Connect with us

Published

on

media

The demand for reliable business news is growing. Top media outlets, CNN, BBC, The New York Times, Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal remain trusted sources globally. Each continues to adapt to digital platforms while upholding core journalism values: accuracy, impartiality, and transparency.

As per the latest media reports and surveys, the following media outlets have stood out in 2025, delivering excellence and credible news.

  • CNN remains a global leader in breaking news and real-time reporting, with a strong international presence and digital reach.

  • BBC is recognized for its journalistic integrity, impartiality, and expansive global network, making it one of the most trusted and fastest-growing news websites.

  • The New York Times continues to set editorial standards with investigative journalism and in-depth analysis, maintaining a vast digital subscriber base and global influence.

  • Reuters is a primary source for unbiased business, financial, and world news, with a massive global footprint and syndication to other outlets.

  • The Wall Street Journal is a key resource for business and financial insights, trusted by professionals and recognized for its factual reporting and market analysis.

Misinformation spreads rapidly online. So trust is more critical than ever, and readers certainly prefer unbiased news. Such reporting not only builds public confidence but also keeps governments, institutions, and corporations accountable.

However, as media shifts from print to digital, its environmental impact also evolves. So here we would discuss the carbon footprint of these media giants and their sustainability efforts to meet net-zero targets.

The Media Industry’s Carbon Footprint

While switching from print to digital cuts down paper waste, it also creates carbon emissions. Online publishing, video streaming, and real-time updates rely on large data centers that use a lot of energy.

Thus, the carbon footprint of media outlets, especially those with significant digital and streaming operations, has become a major environmental concern.

  • Research from Futuresource and InterDigital estimates that the TV and video streaming industry accounts for 4% of total global emissions.

Print editions, like those from The New York Times, still generate emissions from production and delivery. Meanwhile, parent companies like Warner Bros. Discovery (CNN) are adopting renewable energy and reducing waste across operations.

Also, AI-driven reporting cuts travel emissions but adds energy demand. To remain sustainable, the media industry must invest in green data infrastructure and transparent carbon reporting.

1. CNN Rides Warner Bros.’ Green Goals

CNN hasn’t published a standalone carbon footprint or its own emissions report. However, its parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, has committed to clear sustainability goals that influence CNN’s operations.

Warner Bros. Discovery emissions
Source: Warner Bros. Discovery

Digital Shift Drives Emissions

CNN runs energy-heavy operations, including streaming, news gathering, and data centers. Its shift to digital-first content reduced paper waste but increased electricity use.

Streaming, a key part of CNN’s digital platform, drives global demand for data. Experts estimate that video streaming alone may cause up to 1% of global carbon emissions.

Thus, CNN benefits from its parent company’s broader sustainability plan. Warner Bros has taken steps to cut environmental impact and lower greenhouse gas emissions by:

  • Invested in renewable energy and energy efficiency across operations
  • Support industry-wide environmental standards
  • Rolled out waste reduction initiatives across its media brands.

Leading with Climate Coverage

CNN plays a vital role in climate journalism. It consistently reports on climate change, carbon emissions, clean energy, and sustainability innovation.

Its stories spotlight technologies like carbon capture, sustainable aviation fuel, and renewable power, keeping the public informed and engaged. CNN also covers major policy moves, such as the EU’s push for sustainable aviation fuel and the global net-zero by 2050 target.

These company-wide actions help reduce CNN’s indirect environmental impact.

2. BBC Targets Net Zero by 2050 with Strong Emissions Cuts

The BBC aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, aligning with the UK government’s climate goals. It has outlined its environmental sustainability strategy, emphasizing its commitment to becoming Net Zero and Nature Positive.

It plans to cut direct emissions (Scopes 1 and 2) by 46% and value chain emissions (Scope 3) by 28% by 2030, using 2019/20 as the baseline. The SBTi approved both short- and long-term goals.

  • Its total emissions amounted to 374,063 tons CO₂e in 2023/24, up 7% from the 2019/20 total of 350,893 tons.

The increase is attributed to value chain emissions as they remain a growing challenge.

However, by 2023/24, it reduced Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 21%, exceeding its target of 17%. It achieved this by upgrading buildings, cutting gas use, and reducing diesel in production.

bbc emissions
Source: BBC

Notably, the media company now requires all non-news TV productions to meet the BAFTA Albert sustainability standard. Producers must submit carbon action plans and measure emissions. As of January 2024, the BBC ended mandatory offsetting and redirected efforts toward direct decarbonization.

With these initiatives, they remain committed to sustainable operations and credible climate reporting.

3. New York Times’ (NYT) Emission-Cutting Strategy

The New York Times has taken steps to lower its environmental impact by improving energy efficiency across its facilities and using more sustainable methods in printing and distribution.

It measures its Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions using the financial control boundary method defined by the GHG Protocol. This approach helps identify emission sources and areas for reduction. The company bases its carbon reduction target on the GHG Protocol’s market-based method.

new york times
Source: New York Times

Between 2019 and 2023, the company reduced its purchased electricity use by 16%. However, Scope 2 location-based emissions rose by 18% during the same period. This increase mainly resulted from a less renewable power mix in New York City.

The company’s progress toward its carbon-neutral target depends, in part, on the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) reaching its goal of 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and a zero-emission grid by 2040.

4. Thomson Reuters: Climate Action and ESG Progress

Reuters operates in over 200 locations, providing accurate, fact-based reporting.

Thomson Reuters sees ESG as important for long-term success. The board oversees key ESG areas, but employees lead efforts in sustainability, inclusion, and community work.

It supports global standards like the UN Global Compact and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It also works to promote UN Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Environmental Commitments and Climate Goals

The company continues to reduce its global environmental impact by using 100% renewable electricity across all operations. This is done by matching energy use with renewable energy credits worldwide. Thomson Reuters also works with suppliers to lower emissions across its value chain.

In 2020, it joined the SBTi, and its key goals include:

  • Cutting Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% by 2030 (from a 2018 baseline)
  • Reducing Scope 3 emissions from energy, travel, and commuting by 25% by 2025 (from a 2019 baseline)
  • Ensuring 65% of supplier spending aligns with science-based targets by 2025

Since 2020, it has sourced 100% renewable power and reduced Scope 1 and 2 emissions by over 93% from 2018 levels. Business travel emissions are down 63% from 2019. Currently, 41% of its suppliers (by spend) have committed to science-based climate targets.

Thomson Reuters uses carbon offsets for its remaining emissions and to stay carbon neutral. It also spends 7% of its U.S.-based budget with diverse suppliers and plans to maintain this level through 2024.

5. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Carbon Footprint Not Separately Reported

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Dow Jones & Company, which in turn is a subsidiary of News Corp.

There is no publicly available, standalone carbon footprint report specifically for WSJ as of 2025. Any emissions data or sustainability disclosures would be included under the broader corporate reporting of Dow Jones or News Corp, not as a separate WSJ-specific document.

News Corp aims to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. However, WSJ’s environmental impact is mainly from digital and print operations, but specific figures are not published.

Global Media Market to Hit $2.83 Trillion in 2025, Driven by Digital Shift

A study from The Business Research Company revealed that the global media market is set for strong growth in 2025, rising from $2,616.7 billion in 2024 to $2,833.22 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 8.3%.

  • This upward trend is expected to continue, reaching $3,814.84 billion by 2029 at a CAGR of 7.7%.

Growth is fueled by a rising global population, rapid tech advancement, media mergers, and increased mobile video consumption.

global media growth
Source: The Business Research Company

Meanwhile, Statista projects the global digital newspapers and magazines segment will generate $41.28 billion in 2025, growing to $44.54 billion by 2029 at a CAGR of 1.92%. The U.S. will lead with an expected $16.73 billion in revenue. Subscription-based models are gaining popularity as audiences seek premium content.

By 2025, trusted media outlets will go beyond reporting news. They will embrace digital transformation, fight misinformation, and work to lower their environmental impact. In an era defined by data and climate awareness, credibility and sustainability will define the media landscape.

The post Top 5 Media Outlets Leading the Low-Carbon Shift in 2025 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