In the race to offset their carbon footprints, two giant companies—Shell and Microsoft—stand out as the largest carbon credit buyers in 2024, according to the Allied Offsets report. Their massive retirements reflect differing strategies and priorities, however, signaling distinct approaches to tackling carbon emissions through carbon markets.
Shell, the world’s largest fossil fuel company, and Microsoft, a technology leader, have been pivotal players in the voluntary carbon market (VCM). However, their activities reveal stark contrasts in how they approach sustainability goals and what projects they support.
Meanwhile, the broader carbon credit market in 2024 showed a growing emphasis on removals and diversification of project types.
Shell: The Emission Offset Leader
Shell retained a massive 14.5 million carbon credits in 2024, taking the top spot for the second consecutive year. This commitment is a significant part of Shell’s strategy to offset its extensive emissions.
Unlike Microsoft, which has heavily invested in carbon removal technologies, Shell’s purchases mainly target projects focused on emissions avoidance.
A large portion of Shell’s credits—9.4 million—came from forestry and land-use initiatives. These projects, focusing on protecting and managing forests to prevent the release of stored carbon, are cost-effective but also face scrutiny over integrity concerns. Interestingly, the energy giant announced plans in November last year to sell part of its nature-based carbon projects.
The company also retired 2.4 million renewable energy credits, a cheaper and more widely accepted option in the market.

Moreover, the price difference between Shell’s credits and Microsoft’s illustrates their contrasting strategies. While Shell paid an average of $4.15 per credit, it remains focused on more affordable projects, including renewable energy and forestry.
Despite criticisms over the quality of some of its projects, Shell continues to be a significant player, aligning its credit purchases with its ongoing goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. To achieve that, the oil major aims to reduce emissions from its operations by 50% by 2030, using 2016 baselines.

Microsoft: A Carbon Removal Champion
In contrast, Microsoft has pursued a more aggressive approach toward carbon removal, setting itself apart with a robust commitment to investing in innovative carbon capture technologies. The company retired 5.5 million credits in 2024, a distant second to Shell. However, the type of credits the tech giant bought tells a different story.
A key focus for Microsoft has been on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). It is an expensive and emerging technology that is capable of delivering carbon-negative results. BECCS works by capturing the carbon dioxide released during the burning of biomass and storing it underground.
Nearly 80% of Microsoft’s 2024 carbon credits came from BECCS projects, with the largest purchase of 3.3 million credits coming from Sweden’s Stockholm Exergi. While this technology is still in its infancy, it plays a critical role in global pathways to achieving net-zero emissions.
Microsoft’s strategy, however, is not without its challenges. BECCS credits are costly, with average prices of $389 per credit—substantially higher than the costs associated with Shell’s projects.
- In 2024, Microsoft’s average credit price was $189, a significant investment considering its aim to neutralize emissions across its operations.
Despite the high costs, Microsoft’s commitment to carbon removal reflects its leadership in the tech industry’s broader sustainability agenda. The major tech company aims to be carbon-negative by 2030.

Microsoft’s strategy to focus on carbon removals seems to be on the right track. The broader carbon market trend reveals the growing interest in carbon removal credits.
Carbon Market Dynamics: Increasing Focus on Quality and Carbon Removal Credits
The VCM in 2024 has shown signs of shifting, with a significant uptick in carbon removal credits, per the report. However, overall retirement activity in the VCM plateaued, with 2024 marking the third consecutive year of minimal growth.

The decrease in market growth is not necessarily a negative development, as more buyers have shifted toward high-quality, impactful projects.
While Shell and Microsoft represent the extremes in carbon credit purchasing, other buyers are increasingly exploring removals and non-traditional carbon offset projects. Removals, such as those associated with BECCS, saw a larger share of the market, though they still constitute a small portion overall.
This shift reflects a broader trend toward supporting innovative carbon removal solutions, which can deliver long-term, lasting environmental benefits. Another report by the MSCI also reveals the same trend—demand for carbon removal credits is rising.
The market’s composition is also diversifying. Projects related to renewable energy and forestry still dominate. However, their share in total credit retirements has decreased from 80% in 2020 to 70% in 2024.
At the same time, new entrants into the market are pushing for more varied solutions, including technologies for direct air capture and carbon removal, which add complexity to an already challenging marketplace.
Challenges for Credit Buyers and the Market
One of the major challenges for buyers is the oversupply of carbon credits in the market, which continues to grow. In 2024, the number of issued but not retired credits increased again, contributing to a potential glut in available credits.
This dynamic is particularly evident in the market for older Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) credits, which have increasingly been criticized for their lack of additionality and impact.

Despite these challenges, the number of active buyers in the VCM continues to grow. In 2024, more than 6,500 companies participated in the market, a slight increase compared to previous years.
The vast majority of carbon credit buyers continue to come from the financial and energy sectors, with Microsoft representing a key player in the tech space. Even though more companies are entering the market, the rate of growth has slowed. This suggests that carbon credits are becoming a more established component of sustainability strategies.
As we move into 2025, the divergent strategies of Shell and Microsoft may serve as a model for others seeking to engage with the VCM. Shell’s focus on affordability and scale contrasts with Microsoft’s commitment to cutting-edge carbon removal technologies.
Yet, both companies are working towards a common goal—neutralizing their emissions and supporting global climate efforts.
As the market continues to evolve, these two companies are likely to remain at the forefront of shaping how businesses approach their carbon footprint and the critical role carbon credits play in the global fight against climate change.
The post Shell and Microsoft Are The Biggest Carbon Credit Buyers in 2024: What Projects Do They Support? 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 Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 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
