Connect with us

Published

on

LEGO Expands Carbon Removal Portfolio with $2.8M Investment for Net-Zero Goals

The LEGO Group announced a new investment of DKK 18 million, or about $2.8 million, into carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects. This funding adds to an earlier DKK 19 million, or about $2.6 million, commitment made in February 2025. These two amounts are separate. They support different groups of projects under LEGO’s expanding carbon removal portfolio.

LEGO has now invested about DKK 54 million, or $8–8.5 million, in carbon removal initiatives across eight projects. The company says these investments help it reach its goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The toymaker emphasizes that it prioritizes cutting emissions within its own operations and supply chain first. It views carbon removal as a complementary tool for emissions that are difficult to eliminate.

Annette Stube, Chief Sustainability Officer at the LEGO Group, said:

“This purchase highlights our commitment to testing a broad range of credible pathways for nature and tech-based carbon removal. As the programme expands, it is helping to strengthen our understanding of different approaches and inform future decision-making on how carbon removal may complement our wider climate goals. While reducing emissions in our own operations remains our priority, this programme allows us to work with expert partners and contribute to solutions that may help scale effective climate action over time.”

Climate Experts Driving LEGO’s Carbon Removal

LEGO works with two specialist partners: Climate Impact Partners and ClimeFi.

Climate Impact Partners helps design and deliver nature-based carbon removal projects. ClimeFi focuses on engineered and technology-based removal solutions. These partnerships allow LEGO to support a mix of short-term and long-term carbon storage pathways.

The 2025 investment supports four projects, including biochar, enhanced rock weathering, and reforestation. The 2026 investment supports four additional projects. Together, they form a diversified carbon removal portfolio.

Nature-Based Carbon Removal: Forest Restoration in Mexico

One of the four new projects funded by the 2026 investment is a big reforestation effort in Quintana Roo State, Mexico. This project:

  • Restores more than 14,000 hectares of degraded tropical forests.
  • Includes native tree planting, species recovery, fire prevention, and community forest management.
  • Allocates over 20% of the budget to local job creation and income generation.
  • Bringing biodiversity benefits and supporting ecosystems for native wildlife.

This initiative is delivered through Climate Impact Partners in collaboration with Canopia Carbon. It adds to LEGO’s earlier help for reforestation in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (USA). These forest projects remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as trees grow and store it in biomass and soil.

Nature-based removal projects often provide co-benefits. These include biodiversity protection, watershed improvements, and community income. However, they can face risks such as fire or land-use change. Long-term monitoring and strong governance are, therefore, critical.

Lego carbon removal projects
Source: LEGO

Engineered Carbon Removal Technologies: From Biomass to Marine CDR

The other three 2026 projects involve emerging CDR technologies managed by ClimeFi:

  • Biomass Geological Storage: Uses slurry injection to store carbon-rich organic waste deep underground.
  • Mineralization: Transforms CO₂ into manufactured limestone using reactive waste materials that can serve as building inputs.
  • Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal: Enhances wastewater alkalinity to remove CO₂ and store it durably in ocean water.

LEGO invests in various pathways to gain hands-on experience with new solutions. These approaches have different durability profiles. This means they store CO₂ for different lengths of time and may also scale in various ways.

Engineered carbon removal often offers higher durability than many nature-based solutions. In some cases, storage can last hundreds to thousands of years. However, these technologies are still developing and can be expensive in the early stages.

LEGO chooses to try various pathways to understand costs, scalability, durability, and verification standards in the carbon removal market. It also aligns with its net-zero goals.

Net-Zero in Motion: LEGO’s Dual Approach to Emissions

The LEGO Group has committed to a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050. This target covers its full value chain, including Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. LEGO’s near-term targets are validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

The toymaker has committed to reducing absolute Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 37% by 2032 from a 2019 baseline. It also aims to reduce absolute Scope 3 emissions by 37% within the same timeframe. These targets align with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

LEGO ghg emissions target
Source: LEGO

LEGO’s FY2024 Sustainability Statement says the company’s greenhouse gas emissions were around 1.7 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (tCO₂e).

While the statement does not yet include a full breakdown of emissions for that year, the most recent publicly disclosed data (for 2023) show that LEGO’s total emissions were about 1.82 million tCO₂ equivalent. In that year:

  • Scope 1 (direct emissions) were approximately 23,403 tCO₂e.
  • Scope 2 (purchased energy) was very low — effectively 1 tCO₂e when using market‑based accounting due to renewable energy matching.
  • Scope 3 (value chain emissions) accounted for about 1.80 million tCO₂e, representing roughly 99 % of total emissions.

The dominance of Scope 3 is consistent with LEGO’s industry profile:

Most emissions arise from materials, manufacturing by suppliers, transport, and end‑of‑life impacts, rather than from the company’s own direct operations. Scope 1 and 2 emissions accounted for roughly 1% of total emissions.

LEGO says it uses 100% renewable electricity for its operations. This comes from on-site solar panels and renewable energy certificates. The company first matched 100% of its electricity use with renewable energy generation in 2017.

In 2024, LEGO also reported progress in sustainable materials purchasing, which indirectly contributes to reduced emissions. About 47 % of the materials purchased to make LEGO elements were certified via mass balance principles. This translates to an estimated average of 33 % renewable sources in raw materials.

Half of all purchased materials were produced with sustainable sources. The same goes for its packaging materials, where 93% were from paper.

LEGO sustainable packaging
Source: LEGO

LEGO recognises that carbon removal projects are not a substitute for reducing emissions. They see CDR as a helpful tool. It targets emissions that are tough to fully eliminate.

Investing in both nature-based and technology-based removals allows the company to:

  • Understand emerging solutions.
  • Gain practical insight into quality, cost, and permanence.
  • Build relationships with expert partners.
  • Support broader climate goals beyond its own footprint.

LEGO’s climate disclosures stress that the company prioritizes operational cuts first. The company engages suppliers. It uses low-carbon materials and boosts energy efficiency. It also expands renewable energy in its value chain.

The company uses its CDR portfolio to guide future decisions, which helps scale effective climate action while focusing on reducing emissions. Their main goal is to achieve net zero by 2050.

Carbon Removal in Corporate Net-Zero Strategies

Carbon dioxide removal is becoming more important in corporate climate strategies. McKinsey & Company says that by mid-century, the world may need billions of tons of carbon removal each year to reach net-zero.

McKinsey estimates that the CDR market could grow to between $40 billion and $80 billion per year by 2030. By 2050, the market could reach $300 billion to $1.2 trillion annually if scaled to climate targets.

CDR credit demand annually 2030 McKinsey
Source: McKinsey & Company

Many climate models show that even aggressive emission cuts may leave 10% to 20% of emissions hard to eliminate. Carbon removal can help address these residual emissions.

Corporate demand plays a key role in building supply. Early buyers send price and volume signals that support project financing. Frontier and other groups have promised to spend hundreds of millions on future carbon removal credits. Members include major technology and consulting firms such as Google, McKinsey, and H&M Group.

Despite growth, current global carbon removal capacity remains far below what climate science suggests is needed. High-quality projects require strong measurement, reporting, and verification systems. Standards continue to evolve across voluntary carbon marke.

Learning and Leading: LEGO’s Early-Mover Advantage in CDR

LEGO’s total DKK 54 million commitment represents a learning strategy as much as a climate contribution. The company gains experience in evaluating project quality, permanence, and social impact. It also builds relationships in a fast-developing sector.

The company’s approach reflects a broader shift among multinational firms. Many now test different removal methods while continuing to reduce direct emissions. This dual strategy helps companies prepare for future regulatory frameworks and stakeholder expectations.

As the global carbon removal market expands, early investments like these help improve project standards, scale innovation, and attract more capital. The sector still faces cost and scalability challenges. But corporate participation provides one pathway to accelerate development.

LEGO’s CDR investments show a steady expansion of the company’s carbon removal portfolio. They also reveal how major consumer brands are integrating carbon removal into long-term climate strategies while continuing to prioritize emissions reduction.

The post LEGO Expands Carbon Removal Portfolio with $2.8M Investment for Net-Zero Goals appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares

Published

on

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.

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

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com