Connect with us

Published

on

Bitcoin’s New Gold Rush: ETFs, Energy Battles and the Rise of American Bitcoin

Bitcoin began as an idea shared by a small group of technology enthusiasts. In the last ten years, it has become a global digital asset. It draws interest from big investment firms, governments, and regular people.

Today, Bitcoin is not just a digital currency used for online payments. It is also seen as a new type of asset, similar to gold or stocks, that people can invest in. However, this transformation has come with significant challenges, particularly regarding energy use and environmental impact. As the Bitcoin mining industry matures, the focus is shifting toward more sustainable practices.

The Digital Pickaxe: How Bitcoin Mining Actually Works

In 2024, a major event for Bitcoin took place. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). This decision made it much easier for regular investors and big institutions to buy and sell Bitcoin.

More companies and financial firms now offer Bitcoin to their clients. So, the digital asset is becoming more accepted in mainstream finance. Here’s how its market value compares with other cryptoassets and traditional assets. 

market value crypto comparison
Source: Cambridge Report

Bitcoin depends on a process called “mining” to keep its network secure and to create new coins. Mining is done by powerful computers that solve complex math problems. When a computer solves a problem, it adds a new “block” to the Bitcoin blockchain. The miner then gets new bitcoins and transaction fees as a reward.

This process is called “Proof-of-Work.” It is designed to make sure that no one can cheat the system or take over the network. The more computers, or “hashrate,” that are working to mine Bitcoin, the more secure the network becomes.

Mining has changed a lot since Bitcoin started. At first, anyone with a home computer could mine Bitcoin. Now, most mining is done by large companies using special machines called ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits). These companies often have mining farms with thousands of machines running day and night.

The Cambridge Digital Mining Industry Report states that a recent survey covered 49 mining companies. These companies control almost half of the total computing power for Bitcoin mining. These companies operate in 16 countries. The United States is now the biggest mining hub, accounting for over 75% of mining activity.

global bitcoin mining activity top 5 countries
Source: Cambridge Report

The Energy Debate: Powering Bitcoin

One of the biggest debates about Bitcoin is how much energy it uses. Bitcoin mining is a high-energy process. Because mining requires so much computing power, it also needs a lot of electricity. Some people worry this might hurt the environment. This is a concern, especially if the electricity comes from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas.

The Cambridge report estimates that Bitcoin mining uses about 138 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity each year. This is similar to the annual electricity use of a country like Sweden.

  • The mining activity also produces about 39.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. However, this share of global emissions remained under 0.1%.

However, the report also shows that the energy mix for Bitcoin mining is changing. More than half (52.4%) of the electricity used by miners now comes from sustainable sources. This includes hydropower (23.4%), wind (15.4%), nuclear (9.8%), and solar (3.2%). Still, natural gas remains the single largest energy source at 38.2%, followed by coal (8.9%).

Bitcoin electricity use and mix by method
Source: Cambridge Report

Many mining companies are trying to use more renewable energy and to find ways to reduce their environmental impact. Some are even using energy that would otherwise be wasted, such as gas flaring from oil fields. These efforts are important as the industry faces growing pressure to be more environmentally friendly.

Meanwhile, the survey shows a possible scenario when miners want to offset the emissions of their activities by buying carbon credits. The chart below compares the cost of removing Bitcoin’s carbon emissions using two methods: nature-based solutions like planting trees, and high-tech solutions like direct air capture (DAC).

bitcoin and carbon offsets
Source: Cambridge Report

Nature-based methods cost about $5 to $9 per ton of CO2, while DAC costs much more—between $134 and $344 per ton. Lower emissions mean lower total costs, and higher emissions mean higher total costs for offsetting.

Wall Street Meets Blockchain: Institutions Dive In

Bitcoin’s price has seen big changes in recent years. In early 2025, Bitcoin reached a new high of about $109,000 before dropping to around $74,000 in April. By May, it had recovered to about $95,000. These price swings show how quickly the market can change.

However, the broader market trend shows growing maturity:

  • Institutional adoption is rising. Major firms—including BlackRock, Fidelity, and MicroStrategy—have invested directly in Bitcoin or launched crypto-related products.
  • Spot Bitcoin ETFs approved in early 2024 have brought mainstream exposure, unlocking billions in capital inflows.
  • Bitcoin’s market cap briefly surpassed $1.5 trillion in early 2025, signaling continued investor interest even amid macroeconomic uncertainty.

RELATED: BlackRock Bets on Abu Dhabi for Strategic Growth. Is Crypto Part of the Plan?

Experts have different predictions for where Bitcoin’s price will go next. Some believe it could reach $150,000 or even $200,000 by the end of 2025, especially as more institutional investors enter the market.

The approval of Bitcoin ETFs has made it easier for large funds and retirement accounts to invest in Bitcoin. Even a small investment from these big players could have a big impact on Bitcoin’s price.

The growing interest from companies is also important. Some businesses, like MicroStrategy, have bought large amounts of Bitcoin as a way to store value. This shows that Bitcoin is being used not just as a currency, but as a financial asset.

These trends point to Bitcoin’s growing acceptance as both a store of value and a portfolio diversifier. This financial legitimacy is helping drive the push toward more sustainable and compliant mining practices. And one name stands out in this direction – American Bitcoin Corp. 

Stars, Stripes, and Satoshis: The Rise of American Bitcoin

American Bitcoin Corp. is a majority-owned subsidiary of Hut 8 Corp., one of North America’s leading digital asset mining companies. In early 2025, Hut 8 teamed up with American Data Centers to launch American Bitcoin. This partnership includes investors Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. American Bitcoin will focus on large-scale Bitcoin mining and creating a strategic Bitcoin reserve.

Hut 8 serves as American Bitcoin’s exclusive infrastructure and operations partner. American Bitcoin uses Hut 8’s strong data center skills, energy setup, and large-scale operations. They do this through long-term business agreements.

Hut 8’s CEO, Asher Genoot, highlights that separating American Bitcoin helps it raise growth capital on its own. This move also keeps Hut 8 shareholders connected to Bitcoin’s potential gains.

Just recently, American Bitcoin announced a merger with Gryphon Digital Mining. This stock-for-stock deal will take them public. They plan to trade on Nasdaq with the ticker symbol “ABTC.” This move aims to scale American Bitcoin as a low-cost Bitcoin accumulation vehicle, unlocking new capital to expand mining capacity and Bitcoin holdings.

The combined company will be led by a board including Hut 8 CEO Asher Genoot and other key executives such as Mike Ho and Eric Trump. American Bitcoin aims to be the largest and most efficient Bitcoin miner globally. They plan to achieve over 50 exahashes per second (EH/s) of mining power. Their goal is also to maintain an average fleet efficiency below 15 joules per terahash (J/TH).

By combining Hut 8’s operational excellence and infrastructure with strategic capital and market access, American Bitcoin is positioned to lead the U.S. Bitcoin mining industry and build a robust Bitcoin reserve for long-term growth.

Hurdles on the Hashrate Highway

Bitcoin’s future hinges on overcoming several key challenges. Regulatory uncertainty is a big problem. Governments have different rules for digital assets, which makes it hard for mining companies to plan for the long term.

Energy costs are a big concern. Mining only makes money when Bitcoin’s price is higher than electricity and equipment costs. If energy prices keep rising, miners might lose and shut down.

Additionally, as more miners join, mining becomes harder and requires continuous equipment upgrades to remain competitive. Environmental impact remains a concern, but innovations like AI are improving efficiency.

Despite these challenges, Bitcoin mining continues to evolve, with new technologies emerging to enhance sustainability and possibly even support power grids. The balance between growth and these hurdles will shape Bitcoin’s future in the global economy.

The post Bitcoin’s New Gold Rush: ETFs, Energy Battles and the Rise of American Bitcoin 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