ReportWire

Tag: Carbon emissions

  • Earth’s Largest Land-Based Carbon Sink Has Sprung a Disturbing Leak

    [ad_1]

    ​​Often called the “lungs of Africa,” the Congo Basin is the world’s largest land-based carbon sink. For thousands of years, its swamps and peatlands have played a key role in regulating the global climate by soaking up vast amounts of carbon, but now, a troubling shift may be underway.

    A study published Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience found that two lakes within the Basin—Lac Mai Ndombe and its smaller neighbor, Lac Tumba—are releasing carbon in the form of planet-warming carbon dioxide (CO2). While some of the CO2 comes from recently produced plant matter, up to 40% stems from the Basin’s ancient peat.

    The swamps and peatlands of the Congo Basin only cover 0.3% of Earth’s land surface, but they hold 30 billion metric tons of carbon—one-third of the amount stored across all tropical peatlands. Scientists have long assumed that this carbon would remain locked inside the peat for millennia, but these new findings suggest otherwise.

    “As for what this means for the peat’s stability, that is the 30-billion-tonne question!” lead author Travis Drake, a carbon biogeochemist at ETH Zürich, told Gizmodo in an email. “It is entirely possible that this is a natural, balanced cycle: The vast peatlands slowly release carbon from below while sequestering a comparable amount from above, resulting in no net loss,” Drake explained. “However, the more alarming possibility is that climate or land-use changes are actively destabilizing the system, causing it to lose its stored carbon.”

    150 gigatons of ancient carbon each year

    The role that the Congo Basin’s peatlands play in regulating the global carbon cycle, and thus the climate, is poorly understood. That’s largely because the central part of the Basin is difficult for researchers to access due to a lack of road infrastructure. To overcome this, Drake and his colleagues used the natural waterways as their highway.

    Traveling aboard a large ship that served as both their living quarters and a floating laboratory, they navigated the Fimi River—a large tributary of the Kasaï—to reach the southern point of Lake Mai Ndombe.

    Both Mai Ndombe and Tumba are large, shallow blackwater lakes surrounded by swamp forests with thick peat deposits underneath. “Blackwater” is a colloquial term for a river or lake with a high concentration of dissolved organic matter, which gives the water a deep brown color resembling strong tea, Drake explained. The subsurface peat layer has accumulated over thousands of years as plant material has sunk to the wetland floor and partially decomposed.

    The researchers collected and analyzed water samples from both lakes, finding that 39% of the carbon in Lake Mai Ndombe and 40% in Lake Tumba comes from peat. This suggests that the breakdown of long-stored peat is a significant source of CO2 emissions from these lakes. The researchers estimate that Lake Mai Ndombe alone may be releasing more than 150 gigatons of ancient carbon into the atmosphere each year.

    A potential climate feedback loop

    How this carbon is escaping from the peatlands remains unclear, but Drake’s team believes it could be related to microbial activity deep within this organic layer.

    As microbes feed on the stored carbon, they convert it into methane through a process called methanogenesis. The researchers suspect that this subsurface methane then travels up through deep soil flowpaths into the lake, where it reacts with oxygen to produce CO2.

    “While we have found isotopic evidence in the lake supporting this, we still need to investigate the internal peat dynamics to confirm the full pathway,” Drake said.

    It’s possible that climate change is also playing a role in mobilizing carbon from the peat. As rising global temperatures drive more frequent and prolonged droughts, this could cause the peatlands to partially dry out, exposing them to more oxygen and promoting rapid decomposition, Drake explained.

    “There is actually paleoenvironmental evidence from regional peat cores showing that a similar climate-driven destabilization event has happened in the past, leading to massive losses of organic carbon,” he said.

    If human-driven warming has led to a similar event today, a feedback loop may be taking shape. “Naturally, the CO2 released from such an event today would exacerbate climate change, though still to a lesser degree than the anthropogenic emissions currently driving the rapid buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere,” Drake explained.

    He and his colleagues worry that rising temperatures and land use change could transform the Congo Basin’s blackwater lakes into sources of greenhouse gases, but how close they are to reaching this potential tipping point remains unclear. Their next project, which will investigate the mechanisms behind their findings and how these carbon emissions have evolved over the past 12,000 years, could offer some insight.

    “Ultimately, our goal is to better constrain the carbon budget of these peatlands, establishing a baseline to assess future changes and determine their current stability,” Drake said.

    [ad_2]

    Ellyn Lapointe

    Source link

  • 35 million tons of food go to waste yearly in the US. Experts share tips to help stop it

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — Millions of tons of food are wasted each year in the United States alone.

    About 35 million tons, to be specific, according to the latest ReFED report. Some 31% of food that is grown and produced goes unsold or uneaten in the US, estimates ReFED, a nonprofit organization focused on reducing food waste.

    Half of all the food waste comes from consumers. “That’s either groceries — the strawberries that spoil in your fridge — or the meal you ordered at the restaurant and only hate half of or didn’t eat the leftovers when you brought them home,” said Sara Burnett, executive director of ReFED.

    That waste wreaks havoc on our planet, she said, noting that 35 million tons of food waste “is equivalent to the greenhouse gas emission of 154 million metric tons of carbon, which is about the same as driving 36 million passenger cars for a year, and it consumes 9 trillion gallons of water, which is about 13 million Olympic-sized pools.”

    On Thanksgiving alone, ReFED estimated that 320 million pounds of food— $550 million worth— will be thrown away in a single day.

    The amount of waste is not decreasing even as inflation and food prices rise, according to Burnett, and the cost of being wasteful goes up.

    We owe it to our wallets and to the planet to do our darndest to reduce any possible waste. Luckily, there are plenty of ways to preserve fresh ingredients for long-term consumption — by drying, freezing, canning, pickling, baking and repurposing them.

    “When I was first learning to cook, if a recipe told me to cut off and discard a kale stem, I did it. I didn’t know it was edible, and I didn’t know about the impacts of wasting food,” said Lindsay-Jean Hard, a writer for gourmet food business group Zingerman’s and author of “Cooking With Scraps: Turn Your Peels, Cores, Rinds, and Stems Into Delicious Meals.”

    “Education is a huge piece: questioning our assumptions, educating ourselves, and then sharing that knowledge with others so we can all do a little better,” she noted.

    Here are some useful ways to stop wasting food.

    Have a food plan

    Chef Michele Casadei Massari suggested implementing simple systems at home that work for you such as an “opportunity box” in the fridge, containing “trimmed, labeled bits ready to become soup, salad, or frittata.”

    “Buy less but more often, store correctly, pre-portion, and give every item a ‘next-life plan’ the day it arrives,” Massari, CEO and executive chef of Lucciola Italian Restaurant in Manhattan, said via email.

    Hard takes those scraps and tucks them into frittatas and stratas.

    “Both are great back-pocket recipes, (which means) they’re easy to pull together… and can handle all sorts of odds and ends.”

    Food scraps can be tucked into savory dishes such as this spinach mushroom frittata. Credit: tvirbickis/iStockphoto / Getty Images via CNN Newsource

    Her advice for diving deeper into zero-waste cooking is to pick one or two ingredients you are not used to using, maybe stale bread or root vegetable greens, and start incorporating them in your cooking — then add more as you go. (Remember bits of bread can be frozen for other recipes, and vegetables can be pickled or frozen for stock.)

    “Many home cooks are already really thoughtful about food utilization, whether from necessity, growing up around it, or being taught. Others of us might not be yet,” she said. But we can get there.

    Don’t rinse your jars

    Claire Dinhut, a content creator and author of “The Condiment Book: Unlocking Maximum Flavor With Minimal Effort,” is a big proponent of using every last bit of flavor in any jarred or bottled product you have on hand. She demonstrates this strategy in her “never rinse a jar” videos that she posts on social media.

    A nearly used up jar of Dijon mustard or mayonnaise is the perfect opportunity to make a salad dressing, she shows in the videos, and an almost empty jam jar can become the perfect vessel for a yogurt bowl, a chia seed pudding and much more.

    “My favorite thing that I’ve been doing this summer is — you know, I’ve always loved matcha, but I didn’t realize that I liked different flavored ones,” Dinhut said. “So now, anytime I’m done with a jar of jam or jelly, I always put milk in it the night before, then the next morning, I already have a nice, flavored milk.”

    Don’t peel those carrots

    It’s important to question any recipe and our ideas around the usable parts of each ingredient. Who says you need to peel potatoes or carrots?

    “Having a sense of curiosity and questioning your habits — do you really need to peel that carrot? — is a helpful frame of mind to go into it with,” Hard said.

    Scraps can even act as flavor enhancers of their own, as in the case of a banana bread recipe from Zingerman’s Bakehouse, an artisanal bakery in Ann Arbor, Michigan, that uses the whole banana, peel included, Hard said.

    “Not only does it reduce food waste, including the peel gives the bread a stronger banana flavor, but it’s a great example of something that truly does taste better made with ‘scraps,’” she added.

    You can find the Oh So A-peel-ing Banana Bread recipe in “Celebrate Every Day,” a Zingerman’s cookbook that Hard coauthored. A version of the recipe is also available here.

    [ad_2]

    CNN

    Source link

  • Congrats, Humanity: We’re on Track for Record CO2 Emissions—Again

    [ad_1]

    With the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 30) underway this week, researchers have shared a first look at this year’s carbon emissions data. The findings show that global emissions from fossil fuels are on track to hit a record high in 2025.

    The Global Carbon Budget report, produced by an international team of more than 130 scientists and published on Wednesday, predicts roughly 42 billion tons (38 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels this year. That’s a 1.1% increase from 2024.

    Based on this and other factors, limiting global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels—the threshold set by the Paris Agreement in 2015—will be virtually impossible, the authors conclude. To stabilize the current warming trend, we don’t just need to cut our emissions, we need to bring them down to zero.

    In times like these, it’s easy to despair. But the report’s lead author, Pierre Friedlingstein—a University of Exeter professor specializing in global carbon cycle modeling and director of the Global Carbon Budget Office—says the findings should galvanize the world to act now to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

    “There is no alternative,” Friedlingstein told Gizmodo. “We have to remain hopeful because we have to tackle the climate change issue.”

    Finding the good amid the bad

    Believe it or not, the report isn’t all bad news. While the data suggests that fossil fuel emissions have risen, total global carbon emissions—a combination of emissions from fossil fuels and land use—are projected to be slightly lower than last year.

    “There are certainly signs in [the report] that emissions are really starting to slow down their increase or change direction,” said Piers Forster, a professor of physical climate change and founding director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds, who was not involved in the study.

    Speaking with Gizmodo from COP 30 in Belém, Brazil, Forster pointed to China’s leadership in electrification and renewable energy as a sign that we may be reaching a turning point not just in terms of emissions, but also in the availability of climate solutions.

    Though China remains the world’s biggest CO2 emitter, the report finds that its emissions growth has slowed thanks to moderate growth in energy consumption combined with extraordinary growth in renewables. Indeed, China has emerged as a key leader at COP 30 this year, especially in the absence of the world’s second-biggest CO2 emitter: the U.S.

    The report also highlights a projected decline in emissions from land-use change—most notably deforestation. This was what tipped the scales on total global carbon emissions this year, slightly offsetting the rise in fossil fuel emissions.

    “The deforestation rate is declining in South America, but also in other parts of the world,” Friedlingstein said. “And reforestation is also slowly increasing.” That said, emissions from deforestation and land-use change are still far from zero, he clarified.

    Keeping the faith

    The report’s findings come with several caveats. First and foremost, looking at the global carbon budget report for a single year is not a good indication of long-term progress—or lack thereof—toward climate goals, Friedlingstein notes. Still, these reports are crucial for keeping the international community on track and informing year-to-year decisions on emission reduction strategies and targets.

    It’s also worth noting that the report only looks at CO2 emissions—it does not account for other greenhouse gases such as methane. And for all the progress China has made toward decarbonizing its economy and the reductions we’re seeing in deforestation, the world is still nowhere close to achieving net-zero emissions.

    “We’ve still got heaps to go,” Forster said. “I mean, we’ve got greenhouse gas emissions at an all-time high. We’ve got a tiny remaining carbon budget to [avoid] 1.5℃. So we have this huge sense of urgency, we have to get our emissions back down.”

    One of the most alarming findings from the report is that 8% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1960 is due to climate change itself. Rising global temperatures have reduced the efficiency of land and ocean carbon sinks, essentially weakening Earth’s ability to counteract humanity’s growing emissions. A companion paper published in Nature discusses this finding in greater detail.

    In spite of these circumstances, both Friedlingstein and Forster emphasize that hope is key to progress, and progress is our only hope. “There is no plan B,” Friedlingstein said. “Adapting and not doing anything in terms of mitigation is not an option.”

    Though Forster said he is not optimistic based on what the current research shows, he finds hope at the UN climate negotiations. “Cooperation between countries is so important,” he said. “I think there are still actors in every country who do see the threat of climate change and want to make a difference.”

    [ad_2]

    Ellyn Lapointe

    Source link

  • EVs beat gas after two years, study finds

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Electric vehicles are proving their worth when it comes to long-term emissions. While building an EV creates more pollution upfront because battery production demands more energy, the balance changes fast once the car is on the road. After about two years of normal driving, an electric car overtakes a gas-powered one in total CO2 savings and keeps widening the gap over time.

    A peer-reviewed study published in PLOS Climate supports this finding. Researchers Pankaj Sadavarte, Drew Shindell, and Daniel Loughlin conducted the analysis titled, “Comparing the climate and air pollution footprints of Lithium-ion BEVs and ICEs in the U.S. incorporating systemic energy system responses.” Their work examined how manufacturing, fuel production and vehicle operation affect both climate and air quality over a vehicle’s lifetime.

    POWER ON THE MOVE: IS PILOT PROGRAM THE FUTURE OF EV CHARGING?

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
    Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

    New research from PLOS Climate shows electric cars surpass gas vehicles in total CO2 savings after just two years on the road. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)

    How the study shows EVs overtake gas cars in emissions

    Using the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), the study simulated how U.S. transportation and energy systems interact through 2050 under different rates of EV adoption. The results show that while manufacturing EVs releases about 30% more CO2 than producing gas cars, that gap closes quickly once you drive. By the end of year two, EVs emit less carbon overall, and the advantage widens over time as the power grid shifts toward cleaner energy sources.

    Each additional kilowatt-hour of battery capacity is projected to eliminate roughly 485 pounds of CO2 by 2030 and about 280 pounds by 2050. That reflects continued progress in electricity generation and efficiency gains across the EV industry. Over an estimated 18-year lifespan, gas-powered vehicles produce two to three and a half times more pollution-related damage than electric ones. Those damages include the social and economic costs of climate change and health issues linked to air pollution.

    An electric car charges up.

    While building EV batteries creates more emissions upfront, cleaner power grids and zero tailpipe output help electric vehicles pull ahead over time. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)

    How the GCAM model works

    The GCAM model links global energy use, economic activity, and emissions across multiple sectors. In this analysis, researchers measured not only tailpipe emissions but also the upstream effects from mining, refining, and fuel processing. They also factored in how growing EV adoption changes the energy mix. As electricity demand rises, cleaner energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear expand their share, while coal steadily declines.

    By 2050, electricity generation from gas, wind and solar grows while coal falls below 6% of the total mix. This cleaner grid makes charging electric cars progressively less carbon-intensive, strengthening the case for a large-scale EV transition.

    The digital dashboard of an electric vehicle

    The study found lifetime health and climate damages from gas cars can be up to 3.5 times higher than from EVs, underscoring the long-term benefits of going electric. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)

    How EVs impact you and the environment

    If you keep a car for more than two years, switching to an EV can meaningfully reduce your carbon footprint. The study found that EVs start paying back their manufacturing emissions faster in regions with renewable-heavy grids. In states still dependent on coal, the break-even point arrives later but still occurs well before a car’s third birthday. The cleaner your local power mix, the faster your EV moves into net-positive territory.

    INHALERS PRODUCE CARBON EMISSIONS EQUAL TO 530,000 CARS ON ROAD ANNUALLY, STUDY FINDS

    The findings also highlight public health benefits. Gas vehicles emit more nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, both of which contribute to respiratory illnesses and smog. As EVs replace traditional engines, these pollutants drop, improving air quality and reducing healthcare costs.

    Context and limitations

    The authors acknowledge that their analysis does not include emissions from recycling or disposing of vehicle parts at the end of life. Nor does it count emissions from building charging networks or new power infrastructure. Despite those exclusions, the study provides one of the most comprehensive long-term looks at how EV adoption affects both the economy and the environment.

    Because the study uses projections through 2050, results depend on future technology and energy trends. Even so, the consistent pattern across all scenarios is that EVs deliver large reductions in CO2 and air pollutants once on the road.

    What this means for you

    If you drive often and plan to own your car for several years, the data shows an EV can save both emissions and money over time. Charging on a renewable or low-carbon plan speeds the payoff even more. Choosing a vehicle that matches your driving needs helps minimize unnecessary battery production and further reduces your footprint.

    For communities, broader EV adoption means cleaner local air, fewer health-related costs and lower long-term damage from climate change.

    Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?

    Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    Kurt’s key takeaways

    This PLOS Climate study reinforces that after the first two years, EVs deliver real and lasting climate benefits. As the U.S. grid shifts toward cleaner energy, its impact grows even stronger. The authors note that the analysis does not include emissions from recycling or charging infrastructure, yet it remains one of the most thorough long-term views of EV adoption and its effects on the economy and environment.

    Would a cleaner grid in your state make you more likely to trade in your gas car for an EV? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
    Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

    Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.

    Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on “FOX & Friends.” Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Car Free Day Long Island promotes greener travel | Long Island Business News

    [ad_1]

    THE BLUEPRINT:

    • LI encourages alternatives to driving on Sept. 22

    • Long Islanders urged to walk, bike, or take transit

    • Local leaders join sustainability push

    • Efforts support cleaner air, safer streets and more

    Car Free Day LI is Monday, and advocates hope people in Nassau and Suffolk counties will drive less, and rely instead on mass transit, bicycling, , vanpooling and working from home.

    More than 2.8 million people live in Nassau and Suffolk, and if community members replaced one car trip on Monday alone, the results would be felt right away, according to Transit Solutions, a federally funded Metropolitan Transportation Authority program.

    “For twenty years, Transit Solutions has shown what’s possible when works together,” Mindy Germain, Car Free Day LI co-chair, said in a news release about the program.

    “Every rider, every partner and every small behavior change adds up to cleaner air, safer streets and stronger communities,” she said. “Today, we’re inviting every Long Islander to make one simple swap – and be part of the next 20 years of progress.”

    Going car-free for a day on Long Island can be challenging, but Transit Solutions highlights several initiatives aimed at making it easier, helping to reduce the region’s carbon footprint and air pollution while also improving overall transportation options.

    This includes transit investments by the Long Island Rail Road, NICE Bus and Transit, all aimed at helping people reach jobs, schools, medical appointments, run errands, and more.

    College campuses, including Farmingdale State College and Adelphi University, aim to reduce car dependency and educate students about through Transit Solutions’ Transit Ambassador Program. There is also a youth ambassador program for younger Long Islanders.

    Northwell is working with Transit Solutions to achieve the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050 through pre-tax transit benefits and bike co-op initiatives.

    The City of Glen Cove is working with Transit Solutions to make walkability, accessibility and age-friendly mobility a priority.

    Additional supporters include Vision Long Island and Friends of LI Greenway, which promote trails, and walkable main streets. And ICF Statewide Mobility Program is advancing new approaches that include its Bike Borrow program.

     


    [ad_2]

    Adina Genn

    Source link

  • Big Businesses Are Doing Carbon Dioxide Removal All Wrong

    [ad_1]

    Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and H&M are currently investing in durable CDR. A spokesperson for H&M described the fast-fashion company’s purchase of 10,000 metric tons of durable CDR from the Swiss company Climeworks, one of the largest purchases to date, and said H&M plans to use them to neutralize residual emissions. The tech companies affirmed their commitment to reduce emissions first and then use carbon removal to offset residual emissions, though none of them addressed NewClimate Institute’s concerns that they would use large amounts of durable and nondurable CDR to claim progress toward net-zero.

    A statement provided to Grist from TotalEnergies did not address CDR. It instead described the company’s support for carbon capture and storage and “nature-based solutions.” The latter refers to short-lived offsets, such as tree-planting, that the NewClimate Institute does not believe are appropriate for offsetting fossil fuel emissions.

    Apple, Duke Energy, and Shein declined to comment after seeing the report. The remaining 24 companies did not respond to inquiries from Grist.

    Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan and the dean of its School for Environment and Sustainability, said the NewClimate Institute report is timely. “Right now the whole idea of CDR … is kind of a Wild West scene, with lots of actors promising to do things that may or may not be possible,” he said. He added that companies appear to be using CDR as an alternative to mitigating their climate pollution.

    “The priority has to be on reducing emissions, not on durable CDR at this point,” he told Grist.

    In the near term, durable CDR is doing virtually nothing to offset emissions. As of 2023, only 0.0023 gigatons of CO2 were removed from the atmosphere each year using these methods. That’s about 15,000 times less than the annual amount of climate pollution from fossil fuels and cement manufacturing.

    According to the NewClimate Institute, voluntary initiatives are no substitute for government-mandated emissions reduction targets and investments in durable CDR. To the extent that these initiatives exist, however, the organization says they should provide a clearer definition of what constitutes “durable” carbon removal; determine companies’ responsibility for scaling up durable CDR based on their ongoing and historical emissions, or—perhaps more realistically—on their ability to pay; and require companies to set separate targets for emissions reductions and support for durable CDR. The last recommendation is intended to reinforce a climate action hierarchy that puts mitigation before offsetting. Companies should not “hide inaction on decarbonization behind investments in removals,” as the report puts it.

    Mooldijk said voluntary initiatives can incentivize investments in durable CDR by recognizing “climate contributions.” These might manifest as simple statements about companies’ monetary contributions to durable CDR, instead of claims about the amount of CO2 that they have theoretically neutralized.

    Some of these recommendations were submitted earlier this year to the Science-Based Targets initiative, the world’s most respected verifier of private sector climate targets. The organization is getting ready to update its corporate net-zero standard with new guidance on the use of CDR. Another standard-setter, the International Organization for Standardization, is similarly preparing to release new standards on net-zero, which could curtail some of the most questionable corporate climate claims while also drumming up support for durable CDR.

    John Reilly, a senior lecturer emeritus at the MIT Sloan School of Management, said that ultimately, proper regulation of corporate climate commitments—including of durable CDR—will fall on governments. Companies “are happy to throw a little money into these things,” he said, “but I don’t think voluntary guidelines are ever going to get you there.”

    [ad_2]

    Joseph Winters

    Source link

  • Study Directly Links Emissions from Fossil Fuel Producers to Devastating Heatwaves

    [ad_1]

    A new study directly links hundreds of major heatwaves since 2000 to the emissions from fossil fuel and cement producers. Among its fundings, the researchers conclude that as many as a quarter of all heatwaves since the start of this century would have been “virtually impossible” without emissions from any of the world’s 14 largest fossil fuel and cement producers.

    The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, shows that greenhouse gas emissions from 180 of the world’s biggest cement, oil, and gas producers have significantly contributed to climate change over the last two decades.

    They linked the emissions to 213 heatwaves, finding the pollution made the extreme heat more likely and intense. Of those 213 events, 53 were made 10,000 times more likely as a result of the emissions, according to the researchers.

    The fight for climate accountability

    The findings could bolster legal efforts to hold the world’s biggest polluters responsible for the consequences of their emissions, experts said. In July, the International Court of Justice ruled that states that fail to prevent climate harm may have to pay compensation, and in May, a German high court ruled that major emitters can be held liable for climate impacts. And some U.S. states have passed similar laws.

    Still, despite dozens of lawsuits filed since 2004, no court has penalized emitters for causing climate change, researchers wrote in an accompanying viewpoint.

    “I cannot as a scientist assign legal responsibilities for these events,” lead author Yann Quilcaille, a climate researcher at the Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland, told Nature. “What I can say is that each one of these carbon majors is contributing to heatwaves, making them more intense and also making them more likely.”

    Trying to attribute human-caused climate change

    This study is an example of attribution science, which specifically aims to quantify how human-caused global warming shapes specific extreme weather events, including heatwaves. Evidence suggests that climate change will increase both the frequency and intensity of future heatwaves, but attribution science aims to tell scientists whether climate change worsened a particular heatwave that has already occurred.

    Backed by decades of research and endorsed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), attribution science a powerful methodology, but it comes with clear limitations. Attribution science can’t tell us whether climate change “caused” an extreme weather event, but it can indicate how much more likely or severe it was in a world with climate change compared to a world without.

    180 ‘carbon majors’ produce half of all global emissions

    Quilcaille and his colleagues assessed the historical greenhouse gas emissions from 180 “carbon majors,” a group that includes fossil fuel companies, state-owned entities, and fossil fuel and cement emissions produced by nation states.

    In all, these sources were responsible for nearly 57% of historical global emissions between 1850 and 2023, the analysis revealed.

    The researchers then used climate models to compare global temperature trends in a world with greenhouse gas emissions to temperatures in a world without those emissions. Then, they estimated the impact of human-driven global warming on 213 heatwaves recorded between 2000 and 2023, finding direct links to top emitters and these extreme weather events.

    “For a while, it was argued that any individual contributor to climate change was making too small or too diffuse a contribution to ever be linked to any particular impact. And this emerging science, both this paper and others, is showing that that’s not true,” Chris Callahan, a climate scientist at Indiana University who was not involved in the study, told The Associated Press.

    [ad_2]

    Ellyn Lapointe

    Source link

  • Austin-based company fined for flaring that led to 7.6 million pounds of excess gases known to cause respiratory issues

    Austin-based company fined for flaring that led to 7.6 million pounds of excess gases known to cause respiratory issues

    [ad_1]

    New Mexico has reached a record settlement with a Texas-based company over air pollution violations at natural gas gathering sites in the Permian Basin.

    The $24.5 million agreement with Ameredev announced Monday is the largest settlement the state Environment Department has ever reached for a civil oil and gas violation. It stems from the flaring of billions of cubic feet of natural gas that the company had extracted over an 18-month period but wasn’t able to transport to downstream processors.

    Environment Secretary James Kenney said in an interview that the flared gas would have been enough to have supplied nearly 17,000 homes for a year.

    “It’s completely the opposite of the way it’s supposed to work,” Kenney said. “Had they not wasted New Mexico’s resources, they could have put that gas to use.”

    The flaring, or burning off of the gas, resulted in more than 7.6 million pounds of excess emissions that included hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and other gases that state regulators said are known to cause respiratory issues and contribute to climate change.

    Ameredev in a statement issued Monday said it was pleased to have solved what is described as a “legacy issue” and that the state’s Air Quality Bureau was unaware of any ongoing compliance problems at the company’s facilities.

    “This is an issue we take very seriously,” the company stated. “Over the last four years, Ameredev has not experienced any flaring-related excess emissions events thanks to our significant — and ongoing — investments in various advanced technologies and operational enhancements.”

    While operators can vent or flare natural gas during emergencies or equipment failures, New Mexico in 2021 adopted rules to prohibit routine venting and flaring and set a 2026 deadline for the companies to capture 98% of their gas. The rules also require the regular tracking and reporting of emissions.

    Ameredev said it was capturing more than 98% of its gas when the new venting and flaring rules were adopted, and the annual capture rate has been above 98% ever since.

    A study published in March in the journal Nature calculated that American oil and natural gas wells, pipelines and compressors were spewing more greenhouse gases than the government thought, causing $9.3 billion in yearly climate damage. The authors said it is a fixable problem, as about half of the emissions come from just 1% of oil and gas sites.

    Under the settlement, Ameredev agreed to do an independent audit of its operations in New Mexico to ensure compliance with emission requirements. It must also submit monthly reports on actual emission rates and propose a plan for weekly inspections for a two-year period or install leak and repair monitoring equipment.

    Kenney said it was a citizen complaint that first alerted state regulators to Ameredev’s flaring.

    The Environment Department currently is investigating numerous other potential pollution violations around the basin, and Kenney said it was likely more penalties could result.

    “With a 50% average compliance rate with the air quality regulations by the oil and gas industry,” he said, “we have an obligation to continue to go and ensure compliance and hold polluters accountable.”

    [ad_2]

    Susan Montoya Bryan, The Associated Press

    Source link

  • The Paradox That’s Supercharging Climate Change

    The Paradox That’s Supercharging Climate Change

    [ad_1]

    No good deed goes unpunished—and that includes trying to slow climate change. By cutting greenhouse gas emissions, humanity will spew out fewer planet-cooling aerosols—small particles of pollution that act like tiny umbrellas to bounce some of the sun’s energy back into space.

    “Even more important than this direct reflection effect, they alter the properties of clouds,” says Øivind Hodnebrog, a climate researcher at the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway. “In essence, they make the clouds brighter, and the clouds reflect sunlight back into space.”

    So as governments better regulate air quality and deploy renewable energy and electric vehicles, we’ll get less warming thanks to fewer insulating emissions going into the sky, but some additional warming because we’ve lost some reflective pollution. Hodnebrog’s new research suggests that this aerosol effect has already contributed to a significant amount of heating.

    The most important component in fossil fuel pollution is gaseous sulfur dioxide, which forms aerosols in the atmosphere that linger for mere days. So slashing pollution has an almost immediate effect, unlike with carbon dioxide, which lasts for centuries in the atmosphere.

    It’s a gnarly, unavoidable catch-22, but in no way a reason to keep polluting willy-nilly. Fossil fuel aerosols kill millions of people a year by contributing to respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases, and other health issues. So by decarbonizing we’ll improve both planetary and human health. The urgency is growing by the day: Last year was by far the hottest on record, and this March was the 10th month in a row to notch all-time highs. Meanwhile, ocean temperatures—boosted by El Niño, the warm band of water that periodically arises in the Pacific, which also added heat to the atmosphere—have soared to and maintained record highs for over a year, stunning scientists.

    “The preponderance of those records and the margins by which they were broken was eye-opening,” says Jennifer Francis, senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Massachusetts. “Until society manages to stop increasing the greenhouse blanket, record-smashing events like those in 2023 will become more common, even without the boost from El Niño.”

    Slowing down the growth of that insulating blanket is already underway. “We seem to be flattening greenhouse gas emissions, which is a good thing,” says Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at Berkeley Earth. “But we’re also uncovering some warming that our pollution had historically been masking. And because of that, our models expected—and we seem to be starting to see—some evidence of a speed-up in the rate of surface warming.” This is known in climate science as acceleration. Hausfather points to data showing that since 1970, the warming rate was 0.18 degree Celsius per decade, which has jumped to about 0.3 degree Celsius per decade over the past 15 years.

    In his new paper, published in the journal Communications Earth and Environment, Hodnebrog and his colleagues set out to quantify just how much an effect curbing aerosols has had. To start, they gathered measurements between 2001 and 2019 from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System, satellite instruments that detect the difference in the solar energy coming to our planet and the energy reflected back out into space. This is the overall “energy imbalance” of the Earth, with it trending upwards as the world warms.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Simon

    Source link

  • Here Comes the Flood of Plug-In Hybrids

    Here Comes the Flood of Plug-In Hybrids

    [ad_1]

    Last week, the Biden administration made it official: American cars are really going electric.

    The US Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule, long in the works, that will require automakers selling in the United States to dramatically boost the number of battery-powered vehicles sold this decade, putting a serious dent in the country’s carbon emissions in the process. By 2032, more than half of new cars sold must be electric.

    Automakers will have more leeway in choosing how to reach the government’s new tailpipe emissions goals, thanks to changes made between when the rules were first introduced in draft form nearly a year ago and now. One big, important shift: Plug-in hybrids are part of the picture.

    In the draft of the rule, auto companies could only meet the gradually ratcheting zero-emissions goals by selling more battery-electric cars. But after lobbying from automakers and unions, which both argued that the EPA’s proposals were unrealistic, manufacturers will now be allowed to use plug-in hybrids to meet the standards.

    This means that now carmakers can satisfy federal rules by ensuring that two-thirds of their 2032 sales are battery electric—or that battery-electric vehicles are just over half of their sales, and plug-in hybrids account for 13 percent.

    Expect automakers to take advantage of these types of hybrid vehicles—which are powered primarily by electric batteries but supplemented by a gas-powered engine once the batteries deplete—as they race to meet the nation’s most ambitious climate goals yet.

    There will be a lot of these things on the road. But the technology has a climate hitch: It’s only as emission-free as its drivers choose to be.

    Gateway EV Drug

    In recent months, executives for manufacturers including Audi, BMW, the Chinese EV-maker BYD, General Motors, Mercedes, and Volvo have suggested that the “compromise” cars could be a springboard that launches more cars and customers into the electric transition. And the policy shift could be vindication for Toyota, which has bet that customers will flock to gas-electric hybrids and plug-in hybrids rather than following Tesla down a fully electric path.

    Globally, sales of plug-in hybrids are growing faster than battery-electrics (though this is partly because the hybrids have further to climb). Sales of plug-in hybrids jumped by 43 percent between 2022 and 2023, to almost 4.2 million, according to figures provided by BloombergNEF, a market research firm. Sales of battery-electric vehicles increased by 28 percent in the same period, to nearly 9.6 million.

    The tech has some powerful upsides. The average US driver only puts in about 30 miles of driving each day, meaning most could get by most days using only a plug-in hybrid’s electric battery, and only using gas on longer trips.

    Plug-in hybrids also make some automakers less nervous, manufacturing-wise: They’re more expensive to build than pure battery electrics (the whole two-motor thing), but the tech can sometimes be retrofitted into existing, gas-powered cars. This means less work, short-term, an exciting prospect for an industry that has to rejigger both how it builds its cars and how it sources the materials that will make their batteries go in the next few decades, as they move towards electrics.

    [ad_2]

    Aarian Marshall

    Source link

  • Analysis-Asian power generation gets cleaner, even as coal emissions rise

    Analysis-Asian power generation gets cleaner, even as coal emissions rise

    [ad_1]

    By Sudarshan Varadhan

    SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Asia boosted clean electricity output and slashed its share of fossil fuels faster than North America and Europe from 2015, data shows, underscoring resistance by Asian nations to a western push to choke private financing for coal-fired power.

    There is wide agreement that increasing clean power, such as wind and solar, is central to curbing carbon emissions to fight climate change. On Saturday at the U.N. climate summit, 118 governments, led by the U.S. and the European Union, pledged to triple the world’s renewable energy capacity by 2030.

    However, China and India did not back the COP28 pledge as it was twinned with curbing use of fossil fuels, which they see as essential to reliably meeting rapidly rising power demand.

    Bolstering their view, even with coal, higher financing costs and weaker access to funds, Asia outpaced Europe and North America in fighting climate change by key measures since the Paris climate agreement of 2015, a Reuters analysis of data found.

    Asia boosted clean power, including hydro and nuclear, as a share of overall power output by about 8 percentage points to 32% between 2015 and 2022, a review of data from energy think tank Ember showed.

    By comparison, clean energy’s share in the power mix in Europe rose over 4 percentage points to 55%, while in North America it climbed by more than 6 percentage points to 46%.

    “There cannot be any pressure on India to cut down emissions,” India’s power and renewable energy minister R.K. Singh said on Nov. 30.

    Asia slashed the share of fossil fuels in power generation by 8 percentage points to 68% in 2022 from 2015, abating more gas and coal use than Europe and North America.

    Over the same period, Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels fell 4 percentage points while North America’s narrowed by 6 percentage points.

    “The data shows that the West is not moving fast enough on scaling up renewables and storage,” said Hogeveen Rutter, who works with private companies on behalf of the International Solar Alliance (ISA).

    Rutter said delays in approvals for renewables, storage projects and grid interconnections in Europe and the U.S. have hampered growth of clean energy use in the West.

    ASIAN EMISSIONS RISE

    To be sure, fast-growing Asia, home to half the world’s population, accounts for three-fifths of global emissions from power generation, including from sectors exporting goods and services to the west.

    And India and China continue to build new coal-fired plants to meet rapidly growing electricity demand.

    That means power generation emissions by Asia will continue to climb, after having risen nearly 4% annually since the Paris accord as electricity demand has soared, while emissions in Europe and North America declined, the Ember data showed.

    However, Asian governments have argued that the world’s wealthiest countries should help poorer countries cut emissions, citing rich nations’ higher per capita emissions and their unabated fossil fuel use in the last century.

    This year, western nations expressed unwillingness to fund early retirement of polluting plants in Indonesia – the world’s seventh largest coal-fired power generator, despite commitments to help it decarbonise.

    “Asian countries with access to finance have been able to move much quicker, while other parts of Asia need more concessionality to catch up. This illustrates the need for the West to assist with concessional funding for storage to move away from coal,” ISA’s Rutter said.

    Funding shortages and high-priced tariffs for renewables have hindered Indonesia’s move away from coal, while access to funds have enabled rapid expansion of green energy in China, analysts say.

    A report released on Monday estimated developing countries will need $2.4 trillion a year in investment to cap emissions.

    WEST TURNS TO GAS

    Some western nations are looking to curb finance for coal, calling it the “number one threat” to climate goals. Despite challenges, Asia, along with Europe and North America, have cut the share of coal in power use, although at a slower pace.

    However, both Europe and North America are increasing use of natural gas – often described as a transition fuel – to make up for part of the decline in coal-fired power generation, while gas makes up a shrinking share of power generation in Asia.

    The share of gas rose 3 percentage points to 26% of European power generation in 2022 from 2015, with North America boosting the share of gas-fired power by 6 percentage points to 36%, despite tepid power demand growth.

    Cuts in nuclear power have slowed Europe and North America’s fight to reduce emissions, although nuclear’s share of their power mix remains well above Asia’s.

    “The progress the West has made is to cut use of dirty coal and use relatively less-polluting gas,” said Ghee Peh, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

    India, the world’s second largest coal user, has argued for the phase-down of all fossil fuels instead of singling out coal, and plans to oppose the plan to ban private finance for coal. It wants rich nations to invest more in energy storage to back up renewables.

    “We cannot phase out fossil fuels unless we have nuclear or until storage becomes viable,” Singh said.

    (Reporting by Sudarshan Varadhan; Editing by Tony Munroe and Sonali Paul)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden’s Plan Would Offer Record-Low Number Of Offshore Drilling Leases

    Biden’s Plan Would Offer Record-Low Number Of Offshore Drilling Leases

    [ad_1]

    The Biden administration on Friday unveiled a long-awaited drilling plan that would drastically shrink the nation’s offshore oil and gas leasing program to a maximum of three lease sales over the next five years — the smallest number ever to be offered in the program’s history.

    The Interior Department said the proposal is “in line” with President Joe Biden’s goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. But environmental groups were quick to condemn the plan as a broken campaign promise and wildly out of step with what scientists say is required to stave off catastrophic climate change.

    If approved, the plan would limit offshore oil and gas leasing to no more than three lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico — one each in 2025, 2027 and 2029. It includes no auctions in the Pacific, Atlantic or Alaskan Arctic.

    The proposal is an enormous departure from both the Trump administration’s 2018 proposal, which identified 47 potential lease sales throughout the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and a previous Biden proposal in July that considered as many as 11 sales.

    The Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s signature climate law that Democrats passed last year, includes a provision championed by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), that tied future offshore wind development to continued offshore oil and gas leasing. Specifically, it prevented the administration from offering new wind lease sales unless it first auctioned off drilling rights.

    The Interior Department said its proposed plan allows for the administration to continue working toward its goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of wind energy by 2030, enough to power 10 million homes for a year and slash 78 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

    “The Biden-Harris administration is committed to building a clean energy future that ensures America’s energy independence,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement. “The Proposed Program, which represents the smallest number of oil and gas lease sales in history, sets a course for the Department to support the growing offshore wind industry and protect against the potential for environmental damage and adverse impacts to coastal communities.”

    Since the offshore leasing program began in 1980, no five-year plan has had fewer than 11 lease sales, with a few offering more than 30.

    But with fossil fuel-driven climate change already wreaking havoc across the country and the globe, environmentalists see any future lease sale as a monumental mistake.

    “By failing to end new offshore drilling, President Biden missed an easy opportunity to do the right thing and deliver on climate for the American people,” Beth Lowell of Oceana, an ocean advocacy group, said in a statement. “This decision is beyond disappointing, as Americans face the impacts of the growing climate crisis through more frequent and intense fires, droughts, hurricanes, and floods. President Biden is unfortunately showing the world that it’s okay to continue to prioritize polluters over real climate solutions.”

    Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the environmental group Food & Water Watch, called the move an “outlandish and irresponsible decision to increase oil production for decades to come” and an “unconscionable betrayal of future generations.”

    On the campaign trail in 2020, Biden famously pledged to “take on the fossil fuel industry” and to end new oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters. Green groups say the administration has repeatedly broken those pledges, including with its approval of oil giant ConocoPhillips’ massive Willow project in the Alaskan Arctic.

    Biden’s new offshore plan also drew backlash from U.S. oil and gas producers, who have accused the administration of waging a war on fossil fuels and threatening energy security.

    “At a time when inflation runs rampant across the country, the Biden administration is choosing failed energy policies that are adding to the pain Americans are feeling at the pump,“ Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement. “This restrictive offshore leasing program is the latest tactic in a coordinated strategy to reduce energy production, ultimately weakening America’s energy dominance, limiting consumers access to affordable reliable energy and compromising our ability to lead on the global stage.”

    Manchin condemned the plan, but stressed that without the Inflation Reduction Act, the number of proposed offshore lease sales would have been zero.

    “It’s now clear without a shadow of a doubt that without the IRA, this Administration would have ended federal oil and gas development completely,” Manchin said in a statement. “But instead of embracing the all-of-the-above energy bill that was signed into law, this Administration has once again decided to put their radical political agenda over American energy security, and the American people will pay the price. Granting the bare minimum of oil and gas leases will result in a minimum of renewables leases as well because the IRA tied the two together. You can’t have one without the other.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Exclusive: Banks Vote To Limit Accounting Of Emissions In Bond And Stock Sales

    Exclusive: Banks Vote To Limit Accounting Of Emissions In Bond And Stock Sales

    [ad_1]

    LONDON, July 30 (Reuters) – Banks working to develop global standards on accounting for carbon emissions in bond or stock sale underwriting have voted to exclude most of these emissions from their own carbon footprint, three people familiar with the matter said.

    The majority of banks comprising an industry working group backed a plan earlier this month to exclude two-thirds of the emissions linked to their capital markets businesses from being attributed to them in carbon accounting, the sources said, following months of discord over the issue.

    If upheld, the decision would pit banks against environmental advocates, many of whom say the banking industry should assume full responsibility for the emissions generated by activities financed through bonds and stock sales, as it already does with loans.

    Almost half of the financing provided by the six biggest U.S. banks for top fossil fuel companies came from capital markets rather than direct lending between 2016 and 2022, according to environmental group Sierra Club.

    Banks’ accounting of these emissions will impact their targets for becoming carbon-neutral. Major lenders have pledged to bring their emissions down to zero on a net basis by 2050, and have set interim targets for this decade.

    Banks with big capital markets operations in the working group argued that they should assume responsibility for only 33% of the emissions of activities financed through bonds and stock sales because they do not have control over the borrowers as they do with loans. The banks have also expressed concern about capital market-related emissions dwarfing their lending-related emissions, the sources said.

    Those pushing for a low accounting threshold say assuming responsibility for 100% of the emissions would lead to double-counting across the financial system, because bond and stock investors will also separately account for some of the emissions generated by the financing activities in their own carbon footprints.

    The majority of the banks in the working group backed the 33% threshold but at least two dissented, with one advocating for 100%, the sources said, requesting anonymity because the deliberations were confidential.

    The accounting standard will not be mandatory. The Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF), an association of banks seeking to harmonise carbon accounting across the industry, formed the working group comprising major banks in the hope that others will follow the standard that emerges.

    PCAF’s board will now have the final say on whether to adopt the 33% accounting share for capital markets. Two of the sources said no decision had been made but it was reluctant to override the working group.

    A PCAF spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

    The working group’s members are Morgan Stanley (MS.N), Barclays (BARC.L), Bank of America (BAC.N) Citigroup (C.N), HSBC (HSBA.L), BNP Paribas (BNPP.PA), NatWest (NWG.L) and Standard Chartered (STAN.L). Officials from all but two either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.

    A Barclays spokesperson said the bank supported PCAF’s work to establish standards for emissions and declined to comment further. A Standard Chartered spokesperson said the bank was comfortable with any emissions accounting threshold and declined to comment further.

    The sources said PCAF had become frustrated at how much energy had been spent arguing over the right number, and believed any percentage was better than further delays. Publication of PCAF’s final methodology has been delayed since last year because of the disagreements.

    BUNDLING EMISSIONS

    Campaign group ShareAction said the 33% weighting had been “plucked out of thin air.”

    “PCAF has the responsibility to publish guidance that enables a transparent and unbiased assessment of banks’ climate risks and impacts,” its research manager Xavier Lerin said.

    It is not yet clear whether banks will have to bundle together their capital market-related emissions and their lending-related emissions into a single target, or separate them.

    Having a single target but two accounting approaches for the different emissions could prove challenging, one of the sources said.

    The Science Based Targets initiative, a separate body backed by the United Nations and environmental groups, is in the process of developing net-zero standards which will include whether banks should have different or combined targets.

    Reporting by Tommy Reggiori Wilkes in London; Editing by Greg Roumeliotis and Rosalba O’Brien

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How to Choose Carbon Credits That Actually Cut Emissions | Entrepreneur

    How to Choose Carbon Credits That Actually Cut Emissions | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Across industries, businesses are taking drastic action to minimize their environmental impact — from slashing carbon emissions to utilizing recycled materials to minimizing corporate travel. Carbon offsets have become a major tactic for forward-thinking companies looking to meaningfully reduce their climate impact.

    The voluntary carbon market is expected to grow from $2 billion in 2020 to roughly $250 billion by 2050, indicating its immense viability to deliver meaningful climate solutions.

    However, for the industry to achieve its full potential, companies need clarity and transparency in the process of selecting carbon credits. For companies looking to meaningfully reduce their carbon footprint, there can be concern and confusion over picking the “right” credits — those that actually deliver the impact being paid for. The voluntary carbon markets lack clear standards, which can make it challenging for businesses that want to do the right thing to navigate.

    Related: The Carbon Credit Market Could Grow 50X Bigger: How One Pioneering Platform Is Meeting the Demand

    What are carbon credits?

    It’s crucial that companies make major strides in reducing the carbon that they produce. However, there will inevitably come a point when organizations have reduced their total emissions as much as possible. In order to bridge that carbon gap, companies rely on carbon credits — which represent the removal or protection of carbon by others.

    Companies purchase carbon credits from projects that draw down legacy carbon trapped in the atmosphere and protect existing stores of carbon from being released – both of which are needed to reverse the climate crisis.

    For instance, the crops of the globe’s two billion smallholder farmers naturally pull down carbon from the atmosphere, storing it back in the soil. Using sensors, satellite imagery, AI and regular monitoring, this stored carbon can be tracked and quantified then sold as a carbon credit.

    Most companies purchase carbon credits via the voluntary carbon markets, which are fast-emerging as a vital tool to help companies achieve their climate targets. While these carbon credits are a proven tool for offsetting emissions, there are a multitude of options that vary in quality and impact.

    Why carbon credits?

    Risk is the biggest driver in business and — with trillions of dollars in annual climate-related costs and damage – the climate crisis is fast becoming a business crisis. Corporations must act now to minimize losses, illustrate meaningful climate action to shareholders and comply with fast-approaching climate regulations.

    Carbon credits are an important approach to scaling climate action globally and are a fast-growing strategy for delivering on corporate ESG goals. While these offsets are part of nearly every scenario that keeps global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, legacy carbon markets lack broad public trust: Impactful carbon solutions require clear guidelines and proven, verifiable data.

    Delivering transparency via data

    In selecting carbon credits, consider the data:

    • What kind of data is provided — Is it clear who is responsible for carbon sequestration (i.e., smallholder farmers), and how they’re doing it (i.e., through the crops of their regenerative farms?
    • How is carbon removal calculated?
    • Who is verifying the data — Is it a third-party entity?
    • Is the carbon data auditable (this is especially important for public companies in light of fast-approaching SEC climate disclosure rules)?

    Businesses need auditable, transparent climate and social impact data to convey their actions to key shareholders.

    Without transparency about where carbon comes from, the positive and negative impacts of how it’s being captured and stored, and how it’s being calculated, there is a tremendous corporate risk for faulty carbon credits.

    Investors should turn to carbon credits that allow them to track the sourcing of their credits back to the specific farm and community they came from, and that robustly quantify how those communities are benefiting from the carbon markets.

    Climate justice: Merging social and environmental impact

    While legacy carbon markets rarely have focused on socio-economic impacts, the burgeoning generation of carbon markets will prioritize both social and environmental impact in their models. In action, these carbon credits will benefit the environment while equitably compensating those responsible for the carbon sequestration. Often, these carbon stewards are among the most vulnerable populations – including smallholder farmers, women and indigenous communities.

    When buying carbon credits, ensure that carbon stewards are equitably compensated by asking some basic questions of those selling carbon credits:

    • What language do they use to discuss the partnership with carbon stewards?
    • Is their data auditable?
    • Is the financial model of carbon credits disclosed? Are carbon stewards paid equitably and in a timely manner?
    • Is socioeconomic improvement data shared with investors according to accepted third-party standards?

    Incorporating social and environmental impacts into the next generation of carbon markets can further enhance their value, potentially benefiting vulnerable communities that play a key role in carbon sequestration. A well-designed carbon credit protocol can financially incentivize carbon stewards to bolster their future work – which increases the positive socio-economic and environmental impacts for generations to come.

    Other tactics for carbon removal

    Mechanical carbon capture comes in the form of big machines that effectively suck carbon dioxide out of the air to store, either by putting it underground or repurposing it in other ways. While mechanical carbon capture is promising, this technology is largely still in its infancy, enormously expensive, and still proving its ability to scale.

    Related: Blockchain Could Help Us Combat Climate Change — Here’s How.

    The time is now

    Forecasts now show that the planet will hit a threshold of 1.5C in global temperature change by 2027, which is far sooner than ever expected and carries the potential for massive damage, loss of human life and trillions of dollars in incurred damages for the global economy.

    This is an all-hands-on-deck moment. We must engage proven, reliable, and equitable methods to meet what may be the greatest threat to the future of humanity and the planet we inhabit. Carbon credits, when implemented responsibly and at scale, can be a very effective tool for humanity to use in the fight to limit the damages from climate change. However, the industry’s growth hinges on increasing transparency and standardization to ensure that carbon credits truly deliver the promised impact.

    [ad_2]

    Josh Knauer

    Source link

  • Restaurants Are Turning Used Cooking Oil Into Biodiesel | Entrepreneur

    Restaurants Are Turning Used Cooking Oil Into Biodiesel | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    At some restaurants, eating fried food actually helps the environment.

    In Miami, craft brewery Cerveceria La Tropical is among the hundreds of establishments that have adopted the practice of collecting used cooking oil to be recycled and turned into biodiesel, the Miami Herald reported.

    La Tropical works with the restaurant maintenance franchise Filta, which specializes in environmental solutions for commercial kitchens. Filta comes to La Tropical each week to collect used cooking oil from the restaurant. The Filta technicians either filter the oil so it can be reused in the restaurant or take the oil to be repurposed and turned into biodiesel.

    Related: Rice and Mushrooms, Anyone? Samsung Will Offer Low-Carbon Meals to Its Employees.

    “When we filter the oil, we extend its life so that the restaurants and all these food services will use less cooking oil,” Cristian Nechuta, who runs the Miami-Dade County franchise of Filta, told the outlet. “Once the oil can no longer be filtered anymore, we take it to a recycling facility.”

    While Filta charges vendors for its service, the recycled use of cooking oil allows restaurants to use it for about 50% longer than average, Nechuta told the outlet.

    Founded in 1996, Filta has 326 locations across the U.S., offering environmentally-friendly solutions for cleaning, recycling, and repurposing materials in kitchens in the food and hospitality industry.

    Related: This Startup Is Using Plants to Capture Carbon Emissions

    Nechuta’s Filta location doesn’t just work with restaurants, he told The Herald. He also collects cooking oil from local hospitals, colleges, and sports stadiums around the Miami-Dade area. Nechuta added that last year, Filta collected 23,000 gallons of cooking oil to be turned into biodiesel, preventing about 230 tons of carbon emissions.

    According to the U.S. Department of Energy, biodiesel releases roughly a quarter of carbon emissions than standard diesel.

    And it’s not just local restaurants looking to make an impact. Last year, fast food giant Chick-fil-A announced it would be partnering with food manufacturing company, Darling Ingredients to convert its used cooking oil into renewable diesel.

    Restaurant Technologies, which provides restaurant services and solutions for top brands like McDonald’s and KFC, has its own cooking oil-to-biodiesel service. In 2022, the company says recycled about 290 million pounds of used cooking oil, reducing about 67 million pounds of carbon emissions.

    [ad_2]

    Madeline Garfinkle

    Source link

  • Blockchain Could Help Us Combat Climate Change — Here’s How. | Entrepreneur

    Blockchain Could Help Us Combat Climate Change — Here’s How. | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    90% of corporations now view sustainability as a crucial part of their organization’s strategy. But turning recognition of the importance of sustainability into concrete action is often easier said than done. Notably, only 60% of organizations actually have a sustainability strategy in place — representing a 30% gap between the number that view this as important and the number that are actually taking action.

    As part of the effort to get more companies to adopt eco-conscious initiatives, carbon credits have become an increasingly important part of the modern sustainability narrative. But challenges to the effective adoption and use of carbon credits remain. However, with digital carbon spurring a new wave of green entrepreneurship, this is poised to change.

    Read on to learn more about digital carbon credits and how they could potentially play a role in your own efforts to go green.

    Related: Digital Ads Are Fueling a Climate Disaster. Take These Steps to Offset The Industry’s Hidden Toll on Our Planet.

    So, what are carbon credits?

    First, it’s important to understand what carbon credits are and what their role looks like in the current corporate environment. Carbon credits are designed to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of corporations and nations.

    There are two main types of carbon credits. The first is often referred to as a “permit to pollute” or “regulatory compliance credits,” in which a company essentially buys carbon credits equivalent to the amount that they went over the allowed rate. As Investopedia explains, companies are granted a specific number of credits, with each credit allowing for the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide.

    These credits are designed to decline over time, and companies can sell or trade their excess credits. Essentially, the idea is that having credits to “cap” carbon emissions will create a financial incentive for businesses to lower their emissions.

    For example, a country might require companies to limit their greenhouse emissions to 50,000 tons per year. A business that previously produced 70,000 tons of emissions per year must either buy carbon credits or find a way to lower its emissions. Even for smaller businesses, these guidelines can serve as a good way to consider how you can lower your emissions over time.

    The other type of credit (known as “voluntary offset credits”) is obtained when a company offsets its own emissions through its voluntary participation in an environmental project. An organization that invests in a project in areas such as renewable energy or forestry can then obtain carbon offset credits as a way of quantifying their environmental impact.

    Related: Sustainability In Business: Why Change Is Needed Now

    How digital carbon enhances the existing carbon credit market

    Currently, the standard market for creating, selling and trading carbon credits leaves a lot of room for interpretation. “Permit to pollute” credits are government issued — but in many parts of the world, participation in these carbon credit exchanges is relatively limited.

    For example, the United States only has two state-based emissions trading programs. These are the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is limited to power sector emissions in several Northeastern states, and California’s AB-32 Cap-and-Trade Program.

    Because of this, most businesses only participate in the carbon offsets voluntary market — obtaining carbon credits by investing in sustainability projects. However, offset credits aren’t regulated by the government, which can create challenges for selling, trading and verifying carbon offsets. How can your business manage carbon credits effectively without a clear system in place?

    This is where digital carbon can help level the playing field, improving accessibility and streamlining processes. As a report from Changeblock reveals, digital carbon offers digital credits representing proportional ownership of climate-backed tokens. A central digital platform enables these tokens to be gathered as a single asset that is easily traded. Rather than needing to buy individual tokens from different sellers or marketplaces, digital carbon credits can represent one ton’s worth of emissions from several offsetting projects.

    With blockchain management, each digital carbon credit comes with a comprehensive data packet detailing the transaction. This includes details on emissions reductions quantity and pricing. In some cases, it could even provide transparent access to raw data from sensors such as gas chromatography devices, scales, pressure monitoring systems and more to verify the amount of carbon offset associated with each digital credit.

    This actionable insight and the accessibility of a digital platform help bring offset carbon credits to a significantly broader audience, incentivizing more organizations and individuals to participate in climate change initiatives. Digital carbon credits open up this concept to the masses — so even if you’re “too small” for a traditional carbon credit program, you can still access digital credits.

    Key advantages of digital carbon

    Digital carbon offers several noteworthy benefits that, when properly implemented, allow carbon credits to become more effective in driving the transition to a global net-zero economy.

    By using a digital platform as a central location for tracking and trading carbon credits, these processes will naturally become more efficient and transparent. For organizations that are seeking to sell, trade or verify their carbon credits, this provides a much-needed layer of trust in what is still a largely unregulated industry.

    A digital platform also enhances the potential for organizations to offset emissions on a global scale by being able to support and gain carbon credits for sustainability projects anywhere. This also makes carbon credits more easily accessible to individuals and organizations that might not have the capabilities to undertake carbon reduction projects on their own. For example, you could partner with another sustainability organization, donating whatever money or resources you can, rather than needing to spearhead a sustainability project on your own.

    In many ways, digital carbon is set to support a significant expansion in new sustainability-focused partnerships worldwide by making it easier for companies of all sizes to invest in environmental projects of varied scope and focus.

    Related: 3 Ways You Can Bring Sustainability to Your Workplace

    Creating the future of sustainability

    Demand for carbon credits is only expected to increase in the coming years. As businesses and governments seek to curb their impact on the environment, the ability to effectively create, track and trade carbon and other environmental credits will become even more important.

    With the growing wave of digital carbon initiatives, much-needed transparency and efficiency can make these efforts more effective than ever before. As you consider how your own business can become more environmentally friendly, don’t overlook the potential value of digital carbon.

    [ad_2]

    Lucas Miller

    Source link

  • What We Can All Do Right Now to Accelerate The Electric Vehicle Revolution | Entrepreneur

    What We Can All Do Right Now to Accelerate The Electric Vehicle Revolution | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    There is a chicken-and-egg dilemma facing electric vehicles (EVs). If there’s no or little infrastructure — including charging stations, purchasing an EV isn’t the most logical. But if it seems that no one is buying EVs, it’s hard to justify building the infrastructure. As businesses and consumers face the point of no return for climate change and try to save money in a sustainable way, getting out of this pickle can’t be a “someday” dream. Here’s what we can do right now to get out of the gridlock.

    Related: Sustainability: How EVs Are Trying To Make a Difference

    Tackling the pricing issue

    Just like internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, EVs have a price spectrum. The more power and battery life you need, the more cash you should expect to cough up. Thus, the cost of your EV connects to your daily routine.

    Do you drive 50 miles a day and live in a city like Los Angeles — which has the most charging stations in the country? If price is a factor, then you can probably settle on a more cost-effective EV with a smaller range. On the other hand, what if you’re in rural North Dakota — where chargers are harder to come by — and your commute is 150 miles round-trip? That more expensive EV with a top-level battery would start looking pretty attractive.

    The first thing you can do to help solve the EV chicken-and-egg riddle is to make your buy personal. If you buy for your own use case — not your neighbor’s, coworker’s or mom’s — you’re more likely to hone in on the most appropriate price point. Focus on what you actually need out of an EV. This will help you calculate the point when it becomes cheaper for you to buy the EV than to continue driving an ICE vehicle. Keep in mind, there are many variables that can come into play here, like how easy it is to get parts for or how often you have to do maintenance on each vehicle.

    This said, EVs can already function at half the operating cost of an ICE vehicle, so you’ll win out in total cost of ownership. And thanks to the relaxation of Covid-19-related supply chain woes (among other factors), the industry could reach price parity between ICE and EV options within the next two years. More conservative assessments say we’ll cross the parity threshold between 2024 and 2026 for short-range models and 2027 and 2030 for long-range models. And if enough consumers buy EVs based on an understanding of their individual use, they’ll drive manufacturers to increase their production. Subsequently, an increase in supply will drive down costs for general consumers and companies.

    Related: Sustainability: How EVs Are Trying To Make a Difference

    Individuals, companies and governments all have roles to play

    Some people will always be diehard ICE fans — they’ll be laggard adopters who buy an EV only when they have no other choice. But increasingly, people are becoming more socially conscious. They want to live sustainably, and they want the companies they buy from to operate sustainably, too.

    Some consumers are installing their own chargers in their homes. Companies like Walmart also are committing to EV fleets and attempting to build infrastructure. But even where people and corporations are willing to support electrification, they can’t always guarantee their power grid is going to support their goals.

    Because individuals and companies have to depend on the capacity of their power grid, public-private partnerships must be made to meet infrastructure demand. At the same time, the government looks at how sustainability connects to the larger ability to compete and maintain a good quality of life. So when they set regulations, it dramatically influences whether individuals and companies buy EVs and drive infrastructure demand.

    Related: The U.S. Is Way Behind In Driving EVs. How Do We Catch Up With the World?

    Some parts of the world are already phasing out or banning ICE vehicles. By comparison, the United States is behind. But states like California are leading regional charges toward development, and the Biden administration is taking steps to accelerate EV adoption. Through the Investing in America agenda, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and other initiatives, the administration is adding and expanding tax credits and incentivizing support for transitioning away from ICE models. The goal is to have 50 percent of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030. Both consumers and businesses can lobby legislators for additional regulations that might help on a local, state or national level.

    Related: Tesla’s Charging Stations Will Be Available to All EVs by 2024

    If you can’t go EV now, go sustainable where you can

    Even as public-private partnerships take shape and the government tries to speed along EV adoption, electric vehicles can still come with a higher upfront cost than ICE models. Lots of buyers can’t afford a few extra hundred bucks a month on their payment. And many are still waiting on that infrastructure to reach where they live.

    If this sounds like you and there’s just no way you can hop on the EV train right now, there are still plenty of ways to show your support for sustainability. You can start simply by expressing your interest in EVs and infrastructure to friends, business leaders or representatives. They might be able to champion your cause by proxy or help you educate others. But you can also carpool, repurpose products or recycle more, buy from companies committed to ESG initiatives or opt to eat more plant-based meals.

    Not chicken, not egg, but with everyone working together, both

    The shift to electric vehicles is already underway for economic and environmental reasons. But outpacing the sales of ICE vehicles to stay competitive and save the planet requires individuals, companies and governments to work cooperatively to build EVs and the related infrastructure simultaneously. Because no one individual or agency can solve the problem alone, you can help by committing to cooperate in whatever role you happen to have.

    [ad_2]

    Brendan P. Keegan

    Source link

  • Digital Ads Are Destroying Our Planet and We Need to Act Now.

    Digital Ads Are Destroying Our Planet and We Need to Act Now.

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    The average consumer may not realize how much power goes into placing the targeted ad they see online every day. So for many, the hidden impact of digital advertising may come as a surprise: Digital advertising has a massive carbon footprint. A typical digital-ad campaign for a single brand can produce hundreds of tons of carbon dioxide. In the U.K., for example, an average digital ad campaign emits over 5.4 tons of CO2. To put that number in perspective, this accounts for one-half of one consumer’s annual emissions in the U.K. and over one-third of carbon emissions from fossil fuel per capita in the U.S.

    The world is failing to reach the Paris Agreement’s target to limit the rise of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in a multitude of ways, so you might be wondering: Why do we need to pay special attention to the amount of CO2 emissions contributed by online advertising specifically? Well, one reason seems obvious: such emissions often go unacknowledged.

    Like it or not, the global online advertising industry has a massive influence on everyone, making us all part of the problem. Aside from being a powerful driver of our frequently excessive (and wasteful) shopping habits, the mere daily viewing of multiple search ads, banners, interstitials and video pre-rolls, in addition to hundreds of the so-to-speak digital-out-of-home ads (on the streets, in shopping malls and elsewhere) has a massive impact on the global carbon footprint.

    Just think about it: A footprint of one short email is estimated at 0.3 grams of CO2, and this number can grow up to 17g for a longer version, according to Mike Berners-Lee’s research. And how many of those do you get every day? Tens, if not hundreds, and counting.

    And while the jury’s still out on whether we can make online advertising carbon-neutral, this key question remains: What actual steps do we need to take to get closer to this goal?

    But first, let’s define what carbon neutrality actually means.

    What is carbon neutrality?

    To put it simply, carbon neutrality implies the amount of carbon emissions is balanced with the amount of absorbed emissions by natural carbon sinks (e.g. rainforests).

    So to count as a carbon-neutral company, a business needs to demonstrate its amount of emitted greenhouse gasses are being negated by the amount of adsorbed gasses, either by reducing the number of its emissions or by purchasing the so-to-speak carbon offset credits — in other words, permits to emit a specific amount of greenhouse gasses, like CO2.

    Identifying the sources of emissions in the digital ad supply chain

    The first step in reducing digital ad emissions is to identify the main sources of these emissions in the digital ad supply chain. When it comes to online advertising, aside from the travel costs, the key sources of emissions include data transmission, data center and device usage in each of the following:

    • The production of ad creatives — from equipment rental to post-production and crew travel.
    • Programmatic ad transactions — defined as the automated buying and selling of online advertising space — play a huge role in the production of carbon emissions. For example, WPP, the world’s largest investor in media advertising, reports that 55% of its current carbon emissions come from the programmatic supply chain that delivers campaigns on behalf of its clients.
    • Ad targeting and measurement — this includes the selection of audience segments, uploading the audience segment to the advertising platform, and the continuous tracking of ad performance by multiple scripts on websites.
    • The delivery of ads across desktop and mobile web, connected TVs and mobile apps — for instance, streaming a one-minute video on a 50-inch LED TV in the U.S. reportedly results in 0.98g CO2 emissions, whereas watching the same video on one’s smartphone reduces the carbon footprint by almost six times.

    So, what are the possible solutions to reduce digital ad carbon emissions, and who should act on it?

    Advertisers need to drive change

    While every member of the advertising supply chain needs to do their part towards achieving carbon neutrality, brands and media agencies need to take an extra step, specifically in online ad production and media planning areas.

    Namely, the scope of actions may include:

    • The localization of ad production so it’s closer to the team’s location to reduce travel-related carbon emissions.
    • The use of 3D modeling animation instead of video shooting to minimize the CO2 emissions produced by production crew travels and utilized equipment.
    • The production of short video ads, instead of long ones. As a general rule, the shorter the video, the less the file weighs, and the less server load its delivery and streaming require. This, in turn, should result in reduced CO2 emissions by viewers’ devices, data transmission and data centers.
    • A reduction of the size of image ads. Similarly to video ads, the lighter the image file, the fewer CO2 emissions it emits.
    • The upcycling of existing media creatives by tweaking old video and image ads instead of creating new ones to curtail carbon footprint.
    • The delivery of ads during non-peak times in order to balance off-peak server load, which usually requires extra power consumption and results in larger CO2 emissions.

    On a broader scale, making a positive change also implies a shift in the perception of brand safety, that is, adding sustainability benchmarks to the picture.

    First, this involves defining the brand purpose and actually investing in the promotion of carbon-conscious behavior among the company’s customers.

    Second, this means optimizing for or even adding extra incentives for carbon-efficient publishers and ad tech partners (i.e. being willing to pay a higher price for placing ads on carbon-efficient websites, spending more money on carbon-efficient video ad servers, etc.), hence driving the further transformation of the entire ecosystem.

    And third, this requires the maximization of return on CO2 emissions, in addition to ROI. In other words, brands need to strive for the maximum reduction of carbon emissions, while maintaining overall advertising efficiency. For instance, a company may choose to target smartphone users with short video ads (e.g. 5- or 10-second long) instead of longer ones, which happen to perform better in the mobile segment.

    Related: 4 Ways Smart Maps Can Help Your Business Keep Its Social Promises

    But real change cannot be achieved without digital ad consumers

    While the majority of top-tier brands — like the members of the World Association of Advertisers (WFA) — have already made their Planet Pledge, and tech giants such as Microsoft and Google have reaffirmed their sustainability commitments, actual positive change would not be impossible without digital ad consumers.

    Even though most businesses’ carbon-neutrality promises sound ambitious, chances are the reported data is being miscalculated, misrepresented or both. It’s up to us, the consumers to keep them accountable, by doing the following:

    • An analysis of climate pledges that have already been made. You can do this by reviewing the brand’s website and other digital resources to find out which promises on CO2 carbon footprint reduction have already been made.
    • Continuously monitoring progress achieved. For example, check if the brand publishes regular reports on how it has been reducing carbon emissions in the past quarter, year, and so on.
    • Staying alert for the greenwashing red flags. A company that doesn’t share granular data on emissions, or keeps the message brief, like “We’ve cut emissions by half and now we’re carbon-neutral” are all common signs of greenwashing.
    • Being ready to leave, if the expectations haven’t been met. You might find out your favorite brand has been caught lying or misrepresenting its data on CO2 emissions multiple times. Taking a stand by quitting the use of its products or services ensures they’re being held accountable for deceptive and unethical marketing practices.

    Ultimately, it’s up to each of us to make our own carbon-conscious decisions, when it comes to our media perception, ad consumption and our shopping habits. If we don’t, we’ll pay an even greater price.

    [ad_2]

    Anton Liaskovskyi

    Source link