#decarbonization strategies

[johnadam98]

How Do You Convert Fuel Consumption into Carbon Emissions Using Emission Factors?

Converting fuel consumption into carbon emissions is a key step in assessing and managing the environmental impact of using gasoline or diesel. This process is vital for organizations aiming to reduce their carbon footprint and implement decarbonization strategies. By using emission factors, it's possible to quantify the greenhouse gases (GHGs) released from burning fossil fuels, providing a clear pathway to understanding the magnitude of emissions and where reduction efforts can be most effective.

Understanding Carbon Emissions from Fuel

When fuels like gasoline or diesel are burned in vehicles, machinery, or power plants, they release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. The amount of carbon emissions produced depends on the type of fuel consumed and how much of it is used. Each fuel type has a specific emission factor, which represents the amount of CO2 released per unit of fuel.

Emission factors are essential in converting fuel consumption data into carbon emissions calculations. These factors are generally provided by environmental agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and vary based on the fuel's carbon content and energy density.

What Are Emission Factors?

An emission factor is a value that estimates the amount of CO2 or other GHGs emitted per unit of activity, such as fuel burned. For example, gasoline has a specific emission factor representing how much carbon dioxide is released for every gallon or liter consumed. By multiplying the fuel consumption by the emission factor, we can determine the total amount of carbon emissions.

Common Emission Factors for Fuels

Gasoline: The typical emission factor for gasoline is around 8.89 kg CO2 per gallon (or 2.31 kg CO2 per liter).

Diesel: Diesel has a higher emission factor, approximately 10.21 kg CO2 per gallon (or 2.68 kg CO2 per liter).

These values can vary slightly based on the specific composition of the fuel and regional standards.

Steps to Convert Fuel Consumption into Carbon Emissions

Now that we understand what emission factors are, let’s explore the process of converting fuel consumption into carbon emissions. This method is a cornerstone of decarbonization strategies, as it enables individuals and businesses to assess their carbon footprint accurately.

Gather Fuel Consumption Data

The first step is to determine how much fuel has been consumed. This could be measured in gallons, liters, or another relevant unit. Fuel consumption data might come from vehicle logs, energy bills, or meter readings from industrial equipment.

Identify the Correct Emission Factor

Next, find the emission factor for the type of fuel being used. The emission factor allows us to link fuel consumption to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted. As mentioned earlier, the emission factor for gasoline is 8.89 kg CO2 per gallon, while diesel’s emission factor is 10.21 kg CO2 per gallon.

Multiply Fuel Consumption by the Emission Factor

Once you have the fuel consumption and the emission factor, the next step is straightforward: multiply the two values together. This calculation gives you the total carbon emissions from the fuel used.

Convert to Metric Tons (if needed)

Since carbon emissions are often reported in metric tons, you may need to convert the result. There are 1,000 kilograms in a metric ton, so to convert kilograms to metric tons, divide the total emissions by 1,000.

So, in this case, 100 gallons of gasoline would produce approximately 0.889 metric tons of CO2.

Apply the Process to Other Fuels

The same process applies to diesel or any other fuel. The key is using the correct emission factor for the fuel type, which can be found through environmental databases or reports from regulatory agencies.

Importance of Carbon Emissions Calculations

Accurately calculating carbon emissions is an essential part of any decarbonization strategy. It allows businesses and individuals to measure their environmental impact, set reduction targets, and monitor progress. By understanding how fuel consumption translates into carbon emissions, decision-makers can identify areas where fuel use can be reduced or where alternative, low-carbon fuels could be implemented.

Applications in Various Sectors

Transportation: Fleet managers can calculate emissions from fuel used by vehicles and explore options for more fuel-efficient models or electric vehicles as part of their decarbonization strategies.

Manufacturing: Industries relying on diesel-powered machinery can calculate emissions to find opportunities for using cleaner energy sources or improving fuel efficiency.

Residential: Homeowners can calculate emissions from heating systems powered by oil or natural gas, helping them explore energy-efficient upgrades.

Decarbonization Strategies and Reducing Fuel Emissions

Once you’ve conducted carbon emissions calculations, the next step is to develop and implement decarbonization strategies. Here are some ways to reduce carbon emissions from fuel consumption:

Fuel Efficiency Improvements

Improving fuel efficiency reduces the amount of fuel required for the same activity, thus lowering emissions. This can be achieved by using more efficient vehicles, upgrading industrial equipment, or optimizing operational practices.

Alternative Fuels

Switching to low-carbon or renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, electric vehicles, or hydrogen, can significantly reduce carbon emissions.

Behavioral Changes

Encouraging behavioral changes, such as reducing unnecessary trips, carpooling, or turning off machinery when not in use, can also lower fuel consumption and emissions.

Carbon Offsetting

For emissions that cannot be easily reduced, carbon offsetting can be used. This involves investing in projects that remove or reduce emissions elsewhere, such as reforestation or renewable energy initiatives.

Conclusion

Converting fuel consumption into carbon emissions using emission factors is a simple yet powerful tool in carbon emissions calculations. By following the steps outlined above, organizations and individuals can better understand their environmental impact and take informed steps toward decarbonization strategies. Whether in transportation, manufacturing, or everyday life, tracking and reducing carbon emissions is a crucial component in mitigating climate change and moving toward a more sustainable future.

[myzswblog]

Alpin has grown to encompass some of the world’s leading voices and thought leaders in the field of sustainable development and climate change, so much so that what started off as a niche advisory service has grown into a holistic service offering  Sustainability Reporting that incorporates all of the elements and aspects that would play a role in creating a sustainable development or policy. The essence of our work lies in our flexibility, giving us the ability to match the very best consultants to your project’s needs, no matter the size or sector. We draw from a trusted pool of highly experienced, regionally based project managers as well as  Decarbonization Strategies to create a winning team.

[middleeastblogs]

Independent Commissioning Authority: Ensuring Performance Integrity

Green building certification has become pivotal in the construction industry's shift towards sustainability, emphasizing the integration of carbon emissions calculations, decarbonization strategies, and independent commissioning authority. These elements collectively enhance environmental stewardship, energy efficiency, and occupant comfort while ensuring compliance with rigorous sustainability standards.

Understanding Green Building Certification

Green building certification signifies adherence to sustainable building practices and environmental responsibility. Certifications such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) evaluate buildings based on criteria such as energy efficiency, water conservation, materials selection, indoor air quality, and site sustainability. These certifications provide frameworks for achieving higher levels of environmental performance and occupant well-being.

Carbon Emissions Calculations in Green Building Certification

Carbon emissions calculations are fundamental in assessing a building's environmental impact throughout its life cycle. Key considerations include:

Embodied Carbon: Quantifying the carbon footprint associated with materials and construction processes, including manufacturing, transportation, and assembly.

Operational Carbon: Measuring ongoing carbon emissions from energy consumption for heating, cooling, lighting, and other building operations.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Conducting comprehensive LCAs to evaluate the overall environmental impact of a building, considering both embodied and operational carbon emissions.

Incorporating accurate carbon emissions calculations ensures that buildings minimize their carbon footprint and contribute positively to global climate goals.

Decarbonization Strategies for Sustainable Buildings

Decarbonization strategies aim to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions from buildings, aligning with global efforts to mitigate climate change. Strategies include:

Energy Efficiency: Implementing energy-efficient technologies and practices to reduce energy demand and lower operational carbon emissions.

Renewable Energy Integration: Installing renewable energy systems such as solar panels, wind turbines, or geothermal systems to generate onsite clean energy and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Electrification: Transitioning building systems from fossil fuel-based to electric-powered alternatives, such as electric heating and cooling systems and electric vehicles.

Energy Storage: Incorporating energy storage solutions to optimize renewable energy use and support grid stability.

Decarbonization strategies are essential for achieving net-zero carbon emissions in buildings and advancing sustainable development goals.

Role of Independent Commissioning Authority

Independent commissioning authority (ICA) ensures that buildings meet performance standards and sustainability goals through systematic evaluation and verification. Key responsibilities include:

Quality Assurance: Verifying that building systems and components perform as designed and meet energy efficiency and environmental performance targets.

Systems Integration: Ensuring seamless integration of building systems, including HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning), lighting, and renewable energy systems.

Performance Testing: Conducting performance testing and monitoring to validate energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and occupant comfort.

ICAs play a crucial role in the certification process by providing impartial assessments and recommendations for optimizing building performance and sustainability outcomes.

Implementing Green Building Certification and Decarbonization

Integrating green building certification, carbon emissions calculations, decarbonization strategies, and independent commissioning authority involves:

Pre-Design Phase:

Conducting feasibility studies and setting sustainability goals aligned with certification requirements.

Performing initial carbon emissions calculations and establishing baseline performance metrics.

Design and Construction Phase:

Collaborating with architects, engineers, and contractors to implement sustainable design principles and decarbonization strategies.

Selecting low-carbon materials and systems with verified EPDs to minimize embodied carbon.

Post-Construction Phase:

Commissioning building systems under the oversight of an ICA to verify performance and compliance with sustainability standards.

Monitoring energy use and carbon emissions to optimize building operations and achieve ongoing performance improvements.

Certification and Maintenance:

Submitting documentation and performance data for green building certification review and approval.

Implementing maintenance and operational practices to sustain high-performance levels and meet certification requirements over time.

Benefits of Green Building Certification

Green building certification offers numerous benefits, including:

Environmental Impact: Reducing carbon emissions, conserving natural resources, and promoting biodiversity conservation.

Financial Savings: Lowering operating costs through energy and water efficiency improvements and potential tax incentives or rebates for sustainable building practices.

Market Differentiation: Enhancing marketability and tenant attraction with certified sustainable and healthy buildings.

Occupant Health and Well-being: Improving indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and overall occupant satisfaction.

Conclusion

Green building certification, supported by rigorous carbon emissions calculations, decarbonization strategies, and independent commissioning authority, is instrumental in advancing sustainable development objectives. By integrating these elements into building design, construction, and operation, stakeholders can achieve high-performance buildings that minimize environmental impact, enhance occupant comfort, and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change. As the demand for sustainable buildings grows, leveraging green building certification frameworks and holistic sustainability strategies remains crucial for creating resilient and environmentally responsible built environments.

[arunima123]

Low Carbon Consultants: Key Players in Saudi Arabia's Decarbonization Strategies

With the growing concern of climate change, ESG sustainability reporting in KSA has become a key area of focus for businesses globally. ESG Saudi Arabia and sustainability reporting is still in its nascent stage. However, the country has started to take the initiative to embrace sustainable development and reduce its carbon footprint. In this regard, low carbon consultants play a critical role in developing decarbonization strategies for Saudi Arabia.

ESG Sustainability Reporting in KSA

ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance. ESG sustainability reporting is a way for companies to report on their environmental, social, and governance performance. It provides transparency and accountability to investors and other stakeholders on how companies are managing their impact on society and the environment.

In Saudi Arabia, ESG sustainability reporting is gaining momentum, particularly among the larger corporations. The Capital Market Authority (CMA) in Saudi Arabia has introduced regulations requiring all listed companies to report on their ESG performance. This move is expected to push more companies in Saudi Arabia to adopt sustainable practices and reduce their carbon footprint.

ESG Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is known for being the world's largest oil producer and exporter. However, in recent years, the country has been taking steps to diversify its economy and reduce its dependence on oil. One of the ways the country is doing this is by embracing sustainable development and reducing its carbon emissions.

To achieve this goal, Saudi Arabia has set a target of generating 50% of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The country has also launched a series of initiatives, including the National Renewable Energy Program (NREP), to promote the development of renewable energy in the country.

Low Carbon Consultants

Low carbon consultants are professionals who specialize in developing strategies to help companies reduce their carbon emissions. They work with businesses to assess their carbon footprint and identify areas where they can reduce their emissions. They also help companies develop plans to transition to renewable energy sources and implement sustainable practices.

In Saudi Arabia, low carbon consultants are playing a key role in helping the country achieve its decarbonization goals. These consultants work with businesses across a range of industries, from oil and gas to transportation, to help them reduce their carbon footprint and transition to sustainable practices.

Decarbonization Strategies

Decarbonization is the process of reducing carbon emissions to zero. It is a critical component of the fight against climate change. In Saudi Arabia, the government has set a target of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2060. Achieving this target will require significant efforts from both the public and private sectors.

Low carbon consultants are working with companies in Saudi Arabia to develop decarbonization strategies that are aligned with the country's goals. These strategies involve identifying ways to reduce carbon emissions across the entire value chain, from production to distribution. They also involve transitioning to renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and implementing sustainable practices across the business.

Conclusion

In conclusion, low carbon consultants are key players in Saudi Arabia's decarbonization strategies. They are working with businesses to reduce their carbon footprint and transition to sustainable practices. With the government's focus on sustainable development and the introduction of ESG regulations, the demand for low carbon consultants in Saudi Arabia is likely to increase in the coming years. As the country continues to diversify its economy and reduce its dependence on oil, low carbon consultants will play a critical role in helping the country achieve its decarbonization goals.

[vivekguptahal]

Moving to a Net Zero World With Energy & Transport Decarbonization

Transitioning to a net-zero world is one of the greatest challenges we are facing now. It calls for a complete transformation of how we produce, consume, and move about. As emissions continue to rise, it is becoming indispensable to keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C -  to reach net zero by 2050^. For this, nations must make pledges and implement policies to encourage compliance and the onus is on us to achieve the goal. Achieving carbon neutrality must now be a priority for all corporations – by devising technological innovations to enable decarbonization.

Primary focus: decarbonization strategies in the transportation and energy sector

Most greenhouse gas emissions emanate from transportation and energy production. Accordingly, organizations operating at the intersection of energy and transportation will bear much of the responsibility to devise ways to achieve carbon neutrality.

These industries face significant challenges in the decarbonization journey like the need for the transportation industry to electrify most vehicles. Already, California and Texas have been forced to request that residents restrict the charging of electric vehicles (EVs).^^

Hitachi’s role in decarbonization and sustainability

Hitachi, the climate change innovator, is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by minimizing carbon emissions. We have focused on reducing energy consumption and emissions from our factories and facilities, and from suppliers that provide goods, services, and materials to Hitachi.

Hitachi’s efforts in the transition to carbon-neutral focus on three main areas:

1. Digital technologies like advanced data science, artificial intelligence, and IoT.

2. Green technologies like renewables, nuclear, and EVs.

3. Social innovation solutions applied to energy, transportation, and other industries.

We’re using the knowledge we gained from our journey to carbon neutrality to help ease and speed up decarbonization for global organizations.

Early progress leads to future success

Recently, Hitachi partnered with Snohomish County Public Utility District (SnoPUD) to put its decarbonization expertise to work. Together, Hitachi and SnoPUD built a next-generation microgrid that provides reliable power, utilizes vehicle-to-grid (V2G) power for resiliency, and powers the utility’s operations exclusively with renewable energy.

Projects such as the Hitachi-SnoPUD partnership blaze the trail to sustainability, proving the concepts and technologies that must be deployed worldwide in achieving the 2050 goal of carbon neutrality. They also illustrate the value of strategic partnership in the global transition from fossil fuels to sustainable, clean forms of energy.

Decarbonization of energy – finding opportunities

By deploying the right strategies and technologies, organizations can contribute to the global drive toward decarbonization while profiting greatly from their efforts. But many corporations struggle to make this vision a reality. A recent survey by the Boston Consulting Group found that while two-thirds of surveyed companies consider climate and sustainability to be a top priority, only 20% of them are positioned to make real progress in achieving their decarbonization goals.^^^

If your organization faces similar challenges, Hitachi is here to assist you in achieving sustainability transformation and contributing to the global push to 2050.

Discover how Hitachi is driving social innovation and digital transformation in Transportation:

Discover how Hitachi is driving social innovation and digital transformation in Energy:

---------------------------------------------------- Sources

^ https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050

^^ Livia Albeck-Ripka, “Amid Heat Wave, California Asks Electric Vehicle Owners to Limit Charging,” New York Times, September 1, 2022 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/california-heat-wave-flex-alert-ac-ev-charging.html

^^^ Justin Manly, Michael Ringel, et al., ”Are You Ready for Green Growth?,“   https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/innovation-in-climate-and-sustainability-will-lead-to-green-growth

[jcmarchi]

Reality check on technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the air

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/reality-check-on-technologies-to-remove-carbon-dioxide-from-the-air/

Reality check on technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the air

In 2015, 195 nations plus the European Union signed the Paris Agreement and pledged to undertake plans designed to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Yet in 2023, the world exceeded that target for most, if not all of, the year — calling into question the long-term feasibility of achieving that target.

To do so, the world must reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and strategies for achieving levels that will “stabilize the climate” have been both proposed and adopted. Many of those strategies combine dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with the use of direct air capture (DAC), a technology that removes CO2 from the ambient air. As a reality check, a team of researchers in the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) examined those strategies, and what they found was alarming: The strategies rely on overly optimistic — indeed, unrealistic — assumptions about how much CO2 could be removed by DAC. As a result, the strategies won’t perform as predicted. Nevertheless, the MITEI team recommends that work to develop the DAC technology continue so that it’s ready to help with the energy transition — even if it’s not the silver bullet that solves the world’s decarbonization challenge.

DAC: The promise and the reality

Including DAC in plans to stabilize the climate makes sense. Much work is now under way to develop DAC systems, and the technology looks promising. While companies may never run their own DAC systems, they can already buy “carbon credits” based on DAC. Today, a multibillion-dollar market exists on which entities or individuals that face high costs or excessive disruptions to reduce their own carbon emissions can pay others to take emissions-reducing actions on their behalf. Those actions can involve undertaking new renewable energy projects or “carbon-removal” initiatives such as DAC or afforestation/reforestation (planting trees in areas that have never been forested or that were forested in the past). 

DAC-based credits are especially appealing for several reasons, explains Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at MITEI. With DAC, measuring and verifying the amount of carbon removed is straightforward; the removal is immediate, unlike with planting forests, which may take decades to have an impact; and when DAC is coupled with CO2 storage in geologic formations, the CO2 is kept out of the atmosphere essentially permanently — in contrast to, for example, sequestering it in trees, which may one day burn and release the stored CO2.

Will current plans that rely on DAC be effective in stabilizing the climate in the coming years? To find out, Herzog and his colleagues Jennifer Morris and Angelo Gurgel, both MITEI principal research scientists, and Sergey Paltsev, a MITEI senior research scientist — all affiliated with the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3) — took a close look at the modeling studies on which those plans are based.

Their investigation identified three unavoidable engineering challenges that together lead to a fourth challenge — high costs for removing a single ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. The details of their findings are reported in a paper published in the journal One Earth on Sept. 20.

Challenge 1: Scaling up

When it comes to removing CO2 from the air, nature presents “a major, non-negotiable challenge,” notes the MITEI team: The concentration of CO2 in the air is extremely low — just 420 parts per million, or roughly 0.04 percent. In contrast, the CO2 concentration in flue gases emitted by power plants and industrial processes ranges from 3 percent to 20 percent. Companies now use various carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies to capture CO2 from their flue gases, but capturing CO2 from the air is much more difficult. To explain, the researchers offer the following analogy: “The difference is akin to needing to find 10 red marbles in a jar of 25,000 marbles of which 24,990 are blue [the task representing DAC] versus needing to find about 10 red marbles in a jar of 100 marbles of which 90 are blue [the task for CCS].”

Given that low concentration, removing a single metric ton (tonne) of CO2 from air requires processing about 1.8 million cubic meters of air, which is roughly equivalent to the volume of 720 Olympic-sized swimming pools. And all that air must be moved across a CO2-capturing sorbent — a feat requiring large equipment. For example, one recently proposed design for capturing 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year would require an “air contactor” equivalent in size to a structure about three stories high and three miles long.

Recent modeling studies project DAC deployment on the scale of 5 to 40 gigatonnes of CO2 removed per year. (A gigatonne equals 1 billion metric tonnes.) But in their paper, the researchers conclude that the likelihood of deploying DAC at the gigatonne scale is “highly uncertain.”

Challenge 2: Energy requirement

Given the low concentration of CO2 in the air and the need to move large quantities of air to capture it, it’s no surprise that even the best DAC processes proposed today would consume large amounts of energy — energy that’s generally supplied by a combination of electricity and heat. Including the energy needed to compress the captured CO2 for transportation and storage, most proposed processes require an equivalent of at least 1.2 megawatt-hours of electricity for each tonne of CO2 removed.

The source of that electricity is critical. For example, using coal-based electricity to drive an all-electric DAC process would generate 1.2 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of CO2 captured. The result would be a net increase in emissions, defeating the whole purpose of the DAC. So clearly, the energy requirement must be satisfied using either low-carbon electricity or electricity generated using fossil fuels with CCS. All-electric DAC deployed at large scale — say, 10 gigatonnes of CO2 removed annually — would require 12,000 terawatt-hours of electricity, which is more than 40 percent of total global electricity generation today.

Electricity consumption is expected to grow due to increasing overall electrification of the world economy, so low-carbon electricity will be in high demand for many competing uses — for example, in power generation, transportation, industry, and building operations. Using clean electricity for DAC instead of for reducing CO2 emissions in other critical areas raises concerns about the best uses of clean electricity.

Many studies assume that a DAC unit could also get energy from “waste heat” generated by some industrial process or facility nearby. In the MITEI researchers’ opinion, “that may be more wishful thinking than reality.” The heat source would need to be within a few miles of the DAC plant for transporting the heat to be economical; given its high capital cost, the DAC plant would need to run nonstop, requiring constant heat delivery; and heat at the temperature required by the DAC plant would have competing uses, for example, for heating buildings. Finally, if DAC is deployed at the gigatonne per year scale, waste heat will likely be able to provide only a small fraction of the needed energy.

Challenge 3: Siting

Some analysts have asserted that, because air is everywhere, DAC units can be located anywhere. But in reality, siting a DAC plant involves many complex issues. As noted above, DAC plants require significant amounts of energy, so having access to enough low-carbon energy is critical. Likewise, having nearby options for storing the removed CO2 is also critical. If storage sites or pipelines to such sites don’t exist, major new infrastructure will need to be built, and building new infrastructure of any kind is expensive and complicated, involving issues related to permitting, environmental justice, and public acceptability — issues that are, in the words of the researchers, “commonly underestimated in the real world and neglected in models.”

Two more siting needs must be considered. First, meteorological conditions must be acceptable. By definition, any DAC unit will be exposed to the elements, and factors like temperature and humidity will affect process performance and process availability. And second, a DAC plant will require some dedicated land — though how much is unclear, as the optimal spacing of units is as yet unresolved. Like wind turbines, DAC units need to be properly spaced to ensure maximum performance such that one unit is not sucking in CO2-depleted air from another unit.

Challenge 4: Cost

Considering the first three challenges, the final challenge is clear: the cost per tonne of CO2 removed is inevitably high. Recent modeling studies assume DAC costs as low as $100 to $200 per ton of CO2 removed. But the researchers found evidence suggesting far higher costs.

To start, they cite typical costs for power plants and industrial sites that now use CCS to remove CO2 from their flue gases. The cost of CCS in such applications is estimated to be in the range of $50 to $150 per ton of CO2 removed. As explained above, the far lower concentration of CO2 in the air will lead to substantially higher costs.

As explained under Challenge 1, the DAC units needed to capture the required amount of air are massive. The capital cost of building them will be high, given labor, materials, permitting costs, and so on. Some estimates in the literature exceed $5,000 per tonne captured per year.

Then there are the ongoing costs of energy. As noted under Challenge 2, removing 1 tonne of CO2 requires the equivalent of 1.2 megawatt-hours of electricity. If that electricity costs $0.10 per kilowatt-hour, the cost of just the electricity needed to remove 1 tonne of CO2 is $120. The researchers point out that assuming such a low price is “questionable,” given the expected increase in electricity demand, future competition for clean energy, and higher costs on a system dominated by renewable — but intermittent — energy sources.

Then there’s the cost of storage, which is ignored in many DAC cost estimates.

Clearly, many considerations show that prices of $100 to $200 per tonne are unrealistic, and assuming such low prices will distort assessments of strategies, leading them to underperform going forward.

The bottom line

In their paper, the MITEI team calls DAC a “very seductive concept.” Using DAC to suck CO2 out of the air and generate high-quality carbon-removal credits can offset reduction requirements for industries that have hard-to-abate emissions. By doing so, DAC would minimize disruptions to key parts of the world’s economy, including air travel, certain carbon-intensive industries, and agriculture. However, the world would need to generate billions of tonnes of CO2 credits at an affordable price. That prospect doesn’t look likely. The largest DAC plant in operation today removes just 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, and the price to buy the company’s carbon-removal credits on the market today is $1,500 per tonne.

The researchers recognize that there is room for energy efficiency improvements in the future, but DAC units will always be subject to higher work requirements than CCS applied to power plant or industrial flue gases, and there is not a clear pathway to reducing work requirements much below the levels of current DAC technologies.

Nevertheless, the researchers recommend that work to develop DAC continue “because it may be needed for meeting net-zero emissions goals, especially given the current pace of emissions.” But their paper concludes with this warning: “Given the high stakes of climate change, it is foolhardy to rely on DAC to be the hero that comes to our rescue.”

[probablyasocialecologist]

Ending mass human deprivation and providing good lives for the whole world's population can be accomplished while at the same time achieving ecological objectives. This is demonstrated by a new study by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and the London School of Economics and Political Science, recently published in World Development Perspectives. About 80% of humanity cannot access necessary goods and services and lives below the threshold for "decent living." Some narratives claim that addressing this problem will require massive economic growth on a global scale, multiplying existing output many times over, which would exacerbate climate change and ecological breakdown. The authors of the new study dispute this claim and argue that human development does not require such a dangerous approach. Reviewing recent empirical research, they find that ending mass deprivation and provisioning decent living standards for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments. This would ensure that everyone in the world has access to nutritious food, modern housing, high-quality health care, education, electricity, induction stoves, sanitation systems, clothing, washing machines, refrigerators, heating/cooling systems, computers, mobile phones, internet, and transport, and could also include universal access to recreational facilities, theaters, and other public goods. The authors argue that, to achieve such a future, strategies for development should not pursue capitalist growth and increased aggregate production as such but should rather increase the specific forms of production that are necessary to improve capabilities and meet human needs at a high standard, while ensuring universal access to key goods and services through public provisioning and decommodification. In the Global South, this requires using industrial policy to increase economic sovereignty, develop industrial capacity, and organize production around human well-being. At the same time, in high-income countries, less-necessary production (of things like mansions, SUVs, private jets and fast fashion) must be scaled down to enable faster decarbonization and to help bring resource use back within planetary boundaries, as degrowth scholarship holds.

July 25 2024

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The impoverished imagination of neoliberal climate “solutions

This morning (Oct 31) at 10hPT, the Internet Archive is livestreaming my presentation on my recent book, The Internet Con.

There is only one planet in the known universe capable of sustaining human life, and it is rapidly becoming uninhabitable by humans. Clearly, this warrants bold action – but which bold action should we take?

After half a century of denial and disinformation, the business lobby has seemingly found climate religion and has joined the choir, but they have their own unique hymn: this crisis is so dire, they say, that we don't have the luxury of choosing between different ways of addressing the emergency. We have to do "all of the above" – every possible solution must be tried.

In his new book Dark PR, Grant Ennis explains that this "all of the above" strategy doesn't represent a change of heart by big business. Rather, it's part of the denial playbook that's been used to sell tobacco-cancer doubt and climate disinformation:

https://darajapress.com/publication/dark-pr-how-corporate-disinformation-harms-our-health-and-the-environment

The point of "all of the above" isn't muscular, immediate action – rather, it's a delaying tactic that creates space for "solutions" that won't work, but will generate profits. Think of how the tobacco industry used "all of the above" to sell "light" cigarettes, snuff, snus, and vaping – and delay tobacco bans, sin taxes, and business-euthanizing litigation. Today, the same playbook is used to sell EVs as an answer to the destructive legacy of the personal automobile – to the exclusion of mass transit, bikes, and 15-minute cities:

https://thewaroncars.org/2023/10/24/113-dark-pr-with-grant-ennis/

As the tobacco and car examples show, "all of the above" is never really all of the above. Pursuing "light" cigarettes to reduce cancer is incompatible with simply banning tobacco; giving everyone a personal EV is incompatible with remaking our cities for transit, cycling and walking.

When it comes to the climate emergency, "all of the above" means trying "market-based" solutions to the exclusion of directly regulating emissions, despite the poor performance of these "solutions."

The big one here is carbon offsets, which allows companies to make money by promising not to emit carbon that they would otherwise emit. The idea here is that creating a new asset class will unleash the incredible creativity of markets by harnessing the greed of elite sociopaths to the project of decarbonization, rather of the prudence of democratically accountable lawmakers.

Carbon offsets have not worked: they have been plagued by absolutely foreseeable problems that have not lessened, despite repeated attempts to mitigate them.

For starters, carbon offsets are a classic market for lemons. The cheapest way to make a carbon offset is to promise not to emit carbon you were never going to emit anyway, as when fake charities like the Nature Conservancy make millions by promising not to log forests that can't be logged because they are wildlife preserves:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/18/greshams-carbon-law/#papal-indulgences

Then there's the problem of monitoring carbon offsetting activity. Like, what happens when the forest you promise not to log burns down? If you're a carbon trader, the answer is "nothing." That burned-down forest can still be sold as if it were sequestering carbon, rather than venting it to the atmosphere in an out-of-control blaze:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/26/aggregate-demand/#murder-offsets

When you bought a plane ticket and ticked the "offset the carbon on my flight" box and paid an extra $10, I bet you thought that you were contributing to a market that incentivized a reduction in discretionary, socially useless carbon-intensive activity. But without those carbon offsets, SUVs would have all but disappeared from American roads. Carbon offsets for Tesla cars generated billions in carbon offsets for Elon Musk, and allowed SUVs to escape regulations that would otherwise have seen them pulled from the market:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/24/no-puedo-pagar-no-pagara/#Rat

What's more, Tesla figured out how to get double the offsets they were entitled to by pretending that they had a working battery-swap technology. This directly translated to even more SUVs on the road:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Misuse_of_government_subsidies

Harnessing the profit motive to the planet's survivability might sound like a good idea, but it assumes that corporations can self-regulate their way to a better climate future. They cannot. Think of how Canada's logging industry was allowed to clearcut old-growth forests and replace them with "pines in lines" – evenly spaced, highly flammable, commercially useful tree-farms that now turn into raging forest fires every year:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/16/murder-offsets/#pulped-and-papered

The idea of "market-based" climate solutions is that certain harmful conduct should be disincentivized through taxes, rather than banned. This makes carbon offsets into a kind of modern Papal indulgence, which let you continue to sin, for a price. As the outstanding short video Murder Offsets so ably demonstrates, this is an inadequate, unserious and immoral response to the urgency of the issue:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/14/for-sale-green-indulgences/#killer-analogy

Offsets and other market-based climate measures aren't "all of the above" – they exclude other measures that have better track-records and lower costs, because those measures cut against the interests of the business lobby. Writing for the Law and Political Economy Project, Yale Law's Douglas Kysar gives some pointed examples:

https://lpeproject.org/blog/climate-change-and-the-neoliberal-imagination/

For example: carbon offsets rely on a notion called "contrafactual carbon," this being the imaginary carbon that might be omitted by a company if it wasn't participating in offsets. The number of credits a company gets is determined by the difference between its contrafactual emissions and its actual emissions.

But the "contrafactual" here comes from a business-as-usual world, one where the only limit on carbon emissions comes from corporate executives' voluntary actions – and not from regulation, direct action, or other limits on corporate conduct.

Kysar asks us to imagine a contrafactual that depends on "carbon upsets," rather than offsets – one where the limits on carbon come from "lawsuits, referenda, protests, boycotts, civil disobedience":

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/aug/29/carbon-upsets-offsets-cap-and-trade

If we're really committed to "all of the above" as baseline for calculating offsets, why not imagine a carbon world grounded in foreseeable, evidence-based reality, like the situation in Louisiana, where a planned petrochemical plant was canceled after a lawsuit over its 13.6m tons of annual carbon emissions?

https://earthjustice.org/press/2022/louisiana-court-vacates-air-permits-for-formosas-massive-petrochemical-complex-in-cancer-alley

Rather than a tradeable market in carbon offsets, we could harness the market to reward upsets. If your group wins a lawsuit that prevents 13.6m tons of carbon emissions every year, it will get 13.6 million credits for every year that plant would have run. That would certainly drive the commercial imaginations of many otherwise disinterested parties to find carbon-reduction measures. If we're going to revive dubious medieval practices like indulgences, why not champerty, too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

That is, if every path to a survivable planet must run through Goldman-Sachs, why not turn their devious minds to figuring out ways to make billions in tradeable credits by suing the pants off oil companies?

There are any number of measures that rise to the flimsy standards of evidence in support of offsets. Like, we're giving away $85/ton in free public money for carbon capture technologies, despite the lack of any credible path to these making a serious dent in the climate situation:

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/072523-ira-turbocharged-carbon-capture-tax-credit-but-challenges-persist-experts

If we're willing to fund untested longshots like carbon capture, why not measures that have far better track-records? For example, there's a pretty solid correlation between the presence of women in legislatures and on corporate boards and overall reductions in carbon. I'm the last person to suggest that the problems of capitalism can be replaced by replacing half of the old white men who run the world with women, PoCs and queers – but if we're willing to hand billions to ferkakte scheme like carbon capture, why not subsidize companies that pack their boards with women, or provide campaign subsidies to women running for office? It's quite a longshot (putting Liz Truss or Marjorie Taylor-Greene on your board or in your legislature is no way to save the planet), but it's got a better evidentiary basis than carbon capture.

There's also good evidence that correlates inequality with carbon emissions, though the causal relationship is unclear. Maybe inequality lets the wealthy control policy outcomes and tilt them towards permitting high-emission/high-profit activities. Maybe inequality reduces the social cohesion needed to make decarbonization work. Maybe inequality makes it harder for green tech to find customers. Maybe inequality leads to rich people chasing status-enhancing goods (think: private jet rides) that are extremely carbon-intensive.

Whatever the reason, there's a pretty good case that radical wealth redistribution would speed up decarbonization – any "all of the above" strategy should certainly consider this one.

Kysar's written a paper on this, entitled "Ways Not to Think About Climate Change":

https://political-theory.org/resources/Documents/Kysar.Ways%20Not%20to%20Think%20About%20Climate%20Change.pdf

It's been accepted for the upcoming American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy conference on climate change:

https://political-theory.org/13257256

It's quite a bracing read! The next time someone tells you we should hand Elon Musk billions to in exchange for making it possible to legally manufacture vast fleets of SUVs because we need to try "all of the above," send them a copy of this paper.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/31/carbon-upsets/#big-tradeoff

[elbiotipo]

in the face of things like the floods in Brazil, how do you have ANY hope that the biosphere won’t be completely and utterly destroyed? I’m at my wit’s end. It seems like we’ve passed the point of no return. There isn’t any hope

how do you keep motivated

The biosphere won't ever be completely and utterly destroyed. Unless an asteroid impact boils the oceans away, that's just hyperbole.

And the FIRST thing you need to stop doing about climate change right now is hyperbole, because 1) that's the new strategy of "let's keep things as they are" people, "climate change is irreversible and we're all doomed so why do anything" and 2) it makes people to think you don't know what you're talking about and you're just a pointless doomer so they don't even listen. I'm a biologist, but you also should know what biosphere is, you know our biosphere has passed through several mass extinctions and has survived. Use the right terms.

What do I mean by this, am I being a condescending pedant? No, well maybe a little and I apologize, but my point is, it means that to talk about climate change, you need to know what's at risk. It's not "the Earth will warm 2°C and EVERYTHING WILL DIE", it's NOT. Global warming in such a short timescale means the disruption of global climate and weather in unpredictable ways which leads to natural catastrophes such as these. It means the disruption of ecosystems and agroecosystems because of this, in ways that we don't fully understand because it involves many factors. At the very worst case scenario, it means crop failures with all that implies, and we've already seen this with droughts, but even then, it would require adaptation and food distribution, just as today. There is a lot more to climate change, but what's important here is that it doesn't mean that we will all catch fire or drown when the average temperature reaches a certain degree. There is not such thing as a "point of no return".

What can we do about this? First of all, assist those who are inmediatly affected by these natural disasters. Second of all, recognize that these things will increase and start building up measures against it; change land use and preserve forests and wetlands so that floods have natural sinks, build defenses and canals in cities, reforest and protect land affected by drought, every place will have to adapt in a different way. Third, and this is already happening, transition away from fossils and aim at decarbonization, not only stop emissions but actually reverse them.

I say this is already happening because as of right now, solar and wind energy is at its cheapest ever and coal plants aren't being built nearly anywhere anymore. This transition is going through very rough times as the fossil fuel industries are very powerful, and this is why governments need to be pressured by popular action to complete it once and for all. But the results are already there. The worst case scenario of a 4°C warming planet, which would have meant crop failures and total melting of the ice caps, is increasingly far away, we are NO longer in the business as usual scenario. Are we there yet? No. Is a warming over 1.5°C inevitable? Most probably yes. Will this cause disasters and will require a tremendous effort to fight back? Definitevely. But every effort counts. Every coal plant that closes, every hectare of forest preserved, every time people choose nature over profit, every effort counts towards keeping us away from catastrophe.

Do you efffort then! Go get educated instead of dooming, learn what a biosphere is! And a biosphere isn't a small thing, you won't save it alone. It will take the efforts of millions of people to protect it. Millions of people who are already hard at work. Educate yourself and join them!

[climatecalling]

Wealthy economies should abandon growth of gross domestic product (GDP) as a goal, scale down destructive and unnecessary forms of production to reduce energy and material use, and focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being. This can enable rapid decarbonization and stop ecological breakdown while improving social outcomes. It frees up energy and materials for low- and middle-income countries in which growth might still be needed for development. Degrowth is a purposeful strategy to stabilize economies and achieve social and ecological goals, unlike recession, which is chaotic and socially destabilizing and occurs when growth-dependent economies fail to grow. ... Social movements and cultural change brewing below the surface often precede and catalyse political transformation. ... Researchers should study political movements that are aligned with degrowth values — from La Via Campesina, the international peasants’ movement that advocates food sovereignty and agroecological methods, to the municipalist and communalist movements and governments in progressive cities such as Barcelona or Zagreb, which promote policies favouring social justice and the commons. ... In our view, the question is no longer whether growth will run into limits, but rather how we can enable societies to prosper without growth, to ensure a just and ecological future.

[mariacallous]

In July, the local government of the Italian region of Sardinia suspended the construction of hundreds of new wind turbines, claiming that it would destroy the island’s beautiful landscape. In October, the government then announced its intention to stop the construction of new wind farms altogether, also adding solar panels to the ban.

These decisions followed mounting protests by large groups of activists who opposed these renewable energy developments, advocating instead for the use of natural gas to produce electricity. In August, unknown people set fire to two wind farms that were due to be installed in the north of the island. Similar attacks destroyed solar panels destined to be constructed on local farmland.

Under its new plans, Sardinia is betting instead on developing its natural gas infrastructure while delaying the shutdown of its coal-fired power plants, which now produce more than 60 percent of the electricity needed by the island of 1.6 million people.

The opposition to renewables in Sardinia is a blow not only to other Italian local governments, which are facing tough decisions on how to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a major setback for the central government in Rome and especially for the European Union and its European Green Deal, the ambitious climate plan for the entire continent.

The ongoing battle in Sardinia is the latest example of the struggle European countries are facing in reaching their ambitious decarbonization plans in the continent. Countries such as France, Germany, and Spain have been facing opposition to these projects over the past few years, raising questions about the attainability of a central element of the EU’s green strategy.

The ability and political will of each European country to translate Europe’s plans and goals into actual national laws and policies will be crucial in reaching the continent’s ambitious climate targets. But the risk that a two-speed—or even multispeed—Europe could ultimately derail the overall plans is growing, and it will test the new European Commission’s determination to achieve sufficient progress during its upcoming mandate.

“The commission’s legacy will depend on its ability to push forward vital green policies within a maelstrom of political and domestic discontent,” said Mats Engström, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The climate team’s members must also bridge political divides within the commission to deliver on its Green Deal promises. Whether it succeeds in this task will be closely scrutinized over the upcoming five-year term.”

The European Green Deal, a policy framework to achieve climate neutrality—meaning full decarbonization—by 2050, was approved in 2020. Subsequent legislation set a 55 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. EU institutions are currently assessing the feasibility of an intermediate goal of a reduction of 90 percent by 2040, which has also been proposed by the commission.

Replacing fossil fuel energy production with renewables is just one aspect of the bloc’s goals. Others include recovering Europe’s biodiversity, making its food system more sustainable, and creating a well-functioning circular economy, all while making its industries greener.

These policies will affect all sectors of the bloc’s economy—households, industry, services, and agriculture—with the aim of also making it more competitive globally.

Analysts at Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published a report in October that identified four areas of risk that may derail the achievement of the EU’s climate goals, which also appear to be intertwined: geoeconomic instability, technological progress, exacerbated inequality, and policy credibility.

“A global economy with more trade disputes and greater risk of conflict endangers the massive capital investment needed for the transition, while the cost of clean technologies is a primary determinant of the economic viability of decarbonisation,” the analysts wrote. They added: “Climate policies will affect people’s everyday lives in disruptive ways, meaning that regressive outcomes must be guarded against, balanced with a concrete commitment to the established climate policy pillars.”

In a September report, the European Commission—the executive arm of the EU—listed a number of key achievements already reached. EU’s greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 32.5 percent from the 1990 baseline, while the European economy has grown by 67 percent over the same period, demonstrating the decoupling of growth from emissions.

However, the commission warned that although the installation of renewable power plants has been at a record high over the past few years, the pace toward EU energy efficiency and renewable targets must be further increased to ensure their achievement.

The bloc’s executive also warned about the significant challenge to the continent’s competitiveness due to rising competition with China, high energy price differentials compared to industrial competitors such as the United States, and potential strategic dependencies on clean energy technologies.

At the same time, European citizens still face high energy bills, which—combined with the rising cost of living—further reduce their purchasing power.

“The sectors in which it goes pretty well are the sectors where the economic case is there,” said Linda Kalcher, the executive director at Strategic Perspectives, another Brussels-based think-tank. “For instance, as long as there are schemes that actually support households to buy heat pumps or electric vehicles, we see that there is high uptake on them. The areas where it’s still not economically beneficial, like renovating the building stock, are obviously very slow.”

This September’s Eurobarometer, a survey conducted over the previous few months on behalf of European institutions, found that 81 percent of the sample agree that implementing a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target will contribute to Europe’s fight against climate change and to the protection of the environment.

Yet, 53 percent said the EU should encourage member states to make their first or second energy priority enacting measures to support households in energy poverty, while 50 percent said that member states should prioritize focusing on measures to reduce energy consumption or that help citizens to produce or consume energy from renewable sources.

Conall Heussaff, a research analyst at Bruegel, said the biggest risk that could hamper the achievement of the EU’s 2030 decarbonization targets is what the think tank called the “policy credibility risk.”

“There’s a danger for divisive politics to use the energy transition as a wedge, as a way to divide the public and push against the sort of ‘elite imposition’ on people’s lives,” he said.

Political disputes about climate policy were evident in the run-up to European Parliament elections in June in relation to several policy measures, including the phaseout of internal combustion engines, the so-called nature restoration law, and gas boiler sales bans in Germany. These laid bare the divisive nature of policies with a direct impact on households, businesses, and agriculture.

Experience suggests the European Green Deal policies will likely face postponements and even rollbacks in the coming years, analysts warn. These rollbacks, in turn, could stall planned investments and trigger a rise in cost for businesses and citizens that have already made investments in clean technologies.

Achieving the intermediate 90 percent emission reduction target by 2040 largely relies on replacing the current expenditure on fossil fuel with capital investments in clean technologies. According to the European Commission, the annual investment required would be around 700 billion euros ($760 billion) from 2031 to 2040.

But geoeconomic risk looms large on these plans. The disruption of clean technology supply chains potentially emerging from simmering trade tensions between the major trading blocs could derail the continent’s energy transition. So too could broader economic shocks, which might destabilize the macroeconomic situation by driving up interest rates or limiting fiscal space of European countries.

Trade tensions—particularly with China, which dominates the market for critical raw materials and many green technologies, such as solar panels and batteries—could slow down the energy transition and increase its costs.

At the same time, the initial capital investment for technologies such as wind, solar, and batteries comprises the largest share of the total cost of their implementation. Rising interest rates could therefore slow down such investments.

Increased geopolitical instability—and the possible reelection of former U.S. President Donald Trump, some argue—could also trigger higher defense spending by European countries, limiting their fiscal space to finance the energy transition. The slower development of technologies could also have a negative impact. All pathways to a net-zero economy partially rely on technologies which are so far unproven on a large scale.

In particular, progress on carbon removal technologies will be key, because if it proved to be insufficient, other sectors such as agriculture or industry could be required to reduce emissions more quickly. “To succeed, the 2040 climate and energy policy framework needs to be designed to be resilient to such risks,” Bruegel’s analysts said in their October report.

The green transition envisaged by the EU will need to have the buy-in of all the bloc’s governments as well as its citizens to overcome the risks to its success. It will require European leaders to ensure the timely and thorough implementation of existing EU legislation, while limiting political concessions to the many different groups opposing the changes needed.

[myzswblog]

[middleeastblogs]

Carbon Emissions Calculations

[reasonsforhope]

Non-paywall version here.

"Shortly after a federal appeals court ruling threatened to hamstring Berkeley’s ban on new natural gas hookups, New York state has passed a budget barring gas appliances in new buildings.

New York, which was America’s sixth-largest state consumer of natural gas in 2020, became the first state to enact such a ban when the state’s 2023-24 budget was passed [on May 2, 2023].

“Changing the ways we make and use energy to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels will help ensure a healthier environment for us and our children,” New York House Speaker Carl Heastie, a Democrat, said in a news release.

Los Angeles is among more than 70 California cities and counties that have banned or discouraged natural gas hookups in new buildings. The City Council voted in May to do so, citing climate change. However, no state had passed such a ban until now.

The requirements for electric construction will be phased in starting in 2025, and include some exemptions: “Hospitals, critical infrastructure and commercial food establishments” will be left out, according to Heastie’s statement, as will “buildings where the local grid is not capable of handling the load.” ...

The ban is part of an overall strategy “to reduce our state’s carbon emissions and move us away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources,” Assemblymember and Energy Committee Chair Didi Barrett said...

Gov. Kathy Hochul... released a statement touting the budget and its “$5.5 billion investment to promote energy affordability, reduce emissions, and invest in clean air and water, building on more than $30 billion committed to climate action. ”

The budget, according to Hochul’s website, includes “nation-leading building decarbonization proposals that will prohibit fossil fuel equipment and building systems in new construction, phase out the sale and installation of fossil fuel space and water heating equipment in existing buildings, and establish building benchmarking and energy grades.”"

-via Los Angeles Times, 5/3/23

[vivekguptahal]

Data-Driven ESG Compliance: Challenges, Opportunities, and Best Practices

In the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, concerns arose about potential challenges to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies. However, ESG isn’t just political; it’s fundamentally good for business. Research shows a positive correlation between ESG performance and financial value creation.

At Hitachi America, Ltd. R&D, we’re actively co-creating sustainable digital solutions, committed to decarbonizing our operations and achieving global carbon neutrality in our value chain by 2050.

Despite the positive trajectory, challenges persist. Accurate ESG data is crucial, yet its availability and quality often hinder sustainable investment adoption. Regulatory concerns also loom, with worries that ESG regulations might limit business options. Additionally, smaller and minority-owned firms, while willing, struggle to incorporate ESG due to financial constraints.

To navigate these challenges, a holistic data-driven approach to ESG is essential.

Creating comprehensive audit trails around data ensures measurable ESG decisions throughout supply chains.

Standardized, globally coordinated ESG disclosure standards are vital, helping investors and stakeholders make informed decisions.

Companies must integrate ESG directly into their operations, making it a part of their core strategy.

Hitachi’s Take on ESG and Sustainability

Hitachi is actively working to facilitate the adoption of ESG practices, believing in the transformative power of sustainability. ESG-focused investments are on the rise, indicating a shifting paradigm in investment strategies. In this dynamic environment, actionable ESG practices will be instrumental, in guiding organizations toward a more sustainable future for all.

Learn how Hitachi is working to help companies make it easier to adopt and integrate ESG practices into their businesses. https://social-innovation.hitachi/en-us/think-ahead/manufacturing/actionable-esg-compliance-for-businesses/