Connect with us

Published

on

Netflix Partners with AFF on Carbon Credits: A Step Toward Its Net-Zero Goal

Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) has taken another step in its climate strategy by signing a long-term carbon credit deal with the American Forest Foundation (AFF). The agreement backs tree planting and forest restoration in the U.S. South. It also boosts Netflix’s efforts to reduce emissions throughout its operations.

The deal shows a shift in the voluntary carbon market(VCM). Companies now want high-quality, verifiable credits that offer social and environmental benefits.

Building Forests, Supporting Landowners

Through AFF’s Family Forests program, Netflix will help convert farmland into new forests. The partnership follows a milestone-based financing model. Netflix gives partial funding as acres are planted and trees grow. The rest is paid once the carbon credits are verified.

The project already covers about 2,500 acres with 1.4 million trees planted and has directed $2 million in payments to landowners. By 2032, AFF aims to expand the program to 75,000 acres, generating an estimated 4.8 million carbon credits. These credits represent millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide captured and stored in forests over decades.

This program helps rural economies by creating new income for family landowners. It also supports biodiversity, water quality, and soil restoration. In a carbon market under increasing scrutiny, such local, transparent projects align with the Core Carbon Principles set by the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets.

More Than Tree Planting: The Power of ARR

ARR projects help restore degraded land and increase forest cover. They lock away carbon and support biodiversity.

These projects represent one of the fastest-growing forest carbon project types in the VCM, with 346 registered ARR projects having issued over 150 million tons of CO2 credits. By 2030, ARR issuances could reach 100 million tons annually. This makes them the second largest project subtype within the VCM.

ARR carbon credit retirement
Source: Sylvera

Studies suggest reforesting suitable areas worldwide could remove up to 3–10 gigatons of CO₂ annually by 2050. In the U.S., ARR projects have captured tens of millions of tonnes of CO₂e. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Netflix are increasingly investing in forest-based credits, which boosts momentum.

ARR also provides co-benefits such as cleaner water, soil restoration, and community engagement. For Netflix, this deal is key to its net-zero and ESG strategy.

Net-Zero on Screen: Inside Netflix’s ESG Strategy

Netflix has sharpened its climate strategy, with updated emissions data from its 2024 ESG report providing a clearer picture of its environmental footprint. The company reported total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 1,037,226 metric tons of CO₂e in 2024, measured under the market-based method. This figure includes:

  • Scope 1: 50,488 tCO₂e (direct emissions from facilities, vehicles, and equipment).

  • Scope 2: 0 tCO₂e (purchased electricity, reported as zero under market-based accounting due to renewable energy sourcing).

  • Scope 3: 986,738 tCO₂e (upstream and downstream emissions, largely from cloud services, content production, and supply chains).

Netflix carbon footprint ghg emissions 2024
Source: Netflix ESG Report

This marked a 23% increase from 2023, when emissions totaled 843,107 tCO₂e. Much of the rise was attributed to higher production activity and expanded content delivery across global markets.

Netflix shares a second set of emissions figures. These come from its Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi). This framework has stricter rules for counting emissions. Under this method, Scope 1 and 2 totaled 75,000 tCO₂e in 2024, while Scope 3 reached 862,884 tCO₂e. These metrics form the baseline for Netflix’s near-term reduction goals.

  • Netflix confirmed its Science-Based Target. It aims for a 46% cut in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030, using 2019 as a baseline. Also, it plans a 27.5% reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030.

Netflix Climate Transition Plan
Source: Netflix

To get there, Netflix is pursuing a “reduce, retain, and remove” strategy. The focus includes:

  • Reduce: Cutting energy use in production, optimizing streaming efficiency, and working with cloud providers to source renewables.

  • Retain: Using renewable energy credits to ensure 100% renewable electricity, which it already reports under Scope 2.

  • Remove: Investing in natural climate solutions and verified carbon removal projects to offset residual emissions.

Netflix has funded reforestation and forest management projects. These efforts align with its new deal with the American Forest Foundation. It is also piloting partnerships to support carbon removal technologies.

The streaming giant tracks emissions intensity, measured as tCO₂e per revenue unit. This helps ensure that climate progress matches business growth. The company notes that reducing Scope 3 remains its biggest challenge, as these emissions account for more than 95% of its total footprint.

Netflix scope 3 emissions
Source: Netflix

Carbon Credits in Action: Positioning Ahead of Demand

Netflix also relies on carbon credits as part of its “retain and remove” strategy to reach its net-zero target. In 2024, the company purchased and retired 1,036,176 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent in high-quality carbon credits.

These credits came from various nature projects like reforestation, better forest management, and mangrove restoration. They also include tech-based methods that capture and store carbon. Netflix uses these credits after cutting operational emissions. They focus on projects that offer clear carbon removal and help the community.

netflix carbon credit retirements 2024
Source: Netflix

The VCM has grown into a multibillion-dollar sector. In 2024, its value was about $2.5 billion. By 2030, it could jump to $20–45 billion. This will depend on corporate demand and regulatory support.

Nature-based solutions, such as forestry, make up 40–60% of traded credits. Carbon prices usually fall between $15 and $25 per tonne of CO₂.

High-quality credits linked to recent vintages usually have strong verification. They often include co-benefits like biodiversity or community development, which can raise their prices. In contrast, older credits or less verifiable renewable energy offsets are valued much lower, sometimes under $10 per tonne.

Netflix’s decision to invest in AFF’s afforestation projects reflects this market reality. By securing 4.8 million future credits, the company positions itself ahead of growing demand and potential supply shortages. It also signals confidence in domestic forestry as a reliable and socially beneficial source of removals.

American Forest Foundation’s Nature-Based Solutions

The American Forest Foundation is dedicated to supporting family forest owners across the United States. Small private forests make up nearly 39% of U.S. forestland, yet many landowners face barriers to managing them for climate benefits.

AFF’s programs, including the Family Forest Carbon Program (FFCP) and the Fields & Forests initiative, help landowners adopt sustainable practices like reforestation, forest management, and climate-smart planting. These efforts improve carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and rural economies.

With this expanded support, AFF is positioned to accelerate enrollment and ensure forestry-based carbon credits deliver real, lasting climate impact. This raises important questions about how the partnership shapes both landowner participation and the integrity of carbon credits.

AFF provided insights in an exclusive interview with the CarbonCredits team.

Q: “How does the partnership with Netflix change the scale and speed at which AFF can expand its Family Forests program, and what impact do you expect this will have on U.S. landowners over the next decade?”

A: Netflix’s investment will catalyze and launch the first 6,000 acres of Fields & Forests, and their funding will support essential research & development, outreach, and practice improvements, helping us scale to 75,000 acres enrolled over the next decade.

Additionally, Netflix’s long-term investment helps Fields & Forests build trust with landowners, a critical component in meeting our long-term enrollment goals. Engaging and building relationships with small-acreage landowners takes time, and one question landowners often have is whether the program will be there for the long haul. 

Landowners enrolled in Field & Forests are making a major decision that will impact them and their heirs for decades, and they want to know that we are dependable partners in the long-term. This deal provides landowners with that assurance. 

Q. “Given growing scrutiny of forestry-based offsets, what measures is AFF taking with Netflix to ensure these carbon credits remain high-integrity, permanent, and resilient against risks like wildfires or pests?”

A: AFF has been working for years, alongside a number of partners, to improve the way that the impacts of forest carbon projects are measured, and to ensure that the atmosphere feels a difference from this work.

We helped develop the use of dynamic baselines in forest carbon accounting, leading to the creation of VM 0047, used in Fields & Forests and now the established gold standard for ARR projects. The dynamic baseline compares the carbon sequestered on land enrolled in a program to highly comparable unenrolled forests, isolating the program as the key intervention that can be credited with creating the carbon benefit.

A Blueprint for Corporate Action

Netflix’s partnership with AFF shows how corporations can combine climate commitments with community benefits. By investing in U.S. forests, the company addresses both carbon reduction and rural economic development. This dual focus could serve as a model for future offset deals, more so as stakeholders want more impact from corporate ESG strategies.

If AFF meets its targets, the program will capture millions of tonnes of CO₂ and set a standard for high-quality nature-based credits. For Netflix, the credits will support its net-zero goal while strengthening its ESG narrative for investors and subscribers. Its recent step in the evolving carbon market highlights the value of long-term partnerships. These collaborations can provide climate credibility and help withstand supply challenges and growing expectations.

The post Netflix (NFLX Stock) Partners with American Forest Foundation on Carbon Credits: A Step Toward Its Net-Zero Goal 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