Latest news with #carboncapture
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Carbon Removal Industry Is Already Lagging Behind Where It Needs to Be
It may be time to suck it up — and we don't just mean the carbon in the atmosphere. No, we're talking about reckoning with the possibility that our attempts at capturing the greenhouse gas to stave off climate disaster are already hopelessly behind schedule, New Scientist reports, if they're not in vain entirely. To illustrate, here're some simple numbers. The CO2 removal industry expects to hit a milestone of removing one million metric tons of CO2 this year. And companies across the globe have bought carbon credits to remove 27 million more, according to data from cited in the reporting (more on these carbon credit schemes in a moment). That sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. As New Scientist notes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the leading authority on these issues — concluded in a 2022 report that we need to be removing up to 16 billion tons of carbon, not millions, each year to keep the rise in global temperature from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by the middle of the century, past which the most drastic effects of climate change are believed to be irreversible. "It's not scaling up as fast as it would need to if we are going to reach multiple gigatons by 2050," Robert Höglund at Marginal Carbon, a climate consultancy based in Sweden, told the magazine. Carbon capture is not the be-all and end-all. The fact remains that humanity needs to drastically reduce its emissions, which probably means reorganizing society — or at least its energy production and consumption — as we know it. Simply removing the CO2 that's already there is more like a band-aid that buys us a little time; eventually, we'll need to rip it off. For these reasons, some critics fear that carbon capture — and even more drastic interventions, like attempting to dim the Sun — could distract from the climate change's systemic causes. But there's a lot of enthusiasm for the approach all the same, both from scientists and investors. The IPCC acknowledged in its 2022 report that carbon removal was "unavoidable" — as in, essential to meeting climate targets. One popular method of carbon removal is called direct air capture, which involves sucking the carbon straight from the air using massive industrial facilities. A more circuitous approach that's gaining steam involves extracting CO2 out of the ocean, freeing up room for the world's largest carbon sink to passively absorb even more of the greenhouse gas. All of these initiatives, though, are basically just getting off the ground. And the corporate investment, which once promised billions of dollars in cash, seems to be cooling. More than 90 percent of all carbon removal credits sold this year were bought by a single company, Microsoft, New Scientist notes, probably to gloss over its egregious energy bill it's accrued from building loads of AI datacenters. This also touches on the fact that the practice of buying carbon credits can be used as a means of corporate greenwashing. By paying to another firm to "certify" that they will remove a certain amount of carbon at some undetermined point in the future, a company can report a greener carbon balance sheet without actually reducing its emissions. In any case, staking the industry's hopes on corporate munificence is a dicey prospect indeed. "I have been raising the alarm for about a year and a half," Eli Mitchell-Larson at Carbon Gap, a UK carbon dioxide removal advocacy organisation, told New Scientist. "If we're just waiting for the waves of free philanthropic money from corporations to fill a hole on their sustainability report, we're not really going to solve the problem." More on climate change: Scientists Just Found Who's Causing Global Warming
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Researchers develop plants with genetically enhanced roots to help combat global crisis: 'We propose a new approach'
Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, studied genetically enhanced crops as a tool to remove carbon from the atmosphere. The next-generation crops could capture about 1 gigaton of carbon annually, the team of researchers proposed. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world will need to remove 5 to 16 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere annually to achieve net-zero emissions by the end of the century. This achievement also requires curbing dirty energy and carbon pollution at the source. Not addressing this pollution could result in an increase in extreme weather events, drought, disease, and more. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) addresses pollution, and the researchers' study that was published in Environmental Research Letters aimed to determine effective CDR strategies and scale these strategies to achieve net-zero emissions. The team discovered genetically enhanced crops could capture carbon on a big scale, making them a promising solution. The crops –– which include soybeans and corn –– are altered to grow larger, deeper roots, the researchers described. These root systems allow the crops to store more carbon in the soil surrounding them since roots can hold about five times more carbon than plant material above ground. Compared to other CDR technologies, the large-rooted crops have more potential to address pollution, the team of researchers argues. Agricultural innovations –– like these crops –– are historically adopted quickly and do not require expensive infrastructure. The scientists suggested "existing seed companies and farmer extension programs" could implement the genetically enhanced crops. While this innovation could face setbacks since genetically modified crops exist on just about 13% of agricultural lands, other agricultural technologies –– like drought detection –– have managed rising temperatures too. These technologies can work together, and determining how to scale them, which the researchers considered, will prove crucial to achieving net-zero emissions. "We propose a new approach for estimating scalability rooted in insights about how technologies emerge and diffuse into service under real-world conditions," the researchers wrote. Which of these factors would most effectively motivate you to buy a heat pump? Lower energy bills Better temperature control Helping the planet I'd never buy a heat pump Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
The Department of Energy axes $3.7 billion in clean energy project grants
Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Friday he canceled nearly $4 billion in project grants, in another massive blow to clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts in the U.S. under President Donald Trump's administration. The grants, largely awarded during former President Joe Biden's final few months in the White House, were primarily for programs to capture carbon emissions and store them underground. Other targeted efforts span cleaner cement, natural gas and more. Some of the 24 canceled awards include $500 million to Heidelberg Materials US, Inc.; $375 million to Eastman Chemical Company; $95 million to Nevada Gold Mines, LLC; and $270 million to Sutter CCUS, among others, according to a list provided by the Department of Energy. Sublime Systems, which lost an $87 million grant, was 'surprised and disappointed,' the company said in a statement. 'Today's action is bad for U.S. competitiveness in the global market and also directly contradictory to the administration's stated goals of supporting energy production and environmental innovation,' said Conrad Schneider, a senior director at the Clean Air Task Force. It 'undercuts U.S. competitiveness at a time when there is a growing global market for cleaner industrial products and technologies.' The news was a swift follow-up to plans the Energy Department announced earlier this month to review 179 funded projects, totaling over $15 billion, that were awarded by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations created under the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. It is part of Wright's pledge to ensure 'responsible' spending — aligning with the government's broader efficiency and cost-cutting measures, such as those recommended by the Department of Government Efficiency, which has significantly impacted federal research, workers and agencies. 'While the previous administration failed to conduct a thorough financial review before signing away billions of taxpayer dollars, the Trump administration is doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilizing taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment,' Wright said in Friday's statement. Moreover, the announcement marks the latest of the administration's attacks on clean energy, broadly, and its effort to slash federal support for projects addressing climate change. The Trump administration has taken an ax to Biden-era environmental ambitions, rolled back landmark regulations, withdrawn climate project funding, and instead bolstered support for oil and gas production in the name of an 'American energy dominance' agenda. Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, called the news 'shortsighted.' Carbon capture has been a controversial climate solution , as skeptics say it enables the continued burning of fossil fuels oil, coal and natural gas that emit planet-warming greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide — and distracts from the need to cut ties with those energy sources altogether. Though investment in the technology has grown, it also remains challenging to scale. Organizations quickly decried the secretary's actions, stressing that the cancelations don't align with the administration's goals to bolster domestic manufacturing or energy independence. Jessie Stolark, the executive director of the nonpartisan Carbon Capture Coalition, said the news 'is a major step backward' for carbon management technologies, which are 'crucial to meeting America's growing demand for affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy.' 'These projects are not just reducing pollution, they are keeping the U.S. on the cutting edge of manufacturing technology,' said Mike Williams, senior fellow on the energy and environment team at public policy and advocacy group the Center for American Progress. 'Canceling these important projects will raise energy prices for consumers and sacrifice thousands of high-quality union jobs, all because the president wants to curry favor with Big Oil.' Evan Gillespie, partner at decarbonization organization, Industrious Labs, said the move dismantles the economy and the future of American manufacturing and its workforce. 'Killing these projects means more emissions, more pollution, and more people getting sick,' he said. ___ Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn . Reach her at . ___ Read more of AP's climate coverage at ___ 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 .
The Independent
2 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
The Department of Energy axes $3.7 billion in clean energy project grants
Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Friday he canceled nearly $4 billion in project grants, in another massive blow to clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts in the U.S. under President Donald Trump 's administration. The grants, largely awarded during former President Joe Biden 's final few months in the White House, were primarily for programs to capture carbon emissions and store them underground. Other targeted efforts span cleaner cement, natural gas and more. Some of the 24 canceled awards include $500 million to Heidelberg Materials US, Inc.; $375 million to Eastman Chemical Company; $95 million to Nevada Gold Mines, LLC; and $270 million to Sutter CCUS, among others, according to a list provided by the Department of Energy. Sublime Systems, which lost an $87 million grant, was 'surprised and disappointed,' the company said in a statement. 'Today's action is bad for U.S. competitiveness in the global market and also directly contradictory to the administration's stated goals of supporting energy production and environmental innovation,' said Conrad Schneider, a senior director at the Clean Air Task Force. It 'undercuts U.S. competitiveness at a time when there is a growing global market for cleaner industrial products and technologies.' The news was a swift follow-up to plans the Energy Department announced earlier this month to review 179 funded projects, totaling over $15 billion, that were awarded by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations created under the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. It is part of Wright's pledge to ensure 'responsible' spending — aligning with the government's broader efficiency and cost-cutting measures, such as those recommended by the Department of Government Efficiency, which has significantly impacted federal research, workers and agencies. 'While the previous administration failed to conduct a thorough financial review before signing away billions of taxpayer dollars, the Trump administration is doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilizing taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment," Wright said in Friday's statement. Moreover, the announcement marks the latest of the administration's attacks on clean energy, broadly, and its effort to slash federal support for projects addressing climate change. The Trump administration has taken an ax to Biden-era environmental ambitions, rolled back landmark regulations, withdrawn climate project funding, and instead bolstered support for oil and gas production in the name of an 'American energy dominance' agenda. Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, called the news 'shortsighted.' Carbon capture has been a controversial climate solution, as skeptics say it enables the continued burning of fossil fuels oil, coal and natural gas that emit planet-warming greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide — and distracts from the need to cut ties with those energy sources altogether. Though investment in the technology has grown, it also remains challenging to scale. Industry decries the news Organizations quickly decried the secretary's actions, stressing that the cancelations don't align with the administration's goals to bolster domestic manufacturing or energy independence. Jessie Stolark, the executive director of the nonpartisan Carbon Capture Coalition, said the news 'is a major step backward" for carbon management technologies, which are 'crucial to meeting America's growing demand for affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy.' 'These projects are not just reducing pollution, they are keeping the U.S. on the cutting edge of manufacturing technology," said Mike Williams, senior fellow on the energy and environment team at public policy and advocacy group the Center for American Progress. "Canceling these important projects will raise energy prices for consumers and sacrifice thousands of high-quality union jobs, all because the president wants to curry favor with Big Oil.' Evan Gillespie, partner at decarbonization organization, Industrious Labs, said the move dismantles the economy and the future of American manufacturing and its workforce. 'Killing these projects means more emissions, more pollution, and more people getting sick,' he said. ___ Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ___ ___ 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
Associated Press
2 days ago
- Business
- Associated Press
The Department of Energy axes $3.7 billion in clean energy project grants
Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Friday he canceled nearly $4 billion in project grants, in another massive blow to clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts in the U.S. under President Donald Trump's administration. The grants, largely awarded during former President Joe Biden's final few months in the White House, were primarily for programs to capture carbon emissions and store them underground. Other targeted efforts span cleaner cement, natural gas and more. Some of the 24 canceled awards include $500 million to Heidelberg Materials US, Inc.; $375 million to Eastman Chemical Company; $95 million to Nevada Gold Mines, LLC; and $270 million to Sutter CCUS, among others, according to a list provided by the Department of Energy. Sublime Systems, which lost an $87 million grant, was 'surprised and disappointed,' the company said in a statement. 'Today's action is bad for U.S. competitiveness in the global market and also directly contradictory to the administration's stated goals of supporting energy production and environmental innovation,' said Conrad Schneider, a senior director at the Clean Air Task Force. It 'undercuts U.S. competitiveness at a time when there is a growing global market for cleaner industrial products and technologies.' The news was a swift follow-up to plans the Energy Department announced earlier this month to review 179 funded projects, totaling over $15 billion, that were awarded by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations created under the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. It is part of Wright's pledge to ensure 'responsible' spending — aligning with the government's broader efficiency and cost-cutting measures, such as those recommended by the Department of Government Efficiency, which has significantly impacted federal research, workers and agencies. 'While the previous administration failed to conduct a thorough financial review before signing away billions of taxpayer dollars, the Trump administration is doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilizing taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment,' Wright said in Friday's statement. Moreover, the announcement marks the latest of the administration's attacks on clean energy, broadly, and its effort to slash federal support for projects addressing climate change. The Trump administration has taken an ax to Biden-era environmental ambitions, rolled back landmark regulations, withdrawn climate project funding, and instead bolstered support for oil and gas production in the name of an 'American energy dominance' agenda. Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, called the news 'shortsighted.' Carbon capture has been a controversial climate solution, as skeptics say it enables the continued burning of fossil fuels oil, coal and natural gas that emit planet-warming greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide — and distracts from the need to cut ties with those energy sources altogether. Though investment in the technology has grown, it also remains challenging to scale. Industry decries the news Organizations quickly decried the secretary's actions, stressing that the cancelations don't align with the administration's goals to bolster domestic manufacturing or energy independence. Jessie Stolark, the executive director of the nonpartisan Carbon Capture Coalition, said the news 'is a major step backward' for carbon management technologies, which are 'crucial to meeting America's growing demand for affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy.' 'These projects are not just reducing pollution, they are keeping the U.S. on the cutting edge of manufacturing technology,' said Mike Williams, senior fellow on the energy and environment team at public policy and advocacy group the Center for American Progress. 'Canceling these important projects will raise energy prices for consumers and sacrifice thousands of high-quality union jobs, all because the president wants to curry favor with Big Oil.' Evan Gillespie, partner at decarbonization organization, Industrious Labs, said the move dismantles the economy and the future of American manufacturing and its workforce. 'Killing these projects means more emissions, more pollution, and more people getting sick,' he said. ___ Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at [email protected]. ___ Read more of AP's climate coverage at ___ 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
