Connect with us

Published

on

Top Carbon Credit Companies to Watch in 2026

Carbon credits are becoming a major part of how the world fights climate change. A carbon credit represents the removal or reduction of one ton of carbon dioxide or equivalent greenhouse gas. Companies use these credits to meet emissions targets or to help reach climate goals.

By 2026, analysts predict that carbon markets will be growing quickly. More firms are integrating carbon credit strategies into their business models. Some generate credits directly. Others build markets or invest in credits. This article highlights the top public companies that stand out in the carbon credit space.

Carbon Credit Market: Key Facts and Stats

The global carbon credit market is already large, and it is expected to grow quickly in the coming years. In 2025, the total carbon credit market was estimated at around $887 billion.

By 2026, it is projected to reach about $1.22 trillion, driven by stricter rules and corporate demand for offsets. This growth reflects rising demand from companies and governments that want to meet climate targets and comply with emissions rules.

The market includes credits created for reducing emissions and credits created for removing carbon from the atmosphere. Markets fall into two main types: compliance markets and voluntary markets.

  • In compliance markets, companies buy credits to meet legal limits.
  • In voluntary markets, firms purchase credits to enhance their sustainability and climate goals, but are not required to do so.

Compliance markets currently account for most of the market’s size. Voluntary markets are much smaller, amounting to about ~$2 billion only. 

carbon credit market projection

Many countries have set up carbon pricing systems or cap‑and‑trade programs to limit greenhouse gases. Over 70 countries now use some form of carbon pricing or carbon trading, which helps drive demand and creates a large pool of buyers and sellers.

These statistics show that carbon credits are no longer a niche environmental tool. They have become a major global market linked to climate policy and corporate emission reduction strategies.

Here are the top carbon credit innovators to put on your radar this 2026 and even beyond.

Tesla: Leading Carbon Credit Revenue

Tesla is known for electric vehicles, but it is also a major player in carbon credit markets. The company earns money by selling regulatory carbon credits to other automakers. These credits help other companies comply with emissions rules in the U.S., Europe, and China.

In 2024, Tesla earned about $2.76 billion from carbon credit sales, up from $1.79 billion in 2023. This marked a 54 % increase in one year and showed strong demand for emissions credits from legacy automakers.

Since 2017, Tesla has earned more than $10.4 billion from selling carbon credits. That revenue stream is crucial for the company’s finances. It matters more as competition in the EV market grows and profit margins shrink.

Tesla annual carbon credit revenue in 2024

Tesla’s credits come from producing zero‑emission vehicles that exceed regulatory targets. Companies that cannot meet those targets buy the credits. This dynamic makes Tesla both a leader in EVs and an innovator in carbon compliance markets.

Carbon Streaming Corporation: A New Model for Credits

Carbon Streaming Corporation is a different kind of public company focused on future carbon credits. Rather than building carbon projects itself, it finances project developers around the world and receives rights to future carbon credits in return.

This model works like a royalty or streaming deal. Carbon Streaming pays upfront to help projects get built. In exchange, it receives credits over time. This gives investors exposure to carbon credits without the complexities of running a project.

Carbon Streaming is listed on Canadian and U.S. markets under tickers such as NETZ and OFSTF. As carbon markets grow, the model could expand. More credits might come from forest protection, clean energy, or carbon capture programs. These would then boost its balance sheet.

carbon streaming corporation portfolio projects
Source: Carbon Streaming Corporation

This approach means Carbon Streaming can benefit from rising carbon prices and volumes in compliance and voluntary markets. Investors looking for direct exposure to carbon credit supply may find its growth model interesting.

Intercontinental Exchange: Exchange Infrastructure for Carbon Markets

Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) is a financial markets company known for running major exchanges. ICE supports carbon markets by providing the infrastructure for trading carbon allowances and credits. This includes platforms for compliance markets like the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and other regional cap‑and‑trade programs.

Carbon credits and emissions allowances traded on ICE help companies meet regulated limits. By offering transparent pricing and reliable settlement, ICE reduces barriers for institutional participation. As carbon pricing systems expand globally, the need for strong trading infrastructure grows, too.

ICE is not a carbon credit producer. Instead, it is a market facilitator. Its platforms help buyers and sellers discover prices and exchange credits efficiently. This makes carbon markets more liquid and accessible for corporations and financial investors.

ICE carbon futures index
ICE Carbon Futures Index Family

For investors, ICE provides exposure to the growth of carbon markets without tying performance to any single project or credit type.

Xpansiv: Leading Carbon and Environmental Commodities Exchange

Xpansiv is a technology company that operates one of the world’s largest carbon credit exchanges for voluntary environmental commodities. Its platform, the Carbon Business Line (CBL), is used by companies trading voluntary carbon credits and other climate‑linked assets.

Xpansiv’s system has handled more than 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) transactions since 2020. In 2025, weekly trading volumes often exceeded 300,000 tons, with most credits coming from nature‑based projects like forestry and land restoration.

Xpansiv has also expanded its listings to include removal‑only credits and CORSIA‑compliant aviation credits. Its new partnership with the Korea Exchange (KRX) seeks to create a carbon credit trading market in Asia. This will connect KRX to Xpansiv’s global platform. This could increase liquidity and price discovery in new regions.

xpansiv benefits
Source: Xpansiv

Xpansiv offers investors a key role in carbon credits. It provides market infrastructure, which is important as trading volume and price visibility increase with rising demand.

Drax Group: From Power Generation to Carbon Removals

Drax Group plc is a British power generation company listed on the London Stock Exchange. In recent years, Drax has expanded into carbon removal projects, including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

Drax has a carbon removals deal. They will provide 25,000 metric tons of CO2 removals using BECCS credits. The price starts at $350 per ton. These credits represent permanent carbon storage rather than simple emissions reductions.

Drax’s core power business has used biomass fuel. Now, it is shifting focus to carbon removals. This change places Drax in markets where high-quality credits are in demand. As markets shift toward removal‑based credits, companies with validated removal projects may gain a strategic edge.

drax power beccs process
Source: Drax

Drax gives investors a chance to tap into energy generation and new carbon removal credits. This area could grow as climate goals become more ambitious.

Why These Carbon Credit Innovators Matter

These companies represent different parts of the carbon credit ecosystem:

  • Carbon revenue streams: Tesla shows how compliance markets can create meaningful income from emissions‑reducing products.
  • Credit financing models: Carbon Streaming provides a way to invest in future carbon credits via streaming agreements.
  • Market infrastructure: ICE and Xpansiv build the platforms that make carbon trading efficient and transparent.
  • Carbon removal exposure: Drax participates in projects that generate high‑quality removal credits, helping meet tougher climate targets.

Key Carbon Market Trends to Track in 2026 and Beyond

Carbon markets will likely keep growing. This is due to stricter regulations and tougher corporate climate goals

global carbon credit market size 2030

The chart above shows a steady and accelerating rise in the global carbon credit market from 2024 to 2030. Market size grows from just over $110 billion in 2024 to more than $520 billion by 2030, which signals strong and sustained demand.

The upward curve becomes steeper after 2026, suggesting faster growth as climate rules tighten and more countries expand carbon pricing systems. It also reflects rising corporate demand as companies use credits to meet emissions targets.

Overall, the chart supports the view that carbon credits are shifting from a supporting role to a core market tied closely to regulation, compliance, and long-term climate strategy.

Here are key trends that could shape carbon credit investing:

  • Expansion of compliance markets: More regions are adopting emissions trading systems and carbon pricing.
  • Quality of credits: High‑integrity removal credits are gaining attention from corporations and regulators.
  • Voluntary market growth: Companies with net‑zero pledges will continue purchasing credits, especially removal‑based ones.
  • Market access: Easier trading through exchanges and platforms will help investors participate.

Carbon credit markets are becoming part of corporate strategy and financial planning. The five companies reflect both business models and market mechanisms that matter for sustainability‑focused investors in 2026 and beyond.

The post Top Carbon Credit Companies to Watch in 2026 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