The voluntary carbon market (VCM) enters 2026 with stronger foundations than a year ago. Despite political headwinds in 2025, investment, contracting, and integrity standards advanced.
According to Abatable’s 2026 market report, forward carbon credit contracts rose 58% year-on-year to $5.8 billion in 2025. This surge shows that buyers are locking in future supply rather than relying on spot purchases.
Funding for carbon credit projects reached $15.8 billion in 2025, even after a slowdown in engineered removal investments. Notably, nature-based funding hit a record $9 billion, signaling strong demand for high-integrity supply.
At the same time, compliance markets are reshaping demand patterns. CORSIA, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, is set to create an extra 78 million tonnes of demand by 2026. This is in addition to the 58 million tonnes needed for 2024 emissions.
But the most significant structural shift may come from Japan.
GX-ETS: From Voluntary Signal to Compliance Engine
Japan’s new GX-ETS (Green Transformation Emissions Trading Scheme) becomes mandatory in April 2026. The Asian country emits roughly 1 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year. The GX-ETS will initially cover 500–600 million tonnes annually, more than half of national emissions.
- Between 300 and 400 companies will be regulated under the scheme.
Companies will be allowed to meet up to 10% of their compliance obligations using carbon credits. That creates potential demand of 50–60 million tonnes of credits per year.

For comparison, total voluntary carbon market retirements across major registries were 163 million tonnes in 2025. Japan alone could represent roughly one-third of that volume in compliance-driven demand.
This is not incremental; it is structural.
Convergence in Practice: J-Credits and JCM
Japan’s design shows how compliance and voluntary systems are merging. Companies can use two credit routes under GX-ETS:
- J-Credits – Japan’s domestic carbon credit scheme
- Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) – An Article 6.2 international crediting system with 29 partner countries
J-Credits cover nature-based solutions, renewable energy, and industrial efficiency. Engineered removals such as BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) and DAC(direct air capture) are expected to be added in future phases.
The JCM focuses largely on avoidance projects, including renewable energy and efficiency measures. This structure links Japan’s domestic compliance market directly to international carbon trading under the Paris Agreement. It effectively blends compliance demand with voluntary market infrastructure.
Why This Matters for the VCM: From Optional Offsets to Structured Demand
The voluntary market has long relied on corporate net-zero commitments. Yet, that driver is evolving.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) remains the most influential corporate demand-side framework. Its new Corporate Net Zero Standard V2 draft introduces the concept of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER). Companies may be recognized for addressing ongoing emissions using carbon credits.
This shifts the narrative. Credits are no longer seen only as optional compensation tools. They may become structured components of transition plans.
Meanwhile, integrity has become central.
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) has approved 40 CCP methodologies across eight programs. CCP-approved methods might create 865 million more credits by 2035. That’s a ninefold rise from current levels.
Even so, CCP-eligible credits are projected to represent only 12.7% of cumulative voluntary supply by 2035. In this context, Japan’s GX-ETS creates guaranteed, regulated demand for credits that meet compliance rules.
This may increase price discipline and quality screening.
Asia Emerges as the Carbon Pricing Growth Hub
Japan is not acting alone. China is expanding its national ETS and moving toward absolute emissions caps. India plans to launch its Carbon Credit Trading Scheme in mid-2026.
Across Asia, carbon pricing systems now cover hundreds of millions of tonnes of emissions. Globally, carbon pricing instruments cover about 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the World Bank.

Japan’s GX-ETS will become Asia’s second-largest carbon market.
This regional shift is important. Asia makes up a big part of global emissions and industrial output. When compliance systems in big economies allow some use of carbon credits, they connect voluntary methods to formal rules.
Several other Asian countries already run, or are building, carbon pricing systems.
South Korea operates the Korea Emissions Trading System (K-ETS), launched in 2015. It is one of the largest ETS programs in the region. The International Energy Agency reports that K-ETS includes nearly 80% of Korea’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions. It also targets around 800 of the country’s largest emitters.
Singapore uses a national carbon tax instead of an ETS. The National Environment Agency says Singapore raised its carbon tax to S$25 per tonne in 2024 and 2025, and it will rise to S$45 per tonne in 2026 and 2027. Starting in 2024, Singapore allowed companies to offset up to 5% of taxable emissions. They can use eligible international carbon credits for this.
Indonesia has moved into carbon trading through a formal exchange. The Indonesia Stock Exchange’s carbon platform, IDXCarbon, launched in September 2023, after the country’s financial regulator granted the operator a license. Indonesia’s wider system is expected to evolve into a hybrid model that links trading with a carbon tax-style backstop.
Vietnam has also set a clear roadmap. The International Carbon Action Partnership states that Vietnam updated its carbon market rules in June 2025. It also mandated a pilot ETS starting in August 2025. A fully functioning carbon market is expected by 2029.
These programs show how carbon markets are spreading across Asia through different policy designs. Some countries use cap-and-trade systems. Others use carbon taxes with limited credit use. These models can boost cross-border linkages over time. As Article 6 systems grow, buyers will look for credits that fit both voluntary and compliance needs.
Tightening Supply, Rising Quality Premiums
Supply dynamics are also shifting. Following the 2021 issuance peak, the 2025 supply continued to decline. The net surplus of credits fell to Abatable’s 2026 market report, down from 123 million in 2024.
Avoidance projects still dominate supply. Cookstoves, industrial efficiency, renewable energy, and REDD+ accounted for 222 million tonnes, or 83% of supply in 2025.

Notably, forward pricing data show buyers paying premiums for higher-integrity methodologies, especially CCP-approved projects. Meanwhile, engineered removals remain scarce and expensive. Biochar leads in engineered supply offers. Other removal types mainly use forward contracts for trading.
As compliance markets such as GX-ETS and CORSIA expand, demand for eligible units may tighten supply and lift prices. For CORSIA alone, total First Phase demand is projected at 200–220 million tonnes.

Adding potential GX-ETS demand of 50–60 million tonnes per year changes the scale of market expectations.
2026: A Structural Realignment, Compliance and VCM Begin to Merge
The convergence between compliance and voluntary markets is no longer theoretical. Japan’s GX-ETS demonstrates a model where:
- A large national ETS covers over half of emissions
- Companies can use carbon credits for 10% of compliance
- Domestic and international credit systems integrate
- Integrity standards increasingly define eligibility
This integration creates predictable demand. It may also reduce reputational risk for buyers. Credits used in compliance systems face higher scrutiny.
For voluntary buyers, this strengthens signals around quality and durability, while for project developers, it offers more stable forward revenue. For policymakers, it creates flexibility without abandoning emissions caps.
The VCM deployed 55 million tonnes of high-quality credits through Abatable’s platform alone, across more than 200 companies
In 2026, the market looks more institutional. Forward contracting is rising, integrity standards are tightening, and compliance systems are opening to credit use.
Japan’s GX-ETS may prove to be the clearest sign yet that carbon markets are moving toward structured integration. If 2025 was about resilience, 2026 may be about alignment. And Japan is leading that shift.
- READ MORE: The Carbon Credit Market in 2025 is A Turning Point: What Comes Next for 2026 and Beyond?
The post 2026 Could Redefine Voluntary and Compliance Carbon Market Convergence, with Japan Leading the Way appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares
Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

