Connect with us

Published

on

NVIDIA

The semiconductor industry powers artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and modern data centers. Yet, it is also one of the most energy-hungry and resource-heavy industries. When Nvidia announced a $5 billion investment in Intel, with plans to co-develop chips that combine Nvidia’s AI technology with Intel’s CPU architecture, many see this as a big business move.

Adding to the spotlight, Nvidia also signed a $100 billion deal with OpenAI to supply advanced AI hardware for the next generation of AI models. However, these moves raise an important question: can such deals help reduce carbon emissions and improve sustainable computing?

The High Cost of Silicon: Why ESG Matters

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues now play a major role in how technology companies are judged. Making chips requires huge amounts of water, energy, and chemicals.

Once built, the chips power data centers and AI systems that consume even more electricity. This makes sustainability a challenge for both chip production and chip use.

Both Intel and Nvidia have set ambitious climate goals. Intel has pledged to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for Scope 1 and Scope 2 operations by 2040. The company further aims for net-zero upstream Scope 3 emissions by 2050. It also targets net-positive water use and zero waste to landfills by 2030.

Intel net zero roadmap
Source: Intel

Nvidia, which outsources chip production, promises to lower emissions in its products. It also wants suppliers to set science-based climate goals.

By the end of fiscal 2025, Nvidia used 100% renewable electricity in all its offices and data centers. This move cut its Scope 2 emissions to zero. In fiscal 2024, the company emitted 3,692,423 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent. This total includes emissions from Scopes 1, 2, and 3, showing its environmental impact.

nvidia 2024 emissions
Source: NVIDIA

Nvidia surpassed its supplier engagement goal. It worked with partners covering over 80% of Scope 3 Category 1 emissions, up from the initial target of 67%.

By joining forces with Intel, Nvidia gains access not only to its production capacity but also to its sustainability practices. Intel aims for cleaner supply chains and greener manufacturing. This effort could lower the impact of new joint chips.

Nvidia is “fabless” and usually relies on partners like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). This partnership gives Nvidia more control over how chips are made, packaged, and delivered.

The recent OpenAI deal further emphasizes Nvidia’s role in high-powered AI while keeping sustainability in mind. The company will provide energy-efficient chips for OpenAI’s large AI tasks. This shows the importance of balancing AI development and reducing carbon emissions.

Power-Hungry AI: Cutting Emissions per Computation

The environmental impact of chips is not limited to their production. In fact, much of the emissions tied to semiconductors come from how they are used in practice. Large-scale AI training, for example, requires massive computing power and electricity.

As demand for AI continues to surge, the energy needs of data centers are climbing quickly. The International Energy Agency predicts that global data center electricity demand may double by 2030. This raises concerns about the carbon footprint of AI-driven growth.

data center electricity demand due AI 2030

Here, the Nvidia-Intel partnership could play a vital role. Intel has set a target to improve the energy efficiency of its processors by 10 times by 2030. Nvidia is also focusing on efficiency. They aim to cut emissions for each computation. This includes lowering carbon dioxide equivalent per petaflop of processing power.

The OpenAI deal adds another layer. Nvidia will supply AI chips to power massive models while aiming to maintain energy efficiency. This ensures that even as AI workloads grow dramatically, emissions per computation can stay lower than older technologies.

“Compute infrastructure will be the basis for the economy of the future,” said Sam Altman, cofounder and CEO of OpenAI. “We will utilise what we’re building with Nvidia to both create new AI breakthroughs and empower people and businesses with them at scale.”

Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, stated:

“Compute infrastructure will be the basis for the economy of the future… We will utilise what we’re building with Nvidia to both create new AI breakthroughs and empower people and businesses with them at scale.”

Nvidia and OpenAI: The $100 Billion AI Hardware Deal

Under its $100 billion deal with OpenAI, Nvidia will provide AI hardware for the next generation of large AI models. This agreement names Nvidia as the main supplier of specialized GPUs and AI chips for OpenAI’s large computing tasks.

The deal includes support for AI training infrastructure. It also covers software optimization and ongoing maintenance of data center operations.

Nvidia’s fine print states it will provide advanced GPUs over the years. This way, OpenAI can grow its AI systems smoothly and without delays. OpenAI will also commit to using Nvidia’s energy-efficient chips and adopt best practices to limit energy use per computation. Both companies will closely track power use and emissions. They will link efficiency gains to contract milestones.

The companies will work together to build advanced AI supercomputing systems, starting with the Nvidia Vera Rubin platform in the second half of 2026. They plan to roll out 10 gigawatts of computing power, creating one of the largest AI infrastructures ever.

This partnership emphasizes two points:

  • AI demand is growing at an unprecedented speed, and

  • There is increasing pressure to meet that demand while minimizing carbon emissions.

Nvidia is using high-performance, energy-efficient hardware to support OpenAI’s bold AI projects. This helps keep energy use and emissions low. The deal further boosts Nvidia’s role in driving sustainable AI growth. It aligns with its ESG and supply-chain efforts.

Following this announcement, Nvidia’s stock experienced a significant uptick. Shares surged over 4%, making it a top performer on major indices including the Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P 500. This surge reflects investor optimism about Nvidia’s strengthened position in the AI infrastructure market.

nvidia stock

The Fine Print: Supply Chains and Scope 3 Hurdles

Even with progress, the semiconductor industry faces significant challenges in reducing its environmental footprint. Making advanced chips requires temperatures over 1,000°C. It also requires special chemicals and rare materials such as gallium, cobalt, and indium.

Modern fabs use a lot of energy. For example, one Intel fab can use up to 150 million kWh of electricity each year. This results in about 50,000 metric tons of CO₂ emissions annually.

Globally, semiconductor manufacturing produces over 400 million metric tons of CO₂ each year. This is about 1% of all global emissions. With demand for AI chips and cloud services growing, efficiency gains risk being offset.

McKinsey & Company’s analysis suggests that the industry must reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by at least 4.2% annually from 2020 levels to align with a 1.5°C trajectory by 2030. However, even with full implementation of current decarbonization measures, emissions could reach 89 million tons of CO₂e by 2030, falling short of the 54 million tons needed for net-zero by 2050.

semiconductor industry net zero scenario
Source: McKinsey & Company

Supply chains are an even bigger hurdle. Scope 3 emissions cover raw material extraction, supplier manufacturing, packaging, and logistics. They can account for 70–80% of a chipmaker’s total carbon footprint.

Nvidia has already engaged suppliers covering over 80% of Scope 3 Category 1 emissions, exceeding its initial 67% target. Yet, emissions from mining, wafer fabrication by foundries, transportation, and overseas assembly are still significant. For example, shipping a single ton of semiconductor wafers internationally can add up to 20 metric tons of CO₂.

Energy sourcing is also critical. Chips remain high-emission if produced or operated in regions reliant on fossil fuels. Training a large AI model, such as OpenAI’s GPT-4 or the future GPT-5, can use up to 1,000 MWh of electricity. This process may emit hundreds of metric tons of CO₂, depending on the energy source. It does not even include the energy for using the AI model.

chatGPT energy use
Source: EpochAI

A coal-powered data center with an efficient chip generates 17 kg of CO₂ per teraflop. In contrast, renewable-powered setups only produce 4–5 kg per teraflop. The Nvidia–OpenAI deal focuses on providing GPUs and AI hardware.

This new tech aims to boost energy efficiency. It could cut emissions per computation by 30–50% compared to older hardware. This shows that while chip-level efficiency is essential, a full lifecycle approach is necessary.

Emissions reduction relies on several factors. It depends on processor design, energy sources for manufacturing, supplier practices, and how data centers operate. Without cleaner grids and good supply chain management, much of the carbon-saving potential from new chips and AI workloads may be wasted.

Beyond Business: A Climate Play in Disguise

These partnerships show that top chipmakers now see sustainability as part of growth. Investors, customers, and regulators are increasingly focused on the carbon footprint of technology. Linking climate goals to high-profile deals shows that Nvidia and Intel view emissions reduction as a strategic priority.

The Nvidia-Intel partnership and Nvidia’s OpenAI deal could shape the chip industry’s climate impact. Intel’s clean manufacturing record and Nvidia’s efficient AI hardware can help reduce emissions in production and use.

Still, the results will depend on whether efficiency matches demand and if energy sources move to renewables. For now, these collaborations highlight how innovation and sustainability can go hand in hand.

The post NVIDIA’s Mega Deals with OpenAI and Intel Fuel Stock Performance and Sustainable Tech in 2025 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