Connect with us

Published

on

Visa vs. Mastercard: Who’s Leading the Charge in Finance, Sustainability, and Net Zero?

Visa and Mastercard, processing billions of payment transactions yearly, reported strong financial growth in 2025, driven by rising payment volumes and cross-border transactions. However, their massive operations generate significant carbon emissions, pushing them to adopt sustainability and net zero strategies. 

How do they balance profit and sustainability? This article uncovers Visa and Mastercard’s financial strength and net zero initiatives – who’s making the biggest impact on emissions reduction and climate action.

Strong Numbers, Stronger Strategy: Visa’s Q1 2025 Performance

Visa reported strong Q1 2025 results, with net revenue rising 10% year-over-year (YoY) to $9.5 billion. Net income also increased 5% to $5.1 billion, while GAAP earnings per share (EPS) grew 8% to $2.58 and non-GAAP EPS stood at $2.75. Visa’s board declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.59 per share.

Visa Q1 2025 financial results

The company attributed its growth to strong consumer spending, a rise in payment volume, and an increase in cross-border transactions. CEO Ryan McInerney highlighted three major growth drivers:

  • Consumer payments,
  • New payment flows, and
  • Value-added services.

These areas continue to expand as Visa strengthens its global network.

A key move during the quarter was Visa’s acquisition of Featurespace, an artificial intelligence-powered fraud protection firm. This acquisition aligns with Visa’s long-term goal of enhancing transaction security. 

While Visa continues to grow, its expenses are also increasing, particularly in research and development. However, its strong revenue growth has helped maintain profitability and reinforce its position as a leader in the payments industry.

Mastering Growth: How Mastercard Outpaced Expectations

Mastercard posted strong 2024 results, with net revenue increasing 12% YoY to $28.2 billion, beating market expectations. Adjusted EPS grew 19% to $14.60, exceeding analyst estimates. Its adjusted operating margin improved slightly to 58.4%.

In Q4 2024, Mastercard’s gross dollar volume reached $2.6 trillion, up 12% YoY. Cross-border volumes, a key revenue driver, rose 20%, while switched transactions increased 11% to 42.2 billion. The company’s value-added services generated $3.1 billion in revenue, up 16%.

mastercard financial performance Q4 2024

Mastercard’s value-added services and solutions business also played a critical role in its financial performance. Net revenue from these services reached $3.1 billion, a 16% YoY increase, driven by demand for security, digital authentication, and market insights. 

Unlike Visa, Mastercard experienced a sharper increase in operating expenses, which climbed by 14% YoY to $3.3 billion. The rise was mainly due to higher general and administrative costs. However, adjusted operating income still grew by 15% YoY to $4.22 billion.

Both Visa and Mastercard reported strong financial growth, but Mastercard outpaced Visa in revenue, EPS growth, and transaction volume. Visa focused on operational efficiency and security investments, while Mastercard’s cross-border transactions and value-added services drove its growth. 

A Green Rivalry: Who’s Leading the Sustainability and Net Zero Race?

Despite rising expenses, both companies remain leaders in the global payments industry. However, their massive operations with billions of transactions processed annually generate carbon emissions, prompting them to reduce their environmental footprint. While they share common goals, their sustainability and net zero approaches differ.

Swiping Towards Sustainability: Visa’s Carbon Goals and Green Investments

Visa aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2040, aligning with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C pathway. It has been carbon neutral in its operations since 2020, achieving this by reducing direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and purchasing carbon offsets. The company sources 100% renewable electricity for its offices and data centers, significantly cutting GHG emissions. 

Visa has made notable strides in reducing its operational emissions, particularly in Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which saw a downward trend from 2009 to 2022. However, in 2023, Scope 1 and 2 emissions increased from 6,400 to 10,600 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, primarily due to a slight uptick in Scope 2 emissions, rising from zero in 2022 to 300 metric tons. 

Visa operational emissions
Chart from Visa sustainability report

Despite this, Visa continues to offset its emissions significantly toward net zero. The payment processor has invested in carbon offsets equivalent to 66,300 metric tons of CO2 in 2023. 

In terms of Scope 3 emissions, Visa experienced a slight rise in 2023, reaching 409,500 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. This is driven mainly by increases in employee commuting and business travel, while emissions from purchased goods and services saw a small decrease.

visa scope 3 emissions

Carbon Offsets, Green Finance, and Climate Tech Solutions

Visa invests in renewable energy projects and high-quality carbon offset programs. The company supports global reforestation initiatives and clean energy transition projects. 

In 2023, Visa’s environmental investments helped mitigate the equivalent of 400,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions.

The payment processor’s sustainability efforts extend to financial products. Visa has partnered with fintech firms to introduce carbon footprint tracking tools for consumers. 

Through the Visa Eco Benefits program, banks can offer sustainability-focused rewards and carbon offset options. Additionally, Visa has worked with financial institutions to issue over 20 million eco-friendly payment cards made from recycled materials or biodegradable alternatives.

Furthermore, Visa is integrating sustainability into mobility and payment solutions. The company supports contactless payments for public transit to reduce reliance on cash and has collaborated with EV charging networks to streamline payments. 

The company is also investing in climate-focused fintech startups that develop solutions for carbon tracking and sustainable finance. However, compared to its competitor, its indirect emissions strategy is less aggressive.

Priceless Progress: Mastercard’s Commitment to a Net-Zero Future

Mastercard has been carbon neutral in its operations since 2021 and aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2040. Like Visa, it sources 100% renewable electricity for its offices and data centers.

Mastercard has made significant progress in reducing its GHG emissions as part of its commitment to environmental sustainability. In 2023, the company achieved a 1% reduction in total emissions, totaling 557,545 metric tons of CO2 equivalent across Scope 1, 2, and 3. 

Mastercard GHG emissions 2023
Chart from Mastercard sustainability report

Notably, its Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which account for 9% of total GHG emissions, decreased by 7%, producing 52,054 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. These emissions have declined significantly, 48%, from its 2016 baseline. 

For Scope 3 emissions, which make up 78% of the company’s total emissions, Mastercard saw a 3% reduction in its supply chain emissions in 2023, totaling 437,588 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. 

The payment processor remains on track to meet its 2025 targets of reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 38% and Scope 3 emissions by 20% compared to 2016 levels.

Mastercard‘s Scope 3 emissions came from indirect sources, primarily from its financial partners and supply chain. To address this, the company has integrated sustainability criteria into its vendor selection process and encourages its banking partners to reduce their own carbon footprints.

mastercard emissions source breakdown

Mastercard’s Green Finance and Reforestation Efforts

Mastercard takes a different approach to carbon offsets and net zero from Visa. The company launched the Priceless Planet Coalition, a global reforestation initiative aiming to restore 100 million trees by 2025. 

Through this initiative, Mastercard has already funded the planting of 60 million trees across 20 countries, aiming to remove approximately 10 million metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere by 2030.

mastercard priceless planet coalition

Mastercard has also taken the lead in sustainable financial tools. The Mastercard Carbon Calculator, developed with Doconomy, allows consumers to track the carbon footprint of their purchases directly within their banking apps. Over 50 banks worldwide have integrated this tool, helping millions of users make informed spending decisions.

Additionally, Mastercard has expanded its ESG-linked financial products, including green bonds and sustainability-focused credit cards. In 2023, the company supported the issuance of $500 million in ESG-linked financial products, reinforcing its commitment to sustainable finance.

Mastercard is also investing in climate technology and EV infrastructure. It has partnered with global EV charging networks to streamline payment processes and promote wider EV adoption. The company is also funding fintech startups that focus on climate risk management and sustainable investment platforms.

Visa vs. Mastercard: Who Leads in Sustainability?

Both Visa and Mastercard are making significant strides in financials and net zero. They both have achieved carbon neutrality in their operations, but Mastercard appears to have a more comprehensive and aggressive approach.

By integrating sustainability into financial products, investing in large-scale reforestation, and actively reducing indirect emissions, Mastercard sets a higher standard in climate action. Visa, on the other hand, excels in operational efficiency and renewable energy adoption but may need to expand its influence over its financial network to achieve a more substantial impact.

The post Visa vs. Mastercard: Who’s Leading the Charge in Finance, Sustainability, and Net Zero? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain

Published

on

“…Protecting nature makes our business more resilient…”

For companies with land, water, food, fiber, or commodity exposure, the supply chain may be the most practical place to turn nature from a risk into an operating asset.

Your supply chain already has a nature strategy. It may be undocumented. It may live in procurement files, supplier contracts, commodity maps, and one spreadsheet nobody opens without coffee. But it exists.

If your business depends on farms, forests, water, soil, packaging, rubber, timber, fibers, minerals, or food ingredients, nature is part of your operating system. The question is whether you manage that system with intent, or discover it during a disruption, audit, or difficult board question.

That is why more companies are asking how to find Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain. Do not begin by shopping for offsets. Begin by asking where nature already affects cost, continuity, emissions, regulatory exposure, and supplier resilience.

What Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain Means

The European Commission defines nature-based solutions as approaches inspired and supported by nature that are cost-effective, deliver environmental, social, and economic benefits, and help build resilience. They should also benefit biodiversity and support ecosystem services.

In supply-chain terms, that becomes practical. Nature-based solutions in your supply chain can include agroforestry in cocoa, coffee, rubber, or palm supply chains. They can include soil health programs for food ingredients, watershed restoration near water-intensive operations, mangrove restoration linked to coastal sourcing regions, and avoided deforestation in forest-linked commodities.

The key test is business relevance. If your procurement team relies on a landscape, watershed, crop, or supplier base, that is where opportunity may sit. The best projects do not hover outside the business like a framed certificate. They plug into the system that already produces your revenue.

Why the Boardroom Should Care

For many companies, the largest climate and nature exposure sits outside direct operations. The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard gives companies a method to account for and report value-chain emissions across sectors. Purchased goods, land use, transport, supplier energy, and product use can make direct emissions look like the visible tip of a very large iceberg.

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures notes that many nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities arise upstream and downstream. That is why nature-based supply chain investments matter to boards. You are managing supply security, audit readiness, investor confidence, and regulatory preparedness.

For companies exposed to EU markets, this also connects to rules and expectations such as CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and SBTi FLAG.

Step One: Map Where You Touch Land, Water, and Living Systems

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain starts with mapping, not marketing.

Begin with procurement and Scope 3 data. Which categories carry high spend, high emissions, or high sourcing risk? Which suppliers depend on agriculture, forestry, mining, water-intensive processing, or land conversion? Which regions face water stress, heat, flood risk, soil degradation, deforestation, or biodiversity pressure?

The Science Based Targets Network uses a clear process for companies: assess, prioritize, set targets, act, and track. That sequence keeps companies from treating nature as a mood board. You identify where the business has exposure, then decide where intervention can create measurable value.

Step Two: Look for Operational Value Before Carbon Value

This is the center of CCC’s Dual-Value Model. A nature-based supply chain investment should do useful work for the business before anyone counts the carbon.

Agroforestry may improve farmer resilience, shade crops, protect soil, and reduce pressure on forests. Watershed restoration may reduce water risk for beverage, textile, or manufacturing sites. Soil health programs may improve the stability of agricultural inputs.

Carbon and sustainability value can still be created. In some cases, the project may support Scope 3 insetting. In others, it may generate verified carbon credits. Sometimes the main value may be resilience, readiness, and better supplier data.

The IPCC has found that ecosystem-based adaptation can reduce climate risks to people, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, with multiple co-benefits, while also warning that effectiveness declines as warming increases. That is a sober argument for acting early.

Step Three: Separate Insetting, Offsetting, and Resilience

Nature-based solutions in your supply chain are not automatically carbon credits. They are not automatically Scope 3 reductions either.

An insetting opportunity usually sits inside or close to your value chain. It may support Scope 3 reporting if the accounting rules, project boundaries, supplier connection, and data quality are strong enough.

An offsetting opportunity usually involves verified credits outside your value chain. High-quality credits can still play a role for residual emissions, but they should not distract from direct reductions or credible value-chain work.

A resilience opportunity may deliver business value even if you cannot claim a Scope 3 reduction immediately. That may include water security, supplier capacity, land restoration, biodiversity protection, or regulatory readiness.

Gold Standard’s Scope 3 value-chain guidance focuses on reporting emissions reductions from interventions in purchased goods and services. Verra’s Scope 3 Standard Program is being developed to certify value-chain interventions and issue units for companies’ emissions accounting. The direction is clear: stronger evidence, tighter boundaries, and more disciplined claims.

Step Four: Design for Audit-Readiness From the Beginning

Weak data is where promising nature projects go to become expensive anecdotes.

Before public claims are made, you need to know the baseline. What would have happened without the project? Who owns or manages the land? Which suppliers are involved? How will outcomes be measured? How will leakage, permanence, and double counting be addressed?

The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard gives companies methods to quantify, report, and track land emissions, CO2 removals, and related metrics. This matters because land projects are rarely neat. Farms change practices. Suppliers shift volumes. Weather changes outcomes.

What Recent Corporate Examples Show

Recent case studies show that supply-chain nature work is becoming more serious, and more scrutinized.

Reuters has reported on insetting to reduce emissions within supply chains, including examples linked to Reckitt, Danone, Nestlé, Earthworm Foundation, and Nature-based Insights. The same article highlights familiar problems: measurement, double counting, supplier incentives, and credibility.

Reuters has also reported on companies using the Science Based Targets Network process to examine nature impacts. GSK, Holcim, and Kering were among the first companies with validated science-based targets for nature.

The Financial Times has covered the promise and difficulty of soil carbon in corporate supply chains, including a PepsiCo example in India where yields reportedly increased while greenhouse gas emissions fell. The lesson is that carbon, soil, biodiversity, farmer economics, and measurement need to be handled together.

A Practical Screening Checklist

A supply-chain nature-based solution deserves deeper review when you can answer yes to most of these questions:

  • Does it sit in or near a material supply-chain hotspot?
  • Does it address a real business risk?
  • Can you connect it to supplier behavior, land management, or sourcing practices?
  • Can the outcomes be measured?
  • Are the claim boundaries clear?
  • Does it support Scope 3 strategy, SBTi FLAG, CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, or investor reporting needs?
  • Are permanence, leakage, land rights, and community issues addressed?

Build the Asset, Then Make the Claim

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain is about identifying where your business already depends on living systems, then designing interventions that make those systems more resilient, measurable, and commercially useful.

For companies with material Scope 3 exposure, the right project can support supplier resilience, emissions strategy, regulatory readiness, and credible climate communication. The wrong project can become a glossy story with a weak audit trail.

Carbon Credit Capital helps companies design nature-based carbon and sustainability assets that embed directly into corporate supply chains. Through CCC’s Dual-Value Model, you can assess where sustainability investment may support operational resilience, Scope 3 insetting eligibility, regulatory readiness, and high-quality carbon or sustainability value.

Schedule your consultation with the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital to explore how nature-based supply chain investments can support your next stage of climate strategy.

Sources

  1. European Commission: Nature-based solutions
  2. GHG Protocol: Corporate Value Chain Scope 3 Standard
  3. TNFD: Guidance on value chains
  4. European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Reporting
  5. European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence
  6. European Commission: Regulation on Deforestation-free Products
  7. SBTi: Forest, Land and Agriculture FLAG
  8. Science Based Targets Network: Take Action
  9. IPCC AR6 WGII Summary for Policymakers
  10. Gold Standard: Scope 3 Value Chain Interventions Guidance
  11. Verra: Scope 3 Standard Program
  12. GHG Protocol: Land Sector and Removals Standard
  13. Reuters: Can insetting stack the cards towards more sustainable supply chains?
  14. Reuters: Three companies put their impacts on nature under a microscope
  15. Financial Times: The dubious climate gains of turning soil into a carbon sink

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living

Published

on

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

A light bulb, a pen, a calculator and some copper euro cent coins lie on top of an electricity bill

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:

  1. Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
  2. Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
  3. 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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance

Published

on

A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com