Climate change is not only a physical threat, but it also affects the world’s economy. A major new study published in the journal Nature on March 25, 2026, puts a clear number on this impact. It finds that carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from the United States caused about $10.2 trillion in total economic damage worldwide between 1990 and 2020. This makes the U.S. the largest single contributor to climate-related economic loss over that period.
The study shows that emissions slow economic growth in many countries. Rising temperatures cut productivity, lower output, and hurt long-term economic performance around the globe.
Marshall Burke, the lead author of the study, remarked:
“If you warm people up a little bit, we see very clear historical evidence, you grow a little bit less quickly. If you accumulate those effects over 30 years, you just get a really large change by the end of 30 years. It’s like death by a thousand cuts. And you have people being harmed who did not cause the problem, and that feels just fundamentally unfair.”
The researchers focused on carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. They used data on how temperature affects economic activity and then linked that to how much CO₂ different countries have emitted since 1990. This method links climate science to real economic results, including slower growth, lower productivity, and smaller national outputs.
Counting the Dollars: $10 Trillion in U.S.-Linked Damage
One of the study’s central findings is striking. From 1990 to 2020, U.S. emissions likely caused around $10.2 trillion in global economic damage. This means that warming linked to U.S. emissions has reduced economic production across many countries. The study links these impacts to heat’s long-term effects on labor, agriculture, and overall economic growth.
The damage is not confined to other nations. Roughly 30% of that $10.2 trillion figure is estimated to have occurred within the United States itself. In other words, U.S. emissions have slowed economic growth at home as well as abroad. The remaining impacts are spread across the global economy.
The researchers found that U.S. emissions led to about $500 billion in damage in India and around $330 billion in Brazil during that time. These figures show how carbon released in one area can affect economies far away.
A New Framework for Loss and Damage
The Nature study introduces a new framework for assessing what scientists call “loss and damage.” This term refers to harms that cannot be prevented by reducing emissions or avoided through adaptation alone.
The study uses economic data and climate models. It tracks how temperature changes over the years impact economic output.
- To put the numbers into context: one tonne of CO₂ emitted in 1990 is estimated to have caused about $180 in global economic damages by 2020.
But that same tonne is projected to cause an additional $1,840 of cumulative damage by 2100, as warming continues and its effects compound over time. This highlights that past emissions still contribute to future economic harm.
The researchers highlight that these estimates focus on economic output, like goods and services. They do not account for all types of climate damage. They do not include costs from loss of life, health impacts, biodiversity collapse, cultural heritage losses, or many kinds of infrastructure damage. These excluded impacts could raise the true total cost of climate change even further.
The Social Cost of Carbon Revisited
This study is part of a broader scientific effort to understand the economic impacts of climate change. Climate and economic models show that rising temperatures are already slowing economic growth. If emissions stay high, this slowdown will get worse in the future.
Analyses by major international institutions and research groups project that climate change could reduce global GDP by a significant percentage by mid-century. This is compared to scenarios with strong mitigation, though exact figures vary by method.
The concept of estimating a “social cost of carbon” (SCC) — a monetary estimate of economic damage per tonne of CO₂ — has been used in policy analysis for years. It helps governments weigh trade-offs in climate policy. For example, they can decide how much to invest in emissions cuts versus adaptation.
However, traditional SCC estimates have been debated. They depend on assumptions about future growth, discount rates, and climate sensitivity. The Nature study advances this approach by tying economic outcomes directly to observed climate impacts.
Economists and climate scientists agree that warming impacts several areas. These include agricultural yields, labor productivity, energy demand, and health outcomes. These effects reduce economic output and increase costs for businesses and governments. The latest research makes these links more explicit by assigning dollar values to the historical impacts of emissions.
Equity and Global Responsibility
The research’s results also highlight important equity questions. Low-income countries often face bigger economic impacts compared to their emissions histories.
For example, nations with warmer climates and more fragile infrastructure may experience greater output losses due to temperature increases. These effects grow over time and can worsen existing development challenges.
At the same time, richer countries with higher historical emissions may take a larger share of responsibility for damage. The Nature study shows it is possible to calculate responsibility in monetary terms. However, turning those numbers into legal or financial obligations is still complex.
Remarkably, the paper also shows that climate damage can be linked to specific activities, individuals, and companies. Burning fossil fuels for long flights greatly adds to warming.
- Just one round-trip intercontinental flight each year for ten years can cause about $25,000 in global economic damage by 2100.
Bill Gates’ emissions stand out due to his frequent air travel and high energy use. These personal and business choices significantly contribute to his overall impact. Saudi Aramco, a top fossil fuel producer, has caused an estimated $3 trillion in climate-related economic damage worldwide since 1991.
Tail Risks and Future Costs
The researchers also point toward the future. It finds that future damages from past emissions are much larger than the losses already accrued.
Since CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for centuries, its warming effects — and the economic damages linked to them — will persist well beyond 2020. This “tail risk” means that the total cost of historical emissions could rise sharply over the rest of this century.
Climate risk is increasingly integrated into economic planning and finance. Governments, businesses, and international institutions are incorporating climate scenarios into investment decisions and risk models.
This includes assessing how rising temperatures may affect infrastructure costs, insurance markets, supply chains, and national budgets. Without strong mitigation and adaptation measures, these economic pressures are expected to grow.
A Shared Reality, Quantified
The Nature study offers a clear and data-based way to think about the economic harms of climate change. Emissions from the United States since 1990 have caused over $10 trillion in global economic damage. This includes harm in the U.S., India, and Brazil.
These findings do not assign legal liability. However, they provide a meaningful picture of how climate change affects the global economy in terms of the social costs of carbon. They show that the costs of climate impacts are measurable and significant.
As the world continues to adapt and respond to climate change, understanding these economic links will be crucial for policymakers, businesses, and communities.
The post $10 Trillion in Carbon Cost? How U.S. Emissions Hit the Global Economy appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
