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

NASA’s Zero-Boil-Off Tank Experiments To Enable Long-Duration Space Exploration

News Feed
Thursday, March 14, 2024

Figure 1. The Gateway space station—humanity’s first space station around the Moon—will be capable of being refueled in space. Credit: NASA, Alberto Bertolin, Bradley ReynoldsNASA’s Zero-Boil-Off Tank experiments address the challenge of managing cryogenic propellants in space, crucial for future Moon and Mars missions, with potential Earth-bound benefits in hydrogen energy applications.Do we have enough fuel to get to our destination? This is probably one of the first questions that comes to mind whenever your family gets ready to embark on a road trip. If the trip is long, you will need to visit gas stations along your route to refuel during your travel.NASA is grappling with similar issues as it gets ready to embark on a sustainable mission back to the Moon and plans future missions to Mars. But while your car’s fuel is gasoline, which can be safely and indefinitely stored as a liquid in the car’s gas tank, spacecraft fuels are volatile cryogenic liquid propellants that must be maintained at extremely low temperatures and guarded from environmental heat leaks into the spacecraft’s propellant tank. And while there is already an established network of commercial gas stations in place to make refueling your car a cinch, there are no cryogenic refueling stations or depots at the Moon or on the way to Mars. Furthermore, storing volatile propellant for a long time and transferring it from an in-space depot tank to a spacecraft’s fuel tank under microgravity conditions will not be easy since the underlying microgravity fluid physics affecting such operations is not well understood. Even with today’s technology, preserving cryogenic fuels in space beyond several days is not possible and tank-to-tank fuel transfer has never been previously performed or tested in space.Propellant Management in Space: Overcoming Boil-OffHeat conducted through support structures or from the radiative space environment can penetrate even the formidable Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI) systems of in-space propellant tanks, leading to boil-off or vaporization of the propellant and causing tank self-pressurization. The current practice is to guard against over-pressurizing the tank and endangering its structural integrity by venting the boil-off vapor into space.Onboard propellants are also used to cool down the hot transfer lines and the walls of an empty spacecraft tank before a fuel transfer and filling operation can take place. Thus, precious fuel is continuously wasted during both storage and transfer operations, rendering long-duration expeditions—especially a human Mars mission—infeasible using current passive propellant tank pressure control methods.Introducing ZBO: A New Horizon in Fuel EfficiencyZero-Boil-Off (ZBO) or Reduced Boil-Off (RBO) technologies provide an innovative and effective means to replace the current passive tank pressure control design. This method relies on a complex combination of active, gravity-dependent mixing and energy removal processes that allow maintenance of safe tank pressure with zero or significantly reduced fuel loss.Zero Boil-off Storage and Transfer: A Transformative Space TechnologyAt the heart of the ZBO pressure control system are two proposed active mixing and cooling mechanisms to counter tank self-pressurization. The first is based on intermittent, forced, subcooled jet mixing of the propellant and involves complex, dynamic, gravity-dependent interaction between the jet and the ullage (vapor volume) to control the condensation and evaporation phase change at the liquid-vapor interface.The second mechanism uses subcooled droplet injection via a spraybar in the ullage to control tank pressure and temperature. While the latter option is promising and gaining prominence, it is more complex and has never been tested in microgravity where the phase change and transport behavior of droplet populations can be very different and nonintuitive compared to those on Earth.Although the dynamic ZBO approach is technologically complex, it promises an impressive advantage over the currently used passive methods. An assessment of one nuclear propulsion concept for Mars transport estimated that the passive boil-off losses for a large liquid hydrogen tank carrying 38 tons of fuel for a three-year mission to Mars would be approximately 16 tons/year. The proposed ZBO system would provide a 42% saving of propellant mass per year.These numbers also imply that with a passive system, all the fuel carried for a three-year Mars mission would be lost to boil-off, rendering such a mission infeasible without resorting to the transformative ZBO technology.The ZBO approach provides a promising method, but before such a complex technological and operational transformation can be fully developed, implemented, and demonstrated in space, important and decisive scientific questions that impact its engineering implementation and microgravity performance must be clarified and resolved.The Zero-Boil-Off Tank (ZBOT) Microgravity Science ExperimentsThe Zero Boil-off Tank (ZBOT) Experiments are being undertaken to form a scientific foundation for the development of the transformative ZBO propellant preservation method. Following the recommendation of a ZBOT science review panel comprised of members from aerospace industries, academia, and NASA, it was decided to perform the proposed investigation as a series of three small-scale science experiments to be conducted onboard the International Space Station. The three experiments outlined below build upon each other to address key science questions related to ZBO cryogenic fluid management of propellants in space.Figure 2. Astronaut Joseph M. Acaba installing ZBOT Hardware in the Microgravity Science Glovebox aboard the International Space Station. Credit: NASAThe ZBOT-1 Experiment: Self-Pressurization & Jet MixingThe first experiment in the series was carried out on the station in the 2017-2018 timeframe. Figure 2 shows the ZBOT-1 hardware in the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) unit of the station. The main focus of this experiment was to investigate the self-pressurization and boiling that occurs in a sealed tank due to local and global heating, and the feasibility of tank pressure control via subcooled axial jet mixing. In this experiment, the complicated interaction of the jet flow with the ullage (vapor volume) in microgravity was carefully studied.Microgravity jet mixing data was also collected across a wide range of scaled flow and heat transfer parameters to characterize the time constants for tank pressure reduction, and the thresholds for geyser (liquid fountain) formation, including its stability, and penetration depth through the ullage volume. Along with very accurate pressure and local temperature sensor measurements, Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) was performed to obtain whole-field flow velocity measurements to validate a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model.Figure 3. Validation of ZBOT CFD Model Predictions for fluid flow and deformation of a spherical ullage in microgravity by a subcooled liquid jet mixing against ZBOT experimental results: (a) Model prediction of ullage position and deformation and flow vortex structures during subcooled jet mixing; (b) PIV image capture of flow vortex structures during jet mixing; (c) Ullage deformation captured by white light imaging; and (d) CFD model depiction of temperature contours during subcooled jet mixing. (ZBOT-1 Experiment, 2018) Credit: Dr. Mohammad Kassemi, Case Western Reserve UniversitySome of the interesting findings of the ZBOT-1experiment are as follows:Provided the first tank self-pressurization rate data in microgravity under controlled conditions that can be used for estimating the tank insulation requirements. Results also showed that classical self-pressurization is quite fragile in microgravity and nucleate boiling can occur at hotspots on the tank wall even at moderate heat fluxes that do not induce boiling on Earth.Proved that ZBO pressure control is feasible and effective in microgravity using subcooled jet mixing, but also demonstrated that microgravity ullage-jet interaction does not follow the expected classical regime patterns (see Figure 3).Enabled observation of unexpected cavitation during subcooled jet mixing, leading to massive phase change at both sides of the screened Liquid Acquisition Device (LAD) (see Figure 4). If this type of phase change occurs in a propellant tank, it can lead to vapor ingestion through the LAD and disruption of liquid flow in the transfer line, potentially leading to engine failure.Developed a state-of-the-art two-phase CFD model validated by over 30 microgravity case studies (an example of which is shown in Figure 3). ZBOT CFD models are currently used as an effective tool for propellant tank scaleup design by several aerospace companies participating in the NASA tipping point opportunity and the NASA Human Landing System (HLS) program.Figure 4. White light image captures of the intact single hemispherical ullage in ZBOT tank before depressurization by the subcooled jet (left) and after subcooled jet mixing pressure collapse that led to massive phase change bubble generation due to cavitation at the LAD (right). (ZBOT-1 Experiment, 2018). Credit: Dr. Mohammad Kassemi, Case Western Reserve UniversityThe ZBOT-NC Experiment: Non-Condensable Gas EffectsNon-condensable gases (NCGs) are used as pressurants to extract liquid for engine operations and tank-to-tank transfer. The second experiment, ZBOT-NC will investigate the effect of NCGs on the sealed tank self-pressurization and on pressure control by axial jet mixing. Two inert gases with quite different molecular sizes, Xenon, and Neon, will be used as the non-condensable pressurants. To achieve pressure control or reduction, vapor molecules must reach the liquid-vapor interface that is being cooled by the mixing jet and then cross the interface to the liquid side to condense.This study will focus on how in microgravity the non-condensable gases can slow down or resist the transport of vapor molecules to the liquid-vapor interface (transport resistance) and will clarify to what extent they may form a barrier at the interface and impede the passage of the vapor molecules across the interface to the liquid side (kinetic resistance). By affecting the interface conditions, the NCGs can also change the flow and thermal structures in the liquid.ZBOT-NC will use both local temperature sensor data and uniquely developed Quantum Dot Thermometry (QDT) diagnostics to collect nonintrusive whole-field temperature measurements to assess the effect of the non-condensable gases during both self-pressurization heating and jet mixing/cooling of the tank under weightlessness conditions. This experiment is scheduled to fly to the International Space Station in early 2025, and more than 300 different microgravity tests are planned. Results from these tests will also enable the ZBOT CFD model to be further developed and validated to include the non-condensable gas effects with physical and numerical fidelity.The ZBOT-DP Experiment: Droplet Phase Change EffectsZBO active pressure control can also be accomplished via injection of subcooled liquid droplets through an axial spray-bar directly into the ullage or vapor volume. This mechanism is very promising, but its performance has not yet been tested in microgravity. Evaporation of droplets consumes heat that is supplied by the hot vapor surrounding the droplets and produces vapor that is at a much lower saturation temperature. As a result, both the temperature and the pressure of the ullage vapor volume are reduced. Droplet injection can also be used to cool down the hot walls of an empty propellant tank before a tank-to-tank transfer or filling operation. Furthermore, droplets can be created during the propellant sloshing caused by acceleration of the spacecraft, and these droplets then undergo phase change and heat transfer. This heat transfer can cause a pressure collapse that may lead to cavitation or a massive liquid-to-vapor phase change. The behavior of droplet populations in microgravity will be drastically different compared to that on Earth.The ZBOT-DP experiment will investigate the disintegration, coalescence (droplets merging together), phase change, and transport and trajectory characteristics of droplet populations and their effects on the tank pressure in microgravity. Particular attention will also be devoted to the interaction of the droplets with a heated tank wall, which can lead to flash evaporation subject to complications caused by the Liedenfrost effect (when liquid droplets propel away from a heated surface and thus cannot cool the tank wall). These complicated phenomena have not been scientifically examined in microgravity and must be resolved to assess the feasibility and performance of droplet injection as a pressure and temperature control mechanism in microgravity.Back to Planet EarthThis NASA-sponsored fundamental research is now helping commercial providers of future landing systems for human explorers. Blue Origin and Lockheed Martin, participants in NASA’s Human Landing Systems program, are using data from the ZBOT experiments to inform future spacecraft designs.Cryogenic fluid management and use of hydrogen as a fuel are not limited to space applications. Clean green energy provided by hydrogen may one day fuel airplanes, ships, and trucks on Earth, yielding enormous climate and economic benefits. By forming the scientific foundation of ZBO cryogenic fluid management for space exploration, the ZBOT science experiments and CFD model development will also help to reap the benefits of hydrogen as a fuel here on Earth.Project LeadDr. Mohammad Kassemi (Dept Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Case Western Reserve University)Sponsoring OrganizationBiological and Physical Sciences (BPS) Division, NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD)

NASA’s Zero-Boil-Off Tank experiments address the challenge of managing cryogenic propellants in space, crucial for future Moon and Mars missions, with potential Earth-bound benefits in...

Gateway Space Station Full Configuration

Figure 1. The Gateway space station—humanity’s first space station around the Moon—will be capable of being refueled in space. Credit: NASA, Alberto Bertolin, Bradley Reynolds

NASA’s Zero-Boil-Off Tank experiments address the challenge of managing cryogenic propellants in space, crucial for future Moon and Mars missions, with potential Earth-bound benefits in hydrogen energy applications.

Do we have enough fuel to get to our destination? This is probably one of the first questions that comes to mind whenever your family gets ready to embark on a road trip. If the trip is long, you will need to visit gas stations along your route to refuel during your travel.

NASA is grappling with similar issues as it gets ready to embark on a sustainable mission back to the Moon and plans future missions to Mars. But while your car’s fuel is gasoline, which can be safely and indefinitely stored as a liquid in the car’s gas tank, spacecraft fuels are volatile cryogenic liquid propellants that must be maintained at extremely low temperatures and guarded from environmental heat leaks into the spacecraft’s propellant tank. And while there is already an established network of commercial gas stations in place to make refueling your car a cinch, there are no cryogenic refueling stations or depots at the Moon or on the way to Mars.

Furthermore, storing volatile propellant for a long time and transferring it from an in-space depot tank to a spacecraft’s fuel tank under microgravity conditions will not be easy since the underlying microgravity fluid physics affecting such operations is not well understood. Even with today’s technology, preserving cryogenic fuels in space beyond several days is not possible and tank-to-tank fuel transfer has never been previously performed or tested in space.

Propellant Management in Space: Overcoming Boil-Off

Heat conducted through support structures or from the radiative space environment can penetrate even the formidable Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI) systems of in-space propellant tanks, leading to boil-off or vaporization of the propellant and causing tank self-pressurization. The current practice is to guard against over-pressurizing the tank and endangering its structural integrity by venting the boil-off vapor into space.

Onboard propellants are also used to cool down the hot transfer lines and the walls of an empty spacecraft tank before a fuel transfer and filling operation can take place. Thus, precious fuel is continuously wasted during both storage and transfer operations, rendering long-duration expeditions—especially a human Mars mission—infeasible using current passive propellant tank pressure control methods.

Introducing ZBO: A New Horizon in Fuel Efficiency

Zero-Boil-Off (ZBO) or Reduced Boil-Off (RBO) technologies provide an innovative and effective means to replace the current passive tank pressure control design. This method relies on a complex combination of active, gravity-dependent mixing and energy removal processes that allow maintenance of safe tank pressure with zero or significantly reduced fuel loss.

Zero Boil-off Storage and Transfer: A Transformative Space Technology

At the heart of the ZBO pressure control system are two proposed active mixing and cooling mechanisms to counter tank self-pressurization. The first is based on intermittent, forced, subcooled jet mixing of the propellant and involves complex, dynamic, gravity-dependent interaction between the jet and the ullage (vapor volume) to control the condensation and evaporation phase change at the liquid-vapor interface.

The second mechanism uses subcooled droplet injection via a spraybar in the ullage to control tank pressure and temperature. While the latter option is promising and gaining prominence, it is more complex and has never been tested in microgravity where the phase change and transport behavior of droplet populations can be very different and nonintuitive compared to those on Earth.

Although the dynamic ZBO approach is technologically complex, it promises an impressive advantage over the currently used passive methods. An assessment of one nuclear propulsion concept for Mars transport estimated that the passive boil-off losses for a large liquid hydrogen tank carrying 38 tons of fuel for a three-year mission to Mars would be approximately 16 tons/year. The proposed ZBO system would provide a 42% saving of propellant mass per year.

These numbers also imply that with a passive system, all the fuel carried for a three-year Mars mission would be lost to boil-off, rendering such a mission infeasible without resorting to the transformative ZBO technology.

The ZBO approach provides a promising method, but before such a complex technological and operational transformation can be fully developed, implemented, and demonstrated in space, important and decisive scientific questions that impact its engineering implementation and microgravity performance must be clarified and resolved.

The Zero-Boil-Off Tank (ZBOT) Microgravity Science Experiments

The Zero Boil-off Tank (ZBOT) Experiments are being undertaken to form a scientific foundation for the development of the transformative ZBO propellant preservation method. Following the recommendation of a ZBOT science review panel comprised of members from aerospace industries, academia, and NASA, it was decided to perform the proposed investigation as a series of three small-scale science experiments to be conducted onboard the International Space Station. The three experiments outlined below build upon each other to address key science questions related to ZBO cryogenic fluid management of propellants in space.

Astronaut Joseph Acaba Installing ZBOT Hardware

Figure 2. Astronaut Joseph M. Acaba installing ZBOT Hardware in the Microgravity Science Glovebox aboard the International Space Station. Credit: NASA

The ZBOT-1 Experiment: Self-Pressurization & Jet Mixing

The first experiment in the series was carried out on the station in the 2017-2018 timeframe. Figure 2 shows the ZBOT-1 hardware in the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) unit of the station. The main focus of this experiment was to investigate the self-pressurization and boiling that occurs in a sealed tank due to local and global heating, and the feasibility of tank pressure control via subcooled axial jet mixing. In this experiment, the complicated interaction of the jet flow with the ullage (vapor volume) in microgravity was carefully studied.

Microgravity jet mixing data was also collected across a wide range of scaled flow and heat transfer parameters to characterize the time constants for tank pressure reduction, and the thresholds for geyser (liquid fountain) formation, including its stability, and penetration depth through the ullage volume. Along with very accurate pressure and local temperature sensor measurements, Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) was performed to obtain whole-field flow velocity measurements to validate a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model.

Validation of ZBOT CFD Model Predictions

Figure 3. Validation of ZBOT CFD Model Predictions for fluid flow and deformation of a spherical ullage in microgravity by a subcooled liquid jet mixing against ZBOT experimental results: (a) Model prediction of ullage position and deformation and flow vortex structures during subcooled jet mixing; (b) PIV image capture of flow vortex structures during jet mixing; (c) Ullage deformation captured by white light imaging; and (d) CFD model depiction of temperature contours during subcooled jet mixing. (ZBOT-1 Experiment, 2018) Credit: Dr. Mohammad Kassemi, Case Western Reserve University

Some of the interesting findings of the ZBOT-1experiment are as follows:

  1. Provided the first tank self-pressurization rate data in microgravity under controlled conditions that can be used for estimating the tank insulation requirements. Results also showed that classical self-pressurization is quite fragile in microgravity and nucleate boiling can occur at hotspots on the tank wall even at moderate heat fluxes that do not induce boiling on Earth.
  2. Proved that ZBO pressure control is feasible and effective in microgravity using subcooled jet mixing, but also demonstrated that microgravity ullage-jet interaction does not follow the expected classical regime patterns (see Figure 3).
  3. Enabled observation of unexpected cavitation during subcooled jet mixing, leading to massive phase change at both sides of the screened Liquid Acquisition Device (LAD) (see Figure 4). If this type of phase change occurs in a propellant tank, it can lead to vapor ingestion through the LAD and disruption of liquid flow in the transfer line, potentially leading to engine failure.
  4. Developed a state-of-the-art two-phase CFD model validated by over 30 microgravity case studies (an example of which is shown in Figure 3). ZBOT CFD models are currently used as an effective tool for propellant tank scaleup design by several aerospace companies participating in the NASA tipping point opportunity and the NASA Human Landing System (HLS) program.
Intact Single Hemispherical Ullage in ZBOT Tank

Figure 4. White light image captures of the intact single hemispherical ullage in ZBOT tank before depressurization by the subcooled jet (left) and after subcooled jet mixing pressure collapse that led to massive phase change bubble generation due to cavitation at the LAD (right). (ZBOT-1 Experiment, 2018). Credit: Dr. Mohammad Kassemi, Case Western Reserve University

The ZBOT-NC Experiment: Non-Condensable Gas Effects

Non-condensable gases (NCGs) are used as pressurants to extract liquid for engine operations and tank-to-tank transfer. The second experiment, ZBOT-NC will investigate the effect of NCGs on the sealed tank self-pressurization and on pressure control by axial jet mixing. Two inert gases with quite different molecular sizes, Xenon, and Neon, will be used as the non-condensable pressurants. To achieve pressure control or reduction, vapor molecules must reach the liquid-vapor interface that is being cooled by the mixing jet and then cross the interface to the liquid side to condense.

This study will focus on how in microgravity the non-condensable gases can slow down or resist the transport of vapor molecules to the liquid-vapor interface (transport resistance) and will clarify to what extent they may form a barrier at the interface and impede the passage of the vapor molecules across the interface to the liquid side (kinetic resistance). By affecting the interface conditions, the NCGs can also change the flow and thermal structures in the liquid.

ZBOT-NC will use both local temperature sensor data and uniquely developed Quantum Dot Thermometry (QDT) diagnostics to collect nonintrusive whole-field temperature measurements to assess the effect of the non-condensable gases during both self-pressurization heating and jet mixing/cooling of the tank under weightlessness conditions. This experiment is scheduled to fly to the International Space Station in early 2025, and more than 300 different microgravity tests are planned. Results from these tests will also enable the ZBOT CFD model to be further developed and validated to include the non-condensable gas effects with physical and numerical fidelity.

The ZBOT-DP Experiment: Droplet Phase Change Effects

ZBO active pressure control can also be accomplished via injection of subcooled liquid droplets through an axial spray-bar directly into the ullage or vapor volume. This mechanism is very promising, but its performance has not yet been tested in microgravity. Evaporation of droplets consumes heat that is supplied by the hot vapor surrounding the droplets and produces vapor that is at a much lower saturation temperature. As a result, both the temperature and the pressure of the ullage vapor volume are reduced. Droplet injection can also be used to cool down the hot walls of an empty propellant tank before a tank-to-tank transfer or filling operation. Furthermore, droplets can be created during the propellant sloshing caused by acceleration of the spacecraft, and these droplets then undergo phase change and heat transfer. This heat transfer can cause a pressure collapse that may lead to cavitation or a massive liquid-to-vapor phase change. The behavior of droplet populations in microgravity will be drastically different compared to that on Earth.

The ZBOT-DP experiment will investigate the disintegration, coalescence (droplets merging together), phase change, and transport and trajectory characteristics of droplet populations and their effects on the tank pressure in microgravity. Particular attention will also be devoted to the interaction of the droplets with a heated tank wall, which can lead to flash evaporation subject to complications caused by the Liedenfrost effect (when liquid droplets propel away from a heated surface and thus cannot cool the tank wall). These complicated phenomena have not been scientifically examined in microgravity and must be resolved to assess the feasibility and performance of droplet injection as a pressure and temperature control mechanism in microgravity.

Back to Planet Earth

This NASA-sponsored fundamental research is now helping commercial providers of future landing systems for human explorers. Blue Origin and Lockheed Martin, participants in NASA’s Human Landing Systems program, are using data from the ZBOT experiments to inform future spacecraft designs.

Cryogenic fluid management and use of hydrogen as a fuel are not limited to space applications. Clean green energy provided by hydrogen may one day fuel airplanes, ships, and trucks on Earth, yielding enormous climate and economic benefits. By forming the scientific foundation of ZBO cryogenic fluid management for space exploration, the ZBOT science experiments and CFD model development will also help to reap the benefits of hydrogen as a fuel here on Earth.

Project Lead

Dr. Mohammad Kassemi (Dept Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Case Western Reserve University)

Sponsoring Organization

Biological and Physical Sciences (BPS) Division, NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD)

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Controversial UK oil field publishes full scale of climate impact

The impact from the Rosebank oil field is estimated at nearly 250 million tonnes of planet warming CO2.

The UK's largest undeveloped oil field has revealed the full scale of its environmental impact, should it gain approval by the government.Developers of the Rosebank oil field said nearly 250 million tonnes of planet warming gas would be released from using oil products from the field.The amount would vary each year, but by comparison the UK's annual emissions in 2024 were 371 million tonnes.The field's developer said its emissions were "not significant" considering the UK's international climate commitments.Rosebank is an oil and gas field which lies about 80 miles north-west of Shetland and is one of the largest undeveloped discoveries of fossil fuels in UK waters.It is said to contain up to 300 million barrels of oil and some gas, and is owned by Norwegian energy giant Equinor and British firm Ithaca Energy.The field was originally approved in 2023, but in July a court ruled that a more detailed assessment of the field's environmental impact was required, taking into account the effect on the climate of burning any fossil fuels extracted from it.A public consultation has now been opened, and will run until 20th November 2025.The final decision on whether to approve the field will be made by the Energy Secretary.Until recently such projects were only required to consider the impact on the environment from extracting the fossil fuels.But in June last year the Supreme Court ruled that authorities must take account of the impact from also using the products, after a woman in Surrey challenged the development of her local gas project.This ruling was then used in a further challenge to the Rosebank oil field by environmental campaigners Uplift and Greenpeace - which was subsequently successful in January. Equinor was required to recalculate the "full impact" of the field and it now estimates that it will contribute an additional 249 million tonnes of the planet warming gas CO2 over the next 25 years. This is more than 50 times greater than the original figure of 4.5 million tonnes it gave from extracting the oil and gas.The UK has a target to produce no additional emissions by 2050 and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has been vocal about the need to move away from fossil fuels. On Tuesday, he told an industry conference that the UK's dependence on fossil fuels was its "Achilles' heel" and argued clean power was the only way to reduce bills.The fossil fuels for the Rosebank field are not guaranteed to be used in the UK but would be sold on the international market.As such the project is unlikely to have an impact on lowering gas prices. The UK's independent climate advisors said in 2022 that any more domestic oil and gas extraction would have "at most, a marginal effect on prices".But Arne Gurtner, Equinor's senior vice president for the UK, has previously said that: "If the UK needs Rosebank oil, it will go to the UK through open market mechanisms."

Climate
Energy
Water

The Blue-State Governors Who’ve Gone Weak on Climate Policy

If you scroll California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press releases, a portrait emerges of a undaunted climate fighter. One day he’s “paving [the] way for climate pollution-cutting technology”; another he’s launching “new international climate partnerships as Trump unleashes unhinged UN rant.” Last month, he announced the signing of a suite of measures “saving billions on electric bills, stabilizing [the] gas market and cutting pollution.” But look under the hood, and his heroic self-image dims somewhat. That big legislative package, for instance, also increases oil drilling and sets up a regional electricity market that “could tether California to fossil-fuel states at a time when the Trump administration is moving to roll back clean energy,” CalMatters reported.With Trump in death-drive mode on climate, canceling renewable energy projects left and right and even forbidding federal agencies to use language such as “climate change,” “green,”or “sustainable,” blue-state governors are well positioned to distinguish themselves and their party on the issue. They also have a responsibility: The states are our best hope for policy at a scale to match the problem. Yet a worrying trend is taking shape: Blue-state governors are making a big show of battling the Trump administration, but on climate issues they’ve been disappointing—and sometimes downright infuriating. Last month’s climate package wasn’t the California Democrats’ first flub this year. Over the summer, in what Politico dubbed the state’s “Great Climate Retreat,” they weakened limits on the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, rolled back environmental reviews for new housing, and lifted a cap on oil industry profits. “California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,” Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, told Politico. “It’s questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.” In Maryland, a climate advisory panel appointed by Governor Wes Moore has hit the brakes on a carbon trading measure, and late last month the state Department of the Environment, or MDE, appeared to cave to the Trump administration in abandoning some environmental justice metrics, which many fear means abandoning Black and brown communities to the whims of polluters. “It just appears to me that MDE blatantly does not want to be accountable in the massive pollution and the overburden of these heavy industrial industries,” Kamita Gray, a community leader in Brandywine—a majority-Black town that’s home to gas-fired power plants, a coal ash dump, and a Superfund site—told Maryland Matters.Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania too is under fire from climate critics. As attorney general, he authored a solid road map for protecting Pennsylvanians from the harmful environmental and health effects of fracking, but in his two years as governor he has allowed companies to be secretive about the chemicals used in fracking, and has not pushed to pass any laws curbing the industry. The Environmental Health Project, a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit, said “residents are still waiting for meaningful action. Our assessment concludes that the Shapiro administration has not fulfilled the commitments the governor made to Pennsylvanians in general and to frontline communities in particular.”And then there’s New York. Governor Kathy Hochul has been failing to follow the decarbonization timeline that was outlined in the state’s 2019 climate law, prompting environmental justice groups to sue her. She has delayed plans for “cap and invest” and is dragging her feet on building public renewables (despite the state’s landmark Build Public Renewables Act, which passed in 2023). She has seemingly caved to Trump by going ahead with gas pipelines she previously rejected. And it’s unclear whether she will sign a repeal of the outdated “100 foot rule,” which requires utility ratepayers to subsize the cost of connecting new customers to the gas system, a reform that has long been a priority of the state’s climate movement.Part of what’s so self-destructive here is that energy affordability is a highly salient issue for voters, taking center stage, for example in the governor’s race in New Jersey, where electricity rates have risen 22 percent. Interviewed in Friday’s New York Times on this subject, David Springe of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates described electricity as “the new eggs,” an indicator of how costly daily life is for most Americans. Republicans in New York have seized on the problem as an opportunity to blame Democrats and climate-friendly policies. Stephan Edel of New York Renews, a progressive coalition fighting for clean energy, told me the governor “has spoken really eloquently about the need to do something about affordability.” Indeed, she endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist, for New York City mayor, partly for this reason. She often uses “affordability” to justify rightward shifts or retreats from climate policy, he said, adding that, inexplicably, she also shies away from touting the affordability benefits of climate policies that she does support. For example, in the state budget last year, she agreed to invest over a billion dollars in funding for climate programs, including one that will help make homes for low-income New Yorkers more energy efficient and another that will save school districts money by shifting to electric school buses. Instead of touting those wins for affordability—or embracing the potential of publicly owned renewables to do the same—she’s embraced the Republican narrative that climate policy and affordability are at odds.By contrast, Mikie Sherill in New Jersey has been touting clean energy as a solution to energy affordability woes. If she gets elected and continues this path, more blue state governors should follow her lead. The Democratic base is desperate to see its leaders stand up to Trump on both climate and affordability. (And when Democratic governors do stand up to Trump on anything—Illinois’s JB Pritzker on the militarization of Chicago, Maine’s Janet Mills on health care—their poll numbers spike.)And the reverse is also true—failing to differentiate themselves from Trump has been political suicide for many Democrats. “Every time one of these elected officials says, ‘I’m going to stand up to Trump, I’m going to protect affordability, I’m going to address climate change,’ and then doesn’t do it,” that’s a win for the Republicans, Edel said, because it fuels low turnout for Democratic voters. Climate offers an obvious opportunity to isolate the Republicans on a matter of broad concern, renew Americans’ faith in government, and make real progress. The Democratic governors flailing so badly on this issue have not only a moral obligation to change course, but also a political one.

If you scroll California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press releases, a portrait emerges of a undaunted climate fighter. One day he’s “paving [the] way for climate pollution-cutting technology”; another he’s launching “new international climate partnerships as Trump unleashes unhinged UN rant.” Last month, he announced the signing of a suite of measures “saving billions on electric bills, stabilizing [the] gas market and cutting pollution.” But look under the hood, and his heroic self-image dims somewhat. That big legislative package, for instance, also increases oil drilling and sets up a regional electricity market that “could tether California to fossil-fuel states at a time when the Trump administration is moving to roll back clean energy,” CalMatters reported.With Trump in death-drive mode on climate, canceling renewable energy projects left and right and even forbidding federal agencies to use language such as “climate change,” “green,”or “sustainable,” blue-state governors are well positioned to distinguish themselves and their party on the issue. They also have a responsibility: The states are our best hope for policy at a scale to match the problem. Yet a worrying trend is taking shape: Blue-state governors are making a big show of battling the Trump administration, but on climate issues they’ve been disappointing—and sometimes downright infuriating. Last month’s climate package wasn’t the California Democrats’ first flub this year. Over the summer, in what Politico dubbed the state’s “Great Climate Retreat,” they weakened limits on the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, rolled back environmental reviews for new housing, and lifted a cap on oil industry profits. “California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,” Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, told Politico. “It’s questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.” In Maryland, a climate advisory panel appointed by Governor Wes Moore has hit the brakes on a carbon trading measure, and late last month the state Department of the Environment, or MDE, appeared to cave to the Trump administration in abandoning some environmental justice metrics, which many fear means abandoning Black and brown communities to the whims of polluters. “It just appears to me that MDE blatantly does not want to be accountable in the massive pollution and the overburden of these heavy industrial industries,” Kamita Gray, a community leader in Brandywine—a majority-Black town that’s home to gas-fired power plants, a coal ash dump, and a Superfund site—told Maryland Matters.Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania too is under fire from climate critics. As attorney general, he authored a solid road map for protecting Pennsylvanians from the harmful environmental and health effects of fracking, but in his two years as governor he has allowed companies to be secretive about the chemicals used in fracking, and has not pushed to pass any laws curbing the industry. The Environmental Health Project, a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit, said “residents are still waiting for meaningful action. Our assessment concludes that the Shapiro administration has not fulfilled the commitments the governor made to Pennsylvanians in general and to frontline communities in particular.”And then there’s New York. Governor Kathy Hochul has been failing to follow the decarbonization timeline that was outlined in the state’s 2019 climate law, prompting environmental justice groups to sue her. She has delayed plans for “cap and invest” and is dragging her feet on building public renewables (despite the state’s landmark Build Public Renewables Act, which passed in 2023). She has seemingly caved to Trump by going ahead with gas pipelines she previously rejected. And it’s unclear whether she will sign a repeal of the outdated “100 foot rule,” which requires utility ratepayers to subsize the cost of connecting new customers to the gas system, a reform that has long been a priority of the state’s climate movement.Part of what’s so self-destructive here is that energy affordability is a highly salient issue for voters, taking center stage, for example in the governor’s race in New Jersey, where electricity rates have risen 22 percent. Interviewed in Friday’s New York Times on this subject, David Springe of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates described electricity as “the new eggs,” an indicator of how costly daily life is for most Americans. Republicans in New York have seized on the problem as an opportunity to blame Democrats and climate-friendly policies. Stephan Edel of New York Renews, a progressive coalition fighting for clean energy, told me the governor “has spoken really eloquently about the need to do something about affordability.” Indeed, she endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist, for New York City mayor, partly for this reason. She often uses “affordability” to justify rightward shifts or retreats from climate policy, he said, adding that, inexplicably, she also shies away from touting the affordability benefits of climate policies that she does support. For example, in the state budget last year, she agreed to invest over a billion dollars in funding for climate programs, including one that will help make homes for low-income New Yorkers more energy efficient and another that will save school districts money by shifting to electric school buses. Instead of touting those wins for affordability—or embracing the potential of publicly owned renewables to do the same—she’s embraced the Republican narrative that climate policy and affordability are at odds.By contrast, Mikie Sherill in New Jersey has been touting clean energy as a solution to energy affordability woes. If she gets elected and continues this path, more blue state governors should follow her lead. The Democratic base is desperate to see its leaders stand up to Trump on both climate and affordability. (And when Democratic governors do stand up to Trump on anything—Illinois’s JB Pritzker on the militarization of Chicago, Maine’s Janet Mills on health care—their poll numbers spike.)And the reverse is also true—failing to differentiate themselves from Trump has been political suicide for many Democrats. “Every time one of these elected officials says, ‘I’m going to stand up to Trump, I’m going to protect affordability, I’m going to address climate change,’ and then doesn’t do it,” that’s a win for the Republicans, Edel said, because it fuels low turnout for Democratic voters. Climate offers an obvious opportunity to isolate the Republicans on a matter of broad concern, renew Americans’ faith in government, and make real progress. The Democratic governors flailing so badly on this issue have not only a moral obligation to change course, but also a political one.

Climate
Chemicals
Government

Nations Meet to Consider Regulations to Drive a Green Transition in Shipping

Maritime nations are meeting in London to discuss regulations that could shift the shipping industry away from fossil fuels

The world’s largest maritime nations are gathering in London on Tuesday to consider adopting regulations that would move the shipping industry away from fossil fuels to slash emissions.If the deal is adopted, this will be the first time a global fee is imposed on planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Most ships today run on heavy fuel oil that releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants as it’s burned. That would be a major win for the climate, public health, the ocean and marine life, said Delaine McCullough at the Ocean Conservancy. For too long, ships have run on crude, dirty oil, she said.“This agreement provides a lesson for the world that legally-binding climate action is possible," McCullough, shipping program director for the nonprofit environmental advocacy group, said. Shipping emissions have grown over the last decade to about 3% of the global total as trade has grown and vessels use immense amounts of fossil fuels to transport cargo over long distances. The regulations would set a pricing system for gas emissions The regulations, or “Net-zero Framework,” sets a marine fuel standard that decreases, over time, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed from using shipping fuels. The regulations also establish a pricing system that would impose fees for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above allowable limits, in what is effectively the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.There's a base-level of compliance for the allowable greenhouse gas intensity of fuels. There's a more stringent direct compliance target that requires further reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity.If ships sail on fuels with lower emissions than what's required under the direct compliance target, they earn “surplus units," effectively credits. Ships with the highest emissions would have to buy those credits from other ships under the pricing system, or from the IMO at $380 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach the base level of compliance. In addition, there's a penalty of $100 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach direct compliance. Ships that meet the base target but not the direct compliance one must pay the $100 per ton penalty, too. Ships whose greenhouse gas intensity is below a certain threshold will receive rewards for their performance.The fees could generate $11 billion to $13 billion in revenue annually. That would go into an IMO fund to invest in fuels and technologies needed to transition to green shipping, reward low-emission ships and support developing countries so they aren’t left behind with dirty fuels and old ships. Looking for alternative fuels Ships could lower their emissions by using alternative fuels, running on electricity or using onboard carbon capture technologies. Wind propulsion and other energy efficiency advancements can also help reduce fuel consumption and emissions as part of an energy transition. Large ships last about 25 years, so the industry would need to make changes and investments now to reach net-zero around 2050.If adopted, the regulations will enter into force in 2027. Large oceangoing ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total carbon emissions from international shipping, would have to pay penalties for their emissions starting in 2028, according to the IMO. The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, is advocating for adoption. Concerns over biofuels produced from food crops Heavy fuel oil, liquefied natural gas and biodiesel will be dominant for most of the 2030s and 2040s, unless the IMO further incentivizes green alternatives, according to modeling from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental nongovernmental organization. The way the rules are designed essentially make biofuels the cheapest fuel to use to comply, but biofuels require huge amounts of crops, pushing out less profitable food production, often leading to additional land clearance and deforestation, said Faig Abbasov, shipping director at T&E. They are urging the IMO to promote scalable green alternatives, not recklessly promote biofuels produced from food crops, Abbasov said. As it stands now, the deal before the IMO won't deliver net-zero emissions by 2050, he added.Green ammonia will get to a price that it’s appealing to ship owners in the late 2040s — quite late in the transition, according to the modeling. The NGO also sees green methanol playing an important role in the long-term transition. The vote at the London meeting The IMO aims for consensus in decision-making but it's likely nations will vote on adopting the regulations. At the April meeting, a vote was called to approve the contents of the regulations. The United States was notably absent in April, but plans to participate in this meeting. Teresa Bui at Pacific Environment said she's optimistic “global momentum is on our side” and a majority of countries will support adoption. Bui is senior climate campaign director for the environmental nonprofit, which has consultative, or non-voting, status at the IMO. If it fails, shipping’s decarbonization will be further delayed.“It's difficult to know for sure what the precise consequences will be, but failure this week will certainly lead to delay, which means ships will emit more greenhouse gases than they would have done and for longer, continuing their outsized contribution to the climate crisis,” said John Maggs, of the Clean Shipping Coalition, who is at the London meeting. The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Climate
CO2
Crisis

For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project

The results challenge claims that the climate risks posed by an individual fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified.

Massimo Valicchia/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesGlobal warming from Woodside’s massive Scarborough gas project off Western Australia would lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone this century, and kill about 16 million additional corals on the Great Barrier Reef during each future mass bleaching event, our new research has revealed. The findings were made possible by a robust, well-established formula that can determine the extent to which an individual fossil fuel project will warm the planet. The results can be used to calculate the subsequent harms to society and nature. The results close a fundamental gap between science and decision-making about fossil fuel projects. They also challenge claims by proponents that climate risks posed by a fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified. Each new investment in coal and gas, such as the Scarborough project, can now be linked to harmful effects both today and in the future. It means decision-makers can properly assess the range of risks a project poses to humanity and the planet, before deciding if it should proceed. Each new investment in coal and gas extraction can now be linked to harmful effects. Shutterstock Every tonne of CO₂ matters Scientists know every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions makes global warming worse. But proponents of new fossil fuel projects in Australia routinely say their future greenhouse gas emissions are negligible compared to the scale of global emissions, or say the effects of these emissions on global warming can’t be measured. The Scarborough project is approved for development and is expected to produce gas from next year. Located off WA, it includes wells connected by a 430km pipeline to an onshore processing facility. The gas will be liquefied and burned for energy, both in Australia and overseas. Production is expected to last more than 30 years. When natural gas is burned, more than 99% of it converts to CO₂. Woodside – in its own evaluation of the Scarborough gas project – claimed: it is not possible to link GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from Scarborough with climate change or any particular climate-related impacts given the estimated […] emissions associated with Scarborough are negligible in the context of existing and future predicted global GHG concentrations. But what if there was a way to measure the harms? That’s the question our research set out to answer. A method already exists to directly link global emissions to the climate warming they cause. It uses scientific understanding of Earth’s systems, direct observations and climate model simulations. According to the IPCC, every 1,000 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions causes about 0.45°C of additional global warming. This arithmetic forms the basis for calculating how much more CO₂ humanity can emit to keep warming within the Paris Agreement goals. But decisions about future emissions are not made at the global scale. Instead, Earth’s climate trajectory will be determined by the aggregation of decisions on many individual projects. That’s why our research extended the IPCC method to the level of individual projects – an approach that we illustrate using the Scarborough gas project. Scarborough’s harms laid bare Over its lifetime, the Scarborough project is expected to emit 876 million tonnes of CO₂. We estimate these emissions will cause 0.00039°C of additional global warming. Estimates such as these are typically expressed as a range, alongside a measure of confidence in the projection. In this case, there is a 66–100% likelihood that the Scarborough project will cause additional global warming of between 0.00024°C and 0.00055°C. This additional warming might seem small – but it will cause tangible damage. The human cost of global warming can be quantified by considering how many people will be left outside the “human climate niche” – in other words, the climate conditions in which societies have historically thrived. We calculated that the additional warming from the Scarborough project will expose 516,000 people globally to a local climate that’s beyond the hot extreme of the human climate niche. We drilled down into specific impacts in Europe, where suitable health data was available across 854 cities. Our best estimate is that this project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. The project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. Antonio Masiello/Getty Images And what about harm to nature? Using research into how accumulated exposure to heat affects coral reefs, we found about 16 million corals on the Great Barrier Reef would be lost in each new mass bleaching. The existential threat to the Great Barrier Reef from human-caused global warming is already being realised. Additional warming instigated by new fossil fuel projects will ratchet up pressure on this natural wonder. As climate change worsens, countries are seeking to slash emissions to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, we looked at the impact of Scarborough’s emissions on Australia’s climate targets. We calculated that by 2049, the anticipated emissions from the Scarborough project alone – from production, processing and domestic use – will comprise 49% of Australia’s entire annual CO₂ emissions budget under our commitment to net-zero by 2050. Beyond the 2050 deadline, all emissions from the Scarborough project would require technologies to permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Achieving that would require a massive scale-up of current technologies. It would be more prudent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions where possible. ‘Negligible’ impacts? Hardly Our findings mean the best-available scientific evidence can now be used by companies, governments and regulators when deciding if a fossil fuel project will proceed. Crucially, it is no longer defensible for companies proposing new or extended fossil fuel projects to claim the climate harms will be negligible. Our research shows the harms are, in fact, tangible and quantifiable – and no project is too small to matter. In response to issues raised in this article, a spokesperson for Woodside said: Woodside is committed to playing a role in the energy transition. The Scarborough reservoir contains less than 0.1% carbon dioxide. Combined with processing design efficiencies at the offshore floating production unit and onshore Pluto Train 2, the project is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets. We will reduce the Scarborough Energy Project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations. Further information on how this is being achieved is included in the Scarborough Offshore Project Proposal, sections 4.5.4.1 and 7.1.3 and in approved Australian Government environment plans, available on the regulator’s website. A report prepared by consultancy ACIL Allen has found that Woodside’s Scarborough Energy Project is expected to generate an estimated A$52.8 billion in taxation and royalty payments, boost GDP by billions of dollars between 2024 and 2056 and employ 3,200 people during peak construction in Western Australia. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research CouncilAndrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship and Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather) and the National Environmental Science Program. Nicola Maher receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Climate
CO2
Government

Emissions linked to Woodside’s Scarborough gas project could lead to at least 480 deaths, research suggests

Scientists have examined the $16.5bn project’s climate impact and found it could expose more than half a million people to unprecedented heatSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGreenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades. Continue reading...

Greenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades.Emissions from the project would contribute 0.00039C to global heating, they estimate. Using recently developed techniques known as climate attribution, they suggest that fraction of warming would expose an additional 516,000 people globally to unprecedented heat, and result in the loss of an extra 16m coral colonies in the Great Barrier Reef in every future bleaching event.It would also push 356,000 people outside the “human climate niche” – the reasonable zone for human survival, with an upper limit for average annual temperature of 29C.The study, published in the journal Climate Action, forms part of a new focus in climate science that aims to quantify the impacts of individual fossil fuel projects and emitters.A Woodside spokesperson said the company would reduce the Scarborough project’s “direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations”.“Climate change is caused by the net global concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” they added. “It cannot be attributed to any one event, country, industry or activity.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterBut study co-author Andrew King, an associate professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said the research illustrated that individual projects had tangible climate impacts.“Often the argument made for individual projects that would involve greenhouse gas emissions is that they are quite small [in the global context],” he said. “But really, especially with larger fossil fuel projects, we can very clearly say that the impacts are not negligible.”Study co-author Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a professor of climate science at the Australian National University, said that given Australia’s emission reductions requirements, in the coming decades Scarborough would also constitute a greater proportion of the country’s CO2 emissions budget.“By 2049, assuming that the Scarborough project emits the same amount year on year, it’s going to be chewing up half of our emissions budget,” Perkins-Kirkpatrick said. “That’s the stuff that we burn here, let alone what we export overseas.”Beyond 2050, emissions from Scarborough would require CO2 removal from the atmosphere – “technologies that either don’t exist yet, or that we can’t scale up”, she said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionUnder a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths.The researchers calculated the project’s climate impacts with a tool used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called the Transient Climate Response to CO2 Emissions (TCRE). The TCRE estimates that every 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions causes 0.45C of additional global heating.Scarborough’s contribution to global heating had a likely range between 0.00024C and 0.00055C, the study’s authors estimated, but they noted “direct measurement of global mean temperature changes is not possible with this level of precision”.The approach could be used by governments and companies to assess whether future “projects fall within acceptable levels of environmental and societal risk”, the researchers suggest. The tool “could be part of the process for determining whether a project should be approved”, King said.Yuming Guo, a professor of global environmental health and biostatistics at Monash University, who was not involved in the study, said the study provided “a valuable tool for conducting environmental risk assessments”.“Considering the vast number of fossil fuel projects operating globally, the cumulative contribution of these emissions to climate change is substantial and should not be overlooked,” he said.Dr Kat O’Mara, a senior lecturer in environmental management and sustainability at Edith Cowan University, who was not part of the study, said: “With the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion a few months ago that countries need to take action to protect the climate, this new research reinforces the need to consider climate impacts beyond just how much carbon is being produced.”

Climate
CO2
Energy

Suggested Viewing

Caught in Quicksand

The Dead Sea is disappearing. The documentary, Caught in Quicksand, was made to raise public awareness about the receding of the Dead Sea.

Water
Climate
Documentary

CO2? CO-Nee!

Joep van Dijk is a passionate climate scientist. He likes to search for extreme examples that show how life can be lived sustainably. This documentary follows Joep on his CO2-neutral journey from Amsterdam to the United States of America and shows how this choice inspires himself and others to live a climate conscious life.

Climate
CO2
Sustainable

Silent Skies - The First Electric Plane Flyover

Silent Skies follows the groundbreaking journey of three Pennsylvania college students who orchestrated and piloted the first ever fully electric airplane stadium flyover. Stunning fans with a whisper-quiet show, this event signaled the dawn of America's transition to electric aviation. The students completed a record breaking trip flying the airplane from its base in Hartford, CT to the stadium in Easton, PA, recharging at enroute airports directly from a fleet of electric F-150 trucks. The air travel industry faces an unprecedented challenge: decarbonization. Historically, new aviation technologies are met with consumer skepticism. Demonstrating electric aircraft today, ahead of widespread adoption, is key for building consumer trust, political support, and sustained investment. The flyover was witnessed by 10,000+ attendees, thousands more on ESPN+ and created a precedent for the FAA to approve manned electric aircraft demonstrations over populated areas. Textron eAviation and Ford amplified the event through their social media channels and the film premiered at San Francisco Climate Week.

Technology
Transportation
Climate

Capturing The Fire

When Louise Coghill saw the first plume of smoke begin to rise behind her parents property, she could never have predicted that in less than four hours, it would become a wall of flames, swallowing everything in its path. A photographer by trade, Louise has travelled the world documenting everything from the nomadic wanderers of Mongolia, to base life at Mount Everest. Capturing the extraordinary comes naturally to Louise, so when her family home in the semi-rural Western Australian town of Gidgegannup became engulfed in flames, her first instinct wasn’t to take shelter, it was to pick up her camera.

Conservation
Climate
Nature

Resilience

In 1998, a vast power grid serving 5 million people in Canada was destroyed by an ice storm. Twenty years later researchers of that disaster are developing a new kind of resilient power grid. Based in part on the book The Grid and the Village, the film explores how to protect grids and the people they serve from war, terrorist attack, and extreme weather.

Energy
Climate
Crisis

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.