“Decomposition occurs of organic materials within the landfill as it’s compressed, and creates Methane and CO2,” said Zachery Clayton, Manager of Environmental Medicine Planning with the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.
Denver owns the Denver Arapahoe Disposal Site or the so-called DADS Landfill in Arapahoe County. It’s operated by Waste Management that currently has a procedure to reduce methane gas.
“We’re actually capturing landfill methane gas, sending it to an electric engine plant, and we convert that gas into electricity and export it to the grid. Many of the residents throughout Denver enjoy that electricity, not even knowing that it came from the landfill,” said Brian Snyder, Director of Operations for Waste Management (WM) Renewable Energy.
In that process, there is excess methane that is then burned off, or ‘flared.’
“What it does is, it burns all the methane off, and then there’s subsequent pollutants that go into there, such as sulfur oxides and things like that, nitrous oxides,” said Clayton.
WM and the City and County of Denver recently agreed on a partnership to change and update that whole process.
Denver7
WM is hoping to pay for and build a new renewable natural gas plant at the DADS landfill.
“It’s going to capture about 98% of the methane that comes out of the landfill. It goes to the plant, it scrubs it, it cleans it to 98% and then it puts it into a pipeline and transmission line and goes out for distribution,” said Clayton.
The renewable natural gas can then be used as power.
“We’re going to collect over a million MMBtu of gas from the landfill, and that’s going to power nearly 15,000 homes with natural gas,” said Snyder.
Snyder adds WM has already started investing into compressed natural gas vehicles, and plans to use some of the gas from the new plant to power around 900 trash collection vehicles a year.
Denver7
There’s another large impact for anyone outside the landfill.
“Improve the air quality: that’s number one, which is extremely beneficial. It takes something that’s currently, could be dangerous, and puts it as a beneficial reuse,” said Clayton.
The project still needs to go through the planning and permitting phase. Clayton said that will also include a public input process.
If approved to move forward, the plant could be up and running by 2027.
Denver7 | Your Voice: Get in touch with Danielle Kreutter
Denver7’s Danielle Kreutter covers stories that have an impact in all of Colorado’s communities, but specializes in reporting on affordable housing and issues surrounding the unhoused community. If you’d like to get in touch with Danielle, fill out the form below to send her an email.
STRASBOURG — Gather round, gather round, it’s the last big match of the season.
This week, just before lawmakers head into the summer recess, the European Parliament will fight it out over nature restoration.
The EU’s proposal to rehabilitate its damaged ecosystems by 2050 has one last chance at survival in Wednesday’s plenary session. The bill, a key pillar of the bloc’s Green Deal, has limped to Strasbourg to face the full Parliament after failing to pass three committee votes.
If the Nature Restoration Law is rejected on Wednesday, “it’s game over,” said Pascal Canfin, a liberal MEP and chair of Parliament’s environment committee. “Nobody will come back with something else before the next election.”
The vote will be tight. And if the text doesn’t pass, it would be the first major Green Deal legislation to fail in Parliament — adding weight to a conservative campaign to pause environmental lawmaking ahead of the 2024 EU election.
For months, supporters and opponents of the law have been exchanging (metaphorical) punches on social media, in committee sessions and press conferences.
Ahead of the vote, POLITICO looks at the main players in the fight to kill — or save — the Nature Restoration Law.
In the blue corner: The bill’s opponents
1 — Manfred Weber
The European People’s Party has spearheaded a tireless effort to kill off the legislation, arguing that it will have detrimental consequences for the bloc’s farmers by allegedly taking land out of production and jeopardizing food security.
Its leader, Manfred Weber, has been among the most vocal opponents of the bill, seizing on the debate as a way to portray his group as defending farmers’ interests in Brussels.
Political rivals have accused him of using underhand tactics to ensure his MEPs voted against the legislation in the agriculture, fisheries and environment committees, including by substituting regular members with others ready to fall in line — allegations Weber denied. The push has also featured an often bizarre social media campaign to highlight the supposed dangers of the bill, culminating in the group claiming it would destroy Santa’s home in northern Finland.
“This is not the right moment to do this piece of legislation,” Manfred Weber said last month | Philippe Buissin/EP
The EPP leader maintains the group is ready to engage on the legislation — if the Commission comes up with a new version. “This is not the right moment to do this piece of legislation,” Weber said last month.
“Give me arguments, give me a better piece of legislation, then my party is ready to give,” Weber added, calling on the Commission to go back to the drawing board and insisting that achieving the EU’s climate and biodiversity goals can’t come at the expense of rural areas.
2 — Right-wing groups — and a handful of liberals
Weber’s conservative group has found allies further to the right — among MEPs belonging to the European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Identity and Democracy.
The ECR’s co-chair, Nicola Procaccini, a close ally of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, called the nature proposal “one of the most significant regulation proposals of the entire legislature,” and said he was “quite convinced” the right-wing alliance could defeat it. He added that it shows alliances are shifting in Parliament: “On the Green Geal it is moving more to the right.”
The EPP’s push has also found support among lawmakers in Renew Europe. About a third of the liberal group — mostly Dutch, Nordic and German MEPs — are set to vote against the bill on Wednesday, mostly out of national concerns.
Swedish liberal MEP Emma Wiesner, for example, has argued that the bill will be bad for Swedish farmers and foresters, while stressing that she still supports “an ambitious climate and environmental agenda.”
3 — Industry lobbies
A host of lobby groups have also come out against the legislation, including those representing European fishermen, foresters and farmers.
The powerful agri lobby Copa-Cogeca — which has been accused of representing the interests of large corporate outfits over smaller farms — has pushed the narrative that burdening farmers with new green obligations while they face the impacts of the war in Ukraine and higher energy prices will threaten their livelihoods.
The draft legislation “is poorly constructed, [and] has no coherent, clear or dedicated budget” to help land managers implement it, the lobby said.
Similarly, some business associations, like the Netherlands’ VNO-NCW, have been critical of the proposal, arguing that it will create a “lockdown for new business and the energy transition.”
A host of lobby groups have also come out against the legislation, including those representing European farmers | Jeffrey Groeneweg/AFP via Getty Images
4 — Skeptical EU countries
Several EU countries have waded into the debate, warning that the new measures would be bad for their farming and forestry sectors, as well as for people’s proprietary rights and permitting procedures for renewable energy projects.
The Netherlands has been particularly vocal against the bill, calling for EU countries to be granted more flexibility in how to achieve the regulation’s targets as it could otherwise clash with renewables or housing projects, for example. “We do have concerns about implementation because of our high population density,” said Dutch Environment Minister Christianne van der Wal-Zeggelink.
Other skeptical countries include Poland, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Belgium.
Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo called for hitting “pause” on new nature restoration rules amid a fierce national debate on the legislation.
In the red corner: Its defenders
1 — Frans Timmermans
The EU’s Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans has been on the front lines of the effort to save the nature rules, going toe-to-toe with EPP lawmakers during Parliament committee discussions and calling out misleading statements spread by opponents to the bill.
“Everybody is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts,” he told lawmakers in May, stressing that the reason harvests are failing “is linked to climate change and biodiversity loss.”
He’s repeatedly insisted the legislation is intended to help farmers in the long run, as it aims to improve soil and water quality, as well as build resilience against natural disasters like floods, droughts and wildfires. He’s also been adamant that the Commission won’t submit a new version of the bill, as demanded by the EPP.
“There is no time for that,” he explained.
2 — Left-wing groups in Parliament — and (most of) the liberals
The EU’s Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans has been on the front lines of the effort to save the nature rules | John Thys/AFP via Getty Images
The Parliament’s center-left Socialists & Democrats, the Greens, The Left and part of Renew Europe have been vocal advocates of the Commission’s proposal.
Biodiversity loss and climate change are two sides of the same coin, Mohammed Chahim, vice president of the S&D, told reporters. “Not connecting them is either you being naive, at best, and at worst, you really trying to undermine the Green Deal, and that’s what’s happening.”
The Renew group has been divided on the issue, but a majority backed a compromise deal ahead of Wednesday’s vote to try and convince some EPP lawmakers to switch sides and rally enough support in favor of the legislation.
3 —Teresa Ribera
Spain’s environment minister has come out in favor of the proposal, defending its importance both at home and at the EU level as a means to increase resilience to natural disasters and climate impacts like drought.
“It is very important not only to conserve but also to restore nature … There will be time to improve what we have on the table but for the time being, the best thing we can do is to achieve an agreement,” Ribera said at an informal environment ministers’ meeting Monday.
Alongside Spain, 19 EU countries supported the adoption of a common stance on the text in June.
Ribera also signaled that the file will be among the Spanish presidency of the Council’s priorities if the Parliament adopts a position allowing MEPs to start negotiations with EU countries.
4 — Big business and banks
A number of multinationals — including Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Unilever — have urged MEPs to back the legislation, arguing that restoring nature is good for business.
The new rules, they say, will boost the EU’s food production in the long term as it will help tackle pollinator decline and increase absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere, lessening climate impacts.
Owen Bethell, senior global public affairs manager for environmental impact at Nestlé, stressed that farmers’ concerns need to be addressed and argued they should receive support to adapt to the new rules. “But in the short term, I think it’s important to maintain momentum on this law because it sends the right signal, that change needs to happen,” he said.
Green activists have led a forceful push to convince lawmakers to back the proposal | Frederick Florin/AFP via Getty Images
The argument that nature is good for business also received backing from Frank Elderson, an executive board member of the European Central Bank, who warned: “Destroy nature and you destroy the economy.”
5 — Scientists and NGOs
More than 6,000 scientists have shown support for the Commission’s nature restoration plan, arguing that healthy ecosystems will store greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the EU’s objective to become climate neutral by 2050.
“Protecting and restoring nature, and reducing the use of agrochemicals and pollutants, are essential for maintaining long-term production and enhancing food security,” they wrote.
Green activists have also led a forceful push to convince lawmakers to back the proposal, staging protests and making arguments to counter the EPP’s narrative on social media.
“The European Parliament must stay strong against the falsified pushbacks of the conservatives and take firm action to protect citizens from the devastating impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss,” the WWF said in a statement ahead of the vote.
Watching from the sidelines
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, a member of the EPP, has stayed conspicuously quiet on the issue, despite mounting calls for her to get involved and help save the bill.
The situation is a Catch-22 for the German official: The nature bill is part of the Green Deal on which she staked her reputation and reelection as Commission president, but speaking in support of it would involve going against her party’s official position.
“I still expect a public reaction from her,” said the S&D’s César Luena, the lead MEP on the file. “Or if it’s not public, then a reaction inside the EPP,” he added, suggesting that her silence could be held against her in a bid for reelection next year if the legislation doesn’t pass this week.
The EU’s joint presidents flew to last year’s U.N. climate talks in Egypt aboard a private jet, according to data seen by POLITICO that revealed heavy use of private flights by European Council President Charles Michel.
The flight data, received through a freedom of information request, shows that Michel traveled on commercial planes on just 18 of the 112 missions undertaken between the beginning of his term in 2019 and December 2022.
He used chartered air taxis on some 72 trips, around 64 percent of the total, including to the COP27 talks in Egypt last November and to the COP26 summit in Glasgow in 2021. Michel invited Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on the flight to Egypt.
The EU presidents’ choice of transportation to the climate talks highlights a long-standing dilemma for global leaders: how to practice what they preach on greenhouse gas emissions while also facing a demanding travel schedule that makes private aviation a tempting option — even a necessary evil.
When Michel, a former Belgian prime minister, arrived in the resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh, he delivered a sober message to the gathered climate dignitaries: “We have a climatic gun to our head. We are living on borrowed time,” he said, before adding: “We are, and will remain, champions of climate action.”
According to the NGO Transport & Environment, a private jet can emit 2 tons of planet-cooking CO2 per hour. That means during the five-hour return flight to Sharm El-Sheikh, Michel and von der Leyen’s jet may have emitted roughly 20 tons of CO2 — the average EU citizen emits around 7 tons over the course of a year.
Most COP27 delegates — including the EU’s Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans, according to a Commission official — took commercial flights normally packed with sun-seeking tourists.
The decision to travel to Egypt by private jet was made after no commercial flights were available to return Michel to Brussels in time for duties at the European Parliament, his spokesperson Barend Leyts told POLITICO.
Staff also explored the option of flying aboard Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo’s plane, but it was scheduled to return before Michel’s work at COP27 would be completed.
Unlike many national governments, the EU does not own planes to transport its leaders. Hiring a private jet was “the only suitable option in the circumstances,” said Leyts. “Given that the president of the Commission was also invited to the COP27, we proposed to share a flight.”
Leyts stressed that the flight complied with internal Council rules, which dictate that officials should fly commercial when possible.
A spokesperson from the Commission confirmed that the famously hostile pair had shared the cabin to Sharm El-Sheikh, noting that reaching the destination by commercial flight was difficult due to the high volume of traffic and von der Leyen’s packed schedule.
“The fact that both presidents traveled together, with their teams, shows that they did what was possible to optimize the travel arrangements and reduce the associated carbon footprint,” added the Commission’s spokesperson.
The Commission previously told POLITICO that von der Leyen’s use of chartered trips is limited to “exceptional circumstances,” such as for security reasons or if a commercial flight isn’t available or doesn’t fit with diary commitments. The institution has previously declined POLITICO’s request to share detailed information on the modes of transportation used by the Commission chief for her foreign trips.
As part of its climate goals, the EU is looking to tighten its rules on staff travel to encourage greener modes of transport and bring down the institution’s emissions.
The Commission is aiming to achieve climate neutrality by 2030 by switching to “sustainable business travel,” favoring greener travel options and encouraging employees to cycle, walk or take public transport to work.
Leyts said Michel’s staff enquired about the possibility of using sustainable aviation fuel, but were “regrettably” told that neither Brussels nor Sharm El-Sheikh airports had provision.
Since 2021, Michel has offset the emissions of his flights through a scheme that funds a Brazilian ceramics factory to switch its fuel from illegal timber to agricultural and industrial waste products, according to Leyts. Since 2022, that has applied to all of his flights.
On the future of the internal combustion engine, Germany has gotten its own way, again.
The European Commission and Germany’s Transport Ministry announced a deal Saturday morning that commits the EU executive to figuring out a legal way to allow the sale of new engine-installed cars running exclusively on synthetic e-fuels even after a mandate comes into force requiring sales of only zero-emission vehicles from 2035.
“We have found an agreement with Germany on the future use of e-fuels in cars,” the Commission’s Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans said on Twitter. “We will work now on getting the CO2 standards for cars regulation adopted as soon as possible.”
The deal heads off a row over car legislation that was all-but-agreed until Germany, along with a small club of allies, slammed on the brakes just days before formal final approval on a law that is the centerpiece of the EU’s green agenda.
Timmermans said the Commission would “follow up swiftly” with “legal steps” to turn a non-binding annex to the law, introduced originally at the insistence of Europe’s car-making titan Germany, into a concrete workaround allowing new vehicles running on e-fuels, which do emit some CO2, to be sold post-2035.
As a first step, the Commission has agreed to carve out a new category of e-fuel-only vehicles inside the existing Euro 6 automotive rulebook and then integrate that classification into the contentious CO2 standards legislation that mandates the 2035 phase-out date for sales of new combustion-engine vehicles.
The terms of the final deal from Timmermans’ cabinet chief Diederik Samsom, seen by POLITICO, say the Commission will reopen the text of the engine-ban law if EU lawmakers manage to stop the introduction of a technical annex that would make space for e-fuels alongside the agreed CO2 standards. Reopening the proposed law’s text is a move that is fundamentally opposed by the European Parliament and green-minded countries.
The crux of the standoff was that Germany demanded binding legal language that would ensure the Commission would find a way to satisfy Berlin’s demands even if the European Parliament, or the courts, moved to block any tweaks or legal annexes to the 2035 zero-emissions legislation covering cars and vans.
In the statement, Samsom promised the Commission will publish its full e-fuels proposal as a so-called delegated act this fall. In practice, that means the original 2035 legislation will pass at first — offering the European Commission a critical win — but it sets up a future fight over the technical additions needed to satisfy Berlin.
“The law that 100 percent of cars sold after 2035 must be zero emissions will be voted unchanged by next Tuesday,” said Pascal Canfin, the French liberal lawmaker spearheading the file in the assembly. “Parliament will decide in due course on the Commission’s future proposals on e-fuels.”
Engine endgame
The deal means energy ministers can sign off on the original 2035 proposal during a meeting on Tuesday given that Berlin now has assurances that its demands will be met. In advance, EU ambassadors will review the bilateral deal between Brussels and Berlin on Monday, an EU diplomat said.
The agreement caps a decade of German pushback on EU automotive emissions rule-making.
In 2013, then-Chancellor Angela Merkel intervened late to water down previous iterations of car emission standards legislation, securing tweaks critical to the country’s hulking automotive industry.
The deal means Germany has effectively dropped its last-minute opposition to the car engine ban law | Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Since the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal, most carmakers have shifted their investments toward electric vehicles, but some industry interests, notably high-end carmakers such as Porsche and Germany’s web of combustion engine component makers, have sought to save traditional gas guzzlers from the clutches of a de facto EU sales ban.
Figuring out a final workaround on e-fuels in the 2035 legislation will still take some months, given that technical standards haven’t yet been clarified for setting out a “robust and evasion-proof” system for selling cars that can only be fuelled on synthetic alternatives to petrol and diesel, according to Samsom’s statement.
The timeline is already clear in Berlin’s perspective. “We want the process to be completed by autumn 2024,” said the German Transport Ministry, which is run by the country’s Free Democratic Party. The FDP, the most junior in Germany’s three-way governing coalition, had wanted fixed legal language to guarantee a loophole for e-fuels, which can theoretically be CO2-neutral but which wouldn’t normally comply with the emissions legislation since they do still emit tailpipe pollutants.
With the FDP’s popularity tumbling, the car policy row with Brussels has been a popular talking point in German media over recent weeks. One survey reports that 67 percent of respondents are against the engine ban legislation. Ahead of national elections in late 2025, the FDP is betting on driver-friendly policies such as e-fuels, new road construction initiatives and a block on the implementation of a national highway speed limit, to raise its profile.
Market watchers don’t anticipate e-fuels to offer much in the way of a mass-market alternative to electric vehicles, given that they are costly to produce and don’t exist in commercial volumes today. A study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research reports that even if all global e-fuel production was allocated to German consumers, the output would only meet a tenth of national demand in the aviation, maritime and chemical sectors by 2035.
“E-fuels are an expensive and massively inefficient diversion from the transformation to electric facing Europe’s carmakers,” said Julia Poliscanova from the green group Transport & Environment.
Auto politics
Despite not being on the formal agenda, the issue dominated discussions on the sidelines of this week’s summit of EU leaders in Brussels. A deal between Brussels and Berlin was only struck at 9 p.m. on Friday, hours after leaders left the EU capital, before being formally announced on social media early Saturday.
“The way is clear,” said German Transport Minister Volker Wissing in announcing the agreement. “We have secured opportunities for Europe by keeping important options open for climate-neutral and affordable mobility.”
The deal means Germany has effectively dropped its last-minute opposition to the car engine ban law, collapsing a blocking minority of Italy, Poland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic that had put a roadblock in front of final ratification by ministers of the deal reached last October between the three EU institutions.
It remains unclear whether Italy’s attempts to find a separate workaround for biofuels — promoted personally by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at the summit — also succeeded. However, without Berlin’s support, Rome doesn’t have a way to block the legislation.
German Transport Minister Volker Wissing | Maja Hitij/Getty Images
Responses to the Commission working up a bespoke fix for its biggest member country on otherwise agreed legislation were generally negative, with many arguing the e-fuels issue is a diversion.
“The opening for e-fuels does not mean a significant change for the transformation to electric cars,” said Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, a professor at the Center for Automotive Research in Duisburg. He said the Commission’s dealmaking raised “new investment uncertainties” that undermined the bloc’s efforts to catch up with China, the world’s leading producer of electric vehicles.
Still, most are just happy that the combustion engine row is ended, for now.
“It is good that this impasse is over,” said German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, who backed the original 2035 deal without a reference to e-fuels. “Anything else would have severely damaged both confidence in European procedures and in Germany’s reliability inside European politics,” the minister said in a statement.
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.
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.
A major overhaul of the bloc’s flagship carbon market and a brand new fund to protect vulnerable people from rising CO2 costs were agreed on by EU negotiators in the early hours of Sunday as part of a “jumbo” trilogue that started on Friday morning.
“After 30 hours of (net!) negotiation time we have an agreement about a new ETS and the creation of a social climate fund (SCF),” tweeted Esther de Lange, vice chair of the European People’s Party and a key climate lawmaker.
Touted as the cornerstone of Europe’s climate efforts, reforming the Emissions Trading System (ETS) is key to achieving the goal of slashing 55 percent of CO2 emissions by 2030 from 1990 levels.
“We just found an agreement on the biggest climate law ever negotiated in Europe,” said German MEP Peter Liese, who steered the negotiations on the bill.
As part of the hard-fought compromise, EU brokers stipulated that power generators and heavy polluters covered by the ETS will have to curb their pollution by 62 percent by the end of the decade, 1 percent more than what the European Commission had initially proposed.
Waste will be covered by the scheme from 2028, with potential derogations until 2030.
The deal also mandates that all the revenues generated by the carbon market “shall” be spent on climate action.
“That’s one of the biggest wins of the Parliament,” Liese told a briefing held shortly after the end of the talks.
Free CO2 certificates, given to industry to remain competitive against rivals from outside the bloc, will be phased out entirely by 2034 as a planned Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is due to enter into force from 2026 at the end of a three-year transition period. The Commission and the Council sought an end-date of 2036, while the Parliament fought for a speedier phaseout by 2032.
The border tax covers cement, aluminum, fertilizers, electric energy production, hydrogen, iron and steel.
However, negotiators stopped short of introducing rebates to protect exports, arguing they would have proven incompatible with World Trade Organization rules. Instead, the EU’s 27 nations will be granted the right to ring-fence revenues to support companies at risk of being harmed by the phaseout of free permits.
The deal also calls for a parallel carbon market to cover fossil fuels used to power cars and heat buildings from 2027 — easily one of the most controversial elements due to worries that it could increase energy poverty and unleash political turmoil if not designed in a just way.
“Germany desperately wanted the second carbon market and the inclusion of other fuels. They got it and they should celebrate,” said German MEP Peter Liese | John Thys/AFP via Getty images
To reach a deal, Parliament dropped its call for a split between commercial users and private owners — something the Commission and Council had called unworkable.
But to make it more palatable, policymakers agreed the so-called ETS2 would come with an emergency brake to be triggered in the event carbon prices per ton exceed €90 — which would cause the start to be delayed by one year. The pact also foresees that prices will be capped at €45 at least until 2030.
To help low-income households swiftly shift to cleaner forms of transport and heating so that they won’t be unfairly hit by the measure, EU policymakers signed off on a Social Climate Fund worth €86.7 billion running from 2026 until 2032.
That’s much larger than the €59 billion fund supported by the Council; 25 percent will be raised through co-financing by EU governments while a so-called “all fuels approach” covering process emissions means more CO2 permits will be sold under the scheme.
Several negotiators said the talks were made particularly tough by Germany’s foot-dragging.
“Germany desperately wanted the second carbon market and the inclusion of other fuels. They got it and they should celebrate,” said Liese, adding that, “instead of celebrating, they created problems until the last minute.”
The agreement also confirmed that the ETS will be extended to the shipping sector.
Delegates landing in Egypt’s Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh for U.N. climate talks this week are a global elite bent on tearing down national borders, stripping away individual freedoms and condemning working people to a life of poverty.
That dark view is held by a range of far-right or populist parties — among them Donald Trump’s Republicans, who are seeking to retake control in Tuesday’s U.S. midterm elections. Some of these radicals are rampaging through elections in Europe while others, such as Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro last week, have been defeated only narrowly.
Republican and Trump acolyte Lauren Boebert derides the environmentalist agenda as “America last;” Britain’s Brexit-backing Home Secretary Suella Braverman says the country is in thrall to a “tofu-eating wokerati;” and in Spain, senior figures in the far-right Vox party dismiss the U.N.’s climate agenda as “cultural Marxism.”
Right-wingers of various strains around the world have co-opted climate change into their culture war. The fact this is happening in countries that produce a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions has alarmed some green advocates.
“Reactionary populism is now the biggest obstacle to tackling climate change,” wrote three climate leaders, including Brazil’s former Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira, in a recent commentary.
In the U.S., Republicans are eyeing a return to power in one or both houses of Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections. Many at the COP27 talks will be reliving the first week of the U.N. climate conference in Morocco six years ago when Trump’s election struck the climate movement like a hurricane.
A Republican surge would gnaw at the fragile confidence that has built around global climate efforts since President Joe Biden’s election, raising the specter of a second Trump term and perhaps the withdrawal — again — of the U.S. from the landmark 2015 Paris climate deal.
“I don’t want to think about that,” said Teixeira’s co-author Laurence Tubiana, a former French diplomat who led the design of the Paris Agreement and who now leads the European Climate Foundation.
Some on the American right are pushing a more conciliatory message than others. “Republicans have solutions to reduce world emissions while providing affordable, reliable, and clean energy to our allies across the globe,” said Utah Congressman John Curtis, who will lead a delegation from his party to COP27.
Tubiana and others in the environmental movement are trying to put on a brave face. They argue Republicans won’t want to tamper too much with Biden’s behemoth Inflation Reduction Act, which contains measures to promote clean energy.
“You might see railing against it, and I’m sure there’ll be lots of political talk and rhetoric, but I don’t expect that would be a focus for the Republicans,” said Nat Keohane, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a green NGO based in Arlington, Virginia. Nevertheless, if Republicans take both houses, “we certainly won’t make any progress,” Keohane said.
Trump’s first term and the presidency of Brazil’s Bolsonaro — which ended in a narrow defeat in last month’s election — now look like the opening skirmishes in a struggle in which the planet’s stability is at stake.
In parts of Europe, the right present their policies as sympathetic to the risks of climate change while dismissing internationally sanctioned action as sinister elitism that threatens their voters’ prosperity.
“The Sweden Democrats are not climate deniers, whatever that means,” Swedish far-right leader Jimmie Åkesson told a crowd days before a September election that saw his party win big. But Sweden’s current climate plans, Åkesson said, were “100 percent symbolic” rather than meaningful. “All that leads to is that we get poorer, that our lives get worse.”
This is the gibbet on which the far right are hanging environmentalism: depicting them as the witting or unwitting cavalry of global elites.
“We consider it to be a globalist movement that intends to end all borders, intends to end our freedom, intends to end our freedom for our identities,” Javier Cortés, president of the Seville chapter of Spain’s far-right Vox party, said in an interview with POLITICO. “We are not in favor of CO2 emissions. On the contrary, we want to respect the environment. All we are saying is that the European Union has to clarify that it wants to sell us a climate religion in which we cannot emit CO2, while we make our industries disappear from Europe and we need to buy from China.”
To describe this as climate denial — a common but often inaccurate charge — would be to miss the point that this is now just another front in the culture wars.
Online disinformation about the last U.N. climate talks was largely focused on the hypocrisy and elitism of those attending, according to research from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD). The main spreaders weren’t websites and figures traditionally associated with climate denial, but culture war celebrities such as psychologist Jordan Peterson, Rebel Media’s Ezra Levant and Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams.
Populist attacks on globalism “rely on a well-funded transnational network,” said Tubiana. “It warrants serious scrutiny.”
But while economic interests may be powering parts of the movement, there is also a sense of political opportunism at work. Huge changes to the economy will be needed to lower emissions at the speed dictated by U.N.-brokered global climate goals. There will be winners and losers — and the losers may gravitate toward populists pledging to take up their cause.
“Far-right organizations are recognizing this as a potentially lucrative topic that they can win votes or support on,” said Balsa Lubarda, head of the ideology research unit at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.
Loving the losers
The far right’s focus on the losers has been “turbo charged” by the energy crisis, said Jennie King, head of civic action and education at ISD, which populists have wrongly argued is the fault of green policy. The European Parliament’s coalition of far-right parties has grown and capitalized on the energy crisis by joining with center-right parties to vote down environmental legislation.
Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson — newly elected with Åkesson’s support — aims to dilute the country’s ambitions for cutting some greenhouse gas emissions, a move center-right Liberal Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari justified in familiar terms: “That is a reaction to the reality people are facing.” And in Britain, Brexit leader Nigel Farage retooled his campaign to become an anti-net zero mouthpiece.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni says she wants to reclaim environmentalism for the right | Vincenzo Pinto/AFP via Getty Images
Strains of right-wing ecology may also mean that not all groups are actively hostile to the climate agenda, said Lubarda. Italy’s new Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is a huge fan of the books of J.R.R. Tolkien, which center on the Shire, an idealized bucolic homeland. Meloni says she wants to reclaim environmentalism for the right, but the protection of national economic interests still comes first.
“There is no more convinced ecologist than a conservative, but what distinguishes us from a certain ideological environmentalism is that we want to defend nature with man inside,” she said in her inaugural speech to parliament last month.
While Meloni has announced that she will attend COP27, she has also renamed the Ministry for the Ecological Transition the Ministry for Environment and Energy Security. The governing program of her Brothers of Italy party includes a section on climate change, but it strongly emphasizes the need to protect industry.
It’s this broad sense of demotion and delay that alarms those who are watching these ideas grow in stature among populists on the right. They say that while it may not sound like climate denial, the result is effectively the same.
“You can say that you are climate friends,” said Belgian Socialist MEP Marie Arena. “But in the act, you are not at all. You are business friends first.”
Jacopo Barragazzi, Charlie Duxbury and Zack Colman contributed to this report.
This article is part of POLITICO Pro
The one-stop-shop solution for policy professionals fusing the depth of POLITICO journalism with the power of technology
