Connect with us

Published

on

Climate change is the defining issue of our time, and we are at a defining moment. We face a direct existential threat.

According to the World Economic Forum’s 2022 Global Risks Report, climate change risks are now classified as worlds’ biggest threats.

The Urgency of Climate Change Risks

Failure to take climate action and extreme weather events top the list of threats for the next 5-10 years. These risks lead to additional environmental issues such as biodiversity loss, resource scarcity, and environmental degradation. In 2022, environmental risks dominated the top five global risks for the first time.

Financial Impact on Global Companies

Climate-related risks significantly impact a company’s revenues, costs, operations, and strategy. A 2019 report found that over 200 of the largest global companies faced nearly $1 trillion in climate impacts over five years.

Climate Change – An Investment Concern for SMEs

Climate change is not just an environmental issue but also a critical investment issue for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The SEC’s 2021 examination priorities reflect a growing focus on climate-related risks as investors increasingly consider these risks in their decisions. SMEs face new and growing risks such as natural hazards, technological risks, real estate loss, and rising energy and raw material costs due to climate change. Furthermore, concerns regarding costs for maintenance and infrastructure reconstruction must also be addressed.

Financial Risk Mitigation for SMEs

By proactively managing their environmental impact, SMEs can mitigate these risks and safeguard their financial stability.

Regulatory Compliance

Governments are increasingly implementing policies and regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions, such as carbon taxes, emissions trading systems, and stringent reporting requirements. SMEs need to comply with these regulations to avoid penalties and remain competitive in their markets.

Investor Expectations

Increasingly investors are considering climate risks and prioritizing sustainability. SMEs that fail to address their environmental impact will find it harder to attract investment, while those that demonstrate robust environmental management practices are likely to gain traction.

Market Competitiveness

Millennials’ and Gen Zs’ attitudes and demand for environmentally friendly products and services is growing steadily. SMEs that want to appeal to these increasingly dominant demographics must commit to reducing their GHG emissions and developing sustainable products. These are tactics that can lead to increased market share and customer loyalty with these consumers.

Operational Efficiency

Monitoring and reducing GHG emissions can lead to increased energy efficiency and lower operational costs. By optimizing energy use and reducing waste, SMEs can achieve cost savings and improve their bottom line, which in turn also increases their appeal to potential investors.

Corporate Reputation

Companies that manage their environmental impacts proactively are seen as responsible and forward-thinking. This enhances their brand reputation, builds trust with internal and external stakeholders, and leads directly to better financial outcomes:

  1. Sales increase due to increased customer satisfaction and loyalty
  2. Employee retention increases in response to employees’ higher job satisfaction, leading to increases in operational efficiency, and savings on recruitment costs.

Businesses’ Perspective on Climate Change

Michael E. Porter and Forest L. Reinhardt from Harvard Business School emphasize that treating climate change as a business problem, rather than just a corporate social responsibility issue, is essential. Companies that fail to adapt will face severe consequences. By monitoring and reducing GHG emissions, businesses can increase energy efficiency, which lowers costs and enhances profitability.

Starting Sustainable Business Practices

In the context of managing climate-related risks and optimizing operational efficiency, it’s clear that integrating sustainable practices, such as utilizing carbon credits (more on this below) is vital for SMEs. According to Michael E. Porter and Forest L. Reinhardt from Harvard Business School: “Companies that persist in treating climate change solely as a corporate social responsibility issue, rather than a business problem, will risk the greatest consequences”.

Achieving Net-Zero: Key Steps

Unlocking the aforementioned benefits, reducing financial risks, meeting regulatory compliance, and meeting investor expectations all hinge on a company’s ability to, not only manage its carbon footprint, but also bring it to net-zero. This requires the company to:

  • Have awareness for, and keep tabs on, its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
  • Create and enact a plan for reducing these emissions through improvements to operational efficiency, technology, and practices.
  • For those GHGs that cannot be reduced or removed thanks to improved efficiencies and changed business practices, companies must engage in carbon emission trading, where they buy and sell carbon credits to account for whatever emissions remain.

But before we can consider these trades, it’s important to understand the global frameworks that have been developed and approved to help businesses do their greenhouse gas emission accounting correctly.

Introducing the GHG Protocol Standard for SMEs

The GHG Protocol Standard, published by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), is a crucial framework for SMEs aiming to manage and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. It is the most comprehensive, policy-neutral evaluation tool for quantifying GHG. This globally recognized standard helps define, measure and report emissions across three scopes:

  • Scope 1 – Direct emissions
  • Scope 2 – Indirect emissions from purchased energy.
  • Scope 3 – Other indirect emissions within the value chain.

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard requires businesses to report their scope 1 and 2 emissions, whereas scope 3 is voluntary, however companies that report all three scopes stand to gain the most definitive and sustainable advantages. Let’s dive in and understand these three scopes a little better…

Scope 1: Direct Emissions

Scope 1 emissions are those directly produced by the company’s activities. These include:

  • Stationary Combustion: Emissions from fuel used for heating and other stationary sources.
  • Mobile Combustion: Emissions from company-owned vehicles.
  • Fugitive Emissions: Greenhouse gas leaks from equipment like air conditioning units.
  • Process Emissions: Emissions released during manufacturing and industrial processes.

Scope 2: Indirect Emissions-Owned

Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the consumption of energy that the company purchases from utility providers, such as electricity.

Scope 3: Indirect Emissions-Not Owned

Scope 3 emissions are all other indirect emissions occurring in the company’s value chain. These emissions come from sources not owned or directly controlled by the company, such as:

  • Purchased goods and services
  • Financial investments
  • Storage by other companies
  • Transportation and distribution of manufactured goods
  • Use and disposal of sold products
  • Activities of the company’s franchisees
  • Leasing of assets
  • Business travel and staff commuting
  • Waste management and processing
  • Capital goods like machinery, vehicles, buildings, and offices

Aggregate and Report Emissions

Once the company is aware of its emissions across all three scopes, these should be aggregated into the company’s total emissions value, which may then be reported using standardized formats, such as the GHG Protocol reporting template.

Using the GHG Protocol Standard helps companies not only to create effective strategies for managing and reducing emissions, but also to achieve related business goals:

  • Identifying GHG Reduction Opportunities: Find ways to lower emissions.
  • Managing Emission Risks: Assess and handle risks related to GHG emissions.
  • Public Reporting: Participate in voluntary programs for monitoring and reducing GHGs.
  • Regulatory Compliance: Meet mandatory GHG emissions reporting requirements.

The GHG Protocol Standard can be viewed as the roadmap by which a company may align its sustainability efforts to global best practices. It’s a research backed pathway towards better environmental and business performance.

Financial metrics

While measuring a company’s environmental impact is a painstaking process, it’s ultimately an exercise in accounting. As can be expected, this accounting becomes more complex when a number of companies are working together to complete a project, since it becomes increasingly difficult and messy to figure out how to allocate the projects’ environmental impact among the participating companies. This is where financed emissions come into play.

Understanding Financed Emissions

Financed emissions involve aggregating GHG emissions at the portfolio level, linked to the underlying entities or projects. These emissions are allocated proportionally based on the financial stake in the underlying entity or project.

The Role of Carbon Credits

Once a company has a clear insight into its overall carbon footprint, it can start formulating a plan on how to reduce it. This typically includes steps towards optimizing energy consumption and reducing waste, however in most cases there’s a certain portion of the company’s environmental impact that can’t be “optimized” away. It’s precisely for handling the zero-ing out the carbon accounting of this remainder that Carbon Credits were invented.

Carbon credits are certificates denoting audited equivalents for the removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide, or its equivalent in GHGs, from the atmosphere, and can be bought and sold on specialized markets.

Companies can purchase these credits to cover whatever emission deficit they have remaining after eliminating as much as their footprint as possible through process, energy and waste optimizations.

By effectively managing their GHG emissions and utilizing carbon credits, companies can reduce their environmental impact, comply with regulations, and meet investor expectations.

The Practicality Aspects of Carbon Accounting

In terms of practicality, the effort required to estimate GHG emissions/financed emissions at the group level is highly dependent on the level of accuracy desired – Tracking such emissions from the bottom up for each relationship can become impractical and exceed the estimated value of the entire effort. Approximation methods exist, but these are subject to critiquing over their accuracy and value.

Conclusion

Ultimately an organization’s commitment to becoming net-zero comes down to the degree to which every individual in the organization feels committed to this goal. The existing frameworks provide best practice guidelines for organizations’ for strategy, reporting, and implementations, but the degree to which execution is motivated by mere compliance or by deeply held beliefs are what will dictate the outcome. The overarching principle should be to focus on the forest – becoming net-zero, rather than the trees – overthinking the accounting.

Image Credit

Thomas Richter on Unsplash

Carbon Footprint

The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares

Published

on

Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.

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

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com