Community Benefits Snapshot: Stillwater Good Neighbor Agreement shannon.paton@… Fri, 11/22/2024 - 14:35 .bullets ul li { font-size: 1.1em !important; } Highlights

The Stillwater good neighbor agreement, signed in 2000, is a legally binding contract between Sibanye-Stillwater Mining Company and three local organizations: Northern Plains Resource Council, Cottonwood Resource Council, and Stillwater Protective Association. Unique within the mining industry, the agreement protects local watersheds from environmental degradation due to mining activities; mitigates the impact of an influx of mine workers on local communities through traffic plans that reduce mining traffic on country roads; provides local communities with access to information about mining operations and the opportunity to address problems before they occur; sets aside company-owned land in conservation easements; and requires the company to fund mining and water experts who advise the local organizations.

Context

• Project title: Stillwater good neighbor agreement
• Location: Nye and Big Timber, Montana
• Sector: Mining
• Developer: Stillwater Mining Company (known as Sibanye-Stillwater since 2017)
• Project agreement type: Good neighbor agreement

About the project and involved stakeholders: The good neighbor agreement (GNA) was signed between Stillwater Mining Company (SMC) and Northern Plains Resource Council (Northern Plains), Cottonwood Resource Council (CRC) and Stillwater Protective Association (SPA) on May 8, 2000. Its purpose was to protect local watersheds from environmental degradation due to mining activities and mitigate the impact of an influx of mine workers on local communities.  

SMC is the primary platinum- and palladium-producing mining company in the United States. It was acquired by Sibanye Gold Limited in 2017 and is now known as Sibanye-Stillwater. The company is headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa and is one of the world’s largest producers of platinum, palladium and rhodium. Northern Plains is a statewide grassroots conservation organization that was established in 1972 to protect Montana’s water, land, air and quality of life. Northern Plains has affiliate organizations (including the CRC and SPA) in 13 communities across Montana; henceforth the three organizations will be referred to as the Councils. Established in 1975, SPA focuses on ensuring the company operates the Stillwater mine near Nye, Montana without harming the environment or neighboring communities. CRC, founded in 1988, focuses on addressing the impacts of hard rock mining on the East Boulder River near Big Timber, Montana.  

The GNA applies to the Stillwater and East Boulder mines, which are both underground mining operations located near the towns of Nye in Stillwater County and Big Timber in Sweet Grass County. 

Engagement

In the mid-1990s, SMC wanted to expand the Stillwater mine by constructing tailing impoundment and waste disposal facilities downstream from the mine. Around this time, SMC was also seeking permits to develop its East Boulder mine. Initially, the Councils sought litigation to halt these developments. In 1992, Northern Plains and CRC sued the Montana State Board of Health and Environmental Services for its decision to issue an exemption while giving SMC a permit for the proposed East Boulder mine. This exemption would have allowed the company to ignore a key provision of the Montana Water Quality Act and the mine to degrade the East Boulder River. While this case was moving through the courts, the Montana legislature weakened the state’s Water Quality Act, which diminished the water quality standards the lawsuit was based on. In February 1999, Northern Plains and SPA filed a lawsuit challenging the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) decision to approve the expansion of the Stillwater mine. MDEQ also issued a draft permit for the East Boulder mine, leading CRC to contemplate reopening its previous lawsuit and pursuing a legal challenge. However, realizing that litigation would be costly and arduous, the Councils entered into negotiations with SMC in May 1999 to mitigate impacts from the expansion of the Stillwater mine and the development of the East Boulder mine.

Bill Nettles, then SMC’s CEO, ​​​​was very receptive to an agreement and believed that a GNA could help avoid production delays from legal challenges to the company’s expansion plans, while increasing SMC’s profile as a “good neighbor” in Montana. According to one of the interviewed GNA negotiators, “We asked the company if they would be interested in pursuing a good neighbor agreement, and we sent a letter to that effect, and much to our surprise within a week they wrote back and said yes, they would be willing to sit down with us.”

The closed-door negotiations between representatives of SMC and the Councils lasted almost a year. I​​​​n preparation for the GNA negotiation, the​​ ​​​​Councils identified key negotiators who underwent two days of training with Jim Thomas, a nationally recognized professional negotiator and author of the book “Negotiate to Win.” The training focused on the art of making a deal and how to use leverage in deal-making. ​​​​Northern Plains and its staff also provided valuable leadership and expertise; one staff member was an attorney who provided legal expertise, and another was a former hard rock miner with intimate knowledge of the mining industry who helped translate technical data. During the negotiation, the Councils had access to technical consultants and company data to facilitate their understanding of mining issues.

During this process, t​​​​he Councils never claimed to represent the general public, though they engaged in several community outreach efforts. Generally, for project agreements to be effective, developers should negotiate with stakeholders who are representative of the community. This can raise questions, such as how the community is defined and whether these stakeholders truly represent their community’s views of the project. Such questions can be tricky to navigate and can make or break an agreement. An interviewee from the company shared that, even though the Councils did not represent all of the local community, they were in fact “speaking on behalf of an organized group of people” in the community who cared passionately about clean air, clean water and retaining the rural character of the area.

The Stillwater GNA has been amended six times to reflect accomplishments in the implementation of the agreement and address new challenges. Ultimately, the agreement will terminate when mining operations have ceased and the company has fulfilled federal and state closure and reclamation requirements, as well as met the more stringent GNA baseline water quality requirements.

In September 2024, Sibanye-Stillwater announced plans to cut production from both mines and lay off hundreds of workers in Montana due to declining prices for palladium. This is not expected to impact the GNA since the agreement is a legally binding contract and dispute resolution mechanisms must be followed before parties can be relieved of their obligations. However, this development raises a broader point: Economic stress on developers can potentially put stress on project agreements, including GNAs. Therefore, when negotiating agreements for proposed projects, communities must ensure that the finalized agreements prevent the developer from walking away before commitments have been met.

Benefits

Many project agreements have been in non-environmental sectors, with a focus on collective bargaining, labor relations, and job quality issues. The Stillwater GNA, in contrast, is concerned primarily with addressing environmental pollution, natural resources, and human population impacts from mining projects.

Key benefits of the GNA include:

• Water quality protection: The Stillwater and East Boulder rivers are rigorously monitored for water quality changes by defining and tracking water quality metrics that are more stringent than existing state and federal regulatory standards. Any change from baseline water quality requires an immediate response. This has allowed the company and the Councils to identify water quality issues well before they impact the rivers.
• Traffic reduction measures: The GNA includes measures to reduce traffic around the areas of operation, including consolidating commercial loads, restricting the use of private vehicles, and providing buses for employees between the mine and population centers. All our interviewees noted these provisions have significantly reduced accidents and congestion on rural roads.
• Conservation easements: The GNA requires all private land owned by SMC to be placed under conservation easement to protect it from future development. SMC also agreed to keep employee housing near existing towns to prevent the development of “man camps,” or camps to house workers, near the mine site. These efforts have protected traditional land uses and preserved the community's rural character.
• Company funding of monitoring activities: The company pays for independent scientific and technical consultants who conduct environmental performance audits; an evaluation of the company’s reclamation plan and performance bond (the latter which is provided by the company under state and federal law, and which details its reclamation obligations); a fisheries study and monitoring plan; a baseline water quality report; and groundwater studies. The Councils have been able to participate in all aspects of the audits, studies and sampling conducted by independent consultants, giving local communities an important role in the process.
• Company funding of Northern Plains’ participation in monitoring and implementation of the GNA: The amount of money is negotiated each year for qualifying expenses. In 2024, the approved GNA budget for program implementation and professional technical services was approximately $523,000.

Oversight

The GNA created two oversight committees which meet three times a year to monitor the implementation of the agreement and establish a process for incorporating new issues into the GNA. Both the East Boulder and the Stillwater oversight committees have four voting members. SMC appoints two to each committee and each Council appoints two. ​​All decisions are taken by majority vote.

The GNA also created a responsible mining practices and technology committee comprised of three company representatives and three representatives from the Councils. This committee identifies new technologies and practices that can reduce or eliminate adverse environmental and public safety impacts of mining. The company has a designated team of employees and consultants that identify, research, develop and implement new technologies and practices. In 2015, for instance, the mine installed liners on its waste rock storage piles to prevent nitrogen pollution that had been escaping into the river.

The GNA includes significant provisions to give the Councils access to information, which is necessary for effective monitoring. These include:

• The right to enter and inspect mine facilities — up to two inspections per mine site per year. The Councils can conduct citizen sampling, take photographs, and meet with relevant company employees during all such inspections.
• The requirement for Stillwater to disclose all data, sampling results, studies, evaluations, audits and other documents collected under the agreement to members of the Councils, with confidential materials to be only shared with designated members.
• Allowing the Councils to review and comment on any company revisions to the mine operating permits and Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for the Stillwater and East Boulder mines at least three months prior to submission to the relevant agency.
• Consultations with the Councils before acquiring property for future tailings and waste rock disposal.
• A requirement for the company to self-monitor water quality, notify the relevant oversight committee if water quality trigger levels are exceeded, and prepare a corrective course of action that is approved by the oversight committee.

Finally, the GNA includes extensive dispute resolution mechanisms. Parties are bound to first negotiate in good faith to resolve disputes, and may submit the dispute to binding arbitration where a neutral third party makes a legally binding decision on the case. If negotiation fails to resolve the conflict, parties to the agreement can seek to enforce the GNA through civil action in a district court to enforce the legal contract.

Strengths of the Stillwater GNA

The Stillwater GNA is often considered the “Cadillac” of GNAs.  In the 24 years of the GNA’s existence, there has been no arbitration or environmental litigation, which is a significant accomplishment for a mining company.

The organizational strength of the Councils enabled effective negotiations. Northern Plains and its two affiliate organizations had several years of experience lobbying the legislature, testifying at public hearings, providing comments on numerous environmental impact statements, and challenging mining operations in the courtroom and the media. These organizations brought years of considerable organizational strength in negotiations with SMC and benefited from access to outside legal and technical support that enabled them to participate on equal footing with a well-resourced company. Northern Plains estimates that they spent at least 3,000 hours of staff time and $63,000 on consultants and outside experts during the negotiation process.

The GNA’s mechanisms for ongoing consultations with the community have fostered trust between parties. The Councils are to be consulted, for instance, regarding future operating permit amendments, as well as property acquisitions for tailings and waste rock disposal and camps to house workers. The GNA includes other provisions enabling the community to monitor the company’s operations and participate in company environmental management. As a result, there is good will and trust between the Councils and the company. As one interviewee noted, “When you're sitting at the table with somebody for 20 years, you develop a relationship with them, and you also develop credibility from both sides, and you can take each other on as equals.”

​​​​​Local community groups held considerable leverage that brought SMC to the negotiating table. Project agreements such as GNAs and community benefits agreements depend on the willingness of local communities and developers to negotiate. Leverage to bring developers to the negotiating table can include a company’s need for a permit or similar public approval, the threat of a lawsuit, and the desire for a company to avoid negative publicity. In this case, SMC was facing a pending lawsuit over the expansion of the Stillwater mine, which potentially drove the company’s willingness to negotiate given the possibility that the lawsuit would be dismissed in exchange. The lawsuit was in fact withdrawn in exchange for SMC’s commitment to the agreement and, according to one of our interviewees, “This lawsuit and previous legal action were essential to build leverage for the local community.” As a publicly traded company, SMC also likely wanted to protect its image as a community friendly and environmentally responsible company.

SMC leadership was motivated to reach an agreement with the local community. Although the company faced pressure from other mining companies and trade associations not to enter into a GNA, CEO Bill Nettles was committed to making the agreement happen to avoid production delays from legal challenges and enhance SMC’s profile in Montana, a commitment shared by the company’s current owner. Moreover, senior company officials living in the area shared community concerns about protecting local beauty and quality of life. An interviewee from the company noted, “If you're not getting platinum and palladium from us, you're getting it from Russia. So, we think, from just a responsible and community-friendly critical minerals production standpoint, it's really important that we keep producing here in Montana.”

The GNA is tied to the mine regardless of ownership transfers. In 2003, a Russian company, Norilsk Nickel, bought a 51% stake in SMC, and Sibanye-Stillwater acquired the company in 2017. Despite changes in ownership since its signing, the Stillwater GNA is a legally binding contract that subsequent owners of the mines must uphold. Though changes in mine ownership could have impacted the implementation of the agreement, it did not, largely because several people managing the mines on the ground have remained the same. For example, a company interviewee shared that two of the senior environmental team members have remained the same and pointed out that all new hires are educated about the GNA, so they understand its benefits to the company and community.

Challenges and Gaps of the Stillwater GNA

The ability of volunteers from the Councils to sustain the efforts necessary to keep the GNA functioning could be a challenge. The scope and complexity of the GNA requires a large commitment of voluntary time from Northern Plains and its two affiliates. The individuals serving on the two oversight committees, for instance, are volunteers who average up to 10-20 hours each week monitoring the GNA and prepping for and attending committee meetings. The future success of the GNA will depend on the recruitment of community volunteers.

Community groups without significant organizational resources may find it challenging to replicate the GNA’s success. The agreement’s progress was dependent on​​ a provision requiring the company to fund most of Northern Plains’ monitoring and oversight expenses. While the Stillwater GNA has been successful and offers insights for future GNAs, it is not necessarily a replicable model for community groups who have less resources or who can’t secure resources from companies for their implementation activities.

Further Resources

• Good Neighbor Agreement (Northern Plains)
• The Story of the Good Neighbor Agreement (Northern Plains)
• Evaluating the Use of Good Neighbor Agreements for Environmental and Community Protection: Final Report (University of Colorado Law School)
• Improving Citizen Participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process for Mining (Peruvian Society for Environmental Law)

stillwater-national-forest-nye-montana.jpg Climate U.S. Community Benefits Snapshots Type Snapshot Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Devashree Saha

Protecting Biodiversity Hinges on Securing Indigenous and Community Land Rights margaret.overh… Fri, 11/22/2024 - 12:47

In 2022, countries reached a historic agreement to halt biodiversity loss by conserving at least 30% of land and water by 2030. This marked a critical step toward protecting the world's precious remaining species and ecosystems. But that's not all: The Global Biodiversity Framework, as it's known, also explicitly calls on countries to recognize and uphold Indigenous Peoples and local communities' rights in their conservation strategies.

Fulfilling this part of the pledge will be instrumental to its success.

Globally, Indigenous Peoples and local communities steward an estimated 50% or more of the world's land, including many of its most pristine ecosystems. Existing and emerging evidence shows that these lands often house more species and see lower rates of deforestation and degradation than lands managed by public or private entities — and can cost less to establish and maintain. Moreover, they sustain the lives and livelihoods of at least 1.67 billion people worldwide.

Yet despite Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' vital contributions to nature, they are often overlooked in national policies. Many have yet to see their land rights recognized or protected by law, even as those lands face growing threats from industry and agriculture.

Countries are now developing and rolling out new national biodiversity strategies that will underpin the world's ambitious goals. To succeed, these plans must factor in the essential role Indigenous Peoples and local communities play in safeguarding biodiversity. That means not only recognizing their importance, but ensuring their rights to hold and manage their lands and natural resources are legally secure.

Data Shows Strong Links Between Biodiversity and Community Land Management

Biodiversity encompasses all types of life on Earth and can be difficult to quantify, given the range of species, ecosystem types and other conditions that can be used to define it. But related indicators, such as the location of intact forests and key biodiversity areas, can show where conditions are ripe for species to thrive.

About the Data

LandMark is the only geospatial platform that maps the extent and legal recognition status of Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' lands and territories worldwide. First launched in 2015 and updated in 2024, LandMark's features include:

Newly added maps for a more comprehensive view of Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' lands across the globe.

A stronger focus on biodiversity and land use change, providing deeper insights into the ecological value of these vital lands.

New data on forest carbon fluxes, highlighting the crucial role these lands play in climate change mitigation strategies.

Upgraded analytical tools designed to support land rights advocacy with more precise calculations and actionable insights.

Explore the LandMark platform.

LandMark — which is governed by a consortium of more than a dozen local, regional and international rights-focused organizations, including WRI — provides the most comprehensive mapping of Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' lands yet assembled at the global level, covering 33.9% of the world's land. It also maps data on important biodiversity indicators. While the covered land area is still shy of the 50% or more that experts have long estimated Indigenous People and local communities to hold, this represents the best-available touchpoint for assessing the impacts of traditional land management on biodiversity conservation.

Our analysis showed just how closely the two are linked:

1) Indigenous Peoples and local communities hold or manage 54% of the world's remaining intact forests.

Intact forest landscapes are the world's last remaining unfragmented forests, large enough to retain native biodiversity without signs of degradation or deforestation. As of 2020, there were 1.13 billion hectares of intact forests in the world. Over half this area (610 million hectares) directly overlaps with lands that are held or managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

This is no coincidence: Indigenous Peoples and local communities have had customary systems in place to sustainably manage their lands and natural resources for generations. In many cases their spiritual beliefs, livelihoods, food production systems and medicinal needs are inextricably linked with healthy ecosystems.

In areas where pressures on Indigenous Peoples' territories have increased, they are also implementing new approaches for governance, such as forest monitoring and perimeter patrols. Members of the Saamaka tribe in Suriname's Amazonian rainforest have used satellite deforestation data to back a suit against the government for illegal development on their land. In Peru, communities equipped with this technology have significantly reduced local deforestation rates.

2) Over 40% of Key Biodiversity Areas intersect with Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' lands and territories.

Key biodiversity areas (KBAs) are sites that are critical for the survival of a unique variety of plant and animal species and are vital for the overall health of the Earth. There are nearly 16,000 Key Biodiversity Areas around the globe, encompassing 1.8 billion hectares of land and water in total. Forty-three percent of this area (796 million hectares) at least partially overlaps with the Indigenous and local community lands.

Information on Key Biodiversity Areas often helps countries decide where to concentrate their conservation efforts. Government-managed protected areas tend to be the de facto strategy for biodiversity conservation; however, these are not proven to be more effective than community-managed lands. For example, a study in Australia, Brazil and Canada found that vertebrate biodiversity on Indigenous-managed lands was equal to, and in some cases higher than, biodiversity within protected areas.

3) Forests held and managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities have high biodiversity intactness.

Forest biodiversity intactness models where wildlife species are least impacted by human development and ecosystem degradation and should therefore be most diverse and abundant. Globally, Indigenous and local community lands rank in the top 10% of this index on average.

Intact, old-growth forests have the highest values for biodiversity intactness and are among the most species-rich ecosystems on Earth. (They are also crucial carbon sinks for mitigating climate change.) Forest-dwelling communities have sustainably managed their forest resources for thousands of years, and systematic scientific evidence shows that deforestation and degradation are consistently lower in community-managed forests than unmanaged or unprotected areas.

To Succeed, National Biodiversity Strategies Need to Recognize and Protect Traditional Land Rights

The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is seen as a frontrunner among multilateral agreements for urging countries to include Indigenous Peoples and local communities in their conservation efforts. Now, the question is how they will do so.

Most importantly, national and local governments should recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities over their territories and resources in law. While these groups collectively hold or manage at least half of the world's land under customary tenure systems, only 11.4% is legally owned by them. An additional 7.2% is held under legal designation rights, meaning communities can access or manage the land but do not own it. 

Without secure legal rights, communities have limited ability to prevent development and natural resource extraction from degrading and destroying the biodiversity housed in their territories. Solidifying these rights is the fundamental first step toward ensuring that biodiversity-rich ecosystems under community management are conserved.

Officially recognizing these groups' critical role would also help ensure that they are not overlooked or displaced in favor of government-managed protected areas. As many as 300 million people — most of them Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant peoples, pastoralists and other local communities — are at risk of being displaced if strictly designated protected areas force them from their homelands.

The 2024 UN biodiversity conference (COP16) marked a turn in the right direction with two major outcomes for Indigenous Peoples and local communities:

1. First, it created a new programme of work that will ensure Indigenous Peoples and local communities are included in the implementation and monitoring of the Global Biodiversity Framework through 2030 — a critical step for elevating their voices in international negotiations and national implementation.
2. Second, parties adopted the traditional knowledge indicator as a headline indicator under the GBF's monitoring framework. This means that governments are now required to report on the extent to which they are protecting Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' rights and include them in biodiversity conservation planning. (Previously, such reporting was voluntary.)

Both of these outcomes will help ensure that governments are held accountable for recognizing and respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Now, countries must carry this progress forward in their own biodiversity efforts. All countries were expected to submit National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) by COP16 outlining steps they'll take to meet global biodiversity goals. But only 44 out of more than 190 countries did so. As others work to develop and implement NBSAPs, they should actively include Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the development process and ensure that their land management contributions are accounted for. For example, Australia's NBSAP for 2024-2030 includes language on ensuring that First Nations peoples have representation and participation in decisions relating to nature.

Forging a New Path, Together

There is strong evidence that Indigenous Peoples and local communities are critical to safeguarding biodiversity and protecting unspoiled lands for future generations. But the world is at risk of losing this value if their lands are not acknowledged by governments and securely held. The Global Biodiversity Framework represents a significant step forward; now, governments must turn their promises into action.

This article was co-authored by Johanna von Braun of the International Land Coalition.

This article was originally published in October 2024. It was updated in November 2024 to reflect outcomes from the 2024 UN biodiversity conference (COP16).

massai-man-and-giraffe.jpg Equity & Governance biodiversity Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities COP16 Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• LandMark
• Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

Authors Katie Reytar Peter Veit Johanna von Braun

Carbon Dioxide Removal Investment Act shannon.paton@… Thu, 11/21/2024 - 12:54

Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the world’s most authoritative body on climate science — agree that to reach national and global climate goals, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) must complement rapid and deep emissions reductions. CDR includes an array of approaches and technologies that pull carbon dioxide (CO2) directly from the air, ranging from familiar methods like planting trees, to developing and deploying new technologies like direct air capture (DAC). With the growing recognition of its critical role, carbon removal has seen significant steps forward in terms of federal policy support and funding for research, development and demonstration, as well as deployment. Even with this important progress, additional policies are needed to support development and deployment of a diverse suite of carbon removal approaches. 

The only federal policy supporting carbon removal deployment today is the 45Q tax credit. It was originally enacted in 2008 to support geologic sequestration of CO2, then expanded in 2018 and again in 2022, as part of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). For CO2 captured with DAC, 45Q provides up to $180 per metric ton of CO2 (tCO2) for geologic sequestration and up to $130/tCO2 for utilization. For CO2 removed via bioenergy with carbon capture, it provides up to $85/tCO2 for geologic sequestration and up to $60/tCO2 for utilization.

Carbon removal methods in addition to DAC and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) are being developed — and in some cases deployed — including enhanced rock weathering, marine carbon dioxide removal and other approaches that use biomass, but they are not eligible for the 45Q tax credit. To better support a diverse range of CDR approaches and level the playing field, it is critical to enact policies that provide deployment support that is open to any kind of eligible removal technology. 

The Carbon Dioxide Removal Investment Act — introduced by Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — would take significant steps toward filling this gap.

The bill proposes a credit of $250/tCO2 for all approaches except for BECCS, which would receive $110/tCO2. Because BECCS produces energy, which provides revenue, it does not require as high a level of support. Importantly, this tax credit would be based on net carbon accounting. All emissions associated with removal and sequestration processes need to be subtracted from the gross amount of CO2 sequestered to yield the net amount sequestered — and only this net amount would receive credits. This is a key difference from the current 45Q tax credit, which does not require life-cycle accounting to claim the sequestration credit, and the reason this proposed credit level is higher than the 45Q credit. The credit would be known as 45BB, for its potential place in the tax code.

Taxpayers claiming this credit would not be able to also claim the 45Q tax credit (or the 48C advanced energy credit) in the same year. Carbon removal projects that also produce electricity, hydrogen or fuel will only be able to also claim such a credit (40B, 45, 45V, 45Y or 45Z) if that electricity, hydrogen or fuel is consumed by the qualifying carbon removal project.

To be eligible under the Carbon Removal Investment Act carbon removal approaches must:   

• Provide net carbon removal based on project-level lifecycle accounting;
• Demonstrate a high likelihood of storing CO2 for at least 1,000 years; and
• Be able to quantify the carbon removed with a certainty threshold of +/- 20% with 95% confidence based on field trials

Qualifying carbon removal projects must use an eligible carbon removal approach and:

• Be based in the United States or waters regulated by the United States; and
• Be placed into service before January 1, 2035

For biomass-based approaches, the legislation includes restrictions on eligible biomass feedstocks to avoid negative impacts on ecosystems and agriculture. Eligible feedstocks include agricultural wastes and residues, invasive plant species, algae, food waste and other specific types of biomass waste. The legislation directs the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in collaboration with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture, to conduct two studies to refine and/or add to the feedstock eligibility criteria within one year of enactment. These studies include assessment of the impacts of additional sources of biomass such as forest residues, and additional analysis of the necessary level of agricultural residue retention to maintain soil carbon stocks.

For marine CDR approaches, the legislation directs the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to, within one year of enactment, develop environmental safety standards that apply to all eligible approaches and to certify which approaches meet these environmental safety standards. The standards are then reviewed every three years and the certification of approaches are reviewed every two years.

Upon the legislation’s enactment, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, must establish a selection process within one year to determine qualifying CDR approaches. They would be required to publish an initial list of eligible approaches within 18 months of enactment and update it every year thereafter. The legislation also directs the Secretary of Energy and EPA Administrator, within one year of enactment, to establish a process to determine and report net removals based on project-level greenhouse gas accounting. Measurement of removal must include quantification of uncertainty and be verified by independent third-party verifiers. 

Lastly, no later than three years after the bill is enacted, and every three years after that, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Energy and the EPA Administrator must conduct a panel review with experts from government, academia, civil society and the private sector to recommend improvements to the selection process and lifecycle greenhouse gas accounting requirements.

Why This Legislation Is Important

The Carbon Removal Investment Act has the potential to make a big impact for a range of reasons. It is not only open to any eligible CDR approach, but it is also designed to accommodate new CDR approaches that may be developed in the future. Additionally, it would create critical safeguards for biomass and marine CDR approaches and address the need for lifecycle accounting.  

Enhancing the 45Q tax credit as part of the IRA provided support for both DACS and BECCS, but its eligibility criteria exclude other types of CDR approaches. For example, 45Q requires precise measurement of CO2 from where it is captured to where it is stored or utilized. This new legislation instead proposes technology- or method-neutral criteria to determine eligibility. And, for biomass and marine CDR pathways that present concerns about environmental or other impacts, it lays out additional criteria, deferring to agencies with expertise.

The requirement for lifecycle carbon accounting and crediting only for net tons removed is also a critical shift. Net accounting is important because it credits the amount of CO2 removal that the atmosphere feels; offsetting emissions associated with the CDR process are subtracted from the total gross removal to only credit the true climate impact of the project.

Carbon removal is needed to meet national and global climate goals, and supporting a diversity of eligible CDR approaches through technology-neutral deployment will be a crucial part of that effort. Carbon removal projects that are carried out responsibly can also provide meaningful local benefits, including job creation, investment and other project-specific benefits.

biomass-carbon-dioxide-removal.jpg Climate carbon removal agriculture Climate carbon removal legislation & policy Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Carbon Removal

Authors Katie Lebling Jennifer Rennicks Haley Leslie-Bole

STATEMENT: US Bipartisan Carbon Dioxide Removal Investment Act Levels the Playing Field for Carbon Removal Scale-Up nate.shelter@wri.org Thu, 11/21/2024 - 11:21

Washington, DC (November 21, 2024) — Today in the U.S. Senate, Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced the bipartisan “Carbon Dioxide Removal Investment Act.” The bill would provide a technology-neutral tax credit to support deployment of eligible carbon dioxide removal approaches. It would be open to any approach that meets eligibility criteria, including safeguards for biomass and marine carbon removal approaches. Tax credits would be provided based on lifecycle carbon accounting to only credit net tons removed.

To learn more details about the bill, see our assessment.

Following is a statement by Christina DeConcini, Director of Government Affairs, World Resources Institute:

“The Carbon Dioxide Removal Investment Act is an important policy lever that will help the U.S. further develop and deploy a diverse suite of carbon removal technologies – a necessary component of meeting our national and global climate goals alongside deep and rapid emissions reductions.

“Through technology-neutral support that doesn’t pick winners, this bill creates a level playing field that will advance innovations best able to provide climate impact while creating jobs and maintaining U.S. leadership in the carbon removal sector.

“This bill demonstrates the established bipartisan support for carbon removal, and we encourage other members of Congress to join Senators Bennet and Murkowski in advancing this policy."

U.S. Climate United States carbon removal carbon removal legislation & policy Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

Bringing Electric Bus Lessons from India to Mexico alicia.cypress… Thu, 11/21/2024 - 08:26

In 2024, WRI México organized a series of events to share India’s electric bus lessons with mobility and finance experts in Mexico. In April, Avinash Dubedi, the program head of integrated transport from WRI India, presented the Aggregated Demand (AD) Model for e-bus procurement.

India's AD Model is promising for government and public bus agencies facing financial challenges with the high upfront costs of e-buses. It combines demand from multiple cities to encourage electric bus manufacturing, which reduces costs and promotes innovation. This can help accelerate the transition towards sustainable public transportation in Mexico and worldwide.

More recently, in October, experts from WRI India, along with federal and local authorities and representatives from GIZ Mexico, Metrobús (Mexico City’s BRT system), NAFIN (a national development bank), private sector and WRI México, gathered in person to discuss the acquisition and mass manufacturing of electric buses and explore strategies to accelerate electromobility in public transportation in Mexico.

According to WRI’s estimations, Mexico needs to procure approximately 40,000 new buses to replace its outdated buses: The average age of buses in Mexico is between 18 and 20 years and approximately 90% of buses work under informal conditions. To achieve climate change goals, it is necessary to reduce emissions by electrifying the bus fleet. As of October 2004, of more than 100,000 public transport buses in Mexico, only 804 are electric, including trolleybuses. Eighty percent of the buses are in Mexico City and the rest are in four other states.. The demand aggregation and standardization approach that are part of the AD Model has proven successful in India and can help Mexico transform its fleet.

The April webinar and the October in-person workshop facilitated a valuable exchange of ideas and experiences between the two countries.

Key points and outcomes from the events include:

April Webinar Key Points:

• India faced challenges in e-bus adoption due to technology risks and financing issues.
• The AD Model was developed to address these challenges, shifting risks to manufacturers and standardizing orders.
• The PM e-Bus Sewa Scheme, based on the AD Model, brought 10,000 electric buses to underserved cities.
• The model involves public-private partnerships and includes infrastructure development for e-bus depots.

 October Workshop Key Outcomes:

• WRI India shared their experience in acquiring and manufacturing 9,500 electric buses, with a goal of 50,000 by 2027.
• Discussions focused on government programs, contracting models and financial mechanisms to support Mexico's electric mobility transition.
• The workshop highlighted the need for comprehensive planning, including technical, financial and institutional aspects, for successful electromobility projects.
• Challenges specific to Mexico were addressed, such as renewing approximately 40,000 buses and overcoming the current informal conditions in most Mexican transport systems.
• Developing a local electric bus manufacturing industry in Mexico was emphasized.

Both events underscored the potential for applying India's successful e-bus adoption strategies to Mexico while acknowledging the need for tailored solutions to address Mexico's unique challenges in public transportation electrification.

The events identified that every stakeholder has a role in advancing e-bus adoption in Mexico:  

Federal government

The Mexican federal government needs to establish a clear and ambitious national goal for the electrification of public transport, create a guarantee fund to mitigate financial risks in electromobility projects, establish a certification and approval process for electric buses at the national level, implement incentives for transport operators to transition to electric fleets, and develop a standardized technical annex for electric buses at the national level.

State and municipal governments

On a subnational level, state and municipal governments should update demand studies and public transport routes, considering the different types of users. They should also plan the strategic location of depots and charging stations for electric fleets and professionalize and formalize public transport operators.

Automotive industry

The workshop concludes that Mexico’s automotive industry needs to develop electric bus models adapted to the Mexican market's needs and engage in continuous dialogue to align the supply and demand for electric buses. One of the reasons for India’s success is that all of India’s vehicle suppliers are Indian, which has allowed for rapid sector development in a short period.

Non-government organizations (including WRI México)

Leveraging the expertise and experience of WRI’s different offices throughout the world, we can share, support and adapt tools, such as the Total Cost of Ownership EValuator, for the electrification of public transport in Mexico.

The successful adoption of electric buses in Mexico hinges on a collaborative effort among all stakeholders. The federal government must set ambitious electrification goals and create a supportive financial framework, while state and municipal governments should focus on planning and optimizing public transport routes and infrastructure. The automotive industry has a crucial role in developing tailored electric bus models and fostering ongoing dialogue to meet market demands. Additionally, non-government organizations, such as WRI México, can provide valuable tools and expertise to guide this transition. The UPS Foundation supported this series of events that mapped out the roles of each stakeholder. By working together and leveraging their respective strengths, these organizations can pave the way for a sustainable and efficient public transport system in Mexico.

This project is part of the TUMI E-Bus Mission, which collaborates with cities globally, including in India and Mexico, to support the development of electric bus fleets.

Related Resources in Spanish

• WRI México organiza conversatorio sobre los desafíos y oportunidades para la electrificación del transporte público en México
• Boletín de prensa: Piden impulsar una transición justa hacia la electromovilidad

india-electric-bus.jpg Cities India Mexico electric mobility Urban Mobility transportation Urban Efficiency & Climate public transit Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• TUMI E-Bus Mission

STATEMENT: Country Coalition Commits to Steep Emission Cuts to Align with Net Zero Goals alison.cinnamo… Thu, 11/21/2024 - 00:38

BAKU (November 21, 2024) - Today, at the COP29 climate summit, a group of developed and developing nations – including Canada, Chile, the European Union, Georgia, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland – committed to submit nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that are consistent with IPCC trajectories in line with efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 C, include economy-wide emission reduction targets that cover all greenhouse gases and sustain steep emission cuts that fully align with their own goals to reach net-zero emissions.  

Their joint release recognizes the critical role of major emitters to limiting global warming and encourages countries to set and/or accelerate their net-zero greenhouse gas emissions goals. The release also acknowledges the United Kingdom, Brazil, and the United Arab Emirates’ 2035 emission reduction targets.    

These countries collectively represent roughly 30% of global GDP and nearly 15% of global GHG emissions.

Following is a statement from Melanie Robinson, Global Climate, Economics and Finance Director at World Resources Institute:

“This announcement by a diverse coalition of countries is a powerful display of leadership in the final days of the UN climate talks. Any serious chance of meeting global climate goals requires all major emitters to make deep and sustained emission cuts that offer a credible path to reach their net-zero promises.  

“The United Kingdom and Brazil announced targets that, if fully achieved, would put them on track for net-zero. Now, it is imperative that all major emitters follow their lead with bold, actionable commitments of their own. And crucially, countries must embed climate action at the core of their economic and sectoral strategies, backed by transformative policies and catalytic investments.

“This new pledge offers a benchmark for determining whether major emitters are genuinely living up to their climate promises or falling behind. It marks a major step forward in translating what the ambitious outcome of the Global Stocktake means for individual countries.  

“We encourage all nations to explore whether they can fast-track their net zero targets to boost our odds of avoiding far worse climate impacts.” 

International Climate Action COP29 NDC Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

WRI and Partners Launch Zero Emissions and Resilient Buildings (ZERB) Accelerator at COP29 margaret.overh… Wed, 11/20/2024 - 11:28

At the 2024 UN Climate Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, the Subnational Climate Action Leaders' Exchange (SCALE) partnership launched the Zero Emissions and Resilient Buildings (ZERB) Accelerator. The ZERB Accelerator will rapidly reduce operational and embodied greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen climate resilience in the buildings sector through enhanced multilevel collaboration with subnational governments around the world. The announcement was made at SCALE's COP29 Action Dialogue, where subnational leaders explored opportunities for strengthening climate action across key sectors.

The buildings sector is a major contributor to the climate crisis, with building operations and construction accounting for over one-third of global carbon emissions. But slashing emissions isn't the only priority. Buildings are vulnerable to numerous climate risks — from flooding and rising seas to heat stress, heatwaves, severe storms and fires — meaning there's also an urgent need to enhance their resilience.

The ZERB Accelerator will bring together a global cohort of cities, states and regions committed to ambitious goals for mitigation and resilience in the buildings sector. SCALE accelerates action toward these goals through its signature multilevel governance approach: strengthening cooperation vertically between national and subnational governments and building horizontal, cross-sector connectivity with a wide range of key stakeholders, such as civil society, multilateral institutions, and research and academic organizations. This fosters political will, informs and empowers key stakeholders, and identifies priorities for additional action and resource mobilization. The ZERB Accelerator builds on the success of the Lowering Organic Waste Methane (LOW-Methane) initiative, launched by SCALE in 2023.

The first subnational jurisdictions to join the ZERB Accelerator include the states of Maryland and Washington in the U.S. and the city of Bogotá, Colombia.

The initiative will coordinate and align with efforts under the Buildings Breakthrough (a global initiative to decarbonize the building sector and make clean technologies accessible and affordable by 2030) as well as the UNEP-hosted Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC) and its Subnational Stakeholders Action Group.

In addition to strengthening coordination between participating subnational jurisdictions and their national governments, the ZERB Accelerator will mobilize a broad coalition of organizations to provide implementation support. This will cover policy development and technical assistance; finance; data; and monitoring, review and verification.

The first organizations to announce that they will provide support as part of this coalition include Bloomberg Philanthropies; the Building to COP Coalition; C40 Cities (including the C40 Cities Finance Facility); the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC); the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCoM); the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); the Under2 Coalition; the U.S. State Department; the World Green Building Council (WorldGBGC); and WRI.

WRI will lead coordination of the ZERB Accelerator, working in close partnership with other SCALE implementing partners: C40 Cities, Climate Group (Under2 Coalition), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and the University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability. SCALE is funded by the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Energy and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

bogota-colombia.jpg Buildings Buildings Climate Resilience GHG emissions Urban Efficiency & Climate Cities COP29 Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Integrated Climate Action
• Built Environment
• Zero Carbon Building Accelerator
• Urban Efficiency & Climate
• Subnational Climate Action Leaders Exchange (SCALE)

How Ride- and Bike-Share Programs Can Play an Important Role in Latin America alicia.cypress… Wed, 11/20/2024 - 09:00

Moving around cities in a variety of ways is getting easier and more convenient: whether it’s improved public transportation systems, wider sidewalks or more dedicated bike lanes. With the rise of smartphone technology and GPS, shared mobility services — like ride-hail and bike-share programs — are growing rapidly and playing an increasingly important role in the transport landscape.

These services aren’t just helping people reach their destinations but can also be leveraged to help people shift to sustainable and safe transportation choices. Emissions from transportation, especially in cities, account for 22% of global fossil-fuel emissions, with private passenger vehicles making up nearly half of these emissions.

However, a more significant shift in urban mobility will be needed to combat the worsening impacts of climate change. To meet critical global climate targets, changes beyond electrification are needed. Cities in low- and middle-income countries need to abate further growth in private vehicle ownership, while cities in high-income countries must focus on reducing existing private vehicle usage. Across all regions, promoting walking, cycling, public transport and the adoption of electric vehicles is essential.

What are Shared Mobility Services? 

Shared Mobility Services

Ride-hail: A service where a rider “hails” or hires a personal driver similar to a taxi, to take them exactly where they need to go. The vehicle is not shared with any other party, nor does it make several stops along a route (e.g., Uber, Bolt). Ride-hail improves on taxis by expanding coverage, enhancing systems for personal safety and simplifying payment.

Ride-share: A service where passengers share a vehicle with others traveling in the same direction, typically coordinated via an app (e.g., BlaBlaCar, Uber pool).

Bike-share: A service that allows users to rent bicycles from designated stations or zones for short trips, often on a per-minute basis (e.g., CityCycle, Nextbike).

Car-share: A service where users rent vehicles for short-term use, typically by the hour, from a private owner or a fleet of shared cars (e.g., Zipcar, Turo).

Shared mobility solutions like ride-hailing, car-sharing and bike-sharing may play an important role, especially as a last-mile extension or an occasional alternative to mass transit. For example, bike-sharing provides a quick, eco-friendly option for short trips, while car-sharing offers the convenience of a private car without the sunk ownership costs. These flexible alternatives are already transforming urban transport by bringing on a wider variety of transportation options for people to use.

To understand the current landscape of shared services and find ways to increase their usage in cities around the world, WRI conducted research in three cities in Latin America, which have become global leaders in innovative transportation strategies. By gathering insights from Bogotá, Colombia; Mexico City and Curitiba, Brazil, we discovered challenges and opportunities to build inclusive urban mobility systems.

Latin American Cities Leading the Way in Sustainable Transportation

Cities like Curitiba, Bogotá and Mexico City have become pioneers in the sustainable transportation movement, showing that it is possible to create livability without massive budgets. Curitiba introduced the modern bus rapid transit (BRT) system, transforming public transport and urban space. Bogotá advanced the BRT system into a comprehensive network and significantly increased cycling infrastructure, while Mexico City developed an integrated network across several jurisdictions combining metro, BRT, bicycle sharing, and pedestrian-friendly streets. Private cars still only account for less than 25% of trips in each of these cities.

Despite these accolades, ride-hailing apps disrupted existing regulations in Bogotá, Mexico City and Curitiba when they arrived within the past decade, bringing unvetted drivers, tensions with traditional taxis, challenges in insurance and law enforcement, and fluctuating price models that differed from previously regulated fares. While these services grew in popularity, each city responded differently. Brazil legalized ride-hailing in 2018, allowing for Curitiba to enforce local regulations on driver and vehicle licensing requirements, and to make progress on Mobility-as-a-Service pilots. Bogotá still lacks clear regulations for ride-hailing leading to a lack of full formalization. Mexico City faces challenges due to its size and jurisdictional issues, but has recently imposed an annual permit fee and mandatory contributions of 1.5% of each ride to fund transportation infrastructure.  

In Curitiba, Brazil, 45% of people use its BRT system. Shared mobility services can help these riders reach their final destinations. Photo by Marcio Silva/iStock. The Goals of Shared Mobility

Shared mobility solutions can be leveraged to significantly enhance existing public transit networks by adding more ways for people to reach their destinations and not become dependent on any single mode. These services can bridge critical gaps by serving areas without subway or bus stops. They are also becoming particularly impactful for first- and last-mile connectivity, for people with disabilities or those carrying large equipment or packages. The services also offer a safer option for those who don’t want to walk home late at night. By reducing dependency on personal cars to accomplish those tasks, shared mobility services can allow households to put off acquiring a first or second car, which translates to greater use of other public transportation options for regular trips.

Yet there are challenges to the sustainable use of shared mobility services. On a trip-for-trip basis, shared modes typically produce more carbon emissions than their personal vehicle counterparts. For example, time spent driving in between passengers adds passenger-less carbon emissions and congestion caused by ride-hail services. Similarly, bike-share services produce more carbon emissions than personal bikes as they rely on cargo vans and trucks to help daily with redistribution. However, people who live in areas where bike share is available are more likely to cycle, compared to people who have privately owned bicycles but have no access to bike share programs. When people have the choice to leverage these shared services, it adds more reliability and accessibility to the transport ecosystem in ways that make it easier to choose lower-carbon options more often leading to a lower emissions profile overall.

Challenges and Opportunities for Shared Mobility in Latin America

While Curitiba, Bogotá and Mexico City have a reputation of taking innovative initiatives to improve their livability, approaches to shared mobility services are mixed. Bogotá has a successful bike-sharing system of over 3,300 bikes, a popular Ciclovía program (80 miles of streets closed to cars every Sunday for the past 50 years) and initiatives to promote electric bikes.

However, the integration of ride-hailing services has been hindered by regulatory challenges, resulting in a legal gray area where these services operate without formalization. Curitiba has been supported by national legislation that has helped stabilize ride-hail services and has recently launched a docked bike-sharing system ("Bicicleta Paraná") with 500 bikes, half of which are electric. Mexico City has the largest bike-sharing program in Latin America ("Ecobici") with over 6,000 bikes and a competitive ride-hailing market with an estimated 200,000-plus drivers. However, challenges persist in each place with overcrowded transit and privately-operated minibuses (colectivos).

WRI spoke with experts from government, transportation agencies, ride-hailing companies, researchers and NGOs in a series of workshops to better understand how shared mobility can contribute to more sustainable, low-carbon, equitable and healthy urban transport systems. While our discussions focused locally on Bogotá, Mexico City and Curitiba, what we discovered can be relevant to other large cities in Latin America and elsewhere.

Bogotá, Mexico City and Curitiba share common challenges like improving connectivity and modernizing both formal and informal transit systems. While shared mobility is an accepted tool that has the potential to address many challenges, its success depends on a supportive policy environment, effective governance and active collaboration among transit agencies, private service providers, research organizations, financial institutions and commuters. Additionally, the socioeconomic context of Latin American cities, where income inequality is often high and access to technology can be uneven, presents unique challenges that must be addressed to ensure that shared mobility benefits all segments of the population.

In Bogotá, the city has an innovative Ciclovía program that closes 80 miles of streets every Sunday to traffic. While innovative programs that encourage sustainability like this are popular, shared mobility solutions have been more challenging to integrate. Photo by matthieu cattin / Alamy Stock Photo.  

Here are four key takeaways that can help cities in Latin America — and in other cities facing similar challenges — leverage shared mobility to make their transport systems more sustainable.

1) Establish Ongoing Cross-Sector Collaboration

Integrating shared mobility into the urban transportation ecosystem requires continuous dialogue and partnership among government agencies, civil society organizations, nongovernment organizations, shared mobility companies, academic experts and more. In Mexico City, for instance, there’s a need for more flexible pricing, payment and operational models to improve transport coverage in underserved areas.

Collaborative efforts can provide first- and last-mile links and help commuters reach jobs and opportunities, especially in regions outside of city centers. Moreover, leveraging technology and data to integrate various transport modes, such as public transit, walking, cycling and shared mobility, is essential for creating a seamless system​.

Curitiba for instance is in the process of integrating diverse mobility options into a single platform, offering integrated payments and incentives for sustainable user behavior.

2) Develop and Implement an Electric Mobility Strategy

Electric vehicles present a significant opportunity for reducing emissions in Latin American cities. However, current adoption rates of light-duty electric vehicles are low. Developing strategies to electrify ride-hailing and for-hire fleets will be important to accelerate their adoption.

Cities like Mexico City and Curitiba are already taking steps to electrify their taxi fleets, but there is also potential in electrifying two- and three-wheelers, such as motorcycle taxis, which are common in many Latin American cities.

Such initiatives can be more affordable and accessible while contributing significantly to decarbonization. To support these efforts, cities need to collaborate with the private sector and other stakeholders to establish phase-out targets for traditional gas and diesel vehicles, provide incentives and develop the necessary charging infrastructure. Effective policies, such as "right to charge" regulations, can ensure that everyone has access to charging facilities within a reasonable distance of their residence​.

3) Leverage Data for Sustainable Mobility Solutions

Data is a crucial component for enhancing the effectiveness of shared mobility services and achieving sustainable transportation goals. Our discussions revealed the need for cities and shared mobility providers to engage in data-driven policymaking. By collaborating on the collection and use of data, cities can better understand mobility patterns, identify gaps in service and optimize the efficiency of transportation networks.

For instance, data on emissions, multimodal connectivity and congestion can inform decisions on infrastructure investment and service improvements. Projects like Curitiba's Hipervisor Urbano, which aims to provide an integrated view of urban planning data, demonstrate the potential of data-driven approaches to urban mobility planning. By establishing clear objectives for data usage, anonymizing information and ensuring data protection, cities can harness the power of data to create more efficient, sustainable and inclusive transport systems​.

4) Formalize Ride-Hail Services Through Regulation

Creating a clear and supportive regulatory framework is essential for the successful integration of ride-hail services into the broader urban mobility system. There’s a need for regulations that recognize and formalize the role of ride-hail services within the transportation ecosystem, ensuring that they contribute to sustainability and safety goals.

In Bogotá, where the regulatory environment for ride-hailing remains uncertain, clearer guidelines that promote innovation while safeguarding public interests are needed. A well-defined regulatory framework can help mitigate risks, such as uncapped liabilities, and promote transparency and accountability among service providers. By incorporating ride-hail services into urban and mobility planning, cities can create an integrated network of services that offer reliable, safe and sustainable transport options​.

Turning the Corner Toward Shared Mobility

Cities stand at a crucial juncture in their transportation evolution. The workshops in Latin America showed that leveraging shared mobility services like ride-hail, ride-share and bike-share as part of a sustainable urban mobility strategy offers a new tool toward a promising path forward. By fostering collaboration, promoting electric mobility, leveraging data and establishing clear regulations within the shared mobility ecosystem, cities may be able to offer more kinds of transportation while slowing the growth of private car ownership, cutting emissions and improving accessibility for all residents. The discussions from Bogotá, Mexico City and Curitiba demonstrate that there is a need for thoughtful integration, where shared mobility is a vital component of sustainable, inclusive urban transport systems.

As these cities continue to develop and refine their mobility strategies, the key will be to maintain a focus on sustainability, equity and resilience. By prioritizing shared mobility solutions that are flexible, inclusive, and environmentally friendly, Latin American cities can pave the way for a future where urban transportation is not only efficient and convenient but also aligned with global climate and sustainability goals.

bike-share-mexico-city.jpg Cities Latin America Integrated Transport Urban Mobility transportation Cities Health & Road Safety Electric Mobility Featured Popular Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Integrated Transport
• Health & Road Safety
• Electric Mobility
• Urban Mobility

Authors Meghna Ray Adam Davidson Anna Kustar

STATEMENT: Global Clean Power Alliance Launched at G20 Leaders Summit darla.vanhoorn… Tue, 11/19/2024 - 16:58

At the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, leaders of the United Kingdom and Brazil officially launched the Global Climate Power Alliance, an alliance of countries that will work together and share expertise with the goal of meeting the COP28 commitments to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency.  The effort will involve “missions” to address critical energy transition challenges. Brazil, Australia, Barbados, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Morocco, Norway, Tanzania, the African Union are the first countries to sign up to its first mission. 

Following is a statement from Jennifer Layke, Global Energy Director, World Resources Institute: 

“The Global Clean Power Alliance – and its finance mission – can help speed the world towards a future powered by efficient renewable energy.  To be truly transformational, the Global Clean Power Alliance must prompt more new funding, improve and consolidate existing initiatives, and establish greater transparency for tracking renewable energy deployment. It’s critical that the alliance take a comprehensive approach by promoting not only renewables but also energy storage, efficient electrification and encouraging both on-grid and distributing solutions. Done well, this effort can play an important role in accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels while improving people’s lives, reducing energy poverty and creating green jobs.” 

Energy G20 Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

Getting a New Climate Finance Deal this Week Hinges on 3 Elements shannon.paton@… Tue, 11/19/2024 - 14:05

The big-ticket item at this year’s UN climate summit (COP29) is setting a new finance goal that replaces the collective $100 billion per year developed countries provide and mobilize for climate action in developing nations. But with only a few days left of the conference, it’s still very unclear what the goal will be or how it will compare to the previous target.

Let’s be clear: Negotiators must leave Baku with a strong agreement on international climate finance.

WRI’s experts are closely following the UN climate talks. Watch our Resource Hub for new articles, research, webinars and more.

This matters for trust between developed and developing countries. It matters for supporting the poorest and most vulnerable countries in adapting to climate change — and for all developing countries to get onto a low carbon growth pathway. It matters because of the strong feedback loops between finance and ambition: Greater emissions cuts and adaptation measures will require more finance, while more finance can encourage more ambitious climate action.

And importantly, it matters for all countries’ safety and prosperity — because if developing countries cannot rapidly shift away from fossil fuels and withstand climate disasters, all countries will face even worse impacts.

Negotiators are currently grappling with three issues at the core of the new climate finance agreement: quantity, contributors and quality. Here, we demystify these three essential elements:

How Much Finance?

The Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance  puts developing countries’ need for external climate finance at around $1 trillion a year by 2030; $1.3 trillion by 2035. Within the trillion, they estimate around $500 billion needs to be public finance and around $500 billion private finance. A substantial amount of that private finance would need to be mobilized by public finance through instruments like guarantees or co-investments, which make investing in emerging markets and technologies less risky.

A big focus for negotiators at COP29 is the public slice of that pie, together with the private finance leveraged by public funds.

Explore WRI’s Climate Finance Calculator

Where should climate finance come from? WRI’s Climate Finance Calculator lets you consider various economic and emissions factors to see how responsibility for financial support could be allocated.

The current goal — $100 billion a year from 2020-2025 — is made up of public finance (described as “provided”) and private finance mobilized by public finance (described as “mobilized”) from developed countries. This includes bilateral flows from a developed country to a developing one, as well as finance flowing from the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and the much smaller Multilateral Climate Funds (MCFs) to developing nations.

So what could the new goal amount look like?

To increase above the $116 billion of climate finance secured in 2022, the largest lever is multilateral finance. There is already good news here: The MDBs announced last week that they will provide $120 billion and mobilize $65 billion ($185 billion in total) for low- and middle-income countries by 2030, around 60% more than they provided in 2023. Negotiators at COP29 may agree to count all of this funding toward the new climate finance goal, or just the 70% representing funds from developed nations.  Combined with a 50% increase in bilateral finance flows, this means international climate finance levels can easily reach $200 billion a year. If negotiators agree that all $185 billion of MDB finance should count toward the new goal and bilateral finance doubles, the level of finance could rise to $300 billion a year.

For countries to go above these levels, the best way would be further MDB reform and innovative financing, such as hybrid capital, which individual shareholders can choose to provide, increasing the lending capacity of MDBs. If this is combined with an assumption that shareholders will inject more capital into MDBs before 2035 — say $60 billion over several years —  this could potentially lift total climate finance provided and mobilized by bilateral and multilateral sources to $340 - $450 billion a year, depending on whether or not the full share of the MDB finance is counted.

Significant amounts of new finance could also be raised through solidarity levies or taxes, such as those for the maritime and aviation industries or wealth taxes, which some countries have proposed. A joint statement from the recent G20 Leaders Summit in Brazil expressed support for such a wealth tax. These levies could offer anywhere from $20 billion to hundreds of billions a year.

Who Will Contribute?

While developed countries recognize their responsibility to lead, they argue that other countries with the ability to provide climate finance — some of whom already invest in climate action in developing nations— should also transparently contribute to a new goal, due to their relative wealth and emissions profiles. Some of those contributions could be through multilateral financial institutions. 

It is important to developing countries most affected by this that their contribution of climate finance would be considered specifically as South-South finance and would not change their development status.

Will the Finance Be High-Quality?

In addition to how much climate finance is provided — and by whom — the quality of that finance is also an important feature of any new finance deal. The issues here are with access, concessionality, the amount provided for adaptation and debt.

For the poorest, most vulnerable countries, the proportion of finance provided as grants and highly concessional loans (with delayed repayments and low interest rates) is just as important as the overall amount. There can be a trade-off here: The current $100 billion goal was reported at “face value,” counting a $100 million loan for renewables in Mexico or Indonesia that needs to be repaid the same as a $100 million grant for adaptation in Malawi or Tuvalu. The grant is much more valuable to the recipient and costs donors far more. So while a larger goal may look better at face value, it may not be as good for meeting the needs of poorer and more vulnerable countries.

This is why bilateral grant funding and donor generosity in replenishing multilateral concessional funds like International Development Association (IDA) and African Development Fund (ADF) are so important. It’s also why some would prefer a “grant equivalent” goal, which would be smaller, but more transparent on the true value of the finance. 

The poorest and most vulnerable countries also care about what proportion of the finance is for adaptation. The adaptation finance goal within the $100 billion was previously doubled from $20 billion to $40 billion a year. One option would be to double it again to $80 billion. While $80 billion may not seem like a “balanced” amount of a $300 billion overall goal, if it were mainly grant and highly concessional finance, the “grant equivalent” would be more balanced.

Least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS), in particular, call for greater ease of access to international climate finance, with different concerns about the length, complexity and bureaucracy of the funding process, which is often made worse by the creation of yet more new funds. An agreement that improves this situation will be important.

Finally, many countries are looking for the new climate finance agreement to send a signal on debt. With nearly 40 countries now in or at the risk of debt distress, high repayments mean they have little domestic finance left over to invest in climate action, and no space to borrow more externally. Cross references could be made to the Expert Review on Debt, Nature and Climate and other processes examining how to take a more comprehensive approach to debt restructuring and relief.

Securing a New Climate Finance Agreement at COP29

COP29 can mark a pivotal moment in global climate finance by acknowledging that total needs of developing countries are over $1 trillion and committing to at least triple the amount of what will be provided and mobilized by public finance. The financial commitment could be even higher if countries are willing to bank on future political agreements in other fora, such as through capital increases and solidarity levies.

If the new climate finance goal is tripled, it would still leave a gap between the amount provided and mobilized and what’s needed to meet the $1 trillion+ need. It also would say nothing about the purely private flows within the $1 trillion, over which the COP has no authority. The agreement could cross-reference processes outside the UNFCCC that need to tackle those wider financial system and domestic public policy reform issues and help close that gap. Agreements outside the COP on effective delivery of public, private, domestic and international finance will be equally critical to turning climate finance into impact on the ground.

But importantly, a strong new climate finance goal would provide much-needed momentum to accelerate meaningful climate action that benefits both people and planet.

cop29-baku.jpg Finance Finance climate finance Climate COP29 Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Melanie Robinson

On Former Palm Oil Plantations, Small Farmers Are Bringing Brazil’s Forests Back to Life margaret.overh… Tue, 11/19/2024 - 09:00

Jessica Soraia's life hit a turning point four years ago. Living in Belém, Brazil, she was unemployed, her husband was battling depression and the future felt uncertain. So, Soraia made a bold decision: She and her family packed their bags and left the city for the Abril Vermelho Settlement, a former palm oil plantation in the Amazon rainforest.

Brazil's government-supported farm settlements offer land, housing and resources to families who can't afford to buy property, often on abandoned plantation land. "When we arrived here, the area was degraded, there was no cultivation of any sort," says Soraia. But what drew her to Abril Vermelho was the promise of sharing in something bigger: a chance not only to rebuild her life, but to join a larger community working to revive a slice of the Amazon.

What seemed like a gamble soon became a source of hope and stability. Alongside fellow farmers, Jessica now earns a living growing and selling mangoes, cassava, cashew, avocado and more. Through their work, the surrounding forest is coming back to life, with native plants and animals returning to the once-bare earth. "Here," she says, "you can work without harming the environment, without having to deforest, without having to destroy what already existed." 

Jessica Soraia, one of the farmers at the Abril Vermelho settlement. Photos by Yantra Imagens

Jessica's journey is part of a larger movement across the Brazilian Amazon that aims to transform thousands of hectares of degraded farmland into fertile landscapes. The effort — supported by WRI Brasil, Imazon, Instituto Centro de Vida, and Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (the Landless Workers Movement) — is showing how restoration and food production can work together.

As countries around the world grapple with rampant deforestation and competing demands for finite land, examples like this show a better path forward — one where healthy communities, sustainable economies and vibrant landscapes can all thrive.

Making a Living Restoring the Land

WRI Brasil is working with five settlements like the one Soraia joined in the state of Pará, Brazil, and has seen the power of community-led restoration firsthand.

Abril Vermelho and João Batista are located just outside Belém in Northern Brazil.

João Batista and Abril Vermelho, two settlements outside Pará's capital of Belém, are leading this effort. Covering 11,000 hectares in total, the two settlements were once used for industrial-scale palm oil and livestock production, which left the land bare and the soil depleted. Today, they are home to 700 farming families working to transform the land through more sustainable management.

Much of the farmers' success hinges on agroforestry, a farming technique that involves planting trees alongside crops. In the Amazon, agroforestry can mean growing staple crops with strong markets — like cassava, açaí or cocoa — alongside mainly native tree species, such as Brazil nut trees and cupuaçu (similar to cocoa), that help regenerate the land.

Plants and people alike benefit from this system. Trees can help restore soil health and improve water quality while also protecting crops from wind, heat, drought and other stressors. Farmers may see higher yields and more diverse harvests as a result, helping to boost their incomes. Together with other smallholder farmers in the region, families from Abril Vermelho and João Batista were able to open a new farm store in Belém to sell their produce to the broader community.

A farm store in Belém sells produce grown by farmers at the Abril Vermelho and João Batista settlements. Photo by Yantra Imagens

At the same time, trees in agroforestry systems offer vital ecosystem services that are becoming ever more important as the climate changes, such as storing carbon, maintaining water supplies and buffering communities against extreme heat. They also bring back habitat for species that may have been pushed out by ecosystem destruction.

Luiz Gonzaga is among the farmers in the João Batista settlement who have experienced the effects of these techniques first-hand. Walking through fields of green that were barren just a few years ago, Gonzaga explains: "We have the blue macaw, the curia, the trinca-ferro — birds that had disappeared. But after we reforested and the fruit started growing, the birds returned. The thrush, the pipira, the parrot and many others."

.video-caption { margin:0 12.5% auto; } @media only screen and (max-width: 750px) { .video-caption { margin:0 5% auto; } }

Farm plots, farmers and surrounding forest on the settlement. Video by Yantra Imagens

Clearing the Way for Nature to Thrive

While agroforestry is a powerful tool, planting seedlings can be an expensive and labor-intensive activity for small-scale farming families. But it is not the only option.

Some farmers in the settlements are also leveraging "assisted natural regeneration": a blend of active planting and passive restoration, where local people intervene to help trees and native vegetation naturally recover by eliminating threats to their growth. In other words, it involves clearing the way so that nature can regenerate on its own.

Often removing whatever is causing the degradation — in this case, monoculture farming and livestock pastures — can go a long way toward transforming the land. But farmers are proactively assisting natural recovery, too; for example, by removing invasive or exotic species that choke out native plants, or by building fences to prevent livestock from grazing in areas that are regrowing.

Research by WRI Brasil evaluated assisted natural regeneration projects in Brazil and around the world. We found that, not only is this an effective technique, but it can also be paired with agroforestry to make it easier for small landowners to implement restoration on a large scale.

Community members and WRI Brasil staff participate in a workshop on restoration opportunities at the Abril Vermelho settlement. Photo by Igor Lopes/WRI Brasil Putting People at the Heart of Restoration

For farmer Igor da Silva — one of the founders of João Batista, who moved there before the settlement was established — the devastated plantation land used to feel like a place of hopelessness. Water sources had dried up, crops withered, and fish, once a staple in his family's diet, became scarce. Even simple joys like swimming were no longer possible for his children.

But today, that picture has completely changed.

"In six years [after restoration], the water returned 100%," he says. Springs have replenished, crops are thriving, fish are abundant, and now the sounds of children swimming and laughing fill the air again. This transformation is all thanks to restoration.

Farmer Igor da Silva is one of the founders of the João Batista Settlement. Photo by Yantra Imagens

Farmers themselves are the key to this success. Not only are they tending the land, but they were integral to the design of the Abril Vermelho and João Batista settlements. Officials from WRI Brasil, the Landless Workers Movement and other partner organizations worked closely with the community to structure and implement restoration plans, ensuring that the process met both environmental goals and the farmers' needs.

"I felt part of a process by doing these activities, by participating in the decision-making, in the joint deliberations," says farmer Marcio Jandir da Silva Lopes.

This sense of ownership is crucial. Family farms around the globe produce most of the world's food. Without their involvement, no matter how effective agroforestry techniques or natural regeneration methods are, large-scale restoration won't succeed. Indeed, locally led restoration projects are proven to be up to 20 times more likely than projects led by NGOs or national governments to create a lasting impact.

Communities living on the land must be directly involved from beginning to end, taking part in decision-making, organizing production, and building connections with others focused on restoring degraded areas.

.video-caption { margin:0 12.5% auto; } @media only screen and (max-width: 750px) { .video-caption { margin:0 5% auto; } }

Trees and vegetation regrowing on former plantation and cattle land. Video by Yantra Imagens

Scaling Up Restoration in the Amazon and Beyond

These trailblazing communities show that with the right approach, it is possible to restore degraded land, protect biodiversity and create sustainable livelihoods for those who need it most. The next step is to replicate their learnings — both across the Amazon and around the globe.

Governments, organizations, businesses and individuals worldwide must come together to invest in locally led restoration projects. To drive long-term success, not just short-term results, they must put effective monitoring, management and partnerships in place and ensure communities are at the heart of every effort.

The land feeds the world; with the right approach, land can also heal it.

brazil-farm-settlement-aerial.png Forests Brazil Forests restoration agriculture Type Vignette Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Global Restoration Initiative

Authors Bruno Calixto Luciana Alves Mariana Oliveira Ana Cecília Gonçalves Rosiane Silva Mercy Orengo

RELEASE: WRI Launches New Guidance for National Governments to Enhance Climate Ambition Through Partnerships with Cities, States, Regions darla.vanhoorn… Tue, 11/19/2024 - 08:56

BAKU, AZERBAIJAN (November 19, 2024) – Today, at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, World Resources Institute (WRI) launched a new report offering practical guidance and recommendations for national governments to strengthen their climate commitments through strategic partnerships with cities, states and other subnational actors.  

With the 2025 deadline for updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) approaching, the report shows how to integrate multilevel partnership into the NDC updating process, highlighting improved collaboration as key to achieving climate goals.

Created through WRI’s partnership with the Coalition for High-Ambition Multilevel Partnerships (CHAMP) for Climate Action, the guidance follows a three-step approach: reviewing existing multilevel partnerships to identify opportunities and gaps; planning meaningful consultation and engagement with subnational entities; and crafting ambitious NDCs that effectively incorporate subnational targets.

“Too often, national climate plans overlook the significant role of cities, which generate both 70% of global greenhouse emissions and 80% of global GDP,” said Ani Dasgupta, President and CEO of WRI. “At a moment when countries must strive to enhance their climate ambition and action, this report highlights examples and best practices for incorporating sub-national action into NDCs, a critical step toward accelerated progress.”

An estimated 90% of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed in cities can be achieved using widely available technologies and policies. However, most interventions require coordination across different levels of government to succeed, and such coordination remains rare. According to a UN-Habitat review, only 27% of submitted NDCs exhibit a strong urban focus. National governments must go beyond consultation, establishing effective pathways for collaboration to ensure shared responsibility for climate goals and their implementation.

The report includes recommendations on evaluating synergies and potential trade-offs in national and subnational goals. It also outlines how to develop a stakeholder engagement plan and integrate subnational data into national emissions inventories, among other ways to improve partnership.

“Together, we can forge the necessary connections to empower and advance the urban climate agenda through CHAMP and the NDC revision process,” said Gregor Robertson, former Mayor of Vancouver and Special Envoy for Cities for CHAMP. “With this guide, we set out new approaches for multilevel climate action across all sectors of society.”

COP29 has continued the momentum for city-level climate leadership initiated at COP28, which hosted the first Local Climate Action Summit and saw the launch of CHAMP, now endorsed by 74 countries. The Baku COP29 Presidency has pledged to prioritize subnational engagement, particularly through the COP29 Multisectoral Actions Pathways (MAP) Declaration for Resilient and Healthy Cities, set to be launched at the Urban Ministerial later this week.

“Enhanced NDCs are a critical opportunity to empower cities and subnational governments to deliver local climate action,” said Nigar Arpadarai, UN Climate Change High-Level Champion for COP29. “When national, subnational, and city governments work together, they can accelerate investment in green public infrastructure, adapt to climate risks, and steward a just transition away from fossil fuels. Critically, the COP29 Multisectoral Actions Pathways (MAP) for Resilient and Healthy Cities will continue to align national, regional and city-level climate actions.”

Colombia, a CHAMP member, has revamped its NDC process to demonstrate how engaging local actors can drive meaningful climate action, with cities central to mitigation and adaptation. The national government is holding open consultations with subnational governments across its five regions to co-develop climate strategies and ensure buy-in at all levels. This process involves urban leaders, civil society, regional leaders, the private sector and interest groups, tackling barriers that have previously hindered climate action.  

“Subnational governments play a fundamental role in updating Colombia's NDC,” said Eliana Hernandez, Lead Coordinator for NDC Enhancement from Colombia’s Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. “They are leading and contributing to the implementation of transformative actions that allow us to confront climate change and contribute to the fulfillment of our commitments.”  

CHAMP was launched at COP28 in 2023, led by the UAE COP28 Presidency with support from Bloomberg Philanthropies and partners such as WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, C40, the Global Covenant of Mayors, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, the NDC Partnership, the University of Maryland, United Cities and Local Governments, Under2 Coalition and UN-Habitat. Now endorsed by 74 national governments, CHAMP members commit to developing climate targets and strategies with strong involvement from subnational actors, including consulting and collaborating with subnational governments as they prepare their next round of NDCs.

“This round of updates to Nationally Determined Contributions is critical to getting the world on track towards emissions reductions that prevent the worst effects of climate change,” said Michael Doust, Global Director, Urban Efficiency & Climate, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities. “As we increasingly see the effects of warming all around us, multilevel partnerships can create more ambitious and effective climate action.”

About World Resources Institute (WRI)
WRI is a trusted partner for change. Using research-based approaches, we work globally and in focus countries to meet essential needs, protect and restore nature, stabilize the climate, and build resilient communities. Founded in 1982, WRI has over 2,000 staff worldwide, with country offices in Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and the United States, and regional offices in Africa and Europe.

About WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities is World Resources Institute’s program dedicated to shaping a future where cities work better for everyone. Together with partners around the world, we help create resilient, inclusive, low-carbon places that are better for people and the planet. Our network of more than 500 experts working from Brazil, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, the Netherlands, Mexico, Turkey and the United States combine research excellence with on-the-ground impact to make cities around the world better places to live. More information at wri.org/cities.
 

Cities Climate NDC Cities Urban Efficiency & Climate Featured Popular Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Related Resources and Data Stronger NDCs With Cities, States, and Regions: Recommendations for National Governments Projects

• Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships (CHAMP) for Climate Action
• Integrated Climate Action
• Urban Efficiency & Climate

STATEMENT: More than 30 Countries Commit to Tackle Methane from Organic Waste alison.cinnamo… Tue, 11/19/2024 - 07:37

BAKU, AZERBAIJAN (November 19, 2024) – Today at COP29, over 30 countries committed to reduce methane from organic waste such as food. The Declaration on Reducing Methane from Organic Waste supports previous COP commitments, including the Lowering Organic Waste Methane (LOW-Methane) initiative to cut 1 million metric tons of annual waste sector emissions and the broader Global Methane Pledge to cut all global methane emissions at least 30% by 2030.

Food loss and waste accounts for 8-10% of total annual greenhouse gas emissions and methane emissions from food waste in landfills are a significant component, representing 3% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

Following is a statement from Liz Goodwin, Senior Fellow and Director for Food Loss and Waste, World Resources Institute:

“This declaration demonstrates countries are finally waking up to a must-tackle source of climate pollution: food waste in landfills. This is a solvable problem. We should not be sending food waste to landfills where we know it decomposes and produces climate-harming methane.

“Countries now need to turn this commitment into action by developing plans and policies that first reduce food loss and waste, and then invest in alternative processing and treatment for any food that is wasted. Countries should include diversion of food waste from landfill as an integral part of their climate strategy, including in their upcoming national climate commitments (NDCs).

“It is a travesty that globally we lose or waste around a third of all the food which we produce, while millions continue to go hungry. The benefits of ending food waste for people, for the climate and for nature are clear. Let this not be another unfulfilled pledge, but rather the moment where governments start making food loss and waste reduction the political priority that it deserves to be.” 
 

Food Loss and Waste COP29 Food Loss and Waste Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

STATEMENT: G20 Summit Reaffirms Support for Inclusive, Just Climate Action alison.cinnamo… Tue, 11/19/2024 - 00:40

BAKU (November 19, 2024) – Today, Leaders from the Group of 20 major economies issued a joint statement, as the COP29 negotiations enter their final stretch. G20 countries reaffirmed the goals of the Paris Agreement, reiterated the outcome from the Global Stocktake in Dubai and agreed to reform Multilateral Development Banks and scale up climate finance. G20 countries account for 85% of the world's economy and are the largest contributors to multilateral development banks helping to steer climate finance.

Following is a statement from Ani Dasgupta, President and CEO, World Resources Institute:

“The G20 Leaders’ Summit has reaffirmed that just, equitable climate action must remain at the center of the global agenda. Negotiators in Baku should build on the G20 Leaders’ Summit and rally behind a strong new climate finance goal.

“The shadow of Donald Trump’s recent election in the United States was expected to cast a shadow over the G20 Summit, yet leaders stood by their dedication to collaborate on some of the world's most pressing issues, including financial reform, poverty, hunger and clean energy.

“Despite sending positive signals on the energy transition and the need to scale up renewable energy and improve energy efficiency, it’s unfortunate that the G20 failed to reiterate the commitment to shift away from fossil fuels, which all countries agreed to at COP28 in Dubai. 

“At its core, finance is a question of justice. Leaders rightly acknowledged that inequality within and among countries is at the root of most global challenges and must be addressed.

“The G20 Leaders recognized the need to rapidly scale up climate finance and reach a new goal in Baku, and they emphasized that international collaboration is key to doing so. Leaders called for multilateral development banks to be bigger, better and more effective. Another important step forward was support for a wealth tax, which could significantly scale up resources to help developing countries curb emissions and blunt the impacts of climate change. 

“We are encouraged that the G20 endorsed country platforms, which aim to tackle the fragmented delivery of climate finance and better allocate resources to high-impact projects. Critically, these platforms could help countries attract more and better finance to implement their NDCs, due in early 2025, by connecting national priority projects and national and international, public and private financial flows.

“The G20’s renewed commitment to sustainably and equitably increasing agricultural productivity and reducing food loss and waste demonstrates that countries are prioritizing these issues as an integral part of climate action, given food systems’ vast interconnections with the climate.”

International Climate Action G20 COP29 Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

STATEMENT: Proposed Amendments to EU Deforestation Law Create Dangerous Loopholes and Uncertainty nate.shelter@wri.org Mon, 11/18/2024 - 16:25

BRUSSELS (November 18, 2024) — The European Parliament voted last week to delay, and proposed amendments to the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) which had originally passed the legislative process in 2023. The proposed amendments need to be approved by all three EU institutions and will be considered by the EU Commission and EU Council this week.

Initially set for implementation on 30 December 2024, this critical regulation aims to curb the EU’s role in global commodity-driven deforestation. It prevents coffee, cocoa, soy, cattle, palm oil, rubber and wood, along with certain derivative products, that are linked to deforestation or forest degradation from entering, being traded in or exported from the European market.

Following is a statement by Stientje van Veldhoven, Vice-President and Regional Director for Europe of World Resources Institute:

“This decision is disappointing and undermines the regulation’s objective to curb global deforestation by creating the world’s first deforestation-free consumer market. The world is currently losing 10 football fields of tropical forests every minute, and we cannot wait to better protect our forests.

“By both delaying and defanging the EUDR, with this vote EU policymakers would reduce the effectiveness of the regulation based on proposals that have not been fully thought through and are not based on credible science.

“The proposed amendments present three major risks. First, the creation of a “no-risk” country category generates loopholes that undermine the regulation by exempting companies from key due diligence requirements. A second risk is using 1990 as the reference year, which may miss more recent deforestation risks and degradation trends. And third, the amendments’ unclear language creates uncertainty for companies, investors and smallholder farmers.

“The delay and proposed amendments damage the EU’s climate leadership credibility. To preserve the EUDR, the European Commission should formally oppose the amendments. Without unanimous approval by all EU member states, the amendments could then not pass. If needed, the Commission and EU Council could agree on a non-enforcement grace period of 12 months without reopening negotiations, as this would be the quickest path to prevent further chaos.”

Below is a more in-depth assessment from Stientje van Veldhoven on three main risks from the proposed amendments:

First, the most concerning change is the introduction of a new “no-risk” country category which creates loopholes that jeopardize the effectiveness of the entire regulation. Under the “no-risk” classification, companies sourcing products harvested in countries deemed to have stable or increasing forest area would be exempt from key due diligence obligations. This could make it easier for suppliers to bring deforestation-linked products into the EU market via “no-risk” countries, creating a backdoor for commodities produced in high-risk countries.

For example, an unscrupulous supplier from a “no-risk” country could exploit this rule by misrepresenting the origins of leather, coming from cattle from a high-risk country and linked to deforestation. Although the amendments still demand that companies verify their products are degradation-free and legally produced, they no longer have to provide any documentation and no geospatial data, making enforcement difficult.

The second risk lies in the amendments' reliance on 1990 as the reference year for forest area assessments. Assessing forest area change between 1990 and 2020 may not accurately reflect current or future deforestation risks. In fact, by comparing the difference in forest area between two time periods, deforestation can be missed completely if forest is replanted with young, less biodiverse trees or regrows elsewhere. For example, Vietnam, a primary supplier of coffee and wooden furniture to the EU, increased its forest extent by 56% between 1990 and 2020, according to national data reported to FAO. However, WRI’s Global Forest Watch estimates that over 1 million hectares of forest has been lost to commodity-driven deforestation between 2001 and 2023.

Furthermore, satellite data availability and quality have increased and improved over the past decade. Crucially, data derived from satellite observations in 1990 are not easily comparable to more recent observations meaning they could misrepresent the status of forest change.

Third, the amendment language requires clarification to prevent uncertainty for companies, investors and smallholder farmers. The revised provisions mandate that an information platform and the country risk benchmarking need to be in place six months before the regulation takes effect. However, the text fails to specify who will verify, and under what criteria, the readiness of related IT and other systems.

Additionally, the amendments do not clarify how the proposed “no-risk” assessment criteria align with the comprehensive country risk benchmarking methodology being developed by the European Commission. This lack of alignment creates more confusion and opens up pushback against the results of the country benchmarking. Some of the proposed amendments include contradictory language that will lead to uncertainty among operators about their responsibility to verify products from “no-risk” countries. Moreover, the creation of the “no-risk” country category raises questions about whether the revised regulation will comply with World Trade Organization non-discrimination rules, potentially setting the stage for trade disputes. This threatens the predictability of the EU’s regulatory landscape.

Forests Europe deforestation commodities Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

The State of Electric School Bus Adoption in the US helen.morgan@wri.org Mon, 11/18/2024 - 10:00

Editor’s Note: This article was updated with new findings as of October 2024 from WRI’s Electric School Bus Data Dashboard, which is updated monthly and contains the most recent data on electric school bus adoption. Previous versions of this article are available for download at the bottom of this page.

More than 21 million children ride the bus to school in the U.S., and over 90% of these school buses run on fossil fuels, primarily diesel, putting children’s health at risk every school day. Diesel exhaust is a known carcinogen, with proven links to serious physical health issues as well as cognitive development impacts. But with more electric school buses on the road, these risks can be greatly reduced.

Electric school buses have zero tailpipe emissions, preventing students’ exposure to harmful pollutants. Plus, electric school buses are cleaner for the environment, producing less than half the greenhouse gas emissions of diesel or propane-powered school buses, even after accounting for emissions from electricity generation.

In the U.S., there now are nearly 5,000 electric school buses serving approximately 254,000 students in 49 states, Washington, D.C., American Samoa, Puerto Rico and seven tribal schools. That means electric school buses are on roads across the country, responding to the call for a clean ride to school.

More than 90% of school buses today run on diesel, with dangerous fumes that have proven links to serious physical health issues and cognitive development impacts. Photo by Denisse Leon/Unsplash. US Electric School Buses by the Numbers

As of Oct. 1, 2024, there are a total of 12,241 electric school bus commitments.  We define “commitment” to include electric buses across four stages: those that have been awarded funding for purchase, have a formal purchase agreement with a dealer or manufacturer, have been delivered to school districts or fleet operators, or are in operation.

Over two-thirds, or 67% percent, of all committed electric school buses in the U.S. were funded by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean School Bus Program, which has awarded nearly $3 billion to fund over 8,000 school bus replacements at more than 1,200 school districts.

Notably, 89% of total Clean School Bus Program funds and 84% of awarded electric school buses went to “priority” school districts, which include school districts with high poverty levels, rural school districts, Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded school districts, and school districts that receive basic support payments for children who reside on Indian land.

Thanks to this program, there are now electric school bus commitments in 49 states, Washington, D.C., American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and several tribal nations including the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Umo N Ho N Nation. This unprecedented level of funding comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 and would not have been possible without the tireless advocacy work of groups across the country.

The total number of electric school buses is expected to continue to grow under a $1 billion fourth round of Clean School Bus Program funding announced in September 2024, as well as the EPA’s new Clean Heavy Duty Vehicles Grant Program, established under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and designed to help transition heavy duty vehicles — including school buses — to zero-emission models. The EPA expects around 70% of the Clean Heavy Duty Vehicles Grant Program funding, or around $700 million, to support school bus replacement projects. Further, several states have passed laws and statutes to transition to zero-emission school buses, setting the stage for more widespread adoption.

WRI has been tracking electric school bus adoption across the U.S. since 2021 to compare data overtime and identify specific trends as more electric school buses make their way to the road.

Here are the key findings from our October 2024 data:

The US. Has Nearly 5,000 Electric School Buses on the Road

As of October 2024, electric school buses are now committed in 1,531 U.S. school districts or by private fleet operators. That is a 500% increase in the number of districts since our first count in 2021, and a 1,000% increase in the number of committed electric school buses.

Among the 12,241 committed buses, 4,958 were already delivered or are operating. Another 5,906 buses have been awarded to school districts from federal and local government initiatives but have not yet been ordered or delivered.

Our data tracking also shows that school districts that receive electric school bus awards have significant follow-through. As of October 2024, there are nearly 1,400 electric buses currently on order from school districts nationwide. Since 2012, when the first electric school buses were committed, more than half (52%) of all electric school bus commitments have translated into bus orders.  

Among Commitments in 49 States, Large Increases Are in New England and the Midwest

WRI’s most recent data shows every U.S. state, except Wyoming, has electric school bus commitments, including Washington, D.C., American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, seven tribal schools and two private schools operated by a tribal nation.

The most recent data shows electric school bus commitments are becoming more evenly distributed across the country. When tracking first began, more than half of electric school bus commitments were in the West (based on U.S. Census regions). Now, the West represents 34% of committed electric school buses, only a little more than the South’s 30% share of commitments. The Northeast and the Midwest have 20% and 15% of committed electric school buses, respectively.

California continues to lead in electric school bus adoption, with over 3,110 committed electric buses across the state, of which nearly 45% are delivered or operating. This is more than four times as many buses as the next leading state, New York, with 764 commitments.

Massachusetts is now one of the top 10 states with the most committed electric school buses for the first time since tracking began.

The remaining top 10 states with the most committed electric school buses include Illinois (617), Pennsylvania (469), Florida (467), Maryland (439), Massachusetts (434), Texas (424), Virginia (385) and Georgia (341).

While California had the largest absolute number increase from our last update in December 2023, with 713 new bus commitments, states across New England and the Midwest saw large percentage increases in the number of committed buses.

The number of committed electric school buses in Indiana (46 to 104), North Dakota (8 to 18), Ohio (68 to 165) and Wisconsin (66 to 141) increased by more than 100%. In Nebraska, the number of electric school buses increased by over 200% (7 to 23) and in Minnesota by over 300% (25 to 101). The largest percentage increase of electric school buses was in New Hampshire with an increase of over 1,000% (7 to 117). The New England and Midwest regions of the U.S. now have 4,367 committed ESBs, more than the West’s 4,156 buses.

State legislatures are helping to accelerate the electric school bus transition. Since 2022, seven states have statutorily enacted zero-emission school bus transition requirements, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New York and Washington. Some 100,000 school buses (19% of the entire U.S. fleet) are covered by these measures and 6 million school bus riders (26% of all riders) would benefit directly.

Washington is the most recent state to enact its transition target, requiring that 100% of new school bus purchases be zero-emission once the total cost of ownership is on par with that of diesel buses. The state also directed that grant programs must prioritize environmental justice communities.

In addition, Colorado, Michigan and Washington D.C., have non-binding transition goals, aiming for 100% zero-emission buses on the road by 2035, 100% of school bus sales to be electric by 2030 and the replacement of 100% of school buses with electric models which began in 2021, respectively.

Over 100 Sources Have Funded Electric School Buses Across the US

The federal Clean School Bus Program far surpasses any other single funding source for electric school buses. As of October 2024, it is responsible for 67% (8,125) of all electric school bus commitments. Looking at it another way, out of the 7,283 electric school buses that are awarded or on order as of October 2024, it is funding more than 80%. And the program currently funded 2,200 buses that are already operating or have been delivered.

The next largest funding source is California’s Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, which has funded 1,213 bus commitments. State efforts under the Volkswagen Clean Air Act Civil Settlement has also funded a significant amount of electric school buses, providing 706 commitments across 28 states. Unsurprisingly, California-specific funding sources comprise half of the 10 largest funding sources. The state’s robust incentive programs are partly why a quarter of all committed electric school buses in the U.S. can be found there.

Large Commitments for Electric School Buses Are Increasing

The growing number of commitments for more buses suggests increasing trust in electric school bus technology and market conditions, as well as wider funding availability. Over 1,500 U.S. school districts or private fleet operators have committed to electric school buses. Seventy eight percent of them (1,197) have committed to more than one bus, and 52% (800) have electric school buses that are operating or have already been delivered.

Approximately 42% (638) of all school districts and fleet operators with electric school buses have committed to five or more buses, and 23% (353) have committed to 10 or more, compared to just 60 such school districts in 2023. One hundred and forty-seven districts have electric school bus commitments that amount to 50% or more of their current fleet size.

School districts, large and small, have already reached 100% school bus electrification. In April 2024, Steelton-Highspire School District became the first in Pennsylvania to have an all-electric school bus fleet with six buses. And in August, the Oakland Unified School District rolled out one of the largest all-electric school bus fleets in the nation with 74 electric buses.

Top 5 School Districts by Number of Electric School Buses Ordered, Delivered or Operating as of October 2024RankEntity NameStateNumber of Electric School Buses1Montgomery County Public SchoolsMD3262Los Angeles Unified School DistrictCA3213Miami-Dade County Public SchoolsFL1254Boston Public SchoolsMA1145Clayton County School DistrictGA100Is Electric School Bus Adoption Occurring Equitably?

Students from low-income families are particularly exposed to the dangers of diesel exhaust pollution from school buses: 60% ride the bus to school, compared to 45% of students from families with higher incomes. In addition, Black students and children with disabilities rely on school buses more than their peers. Children of color are also more likely to suffer from asthma, due in part to historically racist lending, transit, housing and zoning policies that concentrated Black and Brown communities closer to highways and other sources of vehicle-based air pollution. Electrifying the entire fleet of school buses, and prioritizing these communities in the transition, can help address these concerns.

Overall, committed electric school buses are largely concentrated in historically underserved school districts. Since WRI tracking began in 2021, we have seen an increase in buses in low-income areas and areas with the highest levels of particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone pollution. A majority of electric school buses continue to be in school districts with high populations of people of color.

Notably, the EPA’s Clean School Bus Program led to a more equitable distribution of electric school buses by prioritizing school districts based on whether they were “high need” (focusing on high-poverty districts and those located in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa or Northern Mariana Islands), rural, tribal or a combination of these criteria. The share of districts with at least one electric school bus in each type of locale (rural, town, suburban and urban) also aligns closely to the distribution of all school districts nationwide among these locales. Thirty- six percent of school districts with at least one committed electric school bus are in rural locales, 26% are in suburban, 22% are in urban and 15% are in town locales. This is a marked change from 2021 when only 17% of school districts in rural locales had electric school buses; a shift mostly due to the Clean School Bus Program’s prioritization of rural school districts. 

Before the EPA's Clean School Bus Program awards in 2022, the largest percentage of electric school buses were in districts with the smallest shares of low-income households. By October 2024, the largest percentage of electric school buses are now in districts with the highest shares of low-income households (62%).

Electric school bus adoption also appears to be occurring equitably when looking at the distribution of buses among communities of color. Among committed electric school buses, 85% are in school districts with the highest percentages of people of color as defined by the EPA’s EJScreen data.

Of note, the percentage of electric school buses in districts with the highest shares of low-income households and people of color decreased from 66% to 62% and 89% to 85%, respectively.

WRI also evaluated data to see if electric school buses were equitably distributed across communities impacted the most by harmful pollutants. We compiled data on concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone in school districts because of their harmful health effects, their close linkage to diesel exhaust and the availability of data, as well as data on adult asthma rates since evidence suggests that children with asthma are especially susceptible to impacts from air pollutants (Childhood asthma rates at the census tract level were not available for most districts).

As of October 2024, 65% of committed electric school buses are in school districts with the highest concentrations of PM2.5. The trend continues with ozone pollution with 65% of committed electric school buses in school districts with the highest levels of ozone pollution. School districts with electric school buses are fairly evenly distributed among different levels of adult asthma rates. A little under half (49%) of committed electric school buses are in school districts with the highest adult asthma rates. As noted above, the use of adult asthma data may not provide a full picture of the impact of pollution levels on communities’ asthma incidence, especially given asthma most often starts during childhood and children are more susceptible to the adverse effects from poor air quality, more effort is needed to ensure that electric school buses are brought to these communities.

It’s important to note that the metrics presented here reflect only a few equity dimensions. WRI is also closely tracking other community characteristics including disability access and services, tribal equity and other underserved communities to ensure there is an equitable transition to electric school buses.

What’s Next to Scale Up Electric School Bus Adoption?

With the third round of Clean School Bus Program awards announced in May 2024, more electric school buses are expected to be introduced across the U.S., through the next two years. The opening of the fourth round of applications, due on Jan. 9, 2025, will provide an additional $1 billion for electric school buses. But that’s not the only federal program helping to put more electric school buses on the road.

Last summer, the Internal Revenue Service issued proposed regulations which allows entities like school districts to claim electric school bus-relevant credits such as 45W (Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles) and 30C (Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit). These credits can save school bus operators tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars on school bus electrification.

In March 2024, the EPA revised existing greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy duty vehicles, including school buses. These standards will avoid nearly one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions by requiring emission control technologies for vehicle model years 2027 through 2032, accelerating the transition to clean buses that allow students and school bus drivers to breathe easier. WRI analysis of these new greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles projects that 62% of all school bus sales will be electric by 2032.

In August, it was announced that grant recipients of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund can begin accessing available funds to mobilize financing for projects, signaling an unprecedented opportunity to bring equitable finance into electric school bus procurements.

State funding programs are also putting more buses on the road. The Michigan Clean Bus Energy Grant Program, which provides funds to school districts to replace aging diesel school buses, opened for its second round of applications in August. Illinois and Pennsylvania are also considering funding and fleet transition targets, such as the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which would help promote the development and use of electric school buses.

The latest data shows that electric school buses continue to have nationwide momentum. As progress toward an all-electric school bus fleet advances, policymakers at the federal and state levels, including state utility regulators, will need to continue establishing supportive policies, such as fleet transition requirements and programs for charging infrastructure deployment and workforce development.

Federal and state governments can continue to address the upfront cost premium of electric school buses through funding opportunities and financing programs that help maximize the impact and reach of grants for greater scale and ambition. Across these efforts, policymakers should ensure benefits are equitably accessible to communities that would benefit most from school bus electrification through policy prioritization and technical assistance from government and utility programs.

Looking to follow the most up-to-date, interactive electric school bus data? Check out our Electric School Bus Data Dashboard, where you can easily explore trends and dive into the latest data.

View past editions of this article:

• July 2024 Edition
• September 2023 Edition
• April 2023 Edition
• February 2023 Edition
• September 2022 Edition
• June 2022 Edition
• February 2022 Edition
• August 2021 Edition

School bus USA martinedoucet/iStock Air Quality United States Cities electric mobility transportation U.S. Climate Policy-Electric School Buses Featured Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Electric School Bus Initiative
• U.S. Climate Policy Resource Center

Authors Lydia Freehafer Leah Lazer Brian Zepka

STATEMENT: United States Achieves Biden’s Climate Finance Goal alison.cinnamo… Sun, 11/17/2024 - 23:43

BAKU (November 17, 2024) - Ahead of the G20 Summit in Rio, the Biden administration confirmed that that U.S. international climate finance has reached over $11 billion a year by 2024. According to the White House, this includes a six-fold scale up of adaptation finance to over $3 billion per year and achieving record-levels of climate investments through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and U.S. Export Import Bank.

Following is a statement by Melanie Robinson, Global Climate, Economics and Finance Director:  

"It is very encouraging that the United States has surpassed its climate finance goal, providing over $11 billion a year towards international climate finance. This demonstrates that the U.S. is starting to play the fuller role in climate finance that many have been calling for. The more than six-fold increase since fiscal year 2021 is delivering real benefits for people, nature, and avoiding dangerous climate impacts. By stepping up its efforts, the U.S. is not only supporting international climate action but also creating new markets and more resilient supply chains for its own green goods and services. It will be good for the world and good for the US if these increases continue." 

Tracking Climate Action United States U.S. Climate G20 climate finance COP29 Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

Securing the Future of U.S. Industries with Decarbonization wil.thomas@wri.org Fri, 11/15/2024 - 16:16

With carbon border adjustments like in European Union taking effect and gaining traction globally, industries around the world will be expected to produce lower carbon products and reduce their emissions or pay import fees to the recipient country based on their emissions. While this trend is in its infancy, it is likely to grow as countries around the world increase efforts to mitigate climate change.  The United States must leverage existing federal provisions and put in place new, innovative policies to reduce emissions from its industrial sector to secure the future of American industries and ensure their continued competitiveness in global markets.

The heavy industries which produce the concrete, steel and chemicals that the U.S. economy depends on also produce 23% of the country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. And, according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group, the industrial sector is projected to become the highest emitting sector in the U.S. by the early 2030s. While the power sector has reduced emissions by 36% since 2005, emissions from heavy industry have essentially remained stagnant, only decreasing 7% by 2023. According to Rhodium’s modeling, GHG emissions for the industrial sector will remain the same or increase slightly by 2035 before decreasing only 5 to 10% below 2022 levels by 2040, while emissions from the transport and power sectors are expected to decrease consistently through 2040.

Nevertheless, momentum to tackle industrial emissions is gaining speed. In the last few years, the U.S. Congress has passed some of the most ambitious and significant pieces of climate change legislation in the world. Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the CHIPS and Science Act (CHIPS), around $133 billion of funding is directed to programs related to the industrial sector (as outlined in the table below). This includes funding for programs like the Industrial Demonstrations Program, which are specifically geared toward industrial decarbonization, as well as those like the Hydrogen Hubs program or the 45Q Carbon Oxide Capture and Sequestration tax credit, which are not industrial decarbonization-specific programs, but can help to reduce emissions from the industrial sector.

Of this approximately $133 billion available for industrial-relevant programs through the BIL, IRA and CHIPS, we estimate that around $18 billion of government funding will be dedicated to decarbonizing heavy industry through grants and loans with additional support available through tax incentives.

These policies not only accelerate emissions reductions — they are also creating jobs across the U.S, and revitalizing communities.  Overall, the policies within the BIL, IRA and CHIPS are estimated to create 336,000 manufacturing jobs annually throughout the duration of the programs. The projects catalyzed by these policies can help revitalize low-income and traditional manufacturing communities. The Industrial Demonstrations Program alone, through its $6.3 billion of public grants and approximately $15 billion in stimulated private investments, is expected to create at least 7,000 permanent manufacturing jobs, upskill around 4,000 jobs, and generate over 20,000 temporary construction jobs throughout 31 major manufacturing projects across the country. Much of this investment from the IRA and BIL is being directed to low-income, historical manufacturing communities in states like Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Louisiana and Texas. Furthermore, these policies will boost American competitiveness in international markets that increasingly prioritize climate considerations. As markets like the EU increasingly favor low-carbon products, these industrial decarbonization policies will position U.S. manufacturing to more effectively compete in the global arena.

More Momentum Is Needed to Decarbonize the Industrial Sector

While this funding for industrial decarbonization is unprecedented, it is still just a fraction of the amount needed to put the sector on track to reach net-zero emissions and remain globally competitive. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that between $700 billion and $1.1 trillion in public and private investments will be needed to decarbonize U.S. heavy industry by 2050. In addition, the grants, tax credits and green procurement policies featured in the BIL, IRA and CHIPS represent only a few of the diverse suite of policy mechanisms that will be needed to achieve deep and rapid decarbonization of the industrial sector. Other policies that can put the sector on track include more industrial-focused tax credits and subsidies, more market stimulating demand-side policies like advance market commitments and market-based policies like a low-carbon product standard. These policies, among others, can be the basis of the next generation of federal industrial policies to compliment and support those in the BIL, IRA and CHIPS.

Industrial decarbonization policies present real opportunities for bipartisan cooperation in Congress. A few recent examples include the Concrete and Asphalt Innovation Act, IMPACT Act and IMPACT Act 2.0 — all bipartisan bills geared toward decarbonizing the asphalt, cement and concrete sectors through research and development and green procurement. Another bill, the PROVE IT Act, seeks to collect data on various emissions-intensive products and was endorsed by a diverse bipartisan coalition of senators.

There is no time to waste. To keep the U.S. on track for a net-zero economy by 2050, it is essential to continue existing programs, disburse funding and lay the groundwork for policies to accelerate progress. This will help bolster a bright future for U.S. industries by spurring innovation, creating hundreds of thousands of green manufacturing jobs and ensuring American products are competitive in international markets.

Table: Provisions in recent legislation (BIL, IRA and CHIPS) and Department of Energy funding opportunity announcements relevant to the industrial sector.ProgramLegislationType of PolicyOverall Government FundingEstimated Funding for Industrial UsesHydrogen Hubs Demand-side ProgramBIL Sec. 40314Demand-side program$1 billion

Undetermined

 

Carbon Storage Validation and Testing ProjectsBIL Sec. 40305Grants$2.5 billion

Undetermined

 

Carbon Utilization Procurement GrantsBIL Sec. 40302Grants$310 million$310 million *Clean Hydrogen ElectrolysisBIL Sec. 40314Grants$1 billion

Undetermined

 

Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing and RecyclingBIL Sec. 40314Grants$500 million

Undetermined

 

Climate Pollution Reduction GrantsIRA Sec. 60114Grants$5 million$636 million †DOE Research, Development, and Demonstration ActivitiesCHIPS Sec. 10771Grants$11.2 billion$83.33 million ††Energy Storage Demonstration and Pilot Grant ProgramBIL Sec. 41001Grants$355 million

Undetermined

 

EPD Assistance ProgramIRA Sec. 60112Grants$250 million$250 million *Fission for the Future ProgramCHIPS Sec. 10781Grants$800 million

Undetermined

 

Front-end Engineering and Design Studies for CO2 Transport InfrastructureBIL Sec. 40303Grants$100 million$33 million ¶IEDO FY23 Multi-topic Funding Opportunity AnnouncementDE-FOA-0002997Grants$171 million$171 million *IEDO FY24 Energy and Emissions Intensive Industries Funding Opportunity AnnouncementDE-FOA-0003219Grants$83 million$83 million *Industrial Efficiency and Decarbonization (IEDO) Funding Opportunity AnnouncementDE-FOA-0002804Grants$135 million$135 million *Industrial Emission Demonstration Projects (IDP)BIL Sec. 41008Grants$500 million$500 million *Industrial Research and Assessment Center Implementation GrantsBIL Sec. 40521Grants$150 million$150 million *Industrial Research and Assessment CentersBIL Sec. 40521Grants$400 million$400 million *Low Emissions Steel Manufacturing Research ProgramCHIPS Sec. 10751Grants

Undetermined

 

Undetermined

 

Low-Embodied Carbon Labeling Program for Construction MaterialsIRA Sec. 60116Grants$100 million$100 million *Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs ProgramBIL Sec. 40314Grants$7 billion$1.2 billion §Technology Commercialization Fund (TCF)IRAGrants$15 million$15 million *Advanced Energy Manufacturing and Recycling GrantsBIL Sec. 40209Grants$750 million$375 million §Advanced Industrial Facilities Deployment Program (IDP)IRA Sec. 50161Grants$5.81 billion$5.81 billion *Carbon Capture and Storage Large Scale Pilot ProjectsBIL Sec. 41004Grants$937 million$562 million §Carbon Capture Demonstration ProjectsBIL Sec. 41004Grants$2.53 billion$773 million ||Carbon Dioxide Transport Infrastructure Finance and Innovation ProgramBIL Sec. 40304Grants$2.1 billion

Undetermined

 

Carbon Materials Science InitiativeCHIPS Sec. 10102Grants$250 million

Undetermined

 

LPO Funding for Title 17 Clean Energy Financing ProgramIRA Sec. 50141Loans$40 billion$1.39 billion #Federal Buy Clean Initiative: Federal Highway AdministrationIRA Sec. 60506Procurement$2 billion$2 billion *Federal Buy Clean Initiative: FEMAIRA Sec. 70006ProcurementUndetermined

Undetermined

 

Federal Buy Clean Initiative: General Services AdministrationIRA Sec. 60503Procurement$2.15 billion$2.15 billion *45Q Carbon Oxide SequestrationIRA Sec. 13104Tax Credit~$30.3 million **

Undetermined

 

45V Clean Hydrogen PTCIRA Sec. 13204Tax Credit~$4.7 billion***

Undetermined

 

48C Advanced Energy Project CreditIRA Sec. 13501Tax Credit$10 billion$1.3 billion §Total Funding  

$133.1 billion

 

$18.43 billion

 

Footnotes

* Industrial Specific Program
† U.S. EPA
†† 5 out of 48 Active ARPA E Programs relate to industry. (US DOE, n.d.-b) Assuming all programs receive equal shares of funds, this fraction extrapolated to the $1 billion of ARPA E funding suggests $83.3 million will be directed to industry.
¶ First funding announcement had 3 projects, each selected to receive $3 million. 1/3 of the recipients is linked to industry.(Business Wire 2023) Assuming the first funding announcement is representative of the final funding, $3 million out of $9 million is extrapolated to $33 million out of the total $100 million.
§ Kielty 2024
|| DOE’s first round of 3 awards didn’t include industrial sector projects. In DOE’s second round Notice of Intent, 2 of the 3 awards totaling $750M were anticipated to be in the industrial sector. Assuming equal distribution among the awards, $500M of the $1.64B of funding announced in the first and second rounds will go to industry. If the remaining funding is allocated according to the same proportion as these first two rounds, a further $273M will be devoted to industrial projects, totaling $773M.
# Two industrial projects received $1.2 billion of the $34.9 billion in loans given through LPO’s Title XVII program. (US DOE, n.d.-a) Assuming this is representative of the total $40 billions of funds, $1.398 billion will be directed toward industrial sectors.
** Congressional Research Service 2023
***Congressional Research Service 2024

midlothian-cement-plant-dallas-texas.jpg U.S. Climate industry climate policy GHG emissions Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Industrial Decarbonization

Authors Willy Carlsen Ankita Gangotra

STATEMENT: Multiple Countries Commit to 6x Global Energy Storage and Modernize Grid to Advance Clean Energy Economy darla.vanhoorn… Fri, 11/15/2024 - 14:16

BAKU, AZERBAIJAN (November 15, 2024) – At COP29, countries including UK, Uruguay, Belgium and Sweden committed to increasing the amount of global energy storage sixfold compared to 2022 levels, or 1,500 Gigawatts of capacity by 2030. The commitment comes a year after 133 countries committed at COP28 to tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling rates of energy efficiency by 2030.

Following is a statement from Jennifer Layke, Global Director, Energy, World Resources Institute:  

“Energy storage and the power grid are essential for clean energy delivery but for too long they were not on the political agenda. This declaration signals that policymakers are committed to following through on their energy transition commitments and delivering clean energy to people. Now countries should make these pledges a reality by including specific goals for storage and the grid in their NDCs, national energy policies and plans and investments.

“Paired with last year’s pledges to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency, this pledge completes the trifecta of global goals we need to build the clean, secure, resilient power system. Grid losses in 2018 were estimated to result in 1 gigaton of carbon emissions – with IEA data showing that over 70 countries lost above 10% of their power due to poor transmission and distribution infrastructure. Those wasted electrons are valuable assets to extend the reach of renewable, clean power for more people to benefit, and to electrify the economy as efficiently as possible. Grid investments should also include mini-grids as well as extending transmission and distribution infrastructure and upgrading existing power lines.

“Storage must include support for distributed as well as utility scale batteries, pumped-hydropower, and other longer duration opportunities One emerging opportunity for countries is to repurpose electric vehicle batteries for ‘second life’ applications. With the mass adoption of electric vehicles in the coming years, there will come with it a surge in the production of batteries and the retirement of automotive batteries. These EV batteries can be used in second-life applications as storage for renewable energy.” 

Energy COP29 electric grid Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

STATEMENT: Countries Commit to 6x Global Energy Storage and Modernize Grid to Advance Clean Energy Economy darla.vanhoorn… Fri, 11/15/2024 - 06:56

BAKU, AZERBAIJAN (November 15, 2024) – At COP29, countries including the US, UK, Brazil, the UAE and Saudi Arabia committed to increasing the amount of global energy storage sixfold compared to 2022 levels, or 1,500 Gigawatts of capacity by 2030. In addition, there was a commitment to add or refurbish 80 million kilometers of electricity grids by 2040. The commitment comes a year after 133 countries committed at COP28 to tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling rates of energy efficiency by 2030. 

Following is a statement from Jennifer Layke, Global Director, Energy, World Resources Institute:  

“Energy storage and the power grid are essential to the clean energy transition, but for too long have not been center-stage. This declaration signals that policymakers are now adding these essential services to their energy transition priority list. Now countries should turn this pledge into results by including specific goals for storage and the grid in their NDCs, national energy policies and plans, and investments. 

“Paired with last year’s commitments to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency, this pledge creates a trifecta of global goals we need to build the clean, secure, resilient power system that benefits people. 

“One vital way that countries can meet the ambitious storage goal is by repurposing electric vehicle batteries for ‘second life’ applications. With the mass adoption of electric vehicles in the coming years, there will come with it a surge in the production of batteries.  

“At their end of life, these EV batteries could be destined for recycling, but intrepid government agencies and corporations could establish marketplaces and build political will for battery collection and deployment in less demanding applications, such as storage for renewable energy. This can help bridge the gap in getting to 1,500 gigawatts of storage and prevent batteries from generating unnecessary waste.” 

“Investment in grid infrastructure will also be essential as countries work toward a clean energy economy where no one is left behind. Energy efficiency often gets much less attention than other clean energy technologies but investing in a modern grid that minimizes transmission and distribution losses is essential if we’re going to optimize how electricity gets from the generator to people. As populations sprawl, governments also need to ensure that the electric grid can reach remote and historically underserved communities so they can benefit as much as those in urban centers.” 

Energy COP29 renewable energy Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0