Connect with us

Published

on

“We are in the business of helping people become healthy. But without a healthy planet, it’s a moot point.”

Climate leadership in the pharmaceutical supply chain has come under sharp focus in recent years. From reducing plastic packaging waste to sourcing palm oil sustainably, pharma companies are being pressed to minimize their environmental footprint. The industry’s vast global supply chains – spanning raw material extraction to drug delivery – contribute significantly to plastic pollution and deforestation-linked emissions. In response, major pharmaceutical players have set ambitious sustainability targets since 2022, signaling a transformative shift.

This article explores how pharma companies are curbing plastic usage in packaging and ensuring responsible palm oil sourcing, the strategies and progress achieved in the last three years, and what lies ahead. Investor expectations and new regulations are accelerating these changes, pushing pharma to innovate for a greener, more circular economy. The result is an emerging climate leadership in pharma’s supply chain that is delivering measurable results and reshaping industry norms.

 

The Plastic Problem: Packaging Innovations and Reductions

Pharmaceutical packaging – from blister packs and pill bottles to syringes and vials – has traditionally relied on single-use plastics for safety and sterility. Unfortunately, much of this plastic ends up as waste, often not easily recyclable due to complex multi-layer materials (https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/pharmaceuticals/eco-friendly-packaging-reducing-plastic-in-pharmaceutical-products) . In 2022, the sustainable pharmaceutical packaging market was valued around $71.6 billion, and it is projected to more than double to $146.3 billion by 2027 (https://stampedwithlovexoxo.com/blogs/love-letters/sustainable-packaging-statistics). This rapid growth reflects a surge in eco-friendly packaging innovations and investments across the industry.

Climate Leadership in Pharma
Global sustainable pharma packaging market value was $71.6 billion in 2022, projected to reach $146.3 billion by 2027.

Rethinking Pharma Packaging: Bioplastics, Reusables, and Smarter Design

Leading companies are rethinking packaging design to reduce plastic use without compromising drug safety. Many firms are developing biodegradable or bio-based plastics – such as polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) – as alternatives to petroleum-based polymers (https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/pharmaceuticals/sustainable-pharma-innovations-in-reducing-plastic-waste). These plant-derived materials can maintain the necessary durability and barrier properties but with a smaller carbon footprint and better end-of-life options. Pharmaceutical companies are also exploring refillable and reusable containers, moving away from single-use blister packs when possible. For instance, some are piloting compostable blister packaging and pill bottles made from biodegradable materials. While ensuring drug stability remains a challenge, progress in material science is enabling these innovations in niche products. Additionally, firms are working on reducing packaging weight and material volume – an approach endorsed by the EU’s new Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, which will require all packaging to be recyclable by 2030 (https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/march-april-2023/sustainability-design-pharmaceutical-products). Roche, for example, has committed to redesign packaging to use 40% fewer raw materials and reduce weight, as part of its sustainable delivery goals https://xtalks.com/top-10-most-environmentally-sustainable-pharma-companies-in-2023-2024-3778). GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) similarly set a target to cut the environmental impact of its products and packaging by 25% by 2030, including using more recycled content and eliminating unnecessary plastics (https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/responsibility/environment/materials-and-waste).

 

Closing the Loop: Circular Solutions in Pharma Packaging

Progress is evident in industry-wide initiatives. Circular economy principles are gaining traction, with companies incorporating recycled plastics into manufacturing and designing packaging for recyclability.

The Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Initiative (PSCI), a global industry consortium, promotes sharing best practices in waste reduction and sustainable packaging.

At the logistics end, some pharma firms have introduced take-back programs for used packaging. In Australia, the Pharmacycle program exemplifies this trend: it set up over 870 drop-off points for used blister packs and, since launching in 2022, has recycled 50 million blister packs by the start of 2025, diverting tons of plastic from landfills. The collected material is repurposed into products like composite decking, closing the loop by turning medical waste into useful materials. These efforts not only shrink pharma’s plastic footprint but also raise public awareness, with consumers increasingly participating in recycling programs (https://www.packagingnews.com.au/sustainability/pharmacycle-hits-50-million-blister-packs-recycled).

 

Regulatory Momentum and the Rise of Eco-Friendly Pharma Packaging

Regulatory pressures reinforce these changes. The European Union’s directive on single-use plastics is pushing to phase out certain disposable plastic items common in pharma packaging. Likewise, many countries (from Japan to Canada) have introduced strict rules to cut plastic use and boost recycling in healthcare. Companies must now balance Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) packaging standards with sustainability, prompting investment in R&D for materials that are both safe and eco-friendly. The trend toward electronic patient information leaflets, adopted by firms like AstraZeneca, also reduces paper and plastic packaging components, yielding both carbon and material savings (https://www.healthcaremea.com/pharma-companies-astrazeneca-pfizer-reiterate-focus-on-sustainability). With these innovations and policies, the pharma sector is slowly shedding its reliance on single-use plastics. The past three years have shown that climate-conscious packaging – once a niche idea – is becoming mainstream, driven by both environmental necessity and business logic.

 

Palm Oil in Pharma: Toward Sustainable Sourcing

Palm oil and its derivatives are ubiquitous in pharmaceuticals, serving as excipients, lubricants, coating agents, and emulsifiers in countless formulations. This versatile vegetable oil is found in capsules, tablets (as hydrogenated palm oil for coating), creams (as emulsifying agents), and more (https://whatispalmoil.com/blog/palm-oil-a-crucial-part-of-pharmaceutical-manufacturing). However, palm oil cultivation has long been associated with tropical deforestation and significant carbon emissions. As such, ensuring sustainable palm oil sourcing has become a priority for climate leadership in pharma supply chains. In the last few years, pharmaceutical companies have stepped up commitments to eliminate deforestation and unethical practices from their palm oil supply.

 

Pharma’s Palm Oil Pledge: Johnson & Johnson’s Role in Protecting Forests

Several leading pharma manufacturers now use only certified sustainable palm oil. Johnson & Johnson (J&J), for instance, relies on palm oil derivatives in various medications and personal care products, and it has maintained 100% RSPO certification for all the palm oil, palm kernel oil, and palm-based derivatives it purchases since 2020 (https://document.rspo.org/2021/Johnson_&_Johnson_ACOP2021.pdf). This means every ton of palm-based ingredient in J&J’s products is covered by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) standards, which aim to protect forests and human rights. J&J was an early mover – as far back as 2014 it pledged zero deforestation in its palm supply and started mapping its complex oleochemical supply chains to achieve full traceability (https://news.mongabay.com/2014/05/johnson-johnson-commits-to-zero-deforestation-for-palm-oil). “Although our usage is small on the global scale, we are committed to using our buying position to drive responsible palm oil practices worldwide” J&J stated in its pledge. This stance set an example that has echoed through the industry.

 

Sustainable by Design: BASF’s Push for Certified Palm Ingredients in Medicine

Suppliers to pharma have also facilitated this shift. Chemical giant BASF, which produces many excipients derived from palm kernel oil, announced that it became the first major supplier to offer 100% RSPO-certified lipid-based excipients for the pharmaceutical industry (https://care360.basf.com/docs/default-source/sustainable-palm-oil/6th-basf_palm-progress-report_2021.pdf?sfvrsn=f298b9c4_1/6th-BASF_Palm-Progress-Report_2021.pdf). By 2021, BASF achieved full traceability for its palm kernel oil supply, covering hundreds of mills. Its certified excipient product lines (e.g. Kolliphor, Kolliwax, etc.) enable drug makers to formulate medicines with sustainable palm-derived ingredients. This kind of upstream commitment is crucial, since the pharma sector often uses palm oil in derivative form (oleochemicals) where tracing origin is challenging. As BASF and others provide segregated or mass-balance certified palm ingredients, it lowers barriers for all pharma companies to source responsibly. Indeed, today many pharma companies are RSPO members or have policies mirroring RSPO criteria (no deforestation of high conservation value forests, no peatland conversion, fair labor, etc.), even if their total palm volumes are relatively small. The emphasis is on ensuring that every capsule shell, tablet coating, or cream base that comes from palm supports sustainable practices.

 

Deforestation, Disclosure, and the EU: Why Pharma Can’t Ignore Palm Oil

Investor and NGO pressure has played a role. Activist campaigns over the past decade targeted consumer-facing sectors first, but now scrutinize pharma’s palm oil use. Being a “laggard” on deforestation can tarnish a company’s reputation. Conversely, pharma firms that demonstrate ethical sourcing can score better on ESG ratings and avoid the risks of supply disruptions. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), adopted in 2023, adds regulatory teeth to these expectations. By end of 2024, companies placing products with palm oil (or soy, beef, etc.) on the EU market must prove the commodities are deforestation-free (https://www.acre.com/blog/the-eu-deforestation-regulation-the-talent-challenge-for-european-natural-resource-businesses). This law explicitly impacts healthcare: palm oil is listed as an essential component in medicine capsules, ointments, and excipients, all requiring traceability to sustainable sources. Complex global supply chains make this a challenge for pharma, but failure to comply will mean losing access to the EU market (https://www.fgvw.de/en/news/compliance-update-on-the-eu-deforestation-regulation-eudr-in-the-healthcare-sector). As a result, the next few years will likely see even tighter collaboration with initiatives like RSPO and accelerated efforts to map and clean up palm oil supply lines. The sustainability trend for palm oil in pharma, evident since 2022, has shifted from voluntary leadership by companies like J&J to an industry-wide movement driven equally by conscience and compliance.

 

Conclusion

These are exciting times as we are witnessing the pharmaceutical supply chain undergoing a green transformation at a global scale. What was once viewed as ancillary – reducing plastic waste, sourcing sustainable palm oil, cutting carbon – is now central to pharma’s mission of improving health in a responsible way. The climate leadership shown in the past few years by pioneering companies will become the norm as pressures and opportunities converge. But continued progress is not automatic; it requires expertise, investment, and often, collaboration with external partners. For organizations in the pharma industry looking to accelerate their sustainability journey – from designing carbon-neutral supply chains to investing in verified carbon credits – working with experienced partners is key. This is where consultancies like CarbonCreditCapital.com come in, contact us today to explore sustainability consulting, carbon credit purchases, and collaboration opportunities. Together with your stakeholders, we can ensure that the pharma supply chain of the future heals the planet as much as it heals patients.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain

Published

on

“…Protecting nature makes our business more resilient…”

For companies with land, water, food, fiber, or commodity exposure, the supply chain may be the most practical place to turn nature from a risk into an operating asset.

Your supply chain already has a nature strategy. It may be undocumented. It may live in procurement files, supplier contracts, commodity maps, and one spreadsheet nobody opens without coffee. But it exists.

If your business depends on farms, forests, water, soil, packaging, rubber, timber, fibers, minerals, or food ingredients, nature is part of your operating system. The question is whether you manage that system with intent, or discover it during a disruption, audit, or difficult board question.

That is why more companies are asking how to find Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain. Do not begin by shopping for offsets. Begin by asking where nature already affects cost, continuity, emissions, regulatory exposure, and supplier resilience.

What Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain Means

The European Commission defines nature-based solutions as approaches inspired and supported by nature that are cost-effective, deliver environmental, social, and economic benefits, and help build resilience. They should also benefit biodiversity and support ecosystem services.

In supply-chain terms, that becomes practical. Nature-based solutions in your supply chain can include agroforestry in cocoa, coffee, rubber, or palm supply chains. They can include soil health programs for food ingredients, watershed restoration near water-intensive operations, mangrove restoration linked to coastal sourcing regions, and avoided deforestation in forest-linked commodities.

The key test is business relevance. If your procurement team relies on a landscape, watershed, crop, or supplier base, that is where opportunity may sit. The best projects do not hover outside the business like a framed certificate. They plug into the system that already produces your revenue.

Why the Boardroom Should Care

For many companies, the largest climate and nature exposure sits outside direct operations. The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard gives companies a method to account for and report value-chain emissions across sectors. Purchased goods, land use, transport, supplier energy, and product use can make direct emissions look like the visible tip of a very large iceberg.

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures notes that many nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities arise upstream and downstream. That is why nature-based supply chain investments matter to boards. You are managing supply security, audit readiness, investor confidence, and regulatory preparedness.

For companies exposed to EU markets, this also connects to rules and expectations such as CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and SBTi FLAG.

Step One: Map Where You Touch Land, Water, and Living Systems

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain starts with mapping, not marketing.

Begin with procurement and Scope 3 data. Which categories carry high spend, high emissions, or high sourcing risk? Which suppliers depend on agriculture, forestry, mining, water-intensive processing, or land conversion? Which regions face water stress, heat, flood risk, soil degradation, deforestation, or biodiversity pressure?

The Science Based Targets Network uses a clear process for companies: assess, prioritize, set targets, act, and track. That sequence keeps companies from treating nature as a mood board. You identify where the business has exposure, then decide where intervention can create measurable value.

Step Two: Look for Operational Value Before Carbon Value

This is the center of CCC’s Dual-Value Model. A nature-based supply chain investment should do useful work for the business before anyone counts the carbon.

Agroforestry may improve farmer resilience, shade crops, protect soil, and reduce pressure on forests. Watershed restoration may reduce water risk for beverage, textile, or manufacturing sites. Soil health programs may improve the stability of agricultural inputs.

Carbon and sustainability value can still be created. In some cases, the project may support Scope 3 insetting. In others, it may generate verified carbon credits. Sometimes the main value may be resilience, readiness, and better supplier data.

The IPCC has found that ecosystem-based adaptation can reduce climate risks to people, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, with multiple co-benefits, while also warning that effectiveness declines as warming increases. That is a sober argument for acting early.

Step Three: Separate Insetting, Offsetting, and Resilience

Nature-based solutions in your supply chain are not automatically carbon credits. They are not automatically Scope 3 reductions either.

An insetting opportunity usually sits inside or close to your value chain. It may support Scope 3 reporting if the accounting rules, project boundaries, supplier connection, and data quality are strong enough.

An offsetting opportunity usually involves verified credits outside your value chain. High-quality credits can still play a role for residual emissions, but they should not distract from direct reductions or credible value-chain work.

A resilience opportunity may deliver business value even if you cannot claim a Scope 3 reduction immediately. That may include water security, supplier capacity, land restoration, biodiversity protection, or regulatory readiness.

Gold Standard’s Scope 3 value-chain guidance focuses on reporting emissions reductions from interventions in purchased goods and services. Verra’s Scope 3 Standard Program is being developed to certify value-chain interventions and issue units for companies’ emissions accounting. The direction is clear: stronger evidence, tighter boundaries, and more disciplined claims.

Step Four: Design for Audit-Readiness From the Beginning

Weak data is where promising nature projects go to become expensive anecdotes.

Before public claims are made, you need to know the baseline. What would have happened without the project? Who owns or manages the land? Which suppliers are involved? How will outcomes be measured? How will leakage, permanence, and double counting be addressed?

The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard gives companies methods to quantify, report, and track land emissions, CO2 removals, and related metrics. This matters because land projects are rarely neat. Farms change practices. Suppliers shift volumes. Weather changes outcomes.

What Recent Corporate Examples Show

Recent case studies show that supply-chain nature work is becoming more serious, and more scrutinized.

Reuters has reported on insetting to reduce emissions within supply chains, including examples linked to Reckitt, Danone, Nestlé, Earthworm Foundation, and Nature-based Insights. The same article highlights familiar problems: measurement, double counting, supplier incentives, and credibility.

Reuters has also reported on companies using the Science Based Targets Network process to examine nature impacts. GSK, Holcim, and Kering were among the first companies with validated science-based targets for nature.

The Financial Times has covered the promise and difficulty of soil carbon in corporate supply chains, including a PepsiCo example in India where yields reportedly increased while greenhouse gas emissions fell. The lesson is that carbon, soil, biodiversity, farmer economics, and measurement need to be handled together.

A Practical Screening Checklist

A supply-chain nature-based solution deserves deeper review when you can answer yes to most of these questions:

  • Does it sit in or near a material supply-chain hotspot?
  • Does it address a real business risk?
  • Can you connect it to supplier behavior, land management, or sourcing practices?
  • Can the outcomes be measured?
  • Are the claim boundaries clear?
  • Does it support Scope 3 strategy, SBTi FLAG, CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, or investor reporting needs?
  • Are permanence, leakage, land rights, and community issues addressed?

Build the Asset, Then Make the Claim

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain is about identifying where your business already depends on living systems, then designing interventions that make those systems more resilient, measurable, and commercially useful.

For companies with material Scope 3 exposure, the right project can support supplier resilience, emissions strategy, regulatory readiness, and credible climate communication. The wrong project can become a glossy story with a weak audit trail.

Carbon Credit Capital helps companies design nature-based carbon and sustainability assets that embed directly into corporate supply chains. Through CCC’s Dual-Value Model, you can assess where sustainability investment may support operational resilience, Scope 3 insetting eligibility, regulatory readiness, and high-quality carbon or sustainability value.

Schedule your consultation with the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital to explore how nature-based supply chain investments can support your next stage of climate strategy.

Sources

  1. European Commission: Nature-based solutions
  2. GHG Protocol: Corporate Value Chain Scope 3 Standard
  3. TNFD: Guidance on value chains
  4. European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Reporting
  5. European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence
  6. European Commission: Regulation on Deforestation-free Products
  7. SBTi: Forest, Land and Agriculture FLAG
  8. Science Based Targets Network: Take Action
  9. IPCC AR6 WGII Summary for Policymakers
  10. Gold Standard: Scope 3 Value Chain Interventions Guidance
  11. Verra: Scope 3 Standard Program
  12. GHG Protocol: Land Sector and Removals Standard
  13. Reuters: Can insetting stack the cards towards more sustainable supply chains?
  14. Reuters: Three companies put their impacts on nature under a microscope
  15. Financial Times: The dubious climate gains of turning soil into a carbon sink

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living

Published

on

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

A light bulb, a pen, a calculator and some copper euro cent coins lie on top of an electricity bill

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:

  1. Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
  2. Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
  3. 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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com