The NZBA initiative was established in 2021 to align global financial institutions with the Paris Agreement’s goals. With over 100 members representing nearly 40% of global banking assets, the alliance focused on reducing financed emissions, encouraging green investments, and increasing transparency.
These measures were designed to mobilize the financial sector’s efforts toward a low-carbon economy. Sustainable financing is critical in this journey by enabling investments in renewable energy, carbon capture technologies, and reforestation projects.
However, the recent departure of major banks from the NZBA threatens to undermine collective action, raising questions about the alliance’s future and the overall momentum toward net zero.
Balancing Green Goals and Fossil Fuel Financing: The Sustainability Dilemma
In a significant blow to the NZBA, five major Canadian banks—TD Bank, Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), and Scotiabank—announced their exit. This exodus highlights the growing tension between political realities and sustainability commitments.
Despite leaving the alliance, these major banks reiterated their dedication to decarbonization and achieving net zero by 2050. Let’s get to know each of the bank’s climate goals and strategies.
TD Bank
TD Bank said it would continue working independently on its climate strategy, leveraging its expertise to support sustainable investments. The bank has already committed over $100 billion in sustainable finance initiatives and aims to achieve net zero emissions in its operations by 2030.
However, critics argue that TD’s significant funding for oil sands and fossil fuel projects undermines its climate claims. Between 2020 and 2023, TD Bank ranked among the top global financiers of fossil fuel expansion, allocating billions to high-emission projects. This dual approach raises questions about the bank’s sincerity in addressing climate change.
Bank of Montreal
BMO emphasized its ongoing efforts to support clients in transitioning to a low-carbon economy. The bank’s Climate Institute and its $330 billion sustainable finance goal by 2025 underscore its commitment to reducing emissions.

The bank has also been active in funding renewable energy projects, including large-scale wind and solar developments across North America. However, like its peers, BMO faces scrutiny for its continued investments in high-carbon industries, which critics argue contradict its net zero ambitions.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC)
CIBC highlighted its progress in climate risk management and financing renewable energy projects. In 2023 alone, the bank allocated $45 billion to sustainability-linked loans and green bonds.
CIBC’s partnerships with green technology firms have further bolstered its image as a climate-conscious institution. Nonetheless, its position as a major lender to oil and gas companies casts doubt on its overall impact on reducing emissions.
National Bank of Canada
NBC stated it remains focused on aligning its financing activities with sustainability goals while meeting evolving regulatory standards. The bank has supported projects that advance clean energy and sustainable infrastructure. It has also invested in carbon offset programs to mitigate the environmental impact of its loan portfolio and reach the net zero goal, with the following interim targets.

Scotiabank
Scotiabank reaffirmed its dedication to financing decarbonization efforts, particularly in the oil and gas sector. It recently launched the Scotia Climate Change Transition Fund to provide capital for businesses adopting greener practices.

The fund focuses on sectors like renewable energy, green manufacturing, and sustainable agriculture. Remarking on its exit, Scotiabank spokesperson Katie Raskina stated in an email:
“…[We] will continue to finance the transition and support our clients in implementing their sustainability strategies — this is the most important role that we can play.”
Despite these efforts, Canadian banks remain some of the largest financiers of fossil fuels. Data from 2024 shows TD Bank, RBC, BMO, and CIBC among the top 10 global financiers of oil, gas, and coal projects, which poses challenges to their sustainability narratives.
Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) is now the only major Canadian bank still in the alliance, although its leadership has hinted at reconsidering membership. CEO Dave McKay recently stated that exiting NZBA would not diminish the bank’s climate commitments.
RBC has allocated over $500 billion toward sustainable finance and pledged to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. However, RBC’s role as a top lender to the fossil fuel industry has drawn widespread criticism, making it a focal point for climate activists.
The U.S. Banks’ Departure and a Growing Trend
The NZAM also saw a wave of exits from U.S. banking giants in late 2023 and early 2024. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo are among the notable names that departed the alliance.
These exits coincide with Donald Trump’s return to the presidency and intensified political opposition to climate finance. Republican-led states, such as Texas, have filed lawsuits against banks and asset managers, accusing them of prioritizing climate goals over economic interests.
While these banks have distanced themselves from the NZBA, they continue to pursue independent sustainability strategies. For example, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup have committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, with interim targets for 2030.
However, their withdrawal underscores a broader challenge: balancing climate ambitions with political and financial pressures.
What Does This Mean for Global Climate Financing?
The departures from NZBA highlight a troubling trend that may hinder global progress toward net zero. These exits risk fragmenting efforts within the financial sector, which could delay the mobilization of the trillions of dollars required to combat climate change.
As shown in the chart, the world needs $7.4 trillion annually through 2030 under the 1.5°C net-zero scenario. The banking sector has a critical role in ensuring that this amount reaches the right climate projects and initiatives.

Unified alliances like NZBA provide a framework for accountability, collaboration, and standardization, which are essential for large-scale impact. However, political resistance, legal challenges, and the perception of overregulation have created significant barriers.
The exits also send mixed signals to stakeholders, including investors and policymakers, about the financial sector’s commitment to sustainability. Yet, the growing demand for green bonds, renewable energy financing, and decarbonization technologies presents opportunities for banks to demonstrate leadership.
By prioritizing transparency, innovation, and partnerships, financial institutions can continue to play a pivotal role in driving the global transition to a sustainable future.
The post First the Americans, Now the Canadians: What Banks Are Making an Exodus from NZBA? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares
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.
![]()
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.
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 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 Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

