In Cape Town, a carbon credit issuance from restored grasslands has quietly set a global precedent. The Grassland Restoration and Stewardship in South Africa (GRASS) project has issued 266,255 verified carbon units, becoming the first project worldwide to earn the Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) label under Verra’s updated VM0042 methodology.
Developed by carbon project specialist TASC, the initiative focuses on degraded grasslands managed largely by communal livestock farmers. These landscapes, often overlooked by investors, now sit at the centre of a high-integrity carbon model that could shape how future African projects are designed and judged.
South Africa’s Grasslands Face a Quiet Crisis
Grasslands cover vast areas of South Africa. Around 34 million hectares support livestock farming, forming one of the country’s most important rural economies. Yet decades of overgrazing, unmanaged fires, and weak institutional support have taken a heavy toll. Roughly a third of these grasslands are now severely degraded.
Climate change has intensified the pressure. Droughts are more frequent. Rainfall is less predictable. Soil health has declined. Productivity has suffered. Communal farmers, who collectively own about half of South Africa’s livestock, remain marginalised in formal markets. Despite their scale, they supply only around 9 percent of national meat output.
This gap reflects structural barriers rather than a lack of land or labour. Limited access to training, veterinary services, finance, and consistent routes to market has locked many farmers out of value chains. GRASS was designed to work within these realities, not around them.
How the GRASS Project Works
GRASS is built around improved grassland and livestock management. The project applies regenerative practices such as adaptive grazing, better fire management, and active monitoring of soil and vegetation. These changes help rebuild grass cover, increase soil carbon, and improve the resilience of rangelands.
The project operates as a group model. Multiple Project Activity Instances, or PAIs, can join under a single framework. The first PAI focuses on communal livestock farming systems, where land tenure is complex and collective decision-making is essential. More recently, TASC expanded the project to include private, commercial farmers.
Significantly, GRASS was the first project registered globally under Verra’s VM0042 methodology, which is specifically designed for improved agricultural land management. This methodology requires detailed soil carbon measurement and includes safeguards to prevent emissions leakage. It reflects the latest thinking on how to quantify carbon outcomes from land-use change credibly.
A Landmark VCU Issuance Under Stricter Rules
During its first monitoring period from 2021 to 2023, GRASS generated 266,255 verified carbon units across more than 95,000 hectares of communal rangeland. The area overlaps with nine key biodiversity zones, including parts of the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany hotspot.
What makes this issuance special is the CCB label. It confirms that the project delivers measurable climate benefits while also supporting communities and biodiversity. Under the updated VM0042 rules, GRASS is the first project to earn this combined certification.
For buyers, this matters. They want credits that are real, long-lasting, and socially responsible. GRASS meets these standards through strong monitoring and transparent governance.

Community Livelihoods at the Centre
During the first monitoring period, about 4,000 communal farmers joined GRASS and helped manage the land that generated the initial credits. Nearly 300 people also gained work in ecological monitoring, grazing support, and fire management, which matters in areas with few formal jobs.
Carbon revenues flow through a community trust, ensuring income reaches local communities instead of being captured by developers. While carbon payments alone are not transformative, they help cover the costs of improved land management.
Market access has driven much of the project’s early impact. Through a partnership with Meat Naturally Africa, farmers received training and gained access to mobile auctions and abattoirs. These linkages generated about ZAR56.4 million (roughly $3.35 million) in additional revenue from livestock and wool sales, helping households stabilize income amid rising climate risk.
Employment, Skills, and Local Resilience
As GRASS expanded, it created around 900 jobs across communal rangelands, with nearly one-third held by women. Roles include ecological rangers, grazing coordinators, and data collectors.
The project builds technical skills locally, offering training in fire management and invasive species control. This helps protect ecosystems and reduces the need for outside contractors.
GRASS also works through existing communal governance structures. By strengthening local decision-making and ensuring transparent benefit sharing, it lowers the risk of conflict—an issue that often affects land-based carbon projects in Africa.
TASC is Scaling Grassland Restoration Without Losing Integrity
Today, GRASS spans about 950,000 hectares of communal and private rangeland, placing it among the largest grassland restoration initiatives globally. The communal component alone covers more than 600,000 hectares and is expected to expand to one million hectares over time.
TASC plans to scale the project to two million hectares by 2030. At that level, GRASS could sequester or avoid nearly two million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year. Over its 100-year commitment period, the project targets the mitigation of around 14 million tonnes within its first 30 years.
These figures are modest compared to national emissions. However, they highlight the cumulative potential of land-use interventions when applied consistently and at scale. They also show that community-managed landscapes can meet some of the world’s most demanding carbon standards.
What This Means for African Carbon Markets
Many African countries see carbon markets as a source of climate finance. Yet progress has been uneven. Concerns over land rights, benefit sharing, and long-term stewardship have slowed investment. Some projects have promised more than they delivered, eroding trust.
The South African grasslands example offers a different path. It shows that community-led projects can achieve high-integrity certification while delivering measurable economic returns locally. It also demonstrates that rigorous methodologies and social safeguards need not limit scale.
As scrutiny of voluntary carbon markets intensifies, examples like GRASS may shape future expectations. Buyers, regulators, and communities alike are shifting their focus from promises to outcomes. Projects that cannot show real climate, social, and biodiversity benefits may struggle to find support.
In that context, GRASS stands out. Not as a silver bullet, but as proof that carbon finance, when designed carefully, can restore ecosystems, strengthen rural livelihoods, and deliver credible climate mitigation at the same time.
- READ MORE: Unlocking Zambia’s Carbon Market: Miombo Woodland Restoration to Remove 2M Tonnes of CO₂ Annually
The post Why South Africa’s Verra-Certified Grassland Carbon Credits Matter for Voluntary Markets appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
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.
![]()
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 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 Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

