its member states. This includes a number of important sectors such as power generation, transportation, and the manufacturing industry.

Companies covered under the ETS have their emissions capped. Any excess emissions over a company’s annual limit must be offset through the purchase of allowances from other operators in the ETS who are under their own limits. If companies can’t come up with enough allowances to fully offset their own emissions, they face heavy fines.

Since the emissions of these companies can directly impact their financial results, emissions reporting is very important for companies that operate under the EU’s ETS framework.

While not every country and sector in the world has an emissions regulation framework like the ETS, it’s only a matter of time before governments serious about climate change adopt similar strategies.

Even without taking such considerations into account, climate disclosure already has the potential to seriously impact corporate valuations. More and more investors decide they would rather put their money into climate-friendly businesses.

ESG funds have grown significantly over the past five years. Despite last year’s hit with global markets, ESG investing remains highly popular.

Many investors seek ESG-friendly deals; it’s time to implement climate disclosure rules.

Now, while we’ve mostly discussed the emissions reporting aspect of climate disclosure, there are other parts to it as well. In particular, how a business’s operations might be impacted by the effects of climate change.

In recent years, extreme weather events have become far more commonplace. And they can have significant adverse effects on both individuals and corporations alike.

Climate change can negatively impact agriculture and crop yield, for instance. Extreme weather events can also cause widespread damage from flooding, storms, and the like. Sustained periods of high temperatures can stress electrical grids and equipment, and even cause health issues and force business closures.

Some businesses are naturally more impacted by climate change than others. Whether it’s due to their physical location or the nature of their operations. Risks related to these factors would be very handy for investors to know as they do their due diligence.

Climate Disclosure Around the World

Right now, the EU and the UK are largely driving the push for more stringent climate regulation.

Every year, operators covered by the EU ETS must submit an emissions report that complies with the EU’s Monitoring and Reporting Regulation, subject for verification by a third-party verifier by March 31st of the following year.

The U.K. implemented their Climate-related Financial Disclosure Regulations in 2022. It became one of the first to make it mandatory for listed companies to report climate disclosures.

The EU and UK have definitely led the way in this area. Yet, many other countries have proposals in place to make climate disclosures mandatory for companies, including:

Brazil,
Canada,
Hong Kong,
New Zealand,
Singapore,
Switzerland, and
The U.S.

The U.S. SEC, in particular, is currently in the process of finalizing their climate disclosure rules for public companies.

What Are the New SEC Climate Disclosure Requirements?

In March of 2022, the SEC proposed a set of climate disclosure requirements that would potentially apply to all SEC-registered domestic and foreign public companies.

The proposal would require companies to, in their registration statements and period reports (such as 10-K annual reports):

Discuss the potential material impacts of climate-related risks on their business and how they’re being addressed. These include governance structure, strategy, risk management, metrics, and outlook.
Disclose S1 and S2 emissions (for certain filers), eventually with “reasonable” independent third-party assurance same with financial statements. Certain companies, but not all, would also need to disclose their S3 emissions.
Incorporate climate-related financial metrics and disclosures into their audited financial statements.
Discuss any climate-change-related targets as well as transition plans, if applicable.

The authorities planned to finalize these proposed changes in April of 2023, but controversy surrounding the new rules delayed them to fall of the same year.

Many have pushed back against what they perceive as an overreach by the SEC with its new climate disclosure requirements.

Some question whether or not the SEC actually has the authority to force businesses to comply with this proposal that would significantly affect management processes for many businesses.

Predictably, many Republican lawmakers and business groups aren’t happy with these aggressive new rules. They believe it will add administrative burdens and costs to companies without providing comparable tangible benefits.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for instance, has threatened to file a lawsuit if the rules are finalized. And Republican House Representatives like Ann Wagner of Missouri and Bill Huizenga of Michigan have expressed their concern about the legal authority of the SEC’s “radical regulatory agenda”.

Just recently, SEC Chair Gary Gensler highlighted the grave concern regarding Scope 3 emissions. He said that “Scope 3 disclosure is not as well developed, there’s not as many companies putting it out, and its frankly not yet as reliable“.

If the SEC enacts the proposed rules, they could require U.S. public companies to start reporting climate disclosures by 2025.

While no current guarantee exists that the SEC’s SEC’s proposal will pass in its current form – and it will almost certainly face legal challenges even if it does – other parts of the country have decided to act independently.

Combined, these rules – the first of their kind in the U.S. – would make climate disclosure mandatory for all businesses with over $1 billion in annual revenue operating in the state of California. Affecting both public and private corporations, these bills would apply to an estimated 5,344 companies. In addition, the bills would also require not only S1+S2 emissions reporting by 2026, but also S3 reporting by 2027.

Companies with an annual revenue over $500 million must start disclosing climate-related financial risks by the end of 2024.

Over in New York, Senate Bill 2023-S897A would roughly do the same thing as California’s SB253. It applies to U.S.-based companies doing business in New York with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion.

S897A is currently sitting with New York’s Senate Finance Committee. So it won’t come into effect until well after California’s SB253 does.

At the end of the day, other arms of the government will simply enact the same requirements. Companies operating in Europe already have to comply with climate disclosure regulations. And those who want to operate in California will soon have to follow suit.

New York and other blue states are likely to enforce climate disclosure reporting soon, forcing companies to either comply or risk losing access to large potential markets across the U.S. and the rest of the world.

As a partner at U.S. law firm Ropes & Gray LLP, one of the largest law firms in the world, put it:

“The horse has already left the barn on climate risk disclosure.”

And despite the best efforts of business lobbyists and attorneys, there’ll be no getting the horse back in.

The post Climate Disclosure: New Corporate Standards for a Net Zero World appeared first on Carbon Credits.

One of the few carbon-negative countries, Suriname, aims to be the first nation to sell carbon credits created by the Paris Agreement also known as the “Internationally Transferable Mitigation Outcomes” or ITMOs.

Suriname’s carbon credits use a baseline of carbon stock its rainforest stores as it registers with the United Nations. Any increase in the carbon stock represents corresponding emission reductions, which generates the equivalent carbon credits.

The Paris Agreement suggests that nations can sell those emission reductions in the form of ITMOs to other entities seeking to use them toward their own climate targets.

Government-Backed Carbon Credits

Forests cover around 95% of the South American nation, serving as significant carbon sinks benefiting the entire planet. The deforestation rate in the country stands at only 0.05% to 0.07%, making the country carbon-negative. Its forests capture carbon more than the nation emits. 

As per the U.N. REDD+ program, Suriname has registered an emission reduction of 4.8 million metric tons of CO2 for 2021. This gives the country the same amount of carbon credits, 4.8 million because each tonne equals one credit.

These credits, also called ITMOs, are integral to Suriname’s economic and environmental policies, said President Chan Santokhi. He further noted that it will be the “beginning of the long-awaited access to climate finance.”

Suriname can use the ITMOs toward its Paris Agreement targets, but companies can also buy them to offset their own climate goals. The heavily forested nation can issue the ITMO credits within weeks. 

According to the country’s advisor for the sale, thirty companies were evaluating if they were going to buy the ITMO credits. But there’s no mention of the credit price and the volume of the issuance.

The planned sale is a bid to draw in investors with government-supported carbon credits that adhere to the UN guidelines. Some market players find this relevant as businesses relying on voluntary carbon markets for offsets grow wary of some private projects found to fail in delivering their promised emission reductions. 

ITMOs for Net Zero

At COP27, Ghana presented the landmark bilateral authorized project under a ITMO deal with Switzerland. Governments can use ITMOs for their net zero targets. 

If Suriname’s first ITMO credits sale proves to be a success, it will snowball, attracting other countries to follow suit. 

Honduras and Belize will take Suriname’s lead and will issue their own ITMOs, too. They will issue 10 million credits each by 2024. If that happens, it can help increase demand signals for ITMOs. 

This could have never been more timely as nations attending this year’s global climate summit, COP28, in Dubai in November to December are required to report on the progress of their climate targets.

Governments have set their carbon emissions caps. Those that go beyond the limit can sell the credits to those that weren’t able to do so. As the cap decreases, carbon levels also fall. 

It works the same as how companies use carbon offsets toward their net zero targets. And while developed nations also have to prioritize intensive carbon reduction efforts, chances are they will still need carbon credits.

For instance, the United States aims to achieve reductions of 25% by 2025 versus 2005 CO2 emissions levels. But experts believe that a realistic goal would be 17%. Any emissions left unabated can be compensated by buying ITMOs from carbon-negative nations like Suriname. 

The System is Still Lacking, But Sales are Good to Go

A lead policy analyst at Carbon Market Watch, Giles Dufrasne, warned that the REDD+ emissions reductions backing the ITMOs didn’t go through robust verification standards. It will be up to the buyer to assess the credits and request for further information as needed. 

Dufrasne further noted that there are still some technical details being worked at, but current rules are enough to facilitate the sales. This is supported by another carbon market negotiator saying that though the system wasn’t fully established, the sale can push through and be registered later when the system is up and running.

Commenting on this, a REDD+ expert Gustavo Silva-Chavez, said: 

“It may not be a perfect system, but it’s better than nothing… By the time it gets perfect, it’s going to be in 20 years and the forests are gone.”

Prior to Suriname’s news, Gabon had announced that it would issue ITMO credits back in 2022. However, the African nation faced criticisms that its forests actually didn’t reduce emissions. The country held up the plan until a military coup further caused problems, making the plan unclear. 

Suriname’s President Santokhi recently led a ground-breaking ceremony for the country’s mangrove carbon credit and agroforestry projects. This is in partnership with Klimat X, a provider of high-quality carbon credits from afforestation and reforestation projects.

Klimat X had signed an agreement with Suriname’s national government to develop mangrove and agroforestry carbon credit projects. The company has built a presence in the country and actively conducts fieldwork to establish project size and feasibility.

Leveraging its extensive rainforests as carbon sinks, Suriname stands to generate revenue from internationally transferable mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) while contributing to global climate goals. This initiative could set a precedent and provide a lifeline for countries struggling to meet their net zero targets.

The post Suriname Takes the Lead in Selling Carbon Credits Under Paris Agreement appeared first on Carbon Credits.

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) latest Net Zero Roadmap suggests that tripling renewables capacity to 11,000 GW by 2030 is one way to reach global climate goals. 

The IEA’s 2023 Net Zero Roadmap outlines a global pathway to be on track with the 1.5 ̊C goal. It was first published in 2021, from which the energy sector has seen pivotal shifts. 

IEA’s Updated Roadmap to Net Zero by 2050

The updated version also calls for unified efforts to help reduce global warming as world leaders coming together at the upcoming COP28 in Dubai in November. 

Ramping Up Renewables Capacity

The agency said that ramping up renewables, alongside improving energy efficiency, reducing methane emissions, and increasing electrification will bring over 80% of emissions reductions needed by 2030. 

The roadmap indicates that tripling global installed renewable energy capacity to 11,000 gigawatts by 2030 will achieve the largest emissions reductions.

Source: IEA. Licence: CC BY 4.0

Under the NZE Scenario, the ramping up of clean energy is the key factor leading to a drop in fossil fuel demand of more than 25% this decade. This, plus supportive policies like repurposing of coal-fired plants are crucial to give more room for clean energy to grow. 

Renewable power sources, such as solar PV and wind, are now widely accessible and cost effective. They are also well understood and deployed rapidly. In fact, policy systems have now placed advanced economies, and China, on track to contribute significantly (85%) to this goal. 

However, developing economies and emerging markets still need more international support and stronger policies.

For all nations, hastening permitting lead time, modernizing the grids, fixing supply chain issues, and adopting variable renewables are essential. 

Earlier this month, the G20 countries heed to support the tripling of renewables. With that, they agreed that a $4 trillion/year needs to accelerate investment in the clean energy transition.

In June, the IEA reported that global additions of renewable power capacity will grow by a third this year. The agency said that it will increase to over 440 GW, the largest growth ever reported. Next year, global renewable electricity capacity is projected to rise to 4,500 GW. 

RELATED: Renewable Energy to Break Records in 2023 IEA Says

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol remarked that despite oil price concerns impacting energy security for countries, this year is more optimistic than 2 years ago. He particularly noted that:

“We see legitimate reasons to be hopeful because a new clean energy economy is emerging. While we see the path to 1.5 C narrowing, a spectacular increase in clean techs is keeping the door open.”

Tripling of renewable energy, plus doubling the annual rate of energy intensity improvement are key to ending new coal plants. Energy improvements stem from three crucial measures: improvement in technical efficiency of equipment, more efficient use of energy and materials, and switch to more efficient fuels, particularly electricity. 

Electricity is the “New Oil” 

Under IEA’s NZE Scenario, rapidly advancing electrification technologies like electric vehicles and heat pumps would be responsible for a fifth of the emissions reductions by 2030. 

In particular, EV sales will account for ⅔ of new car sales by the same year. EV production goals from major automakers indicate that achieving such an ambitious goal is possible. 

Likewise, heat pumps are also growing globally by 11% last year, with China being still the top market. But others are keeping up such as the EU, which is ahead of the annual growth needed to 2030.

The agency said that as electricity is emerging as the “new oil” of the world’s energy system, funding for power networks must ramp up. This entails ensuring massive growth of battery energy storage and other low-emissions technologies. These include carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), hydrogen, and hydrogen-based fuels, the IEA said.

COP28 Action Plan Shares The Same Goal

Those clean energy technologies, particularly renewables and hydrogen production, are among the major agenda at the upcoming COP28. 

COP28 President-Designate Dr. Sultan Al Jaber lays out an action plan heavily focused on fast-tracking the energy transition.

One key aspect of the plan is to “triple renewable energy capacity, double energy efficiency and double hydrogen production to 180 M tons/year by 2030.”

But with rising oil prices and demand hitting record levels, energy security concerns are also heating up in the lead-up to COP28. The tension gets even higher with the UAE, a major oil nation expanding its production, as the climate summit host. 

The energy sector is changing faster than most people expect but much more needs to be done urgently. 

The IEA’s 2023 Net Zero Roadmap emphasizes the critical role of renewable energy in achieving global climate goals, alongside energy efficiency improvements, and increased electrification. As world leaders prepare to converge at COP28 in Dubai, the roadmap sets a clear path for addressing climate change and accelerating the transition to a clean energy future.

The post IEA’s 2023 Net Zero Roadmap: Tripling Renewables and Electrifying the Energy Transition appeared first on Carbon Credits.