Connect with us

Published

on

Carbon Prices and Voluntary Carbon Markets decline in 2023, what is next 2024

The year 2023 marks a pivotal moment in the volatile journey of the carbon credit market. Once hailed as a cornerstone of corporate climate action, voluntary carbon markets are now grappling with a crisis of confidence and a significant downturn in price and demand.

A Rapid Rise and Troubling Slowdown

Voluntary carbon markets (VCMs), a key tool in the global fight against climate change, experienced exponential growth from 2019 to 2021. 

voluntary carbon market

As seen above, VCM credits jumped by 86% in 2021 compared to 2019 level. This surge was fueled by escalating corporate net-zero commitments and optimistic forecasts about the market’s potential size.

For instance, Citibank committed to reach net zero emissions by 2050, while using carbon credits to tackle unavoidable emissions. One of the world’s largest biopharmaceutical companies, Pfizer, also pledged to achieve net zero emissions by 2040. The US’ biggest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), also aimed at hitting net zero by 2040 while reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% from 2015 levels by 2030. 

However, 2022 witnessed a stark slowdown in the VCM’s growth, a trend that continued into 2023. Various factors, including the increasing complexity of market mechanisms and the role of carbon credits in broader sustainability strategies, have contributed to this decline​​.

The Offset Decline: An Erosion of Confidence

Several high-profile corporations, such as Shell, Nestlé, EasyJet, and Fortescue Metals Group, have recently retreated from carbon offset schemes. This withdrawal stems partly from growing skepticism about the effectiveness of these projects, with concerns about their actual climate benefits and accusations of greenwashing. 

  1. Shell: The MIT Technology Review reported that corporations, including Shell, announced they were backing away from offsets or the claims of carbon neutrality that relied upon them. This shift reflects a broader trend of companies moving away from credits that simply claim to prevent emissions, particularly in light of increasing awareness about the challenges in proving the actual environmental impact of these projects​​.
  2. Nestlé: Reuters detailed Nestlé’s decision to move away from investing in carbon offsets for its brands, such as KitKat, to focus more on programs and practices that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within their own supply chain and operations. This change is part of their strategy to reach their net-zero ambitions, indicating a shift from offsetting to direct emission reductions​​.
  3. EasyJet: According to the MIT Technology Review, EasyJet was mentioned as another corporation that had decided to wind down its offsetting program. Instead, EasyJet is now focusing on cutting emissions from its operations, signaling a shift in strategy towards more direct measures of reducing environmental impact​​.

A significant decrease in demand for offsets was observed, with estimates suggesting a 25% decline from 2021 levels by the end of 2023​​.

Carbon Price Collapse

The downturn in demand has had a dramatic effect on prices. The Xpansiv market CBL, the world’s largest spot carbon exchange, saw prices of carbon offsets fall by over 80% in an 18-20 month period.

historical standardized contract prices

This price decline reflects the broader challenges facing the voluntary carbon market, including questions about the actual environmental impact of the credits and the integrity of projects claiming to offset emissions​​.

While the VCM prices have been hit, the decline in NGEO (Nature-Based Global Emissions Offsets) prices stands out due to the premium they were trading at over the other offsets last year. With increasing scrutiny on forestry projects, NGEO prices sharply dropped from around $15 in June 2022 to $1 in June this year.

It even declined to below $1 at the time of writing. 

NGEO prices falling 2022-2023

One major reason for the downward trend of NGEOs was the tough macroeconomic environment, causing stagnation in demand in 2022. Moreover, the poor outcome for the VCM at COP27, which carries over at the recent COP28, further casted doubts on how carbon offsets fit in corporate net zero plans.

Mark Kenber, VCMI’s Executive Director, commented that though there are many encouraging developments on carbon markets at COP28, agreements “fell short of the mark”. He further stated that:

“For the market to fully develop in the next two years, policymakers can draw on the foundational work of the VCMI and IC-VCM, developing high-integrity VCM and Article 6 markets that deliver the finance that makes ambitious global action possible.”

Over in compliance markets, the EU carbon prices have broken records in February this year, surging past 100 euros. But the EU allowance prices also dipped back to its low levels this month at 78 euros, close to its November 2022 average price. 

The region, which has the largest carbon market EU ETS, plans to phase out its free carbon allowances while gradually phasing in its newly introduced carbon tax, known as the Carbon Border Adjustment MechanismCBAM will ensure that companies operating inside and outside the bloc remain on the same page in terms of carbon pricing and environmental impact. 

Following the EU footsteps, the UK is also set to launch its own CBAM version. It aims to ensure that imported goods from carbon-intensive industries like iron, steel, and cement face fair carbon prices. 

A couple of African nations are also gearing up to participate in the carbon arena. New carbon credit exchanges are created in Zimbabwe and Tanzania while Zambia and Kenya have plans to do the same. 

Several countries in Asia are also joining the carbon market bandwagon. Indonesia had launched a carbon credit trading market through IDX as part of its 2060 net zero goal. Japan’s first exchange-based carbon market opened in October this year.

Amid all these, the future of carbon markets now stands at a critical juncture. They face the challenge of regaining credibility and functionality amidst growing scrutiny and regulatory changes. How these markets evolve in response to these challenges will significantly impact their role in global climate strategies.

The Inflection Point: What’s Next for Carbon Prices and Trading?

Not all carbon news is grim here in 2023.

On Dec 13th, 2023, Xpansiv’s CBL spot exchange hit a daily trading volume record of 2.13 million tons of carbon credits, signalling robust corporate engagement in carbon offset markets. This surge aligns with the final day of COP28, reflecting an uptick in year-end corporate purchases for sustainability goals. 

New transparency requirements in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and California are driving this demand, pushing companies to disclose more about their carbon offset activities.

Allister Furey, CEO and co-founder of Sylvera, noted the fact that regulators are now seeing the critical role of carbon credits in financing the net zero transition. He further said that:

“Disclosures at every step of the carbon journey and for all involved stakeholders will become increasingly important. From the SEC’s coming climate disclosure rules to California’s AB1305, there are significant incoming regulations which should dramatically improve data availability in net zero–and we will begin to see the price of carbon ripple throughout value chains, slowly but surely.”  

Since 2020, CBL has traded over 300 million tons, dominating over 95% of the global spot exchange-traded carbon offsets. The record day underscores a heightened market activity during the UN’s COP event.

Meanwhile, the Compliance Credits market has not only attracted immense investment dollars – especially in carbon capture projects – but countries like Canada and the UK are setting higher and higher compliance prices.

NASDAQ Enters the Carbon Credit Market Arena

The NASDAQ Exchange, recognizing the growing importance and potential of the carbon credits market, has recently launched an innovative technology to revolutionize the industry. This new system, aimed at digitizing the issuance, settlement, and custody of carbon credits, is set to enhance the scalability of this nascent market. 

Nasdaq’s approach uses smart contracts for secure transactions and promises to bring much-needed standardization and liquidity to attract diverse investors​​​​.

Moreover, Nasdaq’s collaboration with Climate Impact X (CIX) marks a significant stride towards developing the global carbon market. This partnership will power CIX’s spot exchange for quality carbon credits, intending to improve price transparency and liquidity in the voluntary carbon credit market. 

Addressing the inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the market, this move by Nasdaq and CIX is poised to create a more resilient and scalable trading environment, demonstrating Nasdaq’s commitment to pioneering market transformations in the carbon credit sector​​.

It’s clear that change is in the air. Companies are not just looking to buy credits; they’re looking to buy credibility and real impact. And as the market matures, it’s becoming more about quality than quantity.

The post Carbon Prices and Voluntary Carbon Markets Faced Major Declines in 2023, What’s Next for 2024? 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