Connect with us

Published

on

Liverpool Football Club (LFC) has claimed the English Premier League (EPL) title for the 2024-25 season, continuing its impressive form on the field. Off the pitch, the club is also making waves as a leader in sustainability efforts, positioning itself as one of the greenest football clubs in Europe.

As fans cheer their goals and victories, the club is also scoring major points in its mission to cut carbon emissions and adopt environmentally friendly practices. Through ‘The Red Way‘ strategy, Liverpool aims to reduce its environmental footprint and set new standards for sustainability in the world of elite football.

The Red Way: Liverpool’s Blueprint for Sustainability

Liverpool FC’s journey to sustainability officially began in 2021 with the launch of The Red Way. It is the club’s award-winning strategy to minimize its environmental impact.

The plan focuses on three pillars: people, planet, and communities. It aligns with 16 of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. On the environmental front, Liverpool has set clear targets:

  • Halve operational carbon emissions by 2030
  • Achieve net zero by 2040
  • Achieve carbon neutrality in merchandising by 2030
Liverpool FC carbon emissions
Source: Liverpool FC

In its 2023–24 Red Way report, the club outlined key achievements:

In transportation, LFC invested in Sustainable Aviation Fuel to eliminate all emissions from domestic flights. Its team buses are powered by Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil, cutting emissions by up to 90% compared to diesel.

The club worked on biodiversity and planted over 1,000 trees and hedges. They also added honeybee habitats with 60,000 bees. Plus, they grew half a tonne of food for their kitchens.

The legendary Anfield pitch is now fully recyclable. Old turf is repurposed into benches and other materials for community projects like the orchard at the AXA Training Centre.

LFC anfield stadium
Source: Shutterstock

The club’s operations have been recognized through ISO certifications:

  • ISO20121 (sustainability management)
  • ISO45001 (health and safety)
  • ISO50001 (energy management)

Liverpool has committed to global efforts by signing the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework and the UN’s Race to Zero. They pledge to cut emissions in half by 2030 and aim for net zero “as soon as possible.”

A Game-Changing Collaboration: Direct Air Capture with 1PointFive

In 2025, Liverpool strengthened its sustainability efforts. It partnered with 1PointFive, a subsidiary of Occidental that focuses on Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology.

Under this collaboration, LFC calculates the carbon footprint of its merchandise — from production to delivery — and purchases carbon dioxide removal (CDR) credits to offset those emissions.

DAC is a cutting-edge solution that removes CO₂ directly from the atmosphere. Liverpool’s purchased credits are tied to STRATOS. This facility will be the largest DAC in the world that can capture 500,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year.

According to LFC Chief Commercial Officer Ben Latty:

“Sustainability is at the heart of everything we do at the club. Through The Red Way, we are dedicated to reducing our carbon footprint and driving positive change for our people, planet, and communities.”

This innovative step positions Liverpool as one of the first clubs to embed carbon removal directly into fan merchandise. Beyond offsetting, it also encourages supporters to make carbon-conscious choices, deepening fan engagement on climate action.

How Liverpool Compares: Sustainability Efforts of Rival Clubs

Liverpool FC is seen as one of the leaders in football when it comes to protecting the environment. But Liverpool is not alone. Two of its biggest Premier League rivals, Manchester City and Arsenal, are also working hard to make their clubs more environmentally friendly.

Manchester City’s Sustainability Initiatives

Manchester City has added many green actions to its Etihad Campus. Like Liverpool, it signed the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework and promised to reach net-zero emissions by 2030. 

The club uses 100% renewable electricity in its stadium and buildings. It has installed over 10,000 solar panels at the City Football Academy and the Joie Stadium. Man City is also strong in waste management. It sends zero waste to landfills and recycles over 90% of waste on matchdays. 

To cut travel emissions, the club encourages fans to take public transport or bike to games. The club’s buildings use energy-saving lights and water-saving systems. In 2023, Manchester City won the Sustainability Team of the Year award at the Football Business Awards for all these efforts.

Arsenal FC’s Green Efforts

Arsenal FC is another club known for its green leadership. It was the first Premier League club to put in a large battery storage system at its Emirates Stadium. This system stores extra renewable energy for later use. 

The club aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2040. It has an interim goal of reducing Scope 1 and 3 emissions by 42% and Scope 3 emissions intensity by 52% by 2030, versus 2021 levels. 

Like Manchester City, Arsenal uses 100% renewable electricity to power its Emirates Stadium and low-carbon gas to lower emissions. It has installed a 3MW battery storage system. 

The club has cut down on single-use plastics in food stands, drink areas, and its shops. It also runs projects like tree planting and wildlife protection to help nature near the club. 

Between 2019 and 2023, Arsenal cut its operational emissions by 20%. It signed the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework too. Through its “Arsenal for Change” campaign, the club encourages fans to take part in environmental activities.

All three clubs show a strong commitment to protecting the environment. Liverpool stands out because it uses carbon removal technology in its merchandise and leads in biodiversity work. Manchester City is strongest in waste management, while Arsenal leads in energy storage and community nature projects.

Overall, here is how the three Premier League clubs compare in terms of the following environmental metrics. 

Football clubs sustainability comparison
Source: Clubs Report

A Growing Collective Responsibility in Football

Liverpool, Manchester City, and Arsenal’s initiatives reflect a larger shift: elite football clubs are starting to recognize their role in fighting climate change. 

Beyond clubs, fans, governing bodies, and sponsors are pushing for greener practices. The Premier League launched a Sustainability Strategy in 2023 and recently published an update. This plan urges all 20 clubs to cut emissions, reduce waste, and engage with communities.

Premier League net zero approach
Source: Premier League Report

The Sports Positive League Table ranks Premier League clubs based on sustainability. It helps set standards and boosts competition in ESG practices. Liverpool has consistently ranked in the top three, alongside Arsenal and Manchester City.

Beyond the Premier League, the push for greater environmental responsibility in football is becoming a global movement. Clubs worldwide are stepping up. They aim to cut emissions, reduce waste, and support sustainable practices on and off the field. 

In Germany, VfL Wolfsburg stands out as a leader in sustainable football. The club, owned by Volkswagen, has been carbon neutral since 2012. This makes it one of the first in European sports to adopt large-scale environmental initiatives.

Wolfsburg uses 100% renewable energy, and they harvest rainwater to irrigate the pitch. The club also offers eco-friendly transport for fans and staff. 

In the Netherlands, Ajax Amsterdam has embraced renewable energy and circular economy principles. The Johan Cruijff Arena is Ajax’s home stadium. It uses solar panels, wind energy, and a 3-megawatt battery storage system. This system is one of the largest in Europe and runs on recycled Nissan Leaf car batteries.

The arena’s green design includes LED lights, water-saving tech, and waste separation systems. These features help cut down the environmental impact of major sports events.

Moving to North America, Seattle Sounders FC in Major League Soccer (MLS) has made strong commitments to sustainability. The club offsets travel emissions for the team. It also promotes zero-waste matchdays at Lumen Field. Plus, it partners with local groups for urban reforestation and community solar projects.

Sounders FC helped start MLS WORKS Greener Goals. This league-wide initiative focuses on making American soccer more environmentally friendly.

Even smaller clubs are stepping up. In England’s League Two, Forest Green Rovers has been widely praised as “the greenest football club in the world”. The club has set a global standard for sustainable sports infrastructure. Their fully vegan stadium menu, organic pitch, and solar-powered stadium lead the way.

These examples show that Liverpool, Manchester City, and Arsenal are part of a much broader shift. More clubs are using new solutions and sharing best practices. This helps football make a bigger impact on climate action. 

A New Competition Off the Field

As Liverpool FC chases silverware on the pitch, it is also chasing leadership in sustainability off it. With bold targets, innovative partnerships, and award-winning initiatives under The Red Way, the club is setting standards that go beyond football. And as its Premier League rivals also raise their ESG ambitions, the competition for sustainability leadership is only set to grow.

Winning matches is important. But setting a strong example in the fight against climate change? That could be one of the most meaningful goals of all.

The post Liverpool FC’s Biggest Goal Yet: Leading Soccer’s Race to Net Zero 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