Shell Nederland Raffinaderij B.V., a subsidiary of Shell, is pausing construction at its massive biofuel facility in Rotterdam. The 820,000tpa capacity site at Shell Energy and Chemicals Park will halt work temporarily to focus on other vital aspects of the company. So, what is the exact reason behind Shell’s massive decision? Will this impact its operations, global market value, and employees by large? Read and discover more…
Why did Shell take this Bold Decision?
Explaining straightway, Wael Sawan, CEO of Shell wants to prioritize the company’s most profitable ventures, particularly in oil and gas. This approach has resulted in the company pulling out of less profitable renewable and hydrogen projects. The outcome of this decision is the temporary halt of the Rotterdam biofuels project. Shell is also conducting a thorough valuation review of this unit. The 820,000t unit was also set to produce sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), apart from renewable diesel. According to media reports, they aimed to start operations in 2025, but now it has been postponed to the end of the decade.
Another key reason for ceasing the unit is to slow down activities and reduce contractor strength for better cost control. They believe this will help optimize and streamline project sequencing. With this new amendment, Shell aims to reevaluate project delivery and maintain competitiveness in the current economic scenario.
Huibert Vigevano, Shell’s downstream head confirmed that,
“Temporarily pausing on-site construction now will allow us to assess the most commercial way forward for the project. We are committed to our target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, with low-carbon fuels as a key part of Shell’s strategy.”
UBS analyst Joshua Stone remarked,
“The pause was consistent with Shell’s strategy to focus on returns. The delays further highlight that the advanced biofuels market is not an easy one. The oil majors have dipped their toes and found it challenging.”
Shell Canada Greenlights Major Carbon Emission Cut
As this news came as a shock to many, there is a silver lining for our news readers. Meanwhile, Shell Canada recently achieved the final investment decision (FID) for CCS projects, including the Polaris project and the Atlas Carbon Storage Hub, in partnership with ATCO EnPower. The media release notes that Polaris (100% Shell-owned) can reduce Scope 1 CO2 emissions at Shell’s Scotford refinery by capturing and storing up to 40% and by up to 22% at the chemicals complex. The operations are slated to begin by the end of 2028.
Moving on, Shell Eastern Trading has acquired Pavilion Energy from Carne Investments, gaining 100% control. This is another significant milestone that happened last month. Pavilion Energy, based in Singapore, operates a global LNG trading business with 6.5 mtpa of contracted supply, alongside shipping, and gas supply activities in Asia and Europe. This acquisition manifests Shell’s LNG portfolio. It also provides strategic access to key markets, increasing flexibility to meet energy security needs in Asia and Europe.
Even though it might seem uncanny for companies to halt projects in progress, Shell is not the first company to announce it. Energy giant BP recently announced a pause on two biofuel projects in Germany and the U.S.
Media agencies like the Financial Times have reported that Biofuel prices have been under downward pressure recently. This is because of reduced demand in Europe following Sweden’s biofuel mandate cut, alongside increased supplies from the U.S. However, Shell shares increased by 1.3% at 1106 GMT, showing a rise of over 12.5% this year.
Shell has a market cap or net worth of $235.01 billion. The enterprise value is $277.77 billion. As of the most recent data, Shell’s stock price in the last 5 days was $73.25 per share, as shown in the image below.

source: stockanalysis
NYSE: SHEL · IEX Real-Time Price · USD 73.25
How Shell Uses Carbon Credits to Shape the Future
Shell’s carbon credits play a crucial role in their goal to become a net-zero emissions energy business. These credits help Shell and its customers offset emissions, adhering to the mitigation hierarchy: avoid, reduce, and compensate. Notably, Shell selects projects certified by the Verified Carbon Standard, Gold Standard, and the American Carbon Registry. In the ESG sphere, the company helps generate carbon credits from nature-based projects and technologies. In 2023, Shell’s net carbon intensity (NCI) included 20 m carbon credits, with 4 m linked to energy product sales.
Shell’s Net-zero emissions by 2050 (Scope 1, 2, and 3), reported by Shell’s Energy Transition Strategy, 2024
Emissions from internal operations (Scope 1 and 2)
- Halve Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030 (2016 baseline).
- Eliminate routine flaring from Upstream operations by 2025.
- Maintain methane emissions intensity below 0.2% and achieve near-zero methane emissions by 2030.
Emissions from sold products (Scope 3):
- Reduce the net carbon intensity (NCI) of the energy products we sell by 9–12% by 2024, 9–13% by 2025, 15–20% by 2030, and 100% by 2050 (2016 baseline).
- Ambition to reduce customer emissions from the use of our oil products by 15–20% by 2030 (Scope 3, Category 11) (2021 baseline)
Global Market Insights reports that the European biofuel market size exceeded USD 26.5 B in 2023 and is likely to register a 6.7% CAGR from 2024 to 2032, owing to the rising concerns about climate change and demand for sustainable energy sources. The European government aims to boost renewable fuels to approximately 14% of transport energy by 2030, with substantial demand. With this prediction, we can hope the future of energy giants like Shell is promising, amid the biofuel boom.
The post Why Shell Hit the Brakes on New Rotterdam’s Biofuel Plant appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares
Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
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

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:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- 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.
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

