The nuclear energy landscape in North America is undergoing a significant transformation, with both the US and Canada making strides to bolster their nuclear capabilities. From reviving uranium enrichment in the US to Canada’s embrace of nuclear financing, the region is on the road to a nuclear energy resurgence.
Breaking U.S. Nuclear Dependence
The US uranium enrichment sector stands to receive a substantial $2.7 billion injection as part of a government funding bill. This initiative reflects a strategic move to reduce reliance on nuclear fuel imported from Russia.
Proposed by the White House, the funding is integral to President Joe Biden’s broader plan to procure enriched uranium directly from domestic sources. The goal is to revitalize nearly dormant US capabilities by establishing a guaranteed buyer for American-made nuclear reactor fuel.
The move coincides with potential legislative measures to restrict imports of enriched uranium from Russia. The NO RUSSIA bill, National Opportunity to Restore Uranium Supply Services In America Act of 2022, expels Russia’s influence from the U.S. uranium market.
The provision of enrichment funding is based upon implementing limitations on the importation of enriched Russian uranium. The fund is from a credit program for domestic nuclear reactors established in the bipartisan infrastructure law of 2022.
The allocated funding is specially dedicated to cultivating a market for domestically produced enriched uranium. This uranium serves as fuel for the US fleet of over 90 nuclear reactors, as well as for highly enriched uranium used in emerging advanced reactor technologies, currently monopolized by Russia.
In December 2023, after over 50 years, the U.S. issued approval for a groundbreaking nuclear reactor developed by Kairos Power.
The California-based startup has been granted a construction permit by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for its Hermes demonstration reactor in Tennessee. The novel reactor uses molten fluoride salt as a coolant, a more efficient technology than conventional water-cooled nuclear reactors.
The NRC has also granted certifications to other innovative nuclear developers, e.g. NuScale Power and Centrus Energy Corporation, in collaboration with the Energy Department. Most initiatives involved small nuclear reactors (SMR), generating under 300 MWe capacity.
These developments indicate a shifting regulatory stance toward innovative approaches to nuclear power generation in the U.S.
Financing the Canadian Nuclear Renaissance
Over in Canada, the federal government amended its green bond programs. They now permit the financing of nuclear projects and navigated an initial test of investor support for this energy source.
Notably, about 15% of the country’s electricity comes from nuclear power. Most of the 19 reactors are in Ontario which provides 13.6 GWe of power capacity.
The sovereign and the province of Ontario issued a combined C$5.5 billion or US$4.1 billion in securities. This marked the first two offerings under the revised Green Bond Framework for green debt that allow funding for nuclear initiatives. Previously, the framework didn’t include nuclear energy from getting financial support.
The recent $4 billion issuance by the Canadian sovereign did not explicitly earmark proceeds for nuclear power projects. Still, the federal government emphasized its commitment to nuclear development. Also, investors have eagerly subscribed to the 10-year debt offering, with orders surpassing $7.4 billion, nearly double the final amount.
Powering Ahead: Canada’s Ambitious Nuclear Expansion Plans
Canada aims to develop both new large-scale nuclear capacity and SMRs. In 2018, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) unveiled its SMR Roadmap, outlining a strategic plan for the advancement of nuclear technology centered around SMRs.
In February 2023, the Canadian government initiated the Enabling Small Modular Reactors Program. It allocates about US$22 million to facilitate the advancement and implementation of SMRs.
Another notable nuclear development in Canada is Ontario’s 2015 decision to greenlight the refurbishment or lifetime extension of 4 nuclear units at Darlington and the remaining 6 units at Bruce (with the initial 2 units already refurbished). This ambitious C$26 billion 15-year program stands as one of the most significant clean energy endeavors in North America.
Bruce Power, an Ontario-based company aiming to construct the world’s largest nuclear power plant, announced that all its future bonds will adhere to green financing principles. The nuclear power developer also introduced at COP28 last year the first carbon offset protocol for nuclear generation.
James Scongack, Bruce Power’s Chief Development Officer, noted that investor appetite for green securities is shaping their future fundraising strategies. He further noted that:
“With the demand we see for green bonds, we have no doubt all future bonds funding nuclear projects will be green bonds.”
The inclusion of nuclear projects reflects a growing acceptance of nuclear power to decarbonize and enhance energy security. This development signifies a significant shift in green finance and underscores the evolving role of nuclear energy in Canada’s sustainability efforts.
By embracing nuclear power, the US and Canada are paving the way for a sustainable energy landscape while enhancing energy security.
The post Funding Bill Grants $2.7B to American-Made Nuclear Reactor Fuel 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

