May 2022 - Zureli

Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

Window cleaning

Singapore Safety Glass

Food rescue feeds the hungry and cuts greenhouse gas emissions

Posted on May 27, 2022 by dishanth

Feeding people in need was the main aim of Northland Food Rescue/Whakaora Kai Taitokerau when the organisation was first seeded in Whangārei in 2016.

But the benefits to the environment – by removing methane-producing food from landfills – quickly became obvious, community development worker Carol Peters said.

The organisation now receives food, which would normally go to landfill, from 35 suppliers, including supermarkets, cafes, growers and packhouses across most of Tai Tokerau.

Northland Food Rescue manager Peter Nicholas says Northland Food Rescue/Whakaora Kai Taitokerau is successful because it both feeds the hungry and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by saving food from landfill. DAVID WHITE / STUFF

The food is all weighed, so reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be calculated.

It is then sorted and listed on a secure online “shop” so distributors – including churches, schools and food banks – can select which kai their clients need.

The scale of the operation means in the last year alone it saved 108 tonnes of food from going to waste, creating 305,000 meals and reducing 121 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

Manager Peter Nicholas said 97 per cent of the donated food is perfectly edible, it just can’t be sold because of imperfections or expiry dates.

“It is a fault of our food supply system; it is usually perfectly edible food that can be distributed to people in need.

Northland Food Rescue has an online “shop” so distributors can select their food. David White / STUFF

“When there is food insecurity in this country, it makes no sense to be chucking food out.”

Food not fit for human consumption is fed to pigs or composted.

But most of the time, the food can be used with a bit of know-how, such as using fruit past its best in baking, Nicholas said.

Northland Food Rescue is run by 155 Whare Āwhina Community Houses, and its distributors include the organisation’s food bank and centre for homeless people, Open Arms.

Peter Nicholas says Northland Food Rescue has created 305,000 meals out of donated food in the past year, reducing 121 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. David White / STUFF

Another charity which benefits is Soul Food, which makes hot meals for the homeless and hungry once a week, as well as distributing food parcels.

Co-founder Chris Youens said Northland Food Rescue supplied quite a lot of Soul Food’s needs, especially the fresh produce important for a healthy diet.

“We get all sorts of produce through them which helps us make our meals on Monday nights,” he said.

Northland Food Rescue was about to move to a bigger warehouse in Whangārei and was trying to encourage more suppliers to donate unwanted food, Nicholas said.

“There is a lot more that could be rescued. Even after all these years of operating, it is still just the tip of the iceberg.”

Peters believed more produce could be rescued if people volunteered to help pick food or pick up tree fall.

It would help if New Zealand introduced a law to stop the likes of supermarkets from throwing waste food to landfill, as France did in 2016, she said.

But the organisation was also looking at a sweetener for suppliers: Investigating if carbon credits could be given to suppliers for their reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, Peters said.

Source STUFF

Overfishing, conservation, sustainability, and farmed fish

Posted on May 26, 2022April 27, 2023 by dishanth

As with many other aspects of government policy, overfishing and other fishing-related environmental issues are a real problem, but it’s not clear that government intervention is the solution. Indeed, it might be one of the main drivers of overfishing and other conservation and sustainability issues stemming from commercial fishing. Much like drone fishing, there are serious ethical issues of interest to the average angler.

There’s another commonality that overfishing has with environmental issues more broadly: The Western companies primarily concerned with serious efforts to curb overfishing are not the ones who are most guilty of overfishing. What this means is that the costs of overfishing are disproportionately borne by the countries least engaged in practices that are counter to efforts to make commercial fishing more sustainable while also promoting conservation of fish biodiversity.

All of these are important issues not just for commercial fishermen, but also those interested in questions of conservation and sustainability in general, as well as recreational fisherman and basically anyone who uses fish as a food source. As the ocean goes, so goes the planet, so it is of paramount importance for everyone to educate themselves on what is driving overfishing, what its consequences are, and what meaningful steps — not simply theater to feel as if “something is being done” — can be taken.

Indeed, over three billion people around the world rely on fish as their primary source of protein. About 12 percent of the world relies on fisheries in some form or another. 90 percent of these being small-scale fishermen — “think a small crew in a boat, not a ship,” using small nets or even rods, reels and lures not too different from the kind you probably use.

There are 18.9 million fishermen in the world, with 90 percent of them falling under the same small-scale fisherman rubric discussed above.

Overfishing Definition: What is Overfishing?

First, take heart: As a recreational fisherman you are almost certainly not guilty of “overfishing.” This is an issue for commercial fishermen in the fishing industry who are trawling the ocean depths with massive nets to catch enough fish to make a living for themselves and their families, not the angler who enjoys a little peace and quiet on the weekends.

Overfishing is, in some sense, a rational reaction to increasing market needs for fish. Most people consume approximately twice as much fish as they did 50 years ago and there are four times as many people on earth as there were at the close of the 1960s. This is one driver of the 30 percent of commercially fished waters being classified as “overfished.” This means that the stock of available fishing waters are being depleted faster than they can be replaced.

There is a simple and straightforward definition of when an area is being “overfished” and it’s not simply about catching “too many” fish. Overfishing occurs when the breeding stock of an area becomes so depleted that the fish in the area cannot replenish themselves.

At best, this means fewer fish next year than there are this year. At worst, it means that a species of fish cannot be fished out of a specific area anymore. This also goes hand-in-hand with wasteful forms of fishing that harvest not just the fish the trawler is looking for, but just about every other organism big enough to be caught in a net. Over 80 percent of fish are caught in these kinds of nets but fish aren’t the only things caught in nets.

What’s more, there are a number of wide-reaching consequences of overfishing. It’s not simply bad because it depletes the fish stocks of available resources, though that certainly is one reason why it’s bad. Others include:

Increased Algae in the Water: Like many other things, algae is great but too much of it is very bad. When there are fewer fish in the water, algae doesn’t get eaten. This increases the acidity in the world’s oceans, which negatively impacts not only the remaining fish, but also the reefs and plankton.

Destruction of Fishing Communities: Overfishing can completely destroy fish populations and communities that once relied upon the fish that were there. This is particularly true for island communities. And it’s worth remembering that there are many isolated points on the globe where fishing isn’t just the driver of the economy, but also the primary source of protein for the population. When either or both of these disappear, the community disappears along with it.

Tougher Fishing for Small Vessels: If you’re a fan of small business, you ought to be concerned about overfishing. That’s because overfishing is mostly done by large vessels and makes it harder for smaller ones to meet their quotas. With over 40 million people around the world getting their food and livelihood from fishing, this is a serious problem.

Ghost Fishing: Ghost fishing refers to abandoned man-made fishing gear that is left behind. It’s believed that an estimated 25,000 nets float throughout the Northeast Atlantic. This left behind gear becomes a death trap for all marine life that swim through that area. While much of this is caused due to storms and natural disasters, much of it is the result of ignorance and neglect on behalf of commercial fishermen.

Species Pushed to Near Extinction: When we hear that a fish species is being depleted, we often think it’s fine because they can be found somewhere else. However, many species of fish are being pushed close to extinction by overfishing, such as several species of cod, tuna, halibut and even lobster.

Bycatch: If you’re old enough to remember people being concerned about dolphins caught in tuna nets, you know what bycatch is: It’s when marine life that is not being sought by commercial fishermen is caught in their nets as a byproduct. The possibility of bycatch increases dramatically with overfishing.

Waste: Overfishing creates waste in the supply chain. Approximately 20 percent of all fish in the United States is lost in the supply chain due to overfishing. In the Third World this rises to 30 percent thanks to a lack of available freezing devices. What this means is that even though there are more fish being caught than ever, there is also massive waste of harvested fish.

Mystery Fish: Because of overfishing, there are a significant amount of fish at your local fish market and on the shelves of your local grocery store that aren’t what they are labelled as. Just because something says that it’s cod doesn’t mean that it actually is. To give you an idea of the scope of this problem, only 13 percent of the “red snapper” on the market is actually red snapper. Most of this is unintentional due to the scale of fishing done today, but much of it is not, hiding behind the unfortunate realities of mass scale fishing to pass off inferior products to unwitting customers.

So why is overfishing happening? There are a variety of factors driving overfishing that we will delve into here, the bird’s eye view is below.

Regulation: Regulations are incredibly difficult to enforce even when they are carefully crafted, which they often are not. The worst offenders have little regulations in place and none of these regulations apply in international waters, which are effectively a Wild West.

Unreported Fishing: Existing regulations force many fisherman to do their fishing “off the books” if they wish to turn a profit. This is especially true in developing nations.

Mobile Processing: Mobile processing is when fish are processed before even returning to port. They are canned while still out at sea. Canned fish is increasingly taking up the fish consumption market at the expense of fresh fish.

Subsidies: Anyone familiar with farm subsidies knows that these are actually bad for the production of healthy food. Subsidies for fishing are similar. They don’t generally go to small fisherman whom one would think are most in need, but rather to massive vessels doing fuel-intensive shipping.

What’s more, subsidies encourage overfishing because the money keeps flowing no matter what — the more fish you catch, the more money you get, with no caps influenced by environmental impact fishing regulation.

Indeed, according to the World Wildlife Fund, subsidies drive illegal fishing, which is closely tied with piracy, slavery and human trafficking. The University of British Columbia conducted a study that found that $22 billion (63 percent of all fishing subsidies) went toward subsidies that encourage overfishing.

Of these, the main driver of overfishing is, predictably, government subsidies. So it is worth taking a few minutes to separate that out from the rest of these issues and give it some special attention.

More on Overfishing and Government Subsidies

The subsidies that drive overfishing are highly lucrative: The governments of the world are giving away over $35 billion every year to fishermen. That’s about 20 percent of the value of all the commercially caught fish in the world every year. Subsidies are often directed at reducing the costs for megafishing companies — things like paying for their massive fuel budgets, the gear they need to catch fish, or even the vessels themselves.

This effectively allows for large commercial fishing operations to take over the market or recapitalize at rates significantly below that of the market, disproportionately favoring them over their smaller competitors.

It is this advantage that drives large mega fishing companies into unsustainable fishing practices. The end result of this is not just depleted stocks, but also lower yields due to long-term overfishing, as well as lowered costs of fish at market, which has some advantages for the consumer, but also makes it significantly harder for smaller operations to turn a profit.

Such government subsidies could provide assistance to smaller fishermen, but are generally structured in a way that favors consolidation of the market and efforts counterproductive to conservation efforts.

What Role Do Farmed Fish Play?

Farmed fish is a phenomenon that we take for granted today, but is actually a revolutionary method of bringing fish out of the water and onto our dinner tables. Originally, it was seen as a way of preserving the population of wild fish. The thinking was this: We could eat fish from fish farming while the wild stock replenished itself.

At the same time, communities impacted by overfishing would find new ways to get income in an increasingly difficult market. Third world countries would have their protein needs met in a manner that did not negatively impact the environment. It was considered a big, easy win for the entire world.

The reality, as is often the case, turned out to be a little different. Crowding thousands of fish together in small areas away from their natural habitat turns out to have a number of detrimental effects. Waste products, primarily fish poop, excess food and dead fish, begin to contaminate the areas around fish farms. What’s more, like other factory farms, fish farms require lots of pesticides and drugs thanks to the high concentrations of fish and the parasites and diseases that spread in these kinds of areas.

Predictably, the chemicals used in making farmed fish possible are not contained in the areas where they are initially used. They spread into the surrounding waters and then simply become part of the water of the world, building up over time. In many cases, farmed fish are farmed in areas that are already heavily polluted. This is where the admonition to avoid eating too much fish for fear of contaminants like mercury has come from.

What’s more, the fish that we eat are not the only fish that are living at the fisheries. Often times, the preferred fish of the human consumer are carnivores that must eat lots of other fish to get up to an appropriate size to be part of the market. These fish, known as “reduction fish” or “trash fish” require the same kind of treatment that the larger fish they feed do.

All told, it takes 26 pounds of feed to produce a single pound of tuna, making farmed fishing an incredibly inefficient way of bringing food to market. Indeed, 37 percent of all seafood globally is now fed for farmed fish, up dramatically from 7.7 percent in 1948.

Perhaps worst of all, farmed fish simply do not have the same nutritional value as their wild counterparts, losing almost all of the Omega-3 fatty acids that make fish such a prized part of the modern diet.

Salmon, for example, is only healthy when it is caught in the wild. Farmed salmon is essentially a form of junk food. This is in large part due to the diet that the fish eat in fish farms, which is high in fat and uses soy as a primary source of protein. Toxins at the farms concentrate in the fatty tissue of the salmon. Concentrations of the harmful chemical PCB are found in concentrations eight times higher in farmed fish than traditionally caught wild salmon.

The pesticides, of course, are not used for no reason, but because of the proliferation of pests due to the high concentrations of fish in the fisheries. Sea lice are one example of such pests, which can eat a live salmon down to the bone.

These pests do not stay in the fisheries, but quickly spread to the surrounding waters and infect wild salmon as well as their farmed counterparts. The pests aren’t the only ones escaping: Farmed fish often escape from their habitats and compete with the native fish for resources, becoming an invasive species.

Subsidies vary from one country to another and specific statistics about how much goes to fish farms is generally not forthcoming. But fish farms effectively move the problem of overfishing from the wild oceans and into more enclosed areas. This does not solve any of the problems of overfishing. It merely creates new ones with no less impact on the environment.

Which Countries Are Overfishing?

As stated above, the main offenders with regard to overfishing tend to not be developed Western countries, but countries from the undeveloped world and parts of Asia. Sadly, the United States is the only Western nation that appeared on a “shame list” put out by Pew Charitable Trusts. This is known as the Pacific Six. The other members include Japan, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Indonesia.

The list only refers to overfishing with regard to bluefin tuna, but it provides a snapshot of the face of overfishing internationally. Overfishing facts say that these six countries are fishing 80 percent of the world’s bluefin tuna. These countries took collectively 111,482 metric tons of bluefin tuna out of the waters in 2011 alone.

However, when it comes to harmful subsidies there is a clear leader: China. A University of British Columbia study found that China provided more in the way of harmful subsidies encouraging overfishing than any other country on earth — $7.2 billion in 2018 or 21 percent of all global support. What’s more, subsidies that are more beneficial than harmful dropped by 73 percent.

The negative effects of overfishing are not taking place far away and in very abstract ways. They are causing communities right here in the United States to collapse. In the early 1990s, overfishing of cod caused entire communities in New England to collapse. Once this happens, it is very difficult to reverse. The effects are felt by the marine ecosystem but also by the people whose livelihoods depend on fishing.

Another example of economic instability is the Japanese fish market. Japanese fishermen are able to catch far less fish than they used to, meaning that the Japanese are now eating more imported fish, often from the United States, than ever before. This creates a perverse situation where America exports most of its best salmon to other countries, but consumes some of the worst farmed salmon in the world today.

Just How Bad Is Overfishing?

Surely overfishing can’t be that bad, right? The seas are just filled with tons of fish and it would take us forever to overfish to the point that they began to disappear entirely, right?

Think again. Overfishing is happening at biologically unsustainable levels. Pacific bluefin tuna, the type of fish discussed in the section above, has seen a 97 percent decline in overall population. This is important because the Pacific bluefin tuna is one of the most important predators in the ocean food chain. If it goes extinct the entire aquaculture will be irreparably disturbed.

The first fish that disappear from an ecosystem are larger fish with a longer lifespan and reach reproductive age later in life. These are also the most desirable fish on the open market. When these fish disappear, the destructive fishing operations do not leave the area: They simply move down the food chain to less desirable catches like squid and sardines. This is called “fishing down the web” and it slowly destroys the entire ecosystem removing first the predator fish and then the prey.

There are broader effects on the ecosystem beyond just the fish, effects that resonate throughout the entire Atlantic and Pacific ocean. Many of the smaller fish eat algae that grows on coral reefs. When these fish become overfished, the algae grows uncontrolled and the reefs suffer as a result. That deprives many marine life forms of their natural habitat, creating extreme disruption in the ocean ecosystem.

What Are Some Alternatives to Government-Driven Overfishing?

While there are certainly policy solutions to rampant overfishing, not all solutions will come from government. For example, there are emerging technological solutions that will make bycatching and other forms of waste less prevalent and harmful.

Simple innovations based on existing technologies, such as Fishtek Marine seek to save sea mammals from the nets of commercial fishermen while also increasing profit margins for these companies in a win-win scenario. Their device is small and inexpensive and thus does not present an undue burden to either the large-scale commercial fishing vessels or small fishermen looking to eke out a living in an increasingly difficult market.

We must also recognize that current regulations simply do not work. In one extreme case, governments restricted fishing for certain forms of tuna for three days a year. This did absolutely nothing for the population of tuna, as the big commercial fishing companies simply employed methods to harvest as many fish in three days as they were previously getting in any entire year.

This, in turn, led to a greater amount of bycatch and waste. Because the fishing operations didn’t have the luxury of time to ensure that they were only catching what they sought to catch, their truncated fishing season prized quantity over quality with predictable results.

Quotas, specifically the “individual transferable quota” scheme used by New Zealand and many other countries does not seem to work as intended for a number of reasons. First, these quotas are, as the name might suggest, transferable. This means that little fishermen might consider it a better deal to simply sell their quota to a large commercial fishing operation rather than go to work for themselves and we’re back to square one.

More generally speaking, quotas seem to be a source of waste. Here’s how they work: A fishing operation is given a specific tonnage of fish from a specific species that they can catch. However, not all fish are created equally. So when commercial fishing operations look at their catch and see that some of it is of higher quality than others, they discard the lower-quality fish in favor of higher-quality fish creating large amounts of waste. These discards can sometimes make up 40 percent of the catch.

An alternative to the current system is one that balances the need for fish as a global protein source with a long-term view of the ecosystem, planning for having as many fish tomorrow as there are today and thus, a sustainable model for feeding the world and providing jobs. One way to do this would be to tie subsidies to conservation and sustainability efforts, rather than simply writing checks to large commercial fishing operations to build new boats and buy new equipment. Such a scheme would also prize smaller scale operations over larger ones. A more diversified source of the world’s fish would also be more resilient.

One such alternative is called territorial use rights in fisheries management (TURF). In this case, individual fishermen or collectives of them are provided with long-term rights to fish in a specific area. This means that they have skin in the game. They don’t want to overfish the area because to do so would be to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. So they catch as many fish as is sustainable and no more. They have a vested, long-term interest in making sure that there is no overfishing in the fisheries that have been allotted to them.

Not only does this make sustainable fishing more attractive, it also means that there is less government bureaucracy and red tape involved. Fishermen with TURF are allowed to catch as much as they like. It is assumed that sustainability is baked into the equation because the fishermen with rights want to preserve the fishing not just for the next year, but for the next generation and the one after that. This model has been used successfully by Chile, one of the most economically free countries in the world (more economically free, in fact, than the United States), to prevent overfishing and create sustainability. It is a market-driven model that prizes small producers with skin in the game over massive, transnational conglomerates with none.

Belize, Denmark and even the United States are other countries who have used TURF, with significantly positive results.

While it’s nice to support the little guy over Big Fishing and we certainly support sustainability and conservation efforts, there’s another, perhaps more important and direct reason to support reforms designed to eliminate overfishing: food security. When bluefin tuna, for example, goes extinct, it’s not coming back. That means no more cans of tuna on the shelves of your local supermarket.

That’s a big deal for people in developed, first world countries, but a much bigger deal in developing countries. When major protein sources are depleted forever, there will be intensified competition for the resources that remain. This also creates unrest in the countries that are less able to compete in a global market due to issues of capital and scale. Even if you’re not concerned with overfishing, overfishing and the problems it creates will soon be on your doorstep unless corrective measures are taken before it’s too late.

Source Anglers

Tech companies just made a bold climate commitment

Posted on May 25, 2022 by dishanth

DAVOS, Switzerland — Davos is living up to its name as a place for movers and shakers. On Wednesday, a group known as the First Movers Coalition announced major climate commitments intended to create markets for everything from green steel and aluminum to carbon dioxide removal.

Microsoft, Alphabet and Salesforce are among the heavy hitters in tech at the forefront of the coalition that includes more than 50 companies with a total market cap of $8.5 trillion. That’s a large chunk of the U.S. stock market, and the pledge means those companies will start procuring climate-friendly products that are more expensive than their standard counterparts as well as services that don’t really exist at scale (yet). The companies’ commitments could give industries that we know we need to grow down the road the confidence that demand will be there.

The coalition launched last year at United Nations climate talks as an initiative spearheaded by Climate Envoy John Kerry and Bill Gates. The focus then was mostly on steel, shipping and aviation, all sectors of the economy that are incredibly hard and costly to decarbonize. Wednesday’s announcement threw CDR — Silicon Valley’s favorite climate solution — into the mix, along with green aluminum.

“Today is a great milestone in a very difficult long-term project,” Bill Gates said.

Indeed, the trio of major tech companies collectively committed $500 million to CDR between now and 2030. Alphabet joined a handful of other tech companies in pledging $925 million to purchase CDR services last month. It didn’t respond to Protocol’s request about if its First Movers Coalition money was the same as its commitment to Frontier, but Bloomberg confirmed the $200 million is the same money. Microsoft has also made its own investments in removing carbon from the atmosphere while Salesforce founder Marc Benioff has invested in companies that do so.

Right now, a handful of startups are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using techniques ranging from protecting forests to growing kelp to relying on machines to do the dirty work. Paying those companies to do that is currently pretty pricey, costing hundreds of dollars per ton. That adds up fast when you’re talking about a company that pumps millions of tons of carbon dioxide per year into the atmosphere when factoring in Scope 3 emissions.

Obviously Alphabet, Salesforce and Microsoft are good for it, though, and their early investments could help bring prices down by signaling there’s going to be a market for CDRl. At numerous events at the World Economic Forum this week, Kerry echoed a phrase coined by Gates called the “green premium,” which refers to the idea of paying extra for the more climate-friendly option. For companies, that can refer to paying a bit of extra cash for green steel or CDR. (Though to be clear, there’s no alternative to the latter outside cutting emissions.)

“No government has the money to be able to solve this problem by itself,” Kerry said. “No government can move fast enough to solve this problem by itself. We need you. We need the private sector around the world to step up.”

While that first point is a bit up for debate given that the federal budget for the military alone is north of $700 billion per year, it’s clear that procurement is a huge avenue for both corporations and the government to spur new markets and bring down costs of the technology we need to address the climate crisis. The Biden administration itself has pulled on some of those levers, notably with a plan to purchase only electric vehicles by 2035. With 645,000 vehicles, that would help drive costs down for batteries, charging and other parts of the EV equation.

The government is also investing billions in direct air capture R&D, which could bring down costs. But tech companies’ commitment to buying those services offer another avenue to do that. Right now, most tech can remove maybe a few thousands of tons from the atmosphere a year. To keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a key guardrail, the world will need to pull multiple billions of tons of carbon dioxide from the sky each year in the coming decades. Exactly how much will depend on how fast we deploy renewables, EVs and other climate solutions we already have at the ready.

Kerry noted that the government partners in the First Movers Coalition are also working to create more regulatory certainty and policies that can speed the adoption of new, cleaner technologies. Tax credits and even more R&D investments are some of the avenues that could open the door to reimagining polluting industries and creating new sectors of the economy to clean up the carbon pollution already in the atmosphere.

The new commitment from the First Movers Coalition will give CDR companies a little more certainty that the market will develop for their services. That, in addition to commitments for green steel and aluminum as well as other products, is, in Kerry’s words, the “highest-leverage climate action that companies can take, because creating the early markets to scale advanced technologies materially reduces the whole world’s emissions.”

Source Protocol

The net zero workforce in manufacturing

Posted on May 23, 2022 by dishanth

A systematic shift is needed across all sectors of the UK economy to support the government’s net zero commitment by 2050. Industries that produce significant volumes of carbon emissions have much to do to play their part. These include the manufacturing and construction sectors that together account for 16 per cent of total UK emissions.

Stakeholder requirements, regulation and incentives are driving decarbonisation efforts. However, UK manufacturers have the opportunity to go beyond expectations on improving the environmental and social impact of their products and services. Ultimately, they need to create value and competitive advantage by putting sustainability at the centre of business strategy and pursuing meaningful decarbonisation objectives. Such an approach will help businesses reach two main objectives: meeting regulatory requirements on managing their own carbon footprint during operations and through their supply chains (scope 1 and 2 emissions) and reducing the impact of their products and offerings on the environment when in use (scope 3 emissions). Additionally, companies may also find that putting sustainability at the heart of their business strategy will open up opportunities for developing new products and entering new markets.

Minimising the environmental impact of offerings can be a complex strategic decision that will require closer collaboration with a company’s entire stakeholder community – including suppliers and customers – and forging new alliances with other companies, centres of innovation and educational institutions.

Energy transition and digital transformation are rapidly changing what work we do, how we do it and where we do it. However, growing competition for both sustainability and digital competencies [from other sectors], an ageing workforce, fewer new recruits and a lack of diversity all point to increasing skills challenges in the future.

After considering the net-zero related opportunities and challenges, this article explores how companies can improve their workforce approach and better align their skills agendas to maximise opportunities in energy transition.

UK net zero obligations, opportunities and challenges

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scrutiny of businesses is increasing rapidly as investors and UK policy makers put more pressure on companies to disclose and reduce the environmental impact of their operations. For example, the scope of Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR) legislation was extended on 1 April 2019 to large UK incorporated companies (including private companies) that meet certain qualifying criteria.¹ The scheme requires businesses to report on their energy consumption, scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions and explain their actions to improve energy efficiency.²

Further, the government aims to expand the scope of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TFCD) in the UK. In November 2020, the UK government announced mandatory climate risk reporting aligned with TCFD guidelines for premium listed companies, for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2021. It also laid out a roadmap to bring all listed entities, large private companies and limited liability partnerships in the UK under the scope of TFCD by 2025, most by 2023. This means that every year an increasing number of UK manufacturers will have to report on their governance and strategies for managing climate-related risks and opportunities and assess the financial impact of such risks on their business based on a number of scenarios.

In addition to tightening the rules around climate-related financial disclosures, two recent policy papers set out measures to help the UK meet its net zero target and the role that the manufacturing sector is expected to play in the process.

The UK government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution outlines the technology areas that will benefit from greater government support as well as policy proposals and funding packages to scale them up. These technologies include advancing offshore wind, low carbon hydrogen production, zero emission vehicles and their associated infrastructure, greener buildings as well as carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS). The Plan aims to mobilise £12 billion government investment and potentially three times as much private money, while also creating and supporting up to 250,000 green jobs.

The Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy sets ambitious carbon emission reduction targets for industry to support the UK’s net zero effort. The Strategy expects industrial emissions to be reduced by two-thirds by 2035 and by 90 per cent by 2050, with 3 megatonnes of CO2 (Mt Co2) captured through CCUS and around 20 terawatt-hour (TWh) of energy used in the form of low carbon fuels by 2030. This is a tall order for the sector that was responsible for 72 Mt Co2e emissions in 2018. However, the government is confident that “ the UK can have a thriving industrial sector aligned with the net zero target, without pushing emissions and business abroad”.

The new financial reporting requirements and the two policy papers create a level of urgency that requires manufacturers to take greater responsibility for the environmental impact of their activities. While the pressure falls more immediately on listed companies and large private businesses, the inference is clear for all UK companies, regardless of their size.

According to a 2020 survey by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), 53 per cent of manufacturing and 61 per cent of construction businesses in the UK have sustainability agendas. The top three actions companies took to deliver these agendas related to using new, greener technologies, adapting existing technologies to be more green and encouraging telecommuting/remote working.

However, the real challenge and opportunity will be for both UK and global businesses to combine carbon focus with efforts to improve their productivity and international competitiveness. This cannot be done by treating sustainability as just one of many company initiatives. Sustainability has to be a strategic driver. This may drive a company to reconfigure its entire manufacturing lifecycle. This is a complex decision that could involve a company’s entire supply chain and require forging new partnerships. Areas that need to be considered include:

product design – reducing cost and waste during production, improving energy efficiency of the product and rapidly incorporating the use of new materials in the design process. It can also make a product part of the circular economy, by making it easier to repair, reuse or recycle.
raw material selection – using ethical, sustainable and alternative materials for production.
production – improving operational efficiency and reducing waste during production, implementing smart production technologies and using renewable energy sources.
shipping – reducing the carbon footprint of transporting raw materials, components and delivering final products. This involves setting carbon targets for transport providers and working closely with them.
aftermarket – shifting towards the circular economy model by providing spare parts, repair, recycle and disposal services, and optimising the efficiency of products in the field.

The benefits of sustainable manufacturing go beyond meeting regulatory compliance and energy cost reduction. They can include better risk management, improved overall operational efficiency, reduced waste, a positive impact on the company’s brand and reputation as well as relationships with local communities. While cost efficiency is a key performance indicator for nearly every business, companies realise that green credentials can help build trust with customers and open new markets. It also helps that customer perceptions of value are changing: 51 per cent of respondents of a recent survey think that the environmental credentials of a product or service are now just as important as the price they pay for it.

No manufacturer was left untouched by COVID-19. Business models, operations and attitudes to technology and the workforce all had to change as the pandemic rapidly unfolded. As leaders reflect on lessons from the pandemic, many realise that the speed of decision-making, agility to change operating models and a more resilient supply chain will be crucial for a long-term, green recovery.

As complex international supply chains were disrupted during national lockdowns, companies needed to consider multiple sourcing and, in some cases, relocating parts of the manufacturing lifecycle.

Digital adoption and the potential for increasing carbon costs may provide further incentives to establish regional, distributed manufacturing hubs across the UK. The term ‘green-shoring’ could be used to describe this potential trend.³ These hubs could be driven by businesses that engage in the circular economy and focus strongly on customers. For example, networks of small additive manufacturing facilities could serve specific customer needs faster and potentially cheaper if they are located close to their clients – thus reducing carbon emissions, time and cost spent on transport. Further opportunities may also arise in the future in combining low carbon energy sources and circular economy concepts in ‘reindustrialising’ certain parts of the country very much in line with the government’s levelling up agenda.

The pandemic gave leaders an opportunity to rethink strategies. As companies adapt and learn to live with the virus, we may see a growing number of manufacturers choosing to re-engineer their product portfolios towards the new energy technologies highlighted in the two policy papers. Undoubtedly, there will be opportunities to build infrastructure, manufacture equipment and components, and supply services for these green technologies. Initially, these will be focusing on the large industrial clusters to provide volume. While the pipeline of activities and a low carbon supply chain are slowly building, most of the projects that will make a material contribution to the net zero objective need to mature to provide opportunities on scale for UK businesses. However, companies need to get ready for when the floodgates open – as they may do when strategies and financial support mechanisms for various green technologies are established. Therefore, the question arises: what can manufacturers do now to create a competitive advantage for the green industrial revolution?

Manufacturing and construction workforce opportunities and challenges

The key opportunity for companies is to put sustainability at the heart of their business strategy and attract, develop and retain a motivated workforce to execute their plans.

However, building a workforce quickly that is capable of delivering a strategy with sustainability at its core will be a challenge. Only slightly more than half of manufacturing and construction businesses have sustainability agendas in the UK and less than one in ten have all the skills they need to deliver these programmes.

There are also some long-standing workforce issues the industry needs to address alongside sustainability. According to the Employer Skills Survey 2019, 36 per cent of vacancies in manufacturing and construction were hard to fill because applicants lacked the appropriate skills, qualifications or experience – compared to the national average of 24 per cent.⁴ In construction alone, an additional 350,000 full-time equivalent workers will be needed by 2028, mainly to upgrade existing buildings to reduce their energy consumption. With 11 per cent of the sector’s workforce coming from the EU, the UK’s departure has exacerbated skills shortages. The ageing workforce and lack of diversity are also issues. While women make up 48 per cent of the overall UK workforce, they only accounted for 28 per cent of manufacturing and 14 per cent of constructions occupations between January and March 2021.

Attracting future talent will also be difficult. While remote working provides more opportunities to recruit globally, Engineering UK estimates that there is an annual shortfall of between 37,000 and 59,000 engineering graduates and technicians to meet the yearly demand for 124,000 engineering roles across the UK economy. But it is not only about the numbers: the majority of graduates and apprentices finish their programmes with little training in the digital skills they will need for a future in manufacturing.

Indeed, the government set up the Green Jobs Taskforce following the publication of the Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution policy paper to address the skills challenge. Its recently published report explains how the UK skills sector needs to adapt to support net zero.

Delivering the sustainability agenda will also require new skills that businesses have not traditionally targeted. These include the ability to quantify and analyse a company’s emissions data, set targets, articulate abatement pathways, forecast costs and timings as well as liaise closely with stakeholders around targets, actions and progress. Companies will also need new skills in emerging green technologies that will help them move from using hydrocarbons as a fuel source to hydrogen and batteries. Many of these skills are not industry-specific, so competition for them will certainly increase across the economy. To stay ahead of the competition, leading companies are appointing chief sustainability officers, starting to build sustainability teams and/or working with external advisers.

Digital technology will be key to optimise and make company operations, wider supply chains as well as products and offerings more sustainable. As smart factory principles and exponential technologies – such as robotics, cognitive automation, artificial intelligence, data analytics and the Internet of Things – advance, they will require digital skills and create roles and career pathways that do not exist today. Given that many manufacturing businesses are not yet investing at scale in net zero opportunities until more projects materialise, how do companies know what skills, knowledge and capabilities they need to recruit for in the future?

What should manufacturing companies do?

1. Put sustainability at the heart of business strategy

To meet decarbonisation targets for their operations, supply chain and product portfolio, manufacturing and construction companies should consider including sustainability in their business purpose, set clear decarbonisation targets and build their company strategy around it.

There is also a need for strong leadership that can articulate the benefits of sustainability to the business. This is crucial as decarbonisation targets and plans are likely to be set out by central sustainability officers but executing them and finding new opportunities will require the company’s entire workforce.

Each and every employee across the business will need to be empowered to play their part and bring fresh ideas to help the company exceed its targets. Having individual responsibility and ability to act will be important to reach net zero targets. Working for a business with strong sustainability credentials and a culture of innovation will give the workforce the opportunity to see the positive impact they are making.

2. Focus on digital and transferable skills and capabilities that allow learning rather than focusing on industry knowledge and experience

Leaders have the opportunity to reconsider the short- and long-term workforce needs of their organisation and find the right blend of specific skills and knowledge, soft skills and capabilities, and digital/human interface.

Electrical, mechanical and civil engineering skills will continue to play key roles in designing and making products and offerings for energy transition. However, materials, technologies and operational setups will change more rapidly and frequently in a sustainable, digital world. This means that in addition to core engineering skills, the workforce needs to demonstrate agility and the ability to learn quickly. The ability to work alongside and effectively incorporate artificial intelligence, machine learning, augmented reality tools and robotics into day-to-day activities will also become critical capabilities. Indeed, the Deloitte Human Capital Trends report highlights that using digital technology to increase the capability of teams to learn, create and perform in new ways leads to better outcomes. Organisations will also need effective cross-functional skills, including collaboration and social intelligence, as well as more technical skills such as cybersecurity, regulatory or commercial strategy.

These highly transferable skills will become more important than industry knowledge or experience. Continuing to strengthen these along with adopting a mindset focused on problem-solving and soft skills should make the company more adaptable and flexible to access further skills when necessary.

Companies need to build a net zero workforce that has both the skills and capabilities as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Net zero workforce – skills and capabilities

3. Build the net zero workforce

Building the net zero workforce should start by redefining work in three different, yet intrinsically connected dimensions: the work itself, the workforce and the workplace. The table below provides questions manufacturing companies may want to explore.

Re-architect work

Robotics, cognitive technologies and Al help people focus on more strategic and value-adding activities.

Are you restructuring work to make your workforce’s activities more efficient? What should this job do, what should it stop doing and what can be automated?
In addition to automation, how are you using technology to enhance your workforce’s skills and capabilities?
How can you turn work from task completion to problem solving and managing relationships?
Which roles can be performed sustainably on a remote or hybrid basis?

Unleash the net zero workforce

Access to broader talent ecosystems help shift focus from structure to capabilities and potential.

How do you motivate and reward workforce to align with your decarbonisation goals?
Do your hiring strategies help you compete for non energy industry specific skills?
How can you build internal talent marketplaces that identify technical skills, capabilities and interests as well as proficiency levels?
How can you curate personalised experiences to maximise your workforce’s potential?

Adapt the workplace

When focusing on the workforce, organisations first need to understand what the desired work outcomes are. Next, they will need to follow a set of steps to anticipate both the technical skills and soft skills the workforce will need in the future. Once these are identified, companies will need to assess where potential gaps could arise and develop a strategy and roadmap to meet future workforce requirements. Key considerations are shown in the table below.

Anticipate skills and capabilities

Based on your mid-and long-term energy transition ambitions consider:

what skills and capabilities your organisation will need in the future and at what proficiency levels
whether leadership has the skills to manage new technology and energy transition
what proportion of skills should be core and what can/should you borrow from other sectors
what skills can you enhance by technology and what can you automate

Assess the current skills and capabilities gap

To identify skills gaps, create a live inventory of the skills and capabilities of your workforce and that of your wider ecosystem, covering:

your workforce, project partners, suppliers, contractors, managed services, crowd sourcing platforms and collaborative partners, including skills academies and universities
passions and special interests
requests for work scheduling patterns and other personal requirements or circumstances

Develop a skills and capabilities strategy and roadmap

Develop a dynamic talent strategy to enhance workforce capabilities and address skills gaps. Consider:

which skills you will acquire and which ones will you develop
how you will access your broader talent system to complement your existing skill set
to what extent you will enable remote working with appropriate policy and compliance infrastructure
creating a leadership development and succession plan aligned to energy transition objectives
how you will use technology to enhance your workforce’s capabilities

Execute strategic roadmap

Implement workforce-related initiatives, including:

dynamic learning and development programmes to support learning in the flow of work; leadership development programme and succession management; refreshed workforce mobility and talent acquisition approaches; a reward system aligned with energy transition/net zero objectives and based on value to the business; workforce composition and contingent workforce management; technology initiatives.

Organisations should also consider the following questions:

What additional support mechanisms are needed to keep the existing workforce focused on delivering the strategy?
How can staff be encouraged to explore new technologies and work with new talent towards sustainable goals?
How to create incentive mechanisms specific to certain Millennials and Gen Z who may view long-term incentives less attractive and change employment more frequently? This could include net zero-related incentives or exploring opportunities company-wide or in its extended networks.
How to develop a workforce that not only has the core technical and soft skills and capabilities for the near term, but can also access less specialised skills to scale up quickly if necessary?

4. Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate

In a world focused on reducing environmental impact of climate change and navigating rapid change, manufacturers can no longer act alone. There is an increasing need to collaborate with suppliers, energy providers, neighbours and, potentially, competitors and customers themselves to make the manufacturing lifecycle greener and help support customers decarbonise better. As the Green Jobs Taskforce recommendations suggest: business, the government and the education sector working closely together would ensure that the green jobs of the future provide high quality careers that are accessible for people from all backgrounds, in every region of the country.

In conclusion

Manufacturing and construction companies that realign their purpose and strategy around ESG goals early may not only able to meet regulatory and stakeholder requirements more easily but could also be better positioned to seize opportunities in energy transition. Re-energising their workforce approach and creating an environment for attracting and fostering the right balance of human and digital skills and capabilities will be the key to achieving sustainability goals.

Therefore, companies should:

Put sustainability at the heart of business strategy
Focus on digital and transferable skills and capabilities that allow learning rather than industry knowledge and experience
Build the net zero workforce
Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate

These actions should build a highly motivated workforce that is ready to deliver the net-zero goals in support of a cleaner, brighter and more sustainable future for the benefit of both business and the wider society.

Source Deloitte

Tofu for thought: Meet the world’s first sustainable soy wine

Posted on May 23, 2022 by dishanth

A pale yellow liquid flows into plastic barrels – wastewater from a nearby tofu factory that a Singapore-based startup is turning into sustainable wine.

SinFooTech, focusing on recycling waste by-products in the food industry, produces about 1,000 to 2,000 liters of soy wine a month from its small distillery at the western edge of Singapore.

The waste is collected and taken to a nearby distillery where brewers add yeast and sugar. The mixture is then put into a tank to ferment for anywhere between two to six weeks.

Brewers must make the wine within a few hours of collecting the soy whey, as the liquid spoils quickly.

The drink, named Sachi, has a 5.8 percent alcohol content and is similar to cider or dessert wine. But, those who have tasted the beverage billed as the first made from soy whey, say it’s a whole other experience.

“If people expect wine from this, it’s not what they’re going to get,” says Dannon Har, a writer for Spill Magazine.

“I think it’s something that’s of its own and people should drink it thinking that way.”

How is Singapore leading the way in food sustainability?

Singapore has become a hub for the development of innovative future foods. Start-ups are producing goods ranging from lab-grown “seafood” to dumplings made with tropical fruit instead of pork.

Currently, a 500-millilitre bottle of soy wine sells for 26 euros. SinFooTech is also developing an aged whiskey-like spirit and plans to scale up production through workforce automation.

Watch the video above to see how soy wine is made from tofu wastewater.

Source Euronews.green

Solar energy that usually escapes Earth overnight can now be captured, say scientists

Posted on May 23, 2022 by dishanth

The world is one step closer to nighttime solar power after a breakthrough discovery by Australian scientists.

University of New South Wales (UNSW) scientists have found a way to ‘catch’ energy that flows out of the earth at night.

“This could mean being able to achieve the ultimate dream of renewable energy: power generation uninterrupted by the setting of the sun,” the researchers claim.

So how does this sci-fi technology work – and when will it hit the market?

How does nighttime solar power work?

Nighttime solar taps into a “large and unused spectrum of potential power,” the research team says.

Heat – which is a form of energy – flows from hot areas to cold areas.

Every day, the earth absorbs heat from the sun. At night, this heat escapes the earth in the form of infrared light, and is sucked out into the icy vacuum of space.

If it didn’t, the planet would quickly become far too hot to sustain life.

The UNSW ‘nighttime solar’ team was captured via infrared camera. Source: University of New South Wales

UNSW scientists use the catchily-named ‘thermoradiative diode’ – a type of semiconductor also used in night vision goggles – to capture the infrared radiation as it escapes earth.

They then convert the ‘captured’ power into electricity.

Both normal and nighttime solar depends on the flow of energy from hot to cold areas, explains Ned Ekins-Daukes, the teams’ lead researcher..

“[With normal solar power], the sun provides the hot source and a relatively cool solar panel on the Earth’s surface provides a cold absorber. This allows electricity to be produced,” he adds.

“[At night] it is now the Earth that is the comparatively warm body, with the vast void of space being extremely cold.

“By the same principles of thermodynamics, it is possible to generate electricity from this temperature difference too: the emission of infrared light into space.”

When will nighttime solar be widely available?

‘Nighttime solar’ power is still in the early stages of development.

The amount of energy produced by UNSW researchers was very small, roughly equivalent to 0.001 percent of a normal solar powered cell.

But given the right investment, the technology could one day generate around 10 percent of the power produced by a solar powered cell.

Other teams around the globe are also working hard to develop night solar. Stanford scientists are developing a different technique to ‘catch’ the earth’s radiant heat.

The concept has huge potential, claims Dr Michael Nielsen, co-author of the UNSW study.

“Even if the commercialisation of these technologies is still away down the road, being at the very beginning of an evolving idea is such an exciting place to be as a researcher,” he says.

“By leveraging our knowledge of how to design and optimise solar cells, and borrowing materials from the existing mid-infrared photodetector community, we hope for rapid progress towards delivering the dream of solar power at night.”

Source Euronews.green

TECH Hyundai plans $5 billion investment in U.S. on mobility technology

Posted on May 23, 2022 by dishanth

KEY POINTS

Hyundai Motor announced on Sunday that it plans to spend $5 billion in the U.S. on developing mobility solutions such as autonomous driving and robotics.
Last week, Hyundai said it would spend $5.54 billion to build its first dedicated electric vehicle and battery manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
The investment is part of a larger push by Hyundai to advance mobility electrification more broadly.

Hyundai Motor said on Sunday it plans to invest $5 billion in the U.S. by 2025 to further develop mobility technologies in areas like autonomous driving, robotics, and A.I.

The investment comes alongside the automaker’s recent announcement of a plan to spend $5.54 billion to build its first dedicated electric vehicle and battery manufacturing facilities in the U.S., located outside of Savannah, Georgia. That facility is expected to open during the first half of 2025 and is projected to have an annual production capacity of 300,000 vehicles.

Some $10 billion of new investment will be used to further Hyundai’s “goal to provide sustainable and smart mobility solutions,” the company said.

Hyundai is aiming to be one of the top three electric vehicle providers in the U.S. by 2026 and is one of several global automakers establishing new supply chains and production facilities in America to take advantage of what is expected to be a decade ahead of exponential growth for the category.

The company had previously announced a plan to sell 3.23 million fully electric vehicles worldwide annually by 2030.

It also dovetails with a push from the Biden administration to have companies set up electric vehicle supply chains in the U.S. as opposed to overseas. The administration announced a $3.1 billion plan earlier this month to boost the domestic manufacturing of batteries, which followed the president invoking the Defense Production Act in April to encourage domestic production of minerals that are required to make electric vehicle batteries. The White House has set a goal of 50% electric vehicle sales by 2030.

This newly announced investment from Hyundai will allow it to strengthen its partnership with “U.S. public and private entities to offer innovative products and mobility solutions to our valued customers in the U.S. while supporting global carbon neutrality efforts,” Euisun Chung, executive chair of Hyundai Motor, said in a statement.

That will include areas like robotics, advanced air mobility, artificial intelligence, and autonomous driving, the company said.

Hyundai Motor bought an 80% stake in robot maker Boston Dynamics from Softbank in December 2020, The company, known for its four-legged dog-like robot Spot, was valued at $1.1 billion. Boston Dynamics, which was previously financed by Google, started selling its first robot commercially in June 2020.

The automaker is also pushing into driverless technology through Motional, a venture formed with U.S.-based mobile technology company Aptive. Motional is currently testing its robotaxi service on U.S. public roads and intends to start offering commercial service in 2023, one of several efforts to bring autonomous vehicles to roads across the country.

In November, Hyundai formed Supernal, which is aiming to develop a family of electric air vehicles in the burgeoning advanced air mobility industry. The company said it plans to launch its first commercial flight in 2028.

Source CNBC

Carbon footprint labels aim to steer more green buying

Posted on May 20, 2022 by dishanth

Nutritional breakdowns, ethical trade branding, recycling information – and now estimates of a product’s climate impact.

Consumers across the globe are starting to see a new kind of information on goods packaging, indicating the level of planet-heating gases emitted by making the items they are buying.

This fresh wave of efforts at “carbon footprint” labelling is being praised by some as empowering consumers to help tackle climate change – but criticised by others as confusing at best, and greenwashing at worst.

Danielle Nierenberg, co-founder of Food Tank, a US-based think-tank, said a carbon-labelling system has “been in the works for a while” but companies needed time to research it properly, “so we’re just seeing it now”.

Numi Organic Tea, a California-based company that sources 130 ingredients from 26 countries, will start putting carbon labels on its teas this summer, after tracking their emissions since 2015.

Now is the time – consumers are interested. Even if they don’t know what a gram of carbon is, it begins to develop the carbon literacy in our consumers and in society writ large.

Jane Franch, vice president for strategic sourcing and sustainability, Numi Organic Tea

Figuring out the teas’ carbon footprint required studying farm management practices, processing equipment, energy use along the supply chain and more, said Jane Franch, company vice president for strategic sourcing and sustainability.

“That was the first step in our journey – wrapping our minds around what is the impact, and looking for places where we can reduce (it),” she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The effort has included pushing tea factories to start using cleaner energy and more energy-efficient equipment, she explained.

Numi packaging will carry a label that includes a single, product-specific number: a kilogram of carbon-dioxide equivalent, broken down by ingredients, transport, packaging and even the energy required to boil water at a tea-drinker’s home.

“Now is the time – consumers are interested,” Franch said. “Even if they don’t know what a gram of carbon is, it begins to develop the carbon literacy in our consumers and in society writ large.”

Numi joins a growing group of companies that have begun carbon labelling, particularly in the United States and Europe – from brands including plant-based-meat producer Quorn to electronics maker Logitech and household goods giant Unilever.

There are also broader efforts, such as a global push announced in February for the cosmetics industry, which includes Estee Lauder Companies, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health, L’Oréal Group and 33 others.

Some even want a system that is obligatory for all.

“Publishing the climate impact of food products should be mandatory and standardised, just as with nutrition labels,” said a spokesperson for Swedish oat milks producer Oatly, which is leading a petition to the German government on the issue.

Denmark and France are already looking at creating their own consumer carbon labels, while the European Union is aiming to come up with a draft for a broader eco-label by 2024.

‘No longer niche’

The food and beverage industry is at the centre of the push for carbon labelling, given its outsize climate impact.

The global food system accounts for about a third of carbon emissions, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.

But until recently, most efforts to reduce food-related emissions focused on production, said Edwina Hughes, head of the Cool Food Pledge at the World Resources Institute (WRI).

“We’ve made loads of progress in the last 50 years, but we haven’t looked at consumption as much. That’s pretty significant – if you don’t look at shifting diets, you won’t get where you need to” in terms of curbing climate change, she said.

Some simple interventions appear to offer great potential.

For instance, adding messages at the top of menus nearly doubled the proportion of diners choosing plant-based dishes, according to WRI research published in February.

The Cool Food program runs a carbon labelling initiative that includes a “badge” on menu items, indicating that they meet nutritional standards and have a smaller carbon footprint than researchers say is needed to achieve key climate goals.

Panera Bread, which has 2,100 North American locations focusing on business lunches, was the first restaurant chain to adopt the badge, in 2020.

The company had measured its carbon footprint since 2016, but that information was not reaching consumers, said Sara Burnett, its vice president of food beliefs and sustainability.

“We know there are two sides to this coin – what we choose to put on the menu, how we source.

But the flip-side is consumers: they really impact our business significantly by what they choose,” she added.

About half of Panera’s online menu options carry the badge, with a goal of raising that to 60 per cent by 2025, including by working with supply chain vendors and developing new products.

“This is no longer something that is just the niche green consumers looking for responsibly sourced and raised products,” Burnett said. “It’s the everyday consumer that is now looking for that.”

And consumers are starting to take notice, said Carmen Castillo, assistant general manager at MOM’s Organic Market in Rockville, Maryland, near Washington DC.

“It’s a newer label, and it creates conversation – people want to know what it means, if it’s real and how it affects them,” she added.

Too much information?

Little is yet known about how consumers react to carbon labels, although globally 54 per cent of respondents to a 2021 survey by environmental consultancy Carbon Trust said they would be more likely to pick a product with such a label over a similar one without.

Burnett said Cool Food-branded meals have sparked a particularly positive response on social media.

Yet some worry the flurry of efforts could muddy the waters.

“This is a confusing time for consumers because there are all of these labels,” said Food Tank’s Nierenberg.

Many labels and certifications “put so much onus on the consumers” to understand and act, she said, warning of an increased risk of greenwashing or “climate-washing”.

According to the European Commission, there are more than 450 environmental labels in use globally today, including about 80 reporting initiatives and methods for carbon emissions.

“Some of these … are reliable, some not,” it said in an online policy document.

Brands, too, are expressing concern.

“What we need is the adoption of a harmonised, global standard for eco-labelling so people don’t get information overload,” said Archana Jagannathan, senior director of sustainability for PepsiCo Europe, in emailed comments.

But too much focus on how labelling shapes buying behaviour may be missing the point, warned Michael P. Vandenbergh, director of the Climate Change Research Network at the Nashville-based Vanderbilt Law School.

As carbon labelling sees substantial growth worldwide, there is evidence it works “even if consumer responses are limited”, he noted.

Amid rising pressure from investors, governments, employees and clients, simply having a label can push companies to find efficiencies that reduce their carbon footprint, he said.

Already 80 per cent of the biggest firms in seven of the largest global sectors – including retail stores, auto manufacturing and lumber production – put environmental requirements in their supply-chain contracting, he added.

Carbon labelling is not a panacea, Vandenbergh said.

“But (it) is a piece of a much larger system that can function even if the national government process is inadequate – which it is,” he added.

This story was published with permission from Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women’s rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit http://news.trust.org/climate.

Source Eco Business

UK Government promises first ‘net-zero’ transatlantic flight in 2023

Posted on May 18, 2022May 17, 2022 by dishanth

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps unveiled the ambition today (14 May) after a meeting with executive decision-makers at airlines, fuel producers and aircraft manufacturers in the US this week. He said that the flight will “demonstrate the vital role that sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) can play in decarbonising aviation”.

The flight will be powered using 100% SAF, with no conventional jet fuel in the mix. The Department for Transport (DfT) has asked the industry to prioritise the use of SAFs made using waste cooking oil and from household waste, as SAFs made using virgin biofuels can be detrimental in terms of land-use.

Currently, international regulations limit the level of SAF in blends to 50%. Flights can only be powered by blends exceeding 50% if the Civil Aviation Authority deems the aircraft suitable for a higher proportion. The DfT and industry will work to obtain this certification; Rolls-Royce has stated that it has already tested large, commercial aero engines using 100% SAF successfully.

SAFs purport to generate lifecycle emissions at levels significantly lower than conventional jet fuel. The DfT is forecasting a reduction of 70-80% in this case. To ensure that the transatlantic flight is net-zero, the DfT will work with the aviation industry to offset residual emissions.

A Department spokesperson told edie: “The Government will not prescribe the greenhouse gas removal approach to be utilised. Rather, it is anticipated that industry will make the decision based on a variety of factors such as innovation, availability, cost and time.”

Common offsetting approaches include financing nature restoration, financing the transition to renewable electricity, accelerating the uptake of cleaner cooking fuels in developing regions and financing nature protection. Offsetting using man-made carbon capture technologies is in its relative infancy, as there are not an abundance of large-scale projects in operation yet.

An approach to be expected

The UK Government’s approach to decarbonising aviation is broadly in line with that of industry body the UK Sustainable Aviation coalition, which is prioritising efficient planes with SAF use. Residual emissions can then be addressed using offsetting.

In terms of SAF supply, the DfT has asked the industry to collaborate to bring at least three commercial SAF production plants online in the UK by 2025. It has partnered with LanzaTech, Velocys and Philipps 66 to help deliver this ambition, through its Jet Zero Council.

The DfT is also mulling a SAF mandate. Its proposals involve requirements for jet fuel producers to ensure that at least 10% of their production annually is SAF by 2030, rising to 75% by 2050.

Many green groups have urged the Government to take a more diversified approach to achieving its net-zero targets for aviation, which are set at 2040 for airport operations and domestic flights, and 2050 for international flights. Concerns have been expressed that the industry and the Government are not giving enough focus to electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft which, while they will take longer to commercialise, may well result in far lower lifecycle emissions.

The Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) most optimistic forecast for the use of SAF in the UK’s aviation industry is for it to cover 7% of fuel supply in 2030. With this in mind, and with electric and hydrogen technologies for large planes still years from maturity, the CCC has recommended that the Government caps airport expansion and limits the growth in passenger numbers. The Conservative Party has, to date, been staunchly against this approach – as have most large businesses in the sector. Shapps has stated that SAF offers a pathway to “guilt-free” flights.

Source edie

This start-up makes vodka out of CO2 emissions, and it’s backed by Toyota and JetBlue

Posted on May 18, 2022 by dishanth

KEY POINTS

Air Vodka is made of greenhouse gas emissions – specifically, captured carbon dioxide.
The Air Company is backed by Toyota Ventures, JetBlue Technology Ventures, Parley for the Oceans and Carbon Direct Capital Management.

At Bathtub Gin, a reinvented speakeasy in lower Manhattan, patrons may be pining for the past but they are drinking a vodka specifically invented for a cleaner future. Air Vodka is made in part from greenhouse gas emissions – specifically, captured carbon dioxide.

It is just one of a bevy of new products designed to make use of CO2 emissions that can be captured from various types of industry.

“We work with partners that capture that carbon dioxide before it’s emitted into the atmosphere, and then we use that CO2 in our process in creating the alcohols that we create,” said Gregory Constantine, Co-founder and CEO of Air Company, which is also producing perfume and hand sanitizer from those emissions. “It’s obviously far better for the planet in that we’re removing CO2 for every bottle that we’re creating.”

Distilling alcohol the old fashioned way not only releases its emissions, but it uses a lot of water — about 35 liters of water to make one liter of distillate. Air Vodka is made of just two ingredients, CO2 and water. It separates hydrogen out of the water through electrolysis, releasing the oxygen. The hydrogen is then fed into a “carbon conversion reactor” system with the captured CO2. That creates ethanol which, when combined with water, becomes a type of vodka.

The scientific process in the Air Company’s laboratories is valuable to the environment, but the results are not cheap. The three-year-old start-up’s vodka is a luxury brand, costing about $65 bottle. But at Bathtub Gin, the vodka is getting high praise.

A bartender pours a jigger of Air Vodka, a spirit made of CO2 emissions. Nathaniel Lee | CNBC

“Once we tell them, ’hey, this is how it’s made and it’s got a negative carbon footprint, all those really beautiful things, is what happens to make them want it even more. And then they go looking for [it[, going, ‘where can we get it?’” said Brendan Bartley, beverage director and head bartender at Bathtub Gin.

The company’s sights are set beyond just vodka and perfume. Constantine said he expects to offer new products made of CO2 as it opens its third production facility.

“Vodka for us is really a gateway towards all the other products and then the industrial applications of where our technology can go,” he said.

Carbon capture is fast becoming big business, as companies look not just to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but to keep necessary emissions from getting into the atmosphere. Captured carbon is being used to make everything from vodka to eyeglasses, laundry detergent, Coca Cola and even jet fuel.

The Air Company is backed by Toyota Ventures, JetBlue Technology Ventures, Parley for the Oceans and Carbon Direct Capital Management. It has raised just over $40 million to date.

Source CNBC