Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

Could carbon-removal tech make travel more sustainable?

Could carbon-removal tech make travel more sustainable?

If your 2020 travel plans were cancelled by the coronavirus, carbon offsetting is probably the last thing on your mind. As few as 1% of airline passengers participated in voluntary carbon offsetting before virus-induced travel restrictions took hold, according to The International Air Transport Association (IATA), indicating that purchasing carbon “credits” from your airline or a certified carbon offsetting organisation to compensate for your travel emissions likely wasn’t high on your priority list to begin with.

Yet amid predictions that the drop in global emissions recorded during coronavirus shutdowns may be shortlived, and that the economic impacts of the virus may slow efforts to reduce aviation emissions long term, voluntary carbon offsetting will arguably be more important than ever when the international travel industry is firing on all engines again.

Could a new form of carbon offsetting help to increase traveller participation?

 

The rise of carbon removal tech

Born out of the Kyoto climate talks in 1997, carbon offsetting has long struggled with an image problem. Offsetting schemes allow people to invest in environmental projects designed to sequester carbon emissions (such as planting trees) or prevent emissions from occurring (such as renewable energy projects), but a lack of regulation and accountability in the early days fuelled widespread distrust of their effectiveness.

More recently, the wildfires that have ripped through Australia, California and the Amazon have magnified the issues involved with forestry-based offsetting schemes (when a tree burns, it releases its entire carbon stash back into the atmosphere).

The difficulty in accurately quantifying most carbon-offsetting programmes (it’s difficult to gauge, for example, the volume of emissions you’ll offset by contributing to a clean cookstove project, an energy efficiency initiative typically funded by offsetting organisations) hasn’t helped.

Then came Climeworks, a Swiss start-up that pioneered a technology that sucks carbon out of the air and turns it into stone, effectively removing carbon emissions from the atmosphere instantly, safely and permanently.

Located on the mossy slopes of an active volcano in south-west Iceland, Climeworks’ first carbon removal plant with a permanent storage facility commenced in 2017. Powered by waste heat from a geothermal energy plant, it harnesses direct air capture technology (DAC) to draw ambient air into giant vacuum cleaner-like machines called CO2 collectors. The carbon is then separated from the captured air, combined with water and pumped 700m underground. Through natural mineralisation, the carbon dioxide reacts with basalt rock and turns into stone within a few years, while the remaining air simply returns to the atmosphere.

Like planting trees and building wind farms, DAC is what’s known as a carbon dioxide removal solution, or negative emissions technology. These solutions typically form the basis of carbon-offsetting projects supported by airlines such as Qantas and Delta, with most carriers now aligned with projects verified by the likes of Gold Standard and the Verified Carbon Standard. Once considered much less important than reducing emissions from the outset when it comes to mitigating climate change, carbon dioxide removal solutions received significant scientific endorsement in 2018 when the publication of the IPCC report on keeping the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C this century identified that these technologies would be essential in reaching climate targets “with limited or no overshoot”.

 

While most climate scientists agree that a portfolio of carbon dioxide removal solutions is required to help turn back the clock on global warming, the efficiency and measurability of DAC with permanent storage combined with its minimal physical footprint and negligible environmental impact (Climeworks’ side emissions total less than 10% of the CO2 it sucks out of the atmosphere) has seen this technology emerge as a particularly promising approach.

“In terms of efficiency, one tree removes approximately 25kg of CO2 per year, making one Climeworks CO2 collector 2,000 times more efficient per area than a tree,” said Jan Wurzbacher, co-founder and co-director of Climeworks, which in June was named among 100 Technology Pioneers of 2020 by the World Economic Forum.

“Over the last decade, we have proven that direct air capture is not only possible, but also commercially viable on a large scale.”

Indeed, while Climeworks’ first permanent carbon removal facility is capable of turning just 50 tonnes of carbon to stone per year – a drop in the ocean compared to the 36 billion tonnes of carbon emitted globally in 2019 – the company is rapidly expanding, with a new facility in Iceland, capable of permanently removing several million tonnes of carbon per year, due to open by the end of 2020.

Climeworks also has more than a dozen other plants in Europe that capture carbon to sell commercially, for use in everything from carbonated drinks and synthetic fuels, which helps fund the permanent carbon removal arm of the business.

 

Mobilising travellers

In June 2019, Climeworks became the first company in the world to launch a personal carbon removal via DAC service to the public, with a subscription of €7 per month funding 85kg of carbon per year being turned into stone.

Now a new permanent carbon removal platform, aimed at travellers and launched in partnership with the Adventure Travel Trade Association (ATTA), has joined the movement to help offset the whopping 8% of global emissions that the international travel industry is responsible for.

“The findings of the IPCC report, particularly the urgency needed to make impact, deeply affected me,” said Christina Beckmann, vice president of global strategy at the ATTA.

After attending a climate summit designed to help delegates take climate action within their own spheres of influence, Beckmann founded carbon-removal education platform Tomorrow’s Air on Earth Day 2020 (22 April). Two months later, in June, Tomorrow’s Air launched its own online carbon-removal service in partnership with Climeworks.

 

Until we come up with a genuinely sustainable way of flying people around the planet, we need to fly less

 

While carbon credits sold by Climeworks and Tomorrow’s Air both go towards turning carbon into stone (with Tomorrow’s Air keeping US$2 from a $10 monthly subscription to fund awareness building), Beckmann is confident that launching a carbon-removal platform incubated by the ATTA, which reaches more than six million adventure travellers, will help motivate more travellers to sign up. Travel perks for “Clean Up Champion”-level subscribers (who pledge US$75 per month to remove 600kg of carbon per year), including travel gear discounts and exclusive destination tips and contacts, sweeten the deal.

If you’ve just done the maths on that, however, you’d have figured out that an annual Clean Up Champion subscription (at a cost of US$900) barely offsets a one-way economy flight from Los Angeles to New York City, making turning carbon into stone very expensive in comparison to traditional carbon-offsetting schemes. To put the price difference into perspective, offsetting a tonne of carbon via German non-profit Atmosfair, which supports Gold Standard-certified sustainable-development projects, costs just €23 (£20.80). But with Climeworks predicting that it will slash its costs by two-thirds within three years, the price gap is closing.

“Ultimately, Tomorrow’s Air will be successful for the awareness it creates as much as for the carbon it removes,” said Beckmann, who recently launched virtual tours of a Climeworks plant in Switzerland via Airbnb Experiences so consumers can see for themselves how DAC technology works. “We know that travellers want to take climate action into their own hands, and Tomorrow’s Air offers an easy and fun way to make an immediate impact while helping to drive the cost of permanent carbon removal down.”

 

Could this be the new carbon offsetting?

As permanent carbon removal becomes more accessible to travellers through these two schemes, environmental sociologist and University of Southampton research fellow Dr Roger Tyers, who explored carbon offsetting in his PhD, says it may help to bolster the offset industry.

“More measurable offsets like direct air capture (either for permanent removal or for creating alternatives to fossil fuels) could lift standards across the whole offset market,” he said. “They might also help shine a light on cheaper and less effective offset schemes that have dominated the market so far, which are often too good or cheap to be true.”

Until carbon removal with permanent storage becomes more financially viable for travellers to adopt, other offset providers perhaps shouldn’t be too worried about losing customers. But the founders of Climeworks and Tomorrow’s Air hope that the need for urgent action on climate action will encourage travellers to incorporate permanent carbon removal into their carbon offsetting strategies sooner rather than later.

“Travellers should not stop making other sustainable choices – we need them all,” Beckmann said. “But by contributing a percentage of their offsetting budget to carbon removal with permanent storage, travellers can show their support for this faster and more durable solution.”

However, as international borders slowly begin to reopen following coronavirus lockdowns, Tyers advises that carbon dioxide removal via turning carbon into stone, just like any other form of carbon offsetting, shouldn’t be viewed as an excuse to book a long-haul holiday with a clear conscience.

“Until we come up with a genuinely sustainable way of flying people around the planet, we need to fly less,” he said. “It’s as simple as that.”

 


 

By Sarah Reid

Source: bbc.com

How the First Net-Zero Energy Communities in the U.S. Operate

How the First Net-Zero Energy Communities in the U.S. Operate

 

   

 

   

   

 

   

  

 

     

 

 

 

 

     

  

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 


 

 

Source: Earth911

 

Everything you need to know about insuring an electric vehicle

Everything you need to know about insuring an electric vehicle

Unlike their conventional siblings, electric vehicles don’t depend on combustible engines. Instead, when you pop the hood of an electric car, you’ll see an electric motor, powered by a massive battery pack, often located in the undercarriage of the vehicle.

Robert Anderson invented the first electric car in 1832, but only in recent decades have electric cars become major contenders in the automobile industry. In the past, electric cars could only travel short distances on a single charge – 100 miles or less – and most consumers couldn’t afford the lofty sticker prices. But today, many electric vehicles cost less than $40,000 and some have a range of more than 370 miles on a single charge. Setting up a home charging station costs just $200-$1,000, and you can juice up on the road at pay charging stations from coast to coast.

Car enthusiasts choose electric cars for many reasons. Some buy them because of their environmentally friendly reputation, and other people switch to electric automobiles to save gasoline dollars. But is an electric car right for you? Whatever your reason for considering this option, you should know about how to get an electric vehicle insured.

 

Electric car insurance vs. conventional car insurance

Typically, electric cars have higher insurance rates than their conventional equivalents.

Coverage for electric vehicles is higher because they cost more than conventional cars, sustain damage more easily and cost more to repair. So, if you total an electric car, the insurer must pay a higher claim compared to the payout for an equivalent conventional automobile. And, if a fender bender damages an electric car’s battery pack, the insurance carrier may have to pay $15,000 or more to replace it.

 

How much does electric car insurance cost?

Although electric automobiles typically cost more to insure than their gas-guzzling counterparts, we requested quotes on several makes and were pleasantly surprised at the affordable rates we received.

 

 

Who provides electric car insurance?

Insuring an electric car is no different than covering a conventional vehicle. Electric car policies feature the same standard coverages such as liability, collision and comprehensive coverages. Most major insurers write policies for electric vehicles, including:

 

Tesla Insurance

In August 2019, electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla launched Tesla Insurance. Currently, Tesla Insurance only writes insurance policies for California Model 3, Model S, Model X and Roadster Tesla owners and has plans to offer coverage throughout the United States. Tesla marketing claims the manufacturer launched the Insurance program because of the company’s intimate knowledge of the vehicles’ technology and serviceability.

Tesla Insurance offers the same standard coverage as other providers, including bodily injury and property damage liability, collision and comprehensive insurance. Tesla also offers an Autonomous Vehicle Protection Package that includes autonomous vehicle owner liability, cyber identity fraud expenses, electronic key replacement and wall charger coverages. Although some insurance providers don’t cover autonomous vehicles, a report by the Stevens Institute of Technology suggests the coverage could create an $81 billion opportunity for the insurance industry within the next five years.

Current California Tesla owners can request an online quote and purchase a policy on the Tesla website. New owners who order a new Tesla can get a quote when their vehicle’s VIN number becomes available in their Tesla account.

Like most car insurance companies, Tesla Insurance offers multi policy discounts. Tesla Insurance claims to offer rates 20 to 30 percent lower than their competitors, but the results are mixed. Some Tesla owners may get lower rates with Tesla, but others may pay more. We requested a quote from Progressive for a Tesla Model S and received an annual rate of $1,550, compared to the annual Tesla Insurance rate of $2,963.

Tesla does have discount programs available. If you use the autopilot feature, you can save money. The company will also use data from your car about your driving habits to consider if you’re eligible for safe-driving discounts.

 

How to save on electric car insurance

If you join the electric vehicle craze, you can save on insurance the same way conventional car owners do: avoid accidents and traffic violations and maintain a good credit score. If you already have an electric car and are unhappy with the insurance rate you pay, request quotes from several other providers. You might get a better deal by switching to another company.

You can also take advantage of discount programs. Insurers offer all types of discounts for purchasing multiple policies, insuring more than one vehicle, remaining claims free and taking a defensive driving course, among many others. Some large carriers, including Travelers and Liberty Mutual extend exclusive discounts to electric and hybrid car owners.

Also, research local, state and federal programs that offer rebates or tax credits. For instance, the California Clean Vehicle Rebate Project pays rebates up to $4,500 to Californians who purchase a qualified electric vehicle. The federal government offers tax credits up to $7,500 for purchasing certain makes and models of electric cars and SUVs.

 

What are the benefits of driving electric vehicles?

Owning an electric vehicle has more benefits than you probably thought. Here are just a few.

  • Energy independence: While you must rely on a charging station to recharge your vehicle’s battery, you can say goodbye to gas stations. With a home charging station, you can plug in your automobile when you get home from work and it’ll be ready to go the next morning.
  • Lower environmental impact: Electric automobiles produce no tailpipe emissions. However, driving an electric car doesn’t completely eliminate your transportation carbon footprint, because nearly 63 percent of the United States’ electricity is generated using fossil fuels.
  • Reduce inhaled emissions: Tailpipe emissions don’t just poison the environment; they also pollute your car’s interior. When driving a conventional automobile, emissions seep into the interior from your engine. The level of pollutants varies, depending on factors such as the type of car you drive and its climate control system. Car emissions contain many dangerous carcinogens, including volatile carbon oxides, organic compounds and particulate matter. An electric car can help you avoid breathing in these emissions.
  • Reduce fuel expenses: Typically, fueling an automobile with gasoline or diesel costs more than the electricity expenses of operating an electric vehicle.
  • Extended battery life: Reports about electric car batteries vary widely. However, based on predictive modeling conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, new technology has extended the life of some types of batteries up to 12 to 15 years.
  • Reduce maintenance expenses: With an electric vehicle, you don’t need to worry about regular oil changes or periodically changing incidental parts such as fan belts, gaskets and radiator hoses. Some electric car owners have even reported driving their vehicles 70,000 miles or more on original brake pads.

 

Bottom line

There’s no doubt that electric cars are here to stay. They offer an environmentally friendlier way to get from one point to the next, quieter engines and none of the nasty exhaust fumes. Typically, electric cars require less regular maintenance and can go an astounding number of miles on original parts.

The sticker price of an electric car might set you back a little more, and you may pay slightly higher insurance rates. But you might be surprised. When you take the time to shop around, you can often find rates comparable to many conventional automobile makes and models. To achieve the best premium possible, ask agents about discount programs, including discounts for electric vehicles.

 


 

Fact-checked with HomeInsurance.com

Source: https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/electric-car-insurance/

Good Energy to launch home heat pump tariff in UK first

Good Energy to launch home heat pump tariff in UK first

Green energy supplier Good Energy has today announced plans to launch a new flexible tariff for homes that use heat pumps in the autumn, in a move designed to help customers capitalise on the government’s recently-announced £2bn Green Home Grant scheme to support energy efficiency improvements.

Announced by the Chancellor earlier this month as part of a £3bn package of promised green building funding and support, the Green Home Grant scheme is set to allow homeowners to claim up to £10,000 to help upgrade their homes to become more energy efficient, with cost having long been seen as a major barrier to installing energy efficiency upgrades and technologies such as heat pumps.

Good Energy said its new “competitive” tariff, which will be powered by renewable electricity, would help homeowners drive down costs of operating heat pumps, offering cheaper energy rates at specific times of the day to allow them to use their heat pumps cost-effectively.

Juliet Davenport, founder and chief executive of Good Energy, said the new heat pump tariff would help the Green Home Grants scheme “go further” in delivering its aim of weaning the UK’s homes off gas-powered boilers.

“This tariff will be designed to make it as easy and affordable as possible for people to get rid of dirty gas heating their home and start using clean electricity from renewables,” she added.

Meanwhile, pressure is mounting on the government to follow up its £3bn energy efficiency package with further investments that can decarbonise the UK’s housing stock, which is responsible for more than a fifth of the country’s emissions. Earlier this week, the Confederation of British Industry called on the government to ban conventional gas fired boilers by 2025 in order to accelerate uptake of green heating alternatives, such as heat pumps and hydrogen-ready boilers.

 


 

By Cecilia Keating

Source: Business Green

Vodafone targets 100 per cent renewables-powered mobile network in 2021

Vodafone targets 100 per cent renewables-powered mobile network in 2021

Vodafone has announced plans to shift its entire European mobile network to run on 100 per cent renewable electricity by no later than July 2021, alongside a new target to help its business customers slash their climate impact over the next decade.

The telecoms giant on Friday said it aimed to operate a “Green Gigabit Net” for its customers across 11 European markets powered only be electricity from wind, solar and hydro sources within 12 months, covering countries including the UK, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Italy and Greece.

Around a third of Vodafone’s network is currently powered by renewables, and Friday’s announcement brings forward Vodafone’s existing target date for a fully-renewables-powered mobile network by three years.

Roughly 80 per cent of the energy used by Vodafone’s fixed and mobile networks will be supplied by renewables via Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and green electricity tariffs, it explained, with the remained covered by “credible” Renewable Energy Certificates.

Where feasible, the firm added, it will also invest in its own on-site renewable power generation, mostly via solar panels.

Mobile network base stations and data centres account for 95 per cent of Vodafone’s energy consumption, with just one base station using around 78kWh of electricity per day, roughly equivalent to the amount of battery power needed in a Tesla Model 3 electric vehicle to travel around 300 miles, it explained.

“As society rebuilds and recovers from the Covid-19 crisis, we have an opportunity to reshape our future sustainably to ensure that recovery does not come at a cost to the environment,” said Vodafone Group CEO Nick Read. “Our accelerated shift to 100 per cent renewable electricity on our European networks will change the way we power our technology for good – reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, helping our customers manage their resources more effectively and reduce their carbon emissions, while helping to create a healthier planet for everyone.”

In addition, Vodafone has also worked with climate consultancy the Carbon Trust to develop a new cumulative target to cut the equivalent of 350 million tonnes of CO2 from 2020-2030 across its value chain, which it said would largely be delivered through its Internet of Things (IoT) services, including logistics, fleet management, smart metering and manufacturing activities.

Over carbon savings are expected to be made through Vodafone’s healthcare services, cloud hosting and home working, it said, with its IoT services.

Altogether the latest announcements form part of Vodafone’s headline ambitions to halve its environmental impact by 2025, resell or recycle 100 per cent of its network waste, and support the shift to a more circular economy.

In 2020 so far, the company said it had invested €77m in energy efficiency and renewables projects, which had unlocked 186GWh of energy savings.

Carbon Trust chief executive Tom Delay said Vodafone had been working together with the organisation for the best part of a decade to quantify the carbon impact of its products and services.

“There is a growing and important opportunity for the ICT sector to develop and enable new solutions that help drive decarbonisation and this target represents a very high level of ambition for Vodafone to continue to drive this strategy, further developing its IoT and other services, and engaging with its business customers,” he added.

 


 

By Michael Holder

Source: Business Green

Climate change: Summers could become ‘too hot for humans’

Climate change: Summers could become ‘too hot for humans’

Many live in developing countries, and do jobs that expose them to potentially life threatening conditions.

These include being out in the open on farms and building sites or indoors in factories and hospitals.

Global warming will increase the chances of summer conditions that may be “too hot for humans” to work in.

When we caught up with Dr Jimmy Lee, his goggles were steamed up and there was sweat trickling off his neck.

An emergency medic, he’s labouring in the stifling heat of tropical Singapore to care for patients with Covid-19.

There’s no air conditioning – a deliberate choice, to prevent the virus being blown around – and he notices that he and his colleagues become “more irritable, more short with each other”.

And his personal protective equipment, essential for avoiding infection, makes things worse by creating a sweltering ‘micro-climate’ under the multiple layers of plastic.

“It really hits you when you first go in there,” Dr Lee says, “and it’s really uncomfortable over a whole shift of eight hours – it affects morale.”

One danger, he realises, is that overheating can slow down their ability to do something that’s vital for medical staff – make quick decisions.

Another is that they may ignore the warning signs of what’s called heat stress – such as faintness and nausea – and keep on working till they collapse.

 

What is heat stress?

It’s when the body is unable to cool down properly so its core temperature keeps rising to dangerous levels and key organs can shut down.

It happens when the main technique for getting rid of excess heat – the evaporation of sweat on the skin – can’t take place because the air is too humid.

And as Dr Lee and other medics have found, the impermeable layers of personal protection equipment (PPE) – designed to keep the virus out – have the effect of preventing the sweat from evaporating.

According to Dr Rebecca Lucas, who researches physiology at the University of Birmingham, the symptoms can escalate from fainting and disorientation to cramps and failure of the guts and kidneys.

“It can become very serious as you overheat, and in all areas of the body.”

 

How can we spot it?

A system known as the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) measures not only heat but also humidity and other factors to give a more realistic description of the conditions.

Back in the 1950s, the US military used it to work out guidelines for keeping soldiers safe.

When the WBGT reaches 29C, for example, the recommendation is to suspend exercise for anyone not acclimatised.

Yet that’s the level Dr Lee and his colleagues are regularly experiencing at Singapore’s Ng Teng Fong General Hospital.

And at the top of the scale – when the WBGT registers 32C – the US says strenuous training should stop because the risk becomes “extreme”.

But levels that high have recently been recorded inside hospitals in Chennai in India by Prof Vidhya Venugopal of the Sri Ramachandra University.

She’s also found workers in a salt pan enduring a WBGT that climbs during the day to 33C – at which point they have to seek shelter.

And in a steel plant, a ferocious level of 41.7C was recorded, the workers being among the most vulnerable to what she calls “the huge heat”.

“If this happens day-in, day-out, people become dehydrated, there are cardiovascular issues, kidney stones, heat exhaustion,” Prof Venugopal says.

 

What impact will climate change have?

As global temperatures rise, more intense humidity is likely as well which means more people will be exposed to more days with that hazardous combination of heat and moisture.

Prof Richard Betts of the UK Met Office has run computer models which suggest that the number of days with a WBGT above 32C are set to increase, depending on whether greenhouse gas emissions are cut.

And he spells out the risks for millions of people already having to work in the challenging combination of extreme heat and high humidity.

“We humans evolved to live in a particular range of temperatures, so it’s clear that if we continue to cause temperatures to rise worldwide, sooner or later the hottest parts of the world could start to see conditions that are simply too hot for us.”

Another study, published earlier this year, warned that heat stress could affect as many as 1.2bn people around the world by 2100, four times more than now.

 

What solutions are there?

According to Dr Jimmy Lee, “it’s not rocket science”.

People need to drink plenty of fluid before they start work, take regular breaks and then drink again when they rest.

His hospital has started laying on “slushie” semi-frozen drinks to help the staff cool down.

But he admits that avoiding heat stress is easier said than done.

For him and his colleagues, going for rests involves the laborious process of changing out of PPE and then back into a new set of equipment.

There’s a practical problem as well – “some people do not want to drink so they can avoid having to go to the toilet,” he says.

And there’s a professional desire to keep working whatever the difficulties so as not to let colleagues and patients down at a time of crisis.

People who are highly motivated can actually be at the greatest risk of heat injury, says Dr Jason Lee, an associate professor in physiology at the National University of Singapore.

He’s a leading member of a group specialising in the dangers of excessive heat, the Global Heat Health Information Network, which has drawn up guidelines to help medics cope with Covid-19.

It’s spearheaded by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the US weather and climate agency Noaa.

Dr Lee says that as well as measures like rest and fluids – and shade for outdoor workers – a key strategy for resisting heat stress is to be fit.

“By keeping yourself aerobically fit, you’re also increasing your heat tolerance, and there are so many other benefits too.”

And he sees the challenge for medics, sweating inside their PPE as they deal with Covid-19, as “almost like a full dress rehearsal” for future rises in temperature.

“This climate change will be a bigger monster and we really need a coordinated effort across nations to prepare for what is to come.

“If not,” he says, “there’ll be a price to be paid.”

 


 

Source: BBC

 

 

Survey: Consumer sentiment on sustainability in fashion

Survey: Consumer sentiment on sustainability in fashion

While the fashion industry is reorganizing for the next normal after the COVID-19 crisis, European consumers have become even more engaged in sustainability topics. That presents an opportunity for the fashion industry to reiterate its commitment to sustainability. Moreover, now could be the moment to drive less seasonality in the fashion system.

Our survey was conducted in April 2020 across more than 2,000 UK and German consumers.1 It is part of a firmwide effort to capture consumer sentiment during the COVID-19 crisis.

 

Sentiment toward sustainability

Amid the shock and uncertainty that the fashion sector is facing during the COVID-19 crisis, there is a silver lining for the environment: two-thirds of surveyed consumers state that it has become even more important to limit impacts on climate change. Additionally, 88 percent of respondents believe that more attention should be paid to reducing pollution.

In practice, consumers have already begun changing their behaviors accordingly. Of consumers surveyed, 57 percent have made significant changes to their lifestyles to lessen their environmental impact, and more than 60 percent report going out of their way to recycle and purchase products in environmentally friendly packaging (Exhibit 1).

 

 

Emphasis on social and environmental commitments

While the industry is reorganizing for the next normal, it should consider that consumers want fashion players to uphold their social and environmental responsibilities amid the crisis. Of surveyed consumers, 67 percent consider the use of sustainable materials to be an important purchasing factor, and 63 percent consider a brand’s promotion of sustainability in the same way.

Additionally, surveyed consumers expect brands to take care of their employees, as well as workers in Asia, during the COVID-19 crisis (Exhibit 2). That highlights the need for brands to maintain ethical commitments, despite the crisis.

 

 

Overall, it is imperative to build trust and transparency with consumers, as 70 percent are sticking with brands they know and trust during the crisis. Of surveyed consumers, 75 percent consider a trusted brand to be an important purchasing factor. However, younger consumers, particularly Gen Zers and millennials, are more likely to experiment with smaller or lesser-known brands during the crisis (Exhibit 3).

 

 

Shift in purchasing behavior

With 88 percent of consumers expecting a slow recovery or a recession, general consumer confidence is low. As a result, consumer spending on fashion is also changing. More than 60 percent of consumers report spending less on fashion during the crisis, and approximately half expect that trend to continue after the crisis passes. However, consumers are likely to cut back on accessories, jewelry, and other discretionary categories before reducing their spending on apparel and footwear (Exhibit 4).

 

 

When it comes to making changes to purchasing behavior, younger consumer segments are willing to buy cheaper versions of products they normally buy—approximately 50 percent of Gen Zers and millennials in our survey report trading down (Exhibit 5).

 

 

The COVID-19 crisis has recruited new consumers to online channels: 43 percent of surveyed consumers who didn’t purchase fashion online before the crisis have started using online channels. And that shift is unlikely to reverse, as nearly 28 percent of consumers expect to buy less at physical stores—a trend seen in higher shares in Generation Z and millennial respondents (Exhibit 6).

 

 

Mindset on fashion cycles and circular business models

The survey findings indicate that the consumer mindset is not strongly tied to the fashion cycle, so now could be the moment to drive less seasonality in the fashion system. Of surveyed consumers, 65 percent are supportive of fashion brands delaying the launch of new collections as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Additionally, 58 percent of respondents are less concerned about the fashion of clothing than other factors following the crisis, and consumers now cite newness as one of the least important attributes when making purchases (Exhibit 7).

 

 

As a result of the COVID-19 crisis, 65 percent of respondents are planning to purchase more durable fashion items, and 71 percent are planning to keep the items they already have for longer (Exhibit 8). Additionally, 57 percent of respondents are willing to repair items to prolong usage.

 

 

Particularly among younger European consumers, there is interest in purchasing secondhand fashion items following the COVID-19 crisis. Of surveyed consumers, around 50 percent of Gen Zers and millennials expect to purchase more items secondhand (Exhibit 9).

 

 

Overall, consumer sentiment suggests that the COVID-19 crisis could serve as a reset opportunity for players in the apparel, footwear, and luxury sectors to strengthen their sustainability commitments and accelerate industry-wide changes, such as reduced seasonality and scaling of circular business models.

 


 

About the author(s)

Anna Granskog is a partner in McKinsey’s Helsinki office, Libbi Lee and Corinne Sawers are associate partners in the London office, and Karl-Hendrik Magnus is a senior partner in the Frankfurt office.

The authors wish to thank Poorni Polgampola, Nadya Snezhkova, and Jan Vlcek for their contributions to this article.

Source: https://www.mckinsey.com/

P&G Embraces Natural Climate Solutions to Accelerate Progress on Climate Change and Will Make Operations Carbon Neutral for the Decade

P&G Embraces Natural Climate Solutions to Accelerate Progress on Climate Change and Will Make Operations Carbon Neutral for the Decade

The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) announced a new commitment to have its global operations be carbon neutral for the decade through a series of interventions that protect, improve and restore nature. Recognizing the next decade represents a critical window for the world to accelerate progress on climate change, P&G will go beyond its existing Science Based Target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by additionally advancing a portfolio of natural climate solutions. These efforts will deliver a carbon benefit that balances any remaining emissions over the next 10 years, allowing P&G operations to be carbon neutral for the decade. Based on current estimates, the Company will need to balance ~30 million metric tons of carbon from 2020 to 2030.

P&G’s priority continues to be reducing emissions. P&G has an existing goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% and purchasing 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and is on track to deliver on its 2030 commitments. In addition, P&G will continue pursuing new wind, solar and geothermal projects to further accelerate the transition to renewables. These efforts are aligned with what climate science says is needed to help ensure the Company does its part to limit global temperature increase and will continue well beyond 2030. However, based on today’s technologies, there are some emissions that cannot be eliminated by 2030. By investing in natural climate solutions, the Company will accelerate its impact over the next 10 years.

 

A Critical Window

Recent reports have highlighted that the world is falling short of the greenhouse gas emission reductions needed and that the next decade represents a critical window to reduce emissions and be on a path to limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C. That task will get much harder if society doesn’t start curbing emissions before the decade ends. By 2050, carbon emissions must fall to zero, or close to it. ​Failure to act now will put future generations at greater risk from climate change impacts and make achieving the global targets of the Paris Accord more difficult.

“Climate change is happening, and action is needed now,” said David Taylor, P&G Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. “By reducing our carbon footprint and investing in natural climate solutions, we will be carbon neutral for the decade across our operations and help protect vulnerable ecosystems and communities around the world.”

 

Natural Climate Solutions: “Nature alone can solve up to one-third of climate change”

P&G will partner with Conservation International and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to identify and fund a range of projects designed to protect, improve and restore critical ecosystems like forests, wetlands, grasslands and peatlands. In addition to sequestering more carbon, an important aspect of natural climate solutions is the potential to deliver meaningful environmental and socioeconomic co-benefits that serve to protect and enhance nature and improve the livelihoods of local communities. As P&G moves forward, the company will seek to identify, measure and communicate relevant co-benefits from its investment in nature.

P&G is developing a detailed project portfolio and investing in projects across the globe. Projects already identified include:

– Philippines Palawan Protection Project with Conservation International – To protect, improve and restore Palawan’s mangroves and critical ecosystems. Palawan is the world’s fourth most “irreplaceable” area for unique and threatened wildlife.

– Atlantic Forest Restoration Planning with WWF – In the Atlantic Forest on Brazil’s east coast, laying the groundwork for forest landscape restoration with meaningful impacts on biodiversity, water, food security and other co-benefits for local communities.

– Evergreen Alliance with Arbor Day Foundation – Bringing corporations, communities and citizens together to take critical action to preserve the necessities of life affected by climate change—including planting trees to restore areas devastated by wildfires in Northern California and enhance forests in Germany.

“Nature must be a key part of any strategy to combat the climate crisis,” said Dr. M. Sanjayan, CEO of Conservation International. “Research shows that we cannot meet our climate goals unless we protect, restore and improve the management of carbon-rich ecosystems. Done right, these efforts can deliver a third of the emissions reductions needed within the next decade, and importantly, support the livelihoods of communities on the front lines of climate change. We’re delighted to be working with Procter & Gamble to protect nature – an investment that is a win for people and our planet.”

“We’ve worked with P&G to drive climate progress and safeguard forests for over a decade, because the scope of their business means they can deliver results at a scale that matters,” said Carter Roberts, U.S. President and CEO of WWF. “Importantly, that progress hasn’t been limited to their own corporate footprint. P&G was an early partner in the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance, which has helped expand corporate renewable energy procurements across the United States. Today’s announcement marks further progress by putting a greater focus on the role that preserving nature can play – not just in absorbing carbon emissions, but in providing the services and resources that sustain life on earth. We look forward to working with P&G to achieve these new commitments over the next decade.”

 

P&G Brands take the lead on carbon footprint reduction and climate positive habit changes

Committing to going beyond its Science Based Target for reducing operational emissions is important, but the Company will not stop there. For more than two decades, P&G has been committed to harnessing the scientific rigor of the Life Cycle Assessment of its products to better understand the emissions from its supply chain and consumer use of its products (Scope 3 emissions). Up to 85% of P&G’s Scope 3 emissions are from consumer use of its products. P&G reaches five billion people through its brands, and with this scale comes a responsibility to give consumers the power to reduce their own carbon footprints with products that are designed to help save energy, water and natural resources.

– More than 60% of a laundry detergent’s footprint is in the consumer use phase, mostly related to the energy used to heat the water. Ariel and Tide have been optimizing detergent formulas for high efficiency in low temperature washing and inspiring positive “Turn to 30” and “Cold Water Wash” laundry behaviors. The goal is to have 70% of machine loads be low-energy cycle loads, and major progress has been achieved by educating consumers in the U.S. over the last ten years on the benefits of low-energy wash cycles. P&G estimates that since 2015, the avoided emissions from consumers increasing their use of low-energy laundry cycles have been roughly 15 million metric tons of CO2, which is equivalent to taking three million cars off the road.

– Busting a popular myth, Cascade is showing consumers how the dishwasher is designed to be more water and energy efficient than washing in the sink. Cascade and Fairy Automatic Dish Washing Tablets allow consumers to skip pre-wash and save water and the energy needed to heat the water. Fairy and Dawn Dish Washing Liquid’s grease cutting power enables water and energy savings: by reducing the water temperature 20°C (36°F), consumers can save up to 50% CO2 of the total footprint every wash.

“Our role as leaders is to make a lower emission economy and lifestyle possible, affordable and desirable for everyone,” said Virginie Helias, P&G’s Chief Sustainability Officer. “It is our responsibility to protect critical carbon reserves and invest in solutions that regenerate our planet. Consumers also want to do more to address climate change. As a company, we touch five billion people with our brands; we are striving to make a difference every day by encouraging responsible consumption with products that are effective and intuitive to enable adoption of new lower emission habits.”

Today at 8am EST/2pm CET, P&G is convening experts and climate leaders for a roundtable hosted by National Geographic to discuss the power of nature as a climate solution. Participants include P&G CEO David Taylor, P&G Chief Sustainability Officer Virginie Helias, Conservation International CEO Dr. M. Sanjayan, Word Wildlife Fund U.S. CEO Carter Roberts, and climate activists Clover Hogan, Jiaxuan Zhang, Kehkashan Basu and Vanessa Nakate.

To learn more about P&G’s new commitment to advance natural climate solutions and become carbon neutral for the decade, visit our Multi Media Release site.

 

About Procter & Gamble

P&G serves consumers around the world with one of the strongest portfolios of trusted, quality, leadership brands, including Always®, Ambi Pur®, Ariel®, Bounty®, Charmin®, Crest®, Dawn®, Downy®, Fairy®, Febreze®, Gain®, Gillette®, Head & Shoulders®, Lenor®, Olay®, Oral-B®, Pampers®, Pantene®, SK-II®, Tide®, Vicks®, and Whisper®. The P&G community includes operations in approximately 70 countries worldwide. Please visit https://www.pg.com/ for the latest news and information about P&G and its brands.

 


 

Source: Ecovoice Australia

Onshore renewables could boost UK economy by £29bn

Onshore renewables could boost UK economy by £29bn

Investor Thrive Renewables claims removal of local planning barriers could unlock multi-billion pound potential of onshore wind, solar, and hydropower sectors.

Easing planning barriers for onshore renewable energy projects could unlock 45,000 new jobs and pump almost £29bn into the UK economy over the next 15 years, as well as saving money on consumer energy bills, according to a new analysis by Thrive Renewables.

The clean energy investment firm – which manages £93m of renewable energy assets – claims that, based on Committee on Climate Change estimates for achieving net zero emissions by 2050, the UK will need to build 5.5GW of onshore renewable energy capacity every year between now and 2035.

That, it said, would require £4.75bn annual investment – including £2.75bn in onshore wind projects alone – amounting to a £66.5bn investment opportunity over the next 15 years. Unlocking that potential could deliver 45,000 new jobs, provide a £28.9bn economic boost, and save billpayers up to £1.5bn a year by 2035, according to the firm, which operates 15 renewables projects across the UK.

Echoing arguments from across the renewables industry, the report highlighted how onshore renewables were now both quicker to build and cheaper than nuclear projects and gas-fired power generation capacity, with onshore wind now considered to the lowest cost form of new electricity generation available.

Meanwhile, the same two years spent laying only the foundations for Hinkley Point C saw enough renewable power generation capacity installed in the UK to match the total planned generation of the flagship Somerset nuclear power project, the report said.

The analysis also stressed how giving existing onshore solar, wind, and other such projects a new lease of life by upgrading them with the latest, most efficient technologies offered yet another cost-effective means of delivering zero carbon energy.

“Renewables are the obvious choice for the government to take in driving our economic recovery, helping to ‘Build Back Better’ and deliver a net-zero carbon emission society,” said Matthew Clayton, managing director of Thrive Renewables. “We don’t need to reinvent the wheel or – in this case – the wind turbine and solar panel. UK renewables have enormous potential that can be unlocked, fast. We already have what we need: abundant natural resources, proven technology, lowest ever costs and the right skills.”

However, Clayton warned that in order to maximise the opportunities on offer a clear, long-term and investible clean energy policy platform was required in the UK, and that planning barriers to new renewables projects needed to be torn down.

Firstly he said more policy certainty was needed over price stability in Contracts for Difference auctions, distribution network connection planning, and cost structures, as long-term investment decisions remains challenging for developers.

Moreover, Clayton said new onshore wind projects continued to face automatic blocks from many local planning authorities, as too often councils have failed to update their local plans – in some cases for decades – to reflect their myriad climate emergency declarations.

“By providing policy certainty and creating a more positive environment for onshore renewables, the government can unleash huge private sector investment, create thousands of jobs and deliver a greener, cleaner UK for us all,” he said.

There have long been calls for the UK’s national planning policy to be amended to remove barriers to new onshore wind projects, although earlier this year the government did unveil plans to allow onshore renewables projects to compete for in upcoming CfD auction rounds, providing a major new potential route to market for new projects.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has also touted plans to reduce red tape in order to “build, build, build” as part of his strategy to stimulate the economy in the wake of the recession sparked by the coronavirus crisis.

However, it remains unclear whether the PM’s proposed planning changes could be used to accelerate rollout of renewables and clean technologies, given long-standing opposition to such projects from a vocal minority of the public.

Mewanwhile, some green groups have raised concerns that moves to dilute planning rules could lead to less democratic oversight of local planning decisions and green building standards being compromised.

 


By Michael Holder

Source: Business Green

A power company’s potent vision: From neutral to negative emissions

A power company’s potent vision: From neutral to negative emissions

Drax, a power-generation company that provides 6 percent of the United Kingdom’s electricity, is moving from coal-based power plants to plants based on biomass, a source of renewable energy. The company uses wood pellets, mostly sourced from sustainable forests in the southeastern United States, to generate steam and then electricity.

Drax Group CEO Will Gardiner spoke with McKinsey about why the company made the switch, how industry should harness carbon-capture technologies to reach zero emissions, and what the costs and challenges to scaling up its model might look like. “We are, broadly based, neutral in terms of CO2,” he said. “What we’re working on now is to see if we can go another step, which is to capture the CO2 that comes out of the power station and end up with negative emissions.”

 

The power of biomass

McKinsey: Let’s begin with the history of Drax and how you came to focus on renewable energy through carbon capture and storage [CCS].

 

 

 

Will Gardiner: I’ll start with the story of Drax, which originally was a coal-fired power station in the north of England. We deliver about 6 percent of the UK’s electricity. About ten years ago, the company decided that there was not a future for coal, so we converted four out of our six units. About two-thirds of the power station now runs on biomass—we use wood pellets to generate steam and then electricity. Biomass is considered a renewable fuel source because the forests where we get our wood pellets regrow. The recapture of the CO2 in the forest offsets the emissions that still come from the power station.

We are, broadly based, neutral in terms of CO2. What we’re working on now is to see if we can go another step, which is to capture the CO2 that comes out of the power station and end up with negative emissions.

McKinsey: Can you tell us more about the fuel source itself and where you get your pellets and how the standards work around that?

Will Gardiner: Biomass has to be sourced in a sustainable way. There’s a group called the Sustainable Biomass Program that certifies where every one of our pellets comes from. We need to meet important standards in terms of how much greenhouse-gas emissions there are in the creation of the pellets. We need to be able to say where they come from and that the forests are managed properly. In the southeastern US, where we get about 60 percent of our fiber, the forest cover there is growing and has grown by about 50 percent since the mid-1950s. There’s a very vigorous and effective forest economy in that part of the world.

 

Capturing carbon

McKinsey: Where is Drax in terms of moving from carbon-capture technologies to storing carbon?

Will Gardiner: You need to divide it into two pieces. There’s the capturing piece, then there’s the transport—getting the CO2 to someplace that you can store it. What we’re going to be doing at Drax is the capture piece.

 

 

McKinsey: What is your latest project, and is the UK government playing a role in facilitating CCS?

Will Gardiner: We started work about a year ago on a trial project to see whether we could capture CO2 coming out of the flue gas at the power station. We’re capturing about a ton a day, which may sound big, but it’s very small in the overall context.

Our ambition would be to do 15 million tons a year or more. We’re successfully capturing the carbon, and that’s a trial project that is expected to last for much of this year. By the end of this year, we’d like to be in a position where we know the technology works, and we also know what the cost and the challenges are to scale that up to that 15-million-ton level.

We’re working alongside the UK government, which is creating the regulatory framework to enable the transport and storage to happen. The government is going to be working through a process over the course of this year to develop the regulatory framework to enable carbon transport and storage, and we are happy to be part of that process. My hope is that by the end of this year, maybe early next year, there will be a framework for how our carbon capture can work and how the transport and storage can work and that by the mid-2020s we could be capturing quite significant amounts of CO2.

McKinsey: As you get into that scale and the transport ecosystem starts to kick in, what sorts of possibilities are there in how the carbon is stored and used?

Will Gardiner: There’s a history of doing this type of storage. And the UK is quite well positioned here because there are aquifers under the North Sea and depleted oil and gas wells where you can store the CO2. Longer term, I think the actual usage is something that needs to be explored.

The market for using CO2 today is about 600,000 tons a year in the UK, and that’s relative to those multiple millions of tons that we could capture. But we want to develop that. Whether it’s providing the fizz in your beer, whether it’s providing CO2 for a greenhouse to help tomatoes grow or, ultimately, some of the more interesting things [like] can you create synthetic fuels? Once you have the CO2 [and] combine it with some sort of hydrogen, you can start to think about other types of fuels that you might be able to make.

 

 

Getting to negative emissions

McKinsey: How does BECCS [bioenergy with carbon capture and storage] fit into your strategy of getting to negative emissions?

Will Gardiner: When people think of carbon capture and storage, it’s generally thought about in terms of coal, historically, or oil and gas, or gas generation, or other industrial processes. Because we’re using biomass at the power station to generate the electricity—and that’s effectively, again, a neutral generation technology—if we capture the CO2, then you end up with the negative emissions. And that’s where BECCS is an exciting opportunity.

 

 

McKinsey: What sorts of industries would be affected by implementing BECCS?

Will Gardiner: The Climate Change Committee [which advises the UK government on what it should be doing to address climate change] thinks the UK will have to offset about 100 million tons of CO2 to be at net zero in 2050. If we could be doing 15 or 20 million of those tons we would have a very important role to play.

There are lots of other industries, whether they be petrochemicals or other heavy industries in the northeast of the UK, that are emitting CO2. We are working on creating a cluster in the Humber, in the northeast of the UK, where multiple industries could tap into the pipeline that will get built.

If we can be an anchor for that, then you end up in a world where what you’re creating is not just something that can help fight climate change, but you’re creating the next-generation clean-energy economy built around carbon capture and enabling jobs to be saved in industries that might not be able to operate in a low-carbon world, [while also] creating new ones.

Hydrogen is also an important part of a climate-change solution. Creating hydrogen takes a lot of energy, which implies a lot of carbon capture. So, again, if you could have a low-carbon and hydrogen-based economy, there are a lot of interesting opportunities as part of an industrial strategy.

McKinsey: What sort of regulatory environment is needed?

Will Gardiner: The capturing of CO2 should be kept separate from its transport and storage. What the UK government is working on is a different mechanism to incentivize people for capturing [CO2] and another for incentivizing people to create the pipeline and storage—which I think makes sense.

In terms of the regulatory framework to incentivize the capturing, you need to think about it in two ways. One is that we need some long-term certainty. We will be making very significant investments, so we need some certainty from the government that we’ll have a long-term source of earnings to support that. The second point is if we are capturing CO2, if there is a carbon price or a carbon tax, where, effectively, the [companies that] are emitting CO2 are paying a price and [those] that are capturing it, effectively, get the reverse effect.

 

The future of carbon capture

McKinsey: Drax is doing something different in an industry that’s not necessarily known for being part of the solution—at least, that’s the pejorative [view]. How does all this work for you as a leader? Where do you draw energy and purpose?

Will Gardiner: In terms of running a company, I’ve got a real obligation to my shareholders, my customers, and my employees to make sure that we deliver all the things we need to do every year. You need to do all the things that make a business run.

But when I think about the strategy of the company, our purpose as a business is to enable a zero-carbon, lower-cost energy future. And if I keep that at the core of the way I think about my horizon scanning, it is incredibly inspiring for me. And I hope it’s inspiring for other people in the business.

 

 

I can’t say there is a revenue opportunity of X millions, or X hundred million in ten years’ time. But I do believe [that] it’s a problem we have to solve, and that society shares that view, and that governments will make it possible. You need to be ahead of the game, relative to a classic strategic-planning process. Having that purpose at the core of the way I think about our strategy is really helpful.

McKinsey: Looking to the future, what sorts of innovations do you find most intriguing?

Will Gardiner: Government support for new industries is about getting them off the ground, providing capital or certainty for things that the private sector maybe wouldn’t. Our obligation within that is to continue to drive down our cost base across the value chain so that we can do this without government support.

We’ve got all sorts of interesting things happening, whether they’re at our pellet plants, trying to reduce the cost of our fuel source today, or using more sawmill residues, for example. That’s also more sustainable than other things we do. Also, using different types of solvents to extract the CO2 from our flue gas. But, ultimately, it’s about driving that cost curve down. With all the renewable technologies—whether it’s solar, wind, or biomass—that’s ultimately going to be key for the future.

 

Ultimately, it’s about driving the cost curve down. With all the renewable technologies—whether it’s solar, wind, or biomass—that’s going to be key.

 

McKinsey: Why isn’t every coal plant transitioning to biomass?

Will Gardiner: There are several reasons. First, economics. In the US, for example, natural gas is very inexpensive, and biomass is way more expensive. As the world moves to the next step in the decarbonization journey, and natural gas becomes the next coal, then I think you need to start finding ways to replace natural gas. Carbon pricing becomes a big part of that.

Second, the technology’s not that easy. I’ve talked to a lot of my peers globally and other utilities—coal-fired power stations—and they say, “Well, we were able to do 10 percent biomass but we couldn’t do more.” Drax was in a situation where we said, “Well, we’re going to go for 100 percent.” And we went all the way. There’s a bit of a jumping over the chasm and hoping you land on the other side. And we did.

 


 

Will Gardiner is the CEO of Drax Group. This interview was conducted by Tom Fleming, deputy editor in chief of the McKinsey Quarterly based in McKinsey’s Chicago office.

Source https://www.mckinsey.com/