National Atomic Company Kazatomprom JSC, the world’s largest uranium producer, has moved closer to sealing a massive long-term supply deal with India. The Kazakh state miner announced that it plans to sell a significant portion of its natural uranium concentrates to India’s Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).
However, the transaction is so large that it requires shareholder approval under Kazakhstan’s Joint Stock Companies law. As a result, the company has called an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) at the initiative of its Board of Directors.
If approved, the agreement could tighten an already strained global uranium market.
A Deal That Could Reshape Uranium Supply
The proposed contract signed with the Directorate of Purchase & Stores (DPS) under India’s DAE, covers the long-term sale of natural uranium concentrates (U₃O₈) for physical delivery to India.
The value of the transaction equals or exceeds 50% of Kazatomprom’s total book asset value. Under Kazakh law, such a major transaction must go before shareholders for approval.
While pricing, volumes, and delivery schedules remain confidential due to commercial sensitivity, the scale alone signals its strategic weight.
Kazatomprom’s Q4 2025 Fourth-Quarter Uranium Output
Kazatomprom currently accounts for about 20% of global uranium production. In 2025, it produced 25,839 tonnes of uranium (around 67.2 million pounds U₃O₈) on a 100% basis. That marked a 10–11% increase from 2024, driven largely by ramp-up at JV Budenovskoye.
- Meanwhile, spot transactions increased sharply. Spot volumes rose 50% year-over-year to 55.3 million pounds U₃O₈ (around 21,270 tonnes), with an average price of $72.75 per pound.
- Group sales volumes reached 5,719 tonnes (14.87 million pounds U₃O₈), up 14% from the previous year.

At the same time, global uranium mine production for 2025 was projected at 62.2 kilotonnes (ktU), according to industry estimates. Reactor demand stands higher at 68.9 ktU. This gap highlights a persistent supply deficit. Therefore, removing a sizeable share of Kazakh output under long-term contracts with India could tighten spot availability even further.

Fueling India’s Nuclear Ambitions: Why Uranium Imports Matter
India’s nuclear expansion explains the urgency behind this deal.
The country’s domestic uranium production currently meets only about 36% of its needs. Between 2025 and 2033, imports were projected to reach roughly 9,000 tonnes of uranium (tU) to support new reactor capacity.
India holds recoverable reserves estimated at 252,500 tU below $260/kgU. In addition, the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD), a unit of the Department of Atomic Energy, has identified 433,800 tonnes of in-situ U₃O₈ resources across 47 deposits in states including Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Telangana.
Mining at Jaduguda began in 1967 under Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL). Recently, AMD discovered 26,437 tonnes of additional in-situ uranium oxide resources at the Jaduguda North–Baglasai–Mechua deposit in Jharkhand. This discovery is expected to extend the mine’s life significantly.
Still, domestic output alone cannot support India’s long-term reactor fleet expansion. Hence, securing a stable overseas supply has become a strategic priority.
The DPS, which handles procurement and inventory for India’s nuclear industry, accepted Kazatomprom’s commercial offer within its validity period. That move now awaits shareholder approval in Kazakhstan.

Uranium Supply in a Shifting Geopolitical Landscape
The uranium market remains highly concentrated in 2025, and this proposed deal reflects a broader shift in global nuclear geopolitics.
- Looking ahead, Kazatomprom’s 2026 production guidance stands at 27,500–29,000 tonnes on a 100% basis, slightly below nominal capacity due to sulphuric acid supply constraints. Group sales are expected at 19,500–20,500 tonnes.
If the India contract absorbs a major portion of future output, the free market could feel the impact quickly, especially given the structural supply gap.
Reports say that by 2050, Kazakhstan and Canada are expected to dominate uranium exports. And in this market, uranium giants like Kazatomprom and Canada’s Cameco Corp. will dominate global revenue and production. Yet pricing trends have shown volatility. As demand for nuclear energy grows, countries are likely to form tighter supply alliances to secure fuel.

Balancing Strategy and Market Risk
At present, we can perceive that political tensions and energy security concerns are reshaping trade routes in oil and gas. And uranium may follow a similar path. Significantly, the IAEA has repeatedly noted that primary mining will remain the main source of uranium supply. Secondary sources, such as stockpiles and recycled materials, can only play a limited role.
Therefore, policymakers must rethink production and export strategies. Uranium-rich nations may reassess how much supply they allocate to long-term bilateral deals versus the open market.
For importing nations like India, long-term contracts provide stability. They reduce exposure to spot price volatility. They also strengthen diplomatic and economic ties. However, for the broader market, such agreements may reduce liquidity and amplify price swings during supply shocks.
The post Kazatomprom Deepens Strategic Ties with India in Major Long-Term Uranium Supply Deal 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

