Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Is cannabis actually green? Experts unpack the climate impacts of weed's rising popularity

News Feed
Saturday, April 20, 2024

Cannabis is one of the fastest growing industries in the world, this year estimated to rake in more than $64 billion globally as more and more regions unravel marijuana prohibition. Germany became the third European country to legalize weed on April 1 this year, though only in limited amounts, while voters in states like Florida and Nebraska may decide to legalize the plant, potentially joining the roughly 74% of Americans who live somewhere cannabis is legally sold. While the drug has a long history of villainization due to racist and anti-scientific drug policy, most people today recognize the drug is safer than alcohol and tobacco (though certainly not harm-free) and that prohibition fails to accomplish much aside from feeding the prison-industrial complex. Marijuana, whether medical or recreational, is big business, and as is typical with large industries, that means it has outsized impacts on the environment. Much of the modern cannabis industry relies on unsustainable agricultural practices. This means, in effect, that the world's favorite green drug can have a decidedly un-green carbon footprint. In 2021, researchers from Colorado State University analyzed the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated by cannabis as it is typically grown throughout the United States. Their study in the journal Nature Sustainability indicates that indoor cannabis production is energy intensive and leaves a significant carbon footprint. Depending on one's location, cultivating just a single kilogram of cannabis indoor releases between 2,283 and 5,184 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. "The significant energy requirements and GHG emissions associated with indoor cannabis production imply that as energy costs and environmental regulations become stricter in response to climate change, the costs associated with cannabis production could increase," said corresponding author Dr. Jason Quinn, operator director of Colorado State's Energy Institute. In addition to worsening global warming, Quinn said these conditions could ultimately reduce marijuana quality and make it more expensive. "Sunny, outdoor areas to grow cannabis, in places across the globe, are becoming too hot/dry/desertified to sustain vegetation." Even advocates of responsible cannabis use recognize the climate change risks associated with the plant. Dr. Peter Grinspoon, a cannabis specialist and instructor at Harvard Medical School, said that while cannabis is viewed by some as natural and healthy "it does, indeed, have a large carbon footprint." Citing the Natural Sustainability article, Grinspoon noted that the more sustainable practice of outdoor cultivation may become difficult as Earth's temperatures continue to increase. "Sunny, outdoor areas to grow cannabis, in places across the globe, are becoming too hot, dry [and] desertified to sustain vegetation," Grinspoon said. "This will worsen every year that we fail make progress on carbon emissions. Also, increasingly, there are droughts and competition for water resources, which farmers need to grow cannabis outside." That problem factors into the cost of marijuana, which both Quinn and Grinspoon predict will rise as our planet continues to heat. The good news is that this problem is solvable. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "As cannabis becomes legal, it will be more coherently regulated, and it will be much easier to safely and effectively institute environmental regulations on the production and distribution of cannabis." "Yes, there are ways to grow cannabis and be mindful of the environment," Janice Mackey, information officer at the California Fish and Wildlife Department (CDFW), told Salon. "Those in the regulated market work with state regulators to limit environmental impacts with their cultivation activities. Even the smallest adjustments can make a big difference on the ecology of a farm." Mackey added that CDFW has a cannabis grant program that assists farmers with projects like conserving water, improving roads and protecting habitats. When farmers have gone above and beyond compliance requirements, the CDFW has profiled them for their achievements. "CDFW is committed to working with cannabis cultivators of all sizes to help them navigate through state regulations," Mackey said. "CDFW’s Cannabis Program consists of permitting, enforcement, grants, land stewardship, environmental monitoring and outreach — all in an effort to protect the environment and help the regulated market succeed." Grinspoon said that as long as cannabis is cultivated outside, the plant will have a lower carbon footprint since there will be less of a need for the use of electricity or natural gas. "It is also important to regulate pesticides and nutrients so that the cannabis isn't contaminated, nor is the groundwater," Grinspoon said. "There also is produced a lot of plastics and other waste, particularly in the packaging, which can be improved." Legalizing marijuana will make it easier for the government to effectively regulate the industry so that it is environmentally sound. That's because criminal grow operations typically don't care if it causes pollution or how much energy they consume. "As cannabis becomes legal, it will be more coherently regulated, and it will be much easier to safely and effectively institute environmental regulations on the production and distribution of cannabis," Grinspoon said. "It also becomes a lot safer for consumers as the cannabis itself is tested and regulated for mold, heavy metals, fungus, dangerous pesticides, etc." If one must cultivate marijuana indoors, the Nature Sustainability paper urges them to do so with energy-efficient technologies like LED lights and high-efficiency HVAC systems, both of which significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The paper also suggests optimizing air charges per hour to reduce energy consumption. At the same time, the paper emphasizes that growing marijuana outdoors is much preferable from an environmental standpoint. There is at least one other reason to grow marijuana outside, assuming climate change does not make that unfeasible. Planting marijuana crops outdoors may do more than minimize the crop's negative effect on climate change; it might actually help reduce climate change itself. Research scientists from Hudson Carbon, a New York-based research center which studies carbon storage, found that hemp cultivation is "carbon-negative," meaning that it stores more carbon than it emits. “Roughly speaking, if [the US] did 50 million acres of hemp, we would be sequestering a couple hundred million tons of carbon per year on that acreage,” Ben Dobson, the founder and president of Hudson Carbon, told Earth.com. Read more about marijuana and cannabis

While legal marijuana production can harm the environment, it's better than the unregulated drug war

Cannabis is one of the fastest growing industries in the world, this year estimated to rake in more than $64 billion globally as more and more regions unravel marijuana prohibition. Germany became the third European country to legalize weed on April 1 this year, though only in limited amounts, while voters in states like Florida and Nebraska may decide to legalize the plant, potentially joining the roughly 74% of Americans who live somewhere cannabis is legally sold.

While the drug has a long history of villainization due to racist and anti-scientific drug policy, most people today recognize the drug is safer than alcohol and tobacco (though certainly not harm-free) and that prohibition fails to accomplish much aside from feeding the prison-industrial complex.

Marijuana, whether medical or recreational, is big business, and as is typical with large industries, that means it has outsized impacts on the environment. Much of the modern cannabis industry relies on unsustainable agricultural practices. This means, in effect, that the world's favorite green drug can have a decidedly un-green carbon footprint.

In 2021, researchers from Colorado State University analyzed the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated by cannabis as it is typically grown throughout the United States. Their study in the journal Nature Sustainability indicates that indoor cannabis production is energy intensive and leaves a significant carbon footprint. Depending on one's location, cultivating just a single kilogram of cannabis indoor releases between 2,283 and 5,184 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent.

"The significant energy requirements and GHG emissions associated with indoor cannabis production imply that as energy costs and environmental regulations become stricter in response to climate change, the costs associated with cannabis production could increase," said corresponding author Dr. Jason Quinn, operator director of Colorado State's Energy Institute. In addition to worsening global warming, Quinn said these conditions could ultimately reduce marijuana quality and make it more expensive.

"Sunny, outdoor areas to grow cannabis, in places across the globe, are becoming too hot/dry/desertified to sustain vegetation."

Even advocates of responsible cannabis use recognize the climate change risks associated with the plant. Dr. Peter Grinspoon, a cannabis specialist and instructor at Harvard Medical School, said that while cannabis is viewed by some as natural and healthy "it does, indeed, have a large carbon footprint."

Citing the Natural Sustainability article, Grinspoon noted that the more sustainable practice of outdoor cultivation may become difficult as Earth's temperatures continue to increase.

"Sunny, outdoor areas to grow cannabis, in places across the globe, are becoming too hot, dry [and] desertified to sustain vegetation," Grinspoon said. "This will worsen every year that we fail make progress on carbon emissions. Also, increasingly, there are droughts and competition for water resources, which farmers need to grow cannabis outside."

That problem factors into the cost of marijuana, which both Quinn and Grinspoon predict will rise as our planet continues to heat. The good news is that this problem is solvable.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.

"As cannabis becomes legal, it will be more coherently regulated, and it will be much easier to safely and effectively institute environmental regulations on the production and distribution of cannabis."

"Yes, there are ways to grow cannabis and be mindful of the environment," Janice Mackey, information officer at the California Fish and Wildlife Department (CDFW), told Salon. "Those in the regulated market work with state regulators to limit environmental impacts with their cultivation activities. Even the smallest adjustments can make a big difference on the ecology of a farm."

Mackey added that CDFW has a cannabis grant program that assists farmers with projects like conserving water, improving roads and protecting habitats. When farmers have gone above and beyond compliance requirements, the CDFW has profiled them for their achievements.

"CDFW is committed to working with cannabis cultivators of all sizes to help them navigate through state regulations," Mackey said. "CDFW’s Cannabis Program consists of permitting, enforcement, grants, land stewardship, environmental monitoring and outreach — all in an effort to protect the environment and help the regulated market succeed."

Grinspoon said that as long as cannabis is cultivated outside, the plant will have a lower carbon footprint since there will be less of a need for the use of electricity or natural gas.

"It is also important to regulate pesticides and nutrients so that the cannabis isn't contaminated, nor is the groundwater," Grinspoon said. "There also is produced a lot of plastics and other waste, particularly in the packaging, which can be improved."

Legalizing marijuana will make it easier for the government to effectively regulate the industry so that it is environmentally sound. That's because criminal grow operations typically don't care if it causes pollution or how much energy they consume.

"As cannabis becomes legal, it will be more coherently regulated, and it will be much easier to safely and effectively institute environmental regulations on the production and distribution of cannabis," Grinspoon said. "It also becomes a lot safer for consumers as the cannabis itself is tested and regulated for mold, heavy metals, fungus, dangerous pesticides, etc."

If one must cultivate marijuana indoors, the Nature Sustainability paper urges them to do so with energy-efficient technologies like LED lights and high-efficiency HVAC systems, both of which significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The paper also suggests optimizing air charges per hour to reduce energy consumption. At the same time, the paper emphasizes that growing marijuana outdoors is much preferable from an environmental standpoint.

There is at least one other reason to grow marijuana outside, assuming climate change does not make that unfeasible. Planting marijuana crops outdoors may do more than minimize the crop's negative effect on climate change; it might actually help reduce climate change itself. Research scientists from Hudson Carbon, a New York-based research center which studies carbon storage, found that hemp cultivation is "carbon-negative," meaning that it stores more carbon than it emits.

“Roughly speaking, if [the US] did 50 million acres of hemp, we would be sequestering a couple hundred million tons of carbon per year on that acreage,” Ben Dobson, the founder and president of Hudson Carbon, told Earth.com.

Read more

about marijuana and cannabis

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Why climate change action requires "degrowth" to make our planet sustainable

Salon spoke with Japanese philosophy professor Kohei Saito about his new book, "Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto"

Climate change truly is a major existential threat, one we're clearly not addressing fast enough. But as individuals, there's little we can do to stop it on a grand scale — it will require global cooperation to overcome. Nonetheless, the accompanying feelings of helplessness when faced with such a daunting crisis can make many feel paralyzed with despair. So what can be done? "Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto," a new book from University of Tokyo philosophy professor Kohei Saito, offers more than a diagnosis of the systemic problems that brought us to this moment; it lays out, in clear and well-researched language, how those problems can be thoroughly addressed. In 2020, when "Slow Down" was originally published in Japan, it went by the far more fitting title "Capital in the Anthropocene" — with "Anthropocene" being the proposed geological era that began when human activity started radically altering natural conditions on the planet. "My idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production." Saito's argument, as translated by Brian Bergstrom, is that climate change exists because humans as a species prioritize economic growth instead of economic sustainability. Capitalism itself, Saito asserts, is unsustainable. Even though well-meaning liberal politicians like to push for Green New Deals in the hope of continuing non-stop economic growth without the consequent ecological harm, Saito argues capitalist societies need to perpetually consume resources to remain prosperous. As a result, capitalism itself inevitably brings about planet-wide problems like climate change, habitat destruction, plastic pollution and other environmental issues. The only solution is for humanity as a whole to slow down our obsession with work, productivity and materialism. Notably, Saito stresses that the bulk of the burden to consume less falls on the wealthiest among us. Saito doesn't take credit for these observations. Philosopher Karl Marx developed a philosophy in the 1860s that Saito describes as "eco-Marxist" (particularly in Saito's previous work, "Karl Marx's Eco-Socialism"). While the German philosopher's early works like "The Communist Manifesto" urged the working class to insist on receiving its fair share of the benefits of industrialism, Marx's later writings praised Indigenous peoples in the Americas, India and Algeria for living in communes that stressed sustainable environmental practices. As such, "Slow Down" is that rare hybrid among ideological manifestos: It opens new insights into an existing ideology while uplifting something distinct of its own. Salon spoke with Saito about "Slow Down" and the relationship climate change has to economics. This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. For those who are totally unfamiliar with the works of Karl Marx, can you please explain how one must distinguish between his early works and the later works that you describe as "eco-Marxism"?  Marxism is known for socialism, and socialism is often described as the exploitation of the working class. Capitalism has a tendency to increase technologies and promote innovations because of market competition. But Marx thought that once the workers take over power and kick out the capitalists, they can utilize the development of productive forces for the sake of themselves — more wealth, more well-being. But there is one problem: Sustainability. Because as Marx started to study natural sciences later in the 1850s and 1860s, he came to realize the development of technologies in capitalism actually don't create a condition for emancipation of the working class. Because not only do those technologies control the workers more efficiently, they destabilize the old system of jobs and make more precarious, low skilled jobs. At the same time those technologies exploit from nature more efficiently and create various problems such as exhaustion of the soil, massive deforestation, and the exhaustion of the fuels, and so on. Marx came to realize that this kind of technology undermines material conditions for sustainable development of human beings. And the central concept for Mark at that time in the sixties is metabolism. He thinks that this metabolic interaction between humans and nature is quite essential for any kind of society, but the problem of capitalism is it really transforms and organizes this entire metabolism between humans and nature for the sake of profit-making. Technologies are also used for this purpose. So technologies are not for the purpose of creating better life, free time and sustainable production, but rather it exploits workers and nature at the same time for the sake of more growth, more profit, and so on. My point is basically Marx was quite optimistic when he was young in terms of the development of technologies, but later he came to realize actually technologies have more damaging impact on both humans and nature. So he became more critical of that possibility of solving those problems of poverty and ecological problems using technology. That's how the issue of degrowth and eco-socialist ideas came to be central for his ideas. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, 'You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important.' But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this." There's another distortion in Marxist thought, what you described as "the monster known as Stalinism." What ideological corrections do you offer to the Marxist model to avoid a repetition of history?  So I advocate for a kind of eco-socialism, that kind of socialism that is more sustainable, that is not based on exploitation of nature. Because in the 20th century, Stalinism and other kinds of socialist experiments was a disaster. It was un-democratic. It was a dictatorship of the Communist Party, but at the same time it was also destruction of the environment. I think their ideas were rather based on the development of progress through technology, and productive force is the condition for the working class emancipation. And the most efficient way of developing these technologies and productive forces is the monopoly of the means of production by the bureaucrats and the party. It just created a kind of the central planning, which is very top-down and authoritarian and anti-democracy. At the same time, they didn't care about the environment, so it basically destroyed nature. In Marx's later works, he quite intensively studied natural sciences. He also studied at the same time other societies, non-Western societies, that were more sustainable. He came to realize that these societies were not driven toward endless growth. They were communally managing land. They were also democratically redistributing wealth. So he came to realize that more of a kind of bottom-up management of the commonwealth is good for people and creates a more equal society. It's also good for the environment. It was more sustainable because that's why those [Indigenous] societies lasted for many, many years. In America, they lasted many, many years before those people coming to conquer the land. Marx came to recognize that not necessarily Western societies are more progressive in creating a better society for the workers, but rather Western society also need to learn from non-Western societies. This is another very radical transformation for Marx in his late years. But then he came to realize not a top-down Soviet style dictatorship is necessary for the sake of establishing socialism, but rather more democratic, horizontal management of commonwealth lands, water, forests and other resources. That is quite essential for creating a better society. And he actually uses the term association — not socialism or communism. He often describes the future society with "association." And so my idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production. This is why I still use the term "communism," because the society based on capital is capitalism and a society based on the commonwealth, the democratic management of commonwealth is actually to be called "communism." Could you elaborate on how the degrowth philosophy that you say has been implemented in locations like Quito, Ecuador or Barcelona, Spain, as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic. My book, originally in Japanese, was published like three years ago, so it was published in the middle of pandemic. Japan is also a captive society and it's a very conservative society. I didn't expect that this call for going back to Marx and reviving the tradition of communism combined with new idea of degrowth would attract so much attention and interest from people. But it was, I think, because of the pandemic, that we came to recognize how destructive our economic activities were. It was obviously deforestation and that kind of thing. Ugly business was a main cause of the pandemic. Now at the same time, the climate crisis was deepening. So it was a moment we saw how our daily life was quite clearly destructive, but at the same time, we had to stop the economy for the sake of protecting our lives. Shutting down departments, shopping malls and restaurants and so on. We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, "You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important." But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this. We came to realize that these things are actually possible. And once we started working from home, once we stopped taking trains and going to hang out with people, buying new clothes all the time and so on, we came to realize, 'Why did we consume so much? Why did we work so hard?' The pandemic created some kind of space for reflection upon our previous life, the massive consumption, massive production, and massive waste. This is really the moment when the degrowth idea appeared more attractive, because people could spend more time with family, friends — not necessarily friends because of the pandemic, but maybe with friends — they could read more books and newspapers, and they enjoyed different ways of life that are not necessarily consumptionist.  "The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south." At the same time, a new crisis is coming — the climate crisis — and it will accelerate inflation. It will create a bigger economic inequality. And various natural disasters will also create a food shortage, which might lead to various kinds of conflicts. Geopolitical tension will increase, and so on. My claim in my book is basically this crisis cannot be simply overcome by investing in new green technologies. It is like early Marx: We overcome the crisis of capitalism by technologies, the state should intervene, the Green New Deal must be new investments, blah, blah, blah. But I don't think that works. My idea is basically we need to learn from the experience of the pandemic — that capitalist society is driven for the sake of creating more profit, not necessarily able to provide what is necessary. Because what is necessary, like medicine and education and hospital masks and so on — are not necessarily profitable. Capitalism doesn't produce what is necessary unless it is profitable. This gap creates disparities for us to tackle. My idea is basically degrowth is focusing on what is necessary rather than what is profitable. We should share more with the commonwealth like public transportation, the education system, the medical care system. These necessary things, essential goods, must be shared more equally instead of some rich people monopolizing all the wealth of the planet.  Can you explain the "Netherlands Fallacy" — namely, the idea that the Netherlands proves that socialism can be ecologically sustainable and prosperous. Can you elaborate on why that is indeed a fallacy?  I don't know why it's really the Netherlands. It can be the U.S. Fallacy or whatever, but it's traditionally called the Netherlands Fallacy. The Netherlands had some environmental pollution and basically they overcame this issue with new technologies. Everything seems fine, but the problem is this fallacy. The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south. One contemporary example is electronic vehicles, EVs, which are today very important; Tesla making massive profits, and so on. For the sake of a decarbonized society, I totally agree that we need more electronic vehicles and we need to produce them more, and that gasoline should be abandoned as fast as possible. I totally agree. But the problem is, are electric vehicles totally sustainable?  "This is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd." The answer is obviously no. It is not just that usage of electric vehicles still consumes electricity, which might be produced by using fossil fuels, but the problem is — instead of fossil fuels — we also need a lot of rare metals: Lithium, copper, cobalt. And those rare metals are often located in the global south: Latin America, China, Russia, Africa and so on. And in these places now, the extraction of metals are creating very poor working conditions for even children. Child labor is obviously a problem in Congo, where a lot is massively extracted, but also the problem of environmental pollution, massive deforestation and the lithium use uses a lot of water. Chile is now suffering by wildfires, but they are also suffering from drought. And then mining lithium consumes a lot of water when people actually need water for their lives, and also for producing food, and so on.  People like us and affluent people in the global north can continue a very comfortable life by buying new electric vehicles like Tesla instead of Toyota. And they think that, "Okay, we did something good for the environment. I feel my responsibility for the next generations and so on." They are actually falling into this fallacy of believing their sustainability. No, they're not. Their behavior is not sustainable because the real problem is only hidden: massive extraction of the lithium in the global south. It's still causing quite a damaging impact upon people and the environment. So the metabolism between humans and nature, it's still distorted and disrupted in a quite serious manner. And my idea of degrowth is not a negation of technology. We need electric vehicles. I repeat again because this is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd, but at the same time, I clearly want to say that there are too many cars. We need to shift to a society where we share electric vehicles with neighbors. So sharing cars. And we also need to invest in more green technologies like public transportation and also bicycles. And the bicycles of today are kind of dangerous because all the roads are created for the sake of cars. So the city urban planning is centering around all industries, and that needs to be challenged, that needs to change. And these are idea that degrowth will create a more eco-friendly, pedestrian friendly kind of society. The new kind of fair mobility is a central idea of degrowth. But this is just one example we need. My basic point is that often technologies simply hide the true environmental impacts, and we needed technological development, but at the same time, we need to reduce our excessive consumption. Otherwise we will fall into the Netherlands Fallacy.  I'm reading a book by billionaire philanthropist, Tom Steyer, who argues for more traditional approaches to addressing climate change: Funding green technologies, pushing voter registration drives, supporting a Green New Deal platform. Do you think there is anything fundamentally flawed about approaches for dealing with climate change when they come from billionaires or from others in the elite classes?  Yes. I don't actually deny some kind of Green New Deal, but not a Green New Deal for people like the American people. Because my idea of sustainability is more comprehensive. It includes the people in the global south. So greening or decarbonization in the U.S. can be achieved at the cost of people in the global south, and that doesn't make sense, right? And the same thing can be said within the U.S. The green transformation for the sake of billionaires could be achieved at the cost of many people in the global south. Minority indigenous people could be sacrificed for the sake of sustaining today's capitalism. What do I mean by this? Growth is always good for billionaires. They say, "Okay, we'll invest more in something good — green technologies — and it will grow the economy. And then all the poor people working class people will also benefit from growth." Growth actually hides the necessity of redistribution. When we talk about redistribution and compensation or reparation, billionaires needs to give up some of what they have gained. Not just wealth, but also private jets, massive houses and cruise ships and those luxury items, too. But when we invest in green technologies, flying jets can be sustainable, blah, blah, blah. And they also don't have to redistribute their own wealth because the entire pie of the economy will be bigger, so that the working class can also gain higher salaries and so on. My idea of degrowth is much more challenging because the degrowth doesn't seek after continuous growth of the economic pie.  When the pie doesn't grow, we need to share more. So it really clearly demands the massively distribution of the wealth from the rich people to the poor people. But also we should give up what is actually unnecessary. I claim that, but the most obvious example is private jets. Private jets are unnecessary because people can still fly with business class or whatsoever. So my point is, rich people should give up their wealth, rich people should give up private jets and so on, other unnecessary things. And when people now talk about the Green New Deal, they hide the necessity of such a radical transformation of our lifestyle for the sake of everyone. Read more about climate change

Climate
Sustainable
Crisis

Quantifying the “Carbon Gap” – Unmasking the Shortfalls in Global Climate Efforts

Insufficient carbon dioxide removal efforts jeopardize meeting the Paris Agreement’s climate goals, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced technologies and strategies. New research suggests that...

Research indicates that existing plans for carbon dioxide removal are inadequate for meeting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 ºC warming limit. Enhanced awareness and action are required to close the significant gap between projected increases and the needs identified in IPCC focus scenarios.Insufficient carbon dioxide removal efforts jeopardize meeting the Paris Agreement’s climate goals, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced technologies and strategies.New research suggests that countries’ current plans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere will not be enough to comply with the 1.5 ºC warming limit set out under the Paris Agreement.Since 2010, the United Nations environmental organization UNEP has taken an annual measurement of the emissions gap — the difference between countries’ climate protection pledges and what is necessary to limit global heating to 1.5 ºC, or at least below 2 ºC. The UNEP Emissions Gap Reports are clear: climate policy needs more ambition. This new study now explicitly applies this analytical concept to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) — the removal of the most important greenhouse gas, CO2, from the atmosphere.The study, published today (May 3) in the journal Nature Climate Change, was led by the Berlin-based Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) and involved an international team of scientists.“In the Emissions Gap Reports, carbon removals are only accounted for indirectly,” said lead author Dr. William Lamb, of the MCC Applied Sustainability Science working group.“After all, the usual benchmark for climate protection pledges is net emissions, ie emissions minus removals. We are now making transparent the specific ambition gap in scaling up removals.“This planetary waste management will soon place completely new requirements on policymakers and may even become a central pillar of climate protection in the second half of the century.”Co-author Dr. Naomi Vaughan, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA, added: “Carbon dioxide removal methods have a small but vital role to play in achieving net zero and limiting the impacts of climate change.“Our analysis shows that countries need more awareness, ambition, and action on scaling up CDR methods together with deep emissions reductions to achieve the aspirations of the Paris Agreement.”According to the study, if national targets are fully implemented, annual human-induced carbon removals could increase by a maximum of 0.5 gigatonnes of CO2 (500 million tonnes) by 2030, and by a maximum of 1.9 gigatonnes by 2050.This contrasts with the 5.1 gigatonne increase required in a ‘focus scenario’, which the research team depicts as typical from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report.There, global heating, calculated over the entire course of this century, is limited to 1.5 ºC, and a particularly rapid expansion of renewable energies and reduction of fossil emissions is depicted as the core climate protection strategy.But, the focus scenario still relies on scaling up carbon removals. The gap for the year 2050 is therefore at least 3.2 gigatonnes of CO2 (5.1 minus a maximum of 1.9).An alternative focus scenario, also derived from the IPCC, assumes a significant reduction in global energy demand, due to politically initiated behaviour changes as the core element of climate protection strategy.Here, carbon removals would increase by a more modest amount: 2.5 gigatonnes in 2050. Fully implemented national targets would be close to sufficient when compared to this scenario, with a gap in 2050 of 0.4 gigatonnes.The research team points out the problem of sustainability limits in scaling up carbon removals; for example, the associated land area demand will come to jeopardise biodiversity and food security. Nevertheless, there is still plenty of room for designing fair and sustainable land management policies.In addition, novel carbon removal options, such as air filter systems, or ‘enhanced rock weathering’, have hardly been promoted by politicians to date.They currently only remove 0.002 gigatonnes of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, compared to 3 gigatonnes through conventional options such as afforestation, and they are unlikely to significantly increase by 2030. According to the scenarios, they must become more prevalent than conventional options by 2010.Since only 40 countries have so far quantified their removal plans in their long-term low emissions development strategies, the study also draws on other national documents and best-guess assumptions.“The calculation should certainly be refined,” said Dr. Lamb. “But our proposal using the focus scenarios further opens the discourse on how much carbon removal is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement.“This much is clear: without a rapid reduction in emissions towards zero, across all sectors, the 1.5 ºC limit will not be met under any circumstances.”Reference: “The carbon dioxide removal gap” by Lamb, W, Gasser, T, Roman-Cuesta, R, Grassi, G, Gidden, M, Powis, C, Geden, O, Nemet, G, Pramata, Y, Riahi, K, Smith, S, Steinhauser, J, Vaughan, N, Smith, H, Minx, J, 3 May 2024, Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-024-01984-6

Climate
CO2
Food

A year in, New York’s pioneering public power law makes uneven progress

One year ago, New York state passed one of the country’s most ambitious clean energy and climate justice laws. The Build Public Renewables Act authorized the New York Power Authority, a state-owned public power utility, to build and own clean energy projects for the first time. If the state falls short of its…

One year ago, New York state passed one of the country’s most ambitious clean energy and climate justice laws. The Build Public Renewables Act authorized the New York Power Authority, a state-owned public power utility, to build and own clean energy projects for the first time. If the state falls short of its ambitious climate goals, the law mandates that NYPA step up to build renewables that will keep the state on track.  Heralded as a major win for environmental justice and climate advocacy groups, the law also introduced a program for low- and moderate-income residents to receive credits for clean energy produced by the public utility and allocated $25 million each year to renewable energy job training, among other measures. But in the year since, progress on implementing the law has been spotty. Though NYPA says it has made carrying out the law a priority by laying the groundwork for future renewable power projects, activists and some policymakers say the utility has not been transparent in its planning thus far, making it hard to tell whether NYPA is on track to transform the state’s energy sector at the pace required by its 2019 climate law. “The real problem is there is not sufficient transparency into what they are planning, so it’s hard for us to say how effective it is,” Michael Paulson, co-chair of the coalition Public Power NY, told Canary Media.  Paulson’s group, along with the New York chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, labor unions, and climate justice organizations across the state, campaigned for four years to pass the Build Public Renewables Act. An amended form of the law eventually made it into the state’s annual budget early last May. Activists hoped that strengthening the role of publicly owned power would enable a swifter expansion of cleaner, cheaper electricity — and create a structure that’s more accountable to consumers than the dominant investor-owned utility model. Over the past 12 months, the authority has taken some initial steps toward working with private renewable energy developers. In January 2024, NYPA issued a request for information from developers and contractors to learn about opportunities for wind, solar, and battery energy storage projects. In March, the authority followed up with a request for qualifications to evaluate and prequalify renewable developers to work with on future projects, to which it received more than 85 responses. 

Climate
Energy

New ideas shed light on addressing climate issues

Environmental scientist Hannah Ritchie discusses how technological advances could lead to a more sustainable future in the face of climate challenges.Ezra Klein reports for The New York Times.In short:Clean energy technology is making strides, providing a hopeful outlook for sustainable development.The environmental impact of livestock farming highlights the importance of finding solutions for food production that align with sustainability goals.The politics of implementing large-scale climate initiatives remain complex and challenging, but progress in technology is opening doors to potential solutions.Key quote:"These are tractable problems. They’re not easy problems. They’re really, really difficult to tackle, but they’re tractable."— Hannah Ritchie, lead researcher at Our World in Data.Why this matters: Innovations in clean energy and agriculture will play a significant role in shaping a sustainable future, but the road ahead will require cooperation, determination, and effective policy. Read more: The global food system is failing small-scale farmers — here’s how to fix it.

Environmental scientist Hannah Ritchie discusses how technological advances could lead to a more sustainable future in the face of climate challenges.Ezra Klein reports for The New York Times.In short:Clean energy technology is making strides, providing a hopeful outlook for sustainable development.The environmental impact of livestock farming highlights the importance of finding solutions for food production that align with sustainability goals.The politics of implementing large-scale climate initiatives remain complex and challenging, but progress in technology is opening doors to potential solutions.Key quote:"These are tractable problems. They’re not easy problems. They’re really, really difficult to tackle, but they’re tractable."— Hannah Ritchie, lead researcher at Our World in Data.Why this matters: Innovations in clean energy and agriculture will play a significant role in shaping a sustainable future, but the road ahead will require cooperation, determination, and effective policy. Read more: The global food system is failing small-scale farmers — here’s how to fix it.

Climate
Agriculture
Food

New studies reveal genetic adaptations in California birds

Two studies reveal how genetic changes in bird populations in California respond to environmental threats, highlighting the potential for adaptation and the risks of genetic dilution.Rebecca Heisman reports for The Revelator.In short:The southwestern willow flycatcher has developed genetic traits for heat tolerance in response to changing climate conditions, although its population is still declining.Savannah sparrows face the dilution of their salt-tolerant adaptations due to gene flow from inland birds, threatening their ability to survive in saltmarsh environments.Both studies underline the importance of natural history collections in understanding and addressing these environmental challenges.Key quote:“These genetic changes are imperceptible to the human eye ... [but] we were able to identify several genes that are likely involved in heat tolerance and the birds’ ability to effectively dissipate heat in humid environments.”— Sheela Turbek, postdoctoral fellow at Colorado State UniversityWhy this matters:Understanding genetic adaptations to environmental changes helps inform conservation efforts, enabling scientists to safeguard species facing increasingly rapid shifts due to climate change. Read more: Climate change creates camouflage confusion in winter-adapted wildlife.

Two studies reveal how genetic changes in bird populations in California respond to environmental threats, highlighting the potential for adaptation and the risks of genetic dilution.Rebecca Heisman reports for The Revelator.In short:The southwestern willow flycatcher has developed genetic traits for heat tolerance in response to changing climate conditions, although its population is still declining.Savannah sparrows face the dilution of their salt-tolerant adaptations due to gene flow from inland birds, threatening their ability to survive in saltmarsh environments.Both studies underline the importance of natural history collections in understanding and addressing these environmental challenges.Key quote:“These genetic changes are imperceptible to the human eye ... [but] we were able to identify several genes that are likely involved in heat tolerance and the birds’ ability to effectively dissipate heat in humid environments.”— Sheela Turbek, postdoctoral fellow at Colorado State UniversityWhy this matters:Understanding genetic adaptations to environmental changes helps inform conservation efforts, enabling scientists to safeguard species facing increasingly rapid shifts due to climate change. Read more: Climate change creates camouflage confusion in winter-adapted wildlife.

Climate
Conservation

Suggested Viewing

Evangelicals for Climate Action

This film introduces Evangelical Christians working for action on climate change and the environment. They explain how they became passionate about the environment, their fears about the future of our planet, and how their passion is based on their deep faith and love for creation. They call on all other Evangelicals to join them.

Climate
Culture

The Wisdom To Survive: Climate Change, Capitalism & Community

This film reveals how diverse environmental problems, from climate change to species extinction to ruined ecosystems, are all ultimately rooted in the “growth at all costs” attitude that pervades modern industrial society. Through beautiful and disturbing images and interviews with ecological scholars, spiritual leaders and activists, The Wisdom to Survive argues that the survival of humanity and most living beings on the planet will not come from technology, but from a profound raising of consciousness and deep spiritual transformation of humans who finally realize that we must live differently on planet earth.

Climate
Business
Extinction

Talking Trees

Yes, trees can talk. They communicate through their roots. Please listen to what they have to say in this short film.

Forests
Extinction
Climate

Total Disaster

Armed with realistic bird puppets, trickster environmental activists pretend to be oil company Total—staging a satirical press conference to introduce "RéHabitat," a program to rescue animals from the East African Oil Pipeline by relocating them to “more sustainable” habitats. Using humor and mischief, they expose a deadly ecological disaster in a zany effort to help #StopEACOP.

Activism
Energy
Animals

Inside The Grand Canyon

This guerrilla style documentary film captures a Colorado River rafting expedition through the Grand Canyon. Exhilarating and sometimes dangerous expeditions like this are not often considered when discussing global climate change but could be helpful to enlighten more folks about the changes to our planet. This rafting trip will soon be a thing of the past with record draughts continuing due to ongoing global climate change caused largely by humans. This is just a tiny slice of natures many warning signs of things to come. We find ourselves in a world of ongoing disbelief and hesitation in lieu of planning for the clear and present dangers from climate change. The Colorado River has already reached devastating levels for communities that depend on the water and electrical power resource. Government study in 2022 showed that Lake Powell could reach ""dead pool"" by 2023. There is no plan to mitigate the catastrophe that will leave over a million and a half people with no electricity.

Water
Climate
Sustainable

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.