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.

Biden's carbon-capture agenda faces hurdles on the left

News Feed
Tuesday, May 9, 2023

President Joe Biden wants to combat climate change by taking carbon dioxide out of the air and burying it underground. But some environmental activists on the left are working to stop him. The activists say a focus on carbon capture would give industry political cover to keep polluting instead of reducing emissions, and their argument is gaining traction in communities across the country. They convinced the New Orleans City Council to pass a resolution opposing underground carbon storage last year. Elsewhere in Louisiana, they're trying to delay the permitting of a pipeline that would carry carbon to storage facilities. The growing opposition is threatening to delay the full rollout of billions of dollars in new federal spending on carbon capture — and it's showing the difficulties the Biden administration faces in trying to prioritize both industrial carbon removal and disadvantaged communities. "The developers of carbon injection projects are not going to get environmental justice advocates on board," said Jane Patton, campaign manager for plastics and petrochemicals at the Center for International Environmental Law. "There is no environmental justice to be found in the injection of carbon under the ground." The Biden administration has made communities that are located near industrial facilities a focus of its climate policies. The White House pledged in 2021 to make sure at least 40 percent of climate and clean energy spending benefits disadvantaged communities. Biden signed an executive order last month emphasizing “that the pursuit of environmental justice is a duty of all executive branch agencies.” But activists are alarmed by the sheer volume of funding for carbon capture, which includes $3.5 billion for direct-air capture "hubs" and another $2.5 billion for six carbon capture facilities. They say it implies the administration is prepared to override environmental objections. "As long as that enormous amount of money is being rapidly pushed out by the federal government, that undermines any attempts to engage with or have conversations with environmental justice communities," Patton said. The Energy Department has been holding community workshops around the country, including one in California's Central Valley in March. Its application process for the direct air capture hubs requires applicants to submit a community benefits plan that addresses how the project will boost the local workforce, advance diversity, equity and inclusion, and engage labor and communities. DOE has also asked advocates to help review applications. “It’s a very fraught piece of the puzzle and one that we are committed to getting right but know that it’s definitely a marathon, it’s not a sprint, and we’ve only run the first miles,” said Noah Deich, deputy assistant secretary for DOE's Office of Carbon Management. Environmental groups are fighting new projects spurred by the promise of federal support, as well as projects that have been on the drawing board for years. Their opposition is rooted in worries about the potential hazards of more pipelines, but it's also ideological, based in longstanding objections to focusing on carbon dioxide to the exclusion of the conventional pollutants that often accompany it. Two environmental groups, the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice and the Alliance for Affordable Energy, helped persuade the New Orleans City Council to pass a moratorium on underground carbon storage in June 2022. Three months later, nearby Livingston Parish passed a similar ban, prompting a lawsuit from Air Products, a company planning a $4.5 billion hydrogen plant and pipeline to send captured carbon to storage wells under nearby Lake Maurepas. Air Products has been trying to quell local opposition through question-and-answer sessions at town halls, said Art George, a company spokesperson. “We're trying to be very transparent in our approach and explain the technology and what we're trying to do,” he said. Activists have also been slowing projects down at the state level. Louisiana had waited for two years for EPA to decide whether to allow the state to handle permitting for its CO2 wells before receiving preliminary jurisdiction in late April. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) blamed the delay on environmental justice groups' opposition. “That was what was holding it up," he said in an interview. Carbon capture opponents plan to continue protesting, regardless of whether the state or federal government takes the lead on permitting. “Who issues the permits is not the key problem here," Patton said. "The permits being issued is the key problem here." Nicole Parra, a former state lawmaker working with California Resources Corp., a petroleum company that's seeking a federal grant to build a direct-air capture system in California's Central Valley, is trying hard to win activists over. Parra is director of the California Renewable Energy Laboratory at the Kern Community College District, which is partnering with CRC on the project. She said she carries around a 16-point list of demands from a coalition of groups that are worried about the project's potential impact on local residents. "Literally, it's in my hand right now," she said. Among the demands: a minimum distance of 10 miles between projects and disadvantaged communities; and a requirement that projects not increase air, water, noise or light pollution. One of the activists whose organization compiled the list, Dan Ress, an attorney at the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, said they don't think CRC's project is well suited to the region because its geology is too porous, pockmarked from decades of oil and gas production. “I'm very skeptical that Kern County is actually a good candidate for this, given that we have 100,000 holes in the ground,” Ress said. Parra acknowledged their opposition but said it shouldn't determine the project's fate. "Will we have the environmental justice endorsement of the grant at this time? No," she said. "I don't think any group, whether it's industry, EJ, community, academia, should have the ability to kill projects if they meet the requirements that the president has outlined.”

Environmentalists are fighting projects around the country that aim to transport carbon dioxide and bury it underground.


President Joe Biden wants to combat climate change by taking carbon dioxide out of the air and burying it underground. But some environmental activists on the left are working to stop him.

The activists say a focus on carbon capture would give industry political cover to keep polluting instead of reducing emissions, and their argument is gaining traction in communities across the country. They convinced the New Orleans City Council to pass a resolution opposing underground carbon storage last year. Elsewhere in Louisiana, they're trying to delay the permitting of a pipeline that would carry carbon to storage facilities.

The growing opposition is threatening to delay the full rollout of billions of dollars in new federal spending on carbon capture — and it's showing the difficulties the Biden administration faces in trying to prioritize both industrial carbon removal and disadvantaged communities.

"The developers of carbon injection projects are not going to get environmental justice advocates on board," said Jane Patton, campaign manager for plastics and petrochemicals at the Center for International Environmental Law. "There is no environmental justice to be found in the injection of carbon under the ground."

The Biden administration has made communities that are located near industrial facilities a focus of its climate policies. The White House pledged in 2021 to make sure at least 40 percent of climate and clean energy spending benefits disadvantaged communities. Biden signed an executive order last month emphasizing “that the pursuit of environmental justice is a duty of all executive branch agencies.”

But activists are alarmed by the sheer volume of funding for carbon capture, which includes $3.5 billion for direct-air capture "hubs" and another $2.5 billion for six carbon capture facilities. They say it implies the administration is prepared to override environmental objections.


"As long as that enormous amount of money is being rapidly pushed out by the federal government, that undermines any attempts to engage with or have conversations with environmental justice communities," Patton said.

The Energy Department has been holding community workshops around the country, including one in California's Central Valley in March. Its application process for the direct air capture hubs requires applicants to submit a community benefits plan that addresses how the project will boost the local workforce, advance diversity, equity and inclusion, and engage labor and communities. DOE has also asked advocates to help review applications.

“It’s a very fraught piece of the puzzle and one that we are committed to getting right but know that it’s definitely a marathon, it’s not a sprint, and we’ve only run the first miles,” said Noah Deich, deputy assistant secretary for DOE's Office of Carbon Management.

Environmental groups are fighting new projects spurred by the promise of federal support, as well as projects that have been on the drawing board for years. Their opposition is rooted in worries about the potential hazards of more pipelines, but it's also ideological, based in longstanding objections to focusing on carbon dioxide to the exclusion of the conventional pollutants that often accompany it.

Two environmental groups, the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice and the Alliance for Affordable Energy, helped persuade the New Orleans City Council to pass a moratorium on underground carbon storage in June 2022. Three months later, nearby Livingston Parish passed a similar ban, prompting a lawsuit from Air Products, a company planning a $4.5 billion hydrogen plant and pipeline to send captured carbon to storage wells under nearby Lake Maurepas.

Air Products has been trying to quell local opposition through question-and-answer sessions at town halls, said Art George, a company spokesperson.

“We're trying to be very transparent in our approach and explain the technology and what we're trying to do,” he said.

Activists have also been slowing projects down at the state level. Louisiana had waited for two years for EPA to decide whether to allow the state to handle permitting for its CO2 wells before receiving preliminary jurisdiction in late April.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) blamed the delay on environmental justice groups' opposition.

“That was what was holding it up," he said in an interview.

Carbon capture opponents plan to continue protesting, regardless of whether the state or federal government takes the lead on permitting.

“Who issues the permits is not the key problem here," Patton said. "The permits being issued is the key problem here."


Nicole Parra, a former state lawmaker working with California Resources Corp., a petroleum company that's seeking a federal grant to build a direct-air capture system in California's Central Valley, is trying hard to win activists over.

Parra is director of the California Renewable Energy Laboratory at the Kern Community College District, which is partnering with CRC on the project. She said she carries around a 16-point list of demands from a coalition of groups that are worried about the project's potential impact on local residents.

"Literally, it's in my hand right now," she said. Among the demands: a minimum distance of 10 miles between projects and disadvantaged communities; and a requirement that projects not increase air, water, noise or light pollution.

One of the activists whose organization compiled the list, Dan Ress, an attorney at the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, said they don't think CRC's project is well suited to the region because its geology is too porous, pockmarked from decades of oil and gas production.

“I'm very skeptical that Kern County is actually a good candidate for this, given that we have 100,000 holes in the ground,” Ress said.

Parra acknowledged their opposition but said it shouldn't determine the project's fate. "Will we have the environmental justice endorsement of the grant at this time? No," she said. "I don't think any group, whether it's industry, EJ, community, academia, should have the ability to kill projects if they meet the requirements that the president has outlined.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Germany's solar panel makers face tough competition and policy challenges

In a rapidly evolving energy sector, Germany's solar panel manufacturers are navigating a competitive landscape shaped by low-priced Chinese imports and stringent U.S. trade policies, even as the demand for renewable energy sources surges.Melissa Eddy reports for The New York Times.In short:Germany, once a pioneer in solar energy production, now struggles against China's dominating low-cost production and U.S. protectionist measures.German manufacturers advocate for government incentives to sustain the industry, emphasizing the environmental and reliability benefits of local production.Europe's heavy reliance on imported solar panels has intensified debates about trade protectionism and the future of domestic manufacturing in the renewable energy sector.Key quote:“While other countries such as the United States and China are strongly promoting the establishment and scaling up of solar gigafactories, the German government has yet to take concrete action.”— The German Solar AssociationWhy this matters:On one hand, the availability of inexpensive Chinese solar panels has been a boon for the solar installation sector, contributing to a surge in solar energy adoption by making it more financially accessible to a broader population. However, this pricing disparity has put pressure on American and European manufacturers, who argue that they are at an unfair disadvantage due to China's state-backed subsidies and lower labor costs.With solar leading the way, clean energy capacity growth is helping the planet avoid billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

In a rapidly evolving energy sector, Germany's solar panel manufacturers are navigating a competitive landscape shaped by low-priced Chinese imports and stringent U.S. trade policies, even as the demand for renewable energy sources surges.Melissa Eddy reports for The New York Times.In short:Germany, once a pioneer in solar energy production, now struggles against China's dominating low-cost production and U.S. protectionist measures.German manufacturers advocate for government incentives to sustain the industry, emphasizing the environmental and reliability benefits of local production.Europe's heavy reliance on imported solar panels has intensified debates about trade protectionism and the future of domestic manufacturing in the renewable energy sector.Key quote:“While other countries such as the United States and China are strongly promoting the establishment and scaling up of solar gigafactories, the German government has yet to take concrete action.”— The German Solar AssociationWhy this matters:On one hand, the availability of inexpensive Chinese solar panels has been a boon for the solar installation sector, contributing to a surge in solar energy adoption by making it more financially accessible to a broader population. However, this pricing disparity has put pressure on American and European manufacturers, who argue that they are at an unfair disadvantage due to China's state-backed subsidies and lower labor costs.With solar leading the way, clean energy capacity growth is helping the planet avoid billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

The EPA Accidentally Killed Small Cars

Like the rest of us, the Environmental Protection Agency seems to have noticed that cars are an increasingly rare sight on American roads, having been rapidly displaced by seemingly ever-larger trucks and SUVs. In its impact analysis of the agency’s new tailpipe emissions standards, a final version of which was unveiled this week, the EPA considers its own role in killing the sedan.The issue, the EPA analysis says, may have been the “attribute-based GHG standards for light-duty vehicles,” which first applied to new cars released in 2012. While federal regulators had distinguished between passenger and “non-passenger” vehicles since the 1970s, this Obama-era change amended U.S. corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards such that vehicles would be held to different emissions standards based on their size—specifically, the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its track length (width). This meant that larger cars—those classified as light trucks—would be held to less stringent standards than passenger vehicles. What might sound like a wonky bureaucratic tweak has dramatically changed how Americans drive.In less than a decade after that change took effect—between 2012 and 2021—the EPA found that the percentage of new vehicle sales classified as passenger cars and those classified as light trucks has essentially flipped. In 2012, 64 percent of new vehicle sales were classified as passenger vehicles, while 34 percent were classified as light trucks. By 2021, light trucks accounted for 63 percent of sales while passenger vehicles accounted for 37 percent of sales. “Sedans have largely been replaced with taller vehicles such as truck-like sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and crossover utility vehicles (CUVs),” the agency writes. Pickup trucks’ share of new cars sales jumped from 10 to 16 percent over the same period. During that time, the overall average footprint of new cars grew by more than 5 percent.American autos aren’t bigger because consumers have suddenly embraced off-roading, the construction trades, or home improvement projects. They’re bigger because automakers want to escape regulations. Each manufacturer is required to comply with boutique greenhouse gas emissions standards, which are calculated based on the size and capabilities of the cars in their fleets. Smaller cars are held to different standards than larger cars. So are those with specialty features like all-wheel drive or large towing capacities. By changing the makeup of their fleets, in other words, car companies can change the standards to which they’re held. Those greenhouse gas emissions targets are measured in grams of carbon dioxide or its greenhouse gas equivalent per mile.As the EPA points out in its impact analysis, carmakers’ shift to larger vehicles has undermined the effectiveness of EPA regulations. The recent, rapid growth in car size, the agency writes, “has permitted compliance under higher numerical standards.” As a result of the increased average footprint of cars, automakers in 2021 could emit eight more grams per mile than in 2012. The EPA had projected the rules it implemented that year would result in average targets that were 22 grams per mile lower than those that were actually in place in 2021. And it therefore projected its 2012 rules would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 3.5 percent per year from 2012 through 2021. Instead, the agency found it reduced emissions by about 2 percent per year.The EPA—which did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication—seems aware of the sweeping, unintended consequence of changing the way that cars are classified. I’ll be writing soon about the ways its new tailpipe emissions rules do and do not address that challenge. On its own, though, the agency’s analysis of how dramatically its policies have shaped the way Americans drive should serve as a cautionary tale for just how influential even the most boring regulatory shifts can be when it comes to long-term emissions.

Like the rest of us, the Environmental Protection Agency seems to have noticed that cars are an increasingly rare sight on American roads, having been rapidly displaced by seemingly ever-larger trucks and SUVs. In its impact analysis of the agency’s new tailpipe emissions standards, a final version of which was unveiled this week, the EPA considers its own role in killing the sedan.The issue, the EPA analysis says, may have been the “attribute-based GHG standards for light-duty vehicles,” which first applied to new cars released in 2012. While federal regulators had distinguished between passenger and “non-passenger” vehicles since the 1970s, this Obama-era change amended U.S. corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards such that vehicles would be held to different emissions standards based on their size—specifically, the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its track length (width). This meant that larger cars—those classified as light trucks—would be held to less stringent standards than passenger vehicles. What might sound like a wonky bureaucratic tweak has dramatically changed how Americans drive.In less than a decade after that change took effect—between 2012 and 2021—the EPA found that the percentage of new vehicle sales classified as passenger cars and those classified as light trucks has essentially flipped. In 2012, 64 percent of new vehicle sales were classified as passenger vehicles, while 34 percent were classified as light trucks. By 2021, light trucks accounted for 63 percent of sales while passenger vehicles accounted for 37 percent of sales. “Sedans have largely been replaced with taller vehicles such as truck-like sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and crossover utility vehicles (CUVs),” the agency writes. Pickup trucks’ share of new cars sales jumped from 10 to 16 percent over the same period. During that time, the overall average footprint of new cars grew by more than 5 percent.American autos aren’t bigger because consumers have suddenly embraced off-roading, the construction trades, or home improvement projects. They’re bigger because automakers want to escape regulations. Each manufacturer is required to comply with boutique greenhouse gas emissions standards, which are calculated based on the size and capabilities of the cars in their fleets. Smaller cars are held to different standards than larger cars. So are those with specialty features like all-wheel drive or large towing capacities. By changing the makeup of their fleets, in other words, car companies can change the standards to which they’re held. Those greenhouse gas emissions targets are measured in grams of carbon dioxide or its greenhouse gas equivalent per mile.As the EPA points out in its impact analysis, carmakers’ shift to larger vehicles has undermined the effectiveness of EPA regulations. The recent, rapid growth in car size, the agency writes, “has permitted compliance under higher numerical standards.” As a result of the increased average footprint of cars, automakers in 2021 could emit eight more grams per mile than in 2012. The EPA had projected the rules it implemented that year would result in average targets that were 22 grams per mile lower than those that were actually in place in 2021. And it therefore projected its 2012 rules would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 3.5 percent per year from 2012 through 2021. Instead, the agency found it reduced emissions by about 2 percent per year.The EPA—which did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication—seems aware of the sweeping, unintended consequence of changing the way that cars are classified. I’ll be writing soon about the ways its new tailpipe emissions rules do and do not address that challenge. On its own, though, the agency’s analysis of how dramatically its policies have shaped the way Americans drive should serve as a cautionary tale for just how influential even the most boring regulatory shifts can be when it comes to long-term emissions.

Queensland farming lobby launches legal challenge against Great Artesian Basin carbon capture trial

AgForce is seeking a judicial review of a 2022 decision that found the project did not need to be assessed under federal environmental lawsSign up for the Rural Network email newsletterJoin the Rural Network group on Facebook to be part of the communityQueensland farming body AgForce has launched legal action against the federal government in a bid to stop liquified carbon dioxide from being pumped into the Great Artesian Basin.The Carbon Transport and Storage Corporation (CTSCo), a subsidiary of mining giant Glencore, is awaiting state government approval for a pilot scheme to inject Co2 emitted by a coal-fired power station in southern Queensland into underground water aquifers as part of a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project trial.Sign up to receive Guardian Australia’s fortnightly Rural Network email newsletterSign up for the Rural Network email newsletterJoin the Rural Network group on Facebook to be part of the community Continue reading...

Queensland farming body AgForce has launched legal action against the federal government in a bid to stop liquified carbon dioxide from being pumped into the Great Artesian Basin.The Carbon Transport and Storage Corporation (CTSCo), a subsidiary of mining giant Glencore, is awaiting state government approval for a pilot scheme to inject Co2 emitted by a coal-fired power station in southern Queensland into underground water aquifers as part of a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project trial.Farming and environmental groups say the project risks causing irreversible damage to the Great Artesian Basin, a vital freshwater source for farmers and one of the country’s “greatest environmental assets”. Glencore maintains the project is based on robust scientific analysis.The chief executive of AgForce, Michael Guerin, said the lobby group had sought a judicial review of a 2022 decision that found the project did not need to be assessed under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.“Confidence in our food supply is at genuine risk because of the current proposal from Glencore,” Guerin said. “Court is the last place we want to be but there’s too much at stake not to put our members’ money into this federal court case.”Guerin said AgForce had been “mystified by the lack of engagement” from federal government ministers and that discussions had “got nowhere”. Taking the matter to court was a last resort, he said.The federal environment department said projects that fell outside what could be currently assessed under the EPBC Act did not need to undergo federal environmental assessment. The federal environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, referred questions to the department.“Legally, neither the minister nor the department can consider matters that fall outside national environment law,” the department said in a statement to Guardian Australia.According to CTSCo modelling, the pilot project would create a 1.6km-wide “plume area” some 2.3km underground.The ground water within the plume area would be unsuitable for livestock. But Glencore says there are no farmers currently extracting water at this depth within a 50km radius of the planned injection site.The Queensland environment department is currently reviewing the project’s environmental impact statement, with a decision expected by May 2024. A state government spokesperson said there were “strict regulatory requirements” in place to assess CCS projects.The director of the Queensland Conservation Council, Dave Copeman, said he stood “shoulder to shoulder” with AgForce and the National Farmers Federation in opposing the project.He said the conservation group had been lobbying the federal government to include a requirement to assess the impact of CCS projects on underground aquifers in an impending overhaul of the EPBA Act.“We are calling for that expansion of nature laws to protect the Great Artesian Basin from the impacts of projects such as this,” he said.Copeman said CCS would likely play some role in decarbonising emission-intensive industries “but this isn’t a hard-to-abate sector”.“We need to stop mining coal … this is a sector that should not continue,” he said. “It [the pilot scheme] is a fig leaf by Glencore to keep emitting more fossil fuels.”Glencore said it welcomed the opportunity for a court hearing, where “misleading rhetoric will be shown for what it is and measured against Glencore’s extensive scientific evidence”.“This litigation is an important test for the commonwealth and state’s respective support for carbon capture and storage in Australia,” it said in a statement.

“Planting” Volcanic Rocks in Farm Fields Could Be a Game Changer for Carbon Capture

Adding crushed volcanic rocks to agricultural fields can both improve the soil and suck down carbon dioxide. Doing so in the hot, humid tropics would...

Incorporating crushed volcanic rocks into agricultural fields can significantly contribute to carbon dioxide reduction, with tropical regions offering the most promise for this climate mitigation strategy. Credit: SciTechDaily.com Adding crushed volcanic rocks to agricultural fields can both improve the soil and suck down carbon dioxide. Doing so in the hot, humid tropics would be most efficient, a new study finds.Enhanced rock weathering makes use of a natural geologic process to store carbon long-termApplying 10 tons of basalt dust per hectare of cropland globally could sequester up to 217 gigatons of carbon dioxide in 75 years, above the IPCC’s lower threshold of carbon dioxide removal needed to reach climate goals, along with emissions reductionsFarms in the tropics have the biggest and fastest return on investmentGlobal Agricultural Climate StrategyFarmers around the world could help the planet reach a key carbon removal goal set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by mixing crushed volcanic rocks into their fields, a new study reports. The study also highlights wet, warm tropics as the most promising locations for this climate intervention strategy.The study provides one of the first global estimates of the potential carbon dioxide drawdown from basalt application on agricultural fields worldwide. It was published in Earth’s Future, AGU’s journal for interdisciplinary research on the past, present and future of our planet and its inhabitants. Enhanced Rock Weathering: A Promising ApproachThis type of climate intervention is called enhanced rock weathering. It takes advantage of the weathering process, which naturally sequesters carbon dioxide in carbonate minerals. The idea is simple: speed up weathering in a way that also benefits people. When used in parallel with emissions reductions, it can help slow the pace of climate change.And it may be a safer bet than other carbon drawdown approaches, according to the study authors.“Enhanced rock weathering poses fewer risks compared to other climate interventions,” said S. Hun Baek, a climate scientist at Yale University who led the study. “It also provides some key benefits, like rejuvenating depleted soils and countering ocean acidification, that may make it more socially desirable.”The new study explores the potential of applying crushed basalt, a fast-weathering rock that forms as lava cools, to agricultural fields around the world and highlights which regions can most efficiently break down the rocks.A climate intervention strategy called enhanced rock weathering, if applied globally, could help meet a key IPCC goal for slowing climate change, according to new research published in the AGU journal Earth’s Future. Enhanced rock weathering improves soil health, sequesters carbon, and combats ocean acidification. Credit: AGU“There’s tremendous potential here,” said Noah Planavsky, a geochemist at Yale University who co-authored the study. “Although we still have things to learn from a basic science perspective, there is promise, and we need to focus on what we can do from market and finance perspectives.”A previous study used a separate method of calculating carbon dioxide removal to estimate carbon drawdown by the year 2050, but the researchers wanted to look beyond country borders and further into the future.The researchers used a new biogeochemical model to simulate how applying crushed basalt to global croplands would draw down carbon dioxide, to test the sensitivity of enhanced rock weathering to climate and to pinpoint the areas where the method could be most effective.Research Findings and Future ImplicationsThe new model simulated enhanced rock weathering on 1,000 agricultural sites around the world under two emissions scenarios from 2006 to 2080. They found that in the 75-year study period, those agricultural sites would draw down 64 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Extrapolating that to all agricultural fields, representing the world’s total potential application of this strategy, up to 217 gigatons of carbon could be sequestered in that time period.“The latest IPCC report said we need to remove 100 to 1,000 gigatons of carbon by 2100 in addition to steeply reducing emissions to keep global temperature from rising more than one and a half degrees Celsius,” said Baek. “Scaling up to global croplands, the estimates of carbon removal we found are roughly comparable to the lower end of that range needed to have a fighting chance of meeting those climate goals.”Because weathering progresses more quickly in hot and wet environments, enhanced rock weathering would work more quickly in tropical regions than higher latitudes, the study highlights. Farmers and companies looking to invest in carbon drawdown solutions make cost- and carbon-efficient choices by targeting basalt application in tropical fields.The model revealed another promising result: Enhanced rock weathering works just as well, if not a little better, in warmer temperatures. Some other carbon drawdown approaches, such as those that rely on soil organic carbon storage, become less effective with continual warming.“Enhanced rock weathering is surprisingly resilient to climate change,” Baek said. “Our results show that it’s relatively insensitive to climate change and works about the same under moderate and severe global warming scenarios. This gives us confidence in its potential as a long-term strategy.”Farmers already apply millions of tons of limestone (a calcium carbonate rock that can either be a carbon source or sink) to their fields to deliver nutrients and control soil acidity, so gradually changing the rock type could mean a smooth transition to implementing enhanced rock weathering at scale, Planavsky said.Enhanced rock weathering has been applied on small scales on farms around the world. The next step is working toward “realistic implementation,” Planavsky said.For more on this study, see How Farmland Can Fight Global Warming.Reference: “Direct evidence for atmospheric carbon dioxide removal via enhanced weathering in cropland soil” by Iris O Holzer, Mallika A Nocco and Benjamin Z Houlton, 18 October 2023, Environmental Research Communications.DOI: 10.1088/2515-7620/acfd89

370 Million Tons – Landmark Study Uncovers New Source of Carbon Emissions

A landmark study has uncovered that bottom trawling contributes to the release of as much as 370 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually into...

Bottom trawling significantly contributes to atmospheric carbon emissions by disturbing ocean sediments, a study finds. This method not only harms marine ecosystems but also releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide, doubling the emissions from the global fishing fleet’s fuel use. Immediate policy action is urged to address this overlooked source of carbon pollution and mitigate its impact on climate change and ocean health.A landmark study has uncovered that bottom trawling contributes to the release of as much as 370 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually into the atmosphere. The study highlights that the areas of the East China Sea, Baltic Sea, North Sea, and Greenland Sea are the most significant contributors to this environmental impact, showcasing the largest climate footprints from trawling activities.Scientists have uncovered that bottom trawling, a method involving the dragging of a heavy net across the ocean floor, plays a previously unrecognized role in atmospheric carbon emissions. Amid global efforts to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, deforestation, and other activities, the research highlights bottom trawling’s contribution to carbon pollution by disturbing seafloor sediments and releasing carbon into the atmosphere.A previous study found that part of that disturbed sediment carbon turns into carbon dioxide underwater. Today’s study finds that 55%-60% of the carbon dioxide produced underwater by bottom trawling will make it into the atmosphere within nine years. The amount of carbon released by bottom trawling into the atmosphere each year is estimated to double the annual emissions from fuel combustion of the entire global fishing fleet — about 4 million vessels.The Environmental and Climate Effects of Bottom Trawling“We have long known that dragging heavy fishing nets — some as large as ten 747 jets — across the ocean floor destroys sea life and habitats,” said Dr. Trisha Atwood of Utah State University and National Geographic Pristine Seas.“Only recently, we have discovered that bottom trawling also unleashes plumes of carbon, which otherwise would be safely stored for millennia in the ocean floor. Our study is the very first to show that over half the carbon released by bottom trawling eventually escapes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide over the span of about ten years, contributing to global warming. Much like destroying forests, scraping up the seafloor causes irreparable harm to the climate, society, and wildlife.”The study was conducted by a global team of climate and ocean experts from Utah State University, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the University of California Santa Barbara, Columbia University, James Cook University, and National Geographic Pristine Seas.The researchers used data on bottom trawling carried out globally between 1996-2020 and sophisticated models to calculate how much of the carbon dioxide produced by bottom trawling ultimately enters the atmosphere. This study builds on recent foundational research finding that the amount of carbon dioxide released into the ocean from bottom trawling is larger than most countries’ annual carbon emissions and on the same order of magnitude as annual carbon dioxide emissions from global aviation.’Global Hotspots and the Urgency of ActionThe new research identifies ocean areas where carbon emissions from bottom trawling are especially high, including the East China Sea, the Baltic and the North Seas, and the Greenland Sea. The researchers conclude that Southeast Asia, the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, parts of Europe, and the Gulf of Mexico are also likely major sources of carbon emissions due to trawling, but we currently lack sufficient data on the extent and intensity of bottom trawling in these areas.“Right now, countries don’t account for bottom trawling’s significant carbon emissions in their climate action plans,” said Dr. Enric Sala, National Explorer in Residence and Executive Director of Pristine Seas. “Our research makes it clear that tackling these and other ocean emissions is critical to slowing the warming of the planet, in addition to restoring marine life. The good news is that reducing bottom-trawling carbon emissions will deliver immediate benefits. The bad news is, delaying action ensures that emissions from trawling will continue seeping into the atmosphere a decade from now.”The new study also assesses what happens to the carbon that remains trapped in ocean waters after bottom trawling takes place. It concludes that between 40%-45% of the total carbon dislodged from the ocean floor by trawling remains in the water, leading to greater localized ocean acidification. This increased acidity damages plant and animal life in the area where the fishing activity takes place.“There are more issues with bottom trawling than just the impacts from carbon — biodiversity and sustainability for instance,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “But this ‘marine deforestation’ is large enough to be noted and assessed. Hopefully, this can lead to policy efforts that can try to maximize benefits across all of the impacts.”Reference: “Atmospheric CO2 emissions and ocean acidification from bottom-trawling” by Trisha B. Atwood, Anastasia Romanou, Tim DeVries, Paul E. Lerner, Juan S. Mayorga, Darcy Bradley, Reniel B. Cabral, Gavin A. Schmidt and Enric Sala, 1 December 2023, Frontiers in Marine Science.DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1125137

Suggested Viewing

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.