Connect with us

Published

on

Sasol’s (SSL) Stock Rises on Profits, Carbon Credit Surge, and Net-Zero Push

Sasol Ltd., a South African energy and chemicals firm, is gaining attention. They reported stronger earnings and are shifting their strategy to buy more carbon credits. The move comes as the company, the second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the region, boosts coal production and grows its renewable energy portfolio.

Investors, regulators, and climate observers are watching closely to see how Sasol balances its reliance on fossil fuels with its stated commitment to reaching net-zero emissions.

Earnings Power: Fueling a Dual Strategy

In its latest earnings report, Sasol posted a year-on-year improvement supported by stable product prices and efficiency gains. The company’s operating profit rose due to stronger chemical sales.

However, this was partly offset by higher costs in its coal division. Earnings were strong, giving Sasol the money to invest in fossil fuels and low-carbon projects.

For the fiscal year ending June 30, the company earned 10.60 rand per share. This is a turnaround from a loss of 69.94 rand per share. Asset write-downs fell sharply to 20.7 billion rand, down from 74.9 billion rand last year.

Sasol gained from a 4.3 billion rand settlement with Transnet over oil transport fees. Capital expenditure dropped 16% to 25.4 billion rand. This helped improve the company’s financial profile.

Management highlighted that a resilient balance sheet is critical as the company continues its transition journey.

Sasol has steady cash flows. This helps support its short-term coal operations. It also funds longer-term projects like renewable energy growth and carbon reduction efforts.

Sasol’s renewed profit helped lift investor sentiment. Following the earnings, the company’s shares climbed 7% in pre-market trading. Its stock on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE: SOL) surged by 44% over the last quarter.

Sasol SSL stock

Analysts predict that earnings per share will increase by 20% year-on-year. This shows rising confidence in the company’s ability to balance profit and sustainability.

Rising Carbon Credit Purchases: Flexibility or Delay?

One of the biggest headlines is Sasol’s decision to boost its purchase of carbon credits.

  • In the fiscal year that ended in June 2025, Sasol’s carbon credit purchases increased to R723 million, a 25% increase year-on-year.
  • This amount was nearly triple the value of the credits it bought in 2023.
  • Since 2019, Sasol has acquired more than 11 million South African carbon credits, which has reduced its carbon tax liability by more than R650 million.

Most of these credits come from international renewable energy and reforestation projects, while some are linked to African-based carbon offset programs. Sasol plans to grow its carbon credit portfolio, showing its commitment to climate responsibility.

Some offset projects supported by Sasol include:
  • Wonderbag: In 2021, Sasol announced it would use carbon credits generated by the Wonderbag project, which provides non-electric heat-retention cookers to reduce household emissions.
  • Bethlehem Hydro: In 2020, Sasol purchased over 100,000 credits from Bethlehem Hydro, a 7MW hydropower plant that was the first Independent Power Producer in South Africa.
  • Nitrous oxide abatement: As far back as 2007, Sasol received credits for a nitrous oxide abatement project at its nitric acid plants in Sasolburg and Secunda.

However, it recognizes that cutting emissions from its own operations is tough in the near term. The company plans to steadily increase reliance, but acknowledges that credits are a temporary solution.

The use of credits has generated debate. Supporters say it gives companies flexibility to meet interim targets while low-carbon technologies scale.

Critics argue it can delay direct emissions cuts. Sasol’s growing use of offsets shows the urgent climate pressures and the challenges of moving away from coal.

Coal’s Grip: South Africa’s Energy Dilemma

Sasol is one of South Africa’s top coal users. It relies on coal for power and to make synthetic fuels and chemicals. Its Secunda plant is one of the single largest point sources of carbon dioxide globally, emitting more than 56 million tons of CO₂ equivalent each year

The world’s biggest producer of fuels and chemicals from coal emits around 63 million tons of CO₂ equivalent each year. This makes it one of Africa’s largest industrial polluters.

Sasol emission reductions 2023
Source: Sasol

The company believes coal is still essential for South Africa’s energy and industry right now. This is especially true due to the country’s electricity shortages and its dependence on Eskom, the state utility. Sasol knows that relying on this can lead to risks such as regulatory pressure, investor scrutiny, and possible costs from future carbon pricing.

Counting Carbon: Sasol’s Net-Zero Targets and Progress

Despite its coal footprint, Sasol has stepped up efforts to diversify its energy mix. The company is putting money into renewable energy projects. This includes solar and wind farms. These efforts will help provide cleaner electricity for its operations.

Moreover, partnerships with independent power producers are helping Sasol shift portions of its energy use away from coal-generated power.

In addition, Sasol is advancing work in green hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Its Fischer-Tropsch technology, long used for coal-to-liquids production, is being adapted for cleaner feedstocks, such as natural gas and green hydrogen. The company announced pilot projects to produce low-carbon chemicals for local and global markets.

Sasol aims to cut its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 30% by 2030. This goal uses a 2017 baseline, which is about 72 million tons of CO₂e. Progress: current emissions are down about 13% from baseline.

Sasol net zero roadmap
Source: Sasol

It aims for net-zero emissions by 2050. However, it admits that success relies on policy support, technological progress, and available funding.

In summary, Sasol’s key emission reduction initiatives are:

  • Green hydrogen projects – Developing hydrogen production in South Africa through partnerships to support cleaner fuels and power.

  • Renewable energy procurement – Securing up to 1,200 MW of renewable electricity (wind and solar) to replace coal-based power at operations.

  • Energy efficiency improvements – Implementing process optimization and equipment upgrades to reduce energy use across its facilities.

  • Coal-to-gas transition – Shifting part of its feedstock mix from coal toward natural gas, which has a lower carbon footprint.

  • Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) – Exploring technologies to capture CO₂ from operations for use in chemicals or fuels.

  • Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) development – Advancing projects to produce low-carbon jet fuel from sustainable feedstocks.

  • Offsets and carbon credits – Expanding purchases of carbon credits to compensate for hard-to-abate emissions.

How Sasol is reducing ghg emissions
Source: Sasol

Markets in Motion: Offsets, Renewables, and Risks

Sasol’s strategy reflects broader challenges facing energy and industrial companies worldwide. Carbon credits are gaining popularity. The voluntary carbon market was worth over $2 billion in 2024. It’s expected to grow to nearly $50 billion by 2030, under the best-case scenario.

global demand for voluntary carbon credits increase by factor of 15 by 2030 and factor of 100 by 2050

However, the credibility of offsets is under scrutiny, and investors are demanding more transparency on how credits are used.

At the same time, global coal demand remains strong, particularly in emerging markets. South Africa’s energy system still relies heavily on coal, which generates about 80% of the country’s electricity. This makes decarbonization complex, as companies like Sasol must balance energy security with climate commitments.

Meanwhile, renewable energy costs continue to fall. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), solar and wind are now the cheapest forms of new power generation in most regions. For Sasol, scaling renewables not only helps reduce emissions but also lowers long-term energy costs.

Balancing Growth, Risk, and Climate Goals

Sasol’s higher earnings give it the financial strength to follow its dual-track strategy. This means it can keep expanding coal operations and invest in low-carbon solutions. The company’s growing purchase of carbon credits shows its urgent need to meet climate goals. It also reflects the challenge of cutting emissions from coal-heavy operations.

Sasol’s future will depend on whether it can scale up renewable energy, develop viable low-carbon technologies, and manage the risks tied to its coal reliance. Its net-zero commitment remains a long-term goal. Yet, the company’s latest moves suggest it is trying to walk a fine line between financial performance and climate responsibility.

The post Sasol’s (SSL) Stock Rises on Profits, Carbon Credit Surge, and Net-Zero Push 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