Nestlé, the Swiss food and drink giant, has committed to two major restoration projects in Brazil to generate carbon credits. The company is working with re.green, a Brazilian restoration company, and chocolatier Barry Callebaut on these projects.
They aim to cut down Nestlé’s carbon footprint. At the same time, they aim to restore degraded lands, plant native trees, and support more sustainable supply chains for cocoa and coffee.
Planting Millions: Nestlé’s Brazil Projects
Nestlé’s deal with re.green focuses on restoring roughly 2,000 hectares in Bahia’s Atlantic Forest. Over a 30-year period, the project plans to plant around 3.3 million native trees.
Re.green estimates this will create around 880,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent in carbon credits. This is based on a strong ARR (Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation) method.
In a second initiative, Nestlé and Barry Callebaut will work on 6,000 hectares across Bahia and Pará. This project will turn degraded land into a mixed agroforestry system—mainly cocoa trees plus native species.
The plan calls for planting 7.7 million seedlings over many years. This agroforestry system is expected to generate around 600,000 tonnes of carbon credits.
Altogether, Nestlé’s efforts in Brazil cover about 8,000 hectares and aim to plant roughly 11 million trees.

Why This Deal Matters for Climate and Business
This deal is strategically important for Nestlé on several fronts. First, it supports its climate goals. These project credits reduce carbon in the atmosphere. This helps Nestlé aim for net-zero emissions in the long run.
Second, the projects improve Nestlé’s supply chain resilience. Restoring landscapes where the company sources cocoa and coffee helps to keep these regions healthy.
Third, these are not just tree-planting projects. Restoration boosts biodiversity, enhances soil quality, safeguards water resources, and helps local communities. Using native species in the Atlantic Forest helps preserve one of Brazil’s most threatened biomes.
Finally, the deal is a signal of long-term commitment. Nestlé is more than just buying credits. It’s creating nature-based solutions that match its business and environmental goals.
Nestlé’s Roadmap to Net-Zero
- Nestlé has set bold climate targets. The company aims to plant 200 million trees by 2030 and achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

In its 2024 Non-Financial Statement, Nestlé clarifies that it will not use carbon credits outside its value chain to achieve its main net-zero goals. Instead, it invests in nature-based solutions tied directly to its sourcing regions.
Nestlé uses rigorous approaches to estimate greenhouse gas removals. It accounts for tree growth, species types, soil differences, and uses field data and science-based models. It also meets global standards, like those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the GHG Protocol. This helps ensure transparency and accuracy.
In addition to reforestation, Nestlé partners on regenerative agriculture. For instance, it has a global agroforestry initiative with OFI (Olam Food Ingredients). This program will help 25,000 farmers in Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, and Nigeria change their farms.
- The plan includes planting 2.8 million trees and transforming more than 72,000 hectares into agroforestry systems over time.
These combined efforts show how Nestlé links carbon removal, biodiversity restoration, and sustainable farming to its broader climate strategy.
Nestlé’s Nescafé hit its 2025 target early by sourcing 32% of its coffee through regenerative agriculture in 2024. This gives it a strong lead toward the 2030 goal of 50%.

The company has invested over $1 billion. This supports more than 200,000 farmers on 400,000 hectares. They train these farmers in methods like shade trees, natural composting, and cover crops.
These practices help restore soil health and lower the need for chemicals. They have also cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20-40% per kilogram of green coffee. They also help Nestlé reach its goal of halving production-related emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero by 2050.
Backing the Green: Funding and Market Momentum
These reforestation deals come amid strong momentum in Brazil’s nature-based carbon sector. The Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) approved an $85 million loan for ARR projects. These projects should create about 2.47 million carbon credits.
Meanwhile, re.green itself has won fresh financing. It secured 80 million reais (approx. US$14 million) from BNDES, with Bradesco as a financial partner. The deal helps re.green scale up restoration in key biomes.
Credits from ARR projects in Brazil, especially those using high-quality methods, should trade for around $55 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent. This carbon price can vary based on deal structures.
This shows that both public and private resources are flowing into nature-based carbon solutions. For Nestlé, joining this trend offers both environmental benefits and strategic value.
Impact for Business and Nature
These contracted projects by Nestlé have a significant impact on business and nature:
- Credible Carbon Removal:
Nestlé is funding long-term restoration projects linked to its supply chain. This helps create high-integrity carbon credits instead of just buying generic ones. - Sustainable Sourcing:
Restoring tree cover in cocoa and coffee regions strengthens the ecological base of Nestlé’s ingredient supply. - Corporate Climate Leadership:
This move positions Nestlé as a leader in tying net-zero goals to meaningful, nature-based actions. - Market Signal:
Big corporate deals like this could drive more investment in restoration. This would boost Brazil’s carbon credit market and increase the supply of high-quality nature credits.
What Could Go Wrong? Nestlé’s Bold Step in Carbon Leadership
While this initiative is ambitious, its success depends on several factors. Tree survival over decades is crucial: saplings must grow, persist, and avoid being lost to fires or land-use changes. Long-term monitoring is needed to make sure the credits represent real removal.
Also, the permanence and additionality of the credits matter. Observers will watch how re.green, Nestlé, and their auditors ensure that the forest does not revert and that the project would not have happened without this financing.
Finally, the social dimension is important. Local communities must benefit, and land rights and governance issues should be handled transparently. Without community support, restoration projects often struggle.
Nestlé’s carbon credit deal with re.green and Barry Callebaut marks a significant and strategic step in its climate journey. Its net-zero strategy focuses on nature-based solutions, backed by careful accounting and long-term commitments. Public and private investors in Brazil’s carbon market are also backing this shift.
If the projects succeed, they could show big companies how to scale regenerative landscapes. This approach can help not only to offset emissions but also to build stronger business foundations.
The post Nestlé to Plant 11 Million Trees in Brazil to Generate Carbon Credits and Boost Sustainability appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
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.
![]()
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 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 Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

