Connect with us

Published

on

BIOFUEL

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is investing $537 million in 543 biofuel projects across 29 states, as USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced. This funding comes from the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (HBIIP).

The investment includes projects approved in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. It also supports President Trump’s 20th Executive Order to boost American energy production and help farmers, ranchers, and small businesses in rural areas.

Powering America’s Energy Landscape with Biofuels

Biofuels are liquid fuels made from plant or animal materials, commonly called feedstocks. They can also include gases like methane (from landfills or biogas) and hydrogen (from renewable sources). While most biofuels power vehicles, they can also be used for heating and electricity. Many government programs support biofuel use because they come from renewable sources.

Different industries and laws use various names for biofuels—like ethanol, biodiesel, biojet, or sustainable aviation fuel.

The press release highlighted that Secretary Rollins announced the investment at an event at Elite Octane LLC. This company is in Atlantic, Iowa, which has the highest capacity of biofuel production in America. Iowa has 42 ethanol plants that produce more than 4.7 billion gallons each year and 10 biodiesel plants that generate 416 million gallons annually.

The funding will help gas stations upgrade their storage tanks and fuel pumps. This makes higher ethanol and biodiesel blends more available. Farmers, small businesses, and local economies benefit from this as it creates more demand for corn and soybeans.

Biofuel exports are also on the rise. USDA revealed that in 2024, the U.S. exported 585,324 metric tons of ethanol, bringing in $5.11 billion. The key buyers were Canada, South Korea, and the European Union. They all want cleaner fuels more than ever.

biofuel USA export
Source: USDA

What’s Inside the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (HBIIP)

The Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (HBIIP) was established at USDA Rural Development during President Trump’s first term. Under this program, gas stations can offer biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel more easily. It helps cover the cost of upgrading fuel pumps and storage tanks so more drivers can choose cleaner, homegrown fuel.

About 290 million cars on U.S. roads can use E15, a fuel blend with 15% ethanol. More than 22 million vehicles can run on E85, which has even more ethanol. Diesel vehicles can use B20, a blend with 20% biodiesel. Expanding access to these fuels helps drivers save money and reduces pollution.

Supporting Farmers and Rural Businesses

HBIIP creates more demand for crops like corn and soybeans, which are used to make biofuels. This investment will help American farmers and boost rural economies. It will also give easy access to cleaner and homegrown fuel to drivers.

Overall, as families gain more access to biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel, they end up paying less.

Secretary Rollins confirmed this by noting,

“President Trump is honoring our commitment to America’s farmers, ranchers and small businesses, especially here in Iowa where corn and soy growers are crucial to supporting ethanol and biodiesel production. Under the President’s leadership, we are moving away from the harmful effects of misguided climate policies like the Green New Deal. Instead, the USDA will deploy energy investments that prioritize the needs of our rural communities. Through HBIIP, we will expand access to domestic, homegrown fuels which will increase good paying jobs for hardworking Americans, restore rural prosperity and strengthen our nation’s energy security.”

Ethanol: The Emission Control Champion

Ethanol is the most common biofuel. It’s a renewable alcohol fuel made from crops like corn, sugarcane, or other plant materials. Microbes (like yeast) break down or ferment plant sugars, turning them into ethanol.

It’s often mixed with gasoline, like E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline), to reduce emissions and improve engine performance. Ethanol is also used in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing industries.

The Census Bureau of the U.S. revealed that ethanol exports for 2024 totaled 1.72 billion gallons just through November. It surpassed the previous annual record of 1.67 billion gallons set in 2018.

ethanol us export
Source: Renewable Fuels Association

Poet Biorefining is the largest ethanol producer in the United States. As of 2024, the South Dakota-based company had an ethanol production capacity of 2.7 billion gallons per annum across 33 plants in the Midwest.

  • A USDA study showed that greenhouse gas emissions from corn-based ethanol are about 39 percent lower than gasoline.

Thus, using more biofuels is a step toward a cleaner, energy-independent future.

US Biodiesel Exports Drop Sharply in 2024

Biodiesel is a clean-burning alternative to regular diesel, made from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled cooking grease. It’s non-toxic and breaks down naturally.

The most common blend is B20, which is 20% biodiesel and 80% regular diesel.

While most biodiesel fuels trucks and heavy machinery, a small amount is now used for heating and electricity. In 2023, about 95% of U.S. biodiesel went to transportation.

biodiesel consumption US

The US Census Bureau reported that biodiesel exports took a steep dive in 2024, falling 30% from the previous year’s record high. The US exported 176.8 million gallons in 2024, down from 254.5 million gallons in 2023. This was the lowest volume since 2020, when 142.8 million gallons were shipped.

Export volume of biodiesel from the United States from 2001 to 2023

US Biodiesel export
Source: Statista

Canada and Peru remained the top buyers, together accounting for over 99% of total US biodiesel exports in both years. However, exports to Canada dropped 33%, while volumes to Peru saw a modest 2.4% rise.

Fastmarkets noted that some exporters pointed to stricter Canadian rules as a key reason for the drop. This means that new traceability and harvest attestation requirements under Canada’s CFR likely slowed shipments starting in September.

Others suggested that growing renewable diesel imports may have reduced Canada’s need for biodiesel. Unlike biodiesel, renewable diesel performs well in cold weather.

Renewable Diesel Reshaping U.S. Fuel Market

Regular gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel are made from hydrocarbons (hydrogen + carbon molecules). But renewable variants are made from feedstocks such as vegetable oils, animal fats, or used cooking oil. The raw materials for biodiesel and renewable diesel are the same. Renewable hydrocarbon fuels are also called Drop-in” Fuels.

There has been a significant rise in the U.S. to import more fats and oils because of the strong demand for renewable hydrocarbon fuels.

The renewable versions are nearly identical to petroleum diesel and, therefore, are compatible with existing engines and pipelines. This makes them an easy switch from fossil fuels. However, the cost of renewable diesel is higher than traditional petroleum.

From the chart, we can see that last year, the renewable diesel capacity of the U.S. was around 5.5 billion gallons per year. USDA also forecasts the capacity to hit ~ 6.5 billion gallons per year by 2025.

renewable diesel U.S. biofuel
Source: USDA

California Drives Real Growth

California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) played a major role in renewable diesel’s growth. It gives carbon credits to fuel producers who cut emissions. Since the state maxed out ethanol and biodiesel blending, blenders switched to renewable diesel, as it has no blending limit.

This policy gave investors confidence. They invested in new projects, knowing the demand would last. Notably, because of LCFS, renewable diesel is now a key player in America’s clean fuel market.

california renewable diesel consumption
Source: USDA

Two major federal programs support the growth of renewable diesel:

  • Blender’s Tax Credit cuts production costs by giving tax breaks to companies that blend renewable diesel with petroleum diesel.

  • Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires biofuels—like ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable diesel—to be part of the national fuel supply.

Oil and Biofuel Groups Debate Higher Blending Mandates

Reuters reported that oil and biofuel companies met with the EPA, pushing for higher biomass diesel blending mandates. This could signal upcoming changes to U.S. biofuel policies.

The coalition wants to raise biomass diesel mandates to 5.5–5.75 billion gallons, up from 3.35 billion, and keep the ethanol mandate at 15 billion gallons. However, smaller refiners argue these increases could hurt jobs and raise fuel prices.

Fuel retailers and truck stop operators skipped the talks, demanding the return of the blenders tax credit, which they say helped keep fuel costs down. Without it, they warn that higher mandates could lead to price hikes (diesel prices by 30¢/USG) and political backlash.

The EPA has not commented on the issue yet.

Overall, biofuels offer cleaner alternatives to traditional fuels, helping reduce pollution while keeping cars, trucks, and planes running smoothly. Amid all resistance and higher costs, it could be a key factor in America’s energy transition.

The post US Biofuels Get Big Boost: USDA Invests $537M to Power America’s Clean Energy Future 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