Connect with us

Published

on

Microsoft and Carbon Direct Set New Standards for Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal

Carbon Direct and Microsoft have announced a collaboration to develop a new standard for marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR). This standard aims to ensure that ocean-based carbon removal methods are high-quality, scientifically sound, and effective in reducing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

With the urgency of climate change growing, setting these standards is key. They are essential for the credibility and success of carbon removal efforts.

Carbon Direct helps companies like Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase, and JetBlue reduce their carbon footprint. The company uses science to help them set climate goals, track emissions, and reduce them. They’re also helping those businesses add carbon removal solutions to their plans, making sure their actions have a real, positive impact on the environment.

The Urgency of Marine Carbon Removal: A Vital Tool for Climate Action

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes that limiting global warming to 1.5°C calls for drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The agency also highlights the need to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air. 

The ocean, covering over 70% of the Earth’s surface, plays a crucial role in this process. It currently takes in about 30% of human-made CO₂ emissions. This shows its potential as a major carbon sink. ​

Marine carbon dioxide removal uses different techniques to help the ocean capture and store CO₂ better. Two prominent methods include:​

Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE): 

This method adds alkaline substances like crushed limestone or olivine to seawater. This increases the water’s alkalinity. Higher alkalinity helps change CO₂ into stable bicarbonate and carbonate. This process traps CO₂ for a long time. 

OAE carbon removal
Source: Carbon Direct

Direct Ocean Removal (DOR): 

This method shifts seawater’s carbonate equilibrium to extract CO₂ as either gaseous CO₂ or mineral carbonates. DOR allows monitoring CO₂ accurately and removes the need for extra materials. However, it is energy-intensive and expensive because of the chemical processes used.

DOR carbon removal
Source: Carbon Direct

mCDR’s Role in Meeting Climate Goals: The Road to 9 Gigatonnes

The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report (2nd Edition, 2024) estimates that by 2050, the world has to remove 7–9 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO₂ each year. This is essential to meet the climate goals set by the Paris Agreement. 

global carbon budget
Source: Climate.gov Figure 1. The global carbon budget for 2022 showing the approximate size of CO2 emissions sources and natural sinks compared to the projected size of the CDR sink for 2050 and 2100 needed to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement (values from Friedlingstein et al., 2022 and Minx et al., 2018).

Presently, about 2 GtCO₂ are removed each year. This mainly happens through methods like afforestation and reforestation. To bridge this gap, innovative approaches like mCDR are gaining attention.

However, scientists warn that relying on carbon removal should not detract from the imperative to reduce emissions. mCDR can help with mitigation efforts, but it can’t replace the need for low-carbon energy systems and better energy efficiency. ​

Moreover, the natural absorption causes ocean acidification. This harms marine ecosystems. Also, concerns exist about their long-term effectiveness, environmental risks, and measurement challenges.

Improving the ocean’s ability to store CO₂ using mCDR methods could help reduce these impacts and aid in stabilizing the climate. The new standard seeks to address these issues by setting clear criteria for evaluating mCDR projects.

Dr. Matthew Potts, Chief Science Officer at Carbon Direct, remarked: 

“mCDR is at a pivotal moment. Achieving high-quality outcomes requires rigorous monitoring, transparency, and scientific integrity to ensure safe and effective deployment…Given the vast spatial scale, the data-intensive nature of ocean-based carbon removal, and the deep connection between these projects and marine ecosystems, clear standards are essential for responsible development.”

As the CarbonCredits team reached out to Carbon Direct for more insights, Antaeres Antoniuk-Pablant, PhD, Senior Decarbonization Scientist, provided meaningful responses to the following questions.

Q. What are the biggest risks associated with large-scale mCDR deployment, and how do these new criteria address those challenges?

A: Human activities already impact ocean chemistry in uncontrolled ways. mCDR offers a controlled, science-based approach that may help ecosystems. The new criteria use models and in-ocean testing to track phytoplankton and marine life health. They also assess community impacts and require proactive engagement with local and Indigenous groups to ensure environmental and social responsibility.

Q. What steps should project developers take to ensure their solutions align with the latest scientific understanding and meet the high-quality standards set by Carbon Direct and Microsoft?

A. mCDR developers must follow strict environmental and carbon monitoring (eMRV/MRV), update methods with new research, and conduct baseline ecosystem assessments. Transparent data sharing and compliance with international laws are essential. Developers should also educate and consult stakeholders, ensuring their projects minimize risks and align with high-quality standards set by Carbon Direct and Microsoft.

A High Bar for Quality: The mCDR Standard Framework

To ensure that mCDR projects are effective and responsible, Carbon Direct and Microsoft have outlined specific criteria focusing on key principles, including:​

  • Environmental Integrity. Projects must demonstrably remove CO₂ without causing harm to marine ecosystems. This includes assessing potential impacts on biodiversity, water chemistry, and ecological balance.​
  • Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV). Robust MRV protocols are essential to accurately quantify the amount of CO₂ removed and ensure transparency. This involves establishing baselines, continuous monitoring, and third-party verification to build trust and credibility.​
  • Durability. The sequestered carbon should remain stored for extended periods, ideally centuries or longer. Assessing the permanence of storage solutions is critical to prevent the re-release of CO₂ into the atmosphere.​
  • Social Impact. Engaging local communities and stakeholders is vital. Projects should consider social, economic, and cultural factors, ensuring that they do not adversely affect livelihoods and that benefits are equitably distributed.​
  • Transparency and Verification. Clear documentation and third-party reviews are necessary to maintain accountability.

The addendum to the 2024 edition of the mCDR criteria emphasizes improving the scientific basis for evaluating these projects. It highlights the importance of:

  • Baseline Measurements: Establishing pre-project conditions to accurately assess changes in carbon levels.
  • Leakage Prevention: Ensuring that carbon removal in one area does not lead to increased emissions elsewhere.
  • Ecosystem Impacts: Evaluating how mCDR affects biodiversity, ocean chemistry, and marine life.
  • Scalability and Feasibility: Assessing whether projects can be effectively expanded without unintended consequences.

These criteria aim to provide a framework for developing mCDR projects that are scientifically valid, ethical, and environmentally friendly.

Brian Marrs, Senior Director, Energy Markets at Microsoft, noted: 

“With rapid technological progress and increased investment, marine carbon dioxide removal has the potential to deliver durable, large-scale CO₂ removal—potentially billions of tonnes per year in the coming decades…By establishing rigorous new mCDR criteria, we aim to help project developers build high-integrity solutions that maximize both environmental and social benefits.”

Microsoft’s Commitment to Carbon Removal: A Leading Example

Microsoft has been actively investing in carbon removal solutions as part of its commitment to becoming carbon-negative by 2030. The company has signed deals for direct air capture and nature-based carbon removal

Microsoft 2030 carbon negative goal

In January 2025, Microsoft signed a 25-year deal with Chestnut Carbon. They will buy more than 7 million tons of carbon removal credits. These credits come from forest projects in Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana.

In addition to forest restoration, Microsoft has explored ocean-based carbon removal methods. In March 2023, the company partnered with Running Tide to remove up to 12,000 tons of carbon through an ocean-based carbon removal system. 

These initiatives show Microsoft’s commitment to different carbon removal methods. As such, it helps build a strong carbon removal market. Partnering with Carbon Direct on an mCDR standard aligns with its goal of ensuring that carbon credits and removal projects meet rigorous standards.

The Path Forward for Marine Carbon Solutions

A standard framework for mCDR will build trust in these projects. This will also draw more investment. With better technology and research, marine carbon removal may become key in global climate plans. However, careful implementation is needed to avoid unintended ecological damage.

With this collaboration, Microsoft and Carbon Direct aim to create a science-backed, transparent approach that ensures mCDR contributes meaningfully to climate mitigation.

The post Microsoft and Carbon Direct Set New Standards for Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal 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