Corporate buyers continue to rely on traditional carbon credit purchasing methods. Meanwhile, potential buyers of carbon removal credits need more education before committing to these newer options. This year’s NASDAQ survey revealed that even though companies are interested in CDR credits, a major proportion is unaware of the latest technologies like enhanced rock and coastal weathering, enhanced coastal weathering, ocean alkalinity enhancement, etc.
The survey revealed:
- Support for maximizing the impact of carbon credit purchases increased from 25% in 2023 to 27% in 2024.
- Support for offsetting emissions with carbon removal credits decreased from 24% in 2023 to 22% in 2024.
CDR: A Vital Tool for Achieving Net Zero
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is crucial for companies striving for net zero. Since Nasdaq’s first Global Net Zero Pulse survey, the voluntary carbon market (VCM) has evolved with new corporate feedback, updated SBTi guidelines, and U.S. government advice. The VCM allows companies to voluntarily buy credits that fund projects reducing emissions.
It is a well-known fact that limiting global warming to 1.5°C still requires removing massive amounts of CO2. Another proof is the palpable rising heat that emphasizes the urgency.
However, with growing concerns about greenwashing, companies are being more careful. This creates an opportunity to explore new CDR credit options with better risk protection. Companies must also closely examine their buying preferences for both traditional and new carbon removal efforts.
Companies need to evaluate the importance of the following criteria before buying carbon removal credits.

From June to July 2024, Nasdaq ESG Advisory conducted a survey focused on corporate buyers to explore market demand. The survey covered three key themes to help scale the VCM and drive CDR adoption.
1. Corporate Net Zero Alignment
Companies are increasingly adopting alternative strategies to reduce their emissions, but some emissions remain beyond their control. This is where they need carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
- Currently, 40% of corporate buyers understand their company’s path to reducing emissions between 2024 and 2030. They also give importance to CDR.
- About 30% expect to cut emissions by up to 40% without using CDR credits, while 31% plan to reduce emissions by up to 60% by 2030 before turning to CDR.
By 2050, the number of companies aiming for 80% or greater will become 3X. This indicates that CDR credits play a vital role in these efforts, with 87% of corporate buyers recognizing their importance in their net-zero strategies.
Moreover, B2C companies are more involved and use CDR as a key part of their strategy. This also shows the growing consumer demand for sustainable tools.
2. Carbon Credits Purchase Strategies
More companies, including those that haven’t been active in carbon markets before, are now planning to buy carbon credits. In the past, some companies have purchased carbon credits to offset emissions, but now even more are showing interest. This highlights rise in corporate demand for carbon credits.
Survey findings reveal a growing trend toward purchasing carbon reduction, avoidance, and removal credits. The energy and materials sectors, especially industries like cement, steel, and chemicals, are leading this shift. These sectors are hard-to-able and face considerable challenges to reducing their emissions. Thus, making carbon removal credits a key part of their mitigation strategy.
Additionally, corporate sectors are now aligning their carbon credit buying plans with their overall sustainability goals with a robust strategy in place. Another interesting factor is- corporate buyers tend to prefer locally sourced carbon credits. The report showed that this trend is especially strong in Canada and Asia-Pacific, where about two-thirds of respondents prefer to purchase local credits.
NASDAQ revealed,
- While in 2024, less than 10% of respondents expect to abate 80% or more of their emissions with CDR, this increases by 1.5x in 2030 and 2x in 2050.
This upward trend is particularly noticeable among sectors like information technology, financial services, consumer staples, and utilities.
Understanding the Scope of Emissions
Many companies are uncertain about how carbon dioxide removal will fit into their plans for reducing current emissions and in the future. A significant number of respondents in recent surveys expressed doubts about their understanding of how much of their Scope 1 and 2 emissions can be reduced through CDR.
This is the reason why they hesitate to use carbon dioxide removal (CDR) until they have significantly cut their emissions. Companies not including CDR in their strategy often focus on cutting emissions first.
Another complex scenario is reducing Scope 3 emissions, which encompass the largest portion of a company’s total emissions but are often the hardest to tackle. Consequently, companies having solid knowledge of this platform are using CDR to address these challenging Scope 3 emissions.
However, even though companies are facing uncertainties in their emissions profiles, CDR will be crucial to meet their sustainability goals.
The following figure indicates the expected percentage of a company’s emissions to be abated using high-quality carbon removal credits.

3. Carbon Market Dynamics
The report has thrown light on how companies’ decarbonization and carbon credit strategies are influenced by changing policies and regulations. While carbon removals were mostly unregulated, rising concerns from stakeholders have caught the attention of regulators. As a result, the voluntary carbon markets are now under more scrutiny.
Since last year’s survey, several major policies were introduced by the SEC, California Air Resources Board (CARB), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and European Commission (EC). These climate-related policies are putting pressure on both public and private companies.
In fact, 72% of respondents reported feeling the impact, especially from the SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules and California’s AB-1305.
Interestingly, a deeper look reveals regional differences. Canadian respondents said these policies directly affect their carbon credit strategies. On the contrary, fewer U.S. (72%) and European (60%) respondents felt the same impact. U.S. and Canadian companies are primarily focused on the SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules and California’s AB-1305.
In Europe, 33% of companies are more focused on EU regulations, which ban greenwashing and require companies to verify environmental claims before promoting them.
Clearer regulatory standards will increase transparency for U.S. and EU companies regarding their decarbonization and carbon credit plans. Without these guidelines, companies may hesitate to use carbon removals to offset residual emissions due to concerns over potential anti-greenwashing lawsuits.
Growing Interest in Carbon Credits Education
Corporate buyers are showing increased interest in learning more about carbon removals. The recent survey of NASDAQ revealed that 80% of respondents want more education on the topic. Many companies are turning to external experts to help them make informed decisions about carbon credit purchases.
Carbon credit registries like Puro.earth set standardized protocols and track credits to ensure market credibility. For 62% of corporate buyers, these registries and standards play a key role in their purchasing decisions.
Subsequently, this is becoming important as they navigate the complexities of different carbon removal methods, such as terrestrial, technological, and ocean-based options. Additionally, corporate buyers are increasingly expecting carbon credits to offer long-term CO2 storage. This shows a clear shift towards prioritizing permanent solutions for carbon removal.
From CDR to carbon credits to carbon offsets, understanding all these factors is critical for building effective decarbonization strategies for the corporate sector. And NASDAQ’s report is a perfect guide to that.
Source: Data and Visuals collected from 2024 NASDAQ Global Net Zero Pulse.
The post CDR and Carbon Credits: NASDAQ Surveys the Key Trends Shaping Corporate Sustainability appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

