Approximately 5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are currently produced from the production and use of conventional fertiliser, and more than half of the carbon footprint of wheat grown in the UK is related to fertiliser use.
Nestlé UK & Ireland and Cargill have partnered to develop innovative solutions in regenerative agriculture. The initiative — a UK supply chain trial — aims to assess whether cocoa shells from a confectionery site in York could be used to create a low carbon fertiliser.
The trial to evaluate the fertiliser’s performance on crop production, soil health and GHG emissions reduction will last two years, and, if successful, could produce and offer up to 7,000 tonnes of low carbon fertiliser to farmers in Nestlé’s UK wheat supply chain. This amount of fertiliser equates to around 25% of Nestlé UK’s total fertiliser use for wheat.
“Farmers often find themselves to be among the first groups to be exposed to global issues, and these risks are then borne by the food system we all depend upon,” shares Matt Ryan, Regeneration Lead at Nestlé UK & Ireland.
“We have to find ways to build more resilience into the system and optimising our use of natural resources is a critical part of this.
“This project is a small, but very meaningful step towards a net zero future, where farmers, local enterprises, and nature all stand to benefit”
Reducing emissions across the supply chain
Cargill supplies the cocoa shells from its York facility where the shells are processed to become key ingredients in iconic products like KitKat and Aero.
Recycling valuable nutrients from waste streams within the food system provides a promising opportunity to create a lower emissions supply chain. Scaling up low carbon fertiliser production in the UK can provide farmers with a more sustainable product at a reliable price.
The trials, which were designed and are being overseen by York-based Fera Science Ltd, are currently taking place on arable farms in Suffolk and Northamptonshire. They are designed to investigate the performance of the fertiliser in terms of wheat yield and quality, as well as assess the impacts on soil biodiversity and GHG emissions in comparison to conventional products applied on the same farms.
“We have now finished harvesting and we’ve successfully grown a Winter wheat crop using this new fertiliser. We’ve compared two parts of the field, one which used the cocoa shell fertiliser, and one which used with the conventional fertiliser, and there is no significant difference in the yield so we can see that it works,” says Richard Ling, farm manager at Rookery Farm, Wortham in Norfolk, who supplies wheat to Nestlé Purina.
“We are really reassured with the results and are looking at running further trials. It’s a step change to be able to use a fertiliser made from a waste stream and see the same results as using a conventional product. It’s an exciting and promising time and we are pleased to be taking part in these trials to help reduce the carbon emissions from our farming.”
For all companies involved, the trial embodies their commitment to innovation, collaboration and sustainability throughout the supply chain. Alongside its pledge to net zero emissions by 2050, Nestlé has committed to sourcing 50% of its key ingredients from regenerative agricultural methods by 2030 and this project is an example of the innovative solutions supporting the company on that journey.
“Cargill and Nestlé have been working together for more than 60 years building resilient supply chains across communities where we both operate. We are excited to continue to build on this strong partnership through our innovative cocoa shell fertiliser trial,” says Sam Thompson, Global Engineering Lead at Cargill Cocoa & Chocolate.
“Together, we hope to contribute to a more sustainable future for the British farming industry.”
Ocean carbon removal is a process that aims to remove excess carbon dioxide from our oceans. As we all know, the ocean plays a critical role in regulating our planet’s climate by absorbing large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. However, this absorption has a limit, and as we continue to emit more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 is reaching its threshold.
The process of removing carbon dioxide involves capturing it directly from seawater or indirectly through biological processes, such as photosynthesis carried out by marine organisms like phytoplankton. Once captured, it can be stored permanently in deep-sea sediments or used for various industrial purposes.
Ocean carbon removal has gained significant attention recently due to its potential for reducing atmospheric CO2 levels and mitigating climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Additionally, this solution can generate ocean-based carbon credits, which provide financial incentives for companies investing in sustainable practices that reduce their carbon footprint.
Ocean carbon removal offers promising solutions for mitigating climate change while protecting our oceans’ health but also requires careful evaluation of its environmental risks and economic feasibility before implementation at scale.
The company Planetary Technologies has released an innovative ocean-based carbon removal protocol. The protocol aims to provide a standard for measuring and verifying the effectiveness of ocean-based carbon removal projects.
The technology adds a mild alkaline substance to the ocean, which reduces acidity and converts dissolved carbon dioxide into a salt that remains dissolved in the ocean for up to 100,000 years. This process allows for more atmospheric carbon dioxide to be absorbed by the ocean.
The company has been testing its technology in the U.K., Canada, and the U.S. and claims it could remove up to 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2028 while restoring marine ecosystems. The publication of the protocol is a major step forward for the nascent market for marine carbon removals.
How does it work?
Ocean carbon removal is a process that involves removing carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere and storing it in the ocean. The process works by using natural or artificial processes to convert atmospheric CO2 into dissolved bicarbonate ions, which then sink and become trapped in deep-ocean sediments.
Natural processes include photosynthesis by marine organisms such as phytoplankton, while artificial methods involve injecting CO2 directly into seawater or using specialized equipment to capture CO2 from the air.
One of the key benefits of ocean carbon removal is its potential to mitigate climate change. By removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere, we can slow down global warming and reduce its impacts on our planet.
However, there are also concerns about how this technology might impact marine ecosystems. Injecting large amounts of CO2 into seawater could alter pH levels and affect marine life while capturing too much atmospheric CO2 could disrupt natural carbon cycles.
Ocean carbon removal has enormous potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change. However, careful planning and monitoring will be necessary to ensure that these technologies are deployed safely and sustainably.
What are the benefits?
The benefits of ocean carbon removal are numerous and far-reaching. One of the primary benefits is that it provides a solution to one of the biggest challenges facing our planet today: climate change. By removing carbon from the atmosphere, we can slow down global warming and reduce its devastating effects.
In addition, ocean carbon removal has a lower environmental impact than other methods, such as land-based solutions or direct air capture. This is because oceans cover more than 70% of the Earth’s surface, making them an ideal location for large-scale carbon sequestration projects without disturbing natural habitats or ecosystems.
Another benefit is that it can create new economic opportunities in coastal communities through jobs related to monitoring, maintenance, and technology development. Furthermore, companies can earn ocean carbon credits by participating in these programs, encouraging investment in sustainable practices while funding future initiatives.
Ocean carbon removal helps protect marine life by reducing acidification levels caused by excess CO2 emissions. Acidification harms many marine species, including coral reefs which support millions of people worldwide through fishing and tourism industries.
What are the Concerns?
Despite the numerous benefits of ocean carbon removal, there are also concerns that need to be addressed. One of the primary concerns is the potential environmental impact on marine ecosystems. Large-scale ocean carbon capture technologies deployment may interfere with fish habitats and disrupt food chains.
Another concern is the lack of regulatory frameworks for validating and verifying the efficacy of ocean carbon credits. With no established standards in place, it becomes difficult to ensure transparency and accountability in measuring how much carbon has been removed from oceans.
Additionally, some experts warn that relying on carbon removal could divert attention away from more pressing climate solutions, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions at their source. Without a comprehensive approach to addressing climate change, we risk overlooking other important factors contributing to global warming.
As we continue exploring ways to reduce our impact on the planet’s environment, it’s essential we address these concerns head-on by conducting thorough research and creating clear regulations around monitoring the effectiveness of this promising new technology.
A Piece of the Big Picture
The release of Planetary Technologies’ ocean-based carbon removal protocol is a significant milestone in the fight against climate change. The ability to remove carbon dioxide from our oceans not only helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also has positive effects on marine life and ecosystems. While there are concerns about potential environmental impacts and costs associated with this technology, it is important to continue exploring innovative solutions like these to address global warming.
Furthermore, individuals can get involved by supporting research efforts or advocating for policies that promote ocean-based carbon capture and storage projects. Ultimately, reducing our carbon footprint requires collective action at all levels – from governments and businesses to individuals.
By working together towards a sustainable future, we can protect our planet’s health while creating new opportunities for economic growth and innovation. Ocean carbon removal is just one piece of the bigger picture, but an important one in our journey towards a greener tomorrow.
Researchers may have discovered a protein substitute for livestock feed that is significantly less environmentally damaging than corn and soybean production. The researchers have explored the concept of synthetic nutrition, which means essential nutrients can be produced artificially, efficiently and with a small footprint. They have turned greenhouse gas emissions into an ingredient that could be used for carbon dioxide livestock feed.
The researchers captured carbon dioxide and combined it with renewable hydrogen to make methanol powered by wind and solar energy. With the material created, they applied a series of enzymes into an eight-step process which, after several combinations, created an amino acid called L-alanine. This amino acid makes protein and is an energy source for muscles and the central nervous system. It also strengthens the immune system and helps the body use sugars.
This isn’t the first time researchers have been able to transform carbon dioxide into food products. Researchers have found a way to convert carbon dioxide into starch that typically comes from corn which requires a lot of land, water and fertilizer to grow. The process they used was 8.5 times more efficient than photosynthesis, which the corn plant uses to convert CO2 and sunlight into carbs. Moreover, their process took only four hours compared to the 120 days required for corn to grow and generate starch.
These new processes of using carbon dioxide to minimize the use of corn and starch will bypass the problem of repurposing a climate-damaging waste stream. Although there are other ways to synthesize L-alanine protein, they require emission-intensive processes that require petroleum products. Using existing carbon dioxide will reduce the need for emissions and harmful products. It also decouples production from the land because less land will be needed to produce the same amount of L-alanine. It will also use significantly less energy as the energy required will be taken from renewable sources.
The demand for animal protein continues, so the need for carbon dioxide livestock feed will also rise. Researchers are developing solutions that utilize harmful and excess emissions that can be transformed into food for these animals. These new solutions will allow us to move away from excess land and water use and monocultures and help us create more biologically diverse environments.
Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world as much as $12tn (£10.2tn) by 2050, an Oxford University study says.
The report said it was wrong and pessimistic to claim that moving quickly towards cleaner energy sources was expensive.
Gas prices have soared on mounting concerns over energy supplies.
But the researchers say that going green now makes economic sense because of the falling cost of renewables.
The cost of green energy like wind and solar has been falling for decades
“Even if you’re a climate denier, you should be on board with what we’re advocating,” Prof Doyne Farmer from the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School told BBC News.
“Our central conclusion is that we should go full speed ahead with the green energy transition because it’s going to save us money,” he said.
Will new government stick to climate targets?
PM will explore energy market reform to cut bills
What is climate change? A really simple guide
The report’s findings are based on looking at historic price data for renewables and fossil fuels and then modelling how they’re likely to change in the future.
The data for fossil fuels goes from 2020 back more than 100 years and shows that after accounting for inflation, and market volatility, the price hasn’t changed much.
Renewables have only been around for a few decades, so there’s less data. But in that time continual improvements in technology have meant the cost of solar and wind power have fallen rapidly, at a rate approaching 10% a year.
The report’s expectation that the price of renewables will continue to fall is based on “probabilistic” modelling, using data on how massive investment and economies of scale have made other similar technologies cheaper.
“Our latest research shows scaling-up key green technologies will continue to drive their costs down, and the faster we go, the more we will save,” says Dr Rupert Way, the report’s lead author from the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.
Wind and solar are already the cheapest option for new power projects, but questions remain over how to best store power and balance the grid when the changes in the weather leads to fall in renewable output.
Cost of net zero
Back in 2019 Philip Hammond, then Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to the prime minister to say that the cost of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in the UK would be more than £1tn. This report says the likely costs have been over-estimated and have deterred investment.
It also says predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the cost of keeping global temperatures rises under 2 degrees would correspond to a loss of GDP by 2050 were too pessimistic. The transition to renewables was, it says, likely to turn out to be a “net economic benefit”.
The research has been published in the journal Joule and is a collaboration between the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, the Oxford Martin Programme on the Post-Carbon Transition, the Smith School of Enterprise & Environment at the University of Oxford, and SoDa Labs at Monash University.
The EU’s European Investment Bank has pledged support for a long-duration thermal energy storage project and a gravity-based energy storage demonstration project.
They have been selected among 15 projects defined as large-scale — each requiring capital costs of more than €7.5 million (US$8.5 million) — through EU Innovation Fund grants for Project Development Assistance (PDA), administered by the bank.
A total of 311 applications were received for clean energy or decarbonisation projects after the call for submissions opened last summer.
Of these, seven were selected to receive direct funding from a €1.1 billion budget and include hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, advanced solar cell manufacturing and other technologies.
The 15 among which the two energy storage projects were selected will receive PDA, technical assistance for various stages of their development.
The other 13 projects cover technologies including wind propulsion for cruise ships, hydrogen fuel cells for marine vessels, green methanol production, greenhouse gas (GHG) and carbon capture and storage, bioethanol, power-to-liquid for aviation fuels and other areas.
There is also an electric vehicle (EV) battery project, which will use ultra-pure electrolyte salt to improve lithium-ion batteries and a project to develop and upscale the synthesis of curved graphene and electrode production technologies.
Thermal energy storage project Sun2Store
Sun2Store, a 100MW/1,000MWh thermal energy storage project in Spain was selected for a PDA agreement. Using technology developed by US startup Malta Inc, the project will enable 10-hour duration storage of energy.
Malta Inc has developed a technology it calls ‘pumped heat’ electricity storage, which could provide up to 200 hours of storage, although the company is largely targeting 10 – 12 hour applications. It converts electricity to heat, which is then stored in molten salt. Simultaneously, the system produces cold energy stored in special vats of an anti-freeze-like cooling liquid.
The hot and cold energy are then converted back into electricity as required, using a temperature difference-driven heat engine. The company has raised funds from investors including Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures and is one of the founding members of the international Long Duration Energy Storage Council.
It has deals in place with equipment manufacturers Bechtel and Siemens Energy for co-development and supply of key components.
Funds have been granted to Malta Inc’s European affiliate company, Malta Iberia Pumped Heat Electricity Storage (Malta Iberia). The EIB will provide technical assistance to Malta Iberia, including an independent technology assessment, which will verify the storage facility’s key technical parameters.
Malta Inc recently announced plans for a similar-sized project in Canada.
Gravity storage project GraviSTORE
Scotland-headquartered startup Gravitricity was the other energy storage system industry recipient of a PDA agreement through the Innovation Fund.
The EIB will support Gravitricity’s plans to build a full scale 4-8MW project in a former mine shaft.
Located in mainland Europe, the project follows a 250kW demonstrator which operated in Scotland’s capital city Edinburgh throughout the summer and for which specialists appointed by the EIB have begun evaluating test results.
The results of the Edinburgh demonstrator are to be combined with a review of local revenue streams to produce a commercial risk assessment that will inform detailed design and development activities.
“We already have a high level of confidence in our technology and its ability to store energy effectively. What these studies will bring is increased understanding and confidence in how a full-scale project will play into a specific energy market,” said Chris Yendell, project development manager at Gravitricity.
Gravitricity’s energy storage solution works by raising weights in a deep shaft, with disused mine shafts currently being targeted by the firm, and releasing them when energy is required. Its proposed single weight full scale system could deliver up to 2MWh of energy storage, with future multi-weight systems having the potential for a capacity of 25MWh or more.
Alongside the test evaluations, the EIB has now also committed 120 days of consultancy time to advance the full scale project.
In October, Gravitricity engineers visited the recently mothballed Staříč mine in the Moravian Silesian Region of Czechia to investigate its potential for the project. The Gravitricity team is to head to mainland Europe later in January to further evaluate their shortlist, with a final selection decision expected within the next few months.
The firm is also exploring opportunities for a purpose-built prototype shaft at a brownfield location in the UK, where gravity storage could be combined with hydrogen and inter-seasonal heat storage.
Nelson and Wellington residents tied for first in the regional battle for the lowest carbon footprint. But while Nelson’s total emissions had the largest decrease between 2018 and 2019, according to Statistics NZ data, the capital’s headed in the opposite direction.
Both regions produced 6.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every resident in 2019. Auckland came in third place, with a per-person total of 6.7 tonnes.
At the other end of the spectrum, Southland produces nearly nine times as much greenhouse gas for every resident, courtesy of its dairy farms and the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter. Taranaki and Waikato had the second and third highest figures.
In 2019, experts advised the world to cut greenhouse gas output by about 8 per cent a year, to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Data released Wednesday suggests Nelson residents took that call to heart.
Households slashed their footprints by 19 per cent, according to the Statistics NZ report. Personal travel pollution fell from 110 tonnes in 2018 to 88 tonnes. Emissions from primary industries in the region also plummeted by 12 per cent. Some of these gains were offset by slight rises in pollution from manufacturing, electricity generation and waste.
Nelson residents’ annual footprint of 6.6 tonnes is even more impressive considering it does not have as many jobs in government departments, head offices and financial services as Wellington or Auckland.
Although small, the Nelson region recorded the largest emissions decrease, as total emissions fell 8 per cent in 2019. MARTIN DE RUYTER/STUFF
Nelson City councillor Kate Fulton has worked for 11 years to achieve emissions cuts in the region.
“It’s very exciting to see stats like that, because you think we’re heading in the right direction,” she added.
“People really started to pay attention when we had a couple of years of heavy rainfall events – and in 2018, Cyclone Gita and Fehi really impacted our region – and then we had a very dry summer and some intense fires. It was around the same time fires were happening in Australia and Brazil. Perhaps people are seeing the effects of climate change now in their immediate environment plus in parts of the world that they love, and that makes them want to do more individually.”
On the transport front, the council has encouraged people to minimise car journeys, and walk and cycle where they can. But with neighbouring Tasman’s transport emissions rising, there’s more work to do, she added.
“We’ve really supporting things like minimising and diverting food waste from landfill and increased the planting of trees.”
Cities rely on other regions for food and power, and must help ease that burden, Fulton said. To help reduce emissions in Nelson and at Waikato’s Huntly power plant, the council is encouraging new houses that are central, connected, high performing and installed with solar panels.
“We need to really think about how our personal choices benefit the country, plus the planet.”
All up, Nelson cut 8 per cent off its footprint – the best result in the country. Close neighbour Tasman also had a reasonable drop: 3.9 per cent.
Solar panels on homes around the country could help Waikato to produce fewer emissions, a Nelson councillor suggests. SUPPLIED
Gases also fell 1.5 per cent in Canterbury, as animal numbers declined. Since the province’s total is so large, this translated into an emissions reduction equivalent to 180,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, Statistics NZ found.
But these efforts failed to counteract the large increases in other areas. Altogether, national emissions rose 2.1 per cent.
Emissions are allocated to the region where they are created. So all the emissions from the Huntly power plant are added into Waikato’s tally, even though many regions rely on its electricity.
The data also doesn’t count regions’ carbon sinks, for example the carbon sucked up by native forests.
Wellington had a mixed year. Households contribute the bulk of the capital’s pollution, and emissions from personal travel had a 1.9 percent bump in 2019. The region includes farms on the Kāpiti Coast and the Wairarapa, where agricultural gases rose by 5.2 percent. Transport and logistics had a small rise.
But in 2019, 6700 new residents shifted to the capital. So while the city’s total pollution rose, it was still able to tie with Nelson for the smallest per-person footprint.
Due to its service industries and high population, Wellington had the lowest per-capita carbon footprint (tied with Nelson). 123RF
Greater Wellington Regional councillor Thomas Nash said the rise was still disappointing. “Really it’s the total amount that matters for the climate,” he added. “We need to be able to welcome more people into our towns and cities in this region without increasing emissions and in fact, while decreasing emissions.”
That would mean funding public transport, allowing high-density and connected housing and supporting farmers to produce lower-emissions food and drink, Nash said. “There should be a national and regional focus on natural infrastructure… healthy soil, native wetlands, native forest, coastal environments.”
The capital relies on economic activity elsewhere to power its service-based economy. Exports from agriculture and heavy industries keep the economy humming (particularly during the pandemic).
Because of farms and metal-making, Southland’s per-resident carbon footprint remained the highest in the country for the second year in a row. The data shows the dollars these industries bring come at a high carbon cost.
For every million dollars of GDP, Southland produces more than 900 tonnes of carbon dioxide – also the highest in the country. Wellington has the lowest: under 90 tonnes for every million in GDP.
However, Southland’s emissions fell a smidgen – 0.5 percent – in 2019, even as 1000 people shifted to the province.
Of all the regions, Waikato had the biggest emissions blow out, with a 7.5 percent rise. Low rainfall in 2019 meant generation by the hydro dams fell. Power plants, including Huntly, picked up the slack.
Waikato could record similar increases in 2020 and 2021, as record amounts of coal have been imported in the last two years, due to low hydro generation and gas shortages.
The region’s household emissions also had a significant rise, mostly from a large increase in personal travel. This could be explained by the nearly 10,000 people that moved to the area in 2019, with some continuing to commute to Auckland.
Waikato’s emissions added to Auckland’s and Canterbury’s figures contribute nearly 50 percent of the country’s greenhouse pollution, said Statistics NZ’s Stephen Oakley.
That’s expected, given the high concentration of agriculture and industry, plus higher populations, in these areas.
Compared to national emission data, the regional breakdown helps central and local governments understand how best to start reducing gases, he added. “When you look across all of the 16 regions, you can see that different regions have different things that are driving it.”
Here are the highs and lows for each region:
NORTHLAND
Share of emissions: 6 percent
The bad news: Emissions rose 2.3 percent between 2018 and 2019, higher than the national average. This was mostly from manufacturing.
The good news: Agricultural emissions fell by 4.8 percent, though this could be due to farmers reacting to drought conditions, which have plagued the region.
AUCKLAND
Share of emissions: 13.7 percent
The bad news: Greenhouse pollution from manufacturing and agriculture increased. In total, emissions rose by 1.4 percent.
The good news: Emissions from households fell, as people drove less. The region has one of the lowest per-capita carbon footprints, at 6.7 tonnes per resident.
Like many regions, the City of Sails recorded a rise in total emissions between 2018 and 2019, though people drove less. ABIGAIL DOUGHERTY/STUFF
WAIKATO
Share of emissions: 19.1 percent
The bad news: Emissions rose by 7.5 percent in 2019. Waikato is the home of the Huntly power plant, which picks up the slack in drier conditions. Its largest source of emissions is agriculture, and this tally increased by 1.5 percent. Waikato’s personal travel emissions also shot up.
The good news: There isn’t much. Even though nearly 10,000 people moved to Waikato, it’s per-capita footprint ballooned in 2019 to 32.2 tonnes per resident.
BAY OF PLENTY
Share of emissions: 4.2 percent
The bad news: The region’s emissions rose 4.4 percent – higher than the national average. Both agricultural and manufacturing greenhouse gases rose.
The good news: Residents have the fourth-lowest per-person carbon footprint in the country.
GISBORNE
Share of emissions: 1.6 percent
The bad news: The area has the fifth-highest per-capita carbon footprint.
The good news: There’s plenty: Gisborne’s emissions fell 3.5 percent, even as its population grew in 2019. Greenhouse pollution from agriculture, forestry and fishing fell, as did household emissions.
HAWKE’S BAY
Share of emissions: 4 percent
The bad news: The region’s emissions rose 1.2 per cent from 2018 to 2019.
The good news: Household emissions fell by 3.3 per cent.
Home to the gas industry and fossil fuel-linked manufacturing, the Taranaki region has a relatively high per-capita footprint. ANDY JACKSON/TARANAKI-DAILY-NEWS
TARANAKI
Share of emissions: 7.4 percent
The bad news: Taranaki’s emissions tally rose 4 percent. Residents have the second-highest carbon footprint, at 49.5 tonnes each.
The good news: Emissions from electricity generation in the region fell.
MANAWATŪ-WHANGANUI
Share of emissions: 7.4 percent
The bad news: Manufacturing emissions jumped up 12 percent.
The good news: The region’s largest contributor to emissions, agriculture, had a 1.7 percent drop. Across all sectors, greenhouse gas output fell by 0.5 percent.
WELLINGTON
Share of emissions: 4.3 percent
The bad news: Farms and households contributed more emissions in 2019 than in 2018. All up, the capital’s tally was 2.6 percent larger (a figure above the national average).
The good news: Wellington’s population increased, so the per-person carbon footprint fell to 6.6 tonnes – the smallest in the country (tied with Nelson).
TASMAN
Share of emissions: 1 percent
The bad news: In 2019, manufacturing and construction pollution rose by 6.9 percent.
The good news: Since emissions from households and the primary industries fell, the region’s total footprint fell by 3.9 percent.
The Tasman region’s carbon tally achieved the second-largest decrease between 2018 and 2019, falling by 3.9 per cent. ALDEN WILLIAMS/STUFF
NELSON
Share of emissions: 0.4 percent
The bad news: There were small increases in manufacturing, electricity and waste emissions.
The good news: With big drops in emissions from primary industries and households, the region has earned the acclaim of the lowest per-person carbon footprint (6.6 tonnes), tied with the capital.
MARLBOROUGH
Share of emissions: 0.9 percent
The bad news: Agricultural gases rose, leading to the region’s emissions increasing by 3.4 per cent – more than the national average.
The good news: Household pollution fell by 4.9 per cent. Emissions from forestry and fishing also fell slightly.
WEST COAST
Share of emissions: 1.7 percent
The bad news: Agricultural and mining emissions both rose, causing the region’s tally to increase by 3.1 per cent. At 43.1 tonnes, the West Coast has the third-highest per-person carbon footprint.
The good news: Pollution from personal travel fell 6 per cent.
The number of dairy cows in Canterbury fell between 2018 and 2019, which contributed to the region’s emissions falling. CHRIS SKELTON/STUFF
CANTERBURY (including Chatham Islands)
Share of emissions: 14.2 percent
The bad news: Manufacturing emissions rose 6 per cent.
The good news: Agricultural gases – by far the largest share of the pie – fell by 2.6 per cent. This, along with a reduction in household pollution even as more people arrived, meant the region’s tally fell by 1.5 per cent.
OTAGO
Share of emissions: 6.4 per cent
The bad news: Agriculture also leads the pack in Otago’s emissions tally. After this sector had a 3 percent increase in emissions, the region’s total rose by 2.6 percent.
The good news: Emissions from electricity dropped slightly.
SOUTHLAND
Share of emissions: 7.4 percent
The bad news: Agriculture and manufacturing (think the aluminum smelter) are the area’s biggest contributors. With a per-capital tally of 59.9 tonnes in 2019, Southland remains an emissions-intensive region.
The good news: A drop in farming gases more than made up for an increase in manufacturing emissions, so the region’s total fell 0.5 per cent in 2019.
Scotland’s biggest bus operator has announced it is building the UK’s largest electric vehicle charging hub.
First Bus will install 160 charging points and replace half its fleet with electric buses at its Caledonia depot in Glasgow.
The programme is expected to be completed in 2023 with the first 22 buses arriving by autumn.
Charging the full fleet will use the same electricity as it takes to power a town of 10,000 people.
The scale of the project means changes are needed to the power grid to accommodate the extra demand.
First Glasgow managing director Andrew Jarvis told BBC Scotland: “We’ve got to play our part in society in changing how we all live and work. A big part of that is emissions from vehicles.
“Transport is stubbornly high in terms of emissions and bus companies need to play their part, and are playing their part, in that zero emission journey.”
Source BBC
First Bus currently operates 337 buses out of its largest depot with another four sites across Glasgow.
The new buses will be built by Alexander Dennis at its manufacturing sites in Falkirk and Scarborough.
The transition requires a £35.6m investment by First with electric buses costing almost double the £225,000 bill for a single decker running on diesel.
But the company says maintenance and running costs are then much lower.
The buses can run on urban routes for 16 hours and be rapidly recharged in just four hours.
This is a big investment which the company wouldn’t be able to achieve on its own.
Government grants only cover 75% of the difference between the price of a diesel and an electric bus so it’s still a good bit more expensive for them.
But they know they have to do it as a social responsibility and because the requirements for using Low Emissions Zones are likely to become stricter.
The SNP manifesto committed to electrifying half of Scotland’s 4,000 or so buses within two years.
Some are questioning whether that’s even achievable in the timescale, given the electricity grid changes that would be necessary for charging.
But it’s a commitment that environmental groups will certainly hold them to.
Source BBC
Transport Scotland is providing £28.1m of funding to First Bus as part of the Scottish government’s commitment to electrify half of Scotland’s buses in the first two years of the parliamentary term.
Net Zero Secretary Michael Matheson said: “It’s absolute critical that we decarbonise our transport system and what we have set out are very ambitious plans of how we go about doing that.
“We’ve set out a target to make sure that we decarbonise as many of the bus fleets across Scotland as possible, at least half of it over the course of the next couple of years, and we’ll set out our plans later on this year of how we’ll drive that forward.”
Transport is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland which are responsible for accelerating climate change.
In 2018 the sector was responsible for 31% of the country’s net emissions.
First Glasgow has been trialling two electric buses since January 2020.
Driver Sally Smillie said they had gone down well with passengers because they were much quieter than diesel buses.
She added: “In the beginning it was strange for them not hearing them coming but they adapt very easily and they check now.
“It’s a lot more comfortable. You’re not feeling a gear change and the braking’s smoother. I think they’re great buses to drive.” – Sally Smillie
By Kevin Keane – Environment correspondent BBC Scotland
Fossil fuels, cattle and rotting waste produce greenhouse gas responsible for 30% of global heating
Slashing methane emissions is vital to tackling the climate crisis and rapidly curbing the extreme weather already hitting people across the world today, according to a new UN report.
In 2020 there was a record rise in the amount of the powerful greenhouse gas emitted by the fossil fuel industry, cattle and rotting waste. Cutting it is the strongest action available to slow global heating in the near term, Inger Andersen, the UN’s environment chief, said.
The report found that methane emissions could be almost halved by 2030 using existing technology and at reasonable cost. A significant proportion of the actions would actually make money, such as capturing methane gas leaks at fossil fuel sites.
A cattle feedlot in Colorado: 42% of human-caused methane emissions come from agriculture, including burping livestock and manure. Photograph: Jim West/Alamy
Methane is 84 times more powerful in trapping heat than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period and has caused about 30% of global heating to date. But it breaks down in the atmosphere within about a decade, unlike CO2, which remains in the air for centuries.
Cutting carbon emissions remains essential in ending the climate emergency, but some experts liken reducing CO2 in the air to the slow process of stopping a supertanker, whereas lowering methane is like cutting the engine on a speedboat and bringing it to a rapid halt.
Prof Drew Shindell, at Duke University, who led the UN report, said: “We’re seeing so many aspects of climate change manifest themselves in the real world faster than our projections,” such as increasing heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and intense storms. “We don’t have a lot we can do about that, other than this powerful lever on near-term climate of reducing methane. We should do this for the wellbeing of everybody on the planet over the next 20 to 30 years.”
“Methane emissions are increasing faster now than at any time in nearly 40 years of the observational record,” he said. “Despite Covid … methane shot upwards – it’s going in the wrong direction very, very rapidly.”
Intentional and unintentional leaks of methane from fossil fuel drilling sites has contributed to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Photograph: Charles Rex Arbogast/AP
The surge is partly due to the increased use of fossil fuels, especially gas produced by fracking, Shindell said, and probably more emissions from wetlands as they heat up.
“It’s vital to reduce methane for the sake of near-term climate change,” Shindell said “But it’s also vital to reduce CO2 for the sake of long-term climate change. The good news is that most of the required actions [to cut methane] also bring health and financial benefits.”
Andersen said: “Cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years. We need international cooperation to urgently reduce methane emissions as much as possible this decade.”
The report produced by the UN and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition found that 42% of human-caused methane emissions come from agriculture, mostly from burping livestock, its manure, and paddy fields. Intentional and unintentional leaks of methane from fossil fuel drilling sites, coalmines and pipelines produce 36% of the total and waste dumps cause another 18%.
The report found feasible and cost-effective methane cuts of 60% could be made from fossil fuel operations by stopping the venting of unwanted gas and properly sealing equipment. Waste sites could cut about 35% by reducing the organic waste sent to landfill sites and through better sewage treatment.
The estimated methane cuts from agriculture by 2030 were lower at 25%. “You can change the feed to cows and the way you manage the herds, but these things are fairly small,” said Shindell. “You could make very great inroads into methane emissions by dietary change [eating less meat], but we are just not that sure how quickly that will happen.”
Other measures not specifically targeting methane can still cut emissions of the gas, the report said, such as reducing the demand for fossil gas by increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency, and wasting less food.
The report is the first to include the health and other benefits of cutting methane. The gas causes ground-level ozone pollution and a cut of 45% by 2030 would prevent 260,000 early deaths a year, the report said. More than 13,000 of those would be in the US and 4,200 in the UK. Ozone also damages crops and the methane cut would prevent 25m tonnes of wheat, rice, maize and soy being lost annually.
“Seldom in the world of climate change action is there a solution so stuffed with win-wins,” said Prof Dave Reay, at the University of Edinburgh, who was not part of the report team. A recent scientific study concluded that methane cuts can also “reduce the likelihood of passing climate tipping points”.
Jonathan Banks, at the US-based Clean Air Task Force, said: “We desperately need a win on climate change and methane abatement provides an opportunity for a real near-term win. Lately all we’ve been doing is slamming our heads against the wall – society can’t keep doing that for forever.”
C-Zero splits methane into hydrogen and solid carbon, eliminating much of the greenhouse-gas impact.
Breakthrough Energy Ventures, the fund helmed by Bill Gates, led a funding round to raise $11.5 million for California-based startup C-Zero Inc.
The company has developed technology to lower the greenhouse-gas emissions from using natural gas. Instead of burning the fuel to produce carbon dioxide and water, C-Zero passes the gas through a mixture of molten salts. Doing so splits methane — the main component of natural gas — into hydrogen gas and solid carbon. When the hydrogen burns, it produces water; the solid carbon goes to landfills.
The company’s tech appealed to the prominent clean-energy fund because the world will need access to gaseous fuels like hydrogen at large scales and low costs to meet climate targets. Developing the process “needed both cheap natural gas and the world to care about reducing CO₂ emissions,” said Zachary Jones, C-Zero’s chief executive officer. Both those conditions have been met only in recent years, with the fracking boom overlapping with the urgency to act on climate change.
Splitting methane, which is made up of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms, into hydrogen and solid carbon is not difficult in terms of the chemistry. The main challenge now is lowering the cost when the technology is scaled up.Gas per day, followed by a commercial unit that is capable of producing more than 1,000 kg per day. Most clean-energy startups fail at the scaling stage.
Natural gas doesn’t just hurt the environment when its burned. Producing and transporting the fuel also adds to the greenhouse-gas burden. Leaky wells and pipes dump unburned methane into the atmosphere, where it traps as much as 86 times more heat than similar amounts of CO₂. “The benefit of our technology is that it can be a deployed on the well head,” said Jones, reducing some methane leaks.
Alongside BEV, the other investors in C-Zero include Eni Next, the venture arm of oil and gas giant Eni SpA, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which is developing hydrogen turbines. Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg LP, is also a backer of BEV.
C-Zero isn’t the only one trying to deploy the tech. Nebraska-based Monolith Materials Inc. is also hoping to find a market for the solid carbon produced as a byproduct of turning methane into hydrogen. Australia-based Hazer Group Ltd turns natural gas into hydrogen and graphite, a form of carbon that can be used in lithium-ion batteries.
“I wish that our carbon had value. That’s a much better business model,” said Jones. If only 10% of the natural gas the world consumes today was converted to hydrogen through this process, Jones estimates that the global market for solid carbon would be saturated. “That’s the difference from our competitors. We’ve been 100% focused on making the lowest cost, cleanest hydrogen we can,” he added.
If not put to use, solid carbon has to be discarded as a waste. As yet, no one has done it at a scale for there to be studies on the environmental risks. But Jones is confident that it would be like dealing with the ash from burning coal, which the world produces in the hundreds of millions of tons each year and which often just sits in landfills.
Much of the world’s hydrogen today is produced from natural gas. The current method, however, produces large amounts of carbon dioxide, which are dumped in the air. Countries such as the U.K. and Germany are working on incentivizing the use of carbon capture technology, which will see CO₂ injected deep underground. Jones argues that it’s much better to deal with solid carbon than worrying about buried CO₂ gas.
There’s also the risk that the company may struggle to get enough climate-conscious investors to bet on a technology that helps prolong the use of fossil fuels. Jones said that, once scaled up, C-Zero’s tech can eventually be used on methane produced from biological sources, often referred to as renewable natural gas.
The trading of carbon credits can help companies—and the world—meet ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Here is what it would take to strengthen voluntary carbon markets so they can support climate action on a large scale.
More and more companies are pledging to help stop climate change by reducing their own greenhouse-gas emissions as much as they can. Yet many businesses find they cannot fully eliminate their emissions, or even lessen them as quickly as they might like. The challenge is especially tough for organizations that aim to achieve net-zero emissions, which means removing as much greenhouse gas from the air as they put into it. For many, it will be necessary to use carbon credits to offset emissions they can’t get rid of by other means. The Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM), sponsored by the Institute of International Finance (IIF) with knowledge support from McKinsey, estimates that demand for carbon credits could increase by a factor of 15 or more by 2030 and by a factor of up to 100 by 2050. Overall, the market for carbon credits could be worth upward of $50 billion in 2030.
The market for carbon credits purchased voluntarily (rather than for compliance purposes) is important for other reasons, too. Voluntary carbon credits direct private financing to climate-action projects that would not otherwise get off the ground. These projects can have additional benefits such as biodiversity protection, pollution prevention, public-health improvements, and job creation. Carbon credits also support investment into the innovation required to lower the cost of emerging climate technologies. And scaled-up voluntary carbon markets would facilitate the mobilization of capital to the Global South, where there is the most potential for economical nature-based emissions-reduction projects.1
Given the demand for carbon credits that could ensue from global efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, it’s apparent that the world will need a voluntary carbon market that is large, transparent, verifiable, and environmentally robust. Today’s market, though, is fragmented and complex. Some credits have turned out to represent emissions reductions that were questionable at best. Limited pricing data make it challenging for buyers to know whether they are paying a fair price, and for suppliers to manage the risk they take on by financing and working on carbon-reduction projects without knowing how much buyers will ultimately pay for carbon credits. In this article, which is based on McKinsey’s research for a new report by the TSVCM, we look at these issues and how market participants, standard-setting organizations, financial institutions, market-infrastructure providers, and other constituencies might address them to scale up the voluntary carbon market.
Carbon credits can help companies to meet their climate-change goals
Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nearly 200 countries have endorsed the global goal of limiting the rise in average temperatures to 2.0 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, and ideally 1.5 degrees. Reaching the 1.5-degree target would require that global greenhouse-gas emissions are cut by 50 percent of current levels by 2030 and reduced to net zero by 2050. More companies are aligning themselves with this agenda: in less than a year, the number of companies with net-zero pledges doubled, from 500 in 2019 to more than 1,000 in 2020.2
To meet the worldwide net-zero target, companies will need to reduce their own emissions as much as they can (while also measuring and reporting on their progress, to achieve the transparency and accountability that investors and other stakeholders increasingly want). For some companies, however, it’s prohibitively expensive to reduce emissions using today’s technologies, though the costs of those technologies might go down in time. And at some businesses, certain sources of emissions cannot be eliminated. For example, making cement at industrial scale typically involves a chemical reaction, calcination, which accounts for a large share of the cement sector’s carbon emissions. Because of these limitations, the emissions-reduction pathway to a 1.5-degree warming target effectively requires “negative emissions,” which are achieved by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1
Purchasing carbon credits is one way for a company to address emissions it is unable to eliminate. Carbon credits are certificates representing quantities of greenhouse gases that have been kept out of the air or removed from it. While carbon credits have been in use for decades, the voluntary market for carbon credits has grown significantly in recent years. McKinsey estimates that in 2020, buyers retired carbon credits for some 95 million tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), which would be more than twice as much as in 2017.
As efforts to decarbonize the global economy increase, demand for voluntary carbon credits could continue to rise. Based on stated demand for carbon credits, demand projections from experts surveyed by the TSVCM, and the volume of negative emissions needed to reduce emissions in line with the 1.5-degree warming goal, McKinsey estimates that annual global demand for carbon credits could reach up to 1.5 to 2.0 gigatons of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) by 2030 and up to 7 to 13 GtCO2 by 2050 (Exhibit 2). Depending on different price scenarios and their underlying drivers, the market size in 2030 could be between $5 billion and $30 billion at the low end and more than $50 billion at the high end.3
Exhibit 2
While the increase in demand for carbon credits is significant, analysis by McKinsey indicates that demand in 2030 could be matched by the potential annual supply of carbon credits: 8 to 12 GtCO2 per year. These carbon credits would come from four categories: avoided nature loss (including deforestation); nature-based sequestration, such as reforestation; avoidance or reduction of emissions such as methane from landfills; and technology-based removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
However, several factors could make it challenging to mobilize the entire potential supply and bring it to market. The development of projects would have to ramp up at an unprecedented rate. Most of the potential supply of avoided nature loss and of nature-based sequestration is concentrated in a small number of countries. All projects come with risks, and many types could struggle to attract financing because of the long lag times between the initial investment and the eventual sale of credits. Once these challenges are accounted for, the estimated supply of carbon credits drops to 1 to 5 GtCO2 per year by 2030 (Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 3
These aren’t the only problems facing buyers and sellers of carbon credits, either. High-quality carbon credits are scarce because accounting and verification methodologies vary and because credits’ co-benefits (such as community economic development and biodiversity protection) are seldom well defined. When verifying the quality of new credits—an important step in maintaining the market’s integrity—suppliers endure long lead times. When selling those credits, suppliers face unpredictable demand and can seldom fetch economical prices. Overall, the market is characterized by low liquidity, scarce financing, inadequate risk-management services, and limited data availability.
These challenges are formidable but not insurmountable. Verification methodologies could be strengthened, and verification processes streamlined. Clearer demand signals would help give suppliers more confidence in their project plans and encourage investors and lenders to provide with financing. And all these requirements could be met through the careful development of an effective, large-scale voluntary carbon market.
Scaling up voluntary carbon markets requires a new blueprint for action
Building an effective voluntary carbon market will require concerted effort across a number of fronts. In its report, the TSVCM identified six areas, spanning the carbon-credit value chain, where action can support the scaling up of the voluntary carbon market.
Creating shared principles for defining and verifying carbon credits
Today’s voluntary carbon market lacks the liquidity necessary for efficient trading, in part because carbon credits are highly heterogeneous. Each credit has attributes associated with the underlying project, such as the type of project or the region where it was carried out. These attributes affect the price of the credit, because buyers value additional attributes differently. Overall, the inconsistency among credits means that matching an individual buyer with a corresponding supplier is a time-consuming, inefficient process transacted over the counter.
The matching of buyers and suppliers would be more efficient if all credits could be described through common features. The first set of features has to do with quality. Quality criteria, set out in “core carbon principles,” would provide a basis for verifying that carbon credits represent genuine emissions reductions. The second set of features would cover the additional attributes of the carbon credit. Standardizing those attributes in a common taxonomy would help sellers to market credits and buyers to find credits that meet their needs.
Developing contracts with standardized terms
In the voluntary carbon market, the heterogeneity of carbon credits means that credits of particular types are being traded in volumes too small to generate reliable daily price signals. Making carbon credits more uniform would consolidate trading activity around a few types of credits and also promote liquidity on exchanges.
After the establishment of the core carbon principles and standard attributes described above, exchanges could create “reference contracts” for carbon trading. Reference contracts would combine a core contract, based on the core carbon principles, with additional attributes that are defined according to a standard taxonomy and priced separately. Core contracts would make it easier for companies to do things such as purchasing large quantities of carbon credits at once: they could make bids for credits that meet certain criteria, and the market would aggregate smaller quantities of credits to match their bids.
Another benefit of reference contracts would be the development of a clear daily market price. Even after reference contracts are developed, many parties will continue to make trades over the counter (OTC). Prices for credits traded using reference contracts could establish a starting point for the negotiation of OTC trades, with other attributes priced separately.
Establishing trading and post-trade infrastructure
A resilient, flexible infrastructure would enable the voluntary carbon market to function effectively: to accommodate high-volume listing and trading of reference contracts, as well as contracts reflecting a limited, consistently defined set of additional attributes. This, in turn, would support the creation of structured finance products for project developers.
Post-trade infrastructure, comprising clearinghouses and meta-registries, is also necessary. Clearinghouses would support the development of a futures market and provide counterparty default protection. Meta-registries would provide custodian-like services for buyers and suppliers and enable the creation of standardized issuance numbers for individual projects (similar to the International Securities Identification Number, or ISIN, in capital markets).
In addition, an advanced data infrastructure would promote the transparency of reference and market data. Sophisticated and timely data are essential for all environmental and capital markets. Transparent reference and market data are not readily available now because access to data is limited and the OTC market is difficult to track. Buyers and suppliers would benefit from new reporting and analytics services that consolidate openly accessible reference data from multiple registries, through APIs.
Creating consensus about the proper use of carbon credits
A measure of skepticism attends the use of credits in decarbonization. Some observers question whether companies will extensively reduce their own emissions if they have the option to offset emissions instead. Companies would benefit from clear guidance on what would constitute an environmentally sound offsetting program as part of an overall push toward net-zero emissions. Principles for the use of carbon credits would help ensure that carbon offsetting does not preclude other efforts to mitigate emissions and does result in more carbon reductions than would take place otherwise.
Under such principles, a company would first establish its need for carbon credits by disclosing its greenhouse-gas emissions from all operations, along with its targets and plans for reducing emissions over time. To compensate for emissions from sources that it can eventually eliminate, the company might purchase and “retire” carbon credits (claiming the reductions as their own and taking the credits off the market, so that another organization can’t claim the same reductions). It could also use carbon credits to neutralize the so-called residual emissions that it wouldn’t be able to eliminate in the future.
Installing mechanisms to safeguard the market’s integrity
Concerns about the integrity of the voluntary carbon market impede its growth in several ways. First, the heterogeneous nature of credits creates potential for errors and fraud. The market’s lack of price transparency also creates the potential for money laundering.
One corrective measure would be establishing a digital process by which projects are registered and credits are verified and issued. Verification entities should be able to track a project’s impact at regular intervals, not just at the end. A digital process could lower issuance costs, shorten payment terms, accelerate credit issuance and cash flow for project developers, allow credits to be traced, and improve the credibility of corporate claims related to the use of offsets.
Other improvements would be the implementation of anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer guidelines to stop fraud, and the creation of a governance body to ensure the eligibility of market participants, supervise their conduct, and oversee the market’s functioning.
Transmitting clear signals of demand
Finding effective ways for buyers of carbon credits to signal their future demand would help encourage project developers to increase the supply of carbon credits. Long-term demand signals might arrive in the form of commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions or as up-front agreements with project developers to buy carbon credits from future projects. Medium-term demand might be recorded in a registry of commitments to purchase carbon credits.
Other potential ways to promote demand signals include consistent, widely accepted guidelines for companies on accepted uses of carbon credits to offset emissions; more industry-wide collaboration, whereby consortiums of companies might align their emissions-reduction goals or set out shared goals; and better standards and infrastructure for the development and sale of consumer-oriented carbon credits.
Limiting the rise of global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius will require a rapid, drastic reduction in net greenhouse-gas emissions. While companies and other organizations can achieve much of the necessary reduction by adopting new technologies, energy sources, and operating practices, many will need to use carbon credits to supplement their own abatement efforts to achieve net-zero emissions. A robust, effective voluntary market for carbon credits would make it easier for companies to locate trustworthy sources of carbon credits and complete the transactions for them. Just as important, such a market would be able to transmit signals of buyers’ demand, which would in turn encourage sellers to increase supplies of credits. By enabling more carbon offsetting to take place, a voluntary carbon market would support progress toward a low-carbon future.
