The US Cannot Be a Climate Leader and the World’s Largest Oil and Gas Producer
At the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, the United States joined the rest of the world in endorsing a historic agreement to accelerate the “transition away from fossil fuels” this decade. As the biggest oil and gas producer in the world, the U.S. must lead the charge in this rapid shift if the world is going to avert a climate catastrophe.
The Biden-Harris administration has already taken some impressive steps to curb climate-wrecking pollution by reducing demand for fossil fuels — most notably by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, the country’s landmark climate legislation. But the U.S. hasn’t yet articulated how it will curb production of fossil fuels. To be an effective climate leader on the global stage, the country must do both.
Last year, the U.S. experienced a record 28 climate-connected weather disasters that each exceeded $1 billion in damage and killed nearly 500 Americans combined. Despite that grim milestone, a recent United Nations report found that our country plans to produce more oil and gas in 2030 than at any time in its history — the same fuels driving these disasters. This projection flies in the face of the White House’s stated desire to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and convince other nations to do the same.
Even as the world transitions to clean energy, some fossil fuels will continue to be used for decades. Given that reality, U.S. fossil fuel executives and their allies argue that America might as well supply this fuel by increasing oil and gas exports even while we work toward reducing domestic consumption. The problem is that every major energy producer in the world has the same idea.
The UN report shows that, taken together, government plans would result in global oil and gas production exceeding current levels until at least 2050. Should that much fossil fuel be produced, energy companies and markets would be expected to ensure that demand matches the supply — an outcome that would blow past agreed global temperature limits.
The U.S. can only seriously address climate change by rapidly cutting both fossil fuel demand and fossil fuel supply to zero, or at least near enough to zero, so that the remaining carbon dioxide emissions can be captured. Yet, while carbon capture technology may have a limited role to play, it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for fossil fuel producers. The International Energy Agency estimates that out of the 15 billion tons of emissions reductions needed by 2030, only 1 billion could be expected to be achieved through carbon capture.
Biden has an admirable record to build upon in expanding clean energy production. Clean energy investments totaled $213 billion nationwide from July 2022 to June 2023, and it’s estimated the Inflation Reduction Act will create 1.5 million more clean energy jobs by 2030. The law’s incentives will cut household energy bills and can save the average American thousands of dollars on electric vehicles, climate-friendly heat pumps and solar installation.
However, the president’s record on curbing fossil fuel production is much more problematic. Although his administration has called for ending fossil fuel production subsidies — an idea that has significant public support — Congress has yet to cut the billions of dollars in annual tax benefits that oil and gas producers have enjoyed for decades, despite oft-stated concerns about the federal deficit from both sides of the aisle. Now is the time for lawmakers to show both moral and fiscal responsibility and stop subsidizing the fuels that are causing climate chaos.
Notably, Biden has more direct control over fossil fuel production on federal lands, but he is currently outpacing former President Trump in approving oil and gas drilling on them. He needs to commit unambiguously to ending this practice.
Earlier this year the administration greenlit the massive Willow Project that will open thousands of acres of Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling and is estimated to emit 287 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. In other areas, Biden has restricted fossil fuel production, such as prohibiting drilling in parts of the pristine National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and revoking permits to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge issued by Trump. But overall, U.S. oil production is at record levels — and the administration currently has no plan for reducing it, even as demand for oil declines due to the rise of electric vehicles.
Finally, the president has an immediate opportunity to significantly cut greenhouse gas pollution with a single stroke of his pen, by denying permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals that, if authorized, would quadruple U.S. LNG export capacity. If approved, these projects would lock in climate-warming emissions and fossil fuel dependence that will slow the adoption of clean energy. LNG is mostly methane, which produces carbon dioxide when burned and is 80 times more potent at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years when it leaks — undermining efforts to alleviate near-term warming and the extreme weather disasters it causes.
Any new oil and LNG projects would also take years to build, meaning they would become operational too late to alleviate the energy security challenges created by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The transition away from fossil fuels is essential, but it won’t be seamless. The shift will necessarily impact the lives of fossil fuel workers and communities. It’s crucial that the U.S. supports those whose livelihoods currently depend on these industries to ensure that the transition is just and equitable. Importantly, the Inflation Reduction Act includes bonus incentives for clean energy projects built in legacy energy communities and invests in programs that can take advantage of oil workers’ skills, such as capping abandoned oil and gas wells and developing geothermal energy.
Biden can’t lead the world away from climate catastrophe while doubling down on oil and gas development. Reducing demand for fossil fuels is only half of the equation. To create a safe climate and a prosperous future, he must fill in the other half with an equally ambitious plan to curb fossil fuel production.
This piece originally appeared in The Messenger on 12/8/23. It was updated on January 22, 2024.
california-solar.jpg Climate Climate COP28 U.S. Climate Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Dan LashofCarbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2024
Along with deep emissions reduction and enhancement of nature-based removals, removing carbon from the air through novel, technological means such as direct air capture is an essential tool to help keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F). Leveraging the purchasing power of the federal government can drive market development in this burgeoning industry, while removing millions of tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and directing growth in a way that creates good jobs and prioritizes equity and verifiable removal outcomes. As carbon removal is largely a public good, the government has a distinct role in supporting its development and deployment.
The Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act was reintroduced by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) in the U.S. House of Representatives and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in the U.S. Senate. First introduced in 2022 by the same policymakers, this updated version of the bill would:
- Direct the Department of Energy (DOE) to procure an increasing amount of technology-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR), culminating in the removal of 10 million net metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) on a lifecycle basis starting in fiscal year 2035.
- Support a diverse portfolio of viable CDR projects — including a carve-out for 20% of the tons of CO2 removal to come from small-scale projects.
- Prioritize projects that deliver economic opportunity to areas likely to be impacted by the transition away from fossil fuels; emphasize public engagement and community benefits; and quantify and mitigate any environmental justice impacts.
- Direct DOE, in coordination with other agencies, to establish standards for monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon removal procured.
- Require a report starting in 2027 and every two years after that on the progress toward meeting these procurement targets, including description of removal process, amount and price; impacts on environmental justice communities, the environment and health; and labor impacts.
- Lastly, as an addition from the 2022 version of this bill, it would require DOE, in consultation with other agencies, to submit a report one year after this bill passes examining options for a federal carbon dioxide removal offtake program.
Alongside immediate and significant emission reductions, enacting policies that will increase global technological CDR capacity is critical to meet the scale of CDR needed to stay below 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) of global warming. That means that to avoid the worst impacts of climate change around the world — from increasingly deadly extreme weather events to mounting sea level rise — rapid growth in the technological carbon removal sector is necessary. But technological CDR is a new industry that is providing a public good, and it does not yet have an immediate, at-scale market. Technological CDR is generally a costly investment today, and it needs reliable customers like the federal government that want to pay for the climate services it provides so it can scale up and reduce costs.
Carbon removal technologies such as direct air capture are designed specifically to clean excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Federal contracts can help grow these innovative industries. Photo by Climeworks
The federal government has the capacity to be a transformational customer for technological CDR. Long-term, dependable federal purchasing of technological CDR, as proposed in the Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act, would serve as a significant and reliable source of demand for this new market, accelerating CDR deployment in the U.S. The federal government also has the responsibility to serve as a global leader in this emerging industry, given the U.S.’s historically-outsized global emissions footprint.
Further, the government can and should require contractors to responsibly use those federal dollars to deliver demonstrable results across a range of national priorities in addition to climate, such as equitable economic development and high-road labor practices. Federal CDR procurement should pair with policies that ensure its long-term efficacy, manage and mitigate any negative impacts, and maximize the benefits of resulting economic opportunity for underserved and over-polluted communities, and communities negatively impacted by the clean energy transition. Requirements and prioritization around equity, environmental integrity and responsible growth, like those in the Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act, are one tool for ensuring CDR contributes to an equitable net-zero transition and could help set precedents for the industry more broadly.
us-capitol-building.jpg U.S. Climate carbon removal carbon removal legislation & policy Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 ProjectsThe First Cohort of Entrepreneurs Driving Rwanda’s Circular Food Systems
An estimated 150 million people across Africa faced catastrophic levels of food insecurity in 2023. The latest data shows that 47.4 million people in Central and Southern Africa, 56.9 million in East Africa, and 41.5 million in West and Sahel Africa experienced food crisis and starvation in 2023.
At the same time, sub-Saharan Africa loses a significant amount of food, with grains alone accounting for $4 billion a year — more than the value of total food aid received in sub-Saharan Africa over the past decade, and equivalent to the annual value of cereal imports.
Reducing food loss and waste is essential to achieve a sustainable food future in Africa and globally Africa will need to move towards circularity and zero-waste principles in all areas of the food value chain, from production to consumption.
The Circular Food Systems for Rwanda project, funded by the IKEA Foundation, seeks to create a circular economy for food and promote sustainable food systems in Rwanda, working to translate global ambitions of a circular economy on food systems into real outcomes.
Rwanda has the unique opportunity to revolutionize its food systems through a circular economy, which aims to minimize waste through the efficient use, reuse and recycling of products. More than 70% of Rwanda's population is involved in agriculture, with six million residents being small scale producers. The sector accounts for 33% of the country’s GDP. At the same time, UNEP’s Food Waste Index 2021 report estimates that Rwanda wastes a staggering 164kg of food every year. A transition to a circular economy could dramatically improve the economic, social and environmental impacts of the food system.
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of Rwanda’s economy, providing 41% of private sector jobs. The Rwandan Ministry of Trade & Industry reports that 98% of businesses in the country are small and medium enterprises. They are thus uniquely positioned to capture a meaningful market share in newly emerging circular food systems.
Despite this, SME’s lack sufficient resources and capacity.
The Circular Food Systems for Rwanda Project, through its SME Fund, provides SMEs with access to education, technical assistance and networking opportunities to help them build and sustain successful circular business models. In June 2023, the application process for the first cohort of the SME Fund opened. Seventy-five applicants from across Rwanda applied and seven were chosen to receive technical assistance provided through the SME Fund. Selected SMEs will be paired with technical assistance providers in their sector to receive the support they need to grow their businesses and explore circular economy opportunities in their country.
Meet the seven chosen SMEs: from sustainable agriculture to innovative technology, these entrepreneurs are making an impact and driving positive change. Africa Foods Supply LTD Bonaventure NsabimanaLocation: Kamonyi District, Southern Province
Contact: Serge Ganza | Email: africafoodssupply@gmail.com
Africa Food Supply (AFS) was established in 2016 to provide locally grown and sourced, high quality, nutritional, fresh vegetables, fruits and grains. They are currently growing tomatoes, sweet potatoes, zucchini, pineapples and cucumbers. Africa Foods Supply LTD applies a farm-to-table concept whereby they grow crops for their restaurant and provide surplus for other markets. The company currently caters for local markets in Kamonyi and Kigali, Rwanda, with plans to expand nationwide. While much of their production comes from their own fields at present, Africa Foods Supply LTD began by working with farmer cooperatives in the area. These farmers have now been integrated into the production and sales system AFS established. The company is currently expanding the business into a bakery, coffee shop and a small processing facility.
Glory Mixed Farm Bonaventure NsabimanaLocation: Nyagatare District, Eastern Province
Contact: Mukagacinya Agathe | Email: glorymixedfarmltd@gmail.com
Glory Mixed Farm is a privately owned business. The Farm opened in 2008 and practices a range of agropastoral faming activities, producing and selling animal and crop products such as pigs, chicken, eggs, maize, tomato, rice and banana. The company also produces and sells manure to local farmers. The company has its corporate office in Kigali, Rwanda with farmland in Nyagatare District, Eastern province of Rwanda.
Golden Insect LTD Bonaventure NsabimanaLocation: Musanze District, Southern Province
Contact: Dominique Xavio Imbabazi | Email: dximbabazi@gmail.com
Golden Insect LTD is a company that specializes in commercial breeding of insects and insect-related macro and microorganisms for feed, food and organic fertilizer. They breed black soldier flies, giant African land snails and earthworms (red worms), with a central focus on minimizing food loss and waste through red worms that covert bio-waste into high-quality organic fertilizers in solid (vermicompost) and liquid form (vermiliquid). So far, they have been able to transform 10 tons of food waste every month.
Kigasali Coffee Company LTD Bonaventure NsabimanaLocation: Gasabo District, Kigali City
Contact: Niyoneza Didier | Email: kigasali2023@gmail.com
Kigasali Coffee Company has been engaged in coffee processing since 2016. It exports its products, as well as sells them in the Rwandan market. Kigasali employs 5,108 farmers and hires only women for selection of coffee before processing. Recently, the company has started using fresh coffee waste to produce organic fertilizers.
MNB Ltd Bonaventure NsabimanaLocation: Rubavu District, Western Province
Contact: Zilipa Nyirabyago | Email: nyzilipa@yahoo.fr
MNB Ltd was established in 2012 with a vision to fight against hunger and malnutrition, while creating sustainable jobs in both rural and urban areas in Rwanda. MNB recycles agricultural waste, such as soya residues and dried coffee pulp, to produce various eco-responsible circular food products. MNB uses a zero-waste mushrooms value chain that aims to minimize waste production as much as possible by composting, reusing or recycling any waste generated. Through this process, the company produces organic compost and sells it to local farmers. MNB Ltd would like to promote a similar business model of circularity to low-income farmers, especially women and youth with small land, to enable them to grow into sustainable agro-entrepreneurs.
Next Farm LTD Bonaventure NsabimanaLocation: Rulindo District, Northern Province
Contact: Uwineza Henriette | Email: nextfarm2023@gmail.com
Next Farm was created with a mission to promote the efficient and effective use of agriculture subproducts and waste by reusing and recycling them. By doing so, the company strives to improve the livelihood of nearby communities through sustainable food supply. Next farm specializes in pig farming, producing sausages and selling pork to local customers. They also engage in growing crops, such as banana, Irish potatoes and maize — mainly as feed for their pigs — and produce and sell compost they make using animal manure.
Tech Adopter Bonaventure NsabimanaLocation: Kicukiro District, Kigali
Contact: Israel Niyonshuti | Email: niyonshutiisrael1@gmail.com
Tech Adopter is an Agri-Tech engineering company with a mission to empower Rwandan farmers with innovative agricultural solutions that increase productivity, reduce costs, minimize waste and improve livelihoods. The company manufactures affordable and customized agricultural equipment for harvesting and processing crops.
rwanda-grass-collection.jpg Food Rwanda Food circular economy Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Tsion IssayasADVISORY: World Resources Institute’s Stories to Watch 2024
WASHINGTON (January 18, 2024) - Join WRI’s President & CEO Ani Dasgupta on Tuesday, January 23, 2024 from 9:00-10:15am EST / 15:00-16:15 CET for Stories to Watch event — insights into the big moments, trends and people that will shape 2024 and the years to come.
In WRI’s Stories to Watch 2024, WRI’s President & CEO, Ani Dasgupta, presents four key stories that help explain how we can make the necessary shifts toward a net zero, climate-resilient future. Each story focuses on a key issue connected to this transition, how the issue impacts people’s lives and livelihoods, and asks what needs to be done.
Join Ani as he shares insights and ideas about the most pressing questions for the year ahead:
• Climate: Adapting Politics to 1.5º C. With more than half the planet voting in elections in 2024, how will domestic politics shape global climate action?
• Food: Reforming What Feeds Us. How can we realize the enormous potential of the food and land system in tackling climate change?
• The Grid: Leadership for Critical Infrastructure. What needs to be done with electricity grids to unleash the renewable revolution?
• Heat: Tackling the Silent Killer. How do we address heat, the silent killer of climate change?
This year, Stories to Watch will be an entirely virtual event. It will be presented in English with simultaneous interpretation in French, Portuguese, and Spanish. After the presentation, there will be a live Q&A with Ani and other WRI experts.
WHAT
Stories to Watch 2024
WHO
Ani Dasgupta is President and CEO of WRI, where he works to advance the institute’s global vision to improve the lives of all people and ensure that nature can thrive. Dasgupta is a widely recognized leader in the areas of sustainable cities, urban design and poverty alleviation.
The event will also feature WRI leaders from the around the world, including Jaya Dhindaw in India (Executive Program Director, Sustainable Cities, WRI India), Wanjira Mathai in Kenya (Managing Director for Africa and Global Partnerships), Stientje van Veldhoven in the Netherlands (Vice President and Regional Director for Europe), and Jennifer Chen in the U.S. (Senior Manager, Clean Energy).
WHEN
Tuesday, January 23, 2024, from 9:00-10:15am EST / 15:00-16:15 CET
WHERE
Stories to Watch will be entirely virtual this year as an online webinar.
To register, click here: Stories to Watch 2024 Webinar Registration
For questions, please email Alison Cinnamond: Alison.Cinnamond@wri.org
Biomass Can Fight Climate Change, but Only if You Do it Right
Biomass is fast becoming a topic of interest for governments looking for solutions to the climate crisis and cleaner energy sources. Of its multiple potential uses, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) may be one of the best ways it can help achieve net-zero emissions goals. However, even with the best intentions, guidelines are needed to ensure a truly carbon-negative impact.
What Is Biomass and How Can it Curb Climate Change?Biomass refers to any material that comes from living things, including wood and bark from trees, leaves or stems from plants, and even animal manure. When it comes to fighting climate change, carbon-rich biomass material can be used to remove carbon from the atmosphere, or it can be an alternative to fossil fuels for producing energy. In this context, biomass can be grown for the sole purpose of supplying material, or it can be collected as waste that results from other processes, such as agriculture and forestry.
Corn is a common crop used for biomass production. Agricultural waste, such as corn stover — the parts of the corn plant that are not harvested for food production — is one way to use the crop more sustainably. Photo by Matauw/Shutterstock.However, unsustainable use of the finite biomass supply may hamper decarbonization efforts. If it is purposefully grown for fuel or as a carbon removal feedstock, biomass can be land-intensive and carry large carbon and environmental impacts. Purpose-grown biomass can displace food production, lower carbon sequestration potential and increase emissions from fertilizer, irrigation and harvest equipment used in the process.
In the U.S., for example, if decarbonization policies continue to incentivize purpose-grown biomass crops, particularly corn or soy crops or whole trees, there is a danger that these policies will move the U.S. further from its climate goals.
On the other hand, if sourced sustainably, biomass from wastes and residues from agriculture and forestry can support decarbonization.
To build a net-zero economy by 2050, biomass needs to come from only those sources that are truly carbon-negative. As many industries, including carbon removal, turn to biomass to help fight climate change, sustainable sourcing will be critical.
The Role of Biomass in Carbon RemovalThe molecular structure of biomass contains a lot of carbon that originates from absorbed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This means that biomass has high carbon removal potential when it is used to make products, such as hydrogen or fuels, and is paired with a method for durable carbon sequestration.
Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS) can provide decarbonization benefits both by producing products that replace fossil fuels and by producing carbon that can be stored. Whereas some plans for biomass energy prioritize energy generation, BiCRS prioritizes carbon removal and produces byproducts that can be used for energy.
According to Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL), the amount of CO2 removal that can be achieved by 2050 in the U.S. using a sustainable biomass supply is estimated to be 884 million tons per year, equivalent to the amount of CO2 emitted by about 200 million cars each year.
Different chemical and physical processes break down biomass and turn it into energy, fuel or products while capturing the carbon that is contained in biomass. Some BiCRS pathways that are most promising for supporting economy-wide decarbonization are:
- Gasification, a process that produces synthesis gas, which can be used to produce liquid fuels, or hydrogen. Hydrogen can provide energy storage or be further reformed to create clean electrofuels or chemicals. Up to 100% of the carbon from these processes can be captured and sequestered underground.
- Pyrolysis, a high-heat process that creates charcoal-like biochar and bio-oil. Biochar can be used as a soil additive that sequesters carbon, and bio-oil can be injected underground or mixed with products like asphalt to provide carbon removal, or it can be further refined to make hydrogen or other valuable fuels.
- Products and burial, a pathway that relies on the natural ability of forest residue and wood to decay slowly. Forestry residues that are too small to be used for timber can be used to create other building materials like particle board that store carbon. Biomass can also be permanently buried in special underground containers when the transportation of waste biomass is difficult. Biomass burial may be a cost-effective BiCRS pathway in some areas, such as in forests with high fire risk and large quantities of flammable biomass.
- Fermentation, a process of turning biomass into alcohol and capturing the carbon that is produced. Today, most biomass fermentation uses corn to make ethanol, but the production of biofuels using biomass wastes and residues is a more sustainable option.
While there is potential for BiCRS to play a significant role in U.S. carbon removal, some BiCRS pathways like biomass burial and underground injection of bio-oil are in development or only exist at a pilot scale. Other BiCRS approaches like biomass gasification for carbon removal and hydrogen production will require costly new facilities to create a steady demand for biomass for these uses.
Despite the nascence of these approaches, companies are attracting millions of dollars of federal and private investment, signaling the likely expansion of the industry. BiCRS accounts for 90% of carbon removal that has been delivered through the voluntary carbon offset market to date. As the industry grows, it is critical that it be held to high biomass sourcing standards. Otherwise, there is a danger that BiCRS will grow to rely on feedstocks that displace other critical land uses and fail to provide carbon removal.
How to Sustainably Source Biomass in the USThe use of biomass is often assumed to have net-zero carbon emissions since plants sequester carbon as they grow. However, such assumptions overlook sacrificed land carbon sequestration, the time it takes for plants and trees to regenerate, and the emissions associated with growing crops and refining biomass to create products. To be truly carbon-negative and sustainable, biomass carbon removal should abide by the following principles of sourcing. (These principles are tailored to the U.S., but other countries or regions can and should develop their own.)
1) Prioritize wastes, residues and by-products.The sources of biomass most likely to be carbon negative are wastes, residues and by-products from unused plant or animal materials that result from normal farm, forestry or municipal operations. Agricultural waste can include corn stover — the parts of the corn plant that are not harvested for food production — rice hulls and nut shells. Forestry wastes include wood and paper mill residues, such as sawdust and black liquor — the substance that remains after the pulping of wood to make paper — and woody waste from forestry operations or dead wood from natural disasters. Finally, municipal waste comes from urban and residential areas and includes things like food waste from homes and restaurants.
Food waste is one way to sustainably source materials for biomass. Photo by joerngebhardt68/Shutterstock.Many wastes and residues are currently burned or left to decompose, which releases carbon into the atmosphere. Using wastes for BiCRS can avoid these emissions and replace more carbon-intensive energy sources, like fossil fuels. However, when wastes are removed from fields or forests, good management is essential for maintaining soil health and ecological functioning. Certain sustainable agricultural practices entail retaining residues, as the decomposition of dead material is an important ecological process. More research is needed to determine the appropriate amount of agricultural and forestry wastes that should be left on farms and forest floors to maintain soil health.
The recent analysis by LLNL projects a potential future supply of almost 500 million dry tons per year of biomass wastes and residues that could be used for CDR by 2050. This study includes agriculture, forestry and municipal waste, including wood from fire treatments in western U.S. forests.
2) Forestry wastes, residues and by-products should come from ecologically managed forests.
When done responsibly, BiCRS may provide a win-win opportunity by using material from forestry practices that would otherwise decay or burn. However, there is a danger that growing a market for forestry wastes could incentivize over-harvesting of forests and plantations. This is particularly relevant for western U.S. forests, where excess woody biomass must be removed to prevent the risk of severe wildfires that could permanently damage a forest’s ability to sequester carbon. LLNL estimates that close to 108 million tons of biomass could be produced per year from wildfire mitigation treatments by 2050. Strong forestry governance and rigorous ecological management standards are needed; otherwise, a strong woody biomass market runs the risk of causing profit-driven suppliers to over-exploit forests.
Some organizations and companies are working to create sustainability standards to ensure effective, measurable and verifiable sustainability practices. The Forest Stewardship Council provides certification for forestry operations but does not address biomass sourcing specifically. Other companies and organizations, like Carbon Direct and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials, are working on certification criteria specifically for sustainably sourcing woody biomass from forests. Importantly, even where certification standards exist, enforcement is often a challenge that needs to be addressed.
3) Biomass crops should be limited to native perennial species on marginal lands.While the use of wastes and residues should be prioritized, there may be opportunities for certain crops to be grown for the purpose of carbon removal. This should only be done sparingly, ideally after waste sources are depleted. These crops should be limited to perennial species that are native to a given region to help reduce negative impacts to biodiversity, habitats, or water and nutrient cycling. For example, native perennial grasses on restored prairie lands can support biodiversity and can be harvested for CDR. Similarly, native trees grown on unused agricultural land for biomass can provide some of the ecosystem services of tree cover, including enhanced air quality and reduced soil erosion. Importantly, management of these crop systems should limit inputs of fertilizer, irrigation and tillage — all of which have associated greenhouse gas emissions and negative ecosystem impacts.
Purpose-grown biomass crops should also be limited to marginal lands, or lands that are technically designated for agriculture or other human use but are relatively unproductive. Marginal lands may include brownfield sites — areas which have contaminants or hazardous substances — abandoned mines, or former and unproductive agricultural lands, as long as they are not currently being cultivated for other purposes.
Biomass should not be grown on natural or protected lands. If natural lands are converted to biomass production systems, they will likely undergo a drastic decrease in carbon storage from either their vegetation, soil or both. As such, lands with large natural carbon stores in soil or aboveground vegetation should never be compromised for the sake of sourcing biomass. To protect other ecosystem services, companies sourcing biomass for CDR should ensure biomass is not grown in areas of high-conservation value.
Timber from the Chatahoochee National Forest in Georgia. Forestry wastes that can be used for biomass include wood and paper mill residues, such as sawdust and black liquor — the substance that remains after the pulping of wood to make paper — and woody waste from forestry operations. Photo by Cecilio Ricardo / USDA Forest Service.Biomass should also not be grown on prime farmland, which could displace food production or cause expansion of crop production to other, less productive lands. This indirect land use change could have high carbon costs. Because of this, dedicated corn or soy crops for biofuel production are not appropriate sources of carbon dioxide removal. Even if the biofuel production includes carbon capture and sequestration, emissions related to growing these crops and displaced food production prevent these biofuel systems from being carbon negative.
The LLNL study, which applied sustainability criteria to their projections, shows the potential to annually harvest up to 129.4 million dry tons of native switchgrass on marginal lands and 17.8 million dry tons per year from mowing restored prairie on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands by 2050. If future policies incentivize harvest from CRP land, policy guardrails must protect wildlife habitat and other ecosystem benefits.
Using Biomass ResponsiblyBiomass is a limited resource with many possible uses, from plastics and animal feed to energy generation and carbon removal. While BiCRS might be the most efficient use of biomass for supporting an economy-wide decarbonization, decision-makers should also consider alternative uses, particularly those that involve long-term carbon storage, like durable and recyclable products. In some cases, the optimal climate benefit of biomass may be from leaving it in place on natural landscapes to preserve the ecosystem services it provides.
In all cases of biomass use, input from local and Indigenous communities must be carefully considered to ensure no harm is being done. Biomass processing facilities must take steps to minimize negative air and water quality impacts. And moreover, policymakers at all levels should enact policies or regulations to prevent any undue environmental burden of biomass harvesting, processing or usage on historically disadvantaged communities.
With the growing demand for biomass, policymakers will also have to create guidelines and policies that can be tailored to the complex realities of different biomass types and BiCRS methods. Guardrails must prevent the use of biomass feedstocks that contribute to land use change, cause environmental degradation, or do not truly remove carbon.
biomass-corn-farming.jpg U.S. Climate carbon removal agriculture Food Loss and Waste Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects Authors Audrey Denvir Haley Leslie-Bole