Doubts loom over the credibility of the carbon market’s major credit source as the partnership supporting Zimbabwe’s Kariba mega-project crumbles. The project was previously supported by the leading global carbon offset seller, South Pole, raising concerns about the credits’ integrity.
South Pole has ended its participation in the main forest conservation project in Zimbabwe due to recent claims of exaggerated claims. The move may result in job losses for around 20% of the company’s workforce, according to reports. The company employs around 1,200 workers across 30 countries.
Carbon Offsets and Their Role in Reducing Emissions
Carbon offsets enable businesses and individuals to balance their carbon emissions by paying for removing carbon elsewhere. They evolved into a billion dollar global market that’s projected to grow even more up to $50 billion by 2030.
South Pole’s decision was prompted by concerns about the Kariba REDD+ project’s compliance with their partnership standards. REDD means “Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries”.
Owned and developed by Carbon Green Investments (CGI), the Kariba REDD+ project, one of the world’s largest forest conservation initiatives the size of Puerto Rico, has issued about 36 million credits since 2011. These credits represent the removal or prevention of a ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
According to the Swiss carbon developer’s statement:
“All activities related to carbon certification and carbon credits from the Kariba REDD+ project will now be the responsibility of CGI, and South Pole’s role as the carbon asset developer has ended.”
Despite ending its collaboration with CGI, South Pole emphasized that the existing carbon credits remain valid. The termination of the partnership comes amid increasing scrutiny and challenges to the project’s integrity and the associated carbon credits.
The New Yorker’s report and an ongoing investigation by Verra have added to the controversy, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the sold carbon reductions. South Pole said it would cooperate with the investigation and reassess its involvement in Kariba based on the findings.
The Kariba Project
Kariba REDD+, started in 2011, is designed to conserve 785,000 hectares or almost 2 million acres of forest in northern Zimbabwe. It has been a major recipient of funding through carbon credits as corporations support projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Many multinationals such as L’Oreal, Gucci, Nestlé, McKinsey and Volkswagen have voluntarily bought credits from Kariba to offset their emissions. Below is the volume of credits delivered by the project since 2013 until 2022, peaking at over 6 million in 2021.

The Kariba project led to significant growth for South Pole. But recent months have seen increased scrutiny and challenges for the project and carbon offset initiatives at large.
Publications from different sources revealed that South Pole, alongside Verra, were associated with forest protection credits that claimed to fail to deliver the promised carbon reductions.
Further investigations into the Kariba project argued that only a fraction of the pledged investments in Zimbabwe are verifiable on-site. The African nation is the 12th largest carbon offsets producer worldwide. It recently amended its carbon law to allow developers to keep more profits from carbon credits.
Following those publications, some companies have withdrawn from the Kariba project, such as Gucci. In a broader context, similar studies suggested that carbon offset projects like Kariba overestimate the levels of deforestation they prevent.
Robust Methodology and Safeguards Are Crucial
“Carbon offset methodology is ‘not perfect’,” South Pole CEO Renat Heuberger says in defense of the company’s practices. He further noted that they’re consistently adhering to the approved methodology for the Kariba project.
Heuberger also emphasized the uncertainties involved in deforestation projects, remarking that predicting rates 10 years in advance is challenging.
Verra, the leading carbon credit certifier overseeing about 75% of voluntary carbon credits globally, acknowledged the importance of a critical evaluation of the market. The nonprofit also noted the imperfections in the system, emphasizing their commitment to continuously improve their methodologies to reflect evolving best practices and the latest scientific insights.
The use of safeguards in carbon offset programs to maintain climate integrity has never been more crucial. These programs usually allocate 10-20% of nature-based project credits for insurance purposes – also called a buffer pool.
- Kariba, for instance, has set aside 5 million credits into the Verra-administered buffer pool.
Still, experts suggest that the buffer may not be enough to cover the unavoidable risks caused by climate change. In particular, concerns have been raised regarding the undercapitalization of the buffer pool in California’s carbon market. This is due to the vulnerability of forest offset projects to natural phenomena like wildfires.
Nevertheless, buyers of carbon credits need certainty. This is where insurance can help by providing a creditworthy wrapper around their investments, increasing confidence in the market.
The works of Kita Earth, a carbon credit insurance company, aim to reduce this kind of risk to help drive finance to scale high-quality carbon projects.
Given the case of Kariba, carbon insurance will play a significant role and will soon become a market standard. It will provide extra due diligence and quality assessment, safeguards when things don’t go as planned, and help build trust to scale this essential market that help combat the climate crisis.
Jess Roberts, Vice President of Ratings at Sylvera, asserted the importance of robust calculations and advocated for a more cautious approach to safeguarding credits.
Amid heightened scrutiny, the Kariba REDD+ project’s legitimacy as a key carbon offset source has faced questioning, prompting South Pole to severe its ties with the initiative. The controversy calls for a re-evaluation of existing methodologies and safeguarding practices to bring credibility to carbon markets.
The post South Pole Cuts Ties with Zimbabwe Carbon Offset Project Kariba 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.
![]()
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 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 Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

