Energy giant Shell reported around 1.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions in 2025. Most of these emissions come from the use of the fuels the company sells, known as Scope 3 emissions.
Scope 3 emissions occur when customers burn oil, gas, and other fuels produced by energy companies. For Shell, these emissions dominate its carbon footprint.
The company’s operational emissions are much smaller. Shell recently reported about 50 million tons of Scope 1 emissions from its operations. It also noted around 8 million tons of Scope 2 emissions from purchased electricity.
Together, these numbers show the scale of emissions linked to global fossil fuel use. In comparison, the United Kingdom’s total emissions were about 480 million tons in 2024, less than half of Shell’s overall carbon footprint. This comparison highlights how emissions linked to energy supply chains can exceed those of entire countries.
Why Scope 3 Emissions Dominate Oil and Gas
Most emissions linked to oil and gas companies come from the fuels consumers burn. This explains why Scope 3 emissions are the largest part of Shell’s carbon footprint.
- Shell’s reporting shows Scope 3 emissions of over 1 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent, far higher than emissions from its direct operations. As seen below, the oil major’s GHG emissions have been declining since 2018.

Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions come from Shell’s operations and purchased energy, based on the company’s sustainability reports. Scope 3 emissions represent the use of fuels sold by Shell. Scope 3 accounts for the vast majority, around 95% of the company’s carbon footprint.
About 78% of these emissions occur downstream, mainly when customers use gasoline, diesel, or natural gas. The rest come from upstream activities such as equipment manufacturing and fuel transport.
This pattern is common across the oil and gas industry. Energy companies produce fuels, but most emissions occur when the fuels are burned.
Because of this structure, reducing emissions in the energy sector requires changes across the whole system. These include cleaner fuels, new technologies, and changes in how energy is used.
Shell’s Net-Zero Targets and Climate Strategy
Shell says it aims to become a net-zero emissions energy company by 2050. To move toward this goal, the company has set several climate targets.

- One key target is to cut emissions from its operations (Scope 1 and 2) by 50% by 2030 compared with 2016 levels.
The oil giant has already made some progress on this goal. By 2024, the company had reduced operational emissions by about 30% compared with 2016.
Another metric Shell uses is Net Carbon Intensity (NCI). This measures emissions per unit of energy sold. In recent reporting, Shell’s NCI stood at 71 grams of CO₂ equivalent per megajoule, unchanged from the previous year.
The company plans to reduce this measure to net zero by 2050 as part of its transition strategy. However, intensity targets measure emissions relative to energy production. This means total emissions can remain stable if energy demand continues to grow.
Shell’s Offset Strategy: Retiring Millions with Certified Credits
In 2025, Shell retired 5.8 million carbon credits. Of these, 5.5 million were tied to its Net Carbon Intensity (NCI) efforts. This included 2.0 million linked to energy product sales. The company emphasizes careful sourcing and screening of credits.

Of the total retired, 59% were certified by Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), 22% by Gold Standard, 10% by the ACR program, and 9% via Climate Action Reserve.
Rising Energy Demand Keeps Fossil Fuels in Play
Global energy demand continues to rise. This affects emissions across the energy sector. According to the International Energy Agency, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions grew in many regions due to rising industrial activity and energy demand.
- Emissions from natural gas increased by 2.5% in 2024, while coal emissions rose almost 1% in recent global energy data, per the IEA report.

Oil emissions also increased slightly as countries continued to rely on fossil fuels to meet economic growth and energy access needs. This demand helps explain why oil and gas companies still play a large role in global energy supply.
At the same time, the energy transition is accelerating. Governments and companies are investing in renewable power, electric vehicles, and cleaner fuels. These trends are reshaping the global energy system.
LNG and Carbon Capture in Shell’s Transition Plan
Shell continues to expand its liquefied natural gas business. The company expects global LNG demand to grow about 60% by 2040, driven by economic growth and industrial energy needs.
Natural gas produces fewer emissions than coal when burned. Because of this, some countries view LNG as a transitional fuel during the shift to cleaner energy systems.
Shell is also investing in carbon capture and storage (CCS). One major project is the Northern Lights carbon storage project in Norway, developed with industry partners. The facility aims to store at least 5 million tons of CO₂ per year once expanded.
Carbon capture technology can help reduce emissions from industries that are difficult to electrify, such as heavy manufacturing and shipping. However, CCS projects remain limited in number compared with the scale of global emissions.
The Enormous Scale of the Global Energy Transition
The world’s energy system is changing quickly. But the scale of fossil fuel use remains large.
Energy companies like Shell supply fuels used across transportation, power generation, and heavy industry. This explains why emissions linked to these companies are so high.
At the same time, new technologies are reshaping the energy landscape. Renewable power, electric vehicles, hydrogen fuels, and carbon capture are expanding rapidly.
Shell itself notes that new technologies could cut the carbon intensity of the global energy system by half by 2050 if current trends continue. Still, hitting global climate targets will require faster progress.
What Shell’s Emissions Reveal About the Energy System
Shell’s reported 1.1 billion tons of CO₂ emissions in 2025 show the scale of the global energy challenge. The majority of these emissions come not from company operations, but from the fuels used by millions of consumers and industries worldwide.
Reducing emissions across this system will require major changes in energy production, infrastructure, and technology. Oil and gas companies remain central players in this transition. Their investments, technologies, and energy supply decisions will influence how quickly the global economy moves toward lower-carbon energy.
The next decades will determine whether the energy system can meet rising demand while also reducing emissions at the scale required to reach global climate goals.
- READ MORE: Shell’s Initiative to Cut Methane in Rice Farming in the Philippines and Create Carbon Credits
The post Big Oil’s Carbon Reality: Shell’s 1.1 Billion-Ton Footprint Shows the Scale of the Energy Transition 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.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 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

