Debate surrounds the challenge of mitigating emissions from hard-to-abate sectors to achieve net zero by 2050. Critics argue the short-term cost of such measures might be high, preferring more effective decarbonization routes.
Carbon removal startup Parallel Carbon claims its pioneering technology addresses both challenges by capturing CO2 directly from the air while generating low-cost green hydrogen.
The company aims to launch a kilowatt-scale demonstration project by 2025, with carbon removal credits (CDR) already pre-sold. The credits sold covered the startup’s first year of operations, helping them get off the ground and build the project.
How Parallel Carbon’s Dual Technology Work
Parallel Carbon’s technology employs hyper-reactive minerals and achieves both carbon removal for under $100 per ton of CO2 and clean hydrogen production for $1 per kilogram. Their approach combines Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Water Electrolysis processes, powered by solar and wind energy.
Beyond providing durable carbon storage, this approach generates high-quality CDR credits and green hydrogen to facilitate industrial decarbonization. Here’s the company’s technology in an overview.

Their electrolyzer produces hydrogen by splitting a neutral-salt electrolyte into an acid and an alkali without generating chlorine gas. This system works similarly with the chlor-alkali process, minus the chlorine gas.
Simultaneously, a mineral sorbent in DAC extracts CO2 from the atmosphere, releasing it by dissolving in the acid. This captured CO2 can either be stored geologically or used in industrial processes. The sorbent is then regenerated with the alkali for subsequent CO2 capture.
Notably, though the electrolyzer may operate intermittently, surplus acids and alkalis sustain the mineral sorbent’s recycling. This ensures continuous direct air capture even during renewable power unavailability.
Addressing DAC Efficiency and Cost Challenges
Parallel Carbon’s CEO Ryan Anderson highlights their technology’s flexibility, designed as a flexible industrial load operating on intermittent power. This aligns with clean hydrogen production tax credit requirements, ensuring minimal marginal electricity emissions for direct air capture’s carbon accounting.
Though this technology demands more energy input than conventional electrolyzers due to the simultaneous DAC, its reliance on low power prices potentially poses a challenge.
Estimated energy costs for this process, with renewable electricity at $30/MWh, amount to $1.50 per kg of H2 and $50 per tonne of CO2. Anderson foresees flexibility in cost allocation between hydrogen production and CO2 capture due to the dual product nature. He further noted that:
“For most direct air capture, operating with clean power is a necessity — I think that’s very challenging for other direct air capture technologies…over 90% of the energy for the process goes into the electrolyzer.”
They target a cost of $400/tonne of CO2 captured and $2/kg of H2 produced by the late 2020s. They also intend to further lower costs to $100 and $1, respectively, by the early 2030s.
The startup, having secured $3.6 million in seed funding led by Aramco Ventures, aims to field-test a scaled stack producing 50 kg of hydrogen and capturing one tonne of CO2 daily by early 2025.
Parallel Carbon has pre-sold its carbon dioxide removal credits for operations beginning in 2025. As corporations eye 2030 climate targets, the voluntary carbon market has gained traction, although scrutiny surrounds carbon removal effectiveness.
Driving Costs Down and Ambitions Up
Apart from the growing carbon credit market, DAC also largely benefits from highly lucrative government support in the United States.
Anderson emphasizes the measurable CO2 removal capability of direct air capture, ensuring high-quality climate action. However, he doubts industries’ preference for carbon removal over other decarbonization methods. Anderson had formerly worked as an analyst on carbon capture and storage for research firm BloombergNEF.
This skepticism is fueled partly by the expectation that the market will have a relatively limited quantity of high-quality credits available over the next 10-15 years.
Moreover, government subsidies like the 45Q tax credit incentivize carbon capture. Despite complexities in claiming multiple credits, Anderson sees potential for separate companies to leverage distinct tax credits.
The 45Q tax credit offers incentives of $85 per tonne of CO2 for point-source carbon capture that’s permanently stored. It would be $60 if the gas is used in industry or for enhanced oil recovery.
Then the credit increases significantly to $180 (or $130) if the capture is from direct air capture. But for DAC to qualify for these incentives, it needs to capture a minimum of 1,000 tonnes of CO2 annually.
Anderson also estimates that even without subsidies, carbon credits from DAC are currently sold for over $600/tonne of CO2.
Looking ahead, Parallel Carbon eyes a commercial pilot in 2026 capable of 100 tonnes hydrogen production and 1,000-2,000 tonnes of CO2 capture a year. The DAC company is also planning a Series A fundraising round to propel its vision forward.
Parallel Carbon pioneers technology that captures CO2 from the air, generating low-cost green hydrogen while directly addressing emissions challenges. Their innovative approach offers durable carbon storage and facilitates industrial decarbonization. With promising advancements and investments, they aim to revolutionize carbon removal and hydrogen production, positioning themselves at the forefront of sustainable innovation.
The post Startup Revolutionizes Carbon Removal Combining Hydrogen Production and Direct Air Capture 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

