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.

California’s Carbon Deadline Is Approaching. Meeting It Will Take Hundreds of Miles of Pipelines.

News Feed
Friday, August 9, 2024

Hundreds of miles of pipeline must be built, and built quickly, if California is to meet its fast-approaching deadline for removing millions of tons of climate-altering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  Such is the view of regulators, business groups and some academic institutions pushing a Herculean plan to build a maze of pipes across California to carry the carbon dioxide emissions from oil refineries, natural gas power plants and other sources to the Sacramento delta and the Central Valley, where it would be buried deep underground. Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas and is among the pollutants driving the climate crisis by trapping heat in the atmosphere, triggering withering heats waves, rising sea levels and more frequent and intense storms.   The California Air Resources Board, the state’s climate emissions regulator, has set a target of capturing between 13 million and 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2030 — the equivalent of removing 3 million to 4.8 million gas-powered cars from the road. It is part of a strategy to eliminate climate pollution from the state’s industrial sector at a cost of $290 million annually over the next decade. Six companies are applying to the Environmental Protection Agency for permits to pump carbon dioxide underground. As of now, there are no such facilities in the state doing that. The infrastructure to transport 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — which is half of what the state wants to capture by midcentury — would include 1,150 miles of new pipeline running through the cities of Long Beach, Richmond, San Diego, Burbank and others, according to a 2020 report by the nonprofit Energy Futures Initiative and Stanford University’s Center for Carbon Storage and Precourt Institute for Energy. Once the carbon dioxide reaches its destination in the Central Valley or Sacramento, it would be pumped into the ground. While it’s generally agreed that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is critical for the world to meet its climate goals, where to put it and how to get it there are fraught questions. The miles of pipeline needed to carry a known asphyxiant worry some climate activists, who fear that a rupture or leak could be disastrous. Exposure to carbon dioxide can be fatal or cause serious health issues.  Across the country there were 76 incidents involving the release of carbon dioxide from pipelines between January 2010 and May 2024, totaling more than 66,800 barrels.  Four years ago in Satartia, Mississippi, a mudslide caused a 24-inch pipeline carrying carbon dioxide to rupture, and dozens of people a mile away lost consciousness or grew delirious. There were no deaths, but 49 people were hospitalized. In a federal lawsuit against pipeline operator Denbury Gulf Coast Pipelines LLC, settled last year, motorist Korinne Heying Koestler said she suffered seizures from a lack of oxygen after she tried helping others engulfed in “clouds” of what turned out to be carbon dioxide. Yet in public statements and reports touted by the California Carbon Partnership, headed by the state Chamber of Commerce, moving this gas is treated as an economic matter, with little attention to safety risks or political obstacles. Those reports found it is cheaper to transport carbon dioxide hundreds of miles from emissions sources to injection sites by pipeline than moving it by truck, rail or barge. At a May 15 policy briefing hosted by the partnership, a panel of experts described carbon dioxide capture technology as critical in the state’s efforts to tackle climate change. There have been no deaths since oil and gas companies first began piping carbon dioxide in the 1970s as part of drilling activities, said panelist Sarah Saltzer, the managing director of the Stanford Center for Carbon Storage, which receives funding from companies such as Chevron Corp., the California Resources Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp.  Across the country, federal data show there were 76 incidents involving the release of carbon dioxide from pipelines between January 2010 and May 2024, totaling more than 66,800 barrels. They mostly occurred in rural settings, though some happened near churches and homes in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reported hospitalizations only from the Satartia incident in February 2020. Reached by email, Saltzer, who worked at Chevron for 25 years including managerial roles, said Stanford Center for Carbon Storage was planning its own review of carbon dioxide pipeline safety.  Steve Bohlen, another panelist and the senior director of Government and External Affairs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told Capital & Main he disputed the contention that panelists had downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines. They are sometimes exaggerated by opponents of carbon capture and sequestration, he said.  Those opponents generally want a faster transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But California’s climate plan says carbon dioxide still needs to be captured from oil refineries, cement factories and natural gas power plants, even as emissions from cars and buildings improve.  Federal rules for carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines were inspired by a natural release of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon in 1986 that killed more than 1,700 people.  Carbon dioxide “may need to be safely transferred by pipeline to the best geologic sequestration sites in the state,” said Lys Mendez, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, in an email. Otherwise, California “will not be able to achieve the carbon dioxide removal targets” in its 2022 climate change-fighting blueprint.  Coalitions of environmentalists in California, the Gulf Coast and the Midwest are protesting plans to capture carbon dioxide and bury it underground, arguing that they pose a danger to communities already bearing the brunt of fossil fuel pollution. They also contended that carbon capture is being used as a tactic to prolong the use of oil, gas and coal, which scientists say must be phased out quickly to slow global warming. Capturing carbon dioxide emissions and permanently burying them is a climate strategy supported by the United Nations, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and other groups both inside and outside the oil and gas industry. But how much to use the technology remains an unsettled question.  A report by Democratic staffs of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Budget Committee analyzed plans for capturing carbon by companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Shell USA Inc., based on subpoenaed emails and other documents. The companies’ “massive public-facing campaigns” contrasted with internal acknowledgements that “they are not planning to deploy the technology at the scale needed to solve the warming crisis,” the report found.  The federal government is facing the “greatest and fastest pipeline expansion” in U.S. history thanks to federal subsidies that became available in 2021 and 2022, according to a report published by the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust. Those subsidies could build up the nation’s carbon dioxide pipelines from a small network of 5,000 miles, mostly in remote oil fields, to more than 60,000 miles through heavily populated areas by 2050. Bill Caram, the trust’s executive director, said current regulations do not take into consideration the scope of hazards from this ramp up. “We’ve been asking policy makers to ensure that the benefits as a climate solution are weighted against the risks you’re asking people to take on from these pipelines,” he said. In 1991, federal rules for carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines were added to existing statutes for petroleum pipelines. They were inspired by a disastrous natural release of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon that killed more than 1,700 people. Back then, carbon dioxide being transported in the U.S. came not from industrial facilities but from underground reservoirs: pumped, piped and reinjected to stimulate oil production.  The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is finalizing new rules covering carbon dioxide pipelines, including a study of a potential impact radius for leaks and ruptures and requirements for emergency preparedness. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory is creating a national route-planning database “to guide routing decisions and increase transportation safety” for carbon dioxide pipelines.  The impact zone of a ruptured carbon dioxide pipeline could extend for miles, and the gas lingers invisibly in the air.  In the meantime, several companies are planning major projects across the nation. One proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions would transport carbon dioxide through 2,000 miles of pipelines from dozens of ethanol refineries in five Midwestern states to injection sites in North Dakota. Oil and gas companies are lobbying the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to reject “overly broad” safety rules, according to a document submitted in March by the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association. They asserted that carbon dioxide pipelines are safer than pipes used to move natural gas or petroleum, though the risks are hardly comparable.  While the rupture of a hydrocarbon line can result in explosions, a carbon dioxide pipeline’s impact zone could extend for miles, and the gas lingers invisibly in the air with the potential to asphyxiate people and to disable vehicles such as those used by first responders, according to the Pipeline Safety Trust report.  Unlike other states, California has a law governing carbon capture that includes a provision preventing companies from transporting carbon dioxide by pipeline until federal rules are published, possibly as soon as August. That has proven to be a stumbling block for project developers, though some are moving forward with pipeline-dependent projects anyway.  The Montezuma NorCal Carbon Sequestration Hub is a plan to operate an underwater pipeline to gather carbon dioxide streams from coastal oil refineries and hydrogen producers in the Bay Area. The line would run carbon dioxide through San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay to Solano County for burial underneath wetlands. Jim Levine, the project’s manager, said he wants to secure agreements with companies to collect at least 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year. He hopes the EPA issues a carbon dioxide injection permit by 2026. There is little research on underwater carbon dioxide pipeline failures. A report by the Center for International Environmental Law said such infrastructure could incur seawater infiltration during construction, potentially weakening the metal, and cited high leakage rates of oil and gas pipelines off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Levine said the Montezuma project will have a fiber optic monitoring system covering the length of the proposed pipeline, with monitors every 6 feet and automatic shut-off valves that would engage if a leak was detected. “It will be the safest [carbon dioxide] pipeline in the world,” Levine said. Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Plans call for millions of tons of carbon dioxide to be piped across the state to the Central Valley and Sacramento delta for burial. The post California’s Carbon Deadline Is Approaching. Meeting It Will Take Hundreds of Miles of Pipelines. appeared first on .

Hundreds of miles of pipeline must be built, and built quickly, if California is to meet its fast-approaching deadline for removing millions of tons of climate-altering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 

Such is the view of regulators, business groups and some academic institutions pushing a Herculean plan to build a maze of pipes across California to carry the carbon dioxide emissions from oil refineries, natural gas power plants and other sources to the Sacramento delta and the Central Valley, where it would be buried deep underground.

Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas and is among the pollutants driving the climate crisis by trapping heat in the atmosphere, triggering withering heats waves, rising sea levels and more frequent and intense storms.
 



 
The California Air Resources Board, the state’s climate emissions regulator, has set a target of capturing between 13 million and 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2030 — the equivalent of removing 3 million to 4.8 million gas-powered cars from the road. It is part of a strategy to eliminate climate pollution from the state’s industrial sector at a cost of $290 million annually over the next decade.

Six companies are applying to the Environmental Protection Agency for permits to pump carbon dioxide underground. As of now, there are no such facilities in the state doing that.

The infrastructure to transport 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — which is half of what the state wants to capture by midcentury — would include 1,150 miles of new pipeline running through the cities of Long Beach, Richmond, San Diego, Burbank and others, according to a 2020 report by the nonprofit Energy Futures Initiative and Stanford University’s Center for Carbon Storage and Precourt Institute for Energy.

Once the carbon dioxide reaches its destination in the Central Valley or Sacramento, it would be pumped into the ground. While it’s generally agreed that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is critical for the world to meet its climate goals, where to put it and how to get it there are fraught questions.

The miles of pipeline needed to carry a known asphyxiant worry some climate activists, who fear that a rupture or leak could be disastrous. Exposure to carbon dioxide can be fatal or cause serious health issues.
 


Across the country there were 76 incidents involving the release of carbon dioxide from pipelines between January 2010 and May 2024, totaling more than 66,800 barrels.


 
Four years ago in Satartia, Mississippi, a mudslide caused a 24-inch pipeline carrying carbon dioxide to rupture, and dozens of people a mile away lost consciousness or grew delirious. There were no deaths, but 49 people were hospitalized. In a federal lawsuit against pipeline operator Denbury Gulf Coast Pipelines LLC, settled last year, motorist Korinne Heying Koestler said she suffered seizures from a lack of oxygen after she tried helping others engulfed in “clouds” of what turned out to be carbon dioxide.

Yet in public statements and reports touted by the California Carbon Partnership, headed by the state Chamber of Commerce, moving this gas is treated as an economic matter, with little attention to safety risks or political obstacles. Those reports found it is cheaper to transport carbon dioxide hundreds of miles from emissions sources to injection sites by pipeline than moving it by truck, rail or barge.

At a May 15 policy briefing hosted by the partnership, a panel of experts described carbon dioxide capture technology as critical in the state’s efforts to tackle climate change. There have been no deaths since oil and gas companies first began piping carbon dioxide in the 1970s as part of drilling activities, said panelist Sarah Saltzer, the managing director of the Stanford Center for Carbon Storage, which receives funding from companies such as Chevron Corp., the California Resources Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. 

Across the country, federal data show there were 76 incidents involving the release of carbon dioxide from pipelines between January 2010 and May 2024, totaling more than 66,800 barrels. They mostly occurred in rural settings, though some happened near churches and homes in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reported hospitalizations only from the Satartia incident in February 2020.

Reached by email, Saltzer, who worked at Chevron for 25 years including managerial roles, said Stanford Center for Carbon Storage was planning its own review of carbon dioxide pipeline safety. 

Steve Bohlen, another panelist and the senior director of Government and External Affairs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told Capital & Main he disputed the contention that panelists had downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines. They are sometimes exaggerated by opponents of carbon capture and sequestration, he said. 

Those opponents generally want a faster transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But California’s climate plan says carbon dioxide still needs to be captured from oil refineries, cement factories and natural gas power plants, even as emissions from cars and buildings improve.
 


Federal rules for carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines were inspired by a natural release of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon in 1986 that killed more than 1,700 people.


 
Carbon dioxide “may need to be safely transferred by pipeline to the best geologic sequestration sites in the state,” said Lys Mendez, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, in an email. Otherwise, California “will not be able to achieve the carbon dioxide removal targets” in its 2022 climate change-fighting blueprint. 

Coalitions of environmentalists in California, the Gulf Coast and the Midwest are protesting plans to capture carbon dioxide and bury it underground, arguing that they pose a danger to communities already bearing the brunt of fossil fuel pollution. They also contended that carbon capture is being used as a tactic to prolong the use of oil, gas and coal, which scientists say must be phased out quickly to slow global warming.

Capturing carbon dioxide emissions and permanently burying them is a climate strategy supported by the United Nations, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and other groups both inside and outside the oil and gas industry. But how much to use the technology remains an unsettled question. 

A report by Democratic staffs of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Budget Committee analyzed plans for capturing carbon by companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Shell USA Inc., based on subpoenaed emails and other documents. The companies’ “massive public-facing campaigns” contrasted with internal acknowledgements that “they are not planning to deploy the technology at the scale needed to solve the warming crisis,” the report found. 

The federal government is facing the “greatest and fastest pipeline expansion” in U.S. history thanks to federal subsidies that became available in 2021 and 2022, according to a report published by the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust. Those subsidies could build up the nation’s carbon dioxide pipelines from a small network of 5,000 miles, mostly in remote oil fields, to more than 60,000 miles through heavily populated areas by 2050.

Bill Caram, the trust’s executive director, said current regulations do not take into consideration the scope of hazards from this ramp up. “We’ve been asking policy makers to ensure that the benefits as a climate solution are weighted against the risks you’re asking people to take on from these pipelines,” he said.

In 1991, federal rules for carbon dioxide-carrying pipelines were added to existing statutes for petroleum pipelines. They were inspired by a disastrous natural release of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon that killed more than 1,700 people. Back then, carbon dioxide being transported in the U.S. came not from industrial facilities but from underground reservoirs: pumped, piped and reinjected to stimulate oil production. 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is finalizing new rules covering carbon dioxide pipelines, including a study of a potential impact radius for leaks and ruptures and requirements for emergency preparedness. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory is creating a national route-planning database “to guide routing decisions and increase transportation safety” for carbon dioxide pipelines.
 


The impact zone of a ruptured carbon dioxide pipeline could extend for miles, and the gas lingers invisibly in the air.


 
In the meantime, several companies are planning major projects across the nation. One proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions would transport carbon dioxide through 2,000 miles of pipelines from dozens of ethanol refineries in five Midwestern states to injection sites in North Dakota.

Oil and gas companies are lobbying the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to reject “overly broad” safety rules, according to a document submitted in March by the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association. They asserted that carbon dioxide pipelines are safer than pipes used to move natural gas or petroleum, though the risks are hardly comparable. 

While the rupture of a hydrocarbon line can result in explosions, a carbon dioxide pipeline’s impact zone could extend for miles, and the gas lingers invisibly in the air with the potential to asphyxiate people and to disable vehicles such as those used by first responders, according to the Pipeline Safety Trust report. 

Unlike other states, California has a law governing carbon capture that includes a provision preventing companies from transporting carbon dioxide by pipeline until federal rules are published, possibly as soon as August. That has proven to be a stumbling block for project developers, though some are moving forward with pipeline-dependent projects anyway. 

The Montezuma NorCal Carbon Sequestration Hub is a plan to operate an underwater pipeline to gather carbon dioxide streams from coastal oil refineries and hydrogen producers in the Bay Area. The line would run carbon dioxide through San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay to Solano County for burial underneath wetlands.

Jim Levine, the project’s manager, said he wants to secure agreements with companies to collect at least 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year. He hopes the EPA issues a carbon dioxide injection permit by 2026.

There is little research on underwater carbon dioxide pipeline failures. A report by the Center for International Environmental Law said such infrastructure could incur seawater infiltration during construction, potentially weakening the metal, and cited high leakage rates of oil and gas pipelines off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana.

Levine said the Montezuma project will have a fiber optic monitoring system covering the length of the proposed pipeline, with monitors every 6 feet and automatic shut-off valves that would engage if a leak was detected.

“It will be the safest [carbon dioxide] pipeline in the world,” Levine said.


Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Battery electric cars will overtake diesels in Great Britain by 2030, analysis suggests

London predicted to be the first UK city to go diesel-free, largely because of the ultra-low emission zoneBattery electric cars are poised to overtake diesels on Great Britain’s roads by 2030, according to analysis that suggests London will be the first UK city to go diesel-free.The number of diesel cars on Great Britain’s roads in June had fallen to 9.9m in June last year, 21% below its peak of 12.4m vehicles, according to analysis by New AutoMotive, a thinktank focused on the transition to electric cars. Electric car sales are still growing rapidly, albeit more slowly than manufacturers had expected. Continue reading...

Battery electric cars are poised to overtake diesels on Great Britain’s roads by 2030, according to analysis that suggests London will be the first UK city to go diesel-free.The number of diesel cars on Great Britain’s roads in June had fallen to 9.9m in June last year, 21% below its peak of 12.4m vehicles, according to analysis by New AutoMotive, a thinktank focused on the transition to electric cars. Electric car sales are still growing rapidly, albeit more slowly than manufacturers had expected.However, the transition to cleaner vans is lagging behind cars, and the number of diesel vans has continued to rise, to a record 4.4m.The UK went through a “dash for diesel” cars in the 2000s as the government granted them cheaper tax rates. Diesel engines tend to be more efficient than petrol engines, burning less fuel and producing less carbon dioxide.However, they also produce more nitrous oxides, which are harmful to health. In 2015 Volkswagen was found to have created software to cheat on emissions tests, kicking off the “Dieselgate” scandal, costing it alone €30bn (£26bn) around the world in fines, compensation and legal costs. Analysis this year suggested the extra emissions from cheat devices from Volkswagen and other carmakers were responsible for thousands of deaths and cases of asthma.Sales of cars with diesel engines duly plummeted, to fewer than 100,000 in the first 11 months of 2025. However, it will take some time for the share of diesel cars on the road to diminish, as many cars bought during the peak years of diesels are only now being scrapped.Battery electric cars made up only 4% of the cars on UK roads last year, compared with 32% diesels and 58% that use petrol, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), a lobby group. The other 6% were hybrids, which mostly combine a smaller battery with a petrol engine.Nevertheless, the number of diesels should drop as older cars are scrapped, delivering benefits for towns and cities where particulates tend to be concentrated. That will also have a knock-on effect for filling stations, leading to many withdrawing diesel supplies.London is expected to be the first place in the UK where no diesel cars or vans are registered, largely because of the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez), which applies charges for more polluting non-compliant cars. Diesel numbers are also dropping rapidly in the central belt of Scotland, which contains Edinburgh and Glasgow, both of which have low-emission zones.The ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) applies charges to more polluting non-compliant cars. Photograph: PA Images/Alamy“Ending the use of diesel is essential to clean up Britain’s choking cities,” said Ben Nelmes, the chief executive of New AutoMotive. “The UK is now rolling out electric cars at a rapid pace, and this is great news for everyone that enjoys clean air, quieter streets and really cheap running costs.“The UK imports billions of pounds of diesel every year, and we have been completely reliant on other countries to feed our thirst. Thankfully, we’re switching to electric cars at a rapid rate, and that will make the country cleaner and wealthier.”However, the analysis found that people in cities appeared to be selling their diesels to people in more rural areas.The report found that, while the number of diesel vans has risen over the past decade, the peak of new diesel van sales probably happened before the pandemic, meaning the numbers on roads will eventually fall.Matt Finch, an environmental policy expert who co-wrote the report, said the world was “leaving the diesel age”. He said: “No one is denying diesel hasn’t been useful, but it has had its day.”

Food becoming more calorific but less nutritious due to rising carbon dioxide

Researchers noticed ‘dramatic’ changes in nutrients in crops, including drop in zinc and rise in leadMore carbon dioxide in the environment is making food more calorific but less nutritious – and also potentially more toxic, a study has found.Sterre ter Haar, a lecturer at Leiden University in the Netherlands, and other researchers at the institution created a method to compare multiple studies on plants’ responses to increased CO2 levels. The results, she said, were a shock: although crop yields increase, they become less nutrient-dense. While zinc levels in particular drop, lead levels increase. Continue reading...

More carbon dioxide in the environment is making food more calorific but less nutritious – and also potentially more toxic, a study has found.Sterre ter Haar, a lecturer at Leiden University in the Netherlands, and other researchers at the institution created a method to compare multiple studies on plants’ responses to increased CO2 levels. The results, she said, were a shock: although crop yields increase, they become less nutrient-dense. While zinc levels in particular drop, lead levels increase.“Seeing how dramatic some of the nutritional changes were, and how this differed across plants, was a big surprise,” she told the Guardian. “We aren’t seeing a simple dilution effect but rather a complete shift in the composition of our foods … This also raises the question of whether we should adjust our diets in some way, or how we grow or produce our food.”While scientists have been looking at the effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere on plants for a decade, their work has been difficult to compare. The new research established a baseline measurement derived from the observation that the gas appears to have a linear effect on growth, meaning that if the CO2 level doubles, so does the effect on nutrients. This made it possible to compare almost 60,000 measurements across 32 nutrients and 43 crops, including rice, potatoes, tomatoes and wheat.“Although there was a lot of data from previous studies, there were few answers,” said Ter Haar. “These studies used paired experiments, where plants were grown under identical conditions except for one thing: the CO2 level. This gives insight into possible changes, but the sample sizes were usually too small to draw conclusions from. Comparing these individual studies with each other was difficult because, as we know, the baseline of CO2 is continuously increasing in our atmosphere, meaning that the baseline in these experiments is also increasing.”Their “baseline” measurement was a gas concentration of 350 parts per million – sometimes referred to as the last “safe” level. They compared this with a concentration of 550 parts per million, which some scientists expect to be reached by 2065. Most nutrients would respond negatively to the rise in concentration, they said, with an average drop of 3.2%.However, zinc in chickpeas would be expected to plummet by up to 37.5%, with a “significant” decrease in protein, zinc and iron in essential crops such as rice and wheat. The researchers warned of “devastating health consequences” including “hidden hunger, where people have sufficient food calorically but insufficient nutrients”.The CO2 level is now 425.2 parts per million, the paper said, which had already resulted in “lowered levels of plant nutrition due to CO2 rise”.The study is part of a growing body of research on the impact of climate breakdown on crops, not only outdoors but also in artificial conditions. The Netherlands is one of the world’s largest agricultural exporters, with three-quarters of its production for export and more than 4,100 hectares of greenhouses, where crops are grown in CO2-enriched environments to increase the yield.“Climate change isn’t a faraway problem,” said Ter Haar. “The effects are already on our dinner plate.”Other experts welcomed the Dutch study, saying it was a good basis for further investigation. Courtney Leisner, an assistant professor at the school of plant and environmental sciences at Virginia Tech in the US, coauthored a study earlier this year on how crop improvement strategies could counteract the negative effects of CO2 on crop quality. “This study offers critical insights into how environmental conditions affect crop nutritional quality, which is essential for sustaining future food security,” she said.There are, however, other factors such as fertiliser application that play an important role in how nutritious our crops are, said Jan Verhagen, a researcher on climate change and sustainable agriculture at Wageningen University.“Indeed, nutrient levels in plants are changing,” he said. “Whether this is only related to CO2 is, I believe, less clear … we know that nutrition is a key factor in food security and health in general, so it makes sense to shift the focus on this topic.”He said more experiments would be needed to help design breeding programmes for crops with certain nutrient levels under different environmental stresses to better understand the effects of agricultural practices.The meta-analysis raises as many questions as it answers, said Ter Haar – who wants to do further study on climate change and nutrients.“Our goal isn’t to scare people,” she said. “The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging it, and with that, we think our study could be a useful puzzle piece.”The research was published in the journal Global Change Biology.

How cement “breathes in” and stores millions of tons of CO₂ a year

New analysis provides the first national, bottom-up estimate of cement’s natural carbon dioxide uptake across buildings and infrastructure.

The world’s most common construction material has a secret. Cement, the “glue” that holds concrete together, gradually “breathes in” and stores millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air over the lifetimes of buildings and infrastructure.  A new study from the MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub quantifies this process, carbon uptake, at a national scale for the first time. Using a novel approach, the research team found that the cement in U.S. buildings and infrastructure sequesters over 6.5 million metric tons of CO2 annually. This corresponds to roughly 13 percent of the process emissions — the CO2 released by the underlying chemical reaction — in U.S. cement manufacturing. In Mexico, the same building stock sequesters about 5 million tons a year.   But how did the team come up with those numbers? Scientists have known how carbon uptake works for decades. CO2 enters concrete or mortar — the mixture that glues together blocks, brick, and stones — through tiny pores, reacts with the calcium-rich products in cement, and becomes locked into a stable mineral called calcium carbonate, or limestone. The chemistry is well-known, but calculating the magnitude of this at scale is not. A concrete highway in Dallas sequesters CO2 differently than Mexico City apartments made from concrete masonry units (CMUs), also called concrete blocks or, colloquially, cinder blocks. And a foundation slab buried under the snow in Fairbanks, Alaska, “breathes in” CO2 at a different pace entirely. As Hessam AzariJafari, lead author and research scientist in the MIT Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, explains, “Carbon uptake is very sensitive to context. Four major factors drive it: the type of cement used, the product we make with it — concrete, CMUs, or mortar — the geometry of the structure, and the climate and conditions it’s exposed to. Even within the same structure, uptake can vary five-fold between different elements.” As no two structures sequester CO2 in the same way, estimating uptake nationwide would normally require simulating an array of cement-based elements: slabs, walls, beams, columns, pavements, and more. On top of that, each of those has its own age, geometry, mixture, and exposure condition to account for.  Seeing that this approach would be like trying to count every grain of sand on a beach, the team took a different route. They developed hundreds of archetypes, typical designs that could stand in for different buildings and pieces of infrastructure. It’s a bit like measuring the beach instead by mapping out its shape, depth, and shoreline to estimate how much sand usually sits in a given spot.  With these archetypes in hand, the team modeled how each one sequesters CO2 in different environments and how common each is across every state in the United States and Mexico. In this way, they could estimate not just how much CO2 structures sequester, but why those numbers differ.  Two factors stood out. The first was the “construction trend,” or how the amount of new construction had changed over the previous five years. Because it reflects how quickly cement products are being added to the building stock, it shapes how much cement each state consumes and, therefore, how much of that cement is actively carbonating. The second was the ratio of mortar to concrete, since porous mortars sequester CO2 an order of magnitude faster than denser concrete. In states where mortar use was higher, the fraction of CO2 uptake relative to process emissions was noticeably greater. “We observed something unique about Mexico: Despite using half the cement that the U.S. does, the country has three-quarters of the uptake,” notes AzariJafari. “This is because Mexico makes more use of mortars and lower-strength concrete, and bagged cement mixed on-site. These practices are why their uptake sequesters about a quarter of their cement manufacturing emissions.” While care must be taken for structural elements that use steel reinforcement, as uptake can accelerate corrosion, it’s possible to enhance the uptake of many elements without negative impacts. Randolph Kirchain, director of the MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub, principal research scientist in the MIT Materials Research Laboratory, and the senior author of this study, explains: “For instance, increasing the amount of surface area exposed to air accelerates uptake and can be achieved by foregoing painting or tiling, or choosing designs like waffle slabs with a higher surface area-to-volume ratio. Additionally, avoiding unnecessarily stronger, less-porous concrete mixtures than required would speed up uptake while using less cement.” “There is a real opportunity to refine how carbon uptake from cement is represented in national inventories,” AzariJafari comments. “The buildings around us and the concrete beneath our feet are constantly ‘breathing in’ millions of tons of CO2. Nevertheless, some of the simplified values in widely used reporting frameworks can lead to higher estimates than what we observe empirically. Integrating updated science into international inventories and guidelines such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would help ensure that reported numbers reflect the material and temporal realities of the sector.” By offering the first rigorous, bottom-up estimation of carbon uptake at a national scale, the team’s work provides a more representative picture of cement’s environmental impact. As we work to decarbonize the built environment, understanding what our structures are already doing in the background may be just as important as the innovations we pursue moving forward. The approach developed by MIT researchers could be extended to other countries by combining global building-stock databases with national cement-production statistics. It could also inform the design of structures that safely maximize uptake. The findings were published Dec. 15 in the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Joining AzariJafari and Kirchain on the paper are MIT researchers Elizabeth Moore of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering and the MIT Climate Project and former postdocs Ipek Bensu Manav SM ’21, PhD ’24 and Motahareh Rahimi, along with Bruno Huet and Christophe Levy from the Holcim Innovation Center in France.

Panda Express pays fine for failing to train employees on handling hazardous materials

Panda Express has agreed to pay $1 million for failing to train employees on how to safely handle carbon dioxide in soda machines.

Panda Express has agreed to pay $1 million to settle a lawsuit claiming it failed to train its employees on how to handle its soda machines. The parent company of the Rosemead-based fast-casual Chinese American food chain had to pay a penalty for failing to educate its employees on handling carbon dioxide used for carbonated fountain beverage systems.The company didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Carbon dioxide is typically stored in tanks and is widely used by restaurants. California’s hazardous materials law requires that employees receive training on the storage and handling of carbon dioxide. Leaks that displace oxygen can result in serious harm or even death. Restaurants are required to certify employees and file reports with local regulators confirming such training.The lawsuit was filed after an investigation by Riverside County alleged that Panda Express failed to train its restaurant personnel on safe handling of carbon dioxide, and did not disclose employee training information as required by state law. Panda Express, the originator of the orange chicken, operates more than 500 locations in California, including 30 in Riverside County.“We don’t see a lot of these violations, so I would assume this would be a wake-up call for restaurants in general,” said Richard Shank, senior principal at Technomic, a research and consulting firm for the food services industry. “Typically, beverage stations are leased from a beverage supplier and serviced by third parties, including the CO2, so this may have identified a gap in training that was unknown to Panda.” “Panda’s workplace culture is built on a strong training foundation,” he added, “so I’m inclined to believe that this settlement possibly identifies a need to clarify roles between the beverage supplier and the restaurants.” The Riverside County district attorney’s office said the settlement was reached after Panda Express took steps to comply with California law regarding training and updating reporting and training records.Panda Express has been ordered to pay $881,925 in civil penalties, $100,000 in supplemental environmental projects, and $75,000 in cost reimbursement.

Ohio bills aim to sideline local critics of carbon capture projects

Ohio legislators are considering bills that would bar local governments from having a say in permitting projects that capture carbon dioxide emissions and inject them underground. The legislation could even force some landowners to let their property be used for carbon dioxide storage. The framework proposed in the…

Ohio legislators are considering bills that would bar local governments from having a say in permitting projects that capture carbon dioxide emissions and inject them underground. The legislation could even force some landowners to let their property be used for carbon dioxide storage. The framework proposed in the twin bills being considered by the state House and Senate starkly contrasts with Ohio’s approach to wind and solar farms, most of which can be blocked by counties. Instead, carbon capture and storage projects would follow a process similar to what’s used for oil and gas drilling, in which property owners must allow development on or below their land if enough neighbors support it. At least one large energy company, Tenaska, is already talking to Ohio landowners about obtaining rights to drill wells and store carbon dioxide from industrial and energy operations deep underground. An executive with the firm said the legislation would provide ​“clarity” for its planned carbon storage hub serving Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. “This project will provide manufacturers, industrial facilities, and other businesses in this region with a solution to address growing environmental regulations and climate goals,” said Ali Kairys, senior director of project development for Tenaska. The company is in discussions with various carbon-emitting businesses, including steel refineries, ethanol plants, and power plants. The Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub could also be a potential customer, Kairys said. In Ohio, Tenaska is eyeing Harrison, Jefferson, and Carroll counties as prime places to store CO2 underground. The three counties are among the state’s top oil and gas producers and have a history of coal mining. Tenaska initially hopes to store captured carbon dioxide in the Knox formation, which ranges from 8,500 feet to 12,000 feet below the Earth’s surface, Kairys said. Second-stage storage would use another formation roughly 5,500 to 8,000 feet underground. Other carbon sequestration projects could be on the horizon. The Great Plains Institute has identified roughly three dozen industrial facilities across the state as candidates for carbon capture projects. And even though the Trump administration is relaxing the environmental regulations that may motivate such efforts, 45Q tax credits expanded by the Inflation Reduction Act incentivize companies nationwide to develop storage projects. Ohio’s House Bill 170 and Senate Bill 136 would give the state Department of Natural Resources ​“sole and exclusive authority to regulate carbon sequestration,” a power the agency also has over oil and gas production via existing law. The Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted the oil and gas law’s language to block local government regulation of drilling, even through general zoning rules that apply to other businesses. If passed, the bills would similarly deprive counties and townships of any say over sequestration, said Bev Reed, an organizer for the Buckeye Environmental Network. ​“It’s … another really tragic thing that the Legislature is forcing on us.” The bills would also authorize a ​“consolidation” process that operators can undertake to force landowners to allow carbon dioxide storage in their property’s subsurface ​“pore space” if owners of 70% of the remaining area for an injection project have signed on. The process is similar to that for unitization, which lets oil and gas companies drill through dissenting landowners’ properties. The chief of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ oil and gas management division would be required to grant consolidation if it was ​“reasonably necessary to facilitate the underground storage of carbon dioxide.” A landowner could only object on the grounds that the facility’s design threatens ​“a commercially valuable mineral,” such as oil, gas, or coal. “You don’t get to object and say this is dangerous, this is ill-conceived or for any other reason,” said Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, a professor at Cleveland State University College of Law. ​“Reasonably necessary is a very low standard” for forcing property owners to give up the use of their pore space, she added. Asked to respond to advocacy groups’ complaints that the process is unfair, Tenaska’s Kairys focused instead on landowners’ potential for income.

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.