InvestorIntel’s Tracy Weslosky recently interviewed Chad Clovis, the CEO of Karbon-X Corp. (OTC: KARX), a trailblazing carbon marketing and project development firm that is at the vanguard of North America’s ESG conversation.

In this interview, Chad explains how Karbon-X’s innovative approach includes a user-friendly app that enables individuals and small businesses to conveniently offset their carbon footprints, allowing all of us to participate in the fight against climate change.

Cost-effective, Chad discloses how the app’s popularity is skyrocketing. Discussing the latest news and events for Karbon-X, they finish by discussing a recent partnership with Resolute Resources Ltd. aimed at reducing emissions from on-site fuel usage. To access the full interview, click here

Don’t miss other InvestorIntel interviews. Subscribe to the InvestorIntel YouTube channel by clicking here

About Karbon-X Corp.

Karbon-X is a cutting-edge carbon marketing firm specializing in direct selling of carbon credits to businesses and individuals via a proprietary app. The company actively invests in projects with the potential to generate carbon credits, fostering the growth of the green economy through an online social media community.

To know more about Karbon-X Corp., click here

Disclaimer: Karbon-X Corp. is an advertorial member of InvestorIntel Corp.

This interview, which was produced by InvestorIntel Corp. (IIC) does not contain, nor does it purport to contain, a summary of all the material information concerning the “Company” being interviewed. IIC offers no representations or warranties that any of the information contained in this interview is accurate or complete.

This presentation may contain“forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and assumptions of the management of the Company as of the date made. They are inherently susceptible to uncertainty and other factors that could cause actual events/results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Additional risks and uncertainties, including those that the Company does not know about now or that it currently deems immaterial, may also adversely affect the Company’s business or any investment therein.

Any projections given are principally intended for use as objectives and are not intended, and should not be taken,  as assurances that the projected results will be obtained by the Company. The assumptions used may not prove to be accurate and a potential decline in the Company’s financial condition or results of operations may negatively impact the value of its securities. Prospective investors are urged to review the Company’s profile on Sedar.com and to carry out independent investigations in order to determine their interest in investing in the Company.

If you have any questions surrounding the content of this interview, please contact us at +1 416 792 8228 and/or email us direct at [email protected].

For a long time, I’ve felt that hard core environmental “saviours” have been so myopic that we will never find success in reducing global carbon emissions. The reason I make this statement, which may upset some people, is that many are beating the drum of zero fossil fuels tomorrow and say it’s the only path to success. I’m sorry folks, it’s just not reality.

For starters, humans have this innate desire to survive. And for the bulk of humans living above 35^o North Latitude (which includes a large % of Americans, all Canadians, virtually all of Europe and a decent chunk of Asia), that just isn’t going to happen unless we all revert to burning wood to stay warm in winter. There just isn’t enough renewable or low carbon options (like hydro and nuclear) to keep us alive. At least for the foreseeable future. That’s why it frustrates me when interim solutions like converting all coal fired power to natural gas get shot down. It’s a step in the right direction that almost everyone would accept as a means to the end.

Where am I going with this? EVs also aren’t going to be providing 100% of our transportation needs anytime soon. It is going to take time to build out the infrastructure to manufacture all those replacement vehicles, as well as acquire all the resources that go into them. But what if there was a low-cost, easy to install solution for every single diesel engine on the planet that would reduce all greenhouse gas emissions, reduce particulate matter (the black smoke you see billowing out of the exhaust pipes) and also reduced fuel consumption. I personally believe that should almost be required as a stop gap measure until we can build our next generation of transportation alternatives. And the best part is, the input is distilled water and the system runs off the vehicle’s battery. Yes, we are still burning diesel fuel but you can feel less guilty about your same day Amazon delivery or the organic fruit you buy at the grocery store in the dead of winter.

The company that has come up with this ingenious solution is dynaCERT Inc. (TSX: DYA | OTCQX: DYFSF). dynaCERT manufactures and distributes carbon emission reduction technology with a patent-pending electrolysis system that creates hydrogen and oxygen on-demand and supplies these gases through the air intake to enhance combustion. The technology is designed for use with many types and sizes of diesel engines used in on-road vehicles, reefer trailers, off-road construction, power generation, mining, and forestry equipment.

And the best part is, it doesn’t rely solely on carbon credits or other environmental regulations that may or may not be put into law to be a viable solution for all those tractor trailer operators out there. The addition of hydrogen and oxygen acts as a combustion enhancer, combusting the available diesel fuel more completely, faster and hotter. This results in a more complete burn in the power stroke meaning fuel is consumed more efficiently, provides more power, which in turn leads to less fuel being required to create the same amount of energy. In addition to increased torque and reduced fuel costs, by maximizing the burn, dynaCERT’s HydraGEN™ system helps engine oil last longer, which is a material maintenance cost for fleet operators. These factors alone should make this a very easy sell to potential customers.

However, we all know the world is doing everything it can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s only a matter of time before actual, tangible improvements are going to be required or regulated. And this is where the HydraGEN™ technology really shines (assuming the regulation doesn’t immediately move to zero emissions). Validated through both on-road and accredited 3^rd party testing, results include:

• Up to 88.7% reduction in NOx produced
• Up to 46.7% reduction in CO produced
• Up to 9.6% reduction in CO₂ produced
• Up to 57.1% reduction in THC produced (no, not that THC, primarily unburnt hydrocarbons)
• Up to 55.3% reduction in particulate matter (no black smoke)

The technology ticks a lot of boxes. It’s hard to imagine why this wouldn’t be on every diesel powered tractor trailer on the planet. Which might explain the big news last week, where the Company received an order for 3,000 units from an oil & gas logistics company in Guyana. Even more importantly, dynaCERT has received full payment for the initial 93 HydraGEN™ HG-2 Units for delivery commencing immediately. A few more announcements like this could really start getting investors to pay attention to dynaCERT.

dynaCERT Inc. trades at a market cap of C$97 million.

In this InvestorIntel interview during PDAC 2023, Melissa Sanderson talks to Karbon-X Corp.’s (OTC: KARX) CEO and Director Chad Clovis about how Karbon-X is providing carbon credits to everyday citizens wishing to reduce their carbon footprint. Through Karbon-X’s web application and their upcoming mobile apps, Chad explains how they provide users an easy way to offset their carbon footprint or greenhouse gas emissions by supporting a project of their choice that has real-world, positive environmental impacts.

Providing an update on Karbon-X’s portfolio of projects in reforestation, ocean cleanup, and direct air capture, Chad discusses how Karbon-X offers carbon credits to industrial users as well.

Chad also discusses the app’s functionalities, including the monthly subscription fees and gifting options, as well as the PDAC initiative called “Drill Green” which allows resource companies to offset their exploration, construction, and extraction impacts.

To access the full InvestorIntel interview, click here.

Don’t miss other InvestorIntel interviews. Subscribe to the InvestorIntel YouTube channel by clicking here.

About Karbon-X Corp.

Karbon-X Corp is a tech-based carbon marketing company specializing in the sale of carbon credits to everyday citizens wishing to reduce their impact on the planet. The company gives users the ability to pick a project that interests them, and subsequently re-invests into carbon offset generating projects that matter most to their users. Industrial users are also afforded the opportunity to offset their environmental impact through the Karbon-X Drillgreen initiative, details of which can be found at drillgreen.ca.

To know more about Karbon-X Corp., click here.

Disclaimer: This interview, which was produced by InvestorIntel Corp. (IIC) does not contain, nor does it purport to contain, a summary of all the material information concerning the “Company” being interviewed. IIC offers no representations or warranties that any of the information contained in this interview is accurate or complete.

This presentation may contain“forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and assumptions of the management of the Company as of the date made. They are inherently susceptible to uncertainty and other factors that could cause actual events/results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Additional risks and uncertainties, including those that the Company does not know about now or that it currently deems immaterial, may also adversely affect the Company’s business or any investment therein.

Any projections given are principally intended for use as objectives and are not intended, and should not be taken,  as assurances that the projected results will be obtained by the Company. The assumptions used may not prove to be accurate and a potential decline in the Company’s financial condition or results of operations may negatively impact the value of its securities. Prospective investors are urged to review the Company’s profile on Sedar.com and to carry out independent investigations in order to determine their interest in investing in the Company.

If you have any questions surrounding the content of this interview, please contact us at +1 416 792 8228 and/or email us direct at [email protected].

That’s right. Your country needs you! Because it is every one of you (us) that needs to contribute to the goal of Net Zero Carbon if there is to be any chance of reaching the goal. Note here that it doesn’t really matter if you believe (or I believe) that the goal is attainable. What does matter is that if the goal is to be reached then the discussion below is how it can be achieved.

Since this is Article 6 in my series and I am expecting it to be the last, I wanted to do something catchy, hence Uncle Sam. But what I really want to highlight is almost the name of the next James Bond or Mission Impossible film – “The Constancy of Purpose”. The most important aspect of the whole approach. I’ll get back to that.

So, your mission, should you choose to accept, is to be part of the solutions that need to be achieved for the goal of Net Zero Carbon to be attained. This message will not self-destruct after 30 seconds, so you don’t have to hurry. You can re-read before you commit. And when I say to be part of, I mean actively engaged. It’s your part of “The Constancy of Purpose”.

1. Nuclear power. Any new additional power requirements of any size are to be provided by nuclear power. Any replacement power following a fossil-fuelled power station shutting down must be provided by nuclear power. Why? As previously demonstrated there will simply be not enough Critical Minerals developed to supply our power needs from the renewables sector. There will also not be enough STEM graduates to fulfill the resources required. So, you have to be actively engaged in the development or expansion of the nuclear power solution.
2. Solar power. You have to accept that large scale remotely located solar power is a waste of the limited resources highlighted. There is not enough lithium to make enough solar panels. The need to co-develop long transmission systems and battery back-ups is an inefficient use of resources. Rooftop solar is fine as it fits into existing infrastructure, but a solar farm in the center of Australia with 1,000 kms of new high voltage power lines. Methinks not. And using the power to produce hydrogen! Well, let’s get it straight. No government subsidies are allowed anywhere in this discussion. If it isn’t self-sufficient economically, it isn’t a solution. It’s part of the problem.
3. Wind power. Another huge waste of limited resources for the same reasons as above. Magnets are better utilized elsewhere. End of story.
4. Electric cars. The symbol of inner city wokeism. I’ll only browse here. Just imagine the upgrade to your district’s electricity network needed to charge even 20% of electric cars. Just imagine who is going to pay for the upgrade of the apartment block’s electrical system to accommodate a significant increase in demand. Many thousands of dollars per apartment! Is it an efficient use of resources to span our countries with additional electricity transmission infrastructure? Resources are short remember! So, stick to your guns (oops, cars). OK. I’ll let you have a hybrid!
5. Human Resources. Once we have the issues above well planned and in train, we can then define the STEM needs to achieve the goal. All levels of our education systems need to change. And you have to be part of that. Whether as a parent or grandparent, or maybe just a concerned voter influencing our governments, we have to fix this. You have to encourage your children, you have to lobby the governments. The volume of STEM graduates needs to dramatically expand and be focussed. “The Constancy of Purpose” again.

Now sure, everyone has their part to play, but tokenism is not healthy. As reported in The Australian Newspaper, Sunday, February 12, 2023, by Robyn Ironside, is having the “greenest” airline really that important? When the solution requires orders of magnitude more production of “sustainable”, but still carbon dioxide emitting fuel at increased costs?

These “solutions” are wokeisms in play. Change the definition of sustainability and it becomes OK. Well, that is not acceptable. Net Zero Carbon is a real goal and is not to be fudged. I get pretty enraged when I read that EU power stations are burning purposely grown “wood waste” instead of coal and claiming zero carbon emissions. This is fixing the books, not fixing the problem.

“The Constancy of Purpose”

“The Constancy of Purpose”. Who does this apply to? Well, if the world is going to achieve the Net Zero goal, well then, the world needs to have “The Constancy of Purpose”. LOL sorry, couldn’t help it. The developed world and the developing world are streets apart here. Only the developed world is chasing the goal. The developed world wants the developing world to also chase the Net Zero goal. But how can they? In a resource-constrained world, do you really think that the developed world will allow those limited resources to be deployed in developing countries?

Maybe they should if the overall balance to Net Zero indicates that is the most resource-effective answer. Methinks not going to happen. Our political classes are too focused on their own political survival (and ideological orientation) to let valuable resources out of their grasp. That got me thinking about how to determine resource utilization effectiveness on a global scale. Another time, another series. But it will come to that distribution question. Why? Because there will come a time when the developing countries will see that they are being starved of resources by the developed world to attempt to meet their own Net Zero goals. And sorry developing world, you can’t have any! Not a pleasant thought.

So, what chance Net Zero? An article from The Australian newspaper, also on Sunday, February 12, 2023, by well-acknowledged editor, Greg Sheridan, seems to present the argument that is most often proffered.

Net Zero Carbon?

Again. Very negative. My views on Net Zero Carbon? The Critical Minerals developments needed can be addressed. Will take a major shift in Government approvals timing though. The choice of power technology to be nuclear focussed is again achievable but will take some guts from some governments. The Human Resources issue is again achievable, but it would mean the end of the woke revolution in our education system. Achievable yes, in practice – No!

Net Zero Carbon by 2050 on a global scale? No chance! The emissions from the developing world will continue to grow. They will not have access to the resources needed. Well, how about on a local scale, by Country say? In the US or Australia, or the EU? “The Constancy of Purpose” test gives me no confidence. Twenty-five years of focussed efforts to achieve a goal that not even a majority of the population understands, acknowledges, or prioritizes? Methinks not.

We will just have to advance at a pace that results from ignoring the requirements that could move toward the answers. No wonder the Cheshire Cat has such a wide grin!

However, if you still want to do your bit in the Net Zero challenge, remember. “The Constancy of Purpose” may be coming to a theatre near you. So, thanks to movie-world for the license and to Forrest for the end quote: “Well, that’s all I have to say about that.”

Net Zero Carbon – Article 4. A possible way towards meeting an ever-expanding ESG agenda.

Wow. Article 4 is here already and this will finalise my thoughts on how ESG Concerns are going to have an influence on the Net Zero Carbon goals. And as a reminder, this is only two points off the list. Further articles will address the issues of Technology, Power Requirements, and Human Resources.

In my first article, I introduced a planning dilemma that I had been tasked to look into. Mining in a First Nations National Park. Sounds daunting but there are planning/decision steps you can control and others you cannot. This ESG response that follows was part of my solution to that dilemma. It is also a major part of the ESG issues that will be faced as we attempt to advance on a Net Zero Carbon future. It is also my generic model for any resource business.

As we move into an age where accountability looms large, it would seem obvious that our systems, our processes, and our outputs need to be transparent, understandable, and very importantly defensible. You may think of your systems as your legal defence should things go astray or as your curriculum vitae (CV) to attract/impress your stakeholders.

Step 1. International certification of your management systems.

The International Standards Organisation (ISO) is an independent, international organisation with a membership of 167 national Standards bodies. Through its members, it brings together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant International Standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges.

OK. That’s the official words but what is it to us? It’s independent. It’s internationally accepted. It’s certification of your management systems through thorough independent, industry-experienced professionals who audit every relevant aspect of your business. So, your environmental management system can get the ticks (ISO 14000 series). As can your safety and health system (ISO 45000 series). This is where you can address the recent EID (Equality, Inclusion, Diversity) inclusions as a mental health related issue. You can also include your risk management systems (ISO 31000 series). And it will also be wise to include your quality systems (ISO 9000 series) as the internationalisation of the Net Zero Carbon solution progresses. That may seem like a lot of expense (it isn’t if you do it properly). I prefer to define it as the cost of doing business. It’s your instruction manual. It’s the way we do business. It’s also a line of defence should anyone challenge your credentials. I prefer to see it as a starting point to excellence. Remember the First Nations National Park.

Step 2. Becoming a Best-in-Class operation.

Now you may think that ISO certification is a pretty good standard to reach. As it is. And it’s cost effective if you think of it as a type of corporate insurance policy. I use it as the glue of the business. Operation to the Standards, verified by independent audit, is a foundation that maintains the status quo, while capturing any gains your business can attain through commencing the journey to best-in-class. The Standards don’t really help here in the way of further improvement. The Standards encourage a continuous improvement ideal but of themselves do not provide the mechanism to get to a position of excellence. I will introduce a suite of tools which when used properly provide an excellent road map through regulatory compliance, ISO certification and onwards to best-in-class.

I would like to introduce DNV. Det Norske Veritas. (The Norwegian Truth).

DNV are an independent expert in assurance and risk management. Driven by their purpose, to safeguard life, property and the environment, they empower their customers and their stakeholders with facts and reliable insights so that critical decisions can be made with confidence. As a trusted voice for many of the world’s most successful organisations, they use their knowledge to advance safety and performance, set industry benchmarks, and inspire and invent solutions to tackle global transformations. For us, though I would like to reference three of their system development products.

The International Safety Rating System (ISRS).

ISRS consists of 15 key processes, each embedded in a continual improvement loop. Each process contains sub-processes and questions. It is designed as a measuring tool but I have used it in reverse by utilising the questions within the sub-processes to design the steps and activities needed to build the management systems itself. So your progress through regulatory compliance, ISO certification and progress to best-in-class can be planned effectively and rolled out as part of your normal business planning process.

The following is an extract from the DNV website.

An ISRS assessment is a thorough evaluation of these questions and involves interviews with process owners where the questions are scored and commented. The scope of the assessment is entirely flexible determined by the size and complexity of the organisation and the management team’s requirements. Detailed verification is conducted and organisations must be prepared to offer evidence to support their answers. The process scores determine an overall level of performance between one and ten. The results provide a detailed measure of performance and a gap analysis against the organisation’s desired level of performance. This becomes the planning basis for improvement during the next period. ISRS seventh and eight editions are structured with 15 processes embedded in a continuous improvement loop:

1. Leadership
2. Planning and administration
3. Risk evaluation
4. Human resources
5. Compliance assurance
6. Project management
7. Training and competence
8. Communication and promotion
9. Risk control
10. Asset management
11. Contractor management and purchasing
12. Emergency preparedness
13. Learning from events
14. Risk monitoring
15. Results and review

During my early years of developing ESG systems, the ISRS protocol was extensively used around the world and is available today. To expand the ISRS concept, DNV further developed IERS (environmental) and IQRS (quality). I used these protocols to fully integrate ESG into the normal business planning process. And then the benefits can be clearly seen and achieved (My next series of articles: Better business outcomes using ESG principles).

Step 3. Communicating with stakeholders

Having developed your systems and implementing best-in-class processes, you want a return. This clearly comes by effective communications with your stakeholders. Everyone should know about your efforts and achievements. How else do you think you will be trusted/selected to do that First Nations National Park project? How else do you think the Critical Minerals developments necessary to attempt to reach Net Zero Carbon will continue to get effective and expeditious approvals from the regulatory bodies? How can you provide a response to the eco-challengers that are surely lurking ready to cancel you? And very importantly, how to convince prospective employees that you are the industry that they wish to base their careers around?

Here are some promised references you may wish to peruse to help your thinking on the Net Zero Carbon quest. You may think I am biased towards the negative on this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have sufficient solar power installed such that I require no annualised input from the grid; I am self sufficient in water supply; I am an active recycler and my property has been developed with full ESG aspirations in mind. The fact that I haven’t provided more fact based pro-Net Zero articles is purely to do with, well, they are not available, compared to the numerous pro-nuclear and negatively focused anti Net Zero Carbon debate. I will keep you posted.

The Australian newspaper, January 11^th 2023

Ted O’Brian. Federal Government opposition energy spokesman.

Nuclear Energy? Who better to ask than Japan, whose history is inextricably linked to it.

Comment: Part of the Australian proposed debate on the future of nuclear power.

The Rice Video – CO2 in perspective, Malcolm Roberts. The Galileo Movement.

One Australian view of the issue of anthropological climate change.

Comment: A little old, but the numbers used are factual.

Till next article, stay safe.

Faith is accepting something as true that you can’t prove or disprove. But anthropogenic climate impact enthusiasts rise from faith to fanaticism, because they refuse to even contemplate disproof.

A few years, or even a few centuries of non-reproducible, and therefore non-verifiable, temperature data, accepted on faith even though it cannot be repeated or verified, can be used to model a system, but not to prove that it accurately describes the future of the system. Any model must use only verifiable data collected, and the model must be tested successfully and repeatedly giving the same results each time in order to represent a true model of nature.

Most scientists until just a century ago believed that atoms were only a descriptive model designed by men to simulate the real world by reducing observable phenomena to entities whose properties could be treated as mechanical objects and the motions of which could be calculated by the as then developed mathematical systems of the calculus and statistics.

The properties of gases could be described and analyzed this way, but only by very few men who had mastered the mathematics and Newtonian dynamics, and this was done in successive additions to conceptual schemes until the systems broke down in contradictions. Thus the atom of antiquity became the atom of Dalton, then of Mendeleev, then of Rutherford, Bohr and Moseley, and beyond. We call the practical workers with atoms and their combination “chemists.” Today we accept their conclusions as true if and only if their equally qualified companions agree with them. We call this validation, “peer review.”

For several centuries now students of nature have first mastered the work of those great minds that went before them and then spent most of their lives teaching others to do the same thing. A few of them go on to expand our knowledge and understanding of the world, and the great engineers sometimes work out how to devise uses derived from that understanding, so that even ordinary people could master in their daily lives devices such as the telephone, radio, television, the personal computer, the personal mobile phone, the automobile, the airplane, and so on.

Scientists and engineers rarely begin a project by examining the availability of critical materials necessary for the mass production of a technological device. They only want to prove a concept, either that the science allows the technology to function or that the device can be manufactured or mass produced at a cost the consumer or industrial buyer can afford.

Journalists and politicians and most bureaucrats and academics today are simply not specifically well educated enough to judge the availability of critical materials. Nor are they clever enough, generally, to know who to ask if a natural resource can be produced in sufficient quantity, economically, to support a mass produced technology.

The mineral abundance data is out there. We have extensive surveys of the mineralogical makeup and concentration of most discoveries of critical minerals that have been made, but for some reasons, more and more I believe, “political reasons,” policy makers do not want to ask whether we have access to sufficient economically recoverable mineral deposits, or if there is economic processing capability and capacity to put them into end-user form.

Those who tell us that we must change the world to survive or face extinction have been around for a long time. But rarely have they had the ability to destroy our civilization through mandating very bad choices.

The critical minerals for the technologies to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide by changing the way we produce and use electrical energy are not infinite in supply. Mines are not organic; they live and die when the grade (concentration) of the mineral falls below human technology’s ability to produce it economically.

We can moderate our use of fossil fuels, but there are no technologies known or plausible that can replace them.

We need to take a hard look at what we’re doing to our energy economy and how we can balance energy reality with energy fantasy. Critical minerals drive the ability of our society to manufacture the technologies for alternate production and use of electrical energy. Their availability is a very big part of that. It’s time we took a very hard, informed by experience and data, look at it before we waste all of the time and effort it took to achieve a low-cost energy economy.

Have you noticed that there are a couple of weird things about the spate of recent public temper tantrums by elected officials about ESG matters, especially in the US? Weird thing number one: the gripers all are politicians, so far universally from the Republican Party, which USED to be the pro-business party. Second weird thing: most businesses aren’t wasting time griping, they are adapting – and finding that doing so makes money.

Yes, you read that right – done properly, embracing ESG metrics can make money – for companies and investors – while improving livelihoods and helping to slow the impacts of climate change.

An article in the Toronto Star this month entitled World’s Biggest Carbon-emissions cutters – including TransAlta and CP Rail – also make money, new report finds is a clear example that across industries, companies willing to invest in changing their behavior and reducing their environmental impact, especially in the key area of carbon reduction, can and do maintain their bottom lines and in some cases have increased their profitability due to cost reductions inherent in new technologies. This in turn, of course, leads to increased benefits to shareholders and other stakeholders. This is substantiated by a Morningstar study in which the group concluded that investors can build a global portfolio of companies with positive ESG attributes without compromising returns.

Likewise, research by MSCI classifying funds by their ESG exposure shows a clear and growing investor preference for funds and companies with strong ESG compliance. The MSCI study grouped funds into buckets ranging from AAA (fund is exposed to companies tending to show strong or improving management of financially relevant ESG issues and which may be more resilient to disruptions arising from ESG events) to CCC (fund is exposed to companies not demonstrating adequate management of ESG risks and which may be more vulnerable to disruptions arising from ESG events). MSCI concluded that over $1 trillion has moved from funds on the lower end of the scale to the higher end over the last decade – a movement which appears to be accelerating. In studying the profile of investors, the MSCI analysis found that 88% of high-net worth millennials are actively reviewing the ESG impact of their investment holdings, while 89% of the same group expect their financial professional to do a deep dive into a company’s ESG factors and history with ESG issues before recommending an investment opportunity.

Conversely, not taking action to do more on ESG issues leads to substantial negative consequences for companies, investors and stakeholders.

A recent study by the Harvard Business Journal cited insurance giant Swiss Re saying that not acting on climate will destroy around 18% of global GDP by 2050. If you stop and think about that for a moment, it’s a staggering statement of risk. But the Harvard wonks took that a step further, examining the diverse consequences of climate change in which some areas, such as Siberia, might find growing seasons extended, but in other places (such as Phoenix, my home) cities could become too hot to be livable while some island nations will be swallowed by rising seas. This means, they concluded, that the downside risk for certain regional and (in the case of islands) national economies could be 100%, not 18%.

There’s a third weird thing about the political opposition to ESG. If investors want to put their money into companies engaging in climate-positive actions, and if companies are actively revising their business models to be more climate friendly – what exactly is the problem that these politicians supposedly are concerned with?

When you break down the principles of ESG into their most basic components, it simply amounts to doing the right things for people and the planet.

What’s wrong with that?

Disclaimer: The editor of this post may or may not be a securities holder of any of the companies mentioned in this column. None of the companies discussed in the above feature have paid for this content. The writer of this article/post/column/opinion is not an investment advisor, and is neither licensed to nor is making any buy or sell recommendations. For more information about this or any other company, please review all public documents to conduct your own due diligence. To access the InvestorIntel.com Disclaimer, click here

Australia has a new environmental law of the land. It may not be perfect but it is consequential. Keep in mind that eight years ago, the previous Government repealed the nation’s environmental law which included a carbon pricing scheme.

Subsequent drastic climate events, including a punishing heat wave, huge fires which made international news and unprecedented strains on the power grid lent a sense of urgency to developing a new national environmental policy. Just as was the case in the United States, political change has turned a nation’s policy from climate denier to climate change combatant. Furthermore, and not coincidentally, the new law, officially called the Climate Change Bill 2022 but known as ‘Power Australia’, has been promulgated by Labor (loosely speaking, read Democrats in the US), with help from the Greens, and isn’t popular with Conservatives (read Republicans). But just as the Inflation Reduction Act miraculously passed both Houses in the US, so too did the Power Australia bill become law.

What does the Australian law do? Well, it aims to achieve a 43% reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero by 2050, partially by mandating that 82% of Australia’s electricity will be provided by a pantheon of renewables. It requires “climate benefits” to be measured annually but does not include stipulations for conducting such measurements. Nonetheless, the key objectives are broadly in line with other global commitments and the law puts Australia firmly back in the climate game.

According to press reports, “The law was broadly welcomed by business groups and the environmental movement.” Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said “Legislating these targets gives certainty to investors and participants in the energy market and will help stabilize our energy system.”

No law is ever perfect, of course, and therefore this one has its critics. The main complaint about the law is that it doesn’t include a “carbon count” mechanism. What does this mean? It refers to two important aspects not codified in the law, the first of which, as mentioned above, would be a version of a carbon credit scheme encouraging companies to offset their carbon discharge. These are in place in the US and Canadian climate laws, and play an important role in encouraging the energy industry in particular to invest in renewables to avoid gradually increasing “carbon fines” on their operations.

Perhaps more importantly, the law doesn’t deal with the so-called social cost of carbon emissions. This refers to a cost-benefit analysis conducted on proposed projects in which, if a project is deemed to result in increased carbon emissions, the social cost of carbon multiplied by the expected emissions is added to the cost of the project, while conversely, if the project reduces carbon emissions, the calculated carbon savings are deducted from the project cost. Particularly in public-private projects, this savings makes the project more attractive and reinforces carbon reduction market decisions.

In both the US and Canada, federally-funded infrastructure projects are required to perform the social carbon cost calculation, while in the US, 14 States, including California and New York, also use this measure. At the State level in California, the law also requires all privately funded infrastructure projects – including proposed mining activities – to apply the social calculus. The Biden Administration has set the social figure at $76/ton, applicable to all federal projects. A new study conducted by researchers at the University of California Berkeley and the NGO Resources For The Future, published in ‘Nature” this month, sets that cost at $185/ton.

So what makes up the “social cost” of carbon? The short answer, according to Stanford University: the main components are what happens to the climate and how these changes affect economic outcomes, including changes in agricultural productivity, damage caused by sea level rise, and declines in human health and labor productivity.  Although already hard enough to quantify, many economists and social activists argue that this doesn’t go far enough but should also include social justice factors – for instance, the human damage done by building highways through the heart of cities and isolating or destroying entire communities. The $185/ton cited in the ‘Nature’ study attempts to include these factors, as well as (inter alia) risks to insurance companies resulting from sea level rise and persistent flooding.

So, back to Australia, where environmentalists hope that the social cost of carbon will be included in the implementing legislation setting the standards for measuring carbon reduction progress or lack thereof. Reportedly the national Infrastructure and Transportation plan already incorporates social cost considerations and could serve as a template for a national measurement standard.

In any event, this is a strong step for Australia in the fight to save the planet.

In this InvestorIntel interview with host Tracy Weslosky, dynaCERT Inc.‘s (TSX: DYA | OTCQX: DYFSF) President, CEO, and Director Jim Payne talks about its patented technology for carbon emission reduction to meet ESG goals.

In the interview, which can also be viewed in full on the InvestorIntel YouTube channel (click here to access InvestorChannel.com), Jim tells Tracy that “dynaCERT was going to be at the forefront of the carbon credit world long before even carbon credit was something anybody was talking about.” He explains how dynaCERT’s Carbon Emission Reduction Technology (CERT)  creates hydrogen and oxygen on-demand through a unique electrolysis system and supplies these gases to engines to enhance combustion, resulting in lower carbon emissions and greater fuel efficiency. Jim says that dynaCERT has been working with Verra, the largest governing body to approve and register carbon credits, for over two years.

Talking about commercializing and expanding dynaCERT’s customer base, Jim continued, “we have some of the largest companies in North America that have been talking to me for quite some time. They want they want the carbon credits, they want the bragging rights, they want to be able to say that they have adopted our technology for the carbon credits.” These include municipalities in Canada and in Europe and some of the largest power supply companies in Canada, and also fleets of diesel vehicles. “We improve the fuel economy, more importantly we reduce the emissions right at the source, right at the combustion and we reduce the emissions north of 50 percent,” he says. “By adopting our technology they meet and exceed  their goals for the emission reductions, so there’s a lot of excitement there.”

To access the full InvestorIntel interview, click here.

Don’t miss other InvestorIntel interviews. Subscribe to the InvestorIntel YouTube channel by clicking here.

About dynaCERT Inc.

dynaCERT Inc. manufactures and distributes Carbon Emission Reduction Technology for use with internal combustion engines. As part of the growing global hydrogen economy, our patented technology creates hydrogen and oxygen on-demand through a unique electrolysis system and supplies these gases through the air intake to enhance combustion, resulting in lower carbon emissions and greater fuel efficiency. Our technology is designed for use with many types and sizes of diesel engines used in on-road vehicles, refrigerated trailers, off-road construction, power generation, mining and forestry equipment, marine vessels and railroad locomotives.

To know more about dynaCERT Inc., click here

Disclaimer: dynaCERT Inc. is an advertorial member of InvestorIntel Corp.

This interview, which was produced by InvestorIntel Corp., (IIC), does not contain, nor does it purport to contain, a summary of all the material information concerning the “Company” being interviewed. IIC offers no representations or warranties that any of the information contained in this interview is accurate or complete.

This presentation may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and assumptions of the management of the Company as of the date made. They are inherently susceptible to uncertainty and other factors that could cause actual events/results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Additional risks and uncertainties, including those that the Company does not know about now or that it currently deems immaterial, may also adversely affect the Company’s business or any investment therein.

Any projections given are principally intended for use as objectives and are not intended, and should not be taken, as assurances that the projected results will be obtained by the Company. The assumptions used may not prove to be accurate and a potential decline in the Company’s financial condition or results of operations may negatively impact the value of its securities. Prospective investors are urged to review the Company’s profile on Sedar.com and to carry out independent investigations in order to determine their interest in investing in the Company.

If you have any questions surrounding the content of this interview, please contact us at +1 416 792 8228 and/or email us direct at [email protected].

COP26 is now completed and the changes will impact the cleantech sector in the years ahead. Some came away disappointed at the lack of commitment from the 197 participating countries at COP26; however, there were many positive steps as outlined below.

The major outcomes from COP26

• The “Glasgow Climate Pact” was introduced. It aims to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. It calls for a more ambitious climate response on cutting emissions, climate management finance, and pledging to double adaptation finance, and funding for loss and damage already being caused by warming. Countries were asked to “revisit and strengthen” their climate pledges by the end of 2022.
• New transparency rules to ensure countries report sufficient information to determine whether or not they are meeting their pledges.
• The first ever COP decision to explicitly target action against fossil fuels, calling for a “phase-down” of unabated coal and “phase-out” of “inefficient” fossil-fuel subsidies.
• COP26 finalised rules for global carbon trading; however under the rules, the fossil fuel industry will be allowed to “offset” its carbon emissions and carry on polluting.
• Record-breaking pledges of US$365 million to the Adaptation Fund. This was a tripling of the amount raised last year, with first time contributions from the USA and Canada.

Note: The Adaption Fund is set up to help developing countries build resilience and ‘adapt’ to climate change.

Sectors and companies to benefit from the COP26 changes

The renewable energy sector will continue to be a beneficiary. In particular, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy. So too will nuclear energy benefit. The push for a global warming increase limited to 1.5 °C, and the focus for countries to revisit and strengthen their climate pledges by the end of 2022, should also be a positive catalyst going forward for renewables and nuclear energy.

Carbon capture and storage (“CC&S”) should also continue to benefit. The “phase-down” (not “phase-out”) of coal means CC&S can continue to play a role to reduce carbon emissions.

Zero-emission vehicles such as electric vehicles (“EVs”) indirectly got a boost with the COP26 decision to phase down “inefficient” fossil-fuel subsidies. If implemented fossil fuels would become relatively more expensive making EVs relatively more attractive.

Those companies working in the cleantech sector will benefit from the renewed COP26 push to reduce emissions.

Many InvestorIntel member companies set to benefit

When you look over the list of InvestorIntel member companies the standout feature is that many are involved, either directly or indirectly, in the cleantech and green related sectors. For example, Carbon Streaming Corporation (NEO: NETZ) invests into carbon credits, Cielo Waste Solutions Corp. (TSXV: CMC | OTCQB: CWSFF) turns polluting waste into renewable fuel, dynaCERT Inc. (TSX: DYA | OTCQX: DYFSF) reduces emissions from vehicles, H2O Innovation Inc. (TSXV: HEO | OTCQX: HEOFF) uses technologies to create clean water and treat wastewater, Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX) is investing in and supporting the EV industry, Nano One Materials Corp. (TSX: NANO) works to develop and commercialize better and cheaper cathodes for lithium ion batteries, and NEO Battery Materials Ltd. (TSXV: NBM) is developing silicon anodes for lithium ion batteries..

The mining companies that produce or are working to produce the raw materials that go into solar and wind energy, as well as electric vehicles, batteries, and other energy storage products, stand to benefit. This includes the rare earths (Appia Rare Earths & Uranium Corp. (CSE: API | OTCQB: APAAF), Search Minerals Inc. (TSXV: SMY | OTCQB: SHCMF), USA Rare Earth, LLC, Vital Metals Limited (ASX: VML); lithium (Avalon Advanced Materials Inc. (TSX: AVL | OTCQB: AVLNF), Critical Elements Lithium Corporation (TSXV: CRE), Neo Lithium Corp. (TSXV: NLC); cobalt (CBLT Inc. (TSXV: CBLT), Global Energy Metals Corporation (TSXV: GEMC); graphite; nickel (Nickel 28 Capital Corp. (TSXV: NKL); manganese; copper (Kodiak Copper Corp. (TSXV: KDK), Murchison Minerals Ltd. (TSXV: MUR); vanadium and scandium (Imperial Mining Group Ltd. (TSXV: IPG), Scandium International Mining Corp. (TSX: SCY). Another is the rare earths’ magnet materials maker Neo Performance Materials Inc. (TSX: NEO).

Finally, a phase-down of coal is a positive for the smart nuclear sector and hence the uranium miners and explorers such as Energy Fuels Inc. (NYSE American: UUUU | TSX: EFR), Ur-Energy Inc. (NYSE American: URG | TSX: URE), Western Uranium & Vanadium Corp. (CSE: WUC | OTCQX: WSTRF), Fission 3.0 Corp. (TSXV: FUU | OTCQB: FISOF), Appia Rare Earths & Uranium Corp. (CSE: API | OTCQB: APAAF), and Azincourt Energy Corp. (TSXV: AAZ).

Closing remarks

COP26 was perhaps more successful than what some are reporting. The phase-down of coal is a good achievement, with India joining this for the first time. The new transparency rules are underappreciated, given currently that there are no penalties for not following the climate change targets (only naming and shaming). New rules for global carbon credits trading are also a positive step forward. Also, the tripling of pledges to the Adaptation Fund to help developing companies is welcome.

Investors could look through the list of InvestorIntel members and select the companies that they think best align with the COP26 changes and the massive trend towards reducing emissions and producing green energy and technology this decade.

See you next time for COP27 in November 2022, this time in Egypt.