Connect with us

Published

on

disney

The Walt Disney Company delivered a strong performance in the second quarter of fiscal 2025, ending March 29. Total revenue rose to $23.6 billion, a 7% increase compared to $22.1 billion in the same quarter last year. This growth was driven by improved performance across multiple segments, especially entertainment and experiences.

Net Income had a significant turnaround, with a $3.3 billion improvement year-over-year. This signaled a strong financial recovery and operational efficiency across the board.

disney revenue
Source: Disney

Moving on to the question, is the top entertainment provider’s sustainability game equally on point as its revenue? Let’s analyse and find out the answer.

Walt Disney’s Q2 2025 Segment Performance

Segment operating income climbed to $4.4 billion, up 15% from Q2 2024. Diluted earnings per share (EPS) reached $1.81, a sharp turnaround from the $0.01 loss reported last year. Adjusted EPS rose 20% to $1.45, surpassing analyst estimates of $1.20.

  • Entertainment: Strong growth, driven by streaming and content sales. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) operating income rose sharply to $336 million from $47 million a year ago.
  • Experiences (Parks, Resorts, Cruises): Revenue grew 6% to $8.9 billion, with operating income up 9% to $2.5 billion.
  • Streaming: Disney+ added 1.4 million subscribers, reversing previous quarter losses, reaching 126 million total subscribers. Hulu SVOD grew by 1.3 million, totaling 54.7 million subscribers.

Strategic Developments

  • Theme Parks: Disney announced its seventh theme park and resort, to be built in Abu Dhabi in partnership with Miral, marking a major international expansion.
  • Streaming Partnerships: Collaboration with Whale TV to expand digital content offerings, supporting growth in Disney+, ESPN, and Hulu.
  • ESPN: Continued investments, with a new direct-to-consumer offering planned for later in the year

Market Reaction

  • Disney’s strong Q2 2025 results led to a 9–10% surge in its stock price, reflecting renewed investor confidence.

Robert A. Iger, Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company, noted, 

“Our outstanding performance this quarter—with adjusted EPS(1) up 20% from the prior year driven by our Entertainment and Experiences businesses—underscores our continued success building for growth and executing across our strategic priorities. Following an excellent first half of the fiscal year, we have a lot more to look forward to, including our upcoming theatrical slate, the launch of ESPN’s new DTC offering, and an unprecedented number of expansion projects underway in our Experiences segment. Overall, we remain optimistic about the direction of the company and our outlook for the remainder of the fiscal year.”

Disney Targets Net-Zero Emissions by 2030

Since 2009, The Walt Disney Company has aimed to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its direct operations. Now, it is pushing further by aligning its climate targets with the Paris Agreement and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In 2023, the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) officially validated Disney’s updated emissions goals. These include new quantitative, time-bound targets for both direct (Scope 1 & 2) and value chain (Scope 3) emissions.

Where Disney’s Emissions Come From

  • Scope 1 & 2: Direct emissions mostly arise from energy use in theme parks, resorts, corporate offices, and fuel used by Disney Cruise Line.
  • Scope 3: Indirect emissions span across the supply chain—from consumer product manufacturing and food services to film and TV production.

2030 Climate Commitments

Disney’s climate action plan is built on strong, measurable goals:

  • Cut absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 46.2% by 2030, compared to 2019 levels
  • Reach net-zero direct emissions by 2030
  • Use 100% zero-carbon electricity across global operations by 2030
  • Invest in certified natural climate solutions
  • Drive Scope 3 reductions by engaging suppliers, licensees, and partners
disney emissions
Source: Disney

Disney’s 4-Step Strategy to Reduce Scope 1 & 2 Emissions

The figure displayed below shows that Disney’s total emissions (Scope 1 + Scope 2) in 2023 were 1.72 million metric tons CO₂e. This means emissions were significantly more than its 2022 data.

Thus, to meet its 2030 net-zero goal for direct operations, Disney is following a data-driven emissions reduction hierarchy:

  1. Designing low-emission infrastructure: Prioritize energy-efficient, sustainable design in new builds and renovations.
  2. Boosting efficiency: Improve energy and fuel efficiency across all facilities and fleets.
  3. Switching to low-carbon energy: Replace high-emission energy sources with renewables and cleaner fuels.
  4. Nature-based solutions: Invest in certified natural climate solutions to balance remaining emissions.
walt Disney emissions
Source: Disney

Cutting Scope 3 Emissions Across Its Value Chain

Disney is taking bold steps to reduce Scope 3 emissions. After reviewing over 100 strategies, the company picked the most impactful and cost-effective ones. These actions focus on the following:

  • Low-Carbon Products: Using low-emission materials and improving production methods to cut carbon emissions. Supporting suppliers in shifting to renewable energy and cleaner technologies.

  • Supplier & Licensee Action: Helping partners set science-based climate goals and collaborating across industries to drive broader emission cuts.

  • Sustainable Media Production: Adopting eco-friendly practices in TV and film projects while reducing emissions across studio operations.

  • Clean Tech & Collaboration: Investing in low-carbon innovations and working with suppliers and peers to scale impact across sectors.

By acting across its supply chain, Disney is working to meet its climate targets and lead sustainable change in the entertainment industry.

Push for 100% Zero-Carbon Electricity by 2030

Disney plans to power all its direct operations with 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2030. Most of its electricity use happens at its global theme parks and resorts and major campuses in cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Bristol.

Since each location has unique energy challenges, the company is using a smart, step-by-step plan to reach its clean energy goals.

Powering Up With Clean Energy

On-Site Solar Projects

It’s giving priority to sites where clean energy can be used directly, such as at its theme parks. For example, in 2023, Shanghai Disney Resort added 1.3 megawatts of solar panels, while Hong Kong Disneyland became the city’s largest solar site.

Green Power From Utilities

In places where on-site generation isn’t enough, Disney is teaming up with utility companies to buy clean energy directly. This includes using green power programs or working with regulators to develop fair renewable energy pricing for all customers.

Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)

Disney will also sign agreements with renewable energy projects to buy electricity, either directly or virtually. These deals help bring more clean energy to the grid and offer flexibility when on-site options aren’t available.

Energy Certificates

As a backup, the company plans to buy high-quality Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) to match any remaining electricity use with clean energy. This ensures every unit of power is carbon-free.

By combining these four strategies, Disney aims to ensure all its electricity comes from zero-carbon sources, directly or through verified offsets.

Disney Leads the Way in Low-Carbon Fuels

Disney is also exploring low-carbon fuels to reduce emissions, especially from its cruise ships and transportation fleets at parks.

  • Focus on Cruise Ships: While Disney Cruise Line is smaller than others in the industry, the company is working hard to drive innovation. It’s investing in research and testing new low-carbon fuels that reduce environmental impact.
  • Supporting Clean Fuel Development: Disney is backing new technologies and helping build the supply chain for cleaner fuels. It’s also partnering with suppliers and industry peers to speed up the shift to sustainable shipping.

Sets Ambitious Sustainability Standards

Disney targets zero waste to landfill at all owned parks, resorts, and cruise lines by 2030. It plans to eliminate single-use plastics on cruise ships by 2025 and reduce them elsewhere. The company will use sustainable seafood, recycled materials, and eco-friendly packaging for branded products.

Disney sustainability
Source: Disney

Additionally, all new projects will aim for near net zero, use water efficiently, and divert 90% of construction waste in the US and Europe by 2030.

Disney’s Q2 2025 results show solid growth in revenue, profit, and streaming performance, driven by smart expansion moves and a strong outlook for the rest of the year. While its sustainability and emissions strategies are in place, rising emissions signal a need for stronger climate action and improved management.

The post Is Disney’s Net-Zero Game as Strong as Its Revenue Surge? 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