Gold mining is not only energy-intensive but is also challenging. Miners weigh various factors like geology, ore grades, depth, and transport distances which could potentially turn into challenges as well. However, as the world is transitioning to sustainability, gold fields are significantly considering reliable energy supply and management not just for power operations but also for reducing emissions.
The gold mining industry as a whole has a clear path to decarbonization that aligns with the Paris Agreement. They aim to cut absolute emissions by 50% and net emissions by 30% on their journey to net zero by 2050.
S&P Global Commodity Insights recently launched a gold emissions curve that showed, in 2024 emissions were lower than the 2021 baseline. It revealed:
“329 primary gold mines emitted greenhouse gases at an average rate of 792 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per paid ounce of gold (kgCO2e/oz Au) produced, 39 kgCO2e/oz Au. The emissions are lower than in 2021.”

Tackling Scope 1 and Scope 2 Gold Emissions
The report further illustrated that Since 2021, Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions per ounce of gold produced have steadily declined. The overall progress was a result of renewable adoption for electricity generation, operational improvements, and technological upgrades in on-site operations. In this regard, many gold mining companies turned to power purchase agreements and carbon offsets in their decarbonization strategy,
However, addressing Scope 1 emissions still remains a challenge. This is because they are related directly to mining operations like equipment use, fuel consumption, and diverse on-site processes.
- Scope 1 emissions increased by 0.68 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent between 2021 and 2023.
Conversely, scope 2 emissions are easier to mitigate and have shown remarkable improvements. They are associated with purchased electricity, heating, cooling, and steam, and have shown notable improvements.
- In 2023, Scope 2 emissions accounted for 39% of total emissions, down from 41% in 2021.
- Scope 2 emissions dropped by 1.32 million metric tons with the 2021 baseline despite the increase in gold production by 2.1 million ounces.

Top 3 Low Emitter Gold Mines
Lundin Gold’s Fruta del Norte
Lundin Gold Inc., based in Vancouver, British Columbia, is a Canadian mining company with a strong focus on sustainability and efficiency. The company 100% owns the Fruta del Norte gold mine in southeast Ecuador, which has been producing gold since late 2019.
Known for its low carbon emissions, high-grade output, and cost efficiency, Fruta del Norte is among the most environmentally responsible and productive gold mines globally. In 2023, it achieved an impressive production of 481,274 ounces of gold, making it one of South America’s largest gold producers.
The company holds 28 metallic mineral concessions and three construction material concessions in Ecuador’s Zamora Chinchipe province. As per its sustainability report,
- Lundin Gold maintains an industry-leading greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity of just 0.08 tCO2e per ounce of gold produced. This makes the miner a top low-carbon gold producer.
The mine is powered by Ecuador’s national grid, which sources 81% of its energy from renewables. This is how it achieves significantly lower Scope 2 emissions.
Source: Lundin Gold
Centerra Gold Inc.
In 2023, Centerra Gold Inc. achieved a 77% drop in emissions intensity at its Öksüt mine, despite production suspension in 2022 due to mercury detection. They resumed operations in 2023 and sold higher gold ounces after resuming operations in June 2023. A mercury abatement system was installed to restart the mine. This led to the production of 195,926 ounces of gold—the highest since 2020- and consequently, it cut down emissions.
As per their sustainability report,
- Global Scope 1 emissions totaled 107,384 metric tons of CO₂e in 2023. The company’s two main operating mines, Mount Milligan and Öksüt, accounted for 90,655 metric tons.
Mount Milligan reduced emissions by 7% due to shorter haulage distances and optimized pit sequencing, while Öksüt achieved a 21% decrease from temporary mining interruptions and improved haulage cycles.
- Global Scope 2 emissions totaled 33,790 metric tons of CO₂e in 2023, with 13,185 metric tons from Mount Milligan and Öksüt.
Despite a 7% rise in electricity use, emissions remained stable through efficient energy use. Notably, Scope 3 emissions, with purchased goods and services contributed to more than 50%.
Source: Centerra-Gold
The company uses the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for emissions reporting and is exploring cost-effective decarbonization pathways to cut Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in the coming years. Additionally, it is evaluating opportunities to reduce scope 3 emissions.
Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd.
The Canada-based gold mining company, is the world’s third-largest gold producer, with operations in Canada, Australia, Finland, and Mexico. In 2023, the company achieved significant progress in reducing its emissions, particularly with its Kittila mine, which halved its Scope 2 emissions intensity. They achieved this by sourcing all of its grid electricity from zero-emission sources.
Source: Agnico Eagle
In total, Agnico Eagle produced 3.44 million ounces of gold in 2023, and all 11 of its active operations outperformed the industry average for emissions per ounce of gold produced.
The company’s total Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2023 were 1,337,000 tCO₂e, a 3% reduction from 2022 and a 5% decrease from the 2021 baseline.
The mining giant has robust plans to upgrade its technological innovation, decarbonization efforts, and its Energy and Greenhouse Gas Management Strategy. Its dedication to sustainability and emissions reduction underscores its leadership in responsible gold production.
Other Players
For 2023, PJSC Polyus has fully offset its Scope 2 emissions since 2021 by sourcing renewable energy and acquiring carbon-free electric energy certificates from H2 Clean Energy LLC to cover 72,000 metric tons of CO₂e in 2023.
Additionally, Kinross Gold Corp. reduced its Scope 2 emissions intensity by 31% and Barrick Gold’s Nevada operations significantly cut 197,000 metric tons in 2023 with the 2020 baseline.
These reductions primarily came from renewable energy sources like hydroelectric and power purchase agreements to buy energy credits from solar power plants.
On the flip side, Sibanye Stillwater had the highest emission footprint…
The S&P Global report also highlighted that among all gold mines, South African mines have record-high emissions. And Sibanye Stillwater’s Cooke operation topped the list. It recorded a massive amount of 9,980 kg CO₂e per ounce of gold in 2023. The mine relies heavily on electricity from South Africa’s coal-based grid and processes low-grade historic tailings through two plants, Cooke and Ezulwini.
Outside South Africa, Pueblo Viejo in the Dominican Republic ranked second, with 3,236 kg CO₂e per ounce of gold in 2023, indicating a 25% rise from 2022. Emissions intensity increased due to a 22% drop in production, lower head grades, and reliance on diesel-powered plants.
Gold’s Role in a Sustainable Future
Gold plays a key role in modern technologies and the shift to a low-carbon economy. Its inclusion in investment portfolios also boosts resilience against climate risks, solidifying its status as a sustainable asset in global finance.
The gold mining industry is aligning with sustainability goals by cutting its carbon footprint while increasing production. This balance highlights better energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and improved operational strategies.
The post Gold Emissions Trends: Who Are the Top 3 Low Emitters? 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

