#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]

Study: Fusion energy could play a major role in the global response to climate change

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/study-fusion-energy-could-play-a-major-role-in-the-global-response-to-climate-change/

Study: Fusion energy could play a major role in the global response to climate change

For many decades, fusion has been touted as the ultimate source of abundant, clean electricity. Now, as the world faces the need to reduce carbon emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change, making commercial fusion power a reality takes on new importance. In a power system dominated by low-carbon variable renewable energy sources (VREs) such as solar and wind, “firm” electricity sources are needed to kick in whenever demand exceeds supply — for example, when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing and energy storage systems aren’t up to the task. What is the potential role and value of fusion power plants (FPPs) in such a future electric power system — a system that is not only free of carbon emissions but also capable of meeting the dramatically increased global electricity demand expected in the coming decades?

Working together for a year-and-a-half, investigators in the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) and the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC) have been collaborating to answer that question. They found that — depending on its future cost and performance — fusion has the potential to be critically important to decarbonization. Under some conditions, the availability of FPPs could reduce the global cost of decarbonizing by trillions of dollars. More than 25 experts together examined the factors that will impact the deployment of FPPs, including costs, climate policy, operating characteristics, and other factors. They present their findings in a new report funded through MITEI and entitled “The Role of Fusion Energy in a Decarbonized Electricity System.”

“Right now, there is great interest in fusion energy in many quarters — from the private sector to government to the general public,” says the study’s principal investigator (PI) Robert C. Armstrong, MITEI’s former director and the Chevron Professor of Chemical Engineering, Emeritus. “In undertaking this study, our goal was to provide a balanced, fact-based, analysis-driven guide to help us all understand the prospects for fusion going forward.” Accordingly, the study takes a multidisciplinary approach that combines economic modeling, electric grid modeling, techno-economic analysis, and more to examine important factors that are likely to shape the future deployment and utilization of fusion energy. The investigators from MITEI provided the energy systems modeling capability, while the PSFC participants provided the fusion expertise.

Fusion technologies may be a decade away from commercial deployment, so the detailed technology and costs of future commercial FPPs are not known at this point. As a result, the MIT research team focused on determining what cost levels fusion plants must reach by 2050 to achieve strong market penetration and make a significant contribution to the decarbonization of global electricity supply in the latter half of the century.

The value of having FPPs available on an electric grid will depend on what other options are available, so to perform their analyses, the researchers needed estimates of the future cost and performance of those options, including conventional fossil fuel generators, nuclear fission power plants, VRE generators, and energy storage technologies, as well as electricity demand for specific regions of the world. To find the most reliable data, they searched the published literature as well as results of previous MITEI and PSFC analyses.

Overall, the analyses showed that — while the technology demands of harnessing fusion energy are formidable — so are the potential economic and environmental payoffs of adding this firm, low-carbon technology to the world’s portfolio of energy options.

Perhaps the most remarkable finding is the “societal value” of having commercial FPPs available. “Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C requires that the world invest in wind, solar, storage, grid infrastructure, and everything else needed to decarbonize the electric power system,” explains Randall Field, executive director of the fusion study and MITEI’s director of research. “The cost of that task can be far lower when FPPs are available as a source of clean, firm electricity.” And the benefit varies depending on the cost of the FPPs. For example, assuming that the cost of building a FPP is $8,000 per kilowatt (kW) in 2050 and falls to $4,300/kW in 2100, the global cost of decarbonizing electric power drops by $3.6 trillion. If the cost of a FPP is $5,600/kW in 2050 and falls to $3,000/kW in 2100, the savings from having the fusion plants available would be $8.7 trillion. (Those calculations are based on differences in global gross domestic product and assume a discount rate of 6 percent. The undiscounted value is about 20 times larger.)

The goal of other analyses was to determine the scale of deployment worldwide at selected FPP costs. Again, the results are striking. For a deep decarbonization scenario, the total global share of electricity generation from fusion in 2100 ranges from less than 10 percent if the cost of fusion is high to more than 50 percent if the cost of fusion is low.

Other analyses showed that the scale and timing of fusion deployment vary in different parts of the world. Early deployment of fusion can be expected in wealthy nations such as European countries and the United States that have the most aggressive decarbonization policies. But certain other locations — for example, India and the continent of Africa — will have great growth in fusion deployment in the second half of the century due to a large increase in demand for electricity during that time. “In the U.S. and Europe, the amount of demand growth will be low, so it’ll be a matter of switching away from dirty fuels to fusion,” explains Sergey Paltsev, deputy director of the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy and a senior research scientist at MITEI. “But in India and Africa, for example, the tremendous growth in overall electricity demand will be met with significant amounts of fusion along with other low-carbon generation resources in the later part of the century.”

A set of analyses focusing on nine subregions of the United States showed that the availability and cost of other low-carbon technologies, as well as how tightly carbon emissions are constrained, have a major impact on how FPPs would be deployed and used. In a decarbonized world, FPPs will have the highest penetration in locations with poor diversity, capacity, and quality of renewable resources, and limits on carbon emissions will have a big impact. For example, the Atlantic and Southeast subregions have low renewable resources. In those subregions, wind can produce only a small fraction of the electricity needed, even with maximum onshore wind buildout. Thus, fusion is needed in those subregions, even when carbon constraints are relatively lenient, and any available FPPs would be running much of the time. In contrast, the Central subregion of the United States has excellent renewable resources, especially wind. Thus, fusion competes in the Central subregion only when limits on carbon emissions are very strict, and FPPs will typically be operated only when the renewables can’t meet demand.

An analysis of the power system that serves the New England states provided remarkably detailed results. Using a modeling tool developed at MITEI, the fusion team explored the impact of using different assumptions about not just cost and emissions limits but even such details as potential land-use constraints affecting the use of specific VREs. This approach enabled them to calculate the FPP cost at which fusion units begin to be installed. They were also able to investigate how that “threshold” cost changed with changes in the cap on carbon emissions. The method can even show at what price FPPs begin to replace other specific generating sources. In one set of runs, they determined the cost at which FPPs would begin to displace floating platform offshore wind and rooftop solar.

“This study is an important contribution to fusion commercialization because it provides economic targets for the use of fusion in the electricity markets,” notes Dennis G. Whyte, co-PI of the fusion study, former director of the PSFC, and the Hitachi America Professor of Engineering in the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. “It better quantifies the technical design challenges for fusion developers with respect to pricing, availability, and flexibility to meet changing demand in the future.”

The researchers stress that while fission power plants are included in the analyses, they did not perform a “head-to-head” comparison between fission and fusion, because there are too many unknowns. Fusion and nuclear fission are both firm, low-carbon electricity-generating technologies; but unlike fission, fusion doesn’t use fissile materials as fuels, and it doesn’t generate long-lived nuclear fuel waste that must be managed. As a result, the regulatory requirements for FPPs will be very different from the regulations for today’s fission power plants — but precisely how they will differ is unclear. Likewise, the future public perception and social acceptance of each of these technologies cannot be projected, but could have a major influence on what generation technologies are used to meet future demand.

The results of the study convey several messages about the future of fusion. For example, it’s clear that regulation can be a potentially large cost driver. This should motivate fusion companies to minimize their regulatory and environmental footprint with respect to fuels and activated materials. It should also encourage governments to adopt appropriate and effective regulatory policies to maximize their ability to use fusion energy in achieving their decarbonization goals. And for companies developing fusion technologies, the study’s message is clearly stated in the report: “If the cost and performance targets identified in this report can be achieved, our analysis shows that fusion energy can play a major role in meeting future electricity needs and achieving global net-zero carbon goals.”

[datainsights2022]

India Outlines a Long-Term Decarbonization Strategy at COP 27

According to a national report presented by India on Monday, November 14, 2022, at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt, the country will prioritize a gradual switch to cleaner fuels and reducing household consumption in order to achieve net zero emissions by 2070. The report outlines how the country would fulfill the decarbonization commitment it made in 2021 as part of efforts to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

In August 2022, the country revised its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), pledging to cut its GDP's emissions intensity by 45% from 2005 levels over the next seven years, an increase of 10% from its prior 2016 commitment. In contrast to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are also required under the Paris Agreement, LT-LEDS have a longer time horizon and do not impose any reporting requirements on countries.

The 121-page LT-LEDS is in line with India's net-zero goals and provides a future roadmap for 6 key sectors such as electricity, transport, urban, industry, carbon dioxide removal, and forests. The energy and industry sectors account for more than three-fourths of India's CO2 emissions. While there are significant changes taking place in the transportation and urban systems. The country proposes increasing the use of biofuels, notably ethanol blending in gasoline, increasing the number of electric vehicles on the road, combined with increased public transportation networks, and using more green hydrogen fuel. Along with other countries, India has already committed to reducing its use of coal, and it has grown to be a significant market for solar energy projects.

[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.

[myzswblog]

[middleeastblogs]

Carbon Emissions Calculations

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Nikkei is Private Japanese Media]

China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) came at the "right time" for boosting Africa's development, a top African Union (AU) official told Nikkei Asia, as he played down concerns that it was a debt trap for poor countries. Last week, Beijing said it would ramp up the decade-old infrastructure drive to build ports, roads and railways by pushing into the digital realm, as the multibillion-dollar program becomes China's key foreign policy tool for influence in developing nations. Chinese President Xi Jinping's renewed focus on industrialization, agriculture and talent development was also just what the continent needs, said Albert Muchanga, head of trade and industry for the African Union Commission, the AU's Ethiopia-based secretariat.

"China will continue BRI, at the same time there is a complementary effort to support us in those three areas. ... Both came at the right time," Muchanga said in an interview on the sidelines of last week's Turkey-Africa Business and Economic Forum in Istanbul. "Africa was making massive investments in developing infrastructure, connectivity, telecommunication systems as well as energy facilities [when BRI launched] and that helped quite a lot." "We need to start the process of adding value on the continent to push industrialization," added the former Zambian diplomat.[...]

Asked if Western powers were being drawn to Africa in competition with China, Muchanga replied, "Well, they are reacting to it, which is good." He also questioned growing criticism that the BRI's massive infrastructure loans and an opaque structure have saddled some recipient countries with unsustainable debt. Some $76.8 billion worth of Chinese overseas loans were renegotiated or written off between 2020 and 2022, according to U.S. research firm Rhodium Group, compared to $17 billion in the preceding three years. "When you discuss with the scholars from China and other people, I think there's an acknowledgment that if we demonstrate greater transparency, I think some of the allegations that are made may not be well founded," Muchanga said, without elaborating.

AU member nation ministers will gather in November to adopt a critical minerals strategy, the official said, adding that the commission is working on a document for approving its new leaders at a summit scheduled for February. "We are responding to the issue of green transition by coming up with a critical minerals strategy," he said, "but the message is to come and produce at source to contribute to decarbonization."

16 Oct 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/