The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has released a draft update of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard. This framework helps companies set and reach science-based emissions reduction targets.
The 132-page document, Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0, shares important updates. These changes focus on flexibility, accountability, and aligning corporate actions with global temperature goals.
The draft is open for public feedback until June 1, 2025, after which it will undergo further revisions before final approval.
SBTi Chair Francesco Starace emphasized the importance of the net zero standard overhaul, noting:
“The draft standard addresses complex, emerging issues and lays the foundation to enable more companies to move further and faster towards net zero. Working hand-in-hand with stakeholders across the ecosystem to seek and consider a diverse range of views, we aim to produce a standard that is both rigorous and practical, and works for businesses and the planet. With a limited carbon budget left, this is more important than ever.”
The Major Revisions in SBTi’s Net-Zero Standard
The new draft has several key changes. These include Scope 3 emissions accounting, carbon removal targets, and governance expectations.

Stronger Requirements for Scope 3 Emissions
Scope 3 emissions, which cover indirect emissions from a company’s value chain, have long been a challenge for corporations. Over half of the companies surveyed by SBTi said Scope 3 is their biggest hurdle to reaching net zero. The updated draft proposes new rules for this emission:
- Large companies, those earning over $450 million, must set Scope 3 targets. This rule applies no matter how much they contribute to total emissions.
- Businesses should identify high-emission activities. These should account for at least 1% of their Scope 3 footprint or exceed 10,000 metric tons of CO₂ annually.
- The old fixed-percentage rules for Scope 3 targets are gone. Now, there’s a flexible system that highlights high-impact emissions categories.
- Companies need to use their influence to make sure top suppliers set net-zero targets. This can be done through commitments to cut emissions or by using procurement practices that align with net-zero goals.
This approach seeks to balance what is doable and what is ambitious. It helps companies focus on the biggest sources of emissions in their value chains.
New Approach to Carbon Removal Targets
The draft also sets carbon removal targets to help reduce residual emissions. Companies can add high-integrity carbon removal efforts to their path toward net zero. Three pathways are under consideration in the updated standard:
- Mandating carbon removal targets alongside emissions reduction commitments.
- Providing recognition for voluntary carbon removal efforts in corporate strategies.
- Allowing flexibility in how companies address their residual emissions.
This proposal shows a significant change. It aims to include more carbon removal solutions in corporate net-zero strategies. This shift could boost investment in technologies like direct air capture and nature-based solutions.
Tighter Governance and Monitoring
To enhance credibility and accountability, SBTi is introducing stricter governance measures:
- Large companies must set net-zero targets within 1 year of commitment, down from the previous 2-year timeframe.
- Organizations will be subject to random audits to verify compliance.
- Companies should check their baseline emissions every year. They need to update their targets if big changes happen, such as mergers or acquisitions.
- A formal climate transition plan must be published within 12 months of target validation.
These measures aim to prevent greenwashing and ensure that companies remain on track to meet their commitments.
What Is the Potential Impact on Carbon Markets?
The new SBTi standard will likely impact voluntary carbon markets, corporate sustainability plans, and rules.

Potential Boost for Carbon Credit Markets
One of the most debated aspects of the revised standard is its evolving stance on carbon credits. SBTi is looking for new ways to include Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) in offsetting Scope 3 emissions, even though its use is still limited. This idea lets companies fund emissions reduction projects beyond their own operations. These include reforestation or carbon capture.
If SBTi accepts specific high-integrity carbon credits, demand may rise. This could lead companies to fund big mitigation projects outside their immediate operations. However, concerns remain about ensuring the integrity and permanence of these credits.
Implications for Corporate Climate Strategies
The proposed changes mean companies can’t just focus on overall emissions targets anymore. They need to take a more strategic and data-driven approach to manage emissions. Businesses will need to keep in mind these things:
- Improve supply chain transparency and engagement to meet stricter Scope 3 requirements.
- Invest in renewable energy and zero-carbon electricity procurement.
- Consider carbon removal projects earlier in their net-zero planning rather than treating them as a last resort.
Pressure on Regulators to Align Standards
As SBTi’s framework gets stricter, regulators might feel pressure to match their policies to the standard. This could lead to:
- Stricter mandatory reporting requirements for large corporations.
- Increased scrutiny of corporate climate claims and carbon offset use.
- Greater integration of voluntary carbon market mechanisms into national and regional climate policies.

The Key Challenges and What Comes Next
The proposed updates are a step forward for corporate net-zero strategies, but challenges remain:
Balancing ambition and feasibility can be tough. Some businesses might find it hard to meet the new rules, especially when it comes to Scope 3 emissions tracking.
Ensuring high-integrity carbon removal. The effectiveness of proposed carbon removal targets depends on rigorous verification and permanence criteria.
Industry adaptation. Companies will need time and resources to adjust to the new reporting and compliance standards.
SBTi is currently accepting feedback from corporations, NGOs, policymakers, and other stakeholders until June 1, 2025. The team will publish a second draft after this consultation phase, and they expect to receive final approval by 2026.
Companies that set new near-term targets in 2025 and 2026 can use the current Corporate Net Zero and Near-Term Criteria methods. However, from 2027 onward, all targets must follow Version 2.0.
SBTi’s updated net zero standard marks an important step in corporate climate governance. The new framework seeks to speed up real climate action. It does this by strengthening Scope 3 requirements, adding carbon removal strategies, and boosting accountability.
The standard has challenges, but it can greatly impact corporate sustainability and global carbon markets. Businesses need to get ready for these changes so they can stay credible as part of the global move to net zero.
The post SBTi’s Version 2.0 Standard Pushes Companies to Net Zero: What Are the Key Updates? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
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

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
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.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months 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”
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

