Published

1 year ago

May 1, 2025

Alice Rush

The global energy sector is transitioning, with major oilfield service companies under pressure to cut emissions while staying profitable. Baker Hughes, Halliburton, and Schlumberger (SLB) recently reported their earnings.

However, here we reveal how each company is balancing investments in oil, gas, and low-carbon initiatives. Thus, beyond financials, their sustainability goals and net-zero targets set them apart.

Let’s dive in.

Baker Hughes Reports Mixed Q1 2025 Results

Baker Hughes reported $6.43 billion in revenue for the first quarter of 2025. This marked a 13% drop from the previous quarter but a slight increase of $9 million compared to a year ago. The year-over-year growth was mainly due to stronger performance in Industrial & Energy Technology (IET), partially offset by weaker results in Oilfield Services & Equipment (OFSE).

Net income under U.S. GAAP was $402 million, down $777 million from the previous quarter and $53 million lower year-over-year. However, adjusted net income, which excludes certain items, stood at $509 million. This was also down 27% from the previous quarter but up 19% compared to last year.

Advances in Pipeline Compression and Data Center Power

It also secured a major pipeline project in North America, supplying two compression stations with 10 Frame 5/2E turbines and compressors.

Additionally, in data centers, the company won contracts for over 350 MW of NovaLT™ turbines. It partnered with Frontier Infrastructure to deliver large-scale carbon capture and clean power solutions using its full technology suite.

Lorenzo Simonelli, Baker Hughes chairman and chief executive officer, said,

“Baker Hughes started the year strong, building on the positive momentum from 2024 and setting multiple first-quarter records. Our continued transformation initiatives and strong execution continue to drive structural margin improvement across both segments. The operational transformation and streamlining efforts have created a solid foundation to optimize margins and enhance returns, even in a challenging environment.”

Driving Sustainability Forward: Baker Hughes’ 2024 Progress

Baker Hughes continues to lead the energy transition by striving to become a sustainable pioneer across all its operations. It aims to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.

Major Progress on Emissions Reduction

baker and hughes emissions — Source: Baker and Hughes

The company reported strong environmental achievements this year:

Scope 1 and 2 emissions dropped 29.3 percent compared to the 2019 base year, reaching 564,728 metric tons of CO2e.
Scope 1 emissions, covering fleet, field activities, and facilities, declined by 22.6 percent to 386,367 metric tons of CO2e.
Scope 2 emissions from purchased electricity decreased by 40.6 percent (market-based) and 30.7 percent (location-based).

Despite these achievements, it recorded a 16.5% increase in Scope 3 emissions intensity, mainly due to higher demand for high-efficiency gas turbines and electric motors.

Hands-On Approach to Emissions Reduction

Baker Hughes prioritizes direct emissions reduction over carbon offsets or virtual power purchase agreements. It improves energy efficiency, integrates renewable electricity across facilities, and deploys low-carbon technologies.

Additionally, it supports ecosystem projects through the Baker Hughes Foundation. However, these initiatives are not used for carbon credits. This hands-on approach ensures tangible, measurable progress and strengthens the company’s commitment to sustainability.

Carbon-Free Clean Energy

scope 3 Baker and Hughes — Source: Baker and Hughes

In 2024, Baker Hughes advanced clean energy adoption using renewable or zero-carbon electricity. Its use rose from 13.5% in 2019 to 34.2% in 2024.
On-site solar has expanded to 15 sites, and renewable and nuclear energy use has cut emissions by 89,734 metric tons of CO2e since 2019.

Key Highlights:

The Woodlands, Texas, and Broussard, Louisiana, sites fully transitioned to 100% renewable electricity.
In Thailand, the partnership with Cleantech enabled on-site solar panels to generate about 18% of the site’s annual electricity.

Nuclear energy plays a huge role in the company’s low-carbon future. It supports conventional nuclear power and small modular reactors. It emphasizes safety, community involvement, and efficient waste management while ensuring reliable operations.

Thus, the strategic use of renewable energy credits, Zero-Emission Certificates, and local certificates supported these improvements.

Halliburton Posts Lower Q1 2025 Earnings as North America Revenue Falls

Halliburton Company reported a net income of $204 million, or $0.24 per diluted share, for the first quarter of 2025. This marked a sharp decline from $606 million, or $0.68 per share, in the same period last year.

When adjusted for impairments and other charges, Q1 2025 net income came in at $517 million, or $0.60 per share, down from $679 million, or $0.76 per share, in Q1 2024.

Total revenue for the quarter dropped to $5.4 billion from $5.8 billion last year. Operating income was $431 million, down from $987 million a year ago.

Halliburton revenue — Source: Halliburton

Geographical Revenue Highlights

In North America, revenue dropped 12% to $2.2 billion due to lower stimulation activity in the US Land and fewer tool sales in the Gulf.

International revenue dipped 2% to $3.2 billion. Latin America revenue fell 19% to $896 million from slower activity in Mexico and lower tool sales. However, Europe/Africa revenue rose 6% to $775 million, driven by stronger activity in Norway, Namibia, and the Caspian.

Jeff Miller, Chairman, President, and CEO, said,

“I am pleased with our performance in the first quarter. We delivered total company revenue of $5.4 billion and adjusted operating margin of 14.5%. Our first quarter international tender activity was strong, Halliburton won meaningful integrated offshore work extending through 2026 and beyond. Customers awarded Halliburton several contracts that demonstrate the strength of our value proposition and the power of our service quality execution.”

Halliburton’s Emissions and Clean Energy Progress

Halliburton is committed to reducing emissions to help the oil and gas industry become cleaner.

Halliburton emissions — Source: Halliburton

It aims to:

Cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 40% by 2035 from 2018 levels
Work with top suppliers to track and reduce Scope 3 emissions

Low-Carbon Electric Fracturing Fleets

Hydraulic fracturing made up 80% of its emissions. As demand in North America rose, total Scope 1 and 2 emissions increased by 2% from the previous year. However, since 2018, it has lowered its emissions per operating hour by 16% by investing in electric fracturing fleets.

The company now uses smarter fracturing tools that give customers more power options and better efficiency. It’s also reusing older equipment in smarter ways to lower emissions and boost returns.

Strong Climate Commitments

Last year, the company focused on three areas to lower its carbon footprint. They were:

Helping oil and gas customers lower their emissions
Using its skills for low-carbon projects like carbon capture and geothermal
Backing startups through Halliburton Labs to support new energy ideas

Notably, they are also using the carbon assessment tool on big projects in Mexico, Norway, Iraq, and Namibia. It identified possible emissions from equipment, transport, and its products. This helps customers plan cleaner operations from the start.

Growing in Low-Carbon Solutions

Halliburton has invested largely in carbon capture, geothermal, and other low-carbon energy projects. Some notable projects in these fields include:

Carbon Capture (CCUS)

As said before, it works with customers to offer full CCUS solutions. These include tools like the NeoStar™ CS safety valve and CorrosaLock™ cement, built for harsh CO₂ storage conditions. Halliburton is also teaming up with other energy players to develop more CCUS options.

Geothermal Energy

Being a pioneer in geothermal, it supports every stage of a geothermal project from testing and drilling to production. In 2024, it offered tools like GeoESP® pumps and Thermalock™ cement for hot, tough environments. It also provided strong drill bits, smart drilling fluids, and custom well designs for deep, complex projects.

Schlumberger (SLB) Q1 Update: Revenue Drops, But Digital and Cash Flow Stay Strong

SLB reported $8.49 billion in revenue for the quarter, down 3% compared to last year. Net income also dropped 25%, landing at $797 million.

GAAP earnings per share (EPS) came in at $0.58, down 22%.
Adjusted EPS, excluding one-time items, was $0.72, a 4% decrease.
Adjusted EBITDA stood at $2.02 billion, down 2%.

However, cash flow from operations surged to $660 million, up $333 million year on year. The board also approved a $0.285 per share quarterly dividend.

Schlumberger earnings — Source: Schlumberger

SLB Chief Executive Officer, Olivier Le Peuch, commented,

“First-quarter adjusted EBITDA margin was slightly up year on year despite softer revenue as we continued to navigate the evolving market dynamics.

It was a subdued start to the year as revenue declined 3% year on year. Higher activity in parts of the Middle East, North Africa, Argentina and offshore U.S., along with strong growth in our data center infrastructure solutions and digital businesses in North America, were more than offset by a sharper-than-expected slowdown in Mexico, a slow start to the year in Saudi Arabia and offshore Africa, and steep decline in Russia.”

Core Business Shows Bright Spots Amid Slowdown

While overall revenue in SLB’s core divisions slipped 4%, some segments performed well.

Production Systems revenue rose 4% with growing demand for surface production systems, completions, and artificial lift.
Margins improved by nearly 2 percentage points.
Reservoir Performance benefited from strong international stimulation and intervention work, though lower evaluation activity held it back.

CEO Olivier Le Peuch noted that despite lower rig activity, SLB’s diverse portfolio helped soften the blow.

Digital and AI Business Keeps Gaining Momentum

SLB’s digital division continued to grow strongly, separate from the usual ups and downs of the oil and gas cycle.

Digital revenue jumped 17% year on year.
Overall, Digital & Integration revenue rose 6%.

Le Peuch said more energy companies are investing in digital tools and AI to boost performance and unlock value from their data. SLB plans to keep expanding its offerings in AI, cloud, and digital operations.

Shareholder Returns Set to Rise in 2025

Looking ahead, SLB promised to return at least $4 billion to shareholders in 2025 through dividends and buybacks.

The company plans to give back more than half of its free cash flow.

Even with market uncertainties, such as shifting economic conditions and oil price changes, SLB remains focused on protecting margins, maintaining strong cash flow, and delivering steady value.

SLB’s Clear Climate Goals with Measurable Progress

SLB is firmly committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and has laid out clear targets to guide its journey. The company aims to cut its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 30% by 2025 and by 50% by 2030. It also targets a 30% reduction in Scope 3 emissions by the end of the decade.

Progress Highlights in 2024:

In FY2024, SLB’s total emissions from Scope 1, 2, and 3 were 36,115 thousand metric tons. This shows a steady decline from 40,123 thousand metric tons in FY2023 and 49,098 thousand metric tons in FY2019. Overall, the company has reduced its total emissions by about 26% since FY2019.

Schlumberger emissions — Source: Schlumberger

Scope 1 and 2 market-based emissions intensity dropped by 11%. They stood at 990 thousand metric tons and 373 thousand metric tons, respectively.
Scope 3 emissions intensity reduced by 18%. They were 34,855 thousand metric tons.
38% of the electricity used at SLB’s global sites came from renewable sources

Cleaner Operations, Smarter Tools

In 2024, SLB cut Scope 1 emissions by rolling out its Field Fuel Playbook. This guide helped teams monitor fuel use, cut idling, and choose cleaner fuels. Employees used it to improve planning and reduce waste across operations.

For example, PumpIRIS™ was rolled out to cut pump idling in field jobs. The pilot avoided over 3,000 metric tons of CO₂e and saved nearly $1 million annually.

The company also helped clients avoid more than 950,000 metric tons of CO₂e in 2024. Its new Digital Sustainability tools support climate action in industries that are hard to decarbonize

Building the Future with Clean Tech

The company’s New Energy business moved forward in 2024, focusing on key technologies that support the energy transition:

SLB Capturi, a joint venture with Aker Carbon Capture, launched to scale up carbon capture using modular systems. Three projects are underway, and two sites near Norway’s Northern Lights carbon storage hub are already using SLB services.
In Nevada, a lithium demo plant showed how to make battery-grade lithium carbonate with 96% recovery from brine, using 90% less land and far less water. The plant combines direct lithium extraction with advanced processing, and it’s now ready to scale up.
New modeling tools were launched to help clients manage lithium-brine resources more efficiently and sustainably.

Boosting Geothermal in the Philippines

Using CoilTools™, SLB revived five geothermal wells in Leyte without drilling. This added 14 MW of power and supports the Philippines’ 2030 target of 3,200 MW.

These goals reflect SLB’s long-term strategy to lower its carbon footprint and support the global transition to clean energy.

We can see that scope 3 emissions are a major concern for the oilfield service companies, and their sustainability approach is significantly strong. Even though their revenues are moderately down, we expect the top oilfield giants like Baker Hughes, Halliburton, and Schlumberger to drive a sustainable change in this sector.

MUST READ: Big Oil’s Showdown: How Shell, Chevron & ExxonMobil Balance Big Profits with Net Zero?

The post Oilfield Giants Walk a Tightrope: Q1 Profits, Emissions & the Race to Net Zero appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Carbon Footprint

Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain

Published

2 days 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

3 days 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.

Carbon Footprint

Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance

Published

4 days ago

May 18, 2026

Alice Rush

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.