#Carbon Offset Market Analysis

[writerblogs]

Carbon Offset Market Is Estimated To Witness High Growth Owing To Increasing Awareness About Environmental Sustainability

The global Carbon Offset Market is estimated to be valued at US$ 414.80 billion in 2023 and is expected to exhibit a CAGR of 31.7% over the forecast period 2023 to 2030, as highlighted in a new report published by Coherent Market Insights. Market Overview: The Carbon Offset Market refers to the process of compensating for greenhouse gas emissions through activities such as reforestation, renewable energy projects, and energy efficiency initiatives. It helps organizations and individuals reduce their carbon footprint and contribute to mitigating climate change. Carbon offsetting offers several advantages such as offsetting emissions that are difficult to reduce, supporting sustainable development projects, and improving brand image. The need for carbon offset products is increasing as businesses and consumers prioritize environmental sustainability and aim to achieve carbon neutrality. Market Key Trends: One key trend in the Carbon Offset Market is the growing adoption of carbon offset programs by corporates and individuals. With increasing awareness about climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions, companies across various industries are integrating carbon offsetting into their sustainability strategies. This trend is driven by the desire to demonstrate corporate social responsibility, comply with regulations, and attract environmentally conscious consumers. Additionally, individuals are also taking personal responsibility for their carbon emissions and offsetting them through various carbon offset programs. Some of the key players operating in the Carbon Offset Market include 3Degrees Inc., NativeEnergy, ClimatePartner, Carbon Credit Capital, Terrapass, Renewable Choice Energy, Gold Standard, Offsetters, South Pole Group, Veridium, Cool Effect, ClimateCare, MyClimate, Forest Carbon, and Verified Carbon Standard. PEST Analysis: Political: The political factor influencing the carbon offset market is the increasing government regulations and policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, many countries have implemented carbon pricing mechanisms or cap-and-trade systems, which have contributed to the growth of the market. Economic: The economic factor driving the carbon offset market is the rising awareness and concerns about climate change and its impact on the environment. This has led to an increased demand for carbon offsetting services, as individuals and businesses seek to mitigate their carbon footprints and support sustainable practices. Technological: The technological factor impacting the carbon offset market is the advancements in renewable energy technologies. The increasing efficiency and decreasing costs of technologies like solar and wind power have made them more accessible and attractive options for offsetting carbon emissions. Key Takeaways: The global Carbon Offset Market Growth is expected to witness high growth, exhibiting a CAGR of 31.7% over the forecast period from 2023 to 2030. This growth can be attributed to increasing government regulations and policies, rising awareness and concerns about climate change, changing consumer preferences, and advancements in renewable energy technologies. Key players operating in the carbon offset market include 3Degrees Inc., NativeEnergy, ClimatePartner, Carbon Credit Capital, Terrapass, Renewable Choice Energy, Gold Standard, Offsetters, South Pole Group, Veridium, Cool Effect, ClimateCare, MyClimate, Forest Carbon, and Verified Carbon Standard. These key players play a crucial role in providing carbon offsetting services and developing innovative solutions to address climate change concerns.

[probablyasocialecologist]

From Apple to Disney, Gucci to Shell, many of the largest companies in the world have used carbon credits for their sustainability efforts from the unregulated voluntary market, which grew to $2bn (£1.6bn) in size in 2021 and saw prices for many carbon credits rise above $20 per offset. The credits are often generated on the basis they are contributing to climate change, mitigation such as stopping tropical deforestation, tree planting and creating renewable energy projects in developing countries. Proponents say they need to massively increase in size and scale to help meet the Paris agreement to limit global heating. But repeated scandals about their true impact and a crackdown from regulators on claims of “carbon neutrality” have meant that demand and prices for offsetting have slumped, with signs that some carbon credit traders are writing off investments that would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars as recently as last year.

[...]

A new study in the journal Science has found that millions of forest carbon credits approved by Verra, the world’s leading certifier, are largely worthless and could make global heating worse if used for offsetting. The research by scientists and economists at the University of Cambridge and VU Amsterdam was one of the three studies used in a January investigation into rainforest offsets by the Guardian, Die Zeit and Source Material. The Science study was used in a pre-print form while awaiting peer review, which it has since passed. The analysis, published on Thursday, found that 18 big forest offsetting projects had produced millions of carbon credits based on calculations that greatly inflated their conservation impact. The schemes, which generate credits by avoiding hypothetical deforestation, were found not to reduce forest loss or to reduce it by only small amounts, far less than the huge areas they were claiming to protect, rendering the credits largely hot air. The findings follow a 2020 study of 12 projects in the Brazilian Amazon by the same group, which found they had a negligible impact on stopping deforestation despite generating credits on the basis they were preventing large areas from being destroyed. A 2022 study of 40 Verra-approved projects led by University of Cambridge researchers found that while some projects did stop deforestation, most stopped none or small amounts.

[rjzimmerman]

The next big climate target: Ending carbon offset scams. (Washington Post Op-Ed)

Excerpt from this Washington Post story:

Most major airlines now offer customers an add-on to their ticket purchase: the chance to offset the carbon emissions generated by their flight. Guilt-free travel for a few extra bucks: It almost sounds too good to be true. Unfortunately, as new reporting shows, sometimes it is.

Carbon offsets or credits are investments in sustainability projects around the globe that, in theory, conserve enough emissions to counteract those produced by carbon-intensive activities such as manufacturing or jet travel. The projects represent a variety of efforts, including renewable energy development and reforestation schemes. Another popular offset class is forest conservation, touted as protecting trees that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And it’s not just travelers who can purchase a stake in such projects; corporations and governments have made carbon offsets a multibillion-dollar market by purchasing enough credits to earn their “carbon-neutral” labels.

The catch is that corporate climate pledges hinge on the validity of the offsets they purchase — and many are bogus. A recent investigation by The Post put the spotlight on the Brazilian Amazon, a key locus of forest conservation offset projects. For a carbon credit to be valid, the project needs to have “additionality” — meaning it must save carbon emissions that would not otherwise be reduced. According to The Post’s reporting, however, many projects illegally lay claim to public lands, which are already protected by national governments. So, the companies purchasing these credits — ranging from Netflix to Salesforce to Boeing — aren’t getting what they pay for. The Post’s analysis found no evidence that these corporations knowingly acted improperly, but the programs they bought into nevertheless don’t do much to offset carbon emissions.

The voluntary carbon market — where credits are purchased — appears to be rife with such problems. A lack of additionality is just one way in which they fail to deliver on their promises. To soak up as much carbon as they claim to, offset projects also need to remain in place for the long term and shouldn’t have harmful spillover effects. But, in some cases, a project can sell credits that commit to permanently storing carbon in a newly planted forest — only for that carbon to be released back into the atmosphere when the seller fails to protect the trees from being cut down. Many credits are also inherently difficult to validate: In the Brazilian Amazon, a popular format is the “avoided deforestation” venture. Instead of promising to plant new trees, these projects sell credits simply by committing to protect existing forests. Because there is no way to prove that an area would otherwise have faced unavoidable deforestation, it’s nearly impossible to quantify real carbon savings from such projects.

[thoughtlessarse]

Some forest carbon offsets sold by the biggest offsetting company in the US offer little or no benefit to the climate, a satellite analysis has found. Finite Carbon, created in 2009 and bought by British multinational oil and gas giant BP in 2020, is responsible for more than a quarter of the US’s total carbon credits, which it says it generates from protecting more than 60 “high credibility, high integrity projects” across 1.6m hectares (4m acres). However, experts at the offsets ratings agency Renoster and the non-profit CarbonPlan analyzed three projects accounting for almost half of Finite Carbon’s total credits, with an estimated market value of $334m, according to analysis by market intelligence company AlliedOffsets. Renoster found issues, including trees in a project in the Alaska Panhandle that were probably never in danger of being cut down in an already extensively logged area. Of the credits Renoster looked at, they found that about 79% should not have been issued. Renoster, a company mostly used by prospective buyers of carbon credits to help them avoid those without real climate benefits, was commissioned by the non-profit newsroom SourceMaterial to examine Finite’s projects. CarbonPlan provided additional analysis. “We don’t think that the project should have been allowed to proceed and earn credits,” said Elias Ayrey, Renoster’s head scientist, commenting on the Alaskan project. The analysis comes amid mounting concern about the global offsetting industry, predicted by Barclays bank to be worth $1.5tn by 2050. The US treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, in May unveiled new principles to help strengthen the carbon market in an effort to “address significant existing challenges”, saying she had seen too many examples of offsets which didn’t represent real emissions reductions.

continue reading

[mightyflamethrower]

Jul262024

Carbon Credits Enable Green Graft

Not all green lunacy can be attributed to an insidious attack on our freedom and standard of living or to the antihuman malice at the root of leftism. Another factor is straightforward greed:

Over the past two decades, so-called “carbon cowboys,” people who set up carbon credit initiatives for financial gain, have launched land preservation projects across the Amazon rainforest, generating carbon credits worth hundreds of millions of dollars and building a thinly regulated market valued at nearly $11 billion worldwide, according to The Washington Post. The Brazilian government’s anti-deforestation policies already safeguarded more than 78,000 square miles of land used for preservation projects before they were claimed for carbon credits, and 29 of the 35 internationally certified projects in the Amazon overlap with public lands, meaning a large percentage of carbon credits overlap with already existent conservation measures. The estimated total value of the offsets sold by these 29 ventures is $212 million, according to an analysis performed by The Washington Post using annual market rates. Multi-billion dollar companies like Netflix, Delta Air Lines, Spotify, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Boeing are just a few of the major corporations that purchased these credits in order to offset their emissions.

Why would anyone pay a penny to pretend to “offset” harmless carbon emissions? According to energy consultant David Blackmon,

“For the most part, companies buy these credits for the simple fact that they are forced to do so either by wrong-headed government regulations or by ESG demands from green investors and financial institutions.”

Fools and their money are soon parted. Coercive regulations are required for the same reason Democrats are setting the stage for election fraud: not all of us are fools.

Eva Vlaardingerbroek explains how carbon credits can be inflicted at the individual level to impose green neofeudalism:

The new transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich will be Carbon Credit Brokerage.

[arrozaurus]

In order for multinational corporations to protect their freedom to pollute the atmosphere, peasants, farmers, and Indigenous people are losing their freedom to live and sustain themselves in peace. When the Big Green groups refer to offsets as the “low-hanging fruit” of climate action, they are in fact making a crude cost-benefit analysis that concludes that it’s easier to cordon off a forest inhabited by politically weak people in a poor country than to stop politically powerful corporate emitters in rich countries—that it’s easier to pick the fruit, in other words, than dig up the roots. The added irony is that many of the people being sacrificed for the carbon market are living some of the most sustainable, low-carbon lifestyles on the planet. They have strong reciprocal relationships with nature, drawing on local ecosystems on a small scale while caring for and regenerating the land so it continues to provide for them and their descendants. An environmental movement committed to real climate solutions would be looking for ways to support these ways of life—not severing deep traditions of stewardship and pushing more people to become rootless urban consumers. [...] Geographer Bram Büscher coined the term “liquid nature” to refer to what these market mechanisms are doing to the natural world. As he describes it, the trees, meadows, and mountains lose their intrinsic, place-based meaning and become deracinated, virtual commodities in a global trading system. The carbon-sequestering potential of biotic life is virtually poured into polluting industries like gas into a car’s tank, allowing them to keep on emitting. Once absorbed into this system, a pristine forest may look as lush and alive as ever, but it has actually become an extension of a dirty power plant on the other side of the planet, attached by invisible financial transactions. Polluting smoke may not be billowing from the tops of its trees but it may as well be, since the trees that have been designated as carbon offsets are now allowing that pollution to take place elsewhere. The mantra of the early ecologists was “everything is connected”—every tree a part of an intricate web of life. The mantra of the corporate-partnered conservationists, in sharp contrast, may as well be “everything is disconnected,” since they have successfully constructed a new economy in which the tree is not a tree but rather a carbon sink used by people thousands of miles away to appease our consciences and maintain our levels of economic growth.

—Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything (2014)

[submalevolentgrace]

"The forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading provider and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new investigation.

The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.

The analysis raises questions over the credits bought by a number of internationally renowned companies – some of them have labelled their products “carbon neutral”, or have told their consumers they can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse.

But doubts have been raised repeatedly over whether they are really effective.

The nine-month investigation has been undertaken by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation. It is based on new analysis of scientific studies of Verra’s rainforest schemes.

It has also drawn on dozens of interviews and on-the-ground reporting with scientists, industry insiders and Indigenous communities. The findings – which have been strongly disputed by Verra – are likely to pose serious questions for companies that are depending on offsets as part of their net zero strategies."

[ausetkmt]

It Could Cost $21 Billion to Clean Up California’s Oil Sites, Study Finds

For well over a century, the oil and gas industry has drilled holes across California in search of black gold and a lucrative payday. But with production falling steadily, the time has come to clean up many of the nearly quarter-million wells scattered from downtown Los Angeles to western Kern County and across the state.

The bill for that work, however, will vastly exceed all the industry’s future profits in the state, according to a first-of-its-kind study published Thursday and shared with ProPublica.

“This major issue has sneaked up on us,” said Dwayne Purvis, a Texas-based petroleum reservoir engineer who analyzed profits and cleanup costs for the report. “Policymakers haven’t recognized it. Industry hasn’t recognized it, or, if they have, they haven’t talked about it and acted on it.”

The analysis, which was commissioned by Carbon Tracker Initiative, a financial think tank that studies how the transition away from fossil fuels impacts markets and the economy, used California regulators’ draft methodology for calculating the costs associated with plugging oil and gas wells and decommissioning them along with related infrastructure. The methodology was developed with feedback from the industry.

The report broke down the costs into several categories. Plugging wells, dismantling surface infrastructure and decontaminating polluted drill sites would cost at least $13.2 billion, based on publicly available data. Adding in factors with slightly more uncertainty, like inflation rates and the price of decommissioning miles of pipeline, could bring the total cleanup bill for California’s onshore oil and gas industry to $21.5 billion.

Meanwhile, California oil and gas production will earn about $6.3 billion in future profits over the remaining course of operations, Purvis estimated.

Compounding the problem, the industry has set aside only about $106 million that state regulators can use for cleanup when a company liquidates or otherwise walks away from its responsibilities, according to state data. That amount equals less than 1% of the estimated cost.

Taxpayers will likely have to cover much of the difference to ensure wells are plugged and not left to leak brine, toxic chemicals and climate-warming methane.

“These findings detail why the state must ensure this cost is not passed along to the California taxpayer,” state Sen. Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat who has written legislation regulating oil, said in a statement. “It is important that the state collect funding to plug and abandon wells in a timely and expeditious manner.”

Representatives of the state’s oil regulatory agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment on the report’s findings.

Rock Zierman, CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Association, an industry trade group, said in a statement that companies spent more than $400 million last year to plug and clean up thousands of oil and gas wells in the state. “This demonstrates their dedication to fulfilling their obligations and mitigating the environmental impact of their operations,” he said.

Fees on current oil and gas production will offset some of the liabilities, but they’re nowhere near enough to address the shortfall quantified by the new report.

“It really scares me,” Kyle Ferrar, Western program coordinator with environmental and data transparency group FracTracker Alliance, said of the report’s findings. “It’s a lot for the state, even a state as big as California.”

Industry in Decline

High oil prices have translated to huge profits for the industry in recent years, but Carbon Tracker’s report found that’s likely to be short-lived. Only two drilling rigs were operating in the state at one point this year, meaning few new wells will be coming online, and more than a third of all unplugged wells are idle.

Judson Boomhower, an environmental economist and assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego who has studied California’s oil industry, said there are inherent uncertainties in estimating future oil revenues. For example, one variable is how quickly the country shifts from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric. But, he said, Carbon Tracker’s estimates for environmental liabilities track with his research.

“It’s a state in the twilight of its production period, and that means big liabilities,” Boomhower said. He added that now is the time for regulators to prevent companies from offloading their wells to “thinly capitalized firms” unable to shoulder the cleanup.

As ProPublica reported last year, the major oil companies that long dominated in California and have the deep pockets necessary to pay for environmental cleanup are selling their wells and leaving the state, handing the task to smaller and less well-financed companies.

Roughly half of the wells drilled in California have changed hands through sales and bankruptcies since 2010, according to data Ferrar analyzed.

Smaller companies are often one bankruptcy away from their wells being orphaned, meaning they’re left to taxpayers as companies dissolve. The Biden administration recently committed $4.7 billion in taxpayer funds to plug orphan wells.

And the industry’s environmental liabilities in California are far bigger than Carbon Tracker’s report quantifies.

Purvis only included environmental liabilities associated with onshore oil and gas production. Billions of dollars more will be needed to plug offshore wells, remove rigs and reclaim artificial islands used for drilling off the coast of Long Beach, Ventura and Santa Barbara.

Additionally, the report did not quantify the emerging risk of “zombie wells,” which were plugged years ago to weaker standards and are likely to leak if they aren’t replugged. That’s an expensive endeavor, as the average cost to plug one well in California — to say nothing of cleaning up surface contamination — is $69,000, according to Purvis’ research. But some California wells have already begun failing, including in neighborhoods in Los Angeles.

“They’re Not Going to Have Money to Do It Later”

Time is running out to rectify the funding shortfall, for example by increasing the money companies must set aside for well plugging.

Carbon Tracker’s report — using state production data and financial futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange — estimated that as production declines, 58% of all future profits from drilling oil and gas in the state are likely to come over the next two years.

“We have our backs up against the wall in California right now,” Ferrar said. “If companies don’t put money towards it now, they’re not going to have money to do it later.”

Environmental policies could accelerate the industry’s decline. California voters will decide on a ballot initiative in 2024 that would reinstate large buffer zones between communities and oil wells, limiting drilling.

Purvis said acting quickly to plug wells would also “stimulate economic activity” and help smooth the transition for oil and gas workers who stand to lose well-paying jobs in the shift away from climate-warming fossil fuels. Spending large sums to plug old wells would create short-term employment for oil field workers.

As California faces the consequences of its failure to quickly clean up aging oil and gas infrastructure, there are likely several million more wells around the country that are either low-producing or already orphaned and will soon need to be decommissioned.

“California’s going to be a test case or the leading edge of this,” Boomhower said. “This same problem is eventually going to manifest everywhere.”

[priyanshisingh]

Ocean Carbon Removal Market Analysis: Global Industry Trends and Forecast (2023-2032)

The Ocean Carbon Removal Market is projected to grow from USD 661.42 million in 2024 to an estimated USD 2354.49 million by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.2% from 2024 to 2032.

Ocean carbon removal is a promising approach to mitigating climate change by enhancing the ocean's natural ability to absorb and store carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Oceans are the largest carbon sink on Earth, already absorbing around a quarter of annual human-made CO2 emissions. Several methods are being explored to increase the ocean's carbon removal capacity. One approach involves ocean fertilization, where nutrients such as iron are added to stimulate phytoplankton growth. These microscopic plants absorb CO2 through photosynthesis and, when they die, some sink to the ocean floor, sequestering carbon for long periods. Another method is artificial upwelling, where nutrient-rich deep waters are brought to the surface to enhance phytoplankton productivity.

In addition, alkalinity enhancement involves adding materials like limestone to the ocean, which increases its capacity to absorb CO2 by neutralizing acidity and promoting chemical processes that convert CO2 into bicarbonates. More innovative approaches, such as cultivating seaweed or using direct air capture technologies combined with ocean storage, are also being investigated. These methods have the potential to significantly contribute to carbon reduction efforts, but they also come with ecological, logistical, and governance challenges. The potential impacts on marine ecosystems, nutrient imbalances, and the global distribution of benefits and risks require careful consideration.

Here are the key dynamics driving the Ocean Carbon Removal Market:

Regulatory Push for Carbon Neutrality: Increasing global commitments to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 are driving the demand for innovative carbon capture solutions, including ocean carbon removal.

Technological Advancements: Continuous R&D in methods like ocean fertilization, seaweed cultivation, and artificial upwelling is helping develop scalable and more efficient ocean-based carbon removal technologies.

Growing Environmental Awareness: Rising awareness about the climate crisis and the need for carbon mitigation solutions are pushing both governments and industries to explore ocean carbon removal as a complementary approach to terrestrial carbon capture.

Market Challenges – Ecological and Logistical Concerns: Concerns over potential negative impacts on marine ecosystems, the uncertainty of long-term storage efficiency, and the logistical complexities of large-scale deployment are key barriers to market growth.

Lack of Regulatory Frameworks: The absence of clear regulations and global standards for ocean carbon removal activities creates uncertainty, limiting wider adoption and investment.

Increasing Private and Government Investments: Growing interest from the private sector, governments, and investors in carbon credits and carbon capture markets is helping to create financial incentives for ocean carbon removal projects.

Partnerships and Collaborations: International collaborations between research institutions, industries, and governments are helping to overcome technical barriers, foster innovation, and drive the development of sustainable ocean carbon removal solutions.

Potential for Commercialization: As carbon markets expand and the demand for carbon offsets rises, ocean carbon removal technologies present new commercialization opportunities, particularly in sectors looking to balance emissions.

Key Player Analysis:

Brilliant Planet (UK)

Captura (United States)

Ebb Carbon (United States)

Equatic (United States)

Ocean-Based Climate Solutions (United States)

Planetary Technologies (Canada)

Running Tide (United States)

Seafields (United States)

SeaO2 (Italy)

Vesta (United States)

Climeworks (Iceland)

Global Thermostat (United States)

Carbfix (Iceland)

More About Report- https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/ocean-carbon-removal-market

Ocean carbon removal market trends and dynamics vary across regions due to differences in environmental policies, research initiatives, geographical advantages, and investment capacities. Below are regional insights into the Ocean Carbon Removal Market:

North America:

North America, particularly the United States and Canada, is at the forefront of research and development in ocean carbon removal technologies. Government agencies and private companies are investing in pilot projects to explore methods such as ocean fertilization, seaweed farming, and direct ocean carbon capture.

The U.S. is focusing on policy frameworks for large-scale carbon capture projects and the development of carbon markets, which could support the growth of ocean-based solutions. Coastal regions, with extensive marine resources, are ideal for implementing these technologies.

Europe:

Europe is a leader in climate action, with countries such as the UK, Germany, and the Nordic countries showing strong interest in ocean carbon removal as part of their broader carbon reduction strategies. The European Union’s Green Deal and stringent emission reduction targets create opportunities for funding and research in ocean carbon removal.

European initiatives often prioritize the environmental sustainability of marine ecosystems, which has led to cautious adoption of technologies like ocean fertilization, with a focus on eco-friendly methods such as seaweed cultivation and alkalinity enhancement.

Asia Pacific:

The Asia Pacific region, particularly Japan, South Korea, and China, is witnessing growing interest in ocean carbon removal, driven by increasing government investments in climate technologies. Coastal regions in Asia offer vast potential for large-scale seaweed farming and other ocean-based carbon removal projects.

China is emerging as a key player in ocean-based carbon solutions, given its extensive coastlines and ambitious carbon neutrality goals. Research institutions in Japan and South Korea are also actively exploring innovative ocean carbon capture technologies.

Middle East and Africa:

The Middle East and Africa currently have limited ocean carbon removal activities, largely due to the region’s focus on terrestrial carbon capture methods and a lesser emphasis on marine-based solutions. However, countries with significant coastlines, such as South Africa, may explore ocean-based carbon capture in the future as part of their climate strategies.

Investment in ocean carbon removal technologies is expected to grow in this region as global climate commitments increase and the demand for sustainable carbon solutions rises.

Latin America:

Latin American countries, with their vast coastal areas and rich marine ecosystems, have strong potential for ocean carbon removal projects. Countries such as Brazil and Chile, which have long coastlines and abundant marine biodiversity, are exploring opportunities for seaweed cultivation and ocean-based carbon sequestration.

While large-scale ocean carbon removal projects are not yet widespread in the region, there is growing awareness and interest, particularly in leveraging the natural carbon-absorbing capacities of mangroves, seagrass, and coastal wetlands.

Segmentation:

By Process

Enhanced Ocean Productivity

Algae Cultivation

Direct Air Capture

Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement

Subsurface Injection

Seaweed Farming

Ocean Afforestation

Mineralization

By Types

Biological Carbon Removal

Chemical Carbon Removal

By Application

Climate Change Mitigation

Carbon Offset Markets

Biofuel Production

Marine Ecosystem Restoration

Ocean Acidification Mitigation

By End-User

Government & Regulatory Bodies

Private Sector

Research Institute

Environmental Organization

Browse the full report –  https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/ocean-carbon-removal-market

Contact Us:

Phone: +91 6232 49 3207

Email: sales@credenceresearch.com

Website: https://www.credenceresearch.com

[sealioninternationaltrade]

Where to Find the Best Deals on Electric Minibuses for Sale in 2024

The Growing Demand for Electric Minibuses

In 2024, electric minibuses have become increasingly popular due to their environmental benefits and cost-efficiency. As more businesses and municipalities seek to reduce their carbon footprints, the demand for these vehicles continues to rise. The shift towards electric minibuses is not just a trend but a significant move towards sustainable transportation solutions.

Top Online Marketplaces for Electric Minibuses

When searching for electric minibuses for sale, online marketplaces offer a wide range of options. Websites like AutoTrader, Cars.com, and specialized electric vehicle (EV) platforms provide comprehensive listings. Additionally, platforms like cn-sinotruk.com cater specifically to various types of electric vehicles, including minibuses. These platforms allow you to compare prices, read reviews, and check vehicle history reports. Many of these sites also offer tools to help you filter options based on your specific needs, such as vehicle size or range. For a more localized search, consider using “near me” features on these platforms to find electric minibuses available in your area.

Dealerships Specializing in Electric Vehicles

Many dealerships have started to focus exclusively on electric vehicles, including minibuses. These dealerships not only offer new models but also have a selection of pre-owned options. Establishments such as Tesla, Rivian, and other EV-focused dealers often have knowledgeable staff who can assist you in finding the right electric minibus. They can provide valuable insights into the latest models and technological advancements.

Government Incentives and Rebates

One of the significant advantages of purchasing an electric minibus in 2024 is the availability of government incentives and rebates. Many regions offer financial incentives to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. These can include tax credits, grants, and rebates, which can significantly reduce the cost of acquiring an electric minibus. Checking with local government websites and EV associations can help you stay informed about current incentives.

Leasing Options for Electric Minibuses

Leasing is another viable option for those looking to acquire an electric minibus. Many leasing companies offer attractive terms for electric vehicles. Leasing can be an excellent way to access the latest models without committing to a long-term purchase. Additionally, leases often include maintenance packages, which can be a significant advantage for managing ongoing costs.

Evaluating the Total Cost of Ownership

While the upfront cost of an electric minibus might be higher compared to traditional models, it is essential to consider the total cost of ownership. Electric minibuses typically have lower operating costs due to fewer moving parts and reduced fuel expenses. Additionally, the savings on maintenance and potential government incentives can offset the initial investment. Performing a detailed cost analysis can help you make a well-informed decision.

Local EV Clubs and Forums

Engaging with local electric vehicle clubs and online forums can provide valuable insights into where to find the best deals on electric minibuses. These communities often share information about reputable sellers, upcoming sales events, and personal experiences with various models. Being part of these groups can offer a wealth of knowledge and help you make connections with other electric vehicle enthusiasts.

Conclusion

Finding the best deals on electric minibuses for sale in 2024 involves exploring multiple avenues, including online marketplaces, specialized dealerships, and leasing options. By staying informed about government incentives and engaging with EV communities, you can make a well-rounded decision that fits your needs and budget. As the electric vehicle market continues to evolve, keeping up with the latest trends and opportunities will ensure you find the best value for your investment.

Blog Resources:- https://sealioninternationaltrade.blogspot.com/2024/09/where-to-find-best-deals-on-electric.html

[cleantechmart]

Leading carbon consultants at Cleantech

In the rapidly growing field of clean technology, carbon consultants play a key role in guiding businesses towards sustainable practices and reducing carbon footprints These experts specialize in carbon emissions analysis, monitoring and reduction, and providing valuable insights and strategies to help companies achieve environmental goals around increasing regulatory pressures and stakeholder demands seek permanence and clarity.

Carbon consultants typically provide a range of services including carbon footprint analysis, emission reduction strategies and sustainability reports. Starting with this basic data, tailored strategies for reducing emissions are developed through comprehensive research covering all aspects of operations from manufacturing to supply chain, for energy efficiency and implement renewable energy solutions.

In addition to reducing emissions, these consultants help companies navigate regulatory requirements and standards, such as those set by the Paris Agreement or local environmental laws They also help businesses achieve certification such as enhance their reputation in the market and environmentally conscious customers and can attract investors.

In addition, carbon consultants help organizations set and meet carbon neutrality goals by facilitating the purchase of carbon credits or investment in carbon offset projects They provide training and workshops to build internally power for ongoing sustainability efforts.

For more info:- carbinnov.com is the consultancy arm of Cleantech Mart

Carbinnov the consulatancy arm of Cleantech Mart

[probablyasocialecologist]

The vast majority of the environmental projects most frequently used to offset greenhouse gas emissions appear to have fundamental failings suggesting they cannot be relied upon to cut planet-heating emissions, according to a new analysis.

[...]

Overall, $1.16bn (£937m) of carbon credits have been traded so far from the projects classified by the investigation as likely junk or worthless; a further $400m of credits bought and sold were potentially junk.

[...]

“The ramifications of this analysis are huge, as it points to systemic failings of the voluntary market, providing additional evidence that junk carbon credits pervade the market,” said Anuradha Mittal, director of the Oakland Institute thinktank. “We cannot afford to waste any more time on false solutions. The issues are far-reaching and pervasive, extending well beyond specific verifiers. The [voluntary carbon market] is actively exacerbating the climate emergency.”

[argalicarbon]

Mastering Carbon Credits: A Guide for Project Developers in Emissions Trading

The introduction to carbon markets is very essential for the project developers who want to tackle the issues of carbon credits and emission trading. Shahryar Oveissi , the expert in the field of environmental economics, points to the necessity analysis of the market mechanisms understanding, legislative regulation, and the certification of credits. Carbon markets, in turn, offer monetary rewards to offset reductions of greenhouse gases in the environment by offering carbon credits for sales. In this way, the application of these markets has the potential of being utilized to support project development to gain funding, increase project profitability, and participate in climate change mitigation goals. The understanding of these concepts guarantees the exploitation of every benefit within the carbon trading environment.

[industryforecastnews]

Activated Carbon Market Size To Reach USD 7.33 Billion By 2030

Activated Carbon Market Growth & Trends

The global activated carbon market size is expected to reach USD 7.33 billion by 2030 to expand at a CAGR of 6.0% from 2024 to 2030 according to a new report by Grand View Research, Inc. This increase can be attributed by the need for a powdered and granular form is expected to increase as the demand for water and air purification in coal-fired plants grows and clinker cement industries.

Asia Pacific dominated the regional segment due to the growing industrialization in Japan and the developing economies. North America is another key region contributing to market growth due to stringent emission regulations in the region.

Various regulatory agencies have enacted strict environmental pollution control policies and encouraged the use in air and water treatment plants, which is expected to boost the market throughout the anticipated period. Implementation of regulations by various governments is expected to drive the product consumption in the forecast period.

The supply chain of the raw materials was drastically impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak, which further affected the production and consumption patterns globally. Powdered carbon type has dominated the product consumption since last decade. Consequently, halt in production of non-essential chemicals, ingredients or industrial products has drastically hampered demand. This resulted in negative impact on the market in 2020.

Request a free sample copy or view report summary: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/activated-carbon-market

Activated Carbon Market Report Highlights

Powdered activated carbon segment dominated the type segment as they are used in water treatment which is the major end use industry of the market

Asia Pacific witnessed the fastest growth rate due to factors like large availability of good quality coconut shell. The regional market is also driven by growing disposable income, surge in the automotive industry

Companies such as Cabot Corporation have fully integrated their processes. Raw material procuring, product preparation and distribution processes are fully integrated. The full integration strategy adopted by companies is done to offset the volatility involved in raw material procurement and to implement strict quality parameters on production

The spread of COVID-19 has negatively impacted each and every sector including chemical. The supply chain of raw materials of silicone-based adhesion market drastically impacted the production and consumption pattern

Activated Carbon Market Segmentation

Grand View Research has segmented the global activated carbon market on the basis of form, application, end use, and region

Activated Carbon Type Outlook (Volume, Kilotons; Revenue, USD Million; 2018 - 2030)

Powdered

Granular

Others

Activated Carbon Application Outlook (Volume, Kilotons; Revenue, USD Million; 2018 - 2030)

Liquid Phase

Gas Phase

Activated Carbon End Use Outlook (Volume, Kilotons; Revenue, USD Million; 2018 - 2030)

Water Treatment

Food & Beverage Processing

Pharmaceutical & Medical

Automotive

Air Purification

Other End Use

Activated Carbon Regional Outlook (Volume, Kilotons; Revenue, USD Million; 2018 - 2030)

North America

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Europe

Germany

UK

France

Italy

Spain

Asia Pacific

China

India

Japan

South Korea

Australia

Central & South America

Brazil

Argentina

Middle East and Africa

Saudi Arabia

South Africa

List of Key Players of Activated Carbon Market

CarbPure Technologies

Boyce Carbon

Cabot Corporation

Kuraray Co.

CarboTech AC GmbH

Donau Chemie AG

Haycarb (Pvt) Ltd.

Jacobi Carbons Group

Kureha Corporation

Osaka Gas Chemicals Co., Ltd.

Evoqua Water Technologies LLC

Carbon Activated Corporation

Hangzhou Nature Technology Co., Ltd.

CarbUSA

Sorbent JSC

Browse Full Report: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/activated-carbon-market  

[tamanna31]

Printing Inks Market Key Vendors, Manufacturers, Suppliers and Analysis Industry Report 2028

Printing Inks Industry Overview

The global printing inks market size was valued at USD 19.2 billion in 2020 and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.8% from 2021 to 2028. The market is expected to witness moderate growth over the forecast period. Factors such as the growing end-use industry, including flexible packaging, commercial printing & publishing, packaging labels, have majorly driven this market.

The superior properties of the constituents such as pigments, binders, solubilizers, and additives to produce text, design, or images along with rising demand from the packaging sector, commercial printing, and changing consumer preference, these solutions are expected to have unceasing demand in the future.

Gather more insights about the market drivers, restrains and growth of the Printing Inks Market

The global printing inks market is heading toward major consolidations to increase efficiency, support growth, and achieve more leverage with suppliers and customers. Market consolidation has become a long-term trend, particularly in the western market, with limited organic growth.

However, downward pricing pressure is expected to limit the revenue growth in the printing inks market owing to the slow growth in product pricing caused by high competition within the industry. Moreover, stringent regulatory frameworks such as Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are limiting the usage, manufacturing, and distribution of various inorganic solvents and toxic metals. This, in turn, is expected to hamper the market growth over the forecast period.

Apart from crude oil derivative and inorganic pigments, which are major raw materials, the development of economical and non-toxic raw materials such as graphene, carbon, and modified celluloid is the research initiative at the forefront.  This market is strongly affected and driven by advancements in technology and processes such as ink-jet products and digital printing.

Browse through Grand View Research's Paints, Coatings & Printing Inks Industry Research Reports.

• The global fluorescent pigment market size was estimated at USD 377.0 million in 2023 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 5.9% from 2024 to 2030.

• The global ceramic coating market size was estimated at USD 10.37 billion in 2023 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 8.4% from 2024 to 2030.

Global Printing Inks Market Segmentation

This report forecasts revenue growth at global, regional & country levels and provides an analysis of the industry trends in each of the sub-segments from 2016 to 2028. For the purpose of this study, Grand View Research has segmented the global printing inks market on the basis of product, resin, application, and region.

Product Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2016 - 2028)

Gravure

Flexographic

Lithographic

Digital

Others

 Resin Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2016 - 2028)

Modified rosin

Modified cellulose

Acrylic

Polyurethane

Others

Application Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2016 - 2028)

Packaging & labels

Corrugated cardboards

Publication & Commercial Printing

Others

Regional Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2016 - 2028)

North America

US

Canada

Mexico

Europe

Germany

Italy

UK

Asia Pacific

China

Japan

India

Central & South America (CSA)

Brazil

Middle East & Africa

Printing Inks Market Share Insight

The global ink industry is extremely competitive owing to the presence of vertically integrated key players with technologically advanced solutions & equipment and procurement & distribution channels. The industry has witnessed a strong consolidation period in different regions which include, expansions, mergers, and acquisitions, making the industry highly competitive. Some expansion strategies include Epple Druckfarben Italia S.r.I in Milan, Italy, subsidiary of Epple Druckfarben for superior quality German offset printing inks in Italy and Kansas, U.S. plant which was an expansion strategy of Sakata Inx Corporation. Major market players include:

Flint Group

DIC Corporation

Siegwerk Druckfarben AG & Co. KGaA

Sakata Inx Corporation

T&K TOKA Corporation

Dainichiseika Color & Chemicals Mfg. Co., Ltd.

DEERS I CO., Ltd.

Epple Druckfarben AG

TOYO INK SC HOLDINGS CO., LTD.

Hubergroup

TOKYO PRINTING INK MFG CO., LTD..

Order a free sample PDF of the Printing Inks Market Intelligence Study, published by Grand View Research.