Connect with us

Published

on

TotalEnergies

In Q1 2025, TotalEnergies earned $4.2 billion in adjusted net income and $7.0 billion in cash flow from operations. Revenue dropped to $47.89 billion from $51.88 billion a year earlier. However, the company held firm because of strong oil and gas output and steady LNG profits, and more interestingly, its carbon credits investment.

The report revealed that production rose 4% year-over-year, averaging 2.55–2.57 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. New output from Brazil, the U.S., Malaysia, Argentina, and Denmark helped drive this growth. Gas prices stayed high, partly balancing weaker oil prices.

TotalEnergies Revenue
Source: TotalEnergies

Power and LNG Boost TotalEnergies Amid Refining Woes

The LNG business posted $1.3 billion in adjusted net operating income. While LNG trading met expectations, gas trading struggled due to Europe’s volatile markets and geopolitical tensions.

Power operations also grew. The segment generated over $500 million in income and $600 million in cash flow. Key deals, like acquiring Germany’s VSB and investing in battery storage, supported this growth.

Still, downstream operations faced headwinds. Weak refining margins and issues at French and U.S. facilities cut into profits. Petrochemical and biofuel margins in Europe also declined, adding pressure.

Carbon Credit Spending Hits Record High

TotalEnergies spent $2 million on carbon credits in Q1 2025. That’s double what it spent in Q1 2024. This massive spending aims to cut emissions and reach its net-zero target by 2050.

Robust Backing for Nature-Based Projects

A significant segment of its investment supports nature-based solutions like forest protection, regenerative farming, and wetland conservation. By the end of last year, TotalEnergies had collected 13.7 million verified carbon credits. Each year, the company plans to invest $100 million in carbon projects.

  • Between 2025 and 2030, TotalEnergies will build a stock of 50 million carbon credits.
  • These projects can potentially deliver at least 5 million metric tons of CO₂e credits annually by 2030.
  • From 2030, the company will start using high-quality carbon credits to offset its remaining Scope 1 and 2 emissions.

The aim is to build a strong portfolio of trusted projects that support global rules and ensure the credits are real and long-lasting. Additionally, the company expects these projects to bring long-term environmental and social benefits.

  • It expects to reach 37 million verified credits by 2030 and 53 million by 2050. These projects could also generate $770 million for local communities.
methane emissions
Source: TotalEnergies

$100 M Deal with Anew Climate and Aurora Sustainable Lands

TotalEnergies signed a $100 million deal with Anew Climate and Aurora Sustainable Lands last year. The project protects 300,000 hectares of forests across 10 U.S. states—Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

This partnership supports sustainable forest management and boosts the forests’ ability to absorb carbon. It also helps local communities by improving land use and preventing environmental damage. The carbon credits generated help offset the company’s remaining emissions.

What Makes Total Energies the Top Net-Zero Player 

Last year, the LNG giant launched the “Our 5 Levers for Sustainable Change” initiative. The goal was to engage all employees in reducing emissions by boosting energy efficiency and adopting low-carbon technologies across its operations.

GHG Emissions Fell in 2024

The company cut emissions from operated sites by more than 36% in 2024 compared to 2015. Notably, over 200 emission-reduction projects helped slash 1.3 million tons of CO₂e.

However, recently the company raised its 2025 emissions goal to 37 Mt CO₂e per year. It aims to cut net Scope 1+2 emissions by 40% by 2030 (vs. 2015 levels). This also includes using 5 million carbon credits from nature-based projects, as explained before. Subsequently, these offsets will be used only for residual emissions from 2030 and consumed gradually at about 10% per year.

By end-2024, TotalEnergies had invested around $750 million in emissions reduction. These investments save 1.5 Mt CO₂e each year and cut energy costs by over $100 million annually.

scope emission TotalEnergies
Source: TotalEnergies

However, emissions from flexible power generation rose slightly. This happened due to the addition of combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) in the U.S. and U.K., which support TotalEnergies’ low-carbon electricity expansion.

Still, overall emissions dropped 25% from 2015 levels.

  • The carbon intensity of upstream oil and gas assets also fell from 21 kg CO₂e/boe in 2015 to 17 kg CO₂e/boe in 2024.

All these figures make TotalEnergies one of the top industry performers.

Scope 3 and Scope 4 Emissions

In 2024, TotalEnergies helped reduce global emissions by 65 million tonnes of CO₂e through LNG sales, as many customers replaced coal with gas for power generation. Although gas increases Scope 3 emissions, it enables cleaner energy and avoids more emissions overall. These are classified as Scope 4 emissions.

The company also avoided 18 million tonnes of CO₂e in 2024 and is aiming for 150 million tonnes of emissions by 2030. This makes 90 Mt from LNG and 60 Mt from renewables while keeping Scope 3 emissions below 400 Mt.

TotalEnergies emissions
Source: TotalEnergies

Methane Emissions Drop Drastically

Methane emissions dropped from 64 kt in 2020 to 29 kt in 2024—a 55% cut. TotalEnergies beat its 2025 target early and now aims for a 60% cut by 2025, and an 80% cut by 2030 compared to 2020.

TotalEnergies methane
Source: TotalEnergies

Digital Tools Boost Efficiency

The company is using digital tools to cut emissions smartly. In Exploration & Production, the ForCFR app links carbon forecasts with oil and gas output. In Angola, it helped cut 179 kt CO₂e annually by optimizing well operations.

Another example is: at the Normandy, Donges, and Feyzin refineries, the CarbOptim app tracks energy use in real-time and helps cut steam and energy waste.

2025 Carbon Intensity Reduction Target

TotalEnergies has raised its 2025 carbon intensity reduction target from 15% to 17%, aiming for a 25% emission cut by 2030. That means delivering the same energy with fewer emissions, or more energy with the same carbon footprint. Most of the progress will come from boosting clean electricity, cutting oil use, and growing gas and bioenergy.

Joins Google for Clean Energy

In January 2025, TotalEnergies teamed up with Google Europe to help power its Dutch data centers with 24/7 clean electricity by 2030. They’ll combine Google’s green power deals and add battery storage to handle renewables’ ups and downs. Similar deals are already in place with U.S. tech firms

Switch to Low-Carbon Power by 2025

TotalEnergies aims to power all its refining and chemical sites in Europe and the U.S. with 100% low-carbon electricity by 2025. This target will be achieved through initiatives like the Go Green project in Port Arthur, Texas.

  • Additionally, last year it achieved 26 GW of gross installed renewable electricity capacity, targeting 35 GW by 2025 and reaching 100 GW by 2030.

With this progress, TotalEnergies plans to become one of the top five global producers of renewable electricity (wind and solar), excluding Chinese companies.

Total Energies Electricity
Source: TotalEnergies

Latest Projects

In April 2024, TotalEnergies started the Marsa LNG project in Oman. The plant will run on power from a 300 MW solar farm and emit less than 3 kg CO₂ per barrel of oil equivalent.
Also, the company approved the GranMorgu oil project in Suriname.

This all-electric project will use advanced tech to cut emissions below 16 kg CO₂ per barrel of oil equivalent.

Additionally, it aims to:

  • Become a key producer of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), targeting 1.5 million tonnes annually by 2030.
  • In 2024, the company’s gross biomethane production capacity rose to 1.2 TWh per year

Hydrogen Plans Take Shape

This is part of its long-term plan to decarbonize its operations and energy products.

TotalEnergies is expanding its clean hydrogen portfolio with multiple projects across Europe. In France, it’s building biohydrogen units at La Mède and Grandpuits refineries with Air Liquide, targeting annual CO₂ cuts of 130,000 and 150,000 tonnes respectively.

In the Netherlands, a 250 MW offshore wind-powered electrolyser in Zeeland will supply 30,000 tonnes of green hydrogen from 2029, reducing refinery emissions by 300,000 tonnes yearly.

Furthermore, tolling agreements in Belgium and France will see Air Liquide operate electrolysers in Antwerp (130 MW) and Normandy (100 MW), each producing 15,000 tonnes of hydrogen annually and cutting 150,000 tonnes of CO₂ per site by 2027.

Despite market challenges, TotalEnergies continues to invest in clean energy and climate action. Its rising carbon credit purchases highlight how big energy players are using voluntary carbon markets to decarbonize. Thus, its role for a lower-carbon future is of utmost significance.

The post TotalEnergies Boosts Carbon Credit Investment as LNG, Renewables Drive Q1 Gains 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