Published

3 years ago

November 9, 2023

Alice Rush

The calculation of emissions, particularly in the realm of energy consumption, is a complex process that requires careful consideration of various factors. Two primary methods, location-based and market-based emissions reporting, play a critical role in understanding your company’s carbon footprint.

This article delves into the intricacies of both methodologies, offering insights into their distinct calculations and implications for businesses.

Both location and market based emissions reporting applies to two emission categories: scope 2 or purchased electricity and scope 3 or fuel and energy related emissions. Let’s break down each method starting with location-based emissions.

Understanding Location-Based Emissions

Location-based emissions refers to what you physically consume at your operations site or business facility. It’s calculated using solely the average emission intensity of the local grid where you source power.

power grid for location based carbon emissions accounting That means a location-based method doesn’t factor in any green measures you’re adopting such as renewable energy credits (RECs). So, location-based emissions would be the same regardless if you use RECs but would be different vs. your market-based emissions.

RELATED: What are Renewable Energy Credits vs. Carbon Credits

For a clearer understanding in determining your location-based emissions, let’s use an example of a business in L.A., California. You can find the actual emission factors for your local power grid from the International Energy Agency (IEA) database.

Now, let’s calculate. First step is to get the emissions factor for the average CO2 or GHG intensity of the LA power grid, expressed in kg of CO2e per kWh. Then let’s multiply that emissions factor by the building’s electricity consumption to get Scope 2 emissions.

Here’s the formula to keep in mind: kWh of electricity used x local grid emissions factor = Location-based Scope 2 Carbon or GHG Emissions

To get location-based emissions for your Scope 3, simply do the same with the upstream emission factor.

The idea behind calculating and reporting Scope 2 location-based emissions is that everyone in the same power grid is equal. Nobody gets exception and everybody shares the same emissions of the grid based on the amount of electricity they consume.

Given the formula above, one option to reduce your location-based emissions is to just decrease overall energy use. Or you can increase on-site renewable energy generation used directly by your office building or production facility.

Understanding Market-Based Emissions

Unlike location-based methods, the calculation for market-based emissions focuses on the individual company and its contract agreements in the market. Market-based emissions are associated with energy a company purchases, which is different from the power the local grid generates.

There are various instruments or contracts involved in getting market-based emissions. These include these common ones:

Renewable Energy Contracts (RECs)
Direct contracts
Supplier-specific emission rates
The residual mix

Calculating for these energy contracts or instruments should adhere to the GHG protocol Scope 2 emissions quality criteria. If they don’t, the company may still opt to report them separately for transparency. But they can’t be included in calculating market-based Scope 2 emissions.

So how does getting market-based vs. location-based Scope 2 emissions differ?

As mentioned, market-based emissions take into account energy purchase agreements. So, taking the example provided above for location-based emissions, the California company is taking its electricity from the local grid. But they want to buy RECs from a renewable energy developer.

RELATED: Amazon’s Carbon Emissions Take a Green Turn with Renewables

While that company still connects with and consumes power from the grid, the market-based method requires them to factor in emissions of the RECs. By doing that, the company can claim the emission reductions from the renewable energy supply instead of applying the emissions factor of the grid as the case with the location-based method.

Here are the steps to calculate market-based emissions using this formula:

kWh consumed x Contract source emissions factor (EF) = Market-based Scope 2 CO2e GHG Emissions

Get the emissions factors for energy sources specified in the contracts (refer to GHG protocol quality criteria)
Multiple the power bought from a source by its specific emission factor. Do the same for all the sources in energy contracts and sum them all up.
For electricity use emissions that’s included in your contracts, use the residual mix emission factor.

Residual mix refers to the emission factor for the grid that excludes electricity generation claimed by your electricity contracts.

A quick tip: choose higher precision EF wherever applicable when calculating market-based emissions as the GHG Protocols Hierarchy suggests.

This approach of measuring emissions is attributed to the same energy consumed used in calculating location-based emissions. When you determine Scope 2 emissions using both methods, you don’t sum them up, but disclose them separately.

The goal is to report these two emissions side-by-side to show different stories about the same activity data.

Comparing Location-Based and Market-Based Emissions

With the differences in calculating Scope 2 emissions, which method should you use?

Given the more detailed and accurate market-based emissions, you might opt for this calculation method. After all, carbon accounting must prioritize accuracy and market-based emissions are more specific to your business operations.

However, calculating market-based is a bit trickier. You need to have a clear understanding of your contract emission factor or know if it’s 100% renewable. It matters a lot as shown in the formula, but it doesn’t fully capture the actual emissions of your energy use.

On the contrary, the location-based method does show it.

According to the World Resources Institute, “the location-based method reveals what the company is physically putting into the air, and the market-based method shows emissions the company is responsible for through its purchasing decisions”.

In other words, both methods tell different sides of the story that’s essential in showing your company’s CO₂ footprint. From there, you can decide the corresponding carbon reduction strategies to adopt.

The GHG Protocol provides a comprehensive comparison between the two carbon accounting methods, including their applicability, most useful scenario, and what they miss out.

Market-Based Vs. Location-Based Emissions Method

Policy Implications and Carbon Offsetting

Electricity sourced from a grid lacks differentiation and cannot be distinguished based on its origin. Even if your company buys renewable energy credits (RECs) or similar instruments, they don’t significantly alter or lower your emissions. They also don’t enable a complete disconnection from the grid, unless you establish your own self-sufficient power generation.

You can account for RECs and other carbon credits in your company’s carbon offset inventory. However, they should be accounted for separately as a unique inventory line item and not included in calculating emissions from purchased power.

In contemporary electricity grids worldwide, such as those in the U.S, Canada, and Germany, integrating renewable energy does not result in disconnection from the local electricity grid. Rather, electricity generated by your renewable energy system is often sold back into the grid, with net metering commonly employed.

Consequently, you continue to use grid electricity, with any surplus clean energy benefit shared by all grid users. This integration leads to a reduction in the grid’s overall carbon intensity, a factor that’s useful in accounting for location-based Scope 2 emissions.

Location-Based vs Market-Based Emissions: Closing Thoughts

As new guidance and regulations on carbon accounting and reporting corporate emissions are strengthening, companies should know the basics, at the very least, of factoring in their harmful emissions. Knowing the different methods for accounting emissions, be it location-based or market-based, and their nuances is crucial.

READ MORE: Climate Disclosure – New Corporate Standards for Net Zero

While market-based emissions provide a more granular and specific picture of a company’s carbon footprint, the location-based approach offers transparency about the physical emissions generated at a site.

Recognizing the distinct stories presented by each method allows you to develop effective carbon reduction strategies in line with your company’s or organization’s operational needs and environmental commitments.

The post Market-Based Vs Location-Based Emissions: What’s The Difference? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Carbon Footprint

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

Published

2 days ago

May 28, 2026

Alice Rush

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.

Carbon Footprint

Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain

Published

1 week ago

May 20, 2026

Alice Rush

“…Protecting nature makes our business more resilient…”

Julie Brown, Chief Financial Officer, GSK, and Co-Chair, A4S CFO Leadership Network (Europe)

Tweet

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

Carbon Footprint

How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living

Published

2 weeks ago

May 19, 2026

Alice Rush

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:

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.