Electricity demand in the United States is rising faster than it has in decades. For years, power use remained steady due to efficiency improvements and shifts in industrial activity. However, recent changes have increased demand significantly.
More people are using electric vehicles (EVs), new factories are opening, and artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding. These factors require more electricity, putting pressure on the U.S. power grid.
One of the biggest drivers of power demand is the rapid growth of data centers. These facilities store and process massive amounts of digital information. Cloud computing, AI, and streaming services all rely on data centers, which require a steady and reliable power supply.
Many power companies have raised their peak electricity demand forecasts by over 50% in just three years, according to a paper by Carbon Direct.

Natural Gas and the Challenge of Lowering Emissions
Currently, natural gas supplies about 40% of the electricity in the U.S. It is the largest energy source for power generation. While renewable energy like wind and solar is expanding, natural gas remains important because it provides steady power, unlike solar panels or wind turbines, which depend on weather conditions.
The downside of natural gas is that burning it releases carbon dioxide (CO₂), a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. To meet energy needs while reducing emissions, power companies are looking at carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology captures CO₂ before it enters the atmosphere and stores it underground.
- CCS can reduce carbon emissions from natural gas plants by 90-95%.
How Carbon Capture Works
Carbon capture technology uses chemical reactions to separate CO₂ from power plant emissions. The captured CO₂ is then compressed and transported to a storage site. It is injected deep underground into rock formations, where it stays permanently. If a storage site is not nearby, the CO₂ must be transported by pipeline, truck, or rail.
Not all power plants are suitable for carbon capture. The technology works best on large power plants that operate continuously. Smaller or backup plants that only run occasionally are not good candidates for CCS because the capture process is expensive and requires steady operation.
The Cost of Carbon Capture
Adding CCS to a power plant increases costs. The price of electricity from a natural gas plant without CCS is estimated at $40–$70 per megawatt-hour (MWh). With CCS, the cost rises to $65–$100 per MWh. These costs come from the capture equipment, extra fuel needed for the process, and the expense of transporting and storing CO₂.
However, tax credits can help reduce the cost. In the U.S., a program called 45Q offers financial incentives for capturing and storing carbon. These incentives make CCS more affordable and encourage companies to invest in clean energy solutions.
Capturing the advantages of natural gas plant with CCS, the Carbon Direct paper noted:
“Natural gas-fired power generation can be built in locations that do not have enough land area available for renewable forms of power generation like wind and solar. They can often be sited conveniently close to electricity transmission infrastructure and end users. Natural gas-fired power generation with CCS is competitive with both geothermal and nuclear electricity in terms of providing enough baseload power. Further, it offers cost advantages and is speedier to bring to market.”
Tech Giants in Trouble: How Carbon Capture and Carbon Credits Can help
Tech companies like Google and Microsoft are under pressure to reduce emissions from their data centers. AI computing requires huge amounts of power, and companies need clean energy solutions. Many large tech firms have set goals to cut their carbon footprints, but their emissions are rising due to energy demand.
For example, Google’s emissions increased by 13% in 2023 because of higher energy use in data centers. Microsoft has also highlighted the need to clean up its supply chains.
Since data centers need constant power, natural gas plants with CCS could be a solution for providing clean, reliable electricity.
The Role of Carbon Credits
Carbon credits are an important part of reducing emissions. A carbon credit represents one metric ton of CO₂ that is either reduced or removed from the atmosphere. Companies that emit CO₂ can buy carbon credits to offset their emissions.
With CCS, power plants can earn carbon credits by capturing and storing emissions. These credits can be sold to companies needing to meet their climate goals. This system helps create a financial incentive for reducing carbon pollution.
By combining CCS with carbon credits, power producers can reduce costs while helping businesses achieve net-zero targets.
Future Outlook: The Need for More Investment
Experts agree that carbon capture must expand if the U.S. wants to lower emissions while maintaining a reliable power supply. The International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that current investments in CCS are not enough.

Without new projects, carbon emissions from power generation will remain high. The supply gap could reach 1.2 billion metric tons of CO₂ per year by 2050, making it much harder for industries like power generation to reduce their emissions.
Companies planning new power plants should consider making them “capture-ready.” This means designing them so CCS can be added later. However, delaying CCS for too long could increase emissions and make it harder to meet climate goals.
This shortfall highlights the urgent need for increased investment in CCS technology and infrastructure to ensure a significant reduction in carbon emissions from natural gas power plants and other high-emission sectors.
According to the IEA, achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 requires scaling up CO₂ capture capacity to 1.7 gigatons annually by 2030. This ambitious target requires a substantial financial commitment.
Estimates indicate that capital investments ranging from $665 billion to $1.28 trillion are required by 2050 to scale CCUS. Per McKinsey & Company, annual investment in this technology will hit up to $150 billion after 2035.

Challenges of Carbon Capture
While CCS has benefits, it also faces challenges:
- High Costs: The technology is still expensive, although tax incentives help.
- Infrastructure Needs: Transporting CO₂ requires pipelines, which can take years to build.
- Public Concerns: Some communities worry about storing CO₂ underground.
- Energy Use: CCS requires extra energy, which slightly reduces power plant efficiency.
Despite these challenges, many experts believe that CCS is necessary for reducing emissions in industries that cannot fully switch to renewables, such as steel, cement, and natural gas power.
The demand for electricity is growing, especially due to AI and data centers. While renewable energy is expanding, natural gas remains essential for providing steady power. To reduce emissions, carbon capture technology can be used to trap and store CO₂ from power plants.
CCS can cut emissions by up to 95% and provide low-carbon electricity. Although it is expensive, tax credits and carbon credits can help make it more affordable. As businesses and governments work toward cleaner energy, investing in CCS will be crucial for balancing energy demand with climate goals.
The post Power Surge: Can Carbon Capture Keep Up with AI’s Energy Demand? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
Carbon Footprint
Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
![]()
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits

