Frontier has signed offtake agreements with Norway’s Hafslund Celsio for the first-ever carbon capture retrofit at their waste-to-energy facility. Such plants recover energy from waste treatment, usually in the form of heat or electricity.
Hafslund Celsio is the country’s largest district heating provider and operator of the biggest waste incineration plant near Oslo.
The press release revealed that Frontier buyers will invest $31.6 million to remove 100,000 tons of CO₂ between 2029 and 2030.
Terje Aasland, Minister of Energy of Norway, said,
“I am pleased to see that the voluntary carbon removal market is adopting carbon removals in hard-to-abate sectors such as waste incineration. This kind of public-private cooperation contributes to creating a functioning market that will accelerate development of further projects in this segment both nationally and internationally.”
What’s Driving Frontier’s Carbon Capture Project?
The carbon capture project is backed by both the government and private companies. Norway’s Longship program is helping fund CO₂ capture and storage through Northern Lights. The City of Oslo is also investing money to keep the project going, and Frontier’s off-take agreements make sure there’s a steady income to make it happen.
Frontier buyers in this round include Stripe, Google, Shopify, McKinsey Sustainability, Autodesk, H&M Group, JPMorgan Chase, Workday, and Salesforce. Additional participants, through Frontier’s partnership with Watershed, include Aledade, Match Group, Samsara, SKIMS, Skyscanner, Wise, and Zendesk.
Hannah Bebbington, Head of Deployment, Frontier, said,
“Waste-to-energy retrofitted with carbon capture is a no-brainer solution for managing pre-sorted, residual waste: it generates carbon-free energy and removes CO₂ from the atmosphere. Hafslund Celsio is set to become the first to do it, charting a path for the 500 waste-to-energy facilities across Europe to remove tens of millions of tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere.”
- Biogenic CO₂ from organic materials like paper and cardboard.
- Fossil CO₂ from inorganic waste such as plastics.
The retrofit will enable the plant to capture both types of emissions. The CO₂ will then be shipped to Northern Lights for permanent geological storage.
Hafslund Celsio estimates that the facility could capture 175,000 tons of biogenic CO₂ per year, plus 175,000 tons of fossil CO₂ annually. Additionally, the plant is equipped with advanced filters to keep air pollution in the city to a minimum.
While Frontier’s offtake focuses on biogenic CO₂, the fossil emissions are not part of its offtake program. Nonetheless, the project will significantly reduce total emissions from the plant.

Jannicke Gerner Bjerkås, Director CCS and Carbon Markets, Hafslund Celsio commented,
“We’re proud to be the first to take a step toward retrofitting waste-to-energy with carbon removal. Frontier buyers are not only enabling this project to get off the ground, but also validating a model that could be replicated throughout Europe, with the potential to remove tens of millions of tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere.”
Why Upgrade Waste-to-Energy Plants?
In Norway, strict waste rules are in place to transfer leftover and non-recyclable materials to waste-to-energy plants. Burning waste for energy is one of the best ways to handle such types of trash.
Without this process, waste like spoiled paper and cardboard would release methane, a harmful greenhouse gas. Instead, burning it helps generate electricity and heat while keeping emissions lower.
Furthermore, adding carbon capture is a smart and affordable way to scale up CO₂ removal from these plants. In Europe alone, around 500 waste-to-energy facilities could be upgraded, cutting emissions by hundreds of millions of tons.
Instead of constructing new carbon removal systems from scratch, retrofits improve what already exists, making the transition to cleaner energy faster and more efficient.
Capturing CO₂ Can Make a Big Impact
- Adding carbon capture to waste-to-energy plants could remove 400 million tons of CO₂ per year by 2050.
Right now, these retrofits could capture 100 million tons of CO₂ annually, with that number growing significantly in the future.
Besides extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, these upgrades also help prevent extra emissions from being released in the first place.
Cutting Methane Emissions
A report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) highlights waste-to-energy’s role in reducing methane emissions. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 84 times higher than CO₂ over 20 years. It says:
- Landfills account for 80% of methane emissions in the waste sector.
Thus, diverting waste from landfills to energy recovery significantly lowers methane emissions.
For example, Germany’s landfill ban on untreated organic waste in 2005, along with expanded waste-to-energy facilities, cut methane emissions from 35.5 million tons in 1990 to 7.5 million tons in 2018. This highlights how smart policies can slash emissions.
The Future of the Waste-to-Energy Carbon Capture Market
As per Precedence Research’s market analysis,
- The global waste-to-energy market is estimated at USD 51.23 billion in 2025. It is expected to reach USD 92.95 billion by 2034, growing at a CAGR of 6.81% from 2025 to 2034.

- The market was worth USD 20.19 billion in 2024 and is expected to reach USD 39.50 billion by 2034 at a CAGR of 6.94%.

Apart from Frontier, companies like Veolia, EQT AB, Suez, and Ramboll Group A/S are playing a key role in innovation. Strict government regulations on carbon emissions and waste disposal also ensure viable solutions. Plus, carbon taxes and landfill restrictions make waste-to-energy a smarter and more sustainable choice in Europe.
Frontier’s investment in waste-to-energy projects shows how managing waste sustainably can also combat carbon emissions. More importantly, upgrading the existing facilities with carbon capture technology makes it more efficient. By backing these innovations, Frontier is helping Norway to stay clean and green.
- SEE MORE: The “Northern Lights” Shines: Shell, Equinor, and TotalEnergies JV Powers the Norway CCS Project
The post Frontier Backs Norway’s First Carbon Capture Retrofit! Is This the Future of Waste-to-Energy? 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

