Starbucks has brewed up a moderately strong performance in Q1, raking in $1.9 billion in international revenue. Yet, despite its global success, people’s go-to coffee brand has experienced a dip in sales in key markets like North America and China.
Beyond its global growth, the coffee giant is deeply committed to brewing a sustainable future, with a wide array of green initiatives driving its mission forward.
A Closer Look at Starbucks’ Q1 FY25 Financial Results
At present, Starbucks has 40,576 stores worldwide. It’s a 5% growth year-over-year. Of these, 53% are company-operated, while 47% are licensed. It added 377 net new stores during this sole quarter. The U.S. and China remain critical to Starbucks’ portfolio, comprising 61% of global stores.
Brian Niccol, chairman and chief executive officer of Starbucks remarked on the first quarter’s performance noting,
“While we’re only one quarter into our turnaround, we’re moving quickly to act on the ‘Back to Starbucks’ efforts and we’ve seen a positive response. We believe this is the fundamental change in strategy needed to solve our underlying issues, restore confidence in our brand and return the business to sustainable, long-term growth.”
Starbucks Global Sales Decline
This quarter revealed a sales drop of 4% globally, driven by a 6% drop in customer transactions. However, a 3% increase in average ticket size helped soften the decline. Revenue for the quarter remained flat at $9.4 billion compared to Q1 FY24.
North America
Sales declined by 4%, primarily due to an 8% drop in transactions. A 4% increase in ticket size was insufficient to offset lower foot traffic. Net revenues in the region dropped 1% year-over-year to $7.1 billion, partially due to a decline in the licensed store business.

International Markets
Sales decreased by 4%, as both average ticket size and customer transactions fell by 2%. Despite this, net revenues increased 1% to $1.9 billion, driven by 9% store growth and incremental revenue from acquiring a U.K. licensed business partner.

China
Starbucks’ second-largest market saw a sharper decline, with sales down 6%. Average ticket size fell by 4%, while transactions dipped by 2%.

Operating Margin and Earnings Shrink
Operating margin dropped by 390 basis points to 11.9%, down from 15.8% from the last year. This was due to increased investments in the “Back to Starbucks” initiative, supporting partner wages and benefits, as well as the removal of the non-dairy milk charge.
- In North America, operating income dropped to $1.2 billion, while the international segment also saw a decline, with operating income reaching $237.1 million.
Furthermore, Channel Development revenue fell 3% to $436.3 million, driven by SKU optimization and a decline in ready-to-drink sales. However, operating margins improved slightly to 47.7% due to lower product costs and changes in the product mix.
Loyalty Program Offers Relief
The Starbucks Rewards program showed modest growth, with U.S. 90-day active members reaching 34.6 million, a 1% year-over-year increase. This indicates that while customer transactions are down, loyal customers continue to engage with the brand.
While sales in key markets like North America and China are still under pressure, Starbucks is working on improving operational efficiency and making pricing adjustments to help recover in the coming quarters. In the next section, we will study the company’s sustainability efforts and how it’s tackling its carbon footprint across global operations.
Starbucks’ Climate Commitment for a Greener Future
Starbucks aims to cut its water and carbon footprint by 50% by 2030. To achieve this, it is adopting greener practices and building resilience to environmental challenges. The company is tackling climate risks by forecasting supply chain disruptions and resource shortages. By addressing issues like carbon pricing and physical risks it wants to secure a sustainable future for its coffee operations.
Additionally, they are taking environmental efforts further by partnering with Mercedes-Benz to expand electric vehicle (EV) charging at its stores.
Scope 1, 2, and 3 Emissions
Starbucks’ total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across Scope 1, 2, and 3 categories reached 13.5 million metric tons as of the latest report. This marks an 8% increase in emissions compared to the 2019 baseline.
Notably fluid dairy purchases accounted for 18% of these emissions, while green coffee purchases contributed another 11%.

Sustainable Initiatives
- Support sustainability through reforestation, regenerative agriculture, and waste reduction.
- Prioritize eco-friendly sourcing for coffee, timber, and cocoa
- Collaborate closely with suppliers and farmers to lessen its environmental impact.
- Reduce its carbon footprint by streamlining operations, using renewable energy, and cutting emissions.
- Address waste management by recycling, reusing, and reducing food waste
- Use reusable and compostable packaging material made from recycled content.


Greener Stores Leading the Way
By April 2023, Starbucks had over 3,500 certified “Greener Stores” globally. This brings the company closer to its goal of 10,000 Greener Stores by 2025. These stores meet 25 standards for energy, water, and waste efficiency.
The certification, developed with the World Wildlife Fund and SCS Global Services, is verified by external auditors. This is how Starbucks ensures these stores follow sustainable practices throughout their lifecycle.
Starbucks’ ability to adapt to shifting consumer trends will play a key role in its recovery and long-term growth. As the company continues to enhance its sustainable practices, it’s not only shaping a more environmentally responsible business but also offering consumers a healthier, eco-conscious way to enjoy their favorite cup of coffee.
The post Starbucks Rakes in $1.9B International Revenue Amid Sales Dip: But how is its Sustainability Brewing Up? 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
