RELEASE: World Resources Institute to Host New Secretariat for Our Ocean Conference
ATHENS (April 17, 2024) — The United States Department of State and the Advisory Committee of the annual Our Ocean Conference announced the formation of a new permanent Secretariat for the Conference, which will be hosted by World Resources Institute’s (WRI) Ocean Program. The Secretariat will be funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Bloomberg Ocean Initiative and Oceans5.
Launched in 2014 by the U.S. Department of State and former Secretary of State, John Kerry, the Our Ocean Conference is an annual event where governments, private sector representatives, NGOs and the academic community collaborate to protect the ocean. The Conference is a crucial moment for the ocean community year-after-year, championing diverse voices and generating commitments towards protecting and improving the ocean. In the past decade the conference has seen over 2,100 announcements worth nearly $128 billion.
WRI has extensive experience in acting as Secretariat or Co-Secretariat for major international groups, including the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel), NDC Partnership, Champions 12.3 (food loss and waste reduction), High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People (30x30 conservation), Global Commission on Adaptation and more. WRI’s Ocean Program is uniquely suitable as the Our Ocean Conference Secretariat given its role supporting the Ocean Panel, with significant experience developing and hosting international events, running global communications and tracking and analyzing commitments.
“The Our Ocean Conferences provide a world stage for ocean leadership and impact,” said Dr. Tom Pickerell, Global Director, WRI Ocean Program. “Ten years of conferences so far has built up a strong legacy for the event, which has given rise to thousands of commitments toward sustainable and equitable management of the ocean. As the new Secretariat, we look forward to working with successive hosts, and supporting governments and partners to take ambitious action for the ocean and the people that rely on it.”
“We welcome the establishment of the Our Ocean Conference Secretariat,” said Jennifer R. Littlejohn, Acting Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. State Department. “We look forward to working with the Secretariat to ensure that OOC continues to mobilize concrete, ambitious, and meaningful action to protect and preserve our ocean."
The Our Ocean Conference is held in a different country each year with the hosts setting forth priority action areas. As the Conference prepares for its next iteration in 2025 in Busan, South Korea, the Secretariat will support capacity building and knowledge sharing through technical assistance and tracking to improve upon ‘institutional memory’ of the event from year to year.
Bloomberg Philanthropies’ funding for the Secretariat builds on its longtime partnership with the Our Ocean Conference. The Bloomberg Ocean Initiative has provided support to host governments since 2019 to ensure successful conferences while championing initiatives and outcomes to restore and protect critical ocean ecosystems in support of the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030.
"Ensuring the success of the Our Ocean Conference is no small feat. It demands the collaboration of governments, businesses, and civil society to drive tangible action for ocean conservation,” said Melissa Wright, who leads the Bloomberg Ocean Initiative at Bloomberg Philanthropies. "That's why Bloomberg Philanthropies is pleased to support the World Resources Institute in hosting the Secretariat for the Our Ocean Conference. This provides a crucial platform for host countries to continue building on the incredible work underway, and with our support, they can achieve even greater strides in ocean protection."
The ocean acts as humanity’s life support — responsible for around 50% of the oxygen produced on earth and protects us by absorbing more than 90% of global excess heat caused by human activity and around 25% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It is a source of protein for 3 billion people and provides millions of jobs worldwide. The ocean is also a critical solution to fighting climate change, with the potential to deliver up to 35% of the annual greenhouse gas emission cuts needed in 2050 to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C.
However, today the ocean’s health is off track. It’s under intense pressure from pollution, harmful fishing practices, habitat loss and climate change. 2023 saw the hottest temperatures ever recorded in the ocean, its oxygen levels are decreasing and it is now at its most acidic in at least 26,000 years as it absorbs and reacts with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
About World Resources Institute
WRI is a trusted partner for change. Using research-based approaches, we work globally and in focus countries to meet people’s essential needs; to protect and restore nature; and to stabilize the climate and build resilient communities. We aim to fundamentally transform the way the world produces and uses food and energy and designs its cities to create a better future for all. Founded in 1982, WRI has nearly 2,000 staff around the world, with country offices in Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the United States and regional offices in Africa and Europe.
Ocean Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0ADVISORY: Embargoed WRI Press Call on Cities Climate Hazards Analysis
Registration is for members of the media only.
Register here.
WASHINGTON (April 17, 2024) – Join the World Resources Institute (WRI) team on April 23, 2024 at 8:30 AM EDT / 14:30 CEST, for a preview of new analysis highlighting climate hazards under different warming scenarios – including heatwaves, cooling demand, and disease – for the world’s cities.
The speakers will present findings on potential climate hazards for nearly 1,000 cities across the world – currently home to 2.1 billion people representing 26 percent of the global population. The data analysis and projections show the shifts, patterns and links between climate hazards, underscoring the need for city and national governments to inform their investments and policies with city-level data. This work was supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies.
The 2024 Cities Climate Hazards data set and analysis is strictly embargoed until April 30 at 5:01 AM EDT / 11:01 AM CEST. By registering for this press call, you agree to respect the embargo date and time.
To receive a Dropbox folder of embargoed data and graphics, email Hannah Lassiter or Alison Cinnamond.
WHAT
Embargoed Press Call to preview 2024 Cities Climate Hazards Analysis
WHEN
Tuesday, April 23 at 8:30AM EDT / 14:30 CEST
WHO
Speakers:
- Rogier van den Berg, Global Director, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
- Anjali Mahendra, Director of Global Research, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
- Eric Mackres, Senior Manager, Data and Tools, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
- Jaya Dhindaw, Executive Program Director, Sustainable Cities and Director, WRI India Ross Center
- Aklilu Fikresilassie, Director, Thriving Resilient Cities, WRI Africa
- Luis Antonio Lindau, Director, Brazil, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
- Antha Williams, Global Head, Environment Program, Bloomberg Philanthropies
Moderator: Alison Cinnamond, Global Director, Strategic Communications, WRI
WHERE
To RSVP, please register here.
For any questions or to request embargoed content, please reach out to Hannah Lassiter or Alison Cinnamond.
Development Banks Are Starting to Spark Climate Action. Will They Complete the Task?
The World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) are on the cusp of evolution. Their transformation is fundamental to the world’s ability to simultaneously tackle the climate crisis and poverty.
Ten years ago, having had no substantial policies for climate change, development banks began to gather climate data and increase attention to the impacts of climate change. This process gradually led to where we are today, with the MDBs recently releasing principles on how to align all their investments with the international Paris Agreement on climate change. The World Bank also committed to combat climate change as part of its mission, with other MDBs likely to follow suit.
These advancements are important, but there is much more to do.
As climate-related impacts, whether slow-moving or sudden, become increasingly obvious, they exacerbate vulnerability and pre-existing fragilities. Developing countries, the MDBs’ main clients, face the complex task of achieving sustainable economic development in the face of growing droughts, floods, extreme storms and other threats. They want to grow their economies, but they also must follow a different pathway than countries that developed by producing high amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.
The World Bank and its peers are uniquely placed to partner with countries as they take on these challenges. They have the capacity to provide finance, mobilize it from other sources, and match various types of technical and financial support to different countries’ needs. They are already a major conduit through which wealthy countries direct climate finance to their low-income counterparts — $66 billion in 2022.
But to be effective over the next 10 years, MDBs will need to become something else: an enabling force for economic development that’s good for people, nature and the climate.
The Past: A Gradual Acknowledgement of the Climate ChallengeMDBs have come a long way on climate over the last decade, with notable developments including:
- Initial introduction of climate metrics: Around 10 years ago, the MDBs began to require the collection of climate-related data. In 2012, the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance standards introduced GHG accounting for certain investments, and others soon followed suit. In 2016, the World Bank ’s Environmental and Social Framework similarly required GHG accounting for potentially high-emitting investment projects, along with assessments of physical climate risks like drought, wildfires and sea-level rise. Regular collection of GHG emissions data and similar information was an important step for MDBs to track the relationship between their investments the climate, but the exercises remained largely educational, without a significant impact on project design and investment decisions.
- Setting climate finance targets. In late 2015, the World Bank committed to doubling its climate finance contributions to around $20 billion per year by 2020, its first official climate finance target. Other MDBs made similar commitments. In 2018, this was increased to 30% (35% for IFC) and, in 2021 to 35% by 2025.These World Bank targets added some teeth to the Bank’s efforts to integrate climate change into its operations. As a result, annual climate finance reporting became an important element of benchmarking progress on climate action, for both the World Bank and other MDBs.
- Enter the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement came into being at the end of 2015, with a goal to “make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.” In 2017, the World Bank and other MDBs agreed to become “Paris-aligned” by July 1, 2023 (2025 for IFC and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), which are part of the World Bank Group). This stated commitment opened the door to a potentially significant shift in how the World Bank and other MDBs embraced climate action. As a result of capital increase negotiations in 2018, the World Bank committed to screen all projects for climate risks and incorporate a shadow price for carbon into economic analysis of projects in emissions-producing sectors.
- Moving beyond a project focus. Finance tracking, while important, tells you little about its impact on outcomes, and it risks excluding from the picture finance not labeled as climate that might lock in reliance on fossil fuels — such as investments in coal plants or factories. Without a strategic overview of countries’ priorities, taking account of both climate and development needs, there is a risk of incoherence and skewed incentives. In 2021, the World Bank introduced a new approach to conducting country diagnoses, the Climate Change and Development Reports (CCDRs). These seek to combine analysis of climate and development under one umbrella. Ultimately, these diagnostic tools are used to gain a holistic view and to shape and prioritize investment and technical assistance to countries.
It took nearly six years from the announcement of a commitment to Paris alignment for MDBs to reach agreement on a set of joint principles on how to define such alignment. Now the task of robust implementation is here.
The Present: A Potentially Pivotal MomentToday, there is growing pressure on MDBs to act on climate change in the context of other layered crises and support countries to develop in a climate-resilient, low-emission, nature-positive and inclusive way. The context isn’t easy: debt, capacity limitations, and conflicts burden countries and constrain their ability to pay for climate action. Meanwhile global poverty rates rose during the COVID-19 pandemic, making some developing countries anxious that increasing spending on climate action could be in competition, rather than complementary to, increasing funds to tackle poverty. Wider geopolitical tensions, including around trade and supply chains, add another challenge.
Facing this complex landscape, the World Bank Group released an Evolution Roadmap in October 2023. Other MDBs are working on similar plans: the Inter-American Development Bank announced its changes in March 2024. The Roadmap, among other things, underscores the importance of climate change in the World Bank’s mission statement and increases its climate finance target to 45% of total finance by 2025 (up from 35%). It also introduced Climate-Resilient Debt Clauses for lending, a step forward that could inspire others in tackling both development and climate challenges together.
The MDBs now have several tools in place, from Paris alignment methodologies to new macro-level assessment methodologies. Going forward, full implementation of these tools will be vital. But it will still not be enough. MDBs need to take bolder steps to successfully change the way they operate and implement their expanded mission to help address the multiple, overlapping challenges and opportunities of our time.
The Future: Take Bold Action to Revolutionize Development FinanceGoing forward there is much opportunity to take ambitious action on climate and much risk in not doing so. In the next decade, every country in the world will have to transition from their current development pathway to one that is climate-resilient, low-emission, nature-positive and inclusive. Climate and development action need to go hand in hand: advancing development objectives like increased access to healthcare or effective transportation also requires ensuring that, for example, healthcare services are resilient to extreme weather and that transport options are low-emission and can withstand shocks like floods or blistering heatwaves.
The World Bank Group and fellow MDBs can embrace five steps to support both sustainability and prosperity, becoming radically different organizations in 10 years’ time to the ones they are today:
1) Integrate climate and development finance, in support of country plans.The world needs to radically grow the amount of funds flowing toward climate action, from domestic, international, public and private sources. The World Bank and fellow MDBs have a central role to play.
Holistic country planning
First, as called for by the G20 Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance, MDBs can help countries set clear, integrated goals and long-term strategies for achieving their climate, nature and development ambitions, bringing together what are too often disparate and disjointed planning tools. In the context of these integrated strategies, MDBs can support developing nations in identifying priority areas for investment, shifting domestic policy and finance to support them, tackling distributional impacts, and establishing the institutional capability to develop a pipeline of investible projects. They can enable countries to implement country and sector platforms that bring together donors, international finance institutions, the private sector, and philanthropic organizations in support of country-led just transitions and investment strategies.
This builds on, but goes beyond, implementing tools like the new Paris alignment methodologies, the new country diagnostic approach, and other information-gathering and risk-management activities. It will take a cohesive and collaborative approach, signaling a virtuous cycle in which climate and development outcomes are mutually supportive, as well as building genuine partnerships to ensure adequate resourcing and support new capacity.
Concessionality
A refreshed approach to concessionality — or the degree to which financing is provided at below market rates — will also help ensure the most effective allocation of available funds to achieve both development and climate goals.
Currently, countries can access concessional financing primarily based on their poverty level, institutional framework, creditworthiness and performance implementing investments. Going forward, a country’s level of climate vulnerability could be added to the assessment of poverty, since climate change has been shown to affect the poorest most and is intrinsically linked to a country’s ability to achieve development and climate goals. Whilst this would allow the most concessional resources to be concentrated on countries that are both poor and vulnerable, it would also allow the vulnerability of nations like small island states — who are classified as middle income, but face potentially catastrophic climate impacts — to be taken into account.
To allow public finance to be used most efficiently, the banks will need to use appropriate degrees of concessionality and instruments based not only on a country’s poverty (and vulnerability), but also on the investment in question, including potential revenue streams. For example, investments that are likely to attract private capital more easily (such as a solar farm in an emerging economy) will need less use of concessional instruments than those that are unlikely to receive private funding (such as an early warning system in a least developed country). This will allow highly concessional finance to remain available for where it is needed most and has a proportionally larger effect.
2) Access and mobilize additional funds for climate action.Beyond shifting currently available funds, the World Bank and other MDBs need to make maximum use of their ability to help grow the pie of available resources. This needs to be done both by making better use of the resources available to the banks themselves and encouraging a shift of funds held by others, including the private sector.
Capital Adequacy Framework
The G20 recommended changes to the MDBs’ capital adequacy frameworks. These will expand the resources available for climate and development and should be implemented swiftly. These frameworks outline how much money development banks must hold in reserve, versus how much they can lend out. While MDBs’ historically conservative stance has ensured financial soundness and creditworthiness, advocates have increasingly argued that the banks can lend more of their capital without endangering the institutions.
In particular, proposals call for banks to reduce the minimum equity-to-loan ratio, implement a portfolio guarantee mechanism and enhance recognition of the value of callable capital. Several MDBs have started to implement elements of these recommendations. These changes are allowing institutions like the Asian Development Bank to extend their lending capabilities and take on additional climate-related operations.
Private Finance Mobilization
MDBs can also improve how they mobilize private finance toward climate action, including by developing tools and instruments that crowd in more private finance. A positive example is the World Bank’s recent announcement of major changes to its provision of guarantees, which will take effect in July 2024. Guarantees protect investors from a borrowers’ failure to repay, and thereby improve a project’s risk-reward profile and the likelihood that a private institution will invest. MDBs should continue to expand other forms of risk mitigation, including co-financing and insurance, as well as create a securitized asset class into which institutional investors and financial institutions can invest.
3) Increase funds available for MDBs.The Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance has suggested that MDB and development finance institutions’ investments in climate need to triple overall between now and 2030. Whilst many of the measures above will be important drivers, MDBs will also need more resources from their shareholders between now and 2030.
If MDBs can show they are committed to stretching their own balance sheets, mobilizing more private finance and aligning their business models behind sustainable development, shareholder countries should provide them with substantial capital increases. Given their importance for increasing precious concessional finance, shareholders should also generously replenish concessional windows like IDA, the World Bank’s arm focused on low-income countries. This would supercharge the next decade of investments by the MDB community.
4) Invest in adaptation and resilience.Most MDB client countries are not high emitters, but are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. While investments in mitigation can be helpful to support energy access and industrial growth, investments in adaptation and resilience are fundamental to safeguarding past and future development gains and protecting vulnerable communities. Food systems, water, industry, housing, and existing transportation and energy infrastructure all stand to be impacted. Yet adaptation finance made up only 43% of the World Bank’s $13.6 billion in climate funding in 2022, and around 37% of total MDB climate funds.
Investing in adaptation can be challenging. It is often less a question of making a standalone investment and more about making virtually all investments more climate resilient. All sectoral planning and infrastructure investments need to be done with future climate risks in mind. Also, many adaptation investments go beyond reducing the risk of climate-related damages — they are highly interconnected with development and nature investments, bringing significant benefits in terms of biodiversity, health and livelihoods.
The MDBs have begun to support developing country governments’ ability to assess climate-related risks facing their economies – including through analytical tools like the CCDRs. But they have a potentially much stronger role to play in better quantifying and showcasing the long-term benefits of investing in climate-resilient development. This would include estimating the total resilience, economic, and non-market social and environmental benefits (often called the “triple dividends”) of adaptation investments, and where the highest returns can be achieved. The MDBs can also help estimate the cost of inaction.
Given the current pace of climate damages, countries’ needs are growing far faster than the supply of finance. MDB efforts to increase the scale and, as required, concessionality of funding available for adaptation is critical. Such support should be integrated with the holistic country plans and financing platforms outlined above.
5) Advance transparency, accountability and innovation.Transparency and accountability are necessary for helping to ensure that funding is implemented with equity and justice in mind. The MDBs can continue to champion transparency around financial flows, to help clarify where funds are flowing and to whom, for example. WRI is currently partnering with the World Bank’s Global Partnership for Social Accountability to provide small grants so local organizations can track and monitor climate finance. Similar innovations to support community involvement in the use and monitoring of climate finance will help ensure that funds are flowing to those who need them most. This must be done in a way that balances accountability for where and how climate funds are delivered.
Transparency can also help attract investments — especially investments in climate solutions, which by their nature are often novel and therefore lack the data or track record investors need. MDBs can help provide clear and transparent market signals for competitive climate projects. For example, providing more granular access to the Global Emerging Markets (GEMS) risk database (under specific conditions that also respect confidentiality) would provide valuable information on investment risks to potential investors who are currently hesitant to finance projects in emerging markets and developing economies.
A New Mode of Operation for the MDBsOver the past 10 years, the World Bank and its fellow MDBs have gone from scant integration of climate into investment decisions, to a more whole-hearted recognition of the threats and opportunities climate change poses to people’s lives and livelihoods.
Over the next 10 years, the World Bank and other MDBs can play a vital role in the low-carbon, resilient and inclusive transition. While the MDBs are only one part of a much broader landscape of finance that must shift toward sustainability, they are essential, given their ability to leverage funds, match instruments to needs, deliver technical assistance and analysis, and support country-driven just transitions. They can also play a role in supporting a paradigm shift in how climate is integrated into international development objectives. For this to happen, they must maximize their efforts to work openly, collaboratively and creatively to embrace a new mode of operation.
solar-powered-water-pump-ethiopia.jpeg Finance Climate Finance adaptation finance development low carbon development multilateral development banks Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Gaia Larsen Valerie LaxtonFossil Fuels Are in Everything from Plastics to Makeup, but Cleaner Alternatives Are Emerging
Fossil fuels aren’t just used to power cars, heat buildings and keep the lights on. They are, quite literally, woven into almost every facet of our lives.
From crayons, cosmetics and carpeting to fabrics, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals, around 70,000 everyday products are made with “petrochemicals” produced from fossil fuels. These products are so ubiquitous that many oil and gas companies are betting on chemical production to stay in business even as fossil fuel use in energy, heating and transport declines.
This comes with serious consequences for people and the planet. In the United States alone, chemical production directly emits 180 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year — equivalent to the annual emissions from nearly 49 million gas-powered vehicles. The U.S. chemical sector also released 176,000 tonnes of toxic pollutants in 2021, exposing communities to water and air pollution as well as health risks like acute respiratory symptoms, skin and eye irritation and cancer.
One of the most important steps the industry can take to reduce these impacts is to replace fossil fuels used as ingredients in chemical products with non-fossil alternatives. This is known as “defossilization.”
While promising, defossilization technologies are rarely used at scale and face complicated hurdles. Some alternative materials are currently only available in small quantities. Others can risk increasing emissions if not used carefully. New analysis from WRI explores how and where U.S. chemical companies can use both existing and on-the-horizon technologies to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, lower emissions and improve lives in nearby communities.
How Are Fossil Fuels Used in Everyday Products?“Petrochemicals” — chemicals derived from fossil fuels like petroleum, natural gas and coal — are present in just about every material that is not 100% organic, mineral or metallic. This includes plastics, electronics, textiles, cleaning products, rubber, paints and thousands of other synthetic products that most people use every day.
The process to make these products starts with processing fossil fuels into chemical “feedstocks” (or raw materials). Chemical feedstocks are turned into primary chemicals before being converted into intermediary chemicals and polymers. These are then manufactured into materials such as plastics and fibers and finally put to use in end products.
One of the most common chemical processing chains in the U.S. distills ethane from natural gas (a chemical feedstock), which is then “cracked” into ethylene (a primary chemical) and eventually turned into plastics and other materials.
Production of primary chemicals — including ethylene, propylene, benzene, toluene, xylene, ammonia and methanol — emits the most greenhouse gases along the chemical supply chain. These “process emissions” come from burning additional fossil fuels to generate the high temperatures (up to 1,000 degrees C) needed to turn fossil fuels into primary chemicals.
Ammonia, for example, is one of the most common chemicals globally due to its use in synthetic fertilizer. Producing it requires hydrogen, which is typically made by reforming natural gas into a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The resulting CO2 is usually emitted into the atmosphere. Extracting and transporting natural gas to an ammonia plant also emits greenhouse gases and risks methane leakages. (Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the warming power of CO2 over a 20-year period.)
Because this small handful of chemicals are the precursors to thousands of end products and drive most emissions in the product lifecycle, they offer a strategic emission reduction opportunity.
How Could Fossil Fuels Be Replaced in Chemical Production?The modern chemical industry is built on fossil fuels because they are dense in energy as well as carbon and hydrogen (the two key molecules in most chemical products). This makes them an economical feedstock option. But, technically, anything containing many carbon and hydrogen atoms can be used to replace fossil fuels in chemical production.
WRI’s analysis considered the following alternative feedstocks that are either abundant today or are projected to be in the coming years:
- Electrolytic hydrogen: Pure hydrogen can be obtained by using electricity to split water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen through a process called electrolysis. This should be done using clean power to avoid adding greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled electricity.
- Captured CO2: Carbon that is captured from industrial sources (such as cement manufacturers), or from the atmosphere (via direct air capture and other methods) could be used in chemical production.
- Waste biomass: This includes unused plant parts and other organic material collected in agriculture, forestry and municipal waste. Waste biomass can be a substitute for fossil fuels because, technically, fossil fuels are just biomass and animal matter subjected to heat and pressure underground for millions of years; both contain the same carbon and hydrogen molecules. It is important that biomass truly comes from waste and is not purpose-grown for the chemical industry, as converting carbon-rich natural ecosystems to cropland can drive enormous land-use-change emissions.
- Ethanol: Ethanol, which is currently widely produced in the U.S. by fermenting corn, can be used in place of fossil fuels to produce the chemical ethylene. While there is an opportunity cost of using prime farmland for corn ethanol, using ethanol as a chemical feedstock is more productive than blending it with gasoline as a “renewable” fuel. Capturing the CO2 emitted during ethanol production would reduce emissions from existing facilities.
Consider ammonia once more. Rather than deriving hydrogen from natural gas, an ammonia plant can defossilize by using electrolysis to split water into its component hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Electrolysis does not emit greenhouse gases if the electricity comes from zero-carbon sources like wind or solar and does not displace clean energy used elsewhere on the electricity grid. Because most of the emissions caused by ammonia production derive from reforming natural gas, replacing it with clean hydrogen makes the process nearly zero-carbon.
Opportunities to Defossilize Chemical Production in the U.S.New WRI analysis looks at defossilization opportunities in the U.S. for four primary chemicals: ethylene, propylene, ammonia and methanol. It assesses total demand for each, identifies today’s most promising defossilization technologies and estimates the volume of these feedstocks needed to meet demand. It also maps out where alternative feedstocks are or could be located effectively in relation to existing chemical plants and infrastructure.
We found that, nationally, the estimated demand for alternative feedstocks is currently greater than available feedstock supplies. In some cases, the difference is relatively small: The U.S. currently produces around 315 million tonnes of waste biomass per year, and the estimated demand for chemical production is around 375 million tonnes. In other cases, demand massively outstrips supply. For example, as much as 29-41 million tonnes of electrolytic (clean) hydrogen would be needed as a chemical feedstock. The U.S. currently produces almost none, although this is expected to change thanks to recent production incentives. While the U.S. produces 10-11 million tonnes of conventional (dirty) hydrogen, this would not be a low-carbon feedstock.
The outlook is different from a regional perspective, however. In certain areas with a small amount of chemical production, demand could be easily met by a large supply of potential resources.
Using renewable energy to make ammonia in the MidwestThe Midwest is home to 127 million acres of farmland, much of which produces corn used for ethanol and for feeding livestock (45% and 40% of corn crop, respectively) as well as soybeans and other food crops. This immense agricultural output relies on millions of tons of ammonia-based fertilizer made with natural gas feedstock. To meet this demand, most U.S. ammonia plants are sprinkled throughout the region, with additional demand met by shipments produced in the Gulf Coast.
Reducing Chemical Sector Emissions is Complicated
No single solution will eliminate emissions from the chemical sector on its own. Defossilization is one piece of a bigger puzzle. It can work in concert with strategies like reducing demand, electrifying chemical plants with clean electricity, making them more energy efficient and capturing process CO2 emissions (either for use as a feedstock or to be sequestered permanently). Learn about more approaches that can contribute to a net-zero chemical sector in WRI’s new working paper.
We estimate that the Midcontinent, Great Lakes and Upper Midwest regions combined — which make up most of the country’s “corn belt” — produce about half the country’s ammonia (6.9 million tons annually). Replacing natural gas feedstocks in this process with clean, electrolytic hydrogen would require about 1.2 million tons of hydrogen per year. Fortunately, the Midwest also has some of the United States’ best wind energy potential and respectable solar potential. Depending on the electrolyzers’ efficiency, creating 1.2 million tons of electrolytic hydrogen would require 42-62 thousand gigawatt hours (GWh) of clean electricity. This is about 7%-11% of the total renewable energy the Midwest could generate in 2050 with a 95% decarbonized energy grid.
Defossilizing ammonia in the Midwest may need both demand and supply side solutions. To avoid using up to 11% of the region’s renewable energy, one option would be to transition just half of the Midwest’s ammonia production to hydrogen made with renewable electricity. This would reduce around 7.5 MT of CO2 emissions annually, equal to taking about 1.5 million gas-powered cars off the road for a year. It is also possible that this ammonia demand could fall if corn crops grown for ethanol fuel production decrease as ground transportation electrifies, lowering the size of the challenge.
Defossilizing chemical production in the Gulf CoastThe largest regional hurdle is defossilizing the Gulf Coast, which produces over half of the United States’ primary chemicals. Still, it has significant feedstock resource potential, with the highest CO2 process emissions, second highest projected renewable generation in 2050, and fifth highest volume of waste biomass of any region in the U.S. There are also existing ethanol transport networks linking the Midwest to the Gulf Coast. In other words, companies would have some flexibility in selecting which pathways they would use to defossilize their production rather than all competing for one feedstock.
What Will It Take to Defossilize U.S. Chemical Production?Defossilizing all U.S. chemical production will be a multi-decade undertaking. It will require massive effort and investment from both the government and private sector as well as measures to uplift communities impacted by chemical plants.
Overcoming technology hurdlesWhile some defossilization methods are already commercially viable, sustainable supplies of feedstocks like waste biomass and clean hydrogen are limited. Carbon capture technology needs more private investment and deployment. Renewable energy generation, required for clean hydrogen, is already pacing behind what’s needed in a net-zero economy. And competition for resources like clean electricity would put the chemical sector at odds with other sectors seeking to reduce emissions.
Other technologies, like direct air capture, have not yet been demonstrated at a sufficient scale but are poised to be within the decade.
Retrofitting existing chemical plants and building new plants and infrastructure would also require extraordinary effort. Financing new technologies, re-engineering existing facilities to accommodate new equipment, and permitting and building clean energy and energy infrastructure — such as transmission lines, CO2 and hydrogen pipelines — would likely be the largest obstacles.
However, existing policy opportunities can help clear these hurdles. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) made billions of dollars of government funding available for industrial decarbonization. Several of the programs these laws established could be used to defossilize chemicals, including tax credits for clean hydrogen, carbon utilization and energy storage; grants for first-of-a-kind low-emission commercial and demonstration facilities; and research and development funding.
Making sure benefits flow to affected communitiesDefossilization can also provide some social and health benefits by reducing local pollution. Communities located near chemical production facilities have long been affected by air and water pollution, leading to above average rates of cancer, respiratory illness, infertility and natal issues, among other health problems. “Sacrifice zones” with persistent structural inequality due to environmental damage and poor economic investments, like Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” also see pervasive poverty.
A petrochemical plant on the banks of the Mississippi River in Hahnville, Louisiana. Industrial plants like this one have contributed to harmful water and air pollution in a stretch of Louisiana known as "Cancer Alley." Photo byFor some in those communities, shutting down chemical facilities might be the only acceptable solution. But others might view plants as a source of jobs that would not exist if facilities shut down. Defossilization could provide a middle ground here. For example, electrifying some chemical processes with renewable energy could keep facilities operating and local people employed while eliminating processes that burn fossil fuels and cause local air pollution.
Recent equity-focused policies in the U.S. — such as the Biden Administration’s Justice40 initiative — can help ensure that benefits like new jobs reach community members. In many cases, projects funded by the IRA or BIL must submit community benefit plans outlining how the investments will benefit nearby communities from an economic, health and/or environmental standpoint. While initiatives like this are a step in the right direction, they should be only the foundation for further action.
Strengthening policy support at the federal and local levelsStrong federal and state policy can help defossilize chemical production. Policymakers will need to maintain or expand existing incentives like tax credits, loans and grants for decarbonization that can help finance fuel switching and new technologies. Other policies can help stimulate demand for clean chemicals, including procurement programs and contracts for differences. Emissions caps and carbon taxes are ways to compel companies to change and would provide greater certainty for the environment and the market. Paired with carbon trading markets, these policies can also provide financing for the transition.
Finally, policy shifts such as clean energy permitting reform and increased support for research and development are critical to maximize the potential of decarbonization incentives. While some of these policies are more politically challenging to pass than others, a combination of them will be needed to get defossilization off the ground.
It’s Time to Stop Ignoring the Chemical IndustryThe chemical sector has received relatively little attention in climate discussions to date. Yet, its large emission impacts and ubiquitous presence mean the sector urgently needs to change. Chemical producers have many available and near-term tools to reduce emissions and clean up their manufacturing processes, and defossilization will be key among them.
Removing fossil fuels from chemical production to the greatest extent possible, just as in other sectors, will be pivotal to both meeting U.S. climate goals and advancing the health and well-being of communities.
cosmetics-aisle-shopper.jpg Climate United States U.S. Climate industry fossil fuels pollution Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Zach ByrumRELEASE: World Resources Institute Welcomes Saurabh Gupta as General Counsel
WASHINGTON (April 17, 2024) — World Resources Institute (WRI) is pleased to announce that Saurabh Gupta has joined as WRI’s new General Counsel. In this role, Gupta will lead the organization’s legal function, manage institutional risks, and provide legal expertise and guidance to support WRI's country offices and programs.
Gupta will work closely with the Board of Directors, serving as Secretary to the Board, in addition to the Chief Financial Officer and the Audit and Risk Management Committee. As a member of WRI’s Global Executive Team, he will also provide legal counsel to the organization’s senior leaders.
“Saurabh’s decades of legal experience will add enormous value to WRI’s global operations, while advancing WRI’s ambitious strategy,” said Ani Dasgupta, President & CEO. “He has an impressive track record working with large international nonprofits and I look forward to working alongside him for a better future for people, nature and climate.”
Gupta has nearly 20 years of experience as a distinguished legal professional and most recently served as the Chief Legal Counsel and Compliance Officer at Arabella Advisors, a consultancy that supports nonprofit organizations and clients across the philanthropic sector. He is a passionate problem-solver and has a broad depth of expertise, including on corporate governance, risk assessment, compliance and regulations.
“WRI is addressing some of the world’s biggest challenges, fighting climate change and protecting nature in a way that benefits people,” said Saurabh Gupta. “I want to ensure my children and grandchildren can enjoy clean air and appreciate the world’s forests as much as I do. I look forward to working with WRI’s global teams to advance pragmatic solutions that meet both legal requirements and organizational needs.”
Prior to his time at Arabella Advisors, Gupta worked in the public education sector for Massachusetts Teachers Association, the Maryland State Education Association and for the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) — as well as public-sector labor organizations. Gupta graduated from Thomas Jefferson School of Law and holds a Bachelor of Arts from Ohio Wesleyan University.
“Saurabh’s depth of legal expertise will be crucial to strengthening WRI’s global network,” said Adriana Lobo, Managing Director, Global Presence and National Action. “It is vital that our teams around the world are well equipped to operate within their local contexts as effectively as possible to deliver maximum impact. With a trusted legal advisor like Saurabh on our team, WRI’s global operations will be more cohesive and responsive to the world’s most pressing challenges.”
About World Resources Institute
WRI is a trusted partner for change. Using research-based approaches, we work globally and in focus countries to meet people’s essential needs; to protect and restore nature; and to stabilize the climate and build resilient communities. We aim to fundamentally transform the way the world produces and uses food and energy and designs its cities to create a better future for all. Founded in 1982, WRI has nearly 2,000 staff around the world, with country offices in Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the United States and regional offices in Africa and Europe.
Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0RELEASE: Sourcing “Better” Meat Entails Significant Tradeoffs, WRI Analysis Finds
New report outlines a six-step approach that food providers can use to design sourcing strategies that achieve climate, social, ethical,and economic goals
WASHINGTON – World Resources Institute (WRI) today released a report finding important trade-offs when shifting from conventional animal agriculture systems to alternative systems such as organic and grass-fed. While these systems can be better for goals like improving animal welfare or reducing antibiotic usage, the report finds alternative systems led to greater climate, land, and/or water impacts in 75% of the examined cases.
Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. For food companies based in Europe or North America, emissions from meat and dairy production can easily account for the majority of their food-related “scope 3” GHG emissions.
While much focus has been on ways to reduce the climate effects of beef and dairy, animal agriculture also impacts water use and pollution, health, animal welfare and more. This has policymakers and businesses asking how different protein options stack up against these factors.While the authors stress that the best strategy for overcoming competing tradeoffs is by shifting to more plant-based foods, the report also provides a six-step approach that food providers can use to design meat sourcing strategies to achieve climate, social, ethical, and economic goals.
“Shifting to diets that are higher in plants, while reducing the amount of meat and dairy we eat, is a triple-win for climate, nature, and animal welfare in high-income countries,” said Richard Waite, Acting Director of Agriculture Initiatives at WRI. “That said, because meat and dairy are a part of many people’s diets, an important question is, what ways of producing meat have the lowest impact? This research shows that there is no single best meat production system or product label–there are often trade-offs. Food companies need to understand these dynamics to successfully work with their meat suppliers to achieve their climate and other commitments,” said Waite.
Using nearly 300 data points from life cycle assessments from production systems in Europe and North America conducted from 2000 to 2022, the authors aimed to understand what counts as “better meat”— an often-nebulous term used for meat with better performance against different environmental, social, ethical, or economic attributes or that’s produced using alternative agricultural production systems such as organic, grass-fed,or free-range.
“I often hear people talk about a sustainable menu as being either entirely plant-based or including meat that’s produced with alternative methods many assume to be environmentally friendly,” said Clara Cho, Data Analyst at WRI and one of the report’s authors. “Unfortunately, sourcing meat that is better for the environment and delivers a range of other co-benefits is not that straightforward.”
“Companies that shift to sourcing ‘better meat’ from systems with higher environmental impacts will need to shift from sourcing ‘less meat’ to sourcing ‘even less meat’ if they want to also meet their sustainability goals,” said Cho.
Alternative production systems typically require more land to produce the same amount of protein as conventional methods do. Land use per gram of protein was higher in alternative systems in more than 90% of cases assessed. Higher land use ultimately means more emissions released into the atmosphere as agriculture globally continues to expand into forested areas and other natural ecosystems that store carbon.
The report shows that a number of strategies do exist to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from meat within any type of production system. For example, companies can work with their meat suppliers to promote improvements in feeds, animal breeds, veterinary care, manure management, and other aspects of animal agriculture that contribute to emissions.
“There are many ways for meat producers to cut emissions. Food companies should encourage those and work with their suppliers to track improvements over time,”said Waite. “Also, while alternative production systems can lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions,these systems can offer other benefits that make them worth pursuing.”
The report comes as farmers across Europe push back against climate and trade policies they say hurt their livelihoods and are overbearing. Two recent EU directives–the proposed European Commission target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels, and the EU Nature Restoration Law, aiming to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea by 2030 — have led to intense political debates about how to broadly address the agriculture sector’s emissions and environmental footprint.
“What we choose to eat and how we produce that food has very real climate and environmental consequences,”said Stientje van Veldhoven, WRI’s Vice-President and Regional Director for Europe. “We need to look at all the evidence to find a win-win solution for Europe. That must include reducing our emissions from meat and dairy consumption, notably beef, while listening to farmers’ legitimate concerns regarding fair prices, income and red tape.”
In the United States, the new report contributes to the ever-growing discussion around sustainable farming practices,as the U.S. Department of Agriculture decides how to allocate $19.5billionin Inflation Reduction Act funds for climate-smart agriculture.
Further detail on the report and its recommended6-part sourcing strategy can be found at: https://www.wri.org/research/better-meat-sourcing-climate-sustainability-goals.
A New Program Will Bring Clean Energy to Disadvantaged Neighborhoods in the US
The U.S. just made one of its biggest investments in bringing clean energy to the communities that need it most.
In April 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released $20 billion through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), one of the most significant clean energy funding programs created through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The funding essentially creates a national green bank network, distributing funds to an initial eight non-profits to finance clean energy projects that would otherwise lack access to capital. The GGRF is made up of three sub-programs:
- The National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF), which delivers $14 billion to national-scale entities with proven clean energy project lending experience;
- The Solar for All program, which will provide $7 billion to awarded organizations (still to be announced) to support rooftop solar in low-income communities across the country; and
- The Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA), delivering $6 billion to local lending institutions to support communities who historically have been unable to access clean energy funding.
Much has been said about the GGRF broadly and why it could be a game-changer, but the individual sub-programs are less widely understood. Here we break down the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator and how it can bring clean energy to underserved and low-income communities.
What Is the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator and Why Is It Significant?U.S. clean energy development to date has typically favored large entities — like corporations or utilities — or wealthy neighborhoods that have the money to finance the oftentimes high upfront costs of low-carbon technologies. Small businesses, local non-profits, tribal nations, and city and county governments — especially low-income ones — have been left out of the market historically. Some Inflation Reduction Act programs like tax credits have helped one part of the problem — entities that are priced out of clean energy purchasing due to tax burden — but that’s not the whole picture.
The CCIA aims to change that by distributing clean energy funds and technical assistance to underserved and disadvantaged neighborhoods across the nation. Projects receiving financing could include energy-efficient buildings, rooftop solar on hospitals and schools, electric buses for public school students and much more. In that sense, the CCIA represents a historic opportunity to bring clean energy to those previously boxed out of the market.
How Will the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator Work?Money will flow through five “hub” nonprofits that direct funding (along with technical assistance and other project support) to community lenders in underserved areas. The five nonprofits are:
- Opportunity Finance Network, receiving $2.29 billion;
- Inclusiv, receiving $1.87 billion;
- Justice Climate Fund, receiving $940 million;
- Appalachian Community Capital, receiving $500 million; and
- Native CDFI Network, receiving $400 million.
These five groups will direct CCIA grant money to their respective networks of “community lenders” collectively spanning all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. A community lender can be a local bank, a credit union, a local non-profit that provides financing, a community development financial institution (CDFI) and more. Those lenders then give money in the form of subsidies, grants or loans to specific clean energy projects managed by local governments, nonprofits, businesses or even individual households. These funds can help communities with the direct upfront costs of clean energy projects as well as serve as “bridge loans” to help them unlock other financial support such as Inflation Reduction Act tax credits.
The CCIA enables existing community lenders to essentially function like local green banks, directly benefiting people who need finance most to start participating in the clean energy economy. The program will effectively lower the cost of clean energy projects while improving quality of life in specific communities. Community lenders will direct investments toward communities where the energy burden remains disproportionately high, and where clean energy deployment can play a key role in improving economic opportunities and generating community wealth.
What Types of Projects Can Be Covered by by the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator?The main project types that can be covered by CCIA funding are:
- Distributed energy generation and storage, which includes things like rooftop solar installations, community wind and solar, battery storage, fuel cells and more. These types of projects are well known for their ability to deliver big benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities for a relatively low level of financial investment.
- Net-zero emissions building projects, which includes retrofitting existing buildings to reduce their emissions, as well as constructing new net-zero emissions buildings in disadvantaged communities. This can span from decarbonizing an apartment complex through energy & water efficiency, to adding geothermal heating and cooling to an office building, to retrofitting a rural elementary school’s water and space heating mechanisms.
- Zero-emissions transportation projects, especially in communities that are overburdened by poor air quality. This can include deployment of EV chargers near multifamily housing, zero-emissions school bus purchases and other public transport investments, improving infrastructure to be more walkable/bikeable, and programs making it easier for individuals and families in low-income areas to buy electric vehicles.
While the CCIA is a huge step forward, it will take additional legwork to ensure the program fulfills its ambitions. Many community lenders receiving and distributing funds from the program do not have previous experience financing clean energy projects, so they’ll need technical assistance to design appropriate financial products. And many of the funding recipients — such as local governments, schools, low-income households and non-profits — may lack know-how in implementing clean energy projects, and/or face staffing, budget and other constraints. Many of the groups eligible to receive funds may not even know the CCIA exists!
New partnership and peer learning networks could raise awareness, benefit CCIA recipients and accelerate project development. For example, a lender community of practice or GGRF accelerator program could help CCIA lenders and recipients share best practices and learn from each other on what works — and what doesn’t. CDFIs could also form formal partnerships with members of the communities they serve — such as local government agencies — to raise awareness about the CCIA program and ensure its funds are distributed effectively.
What’s Next for the CCIA and GGRF?Now that the five nonprofit hubs have received CCIA funding, expect to see announcements of new clean energy projects and partnerships. For community members, this will eventually translate to projects like rooftop solar installations that reduce emissions and save money; EV charging stations near places that need them, like apartment complexes; buildout of new electric school bus fleets; public transportation and bike paths resulting in better air quality; and more.
Importantly, CCIA funding presents an opportunity for communities to strengthen their ability to stand up clean energy projects on their own and could have a snowball effect, producing more and more projects down the road. This will happen in lockstep with other announcements related to NCIF recipients and projects, which will be further along and more complex than the brand-new projects kickstarted by CCIA funding.
As lending institutions and cities work to implement this historic funding opportunity, they should be on the lookout for opportunities to make existing processes more efficient and create entirely new ways of working that will help accelerate the pace at which projects are approved, financed and implemented. Building out these new approaches will require investment from all involved parties. The maximum benefits of this new clean energy funding will be brought home through partnerships, not in siloes.
rooftop-solar-brooklyn.jpg Energy United States Energy Clean Energy renewable energy Energy Access Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Alexander Dane Mansie HoughEnabling the Shift to Electric Auto-Rickshaws: A Guidebook for Electrification of Auto-rickshaw Fleets in Indian Cities
This project update highlights the release of a comprehensive guidebook aimed at facilitating the transition to electric auto-rickshaws (e-autos) in Indian cities. The transition to e-autos is critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, combating urban air pollution and promoting sustainable urban mobility in India. With auto-rickshaws serving as a vital mode of shared mobility, their electrification presents an opportunity to enhance environmental sustainability while improving the livelihoods of drivers and promoting social inclusion.
About the GuidebookThe guidebook offers a roadmap for governing authorities and policymakers, emphasizing the need for an enabling policy and regulatory framework to accelerate the transition to e-autos. It underscores the environmental and socioeconomic benefits of e-autos, including reduced carbon emissions, improved air quality and lower operating costs for drivers. It also provides essential insights and strategies to overcome barriers and accelerate the adoption of e-autos, benefiting both cities and their residents.
The guidebook offers a comprehensive overview of policies, incentives and regulations necessary for promoting e-auto adoption. It emphasizes the importance of collaboration between subnational and local authorities, private sector stakeholders and financing institutions to create an integrated approach to auto-rickshaw electrification. Key considerations include the availability of quality e-auto models, development of charging infrastructure and access to affordable financing options for drivers. The guidebook also addresses challenges related to range anxiety, charging infrastructure planning and inclusive participation, particularly for women and marginalized groups. Three case studies from Amritsar, Kochi and Delhi are presented to illustrate challenges and policy measures for an equitable transition.
Stakeholders, including local and state government agencies, policymakers, auto-rickshaw manufacturers, financing institutions and charging service providers, are encouraged to utilize the guidebook's insights and recommendations in their efforts to promote e-auto adoption. The guidebook serves as a valuable resource for developing policies, regulations and implementation strategies to accelerate the transition to electric auto-rickshaws. Readers can access the guidebook to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with auto-rickshaw electrification and contribute to the development of sustainable urban mobility solutions in India.
Next StepsStay updated on further developments in the auto-rickshaw electrification sector and explore opportunities for collaboration and knowledge sharing among stakeholders. For more information and to access the guidebook, visit Enabling the Shift to Electric Auto-rickshaws: A Guidebook for Electrification of Auto-rickshaw Fleets in Indian Cities | WRI India Ross Center for Sustainable Cities | Helping cities make big ideas happen (wricitiesindia.org) or contact Kanika Gounder (kanika.gounder@wri.org).
electric-auto-rickshaw.jpeg Cities India Cities electric mobility transportation Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Kanika Gounder Chaitanya KanuriIs There Such a Thing as “Better” Meat? It’s Complicated
Meat and dairy are major contributors to climate change. Animal agriculture is responsible for more than three-quarters of agricultural land use, 11%-20% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and more than 30% of global methane emissions. Meat production is also a leading driver of recent tropical deforestation.
The good news is that companies and consumers are increasingly looking for more sustainable animal products. But reducing emissions is just one piece of the puzzle. So are addressing water use, water pollution and biodiversity loss driven by animal agriculture; improving animal welfare; supporting local farmers and more.
The problem is that there’s no single solution to tackle all these priorities at once.
Indeed, new analysis from WRI finds that options such as organic and grass-fed meat — which can improve animals’ lives and reduce antibiotic usage, among other benefits — often come with higher GHG emissions and environmental impacts than conventional production. And while there are proven methods to reduce these impacts on the planet, it can be challenging to encourage farmers and ranchers to implement them. Tracking progress across complex supply chains is also difficult.
Reducing overall meat and dairy consumption is an essential step toward slashing food-related emissions and achieving global climate goals. But the fact remains that many people eat meat. As companies and individuals wrestle with how to reduce the impacts of the animal products they will continue to source, clearly defining what “better” meat means to them and understanding the benefits and trade-offs of different production methods is a critical first step.
What Is “Better” Meat?“Better” meat can mean different things to different people. For some, it means better performance against environmental, social, ethical or economic attributes. This could include lowering methane emissions, avoiding sourcing from deforestation hotspots, increasing farmers’ incomes or improving animals’ lives. It could mean sourcing meat that consumers think tastes better. It could also mean improving soil health, on-farm biodiversity or productivity.
Others associate “better” meat with alternative agricultural production systems such as organic, grass-fed or free-range, or with meat and dairy products that are locally produced or raised without antibiotics or growth hormones.
However, these attributes don't always align, which can result in trade-offs between different priorities.
For instance, beef is among the most greenhouse gas-intensive animal protein options. It requires 7 times more land and generates 7 times more GHG emissions than chicken per gram of protein. To companies with emissions-reduction goals, it may be tempting to simply shift what they source and sell from beef toward chicken. However, this shift has a clear negative animal welfare impact: It results in many more animals being slaughtered for the same amount of protein served to customers.
What’s Better for Animals Isn’t Always Better for the PlanetWhen it comes to alternative production systems such as organic, grass-fed and free-range, the trade-offs are more nuanced. These systems come with important benefits; for example, they can improve animal welfare by providing more space for cows to graze on pastures or for chickens to roam more freely. Alternative systems also tend to use antibiotics more responsibly. This can help slow the growing crisis of antimicrobial resistance that makes infections in both humans and animals harder to treat.
But, perhaps counterintuitively, these systems often come with higher environmental impacts per gram of protein compared to conventional production methods.
WRI analyzed research comparing the environmental performance of conventional and alternative animal production systems, using nearly 300 environmental data points from 45 studies conducted in North America and Europe between 2000 and 2022. We found that alternative systems led to increased environmental impacts in 75% of the data points. This is largely due to the way the animals are raised. For example, in grass-finished (grass-fed) beef systems, cattle grow at a slower pace and emit more methane during their lives than in conventional grain-fed systems, where they are fattened in the final months of their lives in feedlots. This leads to higher agricultural GHG emissions per gram of protein produced, relative to conventional systems.
A farmer in Morrinsville, New Zealand brings his cattle in from pasture. Alternative production systems like grass-fed and free-range are often better for the animals, but they tend to use more land and emit more greenhouse gases than conventional systems. Photo by JESP62/iStockAlternative systems also tend to require more land per gram of protein, whether for pasture, for increased space in confined systems or for feed production. This can lead to trade-offs between environmental impacts. Organic feed crop production, for example, may have lower on-farm GHG emissions than conventional production due to the lack of chemical fertilizer use. But it often has lower crop yields per hectare, too, requiring more land for the same amount of feed. This has important climate implications: Ongoing agricultural land expansion conflicts with urgent goals to end deforestation and restore ecosystems, which will be necessary to reach global climate goals and hold the world to 1.5 or 2 degrees C of warming.
To account for the climate impacts of these land use trade-offs, we estimated the “carbon opportunity costs” of land use under the different meat and dairy production methods. Carbon opportunity costs are the carbon losses from plants and soils that occur when natural ecosystems like forests are converted to agriculture. In other words, carbon opportunity costs translate agricultural land-use requirements into carbon dioxide equivalents.
When looking at “total carbon costs,” which include on-farm emissions as well as carbon opportunity costs, alternative meat and dairy production systems like grass-fed, organic and free-range had higher overall climate impacts per gram of protein than conventional systems in more than 90% of cases. This is because the climate impacts of the higher land use requirements ultimately outweighed these systems’ lower on-farm emissions.
Weighing Climate Trade-offs and Reducing Environmental ImpactsIt is important to note that in 25% of the data points we reviewed, alternative production systems did have lower environmental impacts. Water use (freshwater withdrawal) impacts were most variable and were lower in alternative systems in nearly half of cases. Notably, several of the grass-finished beef production systems assessed relied on primarily rain-fed pasture for the entirety of the animals' lives. These required less water withdrawals than conventional systems that used irrigated crops as feed during the animals’ final months.
Furthermore, the studies we reviewed did not quantify on-farm biodiversity or soil health, which are important environmental sustainability metrics that can improve under alternative production systems.
But these potential improvements must also be weighed against land-use trade-offs. If alternative production systems yield less food per hectare, then more land will need to be cleared to meet growing global food demand, at a cost to biodiversity and soil health elsewhere. As noted above, agricultural land expansion has important climate implications.
Finally, there are many promising ways to reduce climate and environmental impacts within existing production systems, whether conventional or alternative. For beef, GHG emissions reduction strategies include improving efficiency and productivity (which is already relatively high in high-income countries), reducing enteric methane emissions (“cow burps”) through feeds and feed additives, improving manure management, and stabilizing and sequestering carbon in plants and soils. Many of these climate strategies can be pursued in ways that do not compromise animal welfare.
Sourcing Even Less Meat Can Help Balance These Trade-offsThere is no single way to produce meat and dairy that’s “better” for all environmental, social, ethical and economic considerations. Trade-offs abound. But there are ways to minimize these trade-offs.
One powerful step for any food provider wishing to serve “better” meat is to go beyond just sourcing less meat to sourcing even less meat. By further reducing the overall purchasing of animal-based foods — especially beef and lamb — organizations can create the climate “space” to source animal proteins that are “better” in specific areas.
In the scenario below, for example, reduced beef purchasing easily creates space for companies to source higher-welfare chicken and eggs. Even though the higher-welfare systems slightly increase the total climate impact of the chicken and egg production, the company can still hit an ambitious climate target.
What Else Can Companies, Governments and Individuals Do?Less meat still means sourcing some meat. But with careful planning, it’s possible to design an improved sourcing strategy that incorporates animal products — including those sourced with “better” attributes — while also meeting a company’s social, ethical and environmental goals. We recommend that food companies take the following six steps:
- Calculate the “scope 3” GHG emissions baseline of all food purchases, including animal-based foods, to understand how much of an impact meat and dairy has on their food-related carbon footprint.
- Shift from high-emissions foods toward lower-emissions foods in customer-friendly ways, including by improving the quality and quantity of plant-rich options. WRI’s Coolfood initiative can help companies set clear and measurable targets for GHG reductions.
- Define priorities around improved meat sourcing by product type, such as focusing on lower-emissions beef and dairy and higher-welfare chicken and eggs.
- Assess the potential impacts of planned sourcing changes on climate and other “better” meat priority goals. What are the potential co-benefits and trade-offs?
- If a “better” meat sourcing strategy increases environmental impacts, less meat needs to become even less meat to enable companies to still achieve their sustainability goals, as in the example above.
- Engage with suppliers to improve production practices and collect data. This can include data on changes to GHG emissions and other environmental, ethical, social and/or economic sustainability indicators of interest.
Individual people can adopt these principles in their own grocery shopping, too. For example: To lower your personal carbon footprint while still adhering to ethical concerns around animal welfare, you might choose to eat fewer burgers in a month. This could more than offset any increased emissions from purchasing organic, pasture-raised eggs.
Policymakers should also take note. Policies that seek to reduce domestic livestock emissions by shifting toward production systems that lower on-farm emissions may also increase overall agricultural land use. This can lead to “offshoring” the land use and climate impacts of meat and dairy production to other countries, unless domestic meat and dairy consumption also falls accordingly. Similarly, policies that seek to cut domestic emissions by simply reducing the overall amount of animals farmed (and meat and dairy produced) in a country also risk sending impacts overseas, given that global meat and dairy demand continue to grow.
There’s a better approach from a climate perspective. Governments and companies should encourage healthier and more sustainable consumption patterns, take steps to boost agricultural productivity and invest heavily in measures to cut agricultural production emissions. And they should carefully minimize trade-offs between “better” meat attributes.
One Size Doesn’t Fit AllIf “better” meat looks different to everyone, so will the right approach to sourcing it. As companies, governments and consumers think through the links between meat, dairy, society and the environment, it’s critical that they do so with a clear view of the benefits and trade-offs. To learn more, read WRI’s full report here.
farmer-feeding-chickens.jpg Food Food agriculture GHG emissions Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Clara Cho Richard Waite Raychel SantoCountries’ Methane Action Plans Need to Do More to Account for a Just Transition
Recent data shows that for the world to stay on track with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F), fossil fuel operations must reduce their methane emissions by 75% by 2030. These findings were released just days before industry leaders and government representatives convened for the annual Global Methane Forum — a platform to share methane reduction techniques, policies, financing options and regulations and help ramp up methane mitigation efforts.
According to the Global Methane Assessment, human induced methane emissions can be decreased by up to 45% in this decade through cost-effective measures. Reductions of this kind would prevent almost 0.3 degrees C of warming by 2045 and would be in line with the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree-C goal. However, efforts targeting methane-emitting industries are not without some social risk.
To avoid causing an undue burden on impacted workers or communities — and to ensure equitable access to the benefits and opportunities of this transition — national governments need to incorporate just transition elements into all methane mitigation planning. This will ensure that workers, communities and other stakeholders affected by the transition are protected and supported during planning efforts and implementation.
Climate and Social Impacts of Reducing Methane EmissionsMitigating methane emissions can significantly reduce near-term warming. Yet, methane has historically received less attention in climate policy than carbon dioxide. Recent developments signal that this is shifting. For example, the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) aims to reduce human-caused methane emissions by 30% from 2020 levels by 2030. The pledge has garnered significant support, with 156 countries committing to voluntary actions across key methane-emitting sectors such as agriculture, energy and waste (which are responsible for 40%, 35% and 20% of anthropogenic methane emissions, respectively).
Efforts to decrease methane emissions will likely come with economic benefits, such as reducing the financial burden of treating ozone-related diseases. However, there will also be some disadvantages, such as the short-term cost associated with purchasing methane mitigation technologies. To ensure that the benefits, challenges and opportunities of methane mitigation are equally distributed across households, communities and industries, governments must incorporate just transition components into methane mitigation planning.
As described by the International Labour Organization (ILO), a just transition “needs to be well managed and contribute to the goals of decent work for all, social inclusion and the eradication of poverty.” The ILO's Guidelines for a Just Transition outline how to pursue a transition across a variety of contexts while promoting the rights of workers, ensuring social protection mechanisms, and moving toward a more inclusive and sustainable economy. By reflecting these just transition principles in methane mitigation planning, governments can help ensure that methane mitigation efforts address social, economic and environmental sustainability simultaneously.
Incorporating Just Transition Elements into Methane Mitigation PlanningMitigating methane emissions will require a variety of actions across different sectors. Each of these actions must incorporate just transition considerations.
Agricultural sectorIn agriculture, mitigating methane emissions requires a multifaceted approach involving changes in livestock and manure management as well as rice cultivation practices. These measures can offer important co-benefits, such as improved water management and soil fertility. However, equitable implementation is crucial. Countries with large populations of smallholder farmers and gender disparities in land ownership must implement inclusive policies and targeted support to ensure equitable access to mitigation technologies and practices.
One technique that has been widely encouraged, especially on farms that produce large quantities of methane, is the use of “biogas digesters.” These capture and utilize methane emissions from animal waste to generate energy. By capturing biogas from manure, farmers (for example, those in Asia) can generate energy for household use. However, biogas digesters can be costly to purchase, and their use requires farmer training and sensitization. For biogas digesters to become ubiquitous in manure management, governments must engage with relevant stakeholders to determine the context-specific barriers to implementation. This will help ensure that farmers are not burdened by adoption of this technology and that social, economic and environmental benefits can be achieved.
Oil and gas sectorMany opportunities to reduce methane emissions within the oil and gas sector could be implemented at a low cost or even save money. These measures include upstream and downstream leak detection and repair; recovery and utilization of vented gas; improved control of fugitive emissions from production; regular inspections of sites to detect leaks; capping unused wells; and pre-mining degasification, recovery and oxidation of ventilated methane from coal mines.
In the United States, the EPA has issued a Proposed Performance Standard for Methane Emissions that is projected to create over 10,000 direct and indirect jobs annually. However, job quality and worker safety must be prioritized to ensure that employment opportunities in methane mitigation contribute to sustainable livelihoods and social development.
In Texas, for example — which produces more oil and gas than any other U.S. state — the sector employs a large share of construction workers in jobs that are manually intensive and potentially dangerous. Yet, Texas is the only state in the U.S. that doesn’t require workers’ compensation insurance coverage. In a survey conducted by the Workers’ Defense Project, only 40% of surveyed construction workers in Texas reported having any workers’ compensation coverage, while 78% said they lacked health insurance. For methane mitigation jobs to contribute to better livelihoods and economic and social development, industries must collaborate with workers to ensure that these jobs are safe, provide the necessary training, and offer fair, livable wages.
Waste sectorIn the waste sector, strategies like waste separation, composting and landfill gas capture can reduce methane emissions while fostering circular economies and creating jobs. However, inclusive policies are imperative to address the needs of informal waste pickers and vulnerable communities that can be affected by waste management reforms. An estimated 20 million people around the world currently work as informal waste pickers, and changes to waste management by governments can risk leaving them behind as more waste collection becomes privatized.
For waste management solutions to address both climate and development opportunities, they must be based on stakeholder dialogue, with careful consideration of how to include and benefit vulnerable groups. Given the inherently risky nature of waste collection and management, workplace protections must also be put in place so that workers can earn a decent living without concern for their safety.
Existing Methane Action Plans Do Not Meaningfully Reflect Just Transition ElementsMany countries are already working on plans to address methane emissions. To assist countries in developing these plans, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) created the National Methane Roadmap Template; this allows governments to communicate their commitments on methane mitigation and explain how such commitments will be achieved through a Methane Action Plan (MAP) or an Implementation Roadmap. To date, over 75 governments have actively engaged in methane roadmap development and 57 are nearing completion. As of March 2024, 12 countries and the European Union had published MAPs outlining national policies and actions that are currently underway or in the works.
However, these plans fall short when it comes to incorporating just transition components.
A new criterion, based on the ILO’s Guidelines for a Just Transition, was created to determine the extent to which just transition elements appear in existing Methane Action Plans. These elements include stakeholder dialogue, social protections, support for workers and distributional impact. An analysis of existing MAPs using these criteria revealed that while six out of 12 mention how stakeholder inputs contributed to the plan, only two describe in detail how the plans were built on stakeholder dialogues. Just four out of the 12 plans consider impact on vulnerable groups; another four consider distributional impacts; and five mention support for the training, reskilling of workers or compensation for job loss.
Below is a summary of existing Methane Action Plans.
- Brazil’s Methane Action Plan primarily targets methane emissions from urban and agricultural organic waste. The Zero Methane National Program aims to convert landfills into energy sources and create green jobs. However, there is currently a lack of clarity regarding stakeholder engagement and consideration of vulnerable groups.
- Canada’s Methane Action Plan targets methane emissions from various sectors with a focus on oil and gas, agriculture and waste. While stakeholder engagement is highlighted, there is limited information on support for workers and distributional impacts.
- China’s Methane Action Plan prioritizes methane monitoring and emission control across its energy, agriculture and waste sectors. Details on stakeholder engagement and social protections are lacking.
- The European Union’s Methane Action Plan integrates methane reduction into existing climate policies with a focus on the agriculture, waste and energy sectors. Despite its level of detail on policies for addressing methane emissions, there needs to be clearer consideration of vulnerable groups and workers.
- Finland’s Methane Action Plan integrates methane reduction into sectoral strategies with a focus on collaboration with stakeholders. Limited information is provided on support for workers and distributional impacts.
- Iceland’s Methane Action Plan incorporates methane reduction into existing climate policies, paying specific attention to agriculture. Details on stakeholder engagement and distributional impacts are lacking.
- The Netherlands has included methane mitigation opportunities as part of its Draft Climate Change Policy and Dutch Climate Policy across all three methane emitting sectors. However, there is only mention of subsidies schemes to help farmer workers transition to circular agriculture.
- Norway’s Methane Action Plan targets methane emissions from the energy, waste and agriculture sectors with a focus on policy integration. While stakeholder engagement is mentioned, details on support for workers and vulnerable groups are scarce.
- The Republic of Korea’s Methane Action Plan aims to reduce methane emissions through mitigation technologies and policy enactment, but its plan is short on details regarding stakeholder engagement and social protections.
- Sweden integrates methane reduction into its climate policies, with a focus on stakeholder engagement and support for farmers. There's a need, however, for clearer consideration of vulnerable groups.
- The United Kingdom’s Methane Memorandum: The U.K.'s plan targets overall GHG reduction, with the most significant achievements in methane reduction from the waste and energy sectors already achieved between 1990-2020. The U.K. continues to explore and implement additional measures to secure future progress in methane. Limited information is provided on stakeholder engagement and support for workers.
- The United States’ Methane Action Plan targets methane emissions across various sectors with a focus on stakeholder engagement and support for workers. Clear consideration of vulnerable groups and distributional impacts is evident.
- Vietnam’s Methane Action Plan outlines clear methane reduction targets and actions with some emphasis on stakeholder engagement and support for workers. However, there's a need for clearer consideration of vulnerable groups.
Key for Table
Without Mention Briefly Mentioned Discussed in Detail
Of all the countries examined, only three specify economy-wide methane reduction targets in their MAPs. Six countries consider their respective methane reduction targets to be covered under broader GHG reduction strategies. Three contain no mention of an economy-wide methane target at all.
With the exception of the United States’ MAP, most plans only briefly touch on the four just transition elements analyzed or do not mention them at all. While the U.S. plan covers all elements thoroughly, it notably does not communicate a specific methane reduction target.
Collaboration Is Key to ProgressIncorporating just transition components into methane mitigation planning can help ensure that benefits and opportunities are shared by all, and that challenges or burdens are minimized and managed. This will require close collaboration across stakeholders throughout multi-country geographic regions and respective government ministries, including:
Fostering multi-stakeholder participation and dialogue- Governments, industries, labor unions, environmental organizations and community groups should collaborate to develop methane mitigation plans. Plans should reflect diverse perspectives and interests to address the concerns and needs of all parties.
- Sharing national-level experiences and information on just transition approaches across regions can promote knowledge sharing, capacity building and mutual support.
- Regional networks and partnerships provide opportunities for collaboration on methane action planning and implementation.
- Collaboration can mobilize resources and promote solidarity in addressing common concerns.
- Sharing expertise, resources and best practices across ministries enhances development of comprehensive methane action plans.
- Inter-ministerial working groups enable dialogue, coordination, and joint decision-making for integrating social and economic considerations into methane mitigation strategies.
- Capacity building empowers government officials to effectively implement just transition policies and initiatives.
Successful methane mitigation planning requires the integration of just transition components to protect and support workers, communities and other stakeholders affected by the transition. Efforts to reduce methane emissions across sectors such as agriculture, energy and waste offer economic advantages and challenges, necessitating inclusive policies and stakeholder engagement.
Existing Methane Action Plans are a step in the right direction. But they fall short of meaningfully reflecting just transition elements. This highlights the need for clearer consideration of vulnerable groups, social protections and support for workers in future planning and implementation efforts. By incorporating these elements, governments can ensure that methane mitigation efforts contribute to social, economic and environmental sustainability simultaneously.
just-transitions-methane.jpg Climate Climate GHG emissions National Climate Action greenhouse gases Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Mario Julien Díaz Chelsea Gómez4 Ways Ocean Health is Critical to Human Health Everywhere
The ocean has long sustained coastal communities that rely on it for their food, livelihoods and wellbeing. But these benefits don’t stop at the shoreline. New research commissioned by the Ocean Panel shows that the health of the ocean is directly linked to the health of humans everywhere.
The extent to which ocean health impacts human health is relatively unexplored in science and academia to date. This new research illustrates that a healthy ocean and its biodiversity can offer critical benefits to all people — such as new medicines and technologies, nutritious and sustainable diets and opportunities to bolster physical and mental wellbeing.
But these benefits aren’t a given. Policymakers must act swiftly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, overfishing and other practices that are degrading the health of the ocean. Otherwise, many of the ocean’s benefits to human health could be lost even as we are just beginning to realize their full potential.
1) A Healthy Ocean Enhances Physical and Mental Health and Societal Wellbeing.Mounting research shows that access to the ocean can directly benefit human health — specifically in communities that have socioeconomic disadvantages and typically less access to nature.
Research finds coastal residents are more likely than inland dwellers to meet recommended levels of physical activity. This reduces the risk of many non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The ocean also has positive impacts on mental health. For example, in Indonesia during the Covid-19 pandemic, exposure to and interaction with the ocean served as a ‘buffer’ against negatives outcomes like depression and anxiety.
These effects are so strong that some medical practitioners are starting to administer so-called “blue prescriptions,” which call for time spent in natural ocean and coastal spaces to promote health instead of relying on pharmaceuticals.
The ocean’s benefits aren’t reserved for coastal dwellers, either. Globally, $5 trillion is spent each year on coastal and marine tourism. This represents approximately half of all tourism, reflecting the value that visitors place on time spent near the ocean.
These human health benefits are strongest when the ocean itself is healthy. Research suggests that countries with more protected ocean areas have lower mortality rates. Conversely, increased ocean pollution has proven negative health effects. For example, a significant amount of toxic microplastic has been found in seafood. Individuals with identifiable microplastic in their arteries are at a 2.1 times higher risk of a heart attack, nonfatal stroke or death from any cause than individuals without such identifiable microplastics.
Volunteers clean up trash at La Guaira beach in Venezuela. Access to the ocean is proven to support physical and mental health, but these benefits hinge on the ocean itself being healthy. Photo by Edgloris Marys/Alamy Stock Photo 2) Ocean Biodiversity Can Inspire New Medicines and Biotechnology.Marine species have evolved in competition with each other over millions of years to survive in diverse and sometimes extreme ocean environments. During this time, they’ve developed a wide array of adaptations that can help create new medicines and health-related biotechnologies. For example, some bryozoans (sedentary, filter-feeding aquatic invertebrates) create chemical compounds called “bryostatins” when their cells change food into energy. Certain bryostatins are currently being tested as anti-cancer drugs.
Marine-derived medicine is not a new concept. The earliest example dates back some 5,000 years, to China in 2953 BCE. The first marine-based drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Cytarabine, was developed in the late 1960s. To date, twenty-three marine-derived pharmaceuticals have been approved and an additional 33 are in clinical trials and development. These drugs are already used to treat inflammation, immune system disorders, skin pathologies, infectious diseases and cancers.
Prototype of an inhaler made from seaweed-based bioplastic. Marine-based materials can offer healthier alternatives to conventional, fossil fuel-derived plastics. Photo courtesy of SymbioTexAdvances in marine ‘green chemistry’ are also providing solutions to health issues stemming from fossil fuel-based products. For example, “bioplastics” made from seaweed are currently being produced an alternative to fossil fuel-based plastics. Unlike petroleum-based plastics, these are biodegradable. And they typically contain much lower concentrations of associated harmful chemicals that can, for example, increase the risk of certain cancers. Bioplastics from seaweed can also be molded into health devices such as inhalers or packaging for medicine or food.
These innovations are likely just the tip of the iceberg. The market for marine-derived pharmaceuticals alone is currently valued at $4.1 billion and anticipated to reach $9.1 billion by 2033. Potential new applications in both biomedicine and biotechnology are being discovered with increasing frequency as more companies invest in this area.
3) A Healthy Ocean Can Support Global Food Security.Over 3 billion people currently depend on seafood as their main protein source. Sustainably managed, the ocean could produce enough food to nourish many more. This offers a critical pathway toward improving food security in a world where around 828 million people still suffer from hunger and more than 3.1 billion are unable to afford a healthy diet.
But ocean-based food sources are threatened on multiple fronts.
Climate change is warming the ocean, increasing its acidity and decreasing its oxygen content. This is disrupting marine food chains and shrinking certain fish populations — including some of the more nutritious and commercially important seafood species. Even if global warming is limited to below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), the availability of key nutrients such as iron, calcium and omega-3 from catches is expected to fall by 10% due to species decline. Under a “business as usual” scenario, where global warming may reach 4-5 degrees C (7.2-9 degrees F) by 2100, nutrients from fisheries could decrease by 30%.
Marine pollutants, overfishing, illegal fishing and globalization also strain fishery stocks and put fishers’ livelihoods at risk. Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing is estimated to cost low- and middle-income nations between $2 billion and $15 billion annually.
Solutions to these threats are typically most successful when they involve those most impacted: the local communities that rely on fisheries for their food and livelihoods.
In Timor-Leste, for example — a country where acute food insecurity and chronic malnutrition are widespread — the research organization WorldFish has been working with local fishers and government to improve fishery policy and management systems. This includes taking steps to maximize nutrient yields, such as by targeting more nutritious species and overcoming barriers to increased fish consumption. They’ve developed new products that extend shelf life, extended supply chains inland to reach more people and shared tips on preparing fish for children. The approach appears to be leading to increased fish consumption for malnourished groups such as children.
Shoppers peruse a fish market in Tokyo. The global seafood industry feeds more than 3 billion people and employs around 500 million. But fish populations are declining due to human-driven pollution and warming oceans. Photo by aluxum/iStock 4) A Sustainable Ocean-based Economy Provides Opportunities to Improve Health and Address Inequity.The ocean isn’t just a source of medicine, food and recreation. It’s a major economic driver, with ocean-based industries and activities contributing approximately $2.5 trillion to the global economy each year. Fisheries, aquaculture operations and the fishery supply chain support the work of more than 500 million people worldwide. Their incomes directly impact theirs and their families’ health through access to food, healthcare and other necessities. Intact coastal ecosystems also serve as a buffer against climate change impacts like storms and floods which can destroy homes, livelihoods and infrastructure.
These benefits are only possible if the ocean’s resources and ecosystems are managed responsibly. Unsustainable practices — such as overfishing and the degradation of coastal ecosystems — both diminish the ocean economy and increase social inequity by threatening the health and livelihoods of those that are most dependent upon it. Climate-induced declines in ocean health could cost the global economy $428 billion per year by 2050 and $1.979 trillion per year by 2100.
In some places, individuals and institutions are collaborating to drive bottom-up behavioral change toward a more equitable ocean economy. In Bangladesh, for instance, communities of fishers have started to form self-developing networks and cooperatives. Members typically contribute to a common fund which provides financial support and fishing equipment to those most in need, such as people requiring medical treatment. Such networks and cooperatives can also enhance fishers’ political strength when negotiating with government agencies and can lead to increased compliance with fishing regulations. For example, Bangladesh’s Hilsa Guard network monitors compliance of their peers with temporal fishing bans.
But top-down change is also critical. National governments must work toward a more equitable ocean economy, such as by developing and implementing Sustainable Ocean Plans (a national policy tool for holistic ocean management).
How Can Leaders Protect Ocean Health and Human Health Simultaneously?While a healthy ocean is essential for human health, the reverse is also true: Continuing to degrade the ocean through pollution, human-induced climate change and unsustainable management poses serious threats to physical and mental health as well as food security and the global economy. Governments must act urgently to safeguard the ocean so that it can continue to support human health and wellbeing everywhere. Ocean Panel’s report presents three key actions to promote equity, sustainability, biodiversity and human flourishing:
- Protect, restore and manage marine biodiversity: The huge potential for marine medicines, biotechnology and food depends on effectively protecting and managing marine biodiversity. To achieve this, nations must work in collaboration with local resource users to ratify and implement key frameworks that can help ensure protections. These include the Global Biodiversity Framework, the WTO Fisheries Subsidies Agreement and the recent High Seas Treaty. These global actions will protect and restore the ocean, improve human health and wellbeing and reduce stressors on ocean ecosystems.
- Combat climate change and eliminate pollution: Slowing the effects of climate change and removing ocean pollutants is imperative to protecting marine ecosystems and the services they provide. National commitments to the Paris Agreement, the COP28 outcomes and the UN Global Plastics Treaty (currently in negotiation) must be upheld. To protect human health and wellbeing, the negotiators of the UN Global Plastics Treaty must ensure that it imposes strict safety requirements on the more than 10,000 synthetic chemicals added to plastics, a mandatory cap on global plastic production, and mechanisms to curb the manufacture of single-use plastics.
- Improve ocean and human health measurement to support equity: Evidence and linked indicators of ocean health and human health must be incorporated by governments and the healthcare sector into all policies and decision-making around ocean-human interactions. This data should be shared widely and made available and accessible. Through continued measurement, the effectiveness of health and ocean management policies can be assessed, unintended consequences detected, and improvements and course corrections made.
These actions should not be limited to those working in sustainability or conservation sectors, either. As trusted members of society, health professionals can play a key role in safeguarding both ocean health and human health by advocating for change, advancing equity and promoting sustained global action on responsible ocean management. A more ocean-literate health sector can also reduce the health sector’s carbon footprint and help cut medical waste and pollution.
The National Health Service (NHS) in the U.K., for example, serves a population of 67 million people and imports 80% of its goods via maritime routes, generating harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The NHS aims to tackle this through its target to reach net zero-emissions by 2045. Similarly, some health sector professionals are already working to drive change in this area.
Taken together, these actions can ensure that the ocean is able to thrive and that we can fully harness its benefits to uplift people everywhere.
banda-aceh-fishermen.jpg Ocean Ocean health pollution Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Oliver Ashford Katie WoodRELEASE: Brazil and Colombia See Dramatic Reductions in Forest Loss, But New Fronts Keep Tropical Rates High
2023 data shows that political leadership and strong policies work in reducing forest loss, yet the world remains off track to meet 2030 forest goals, according to Global Forest Watch’s annual data analysis
WASHINGTON (April 4, 2024) — Primary forest loss declined significantly in Brazil and Colombia in 2023, though tropical rates remained stubbornly consistent with recent years, according to new data from the University of Maryland’s GLAD Lab and available on World Resource Institute’s Global Forest Watch platform. Dramatic progress in Brazil and Colombia highlights the strength of political will and policy shifts in protecting forests.
However, the world remains far off track to reach its 2030 goals – in 2023, the tropics lost 3.7 million hectares of primary forest, an area slightly smaller than Bhutan. This is equivalent to losing 10 football (soccer) fields per minute. Brazil and Colombia’s decreases were counteracted by increases in Bolivia, Laos, Nicaragua, and other countries. Extraordinary increases occurred outside the tropics as well, with Canada experiencing record-breaking fire-related loss.
“The world took two steps forward, two steps back when it comes to this past year’s forest loss.” said Mikaela Weisse, Global Forest Watch Director, WRI. “Steep declines in the Brazilian Amazon and Colombia show that progress is possible, but increasing forest loss in other areas has largely counteracted that progress. We must learn from the countries that are successfully slowing deforestation.”
The most significant reductions were in Brazil and Colombia, both of which benefitted from new political leadership placing an emphasis on environmental protections and forest conservation. Brazil saw a 36% reduction in primary forest loss in 2023 under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership, reaching its lowest level since 2015. This resulted in a considerable decrease in Brazil’s overall share of total global primary forest loss – down from 43% in 2022 to 30% in 2023. In Colombia, primary forest loss halved (down 49%) in 2023 compared to 2022 under President Gustavo Petro Urrego’s leadership.
"We’re incredibly proud to see such stark progress being made across the country, especially in the Brazilian Amazon,” said Mariana Oliveira, Manager, Forests, Land Use and Agriculture Program, WRI Brasil. “However, we still have a very long ways to improve and sustain the efforts, and I hope today’s release energizes the national and subnational governments in Brazil – and governments around the world – to build on this momentum rather than using it as an excuse to slow down.”
"The story of deforestation in Colombia is complex and deeply intertwined with the country’s politics, which makes 2023’s historic decrease particularly powerful,” said Alejandra Laina, Natural Resources Manager, WRI Colombia. “There is no doubt that recent government action and the commitment of the communities has had a profound impact on Colombia’s forests, and we encourage those involved in current peace talks to use this data as a springboard to accelerate further progress.”
"Forests are critical ecosystems for fighting climate change, supporting livelihoods, and protecting biodiversity,” said WRI President and CEO Ani Dasgupta. “The world has just six years left to keep its promise to halt deforestation. This year’s forest loss numbers tell an inspiring story of what we can achieve when leaders prioritize action, but the data also highlights many urgent areas of missed opportunity to protect our forests and our future.”
While the news out of Brazil and Colombia points to a positive trend of political leaders prioritizing nature, the story is not consistent around the world. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Bolivia trail behind Brazil as the top contributors to total global forest loss, and – unlike Brazil – both saw increases in 2023.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo, which lost over half a million hectares of primary rainforest in 2023, is notable given that the Congo Basin is the last remaining major tropical forest which remains a carbon sink, meaning the forest absorbs more carbon than it emits. While the rate in 2023 increased by only 3%, the continued small increase over many years adds up over time.
"Forests are the backbone of livelihoods for Indigenous people and local communities across Africa, and this is especially true in the Congo Basin,” said Teodyl Nkuintchua, Congo Basin Strategy and Engagement Lead at WRI. “Dramatic policy action must be taken in the Congo Basin to enact new development pathways that support a transition away from unsustainable food and energy production practices, while improving wellbeing for Indigenous people and local communities as much as revenues for countries.”
In Bolivia, primary forest loss increased by 27% in 2023, reaching its highest year on record for the third year in a row. Bolivia had the third most primary forest loss of any tropical country, despite having less than half the forest area of either the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Indonesia. Fire-related loss accounted for just over half (51%) of Bolivia’s total loss in 2023 as record hot weather caused human-set fires to spread into forests. Agricultural production – notably soybeans – is also a primary driver of deforestation across the country.
Indonesia saw a 27% uptick in primary forest loss in 2023, an El Niño year, though the rate remains historically low compared to that of the mid-2010s. The emergence of El Niño conditions led to concerns that Indonesia might experience another fire season like 2015; however, fires in 2023 had a less severe impact than initially predicted.
Additionally, Laos and Nicaragua have both seen an increase in primary forest loss in recent years, including 2023. The two countries have exceptionally high rates of forest loss relative to their sizes, losing 1.9% and 4.2%, respectively, of their primary forest in 2023. Increases in these countries are largely a result of agricultural expansion.
“This report appropriately challenges us to balance despair and hope at the same time. The alarmingly high rates of global deforestation remind us how badly off track we are in solving the climate and nature crises,” said Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO of the Bezos Earth Fund. “But countries such as Colombia, Brazil, and Indonesia are demonstrating amazing possibilities when modern data and science combine with smart policy design and inspiring leadership.”
Fires once again drove forest loss trends outside of the tropics, with 2023’s most concerning fire story taking place in Canada. Like many areas of the world, widespread drought and increased temperatures driven by climate change were widespread across Canada. This led to the worst fire season on record, and a five-fold increase in tree cover loss due to fire between 2022 and 2023.
"Satellite data helps us monitor the extent of wildfires over the years, including those leading to tree cover loss,” said Alexandra (Sasha) Tyukavina, Associate Research Professor at the Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland. “This is especially important in understanding how extreme fire years — like Canada's 2023 record-breaking wildfire season — impact the world's forests over time."
World Resource Institute’s Global Forest Watch team provides annual tree cover loss data analysis each year, showing when and where forest loss occurred around the world. The annual tree cover loss data is created and updated by the GLAD (Global Land Analysis & Discovery) Lab at the University of Maryland. The data captures areas of tree cover loss across all global land (except Antarctica and other Arctic islands) at approximately 30 × 30-meter resolution.
About World Resources Institute
WRI is a trusted partner for change. Using research-based approaches, we work globally and in focus countries to meet people’s essential needs; to protect and restore nature; and to stabilize the climate and build resilient communities. We aim to fundamentally transform the way the world produces and uses food and energy and designs its cities to create a better future for all. Founded in 1982, WRI has nearly 2,000 staff around the world, with country offices in Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the United States and regional offices in Africa and Europe.
About Global Forest Watch
Global Forest Watch (GFW) is an online platform that provides data and tools for monitoring forests. By harnessing cutting-edge technology, GFW allows anyone to access near real-time information about where and how forests are changing around the world. Since its launch in 2014, over 4 million people have visited Global Forest Watch from every single country in the world.
About University of Maryland GLAD Lab
The Global Land Analysis and Discovery (GLAD) laboratory in the Department of Geographical Sciences at the University of Maryland investigates methods, causes and impacts of global land surface change. Earth observation imagery are the primary data source and land cover extent and change the primary topic of interest. The lab is led by Drs. Matthew Hansen and Peter Potapov. Their team consists of 17 full-time researchers and 9 doctoral students, and a constantly changing number of international, national and local interns.
###
Forests deforestation global forest watch Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0To Make Good on Sustainable Food Commitments, Countries Must Do 4 Things
Last year’s UN climate summit in Dubai (COP28) was a real landmark moment for sustainable food. Agriculture and food systems took center stage, with 159 world leaders endorsing the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action. For the first time, countries pledged to put agriculture at the heart of national climate and other policies while increasing investment in fair and sustainable food systems, with a commitment to show real progress by COP30 in 2025.
Their pledges came not a moment too soon. Besides conflict, climate change and nature loss are the key drivers of escalating food security crises. Agriculture and food systems produce a third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and are the main cause of biodiversity loss and freshwater pollution — which in turn undermine food security and livelihoods, causing humanitarian crises, resource competition, migration and conflict.
These risks will only intensify as demand for food is set to increase more than 50% by 2050 (nearly 70% for resource-intensive foods like meat and dairy), whilst climate impacts lead to crop losses and an increased risk of disasters. Moreover, these impacts are non-linear and unpredictable: For instance, if the world reaches tipping points in the Amazon or Congo Basin, forests could turn to savannah, with untold disruption to the water cycle and food systems across continents.
But with any major multilateral commitment comes a key question: Will countries actually turn their resolutions into reality?
Industrial-scale agriculture, such as the oil palm plantation shown here, often comes at the expense of primary forests and other ecosystems. Photo by Rich Carey/Shutterstock 4 Ways to Fulfill the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Food and AgricultureThe Emirates Declaration sets a two-year timeframe to demonstrate progress, with countries committing to a ministerial meeting at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and then to a full progress report at COP30 in Belem, Brazil. Since the aspirations of the declaration are both broad and ambitious, there are many ways countries can make headway. But we believe four elements will be central: namely, innovation, investment, changing consumption patterns and policy action.
Policy action is the most critical — though most challenging — part to deliver.
1) InnovationThere is clear evidence that new scientific developments and technologies are needed to increase agricultural productivity, enhance resilience and adapt to a changing climate, even as the world reduces its emissions and other environmental harms. However, this is not solely about agri-tech or new seed varieties, important though they are. It is also about innovation in service delivery, in the means of providing support for farmers and other actors in the food system, and in the broader governance of natural resources and distribution of benefits.
There is also an element of “back to the future” here — for instance, maintaining or increasing agricultural yields while at the same time moving away from chemical-intensive mono-cropping of lower nutrition crops such as maize or cassava, and back towards diversified production of locally adapted, resilient and nutritious foods (such as teff, sorghum, millet, sweet potato and groundnut in several African countries). Greater adoption of more regenerative farming practices (such as reduced tillage, use of cover crops and mixed farming, to mention a few) also has an important role to play, especially to safeguard soil and water. The commitments made by companies at COP28 to shift to and support these practices will be important to uphold.
What Is the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action?
The Emirates Declaration, adopted by 159 national leaders in November 2023, recognizes the interdependence of climate, nature, food and agricultural systems. Signatories commit to solutions that will equitably feed a growing global population while safeguarding nature and curbing climate change. More specifically, countries committed to:
-Integrate agriculture and food into national climate action and other relevant policies and plans;
-Take policy actions to promote sustainable agriculture;
-Scale up finance and/or access to finance for sustainable food systems;
-Accelerate science and evidence-based solutions; and
-Strengthen open, fair and inclusive trade systems.
2) Scaling investmentClimate and development discussions often focus on finance and the need for more of it. Clearly, this must be part of the picture.
The costs of a low-carbon transition are enormous when looked at in isolation. The Food and Land Use Coalition’s (FOLU) Growing Better report modeled the cost of shifting to sustainable food systems at around $300-$350 billion a year. This is a huge sum. Nonetheless, it is only a fraction of the hidden negative costs of current food systems (especially costs to health and the environment). The Food Systems Economics Commission Global Policy report released in 2024 estimates these costs at an annual $15 trillion — more than the total economic value created in food systems.
By contrast, sustainable food systems could deliver potential economic benefits of more than $5 trillion per year, according to the modeling. FOLU’s latest report, Future Fit for Food and Agriculture, shows how investments of $205 billion per year between 2025-2030, or less than 2% of food sector revenues, could mitigate nearly half of global food system emissions and unlock many other benefits.
Despite the potential benefits of these investments, current allocations of overseas development assistance (ODA) and international climate finance to agriculture and food systems are paltry compared to the scale of the challenge. Only 4.3% of climate finance goes to agriculture and food systems, and only 0.3% to smallholder farmers. Much more finance is needed to enable the adaptation, resilience and mitigation solutions that agriculture and food systems can help provide.
However, the needed global transition to sustainable food systems cannot — and should not — be financed only by banging on the door of ODA. Even if far more ODA finance were raised to support this ambition, progress will be hard or impossible if the majority of non-ODA finance is going in the wrong direction. On public finance alone, subsidies for fossil fuel, agriculture and fisheries currently exceed $7 trillion per year. They’re often inefficient and set perverse incentives that drive harmful outcomes for climate and nature, undermining long-term health and livelihoods.
There is an urgent need to redirect mainstream public and private investment in agriculture and food systems towards more sustainable approaches. That is where policy change comes in.
Cowboys transport cattle in Corumba, Mato Grosso Do Sul, Brazil. Producing beef uses 20 times as much land and produces 20 times the greenhouse gas emissions as producing a similar amount of plant-based proteins. Photo by reisegraf/iStock 3) Behavior change — including shifting diets and reducing food loss and wasteIt is increasingly clear that food systems cannot be “fixed” by interventions only on the production side. Production choices are often driven by unsustainable consumption patterns.
For example, growing demand for meat — especially beef in developed and middle-income countries — bears the heaviest environmental toll on land use, including deforestation and other costs. Beef production requires 20 times more land and generates 20 times the amount of emissions per gram of protein compared to most plant-based proteins.
Meanwhile, cheap pricing of low nutrition, highly processed foods in high-income countries’ supermarkets not only negatively impacts human health, but also distorts value chains to prioritize production of these kinds of foods. This arrangement provides little benefit to producers and no economic incentive to produce foods more sustainably.
And finally, much of the food we’re currently producing is ultimately lost or wasted. About 24% of the world’s produced food calories go uneaten, causing more than $1 trillion in economic losses annually and producing 8-10% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting food loss by half could reduce global food demand by a full 15% while reducing pressures on land.
Changing consumption patterns is clearly a part of the puzzle, but again this leads back to policy.
4) Policy action and a systems approachPublic policies set incentives for producers, traders, investors and other actors in the food system. They affect people’s choices of what, how and where to produce, buy and process food, as well as which foods to eat. The situation varies greatly from country to country, but globally our current policies and incentives pertaining to agriculture, land use and food systems are often (inadvertently) driving climate and environmental harms.
In agriculture alone, governments spend more than $700 billion annually in public support to their agriculture sectors. Much of this expenditure is inefficient. It sets up perverse incentives that drive harmful practices such as land use conversion, overuse of chemicals and soil degradation whilst failing to reward positive practices like maintaining soil health and water quality — both of which are key to agricultural productivity. According to World Bank/IFPRI research, farmers benefit from an average return of only $0.35 for every $1 spent on public support to agriculture. In addition, policies that encourage use of food crops for biofuels divert valuable cropland away from food production, with negative impacts on food security and the climate.
Alternatively, emerging science, analysis and experience shows that triple wins and a sustainable development path are possible. Research such as FOLU’s Growing Better report, WRI’s Creating a Sustainable Food Future report and the World Bank’s forthcoming report Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net-Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System all lay out roadmaps for how the world can feed a growing population while safeguarding nature and holding global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F). All note that policy changes to shift both public as well as private investment are essential.
Despite the scientific evidence, agriculture policy reform is notoriously controversial. The so-called “greenlash” in Europe is only one recent example. Reforms need to be done in true consultation with farming communities and in a just and inclusive way. The sustainable food transition must also be a “just rural transition,” with farmers’ livelihoods, interests and perspectives placed at the heart of it.
The Emirates Declaration provides a strong rallying cry. It calls for policy action; for integrating agriculture and food systems in climate action plans such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs); and for reorienting other public policies and support toward sustainable agriculture and food systems. This needs to go beyond agricultural policy per se, to food, health, energy, economic and financial policy and planning as well.
A fishing village in Mui ne Vietnam. Shifting the world’s food systems toward sustainability must be done in a way that supports smallholder farmers and fishers. Photo by Eonaya/iStock The Road Ahead for Sustainable Food SystemsCOP28 and the Emirates Declaration set a political watermark on this crucial agenda. The urgent need now is to maintain and build on this momentum, including at the Spring Meetings of the World Bank and IMF and Brazil’s G20 meeting, which has placed a welcome focus on hunger and poverty. Besides the Emirates Declaration, a range of other actors and initiatives are and need to be part of this effort — such as the COP28 Non State Actors Call to Action, the FAO Roadmap, the Alliance of Champions for Food Systems Transformation initiative, and further public, philanthropic and private sector pledges to innovate and scale science- and evidence-based solutions.
There are additional risks to be aware of and resolve: the proliferation of competing approaches and initiatives presents a serious threat of overlap and contradiction that could undermine progress. An over-emphasis on technical fixes alone could also fall short of addressing inequalities and the incentives driving practices that harm the climate and nature.
The most significant shift in finance for sustainable agriculture and food systems must come from the private sector. Much of this will be guided by shifts in policy, regulation and market demand. Transformation will not occur without a shift in market signals and systems. As corporates step up to make greater commitments to food systems transformation, there could be an increased risk of greenwashing, with vested interests seeking to look good while side-stepping the need to rethink the way we value natural ecosystems and manage climate impacts in our economic systems.
Ultimately, each country will need to take the approach most relevant to its own national and regional context. This will differ significantly around the world — for example, from a focus on boosting agricultural efficiency, soil health and water conservation in sub-Saharan Africa, to a concerted effort to reducing agricultural emissions in middle-income countries, to exploring alternative proteins and dietary shifts in high-income countries.
The common thread, however, should be justice.
All countries should seek changes that secure low-emissions, climate-resilient agriculture and food systems that deliver healthy diets, nature protection, and sustainable livelihoods to all. Bold political leadership will be vital, as well as a steady drumbeat of national and global action that really drives progress on the unprecedented commitments made last year.
Dr. Rachel Waterhouse is the Sustainable Water & Food Systems Lead at the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
woman-harvesting.jpg Food Food food security Food Loss and Waste agriculture Climate Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Related Resources and Data Creating a Sustainable Food Future Projects Authors Rachel Waterhouse Edward DaveyHow Improved Housing in Under-served Communities Can Strengthen Climate Resilience
In the crowded slums of Zambia, Africa, members of the Zambia Youth Federation, a social movement of the urban poor, conducted climate change research and presented it in an emotional spoken word poem. Their message let policymakers know how climate change is impacting their lives:
“I woke up this morning and you wouldn’t believe what happened last night. I could hear cats and dogs barking and meowing and I almost woke up praying … and thinking maybe witches have entered our house ... When I opened my eyes … half of my roof was already blown off by the harsh winds of the night. My bed was baptized in unforgiving rains and my sheets were soaked and wet. You should have seen my kitchen; it was floating spoons and plates.”
Their informal settlements are home to low-income and marginalized communities prone to landslides, sea-level rise and flooding as a result of climate change. Their experience is not unique.
One in three people living in cities globally — more than 1 billion people — do not have reliable, safe or affordable access to basic everyday necessities like decent housing, running water and sanitation, electricity, health care, or transportation to get to work or school. As the urban population is projected to increase by another 2.5 billion people by 2050, this “urban services divide” is not only a development challenge but a roadblock to climate action. Inadequate housing and lack of services exacerbate the impacts of extreme weather events, leading to increased damage, more lives lost and longer recovery times.
Why Climate Action Must Start with HousingHousing has the most direct impact on people’s health and livelihoods. Equitable housing integrated with low-carbon and affordable key services like water, sanitation, energy and accessible transportation is critical to ensuring the least amount of harm from climate change and opportunities for a prosperous future for all. Yet housing is rarely discussed in international climate forums; and informal settlements (slums) located in developing and vulnerable countries are completely ignored.
In low-income countries, 64% of urban dwellers live in slums. By 2050, over 200 million climate migrants are expected to move to urban areas, who often settle in informal settlements, while seeking jobs.
Adequate housing and urban services may be a fiscal challenge, but it also provides opportunities for a just, climate-friendly transition that can help achieve sustainable development goals when done right.
A woman looks out of the balcony on an old-style building in Iloilo City, Philippines. In Iloilo City, leaders are using innovative approaches to combat lack of access to housing and other essential resources. Photo by Thomas Cockrem / Alamy Stock PhotoThe 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) made strides in the right direction by setting the Loss and Damage Fund in motion, holding the first of its kind Local Climate Action Summit and hosting the first ever Health Day. Additionally, the first Buildings and Climate Global Form, held in March 2024, released a declaration, which acknowledges that climate change is impacting access to basic urban services and housing for those living in informal settlements. But this isn’t enough.
Disasters and extreme weather events that are increased by climate change can exacerbate existing vulnerabilities due to overcrowding, unsafe housing, inadequate infrastructure and poor healthcare facilities. At 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) warming, without adaptation, an additional 350 million people living in cities and urban areas will experience the effects of severe drought, including water scarcity. At 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) warming, that number grows to around 410 million. With climate impacts escalating every day, research shows we need transformative adaption policies in cities to reduce impacts on the most vulnerable communities.
Solutions are possible. WRI and its partners are working with communities through the REHOUSE (Resilient, Equitable Housing Opportunities and Urban Services) partnership to find scalable ways in which equitable housing and urban services make cities more climate resilient.
Here are four innovative approaches we learned by working with vulnerable communities throughout Asia and Africa:
1) Address Challenges Posed by Rapid UrbanizationNinety percent of urban growth by 2050 is projected to occur in Asia and Africa, where vulnerability to climate risks is also the highest. Improving access to adequate housing and urban services can simultaneously address the compounded challenges of rapid urbanization, the urban services divide and vulnerability to climate risks. A participatory housing project in Iloilo City, Philippines and a water access expansion project in Tanzania illustrate how to foster inclusive and climate-resilient development:
Participatory Housing and Urban Development in Iloilo City, PhilippinesIloilo City, Philippines, faces a multifaceted housing challenge due to rapid urbanization, informal settlements and susceptibility to floods and typhoons. The Homeless People’s Federation of the Philippines in collaboration with other civil society organizations and the government effectively provided housing development, relocation and disaster rehabilitation for nearly two-thirds of the city’s 27,000 urban poor families, without resorting to forced evictions or distant relocations.
The city government provided land within city limits, and community groups organized informal households — those who were often evicted and squatting — using innovative approaches. These included savings groups (voluntarily organized groups that combine their savings and then lend out money to pay for household expenses or for business investments) and participatory planning, which involves the entire community in the planning process. As a result, 1,250 households received new housing within the city, which provided greater access to employment opportunities, education and health care facilities. Iloilo City exemplifies an inclusive and collaborative approach by local and national governments and organizations.
Expanding Water Access in TanzaniaThe residents of Sangara village in Tanzania faced a daily struggle to access clean water, with only eight hand water pumps available for a population of 2,000 people, out of which only six were operational. Since community members frequently needed to contribute to fixing them, there was not enough money to expand the water network. Habitat for Humanity, in collaboration with WaterAid Tanzania, UTT-MFI (a microfinance institution), eWATERpay and Babati District Council, initiated a project to bring reliable water access to Sangara.
In Arusha, Tanzania, women pass through a savannah on the way to collect water. By piloting solutions like a solar pumping system, some communities in Tanzania are combatting the struggle to access clean water. Photo by Kairi Aun / Alamy Stock Photo.Innovative solutions, including a solar pumping system, prepaid meters and a loan model were introduced. The loan model allows income generated from water purchases to be reinvested in the community. Community members contribute 30 Tanzanian shillings ($0.01) per 20-liter bucket, and the generated revenue can be used for housing improvements or other infrastructure enhancements.
This approach addresses both the maintenance and creation of modern water sources, powered by solar technology through collaboration across sectors, involving the community, private businesses, government institutions and non-profit organizations. It saves time for residents who were walking hours to fetch water, allowing them to start small vegetable farms, speed up brick laying to build new houses and improve sanitation.
2) Reduce Vulnerability and Engage Communities in Disaster PreparednessBuilding and retrofitting housing and infrastructure to be climate-resilient — as projects in Bangladesh have done — and engaging communities in disaster preparedness efforts — as a program in Indonesia did— can save money and lives as climate change intensifies natural disasters.
Innovative Resilient Practices in BangladeshBangladesh's distinctive geography of low-lying coastal plains and rivers, and its significant population density render it susceptible to major flooding from a shifting climate.
Connected infrastructure is vital for people to evacuate in the event of a flood, an urban development initiative by BRAC, an organization focused on people and poverty, collaborated across cities to construct 3.1 miles of roads and 118.9 miles of elevated sidewalks using sturdy materials at the highest flood level in low-income communities.
The program also provides drainage facilities and durable retaining walls. With 121 drains covering 11.7 miles, benefiting 35,290 households in 20 cities, the initiative safeguards against erosion, floods and liquid waste while maintaining proper water drainage gradients. BRAC also addressed the impact of cyclones by providing climate-resilient housing support, featuring elevated pedestals, sturdy roofs and robust construction materials to protect vulnerable families during extreme weather events.
Bangladesh is also investing in migrant-friendly climate-resilient towns and cities with the required housing, services and social infrastructure created through community participation, as part of its National Adaptation Plan.
In Bangladesh, two people work to extend the base of a house, which provides more structural support during storms. Photo by BRAC. Disaster-resilient Construction Practices in IndonesiaEarthquakes are responsible for a 50% mortality rate of all natural disasters annually in Indonesia, and impact more than 100,000 people each year. Much of this devastation is caused by substandard housing units that can’t stand up to the earthquakes as the homes were built with poor materials, are overcrowded or lack basic services. Approximately 20% of the country’s 64.1 million housing units are considered substandard, with around 70% of these units self-built and owned by low-income households.
After the 2016 earthquake in Aceh, Build Change conducted a 5-month project that was paired with government reconstruction subsidies to build timber-framed houses with masonry skirts that are designed to stand-up to earthquakes and other disasters. A builder training program for disaster-resistant construction practices and promotional campaign then engaged 155 affected villages, involving its leaders, government officials and religious leaders.
Religious leaders played a crucial role in spreading the message of building safer homes, supported by a sermon-writing competition on disaster risk mitigation. The government distributed design and construction guidelines to at least 2,300 homeowners, incorporating technical capacity for safer reconstruction.
Damage caused to homes by a magnitude 5.6 earthquake in Indonesia in 2022. With earthquakes being a common event in Indonesia, homes need to be built more resiliently to withstand such natural disasters. Photo by Adennysyahputra/iStock 3) Implement Local Solutions for Increased Resilience to Heat and FloodsExcessive heat and increased flooding from worsening climate change will hit the urban poor the hardest, causing health, financial and water-related challenges. Local solutions addressing cooling and flooding already exist but need to be expanded. For example, in Ahmedabad, India, women community leaders who live in informal settlements are being trained on climate resilience measures to combat extreme heat, while in Surat, an early-warning alarm system was put into place.
Empowering Women Leaders in Ahmedabad, IndiaWomen living in informal settlements are particularly affected by extreme heat, flooding and other climate impacts since their livelihoods are more dependent on work done at home. The Women’s Action Towards Climate Resilience for the Urban Poor project by Mahila Housing Trust (MHT) involves climate training for women community leaders (Vikasinis) in informal settlements to empower them to advocate for the specific needs of the slum communities and help create viable solutions.
A woman stands under an Airlite ventilation system, which enhances air circulation and helps reduce heat and energy consumption. Photo by Mahila Housing Trust.MHT’s sustainable cooling initiatives in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, also aim to address heat stress and high electricity costs in slums. Pilot solutions included replacing or refinishing roofs with solar-reflective white paint, green roofs, Airlite ventilation systems that enhance air circulation and reduces energy consumption, and ModRoofs, a modular roof made from cardboard and agricultural waste. Of all these solutions, the white solar-reflective paint proved most accessible for women in slums as this cost-effective solution shields against scorching temperatures, providing comfort to residents.
Many women painted their roofs and experienced an improvement in indoor temperature. MHT also aims to install 5,000 more cool ModRoofs roofs in India by 2026 and is collaborating with local authorities for broader initiatives. The success of MHT's work led to its involvement in revising the Ahmedabad Heat Action Plan, which will help other cities implement similar programs.
Addressing Flooding in the City of SuratSurat, a populous and economically thriving city on the Tapi River in south Gujarat, India, faces flood risks, exacerbated by high tides during the rainy season and emergency releases from the Ukai Dam. A comprehensive report conducted in Surat, as part of the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) initiative, revealed higher vulnerabilities among lower-income groups. Approximately 71,000 households are susceptible to flooding (around half of which live within 50 meters of streams) and around 450,000 households are vulnerable to flooding from emergency releases from the Ukai dam.
To help residents, ACCCRN supported an early warning system in Surat that not only provides a 4-day advance warning against floods, but also supports vulnerable populations — many who don’t have phones — by including geo-tagging of all residential buildings, providing pre-monsoon updates to people who require special medical care during emergencies, aiding evacuation efforts and minimizing flood damage.
More than 20% of the city’s low-income households who live alongside creeks and rivers benefit from reduced risks due to more controlled releases from the dam and sufficient time to evacuate to safer locations.
There are also plans for a database of people who are vulnerable to flood risk and a community-managed bank that can provide disaster-relief resources, adapting building by-laws for the low-income settlements so the city can help make them more resilient. Other flood mitigation actions include clearing drainage and sewer systems, conducting emergency evacuation preparedness and regular drills. The city also plans to establish a data-assisted two-way information system for residential buildings, incorporating pre-monsoon updates for vulnerable groups.
4) Improve Access to Clean and Sustainable Energy through Community ParticipationHousing is the integrator of many urban services such as energy, water and sanitation. Improving access to these services improves health, raises productivity and saves time and money. For example, in Africa, an energy program was designed to improve access to clean renewable energy through community participation.
Experiences From an Energy Justice Program in AfricaThe Energy Justice Programme (EJP) and the Know Your City (KYC) data collection program, led by Slum Dwellers International (SDI) are helping to improve energy access within slum areas by engaging the community in energy planning. Lack of access to sustainable energy is a significant obstacle to slum development, and financial and practical barriers to extending the grid can often leave low-income communities without service for decades.
In the Mukuru Special Planning Area, Nairobi’s biggest slum upgradation project, Community Data Teams were formed by Mukuru residents — 70% of whom are women and youth — to gather information about demand and gaps in energy access. The information is then used to suggest better ways for people in Mukuru to obtain regular energy access in their homes including alternatives such as off-grid solar technologies.
In another project, SDI's group savings and loan approach facilitated off-grid solar home systems in Zimbabwe and showcased a practical financing solution. Through community savings groups, households can secure loans to better afford expensive solar systems, with payments returning to the fund for new loans. The implementation plans also involve training community members as technicians to install, repair and maintain the solar systems.
Solar energy is also the focus of a project in the Ugandan cities of Kampala and Jinja, where solar streetlights were installed to reduce accidents and alleviate traffic congestion and air pollution. As a result, crime rates lowered, allowing marginalized groups, especially women, to reclaim public spaces at night. The nighttime economy improved with extended trading hours for businesses, potentially creating around 4,000 additional jobs in Kampala. In Jinja, the production of solar-powered streetlights, generated skilled and technical jobs, particularly benefiting vulnerable youth in slum areas.
In Africa a project by Slum Dwellers International is helping residents of slums gain access to solar energy. Photo by Slum Dwellers International. Scaling Solutions for More Climate-resilient HousingREHOUSE'S 3-track Program
REHOUSE aims to scale global, national and local efforts by:
1) Developing data, finance and learning systems: Leverage engagements at global events like COP and the World Urban Forum and collectively build a global data platform to evaluate urban climate risks and vulnerabilities, foster peer learning and channel climate finance to the most vulnerable communities.
2) Scaling by influencing country policies and programs: Deliver impact at the national level by engaging with national climate and urbanization policies, data, funding programs and urban infrastructure programs.
3) Demonstrating community-city collaboration in priority settlements: Pilot city and settlement-level climate risks and vulnerability mapping initiatives with the community, along with innovative climate resilient housing and infrastructure delivery models and scale them by leveraging the experiences, capacity and grassroots presence of partner organizations.
Housing is a crucial entry point to advance climate goals and sustainable development. It has the most direct impact on people’s lives and livelihoods, the ability to pull along other core urban services and can serve as the foundation for climate mitigation and adaption policies, programs and peer learning across cities and countries.
National and urban decision makers and stakeholders need to prioritize access to climate-resilient basic services and urban housing within informal settlements, positioning them prominently on the political, developmental and climate agendas.
The projects discussed in this article demonstrate how vulnerable communities, with the help of REHOUSE partners and other organizations, are already addressing the multifaceted challenges to make cities and communities climate resilient. But these solutions need to be scaled.
For more examples of successful scalable innovations from REHOUSE partners’ work and information on how to get involved, visit REHOUSE.org.
iloilo-city-participatory-housing.jpg Climate Resilience housing Cities climate change Climate Climate Equity Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Smriti Singh Maeve WestonOcean Carbon Removal Is Uncharted Territory. The US Can Help Change That
Rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the world’s top priority for combatting climate change. But scientists agree that we must also remove significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere to meet global climate goals and keep warming to safer levels. This carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can come from many different approaches — including emerging methods based in the ocean.
The ocean covers 70% of the earth and holds 42 times more carbon than the atmosphere. Proposed ocean CDR approaches seek to leverage this capacity to safely store more carbon. Such methods could potentially remove up to billions of tons of CO2 per year. But this potential is paired with a lot of uncertainty. More funding is needed for research and at-sea testing to understand both how effective ocean CDR approaches are at removing carbon and storing it over time, and what impacts they could have on people and the environment.
The United States can and should lead on developing research in this area.
As the world’s largest historical greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. has a responsibility to drive early research and development of CDR technologies that are needed to address the climate crisis. The U.S. also specifically mentions ocean CDR in its long-term low-emissions development strategy. This charts the course to net-zero emissions by 2050 and includes roughly 1 billion metric tons of carbon removal across all types of approaches. Yet, while the U.S. has already directed billions toward the development of land-based carbon removal, little funding has gone to ocean CDR.
Scaling up funding for ocean CDR research and testing can help build a knowledge base to inform decisions on which approaches are suitable for large-scale deployment. This will ultimately help reach not just U.S. but global climate goals.
Opportunities and Risks for Ocean-based Carbon Removal in the U.S.Just as on land, there are a wide range of ways the ocean could be used to increase carbon removal. These can generally be grouped into methods that leverage biological processes and those that leverage non-biological processes, otherwise known as “biotic” and “abiotic” approaches.
One example of biological ocean-based carbon removal is the cultivation and intentional sinking of seaweed. This can include the harvesting and sinking of nuisance seaweed, which has become an increasing issue on the United States’ Gulf Coast and Florida’s Atlantic coast in recent years. Seaweed takes up dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) from surface waters as it grows and transforms that CO2 into its carbon tissues. That embodied carbon is sequestered when the seaweed is sunk. The seawater depleted of CO2 then re-equilibrates with the atmosphere by taking up some of its carbon dioxide, resulting in atmospheric carbon removal.
On the abiotic side are techniques such as ocean alkalinity enhancement, which involves applying ground-up alkaline rock to seawater. The ground material reacts with dissolved CO2 in surface waters to form solid bicarbonates and carbonates that lock away carbon. As with seaweed cultivation, ocean alkalinity enhancement seeks to reduce the amount of dissolved CO2 in surface waters so that they can remove more CO2 from the air.
These approaches remain largely untested and all involve risks and tradeoffs. Scientists and researchers are uncertain about how effective they are at removing carbon in different locations and under different circumstances. They’re also unsure of how long it takes for sequestration to happen and the duration of carbon storage. Moreover, these results can be difficult to measure given that the ocean is always moving and transboundary.
Each approach also presents potential ecological and environmental impacts. For example, large-scale cultivation of seaweed can reduce light penetration and deplete nutrients and oxygen in the water. This can affect the growth of other species such as phytoplankton. For ocean alkalinity enhancement, ground alkaline minerals may contain trace amounts of toxic minerals that can harm marine organisms. Accessing this alkaline material can also require increasing mining and transport on land, which comes with its own social and environmental risks.
The magnitude and severity of these impacts on the environment and coastal communities depend on the scale, location and many other factors associated with a project. More research and testing are needed to better characterize them.
What Has the U.S. Government Done So Far to Support Ocean CDR?U.S. government action related to ocean CDR is at an earlier stage than its support for land-based CDR approaches, where funding has increased significantly in the past five or so years. However, momentum is growing. There’s been meaningful progress on both strategy and policy support for ocean CDR recently.
In 2021, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine released a landmark report on a federal research strategy for ocean carbon dioxide removal and sequestration. It laid out the state of knowledge across approaches, highlighted knowledge gaps and recommended more than $1 billion in federal funding to be invested over 10 years. This report helped raise the profile of ocean CDR and highlight its research funding needs. It was followed by a research strategy from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) outlining their motivation for working on ocean CDR, their capacities relevant to advancing it, and what they would need to help assess the efficacy and risks of different approaches.
2023 saw the release of a federal Ocean Climate Action Plan by the Ocean Policy Committee, which convenes leads from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality. The plan put forth a whole-of-government approach to leverage the ocean for climate mitigation. It includes specific goals related to ocean CDR, including building a sufficient knowledge base around efficacy and tradeoffs and developing a robust regulatory framework. A Fast-Track Action Committee on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal was also created to evaluate the tradeoffs of different types of marine CDR to help shape policy and research decisions.
Fishermen harvest sea urchins from kelp beds in Depoe Bay, Oregon. Kelp cultivation is one way the ocean can be leveraged to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Photo by gchapel/iStockA few agencies have begun to fund ocean CDR research. The Department of Energy has $10 million in 2024 for research and development of biological ocean CDR, $250,000 for clarifying regulatory processes and $20 million to continue a CDR purchase pilot prize. This pilot prize is the first government initiative to directly purchase CDR credits, and ocean CDR is eligible. In 2023, the National Oceanic Partnership Program provided $24 million for 17 project teams working on CDR research. DOE has also funded work on macroalgal cultivation since 2017 (though with a focus on utilization rather than removal).
Finally, Congress has introduced, but not yet passed, several bills to support the scale-up of carbon dioxide removal approaches, including ocean CDR. The Carbon Dioxide Removal Research and Development Act of 2023 lays out a comprehensive, 10-year research and development agenda for CDR, including more than $1 billion over 10 years for ocean CDR. The CREST Act of 2023 and the Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024 both aim to increase government procurement of CDR from various approaches. And the CREATE Act would set up inter-agency working groups to support CDR research and development across agencies.
This early funding and policy support is an important first step. But much more is needed to address scientific and governance uncertainties and move forward in an informed manner.
Is Anyone in the U.S. Already Working on Ocean CDR?Some U.S.-based companies are already attracting investment for development, at-sea testing and ultimately deployment of their ocean CDR approaches and technologies. These early movers can help address research gaps if their data and learnings are shared. But they do not have the capacity to build a comprehensive knowledge base on their own. This growing private sector momentum underscores the need for greater public funding to build a strong foundation of knowledge around ocean CDR efficacy and impacts.
U.S. companies working on ocean CDR include, for example, Running Tide, which combines biomass sinking and ocean alkalinity enhancement. Others, like Captura, Ebb Carbon and Equatic, use electricity to strip CO2 out of the water directly or to create alkalinity, which is then added to seawater to indirectly remove carbon. Vesta applies alkaline material to coastlines. Several of these companies spun out of universities and continue to collaborate with academic researchers. Many are beginning at-sea testing and/or project deployment both inside and outside of the U.S.
In addition, companies like Shopify and Microsoft are purchasing tons of ocean carbon removal to support the industry and help meet their climate commitments. So are advance market commitments like Frontier, a group of companies, including Shopify and others, that has committed to purchasing $1 billion of durable carbon removal by 2030. Frontier is already purchasing from several ocean CDR companies.
Nonprofit initiatives have also sprung up to address knowledge and research gaps associated with ocean CDR. These include the Carbon to Sea Initiative, which is focused on evaluating ocean alkalinity enhancement; Ocean Visions, which has compiled a database of known at-sea trials for ocean CDR among other resources; and [C]Worthy, which is developing modeling and data resources to support ocean CDR. Research initiatives are ongoing at universities and within national science institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
How is Ocean Carbon Removal Regulated in the U.S.?Despite growing private sector activity, ocean-based carbon removal is not clearly or comprehensively regulated either within U.S. national waters or in the high seas.
In the U.S., at-sea research and deployment for ocean CDR projects are subject to existing safety and permitting regulations for activities at sea. U.S. regulations apply to projects located within 200 nautical miles of a coastline that fall under national jurisdiction. (This is the country’s exclusive economic zone, or EEZ). Projects located within three miles of the U.S. coast (or 9 miles for Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico) fall within that state’s laws and regulations.
Current permitting regimes for ocean CDR are based on existing regulations for activities like marine dumping or wastewater discharge. In other words, ocean CDR activities are being slotted into regulatory frameworks that were not designed for them. This means that ocean CDR might be subject to overlapping or unnecessary regulations, which can stifle at-sea research, while at the same time not being comprehensively regulated.
In early 2024, the EPA clarified how existing regulation — either under the Clean Water Act or the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act — is to be applied to ocean CDR approaches. This provides clarity on how to navigate current regulation, but it does not address the need for proactive and comprehensive governance that is focused on ocean CDR.
While it is not a replacement for more robust and fit-for-purpose regulation, non-governmental groups, such as the Aspen Institute and American Geophysical Union, have published proposed codes of conduct for ocean CDR research. These “soft law” guidelines can help ensure research projects are done responsibly. They include guidance on following relevant laws and regulations as well as on managing environmental impacts, transparency, community engagement and more. Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law also proposed a model law for ocean CDR research permitting in the United States. It includes ocean CDR research zones with expedited permitting processes and safeguards to ensure research minimizes environmental and societal risks. These resources could be built upon or integrated into a national policy and regulatory framework specific to ocean CDR.
What Are the Next Steps for Responsibly Developing Ocean CDR?Growing interest and investment in ocean CDR, combined with uncertainties around the science and governance, underscore the need for greater government support. Developing and deploying ocean CDR responsibly will require increased funding for research and testing, a more comprehensive governance framework that ensures stringent environmental protections, careful evaluation of potential tradeoffs and engagement with coastal communities, among other things.
Public funding will be critical to resolving scientific uncertainties in this space and helping determine which approaches are suitable for scaling and under what conditions. Just as federal funding for CDR approaches on land went from almost nothing five years ago to billions today, a similar increase for ocean CDR approaches can help ensure there is a solid foundation of scientific understanding from which to operate.
carbon-sequestration-seagrass-research.jpg Climate United States carbon removal Ocean Climate Governance U.S. Climate Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Katie Lebling Jennifer Rennicks Shannon WoodSTATEMENT: U.S. EPA Issues New Pollution Standards for Trucks and Buses
WASHINGTON (March 29, 2024) — Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase 3 standard.
These standards will avoid 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from heavy duty vehicles, including trucks and school buses, by 2055 by setting standards for model-year 2027 through 2032, complementing the recently-released standards for passenger vehicles. In the U.S., heavy-duty vehicles make up four percent of the vehicles on roads today but account for over a quarter of all transportation sector GHG emissions. The transportation sector as a whole accounts for the largest portion (29%) of all U.S. GHG emissions. These vehicles also produce harmful pollutants that affect local air quality and health, especially for those living near highways, freight hubs, ports and depots, which are more likely to be lower-income people of color.
Children are particularly vulnerable to pollution from heavy duty vehicles, including diesel pollution from 90% of the nation’s school bus fleet which presents health and developmental dangers to students, drivers, and communities.
Following is a statement from Sue Gander, Director, World Resources Institute’s Electric School Bus Initiative:
“This new standard will allow children who ride diesel-powered school buses, truck drivers who move goods across the country, and the communities living near highways, depots and ports to breathe easier.
“Alongside this standard, the federal government has made billions of dollars available to support the transition to zero-emission trucks and buses, moving us closer to a future where these vehicles don’t worsen the climate crisis and our health. The momentum is already building: Companies are manufacturing cleaner trucks and buses, school districts are showing high demand for electric buses, and states are advancing smart policies to speed up the adoption of cleaner trucks and buses.
“This is a step forward for America’s transportation policy. Policymakers should keep their foot on the accelerator to speed the transition to clean trucks and buses that provide communities better air and students a healthier ride to school. This includes continuing to provide support for charging infrastructure and access to technical assistance, workforce training and funding and financing.”
U.S. Climate United States transportation electric mobility U.S. Climate Policy-Electric School Buses pollution Air Quality Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0WRI Product Studio – Speeding Product Innovation for Sustainable Development
The Product Studio is a service by the Data Lab, WRI’s core data innovation and product delivery unit. The Product Studio documents the work done with project teams, highlighting actionable learnings that other project leads can implement to avoid common pitfalls and successfully navigate their own technology projects. These are shared publicly in the “Product Studio Learnings Series,” in the form of case studies. Please share your feedback at productstudio@wri.org.
Data and digitalization can provide unprecedented opportunities to build an equitable, sustainable and healthy society. However, researchers and project implementers struggle to design and build new digital products that provide real value to people and organizations working on the frontlines. Products that are built are often strategically, technically and financially unsustainable. As a result, exciting new data often failed to translate into impact on the ground.
World Resources Institute (WRI) is a global leader in data for impact. We have built over 40 data products and have a decade-long track record of turning data science innovation into action.
In March 2024, WRI launched a new service we call Product Studio. The aim is to help researchers and program teams design and scale new products. Backed by the Data Lab's Product Team, the Studio gives teams the technical and strategy expertise they need to understand their users and market, develop product designs, and build and test rapid prototypes. With our support, teams can build products that support decisions that matter, enable accountability and drive the conversation.
The Product Studio provides three services to our clients:
- User Research and Needs Assessment: Provide structure and guide innovations to develop user personas and requirements, guide best practices for research and needs assessments, and conduct user journey and value mapping.
- Product Strategy: We help teams evaluate the product landscape, define value and impact, develop a theory of change, and create a roadmap to bring an innovation to market for their users, while planning for sustainability.
- Rapid Prototyping: We build wireframes and front-end prototypes to rapidly test product ideas with actual uses.
The Product Studio works in collaborative design sprints, leveraging WRI’s internal expertise, to maximize efficiency and learning. Through this process we aim to lower development costs, speed up delivery, and improve the sustainability and cohesiveness of new data products across the sustainable development sector.
We created this blog to share the experiences and knowledge that result from working on a diverse pool of software projects. Our intention is that the lessons learned by WRI’s Product Studio can become replicable best practices for anyone designing and scaling products in the data-for-good landscape.
Want to learn more about WRI’s Product Studio? Get in touch with Tea Tuur, Senior Product Manager, Product Studio at tea.tuur@wri.org.
data mapping Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 ProjectsRELEASE: 17 New Partnerships Receive $6.5 Million in Funding from P4G for Innovative Climate Solutions
WRI’s Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals (P4G) initiative will provide grant funding and technical assistance to help these partnerships become investment ready
Washington, D.C. (March 28, 2024) — Today, Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030 (P4G) announced $6.5 million in grant funding and technical assistance for 17 new startup partnerships in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. This funding will help early-stage businesses become investment ready so they can scale climate solutions such as solar-powered battery charging hubs, biodiesel production, climate smart agriculture to improve yields and farmer incomes, and rooftop tiles that can integrate solar panels and collect rainwater.
By 2026, this group of partnerships aims to collectively leverage US $95 million in investment, create more than 1,700 new jobs, benefit about 1.3 million people in these countries, and reduce or avoid around 900,000 metric tons in carbon emissions.
“Small and medium businesses are engines of growth for many economies and have an uphill battle attracting climate finance because of the environments or sectors they work in,” said Robyn McGuckin, Executive Director, P4G. “They’re central to just country transitions, bringing scalable innovation that can directly benefit local economies and communities. These new partnerships exemplify the innovation of early-stage startups. At P4G we’re committed to supporting the climate startups of today so that they can become the sustainable business titans of tomorrow.”
Small and medium enterprises represent about 90% of businesses worldwide and create 7 out of 10 jobs in emerging markets. Access to finance is a key constraint to small and medium enterprises’ growth because they either don’t meet investment readiness standards or work in higher risk countries or sectors. P4G helps bridge the gap between climate businesses and investors with grants and technical assistance while providing collaboration opportunities with relevant ministries and industry leaders through country-led P4G National Platforms.
P4G partnerships are composed of an early-stage business, a nonprofit organization, and other partners working together on climate mitigation or adaptation solutions in the food, water or energy sectors. Recipients will provide critical climate solutions in Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa and Vietnam.
One recipient – the Sun Run and Sustainable Transport Africa partnership – is using these funds to advance the e-mobility transition in rural Kenya. Its first solar powered battery charging and swapping hub was launched in Dunga Beach, Kenya. The hub is used to charge electric fleets, provide security lighting for nighttime traders, and for charging devices.
“With support from P4G funding, we’re already helping African women transport their produce in a safer and more cost-effective way,” said Carol Ofafa, CEO & founder, E-Safiri Charging Limited. “With this next round of funding, we’ll deploy 10 charging hubs, provide training to women’s groups on the benefits of e-mobility, and develop white papers that can inform policies for sustainable rural mobility.”
P4G partnerships provide products or services in the areas of climate-smart agriculture, food loss and waste, water resilience, zero emission mobility and renewable energy. Partnerships receiving funding will scale products and services such as high-performance bamboo building material while restoring degraded land in Ethiopia (African Bamboo - Solidaridad East Africa); an edible natural coating that can double the shelf life of fruits and vegetables in Indonesia (BIKI - FoodCycle Indonesia), and a centralized collection and processing of brown grease from industrial kitchens in Colombia for large-scale biodiesel production (ZhanaSolutions – Fondo Acción).
Startup partnerships receive support from P4G’s National Platforms, which are multi-stakeholder government and industry coalitions in each country. National Platforms facilitate network connections and collaborate on the enabling policy and regulatory environments needed for climate businesses to succeed. P4G also helps startup partnerships through investor and business matchmaking sessions, which bring them in front of impact investors who are looking for viable solutions to finance.
P4G received 100 applications for funding for this round. An Independent Grants Committee comprising climate and impact investing experts evaluated shortlisted partnerships before making a final decision.
Since its launch in 2018, P4G has evaluated more than 1,000 applications and has funded 89 unique partnerships (including this group) who have leveraged US $90 million in investment to date, generated more than 1,000 jobs, and avoided more than 10 million metric tons of carbon emissions.
View the full list of 17 partnerships and their solutions.
About P4G
P4G contributes to green and inclusive growth in low- and middle-income countries by helping early-stage businesses become investment ready and supporting country climate transitions in food, water and energy systems. P4G provides grants and technical assistance to startup partnerships; contributes to enabling systems improvements in partner countries; and shares learning on green entrepreneur ecosystems and solutions. Hosted by World Resources Institute and funded by Denmark, the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea, P4G implements in Colombia, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Indonesia and Vietnam. To learn more, visit www.p4gpartnerships.org.
About World Resources Institute
WRI is a trusted partner for change. Using research-based approaches, we work globally and in focus countries to meet people’s essential needs; to protect and restore nature; and to stabilize the climate and build resilient communities. We aim to fundamentally transform the way the world produces and uses food and energy and designs its cities to create a better future for all. Founded in 1982, WRI has nearly 2,000 staff around the world, with country offices in Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the United States and regional offices in Africa and Europe.
Solar-Powered Battery Swap Stations Could Speed Rwanda’s Shift to Electric ‘Motos’
Like many parts of Africa, motorcycles are the most popular form of transportation among Rwanda’s 13.3 million people. Whether they’re commuting to work or school, transporting jugs of water from the local taps or just running everyday errands, people on “motos” can be found zipping up and down most busy streets in the East African nation. Many locals also rely on these motos for their livelihoods as taxi drivers.
But despite their convenience and popularity, motos — mostly powered by fossil fuels — leave behind more than just dusty roads. The two-wheeled vehicles produce greenhouse gas emissions, noise, hazardous air pollution and contribute to the country’s heavy reliance on imported oil.
The road transport sector is responsible for 13% of Rwanda’s national emissions, with more than a quarter of it coming from motos. The gas-fueled motos also contribute more than 90% of particulate matter air pollution.
From transporting household necessities to commuting to work, Rwanda’s population relies heavily on its use of motos. Photo by Sloot/iStock.Electric motos, especially those powered by renewable energy, offer a promising solution for reducing emissions, improving air quality and providing economic benefits.
Kigali, Rwanda’s capital is among the fastest growing cities in Africa, with an urbanization annual growth rate of 4% and it contributes over 41% of the national GDP. In Kigali, there are about 26,000 moto taxis in operation, most of which are powered by gas engines.
In partnership with the United Nations Development Programme, the government of Rwanda launched a project to gradually phase out traditional gas-powered motorcycles and convert them to electric bikes. Kigali’s relatively small size and cohesive urban design also make the city an ideal testing ground to see if a transition to electric motorcycles could work across the continent.
But first, it must overcome some hurdles.
3 Challenges of Converting to Electric MotosWhile electric motorcycles are an effective way for Kigali to curb pollution and reduce dependence on imported oil, rolling out a large number of electric motos will be challenging. These hurdles include:
1) Insufficient and Unstable Power SupplySome city districts still have very low electricity access. Blackouts and erratic outages are common occurrences at night when many devices are connected to the system. According to data published by the Rwanda Energy Group, the country's total installed electricity capacity is only about 300MW, while demand is expected to reach 556MW by 2024, according to the Energy Sector Strategy Plan 2018-2024 published by Rwanda’s Ministry of Infrastructure.
2) High Initial Investment CostsIn Rwanda, many motos are sold without the battery to make them more affordable for low-income customers. High-quality batteries can cost up to $1,000, so batteries are often leased. As a result, battery leasing and swap services have become the preferred choice for many moto drivers, but there aren’t yet enough of them to support a fully electric moto sector.
3) Long Charging TimesCharging an electric moto takes an average of six to eight hours, much longer than refueling with conventional gasoline. The lost operation time can reduce incomes for the many drivers that rely on them for work (such as taxi or delivery services). Moto drivers work an average of more than 10 hours per day, six days a week. Even fast charging still takes more time than refueling with conventional gasoline and comes with added risks of damaging batteries and reducing the lifecycle of the motorcycle.
An electric motorcycle at a public charging station in Cologne, Germany. Charging one of these vehicles takes an average of six hours, much longer than their gasoline counterparts. Photo by Joern Sackermann/Alamy Stock Photo An Energy-Efficient Solution: Solar-Powered Swap StationsA battery swap station, also known as a battery switching station or battery exchange station, is a facility where electric vehicle drivers — including electric moto drivers — can quickly replace a depleted battery with a fully charged one in the same amount of time it takes to refuel a gas-powered motorcycle.
An electric motorcycle rider uses a battery swap station in Nairobi. The swap stations make electric motorcycles more affordable and take much less time than having to recharge a battery. Photos by Johnny Greig/iStock.There are currently a limited number of swap stations in Kigali, which are mostly in central urban areas with easy access to the power grid. To support a large number of electric motos aligned with the government’s target, more swap stations are needed in urban, suburban and rural areas, including in areas without access to the electric grid.
Creating more battery swap stations that can be run using distributed solar photovoltaic technology might be an encouraging solution. The solar technology means the swap stations won’t need to rely on an over-burdened electric grid. They can also be placed in more remote locations where energy access is difficult or limited.
But doing so will require significant funding. Foreign investment can play a significant role. WRI China is currently exploring potential ways Chinese companies and other foreign investors can partner with Rwandan battery swap station operators and moto drivers to create and expand access to solar-powered swap stations and the benefits that come with them.
Benefits of Scaling Solar Power Battery Swap Stations in KigaliConverting Kigali’s 26,000 operating motos into electric motos and quickly building and converting swap stations to solar power by mobilizing foreign investment addresses the challenges of high initial investment costs, unstable electricity and inadequate battery swap station facilities, avoiding long charging times. It can also provide valuable experience for Rwanda and other African countries in their efforts for an urban green transportation transformation.
Some of the benefits include:
- Economic Improvements: Solar-powered battery swap stations can bring new jobs and economic benefits to the community. A distributed solar power station can generate revenue by selling green electricity to the battery swap station operator. Battery swap station operators can earn revenue from their services. And electric moto drivers can reduce their fuel and maintenance costs.
- Lower Climate Emissions: Studies indicate that gasoline motorcycles emit approximately 11.78 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per 100 kilometers. Electric motorcycles using renewable energy produce 98% less emissions than gasoline-powered motorcycles.
- Cleaner Air for Better Health: Gas-fueled motorcycles contribute more than 90% of particulate matter air pollution in Rwanda. Electric motos avoid harmful tailpipe emissions, contributing to better air quality and public health.
For a long time, energy scarcity has been a significant factor hindering African nations’ socio-economic development. The unstable power supply has struggled to support the rapid pace of industrialization. However, Africa’s geography is endowed with significant renewable energy resources, and the country holds immense development potential for implementing renewable energy like solar.
If solar-power battery swap stations can be successfully piloted in Kigali, it can not only bring direct benefits to Rwanda's economy, environment and people, but also provide a replicable model for the green transformation of an estimated 5 million motorcycles in East African countries.
rwanda-kigali-motorcycles.jpg Electric Mobility Africa renewable energy electric grid Cities Energy Access Type Vignette Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Cheng Zhang Miao HongSTATEMENT: U.S. Heavy Industry Awarded $6 Billion to Modernize and Decarbonize
WASHINGTON (March 25, 2024) — Today, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced up to $6 billion worth of projects to catalyze greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions in energy-intensive heavy industries. The Industrial Demonstration Program — by far the largest federal funding program for industrial decarbonization — was authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) announced 33 first- or early-of-a-kind commercial-scale projects across 20 states that will demonstrate technical and commercial viability of decarbonization technologies. Investments in these technologies will promote widespread adoption in some of the most emissions-intensive sectors in the U.S., such as steel, cement and chemicals.
Following is a statement from Angela Anderson, Director of Industrial Innovation and Carbon Removal, U.S. Climate, World Resources Institute:
“The U.S. is investing in modernizing industrial operations at such a large scale because cleaner and safer facilities are essential to our future. As emissions from electricity generation and transportation fall, the industrial sector could soon become the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
“Today’s awards demonstrate that U.S. companies across heavy industrial sectors such as cement, steel and chemicals are willing and able to change the way they produce goods to reduce carbon emissions.
“Technological innovations are rapidly becoming commercially available and awards like these can help them scale and become cost competitive.
“The pathway to a fossil- and emissions-free industrial sector will not be quick nor easy and industry will need continued support to decarbonize. But DOE and these leading businesses show that transformational technology is here today and will catalyze faster and deeper emissions reductions in the years ahead.”
U.S. Climate United States industry Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0