Connect with us

Published

on

pharma

In the first quarter of 2025, pharmaceutical giants Novartis and AstraZeneca posted impressive financial results. Both were driven by strong drug performance and strategic investments.

At the same time, each firm made notable strides in reducing carbon emissions and pushing toward ambitious sustainability targets. This head-to-head comparison looks at their Q1 2025 financial performance and environmental impact to see which company came out on top.

Novartis Sales Jump in Q1 2025

Novartis delivered a strong start to 2025, reporting first-quarter sales of $13.2 billion—up 15% in constant currency. This surpassed analysts’ estimates of $13.12 billion. As a result, the company raised its full-year outlook. It now expects high single-digit sales growth and low double-digit growth in core operating income.

Operating income surged 44% to $4.7 billion, while net income rose 37% to $3.6 billion. Core operating income reached $5.6 billion, driven by solid sales and disciplined spending.

novartis
Source: Novartis

Blockbuster Drugs Power Growth

Several key medicines fueled this strong performance:

  • Entresto: $2.26 billion (+22%)
  • Cosentyx: $1.53 billion (+18%)
  • Kisqali: $956 million (+56%)
  • Leqvio: $257 million (+72%)

Moreover, Novartis continued to focus on four high-impact areas like cardiovascular, immunology, neuroscience, and oncology. At the same time, it increased investments in cutting-edge platforms like gene therapy, radioligand therapy, and xRNA. The company also pushed for deeper market penetration in the US, China, Germany, and Japan.

Cash Flow Up, But Debt Grows

Free cash flow jumped 66% to $3.4 billion. However, net debt rose to $22.3 billion. This increase was mainly due to a $5.3 billion dividend payout, share repurchases, and investments in intangible assets.

Growth Outlook Remains Strong

Looking ahead, Novartis plans to accelerate growth through innovation and new product launches. It remains committed to R&D, digital technologies, and global expansion. Backed by strong cash generation and solid credit ratings, the company remains well-positioned for the rest of the year.

Vas Narasimhan, CEO of Novartis commented,

“Novartis has had a strong start to the year, delivering a +15% cc increase in sales and a +27% cc rise in core operating income in Q1. Our priority brands, including Kisqali, Kesimpta and Leqvio, continue to show strong momentum, which we anticipate will drive our growth through 2030 and beyond. We also achieved significant innovation milestones in the quarter, with new approvals for Pluvicto in the pre-taxane setting, Vanrafia for IgA nephropathy, and Fabhalta for C3G. Additionally, we completed global submissions for remibrutinib in CSU, the first indication for this promising pipeline-in-a-pill. We remain focused on advancing our leading pipeline and confident in achieving our growth outlook.”

Novartis on Track to Meet 2025 Sustainability Goals

Novartis is making steady progress toward its environmental goals. The company has already met its 2025 targets for reducing water use and waste. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework guides its broader sustainability efforts, showing a deep commitment to protecting the planet.

Novartis
Source: Novartis

Big Cuts in Carbon Emissions

Novartis is cutting its carbon footprint aggressively. It plans to reach carbon neutrality in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025. It follows the Science-Based Targets initiative and supports global efforts to limit climate change to 1.5°C.

By 2030, it aims to slash emissions by 90% from 2022 levels. The company also targets a 42% cut in Scope 3 emissions from suppliers and product use.

Scope Emissions

  • In 2023, Scope 1 and 2 emissions totaled 298 tCO₂e, and Scope 3 emissions were 4,529 tCO₂e.

Most of the company’s environmental impact, about 95%, comes from direct operations such as land use, water use, and upstream emissions.

novartis emissions
Source: Novartis
  • Novartis intends to achieve net-zero emissions across its entire value chain by 2040.
novartis
Source: Novartis

Clean Energy Initiatives

The pharma giant plans to switch to 100% renewable electricity by 2025. To meet this goal, it’s investing in clean energy projects like biomass steam systems, electric boilers, solar thermal energy, and electric vehicles for its fleet.

The company also works closely with suppliers to add environmental standards to its contracts.

Water and Waste Goals Achieved

Novartis has reduced water usage at key sites, especially in water-stressed regions. It ensures no harmful impacts on water quality from its factories, labs, or suppliers.

On the waste front, the company plans to reduce disposal by 30%, making its operations cleaner and more efficient.

New Focus on Nature and Raw Materials

The company is expanding its efforts to protect nature and improve raw material sourcing. Some measures include biodiversity assessments at sites near sensitive ecosystems and creating nature management plans where needed.

Additionally, it’s shifting to more sustainable materials, starting with paper-based packaging.

novartis
Source: Novartis

Novartis is building a greener future through innovation, strong partnerships, and responsible action. From carbon cuts to water savings, the company is proving that environmental progress and business growth can go hand in hand.

AstraZeneca’s Q1 2025: Sales and Profit Soar on Strong Drug Performance

AstraZeneca posted a 10% rise in revenue at constant exchange rates, reaching $13.59 billion in Q1 2025, up from $12.68 billion last year. This growth came from strong demand for cancer and biopharma drugs across all key markets. The company’s net profit grew by 34% to $2.92 billion.

AstraZeneca
Source: AstraZeneca

Tagrisso Leads the Pack

Tagrisso, AstraZeneca’s top lung cancer drug, generated $1.68 billion in sales. It was the company’s highest-selling medicine and the biggest driver of growth this quarter.

Furthermore, AstraZeneca saw strong R&D progress with five positive Phase III trials and 13 new drug approvals in major regions. Key oncology trials included DESTINY-Breast09, SERENA-6, and MATTERHORN.

Smart Deals to Fuel Long-Term Growth

In the first quarter of 2025, AstraZeneca made several smart business moves to strengthen its pipeline and technology base. It is heavily investing in cutting-edge technologies and expanding its global research and development (R&D) presence. These moves are aimed at driving long-term growth and staying ahead in the biopharma space.

JV for Vaccine Launch

  • Launched a vaccine joint venture in China with BioKangtai and entered research partnerships with Syneron Bio and Tempus AI to boost innovation in cancer treatment.

Advancing Cell Therapy

  • Proposed to acquire EsoBiotec to enter the in-vivo cell therapy space. EsoBiotec’s technology allows for “off-the-shelf” cell therapies, meaning ready-to-use treatments that don’t require custom patient cells.

Exploring Novel Drug Technologies

  • Partnered with Harbour BioMed to develop multi-specific biologics, which can target multiple disease pathways at once.
  • Teamed up with Syneron to create macro-cyclic peptides, a new type of molecule that could improve how drugs work in the body.

Improving Drug Delivery Methods

  • Gained exclusive rights to ALT-B4 from Alteogen. This technology helps deliver drugs under the skin instead of by IV.
  • Working on subcutaneous (under-the-skin) versions of several cancer drugs, making treatment faster and more comfortable for patients.

AstraZeneca’s Q1 2025 results show a strong push toward future-ready healthcare solutions. With new partnerships, acquisitions, and delivery tech, the company is setting itself up for long-term success in global markets.

Pascal Soriot, Chief Executive Officer, AstraZeneca, commented on the results:

“Our strong growth momentum has continued into 2025 and we have now entered an unprecedented catalyst-rich period for our company.

Already this year we have announced five positive Phase III study readouts, including most recently the highly anticipated DESTINYBreast09 for Enhertu, as well as SERENA-6 for camizestrant and MATTERHORN for Imfinzi; the latter two of these will feature in the ASCO 2025 plenary sessions, reflecting the significance of these data to the oncology community.

Our company is firmly committed to investing and growing in the US and we continue to benefit from our broad-based source of revenue and global manufacturing footprint, including eleven production sites in the US covering small molecules, biologics as well as cell therapy. Additionally, we have even greater US investment in manufacturing and R&D planned, leveraging our two large R&D sites in Gaithersburg MD and Cambridge MA. Overall, we are making excellent progress toward our ambition of eighty billion dollars in Total Revenue by 2030.”

AstraZeneca is Driving Sustainability with Science and Action

AstraZeneca is making major progress on its journey to a net-zero future. Through its ambitious “Ambition Zero Carbon” strategy, the company is investing $1 billion to cut emissions, switch to clean energy, and lead the healthcare sector toward a more sustainable model.

  • AstraZeneca plans to go carbon negative by 2030.

Scope 1 and 2 Emissions

The company has significantly reduced its direct emissions. Gross Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (market-based) dropped from 200,838 tonnes in 2023 to 139,594 tonnes in 2024, highlighting substantial progress in cutting emissions across its operations.

Since 2015, AstraZeneca has reduced its Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions by an impressive 77.5%. The company remains firmly on track to meet its ambitious target of a 98% reduction in these direct emissions by 2026.

Astrazeneca
Source: AstraZeneca

Scope 3 Emissions

In 2024, AstraZeneca reported 5,897,822 tonnes of Scope 3 emissions, slightly down from 5,917,160 tonnes in 2023, showing a small but steady reduction in indirect emissions.

This progress reflects AstraZeneca’s strong commitment to climate action through clean energy use and operational efficiency.

Electric Fleets and Smarter Energy Use

  • 63% of company vehicles are now fully electric; the goal is 100% by 2025
  • 97% of the electricity used at company sites comes from renewable sources
  • Energy consumption has dropped 20% since 2015
  • Energy productivity has jumped 147%, showing better efficiency with less energy use

AstraZeneca’s progress shows how innovation, science, and sustainability can work hand-in-hand to build a healthier planet.

AstraZeneca

Clean Heat for Global Sites

AstraZeneca is replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable heat at its sites around the world:

  • US: Partnered with Vanguard Renewables to turn food and farm waste into renewable natural gas. Will heat all US R&D and manufacturing sites by 2026.
  • UK: Working with Future Biogas to supply green gas to major UK sites (Macclesfield, Cambridge, Luton, Speke).
  • China: Partnering with China Resources Gas to bring clean heat to its Wuxi plant, aiming to cut emissions in China by up to 80%. This is the first clean heat deal of its kind in the Chinese healthcare industry.

A Focus on Circular Solutions

AstraZeneca is cutting waste and reusing more materials. Instead of throwing things away, it focuses on recycling and the smarter use of resources.

The company is reducing single-use plastics. It’s also improving packaging to be more eco-friendly. In addition, AstraZeneca is working closely with suppliers to make greener choices.

Its factories now reuse materials and recycle more. As a result, operations are cleaner and more efficient. These efforts help protect the planet and inspire change across the healthcare industry.

So, Who Won the Profit and Net-Zero Game? 

Novartis outperformed financially due to blockbuster drugs and strong cost discipline, while AstraZeneca led the way on sustainability, with steeper carbon cuts and near-complete renewable energy use.

The post Big Pharma Showdown: Novartis vs. AstraZeneca in Q1 2025 Profits and Emissions Cuts 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