Connect with us

Published

on

nickel

A Strategic Investment Analysis

As we edge closer towards a more sustainable world, the demand for nickel is skyrocketing. Nickel’s inherent properties such as strength, ductility, and resistance to heat and corrosion make it indispensable across various industries, notably the production of stainless steel.

But more importantly, nickel plays a pivotal role in the makeup of the lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles (EVs). With its key role in clean energy transition, as well as general industrial use, nickel was added to the U.S. government’s critical minerals list in 2022.

This list is the result of the Energy Act of 2020, which defined critical minerals as those:

“essential to the economic or national security of the United States; have a supply chain that is vulnerable to disruption; and serve an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for the economic or national security of the U.S.

There’s a lot to chew on there, but in simple terms: critical minerals are those that the U.S. can’t function without, or those that the U.S. depends too much on antagonistic foreign powers for.

It’s not just the U.S., either – several other countries have their own critical minerals lists, such as Canada, the EU, South Korea, and Japan – and they all have nickel on them.

nickel prices

But despite a brief spike in early 2022 when the Russian invasion of Ukraine drove prices up on fears of a potential supply disruption, nickel prices have stayed fairly stable over most of the past decade, generally trading in the band between $10,000-$20,000.

Though nickel is indeed crucial to our net zero future, a healthy surplus of mine supply combined with a global slump in steel demand have offset the strong growth of the EV market (shown below), leading to nickel’s current weak price environment.

increase nickel demand

Still, though the near-term outlook for nickel isn’t strong, the green transition is expected to widen the gap between supply and demand.

International Energy Agency (IEA) Forecast

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has forecasted that at the current pace of development, nickel demand will outstrip supply by roughly 25% in 2030, yielding a more positive long-term nickel prices outlook.

In the meantime, here’s a close look at the top three nickel stocks that are poised to capitalize on this growing demand, with a focus on their production capabilities, market positioning, and forward-looking strategies.

1. Vale S.A. (NYSE: VALE) Market Cap: US$48 Billion

As the world’s second largest producer of nickel in 2023, Vale stands out with operations spanning Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, and New Caledonia.

  • Notably, the company’s Long Harbour nickel processing plant in Canada set a benchmark in low-carbon nickel production, emitting about a third of the industry’s average CO2 levels.

Last year, Vale produced 164,900 tonnes of nickel, 8% lower than the year previous but in line with guidance due to ongoing development at some of its mines.

This scale, combined with its commitment to sustainability, positions Vale robustly in the face of escalating demand, especially from the EV battery sector. The company’s strategy to expand nickel output while adhering to environmental standards makes it a compelling choice for investors focusing on sustainable growth.

The main drawback with Vale lies in the fact that the company is a diversified miner that also produces iron ore and copper. In particular, nickel only represented 8.8% of the company’s operating revenue in 2023.

Still, this inclusion of other business segments isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it does help lower the risk of the company as an investment. Those looking for a more conservative pick that still retains exposure to the growth of the nickel market can definitely consider Vale as a pick for their portfolios.

Vale S.A.


2. Glencore plc (LON: GLEN | OTC: GLNCY) Market Cap: US$70 Billion

Next on our list is the world’s third-largest producer of nickel, UK-based Glencore. Like Vale, Glencore is a diversified miner that operates in several different markets.

Last year, Glencore produced 97,600 tonnes of nickel. While that only accounted for a modest 4.2% of Glencore’s total revenue for 2023, one thing that sets Glencore apart from Vale is that it’s significantly more diversified than the latter, with an energy segment on top of its metals and minerals segment.

Glencore’s broad mandate combined with its size make it a relatively safe investment, and the company has done very well since the post-COVID market lows. The company has also received positive attention for its very aggressive emissions reduction targets that include a 25% reduction in Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by the end of 2030 and a 50% reduction by year-end 2035 against a 2019 baseline.

Many major companies still refuse to even report Scope 3 emissions, let alone set near-term emissions reduction targets for them, so Glencore is definitely ahead of the curve with their climate action plan.

Last but not least, Glencore’s primary listing on the London Stock Exchange makes it easier for Europe-based investors looking for nickel exposure, though the company also has foreign ordinary shares and ADRs listed on the U.S. OTC market.

Glencore

3. Canada Nickel Company (TSXV: CNC | OTC: CNIKF) Market Cap: US$160 Million

Finally, our last company is one for aggressive investors with a healthy appetite for risk, who are looking for more direct exposure to the growth of the nickel market compared to the diversified miners mentioned above.

Canada Nickel is a junior nickel miner based out of – you guessed it, Canada. While this may not seem like it warrants a special mention, it’s worth noting that the U.S. imports over 40% of its nickel from its northern neighbour. This makes Canada an extremely attractive jurisdiction for nickel producers, as a major buying market is only a short hop across the border.

The Crawford Nickel Project

The company has done an excellent job of consolidating nickel projects in the historically prolific Timmins mining camp in Ontario, one of the largest gold mining districts in the world. While nickel has traditionally been mined primarily as a by-product in the area, Timmins has struck proverbial gold with its flagship Crawford Nickel Project.

  • Right now, Crawford is actually the world’s second nickel operation by reserve size. Based on its bankable feasibility study, it’s projected to be the third largest nickel mine in the world in terms of annual production once it’s built.

Currently, Canada Nickel is still finishing the funding and permitting process for Crawford. The final decision on whether or not to build the mine is expected to happen mid next year, with first production expected by year-end 2027 if all goes according to plan.

Though Canada Nickel has acquired a number of other projects in the area, Crawford is definitely the main draw here. It’s expected to be a low-cost mine with robust economics and a lengthy 41-year mine life. The company’s novel approach to carbon storage, integrated into its mine plan, would also make Crawford not just a low-carbon-emission mine, but actually net carbon negative over its lifetime.

As good as all this sounds, however, it’s important to remember that as a junior miner that isn’t even producing any nickel yet, Canada Nickel is a highly speculative investment that should only be considered by investors with high risk tolerance.

While a number of major companies already have their eyes on Canada Nickel, with big names like Agnico Eagle, Samsung, and Anglo American taking significant ownership stakes, there’s no guarantee that Canada Nickel will be able to secure the funding and permits necessary to build a mine at Crawford, or that the company will succeed even if they do.

Still, if you’re looking for an investment with pure play exposure to nickel and have the right risk profile, Canada Nickel is one company you don’t want to miss.

Canada Nickel Company


A Brief Note on Norilsk Nickel (Nornickel)

Now, those of you who’ve looked at the companies above might be wondering something: why wasn’t the world’s largest nickel producer, Norilsk Nickel a.k.a. Nornickel, included?

Unfortunately, despite its attractiveness as the world’s largest nickel producer that’s also the closest thing you can get to a pure play major, there’s one major issue with Nornickel: it’s a Russian company.

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Nornickel was one of several companies sanctioned by the West, leading to the stock getting delisted from both the American as well as the London stock markets.

As of June 2024, Nornickel is still listed on the Moscow Exchange. However, given that the Russian government has restricted foreign investors in “unfriendly” countries from buying and selling securities on the Moscow Exchange, the company is inaccessible to the average investor for the foreseeable future.

Nickel’s Importance in a Zero Emissions World

The global transition towards renewable energy and the exponential growth of the EV market are key drivers for demand growth for nickel. And lets not forget about lithium’s importance in “lithium ion” batteries along with nickel for new EVs. LiFT Power ($LIFFF), a fast developing North American lithium junior, is worth a look here to understand how it plays out https://carboncredits.com/liftpower-lift/.

lithium ion

The companies listed above aren’t just mining firms – they’re also strategic players in the global shift towards sustainable energy. Investing in these stocks offers potential exposure to a critical resource that powers both today’s industries and tomorrow’s technologies.

Each company’s focus on expanding production capabilities while maintaining environmental and ethical standards provides a strong foundation for growth.

As the net zero transition continues accelerating the pace of EV adoption and hence the growth of the nickel market, make sure you keep your eyes on these three companies.

The post Top 3 Nickel Stocks for 2024 appeared first on Carbon Credits.

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