The Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) has been a vital tool for combating climate change, enabling organizations to offset emissions by funding projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gases (GHGs). Once viewed as a cornerstone for corporate sustainability efforts, the market is now at a critical juncture.
Challenges such as fraudulent practices, questionable project integrity, and waning buyer confidence have sparked concerns about its future. However, amid these setbacks lies an opportunity for transformation. Is the VCM truly on its last leg, or is it evolving to meet the demands of a more discerning global audience?
A Look Back: The Voluntary Carbon Market’s Evolution
What Are Carbon Credits?
Carbon credits represent the reduction or removal of one metric ton of CO₂-equivalent emissions. They are typically achieved through projects such as renewable energy, reforestation, and sustainable agriculture.
These credits are often purchased by companies to offset emissions they cannot reduce internally, allowing them to claim progress toward carbon neutrality.
The VCM differs fundamentally from compliance markets, which are regulated by governments and operate on a cap-and-trade basis. The unregulated nature of the VCM has allowed it to thrive, providing flexibility for buyers and enabling the development of innovative project categories. However, this lack of regulation has also led to vulnerabilities in accountability and standardization.
Exponential Market Growth and Who Drives It
From its origins as a niche market, the VCM has grown exponentially. By 2022, it was valued at $2 billion, driven by rising corporate commitments to net-zero targets.
Projections estimate the market could balloon to up to $25 billion by 2030, representing a 15-fold growth from its current size. This expansion has been fueled by increasing pressure on businesses to address climate change and the growing adoption of sustainability frameworks.
Initially, the VCM emerged as a voluntary alternative to compliance markets, allowing companies to take responsibility for emissions beyond regulated requirements. Over the years, major corporations like Microsoft, Google, and Starbucks have leveraged the VCM to achieve ambitious net-zero goals.
Key participants in the VCM include:
- Project Developers – These entities create carbon credits through verified environmental projects.
- Consumers – Private companies, governments, and individuals purchase credits to offset emissions.
- Retail Traders and Brokers – They bundle and market credits to buyers.
- Third-Party Verifiers – Organizations like Verra and Gold Standard ensure projects meet stringent standards for emissions reduction. These also include carbon rating agencies that provide more transparency and authenticity to carbon projects.
While plenty of companies operate in the VCM, some names stand out because of their major contributions to the space.
For example, Xpansiv operates the world’s largest voluntary carbon exchange through its CBL platform, offering transparent, efficient trading of carbon credits and renewable energy certificates. The platform connects over 1,000 verified projects and partners with major carbon standards like Verra and Gold Standard.
Xpansiv’s technology enables same-day settlement and reduces delivery risks, enhancing market accessibility and liquidity. It also bridges voluntary and compliance markets, facilitating products under programs like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and California Cap-and-Trade.
Another key player, Laconic Global, operates at the intersection of technology and the VCM, offering solutions that improve transparency and functionality. They utilize their proprietary SADAR
Natural Capital Monetization (NCM) platform to provide real-time carbon market data, including live pricing, trade analysis, and portfolio valuation tools.
Finally, in the realm of carbon credit ratings, a London-based company, BeZero Carbon offers high specialization. It provides transparency and risk assessments for carbon markets through its BeZero Carbon Ratings. It evaluates the quality and risks of individual carbon credits, covering factors such as additionality, permanence, leakage, and policy risks.
These companies’ works are crucial to keeping the market alive and striving, despite mounting issues and challenges.
VCM’s Current Challenges and Setbacks
Integrity Under Scrutiny
The VCM has faced intense criticism for the questionable integrity of some projects. For example, certain REDD+ initiatives—aimed at reducing deforestation—have been accused of inflating baselines, leading to overestimated carbon savings. High-profile scandals, such as funds from Zimbabwe’s Kariba REDD+ project failing to reach local communities, have further eroded trust.
This scrutiny has translated into financial losses. In 2023, transaction volumes dropped by 56% from the previous year, and the market’s value plummeted to $723 million—a stark contrast to its 2021 peak of $2 billion.
In effect, average credit prices fell to $6.53 per ton, a decline that reflects reduced buyer confidence. The chart below shows dampened market sentiment since 2021 when criticisms began, with number of credits demanded (retired) and produced (issued) decreased.
Media coverage has amplified the market’s vulnerabilities, highlighting instances of greenwashing and low-quality credits. This negative attention has deterred corporate buyers, many of whom fear accusations of insincere climate action. Companies are increasingly seeking transparency and accountability in the credits they purchase, placing additional pressure on the VCM to reform.
Signs of Recovery: Building a Stronger Market
Better Standards, Better Confidence
Despite these challenges, the VCM is evolving. The introduction of integrity frameworks such as the Core Carbon Principles by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) and the Claims Code by the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) aim to restore buyer confidence.
These initiatives emphasize project transparency, robust verification processes, and adherence to high environmental and social standards.
Standards organizations are addressing past shortcomings. Verra, for example, introduced revised baseline calculations for REDD+ projects in 2023, aimed at resolving overestimation issues. These updates signify a shift toward greater accuracy and accountability, which could help rebuild trust among stakeholders.
More Than Just Carbon: Focus on Co-Benefits
In 2023, 28% of VCM transactions involved projects offering co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation or alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This reflects a growing buyer preference for credits that deliver tangible environmental and social outcomes in addition to carbon reductions.
Why the VCM Still Matters
Amid all the setbacks, the long-term outlook for the VCM remains optimistic.
Echoing this outlook, Xpansiv’s COO Ben Stuart remarked that:
“Despite ongoing challenges in the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM), recent indicators suggest continued growth and renewed signs of market confidence. Notably, total retirements have increased year-on-year from 2023 to 2024, signaling a steady commitment from existing participants and an increase in new stakeholders engaging with the market.”
He further noted that the VCM is gaining validation through various international frameworks, which is helping to address concerns about market integrity, highlighting:
Last month, at COP29, countries reached a landmark agreement on the adoption of Article 6.4… In parallel, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has approved standards…At the national level, the VCM continues to gain traction, with countries such as South Africa, Japan, and Singapore incorporating the VCM into their domestic carbon schemes. These are renewed signs of market confidence…”
Projections indicate a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 31% from 2023 to 2028. Key drivers include global net-zero commitments, regulatory alignment under frameworks like the Paris Agreement, and technological advancements in carbon removal.
Technological innovations help the market bounce back as advanced data gathering and sophisticated technologies produce more transparent and reliable verification processes.
Carbon removal technologies, such as direct air capture, are gaining traction. These solutions, which physically extract CO₂ from the atmosphere, are increasingly favored for their clear and measurable impact.
In 2023, removal credits commanded a 245% price premium over reduction credits, underscoring their value in meeting net-zero targets.
Emerging Trends in the VCM
Increased Demand for High-Quality Credits and Market Integration
Buyers are increasingly prioritizing quality over quantity, focusing on credits that are rigorously verified and offer co-benefits. The share of transactions from projects with co-benefits grew from 22% in 2022 to 28% in 2023, indicating a shift toward more impactful solutions.
Moreover, the VCM is becoming increasingly segmented, with distinct markets emerging for engineered solutions, nature-based projects, and co-benefit-driven initiatives. This differentiation allows buyers to tailor their investments to align with specific climate goals and organizational values.
More notably, as regulatory frameworks under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement are finalized, the boundaries between voluntary and compliance markets are becoming increasingly blurred. This integration offers opportunities for scaling the VCM while addressing systemic issues such as double counting and project accountability.
Remarking on this, CEO and Co-founder of Laconic, Andrew Gilmour, said that the VCM faces challenges like low volume, liquidity, and price discovery due to inadequate infrastructure.
However, institutional markets are thriving with innovative products like Sovereign Carbon, designed to meet global regulations, attracting corporate buyers with stringent compliance needs, unlike traditional voluntary carbon credits. Referring to this new product, Gilmour specifically highlighted that:
“This is the practical effect of the “convergence” of VCM and Article 6 markets that have been talked about – a swing away from the “wild-west” mentality of the VCM and towards a “buttoned-down” approach that embraces proven regulatory structures.”
COP29: A Turning Point for Carbon Markets
The 2024 COP29 in Baku proved pivotal for the future of carbon markets, especially after the uncertainty surrounding the potential re-election of Donald Trump. Despite this looming challenge, the outcomes at COP29 gave a much-needed boost to the climate conversation, particularly following the disappointing results at COP28.
Progress on Article 6.2 and Article 6.4
Article 6 negotiations remained a focal point, with texts on both Article 6.2 and 6.4 evolving through the first week. After extensive deliberations, the final texts were ratified late on the second Saturday of the conference. These decisions provided much-needed clarity and a clear framework for the implementation of carbon markets, marking a significant step forward after COP28’s lack of progress.
One of the most significant achievements was the establishment of clear rules for the transfer and tracking of carbon credits under Article 6.2. This mechanism, which allows for carbon credit trade between countries, is expected to drive substantial investment in climate action, particularly in developing nations.
A Historic Milestone for Carbon Markets
The final adoption of the Article 6 texts was hailed as a historic milestone for climate finance. These decisions provide developers, investors, and countries with much-needed certainty regarding how carbon credits are created and traded. The text’s adoption also set a path for the effective scaling of carbon markets, intending to contribute billions in funding for climate initiatives by the end of the decade.
Despite some pushback from carbon market skeptics, who argue that the system could provide a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry, the global community remains optimistic. The new rules aim to ensure greater transparency, reduce double counting, and enhance the accountability of carbon credits.
The next major milestone for Article 6 is expected in 2025 when the Supervisory Body for Article 6.4 meets to discuss further refinements. By then, the geopolitical landscape may have shifted, with a new US president potentially influencing the direction of international climate negotiations.
According to some accounts, 2025 will be the “moment of reckoning” for the VCM. Yet, given the past criticisms and current market challenges, the market has to overcome some major hurdles to move forward, as recommended by market experts.
Barriers to Address for Sustained Growth
- Regulatory Alignment: Clearer rules are needed to integrate voluntary and compliance markets seamlessly.
- Market Liquidity: Addressing the low liquidity of certain credit types is essential for maintaining market functionality.
- Trust and Transparency: Rebuilding buyer confidence through improved verification processes and independent oversight is crucial.
- Education: Buyers and the public need greater awareness of the nuances of carbon credits to combat misconceptions and rebuild trust.
Looking Ahead: Is the VCM Dead?
While the VCM has faced undeniable setbacks, it is far from dead. Instead, it is undergoing a critical transformation, driven by the need for enhanced quality and transparency. If integrity initiatives, gain traction, the VCM could emerge stronger and more impactful.
Tommy Ricketts, CEO and Co-Founder of BeZero Carbon, perfectly highlighted this, saying that:
“Carbon markets are restructuring after a turbulent couple of years. Carbon ratings, insurance, and accounting are working together to raise the bar for carbon credit quality…Market actors must recognize carbon credits for what they are: valuable but imperfect mechanisms to channel finance towards climate action. Bolstering the market for credits means buyers and market players must lean on the tools that exist to manage this risk.”
The market’s challenges underscore the importance of vigilance, innovation, and collaboration. As stakeholders refine frameworks and methodologies, the VCM holds the potential to bridge the gap between ambition and action, giving corporations and individuals the tools to fight climate change.
- FURTHER READING: COP29 Breakthrough: UN-Backed Global Carbon Market Takes Shape
The post Is the Voluntary Carbon Market Dead? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
“…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
- European Commission: Nature-based solutions
- GHG Protocol: Corporate Value Chain Scope 3 Standard
- TNFD: Guidance on value chains
- European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Reporting
- European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence
- European Commission: Regulation on Deforestation-free Products
- SBTi: Forest, Land and Agriculture FLAG
- Science Based Targets Network: Take Action
- IPCC AR6 WGII Summary for Policymakers
- Gold Standard: Scope 3 Value Chain Interventions Guidance
- Verra: Scope 3 Standard Program
- GHG Protocol: Land Sector and Removals Standard
- Reuters: Can insetting stack the cards towards more sustainable supply chains?
- Reuters: Three companies put their impacts on nature under a microscope
- Financial Times: The dubious climate gains of turning soil into a carbon sink
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.
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