Connect with us

Published

on

ExxonMobil’s $20B Low-Carbon Bet in 2030 Plan: Big Emissions Cuts, Bigger Oil Production

ExxonMobil published its updated 2030 Corporate Plan, which keeps the company’s “dual challenge” approach. The oil giant says it will supply reliable energy while cutting emissions. The update raises lower-emission spending, while also forecasting higher oil and gas production to 2030.

Billions in Motion: ExxonMobil’s Financial and Production Targets

ExxonMobil plans about $20 billion of lower-emission capital between 2025 and 2030. It says the $20 billion targets carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen, and lithium projects.

The company projects ~5.5 million oil-equivalent barrels per day (Moebd) of upstream production by 2030. Exxon also forecasts ~$25 billion of earnings growth and ~$35 billion of cash-flow growth by 2030 versus 2024 on a constant price-and-margin basis.

The oil major gives a range for cash capex. It shows $27–29 billion for 2026 and $28–32 billion annually for 2027–2030. The updated plan highlights about $100 billion in major investments planned for 2026–2030. It notes these projects could bring in around $50 billion in total earnings during that time.

ExxonMobil earnings growth 2030
Source: ExxonMobil Updated 2030 Plan

Low-Carbon Plan: $20B for CCS, Hydrogen and Lithium

ExxonMobil describes the $20 billion as focused on three business lines:

  • CCS networks and hubs for third parties.
  • Hydrogen production and integrated fuels.
  • Lithium supply for batteries.

The company says roughly 60% of the $20 billion will support lower-emissions services to third-party customers. It estimates new low-carbon businesses could deliver ~$13 billion of earnings potential by 2040 if markets and policies develop as expected.

ExxonMobil $20B in low carbon investments
Source: ExxonMobil

Exxon’s updated Corporate 2030 Plan lists current and contracted CCS volumes. The company reports about 9 million tonnes per annum (MTA) of CO₂ capture capacity under contract for its U.S. Gulf Coast network. Key project entries include:

  • Linde — Beaumont, TX: ~2.2 MTA CO₂, start-up 2026.
  • CF Industries — Donaldsonville, LA: ~2.0 MTA, start-up 2026.
  • NG3 (Gillis, LA): ~1.2 MTA, start-up 2026.
  • Lake Charles Methanol II: ~1.3 MTA, start-up 2030.
  • Nucor — Convent, LA: ~0.8 MTA, start-up 2026.

The plan also highlights a proposed 1.0 GW low-carbon power/data center project paired with ~3.5 MTA capture, with a planned final investment decision in 2026. Exxon calls its Gulf Coast network an “end-to-end CCS system” and says scale depends on permitting and supportive policy.

ExxonMobil CCS system
Source: ExxonMobil

Counting Carbon: How Exxon Tracks Methane and Emissions Cuts

ExxonMobil says it is making measurable progress on emissions. The company reports faster-than-expected cuts in several intensity metrics. It states it has already met key 2030 intensity milestones and now expects to meet its methane-intensity target by 2026, four years early.

The company repeats its long-term net-zero framing for operated assets. Exxon’s plan targets Scope 1 and Scope 2 net-zero for its operated assets by 2050. It also sets a nearer target of net-zero Scope 1 and 2 for its operated Permian assets by 2035.

These commitments focus on emissions the company directly controls. They do not include a Scope 3 net-zero pledge for customer use of sold products. Exxon underscores that these goals depend on technology, markets, and supportive policy.

On operational achievements, Exxon highlights large cuts in routine flaring and improved equipment standards. The new plan states that the company reduced corporate flaring intensity by over 60% from 2016 to 2024.

  • As shown in the chart below, ExxonMobil’s operated-basis greenhouse gas profile shows a clear decline in Scopes 1 and 2 between the 2016 baseline and 2024.

Also, by 2024, Scope 1 emissions dropped to 91 million metric tons CO₂e. Scope 2 emissions (location-based) reached 9 million metric tons CO₂e. Together, this totals 100 million metric tons CO₂e. This is about a 15% reduction from 2016 based on operations.

ExxonMobil GHG emissions 2024

For the same period, Exxon’s Scope 1+2 emissions intensity dropped from 27.5 to 22.6 metric tons CO₂e per 100 metric tons produced. This shows they are decarbonizing operations, even as production has changed.

The company also hit other flaring and GHG intensity goals ahead of schedule. These outcomes came from replacing old equipment, tightening operations, and limiting routine venting and flaring.

Exxon lists four categories of near-term reduction actions it is scaling up:

  • Methane control: wider deployment of leak-detection and infrared cameras, more frequent inspections, and accelerated repairs.
  • Flaring reduction: operational changes and stricter shutdown protocols to cut routine flaring.
  • Efficiency and asset management: project design improvements, digital optimization, and selective asset sales or retirements to lower average carbon intensity.
  • CCS and low-carbon services: building capture hubs (about 9 MTA of contracted CO₂ capacity on the U.S. Gulf Coast) and contracting capture services for industrial customers.

The plan also names specific technology and program investments. Exxon highlights advanced sensor networks and real-time emissions monitoring. They also focus on expanding data systems to track and verify reductions. It expects these tools to improve measurement accuracy and speed up corrective action.

Limits and caveats appear repeatedly. Exxon links its long-term net-zero goal to several factors. These include market formation, policy incentives like tax credits and carbon pricing, and permitting timelines. The company warns that total emissions and some asset outcomes will change with production levels and energy demand.

In the near term, key metrics to watch include:

  • 2026 methane-intensity and flaring disclosures.

  • Volumes of CO₂ captured and stored as Gulf Coast CCS projects launch.

  • The pace of FID and execution for the 1.0 GW / 3.5 MTA low-carbon power and capture project.

These will show whether Exxon’s claimed progress converts into sustained emissions declines.

Fueling the Future: Rising Oil & Gas Output Through 2030

Exxon projects higher hydrocarbon output even as it invests in low-carbon businesses. The plan targets ~5.5 Moebd by 2030. The company expects ~65% of production to come from advantaged assets such as the Permian Basin, Guyana, and select LNG.

Permian growth is a core part of the supply outlook. Exxon expects roughly 2.5 Moebd from the Permian by 2030, up materially from 2024 levels. Guyana’s Stabroek Block is another major growth driver.

Exxon plans multiple new offshore start-ups in Guyana before 2030. The company argues that these barrels deliver lower operational carbon intensity compared with many older fields.

Critics say rising production risks locking in fossil reliance. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, called the plan inconsistent with a 1.5°C pathway. Exxon responds that the world will need oil and gas for decades and that its strategy balances supply security with emissions reduction. Reuters reported split investor and market reactions when the plan surfaced.

Investor Radar: Metrics to Track Exxon’s Low-Carbon Rollout

ExxonMobil links the pace of low-carbon roll-out to policy, permitting, and market formation. Key near-term items to watch include:

  • Final investment decision and execution of the 1.0 GW / 3.5 MTA project in 2026.
  • Gulf Coast CCS volumes will actually be placed into service in 2026–2030.
  • Methane-intensity disclosures in 2026 to confirm earlier achievement claims.

Market analysts noted Exxon’s plan targets improved earnings and cash flow through 2030 while retaining tight capital discipline. Some news channels highlighted that the company raised its earnings and cash-flow outlook to 2030 without raising total capital allocation.

ExxonMobil’s 2030 Corporate Plan balances growth and green ambition. With $20 billion dedicated to CCS, hydrogen, and lithium, the company aims to cut emissions while increasing oil and gas output.

Success will depend on technology, policy support, and timely project execution, making the next few years critical for investors and stakeholders tracking both energy transition and production growth.

The post ExxonMobil’s $20B Low-Carbon Bet in 2030 Plan: Big Emissions Cuts, Bigger Oil Production 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