Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Carbon Removal Is Catching On, but It Needs to Go Faster

News Feed
Monday, June 10, 2024

CLIMATEWIRE | The world still isn’t sucking enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to meet the Paris climate targets, scientists said Tuesday. And the gap grows wider every year that humanity delays meaningful cuts to global greenhouse gas emissions.That’s the punchline of a new report on the state of global carbon dioxide removal, the practice of drawing CO2 out of the air to help tackle climate change. It's an update to the report's first edition, which was published in January 2023.Nations worldwide are scrubbing about 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, mainly by planting trees, the report says. But experts estimate they’ll need to remove at least 7 billion tons annually by midcentury.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Meanwhile, global emissions must fall rapidly to stay on the Paris track. Humanity spews nearly 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year through the burning of fossil fuels.Scientists agree the primary strategy for tackling climate change is through a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mainly by phasing out fossil fuels and halting deforestation. But they also agree at least some carbon removal is necessary to keep global warming below 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, the major goals of the Paris Agreement.That’s because global emissions must reach net zero within a few decades to meet the Paris timeline, meaning any remaining carbon going into the atmosphere must be counterbalanced by an equal amount coming out.Carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, is the "only way really to provide a balance of net zero if we still have residual emissions in the system,” said Steve Smith, a climate science and policy expert at the University of Oxford and a lead author of the new report, at a press conference Tuesday.The simplest way to hit net zero is to stop pouring carbon dioxide into the air. But some sectors of the economy likely cannot be fully decarbonized within the next few decades, either because the technology doesn’t exist yet or it can’t be scaled up quickly enough.That means some residual emissions will be leftover by midcentury, and world leaders will need to offset them with carbon removal.There are a variety of ways that can be done. Planting forests is the most popular strategy today, accounting for nearly all the carbon removal happening around the world. But researchers are working on a range of novel techniques on the side, from giant carbon-guzzling machines to special minerals that help the land or the ocean absorb more CO2.Global interest and investment in carbon removal has risen in recent years, the report notes.While novel CDR strategies account for less than 0.1 percent of global carbon removal capacity, they’re expanding faster than conventional methods, the new report finds. Grant funding for carbon removal research projects has steadily increased.And there’s been a major jump in demonstration programs for new kinds of carbon removal techniques, particularly in the United States. The country’s first commercial direct air capture plant, built by Heirloom Carbon Technologies, opened in California last November.Yet there’s still room for expansion. After a period of rapid growth in prior decades, new carbon removal patents have slowed since 2010. And while investment in carbon removal startups has generally increased over the past decade, it’s also declined after peaking in 2022.There’s also a dearth of global policies that could incentivize companies to swiftly scale up their carbon removal capacity, the report notes.For now, the voluntary carbon market — which allows companies and other carbon emitters to buy and sell carbon credits — is a small but growing source of demand for carbon removal projects.Yet the market has attracted widespread criticism from experts who point out that carbon offsets are often less effective at reducing or removing emissions than the public is led to believe. And as of 2023, carbon removal credits accounted for less than 10 percent of the total credits sold on the voluntary carbon market.That means there’s still a need for governments to implement policies that will spur more carbon removal innovation and expansion, the report suggests.“We don’t see that policy signal yet,” said Greg Nemet, an environmental policy expert at the University of Wisconsin and another lead report author. “And we think that’s a really important lacking area that needs to be changed from a policy perspective.”Mind the gapMeanwhile, the report notes, countries must flesh out their long-term plans around emissions reductions and carbon removal. Recent studies have warned that most nations have not yet assembled comprehensive strategies for how they will achieve net zero in the coming decades.Based on the long-term carbon removal plans that national governments have proposed, the new report estimates there’s still a significant gap between the amount of CDR expected by the year 2050 and the amount the world needs to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees.The size of the gap depends strongly on the strategies that world leaders use to reduce emissions and draw down carbon in the coming decades. The most sustainable pathways to meeting the Paris target generally suggest the world will need between 7 billion and 9 billion metric tons of carbon removal by the year 2050.But it could be done with less. One of the most ambitious future scenarios that experts have modeled suggests the world could achieve 1.5C with only about 4.8 billion metric tons of annual carbon removal by the year 2050.Based on countries’ current pledges, world leaders might get close. One of the best-case scenarios estimates the planet could be on track for about 4.4 billion tons of carbon removal by midcentury. That’s still a gap, but a relatively small one.But that scenario comes with an important caveat. The analysis assumes that global greenhouse emissions are swiftly falling. They haven’t — in fact, they’re still rising.That means the carbon removal gap likely is larger than the report suggests.Even as experts say that global carbon removal is falling short, some scientists are worried more investment could backfire. They argue that a focus on carbon removal could detract from global efforts to reduce emissions — potentially lulling world leaders into the belief they can clean up their excess emissions with technology in the future.But proponents of increased carbon removal say the practice is essential to achieving the Paris targets — and that world leaders should strive to reduce global emissions as quickly as possible.“Meeting the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goals requires rapid greenhouse gas emissions reduction and near-term scale up of CDR,” said Smith, the University of Oxford scientist. “It’s not really an either-or situation.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

World leaders must make plans to remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a new report says

CLIMATEWIRE | The world still isn’t sucking enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to meet the Paris climate targets, scientists said Tuesday. And the gap grows wider every year that humanity delays meaningful cuts to global greenhouse gas emissions.

That’s the punchline of a new report on the state of global carbon dioxide removal, the practice of drawing CO2 out of the air to help tackle climate change. It's an update to the report's first edition, which was published in January 2023.

Nations worldwide are scrubbing about 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, mainly by planting trees, the report says. But experts estimate they’ll need to remove at least 7 billion tons annually by midcentury.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Meanwhile, global emissions must fall rapidly to stay on the Paris track. Humanity spews nearly 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year through the burning of fossil fuels.

Scientists agree the primary strategy for tackling climate change is through a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mainly by phasing out fossil fuels and halting deforestation. But they also agree at least some carbon removal is necessary to keep global warming below 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, the major goals of the Paris Agreement.

That’s because global emissions must reach net zero within a few decades to meet the Paris timeline, meaning any remaining carbon going into the atmosphere must be counterbalanced by an equal amount coming out.

Carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, is the "only way really to provide a balance of net zero if we still have residual emissions in the system,” said Steve Smith, a climate science and policy expert at the University of Oxford and a lead author of the new report, at a press conference Tuesday.

The simplest way to hit net zero is to stop pouring carbon dioxide into the air. But some sectors of the economy likely cannot be fully decarbonized within the next few decades, either because the technology doesn’t exist yet or it can’t be scaled up quickly enough.

That means some residual emissions will be leftover by midcentury, and world leaders will need to offset them with carbon removal.

There are a variety of ways that can be done. Planting forests is the most popular strategy today, accounting for nearly all the carbon removal happening around the world. But researchers are working on a range of novel techniques on the side, from giant carbon-guzzling machines to special minerals that help the land or the ocean absorb more CO2.

Global interest and investment in carbon removal has risen in recent years, the report notes.

While novel CDR strategies account for less than 0.1 percent of global carbon removal capacity, they’re expanding faster than conventional methods, the new report finds. Grant funding for carbon removal research projects has steadily increased.

And there’s been a major jump in demonstration programs for new kinds of carbon removal techniques, particularly in the United States. The country’s first commercial direct air capture plant, built by Heirloom Carbon Technologies, opened in California last November.

Yet there’s still room for expansion. After a period of rapid growth in prior decades, new carbon removal patents have slowed since 2010. And while investment in carbon removal startups has generally increased over the past decade, it’s also declined after peaking in 2022.

There’s also a dearth of global policies that could incentivize companies to swiftly scale up their carbon removal capacity, the report notes.

For now, the voluntary carbon market — which allows companies and other carbon emitters to buy and sell carbon credits — is a small but growing source of demand for carbon removal projects.

Yet the market has attracted widespread criticism from experts who point out that carbon offsets are often less effective at reducing or removing emissions than the public is led to believe. And as of 2023, carbon removal credits accounted for less than 10 percent of the total credits sold on the voluntary carbon market.

That means there’s still a need for governments to implement policies that will spur more carbon removal innovation and expansion, the report suggests.

“We don’t see that policy signal yet,” said Greg Nemet, an environmental policy expert at the University of Wisconsin and another lead report author. “And we think that’s a really important lacking area that needs to be changed from a policy perspective.”

Mind the gap

Meanwhile, the report notes, countries must flesh out their long-term plans around emissions reductions and carbon removal. Recent studies have warned that most nations have not yet assembled comprehensive strategies for how they will achieve net zero in the coming decades.

Based on the long-term carbon removal plans that national governments have proposed, the new report estimates there’s still a significant gap between the amount of CDR expected by the year 2050 and the amount the world needs to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees.

The size of the gap depends strongly on the strategies that world leaders use to reduce emissions and draw down carbon in the coming decades. The most sustainable pathways to meeting the Paris target generally suggest the world will need between 7 billion and 9 billion metric tons of carbon removal by the year 2050.

But it could be done with less. One of the most ambitious future scenarios that experts have modeled suggests the world could achieve 1.5C with only about 4.8 billion metric tons of annual carbon removal by the year 2050.

Based on countries’ current pledges, world leaders might get close. One of the best-case scenarios estimates the planet could be on track for about 4.4 billion tons of carbon removal by midcentury. That’s still a gap, but a relatively small one.

But that scenario comes with an important caveat. The analysis assumes that global greenhouse emissions are swiftly falling. They haven’t — in fact, they’re still rising.

That means the carbon removal gap likely is larger than the report suggests.

Even as experts say that global carbon removal is falling short, some scientists are worried more investment could backfire. They argue that a focus on carbon removal could detract from global efforts to reduce emissions — potentially lulling world leaders into the belief they can clean up their excess emissions with technology in the future.

But proponents of increased carbon removal say the practice is essential to achieving the Paris targets — and that world leaders should strive to reduce global emissions as quickly as possible.

“Meeting the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goals requires rapid greenhouse gas emissions reduction and near-term scale up of CDR,” said Smith, the University of Oxford scientist. “It’s not really an either-or situation.”

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

CO2 emissions from new North Sea drilling sites would match 30 years’ worth from UK households

New research comes as dozens of small potential fields have received some form of license from the governmentPotential new North Sea oil and gas fields with early stage licences from the UK would emit as much carbon dioxide as British households produce in three decades.The finding has led to calls to the government to reject demands from fossil fuel producers for the final permits needed to allow their operations to go ahead. Continue reading...

Potential new North Sea oil and gas fields with early stage licences from the UK would emit as much carbon dioxide as British households produce in three decades.The finding has led to calls to the government to reject demands from fossil fuel producers for the final permits needed to allow their operations to go ahead.Dozens of small potential sites, and several controversial large projects such as the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, have received some form of licence, though they are not yet operational.If they all went aheadthe resulting emissions would have a global impact on the ability to stave off catastrophic levels of climate change, according to research by the campaigning group Uplift.Sites that have been licensed for drilling but have not yet been developed are estimated to hold up to 3.8bn barrels of oil equivalent. If burned, this would release 1.5bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. Emissions from the UK’s 28m households amount to about 50m tonnes a year.Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, said: “The scale of the planned drilling by fossil fuel companies in the North Sea is alarming. How can it be right that, while we strive to reduce our climate impact – and household emissions fall from people installing solar panels and switching to heat pumps – the oil and gas industry is given a free pass to generate massive emissions?”The government has pledged not to issue any new licenses to oil and gas fields, but has stopped short of rescinding licences currently in the pipeline. Under the UK’s licensing regime, exploration licences can be issued at an early stage, and it can often take years or decades before progressing to the next stage of receiving the production permits necessary for operation.The previous government’s enthusiasm for licensing – and vow to drain “every last drop” from the North Sea – has meant that the pipeline is well stocked with potential new fields.Under the Conservatives, fields were subject to climate checks before being given the green light, but these checks did not take account of the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from burning the oil and gas produced from the fields.That changed in June, shortly before the general election, when a landmark ruling by the supreme court – called the “Finch ruling” after the campaigner Sarah Finch, who brought the initial case – found that such emissions must be taken into account.When Labour took power, the government issued fresh advice to operators, that they must include emissions from burning the oil and gas in their environmental assessments. A government consultation to establish in detail how potential new fields should be treated is now under way, and will close in early January.The new research by Uplift, seen by the Guardian, is the first to expose the impacts of the potential pipeline of new fields. Khan said ministers should make clear they would effectively shut down new fields.“We finally have a government that is willing to apply common sense and accept that the emissions from burning oil and gas should be factored into decisions on whether or not to approve new drilling,” she said. She called on the UK to send a strong signal to other countries, which are also considering new drilling.“Governments around the world also know that we have discovered more fossil fuels than are safe to burn and that some reserves need to be kept in the ground if we are to stay within safe climate limits. There is compelling evidence that the emissions from new North Sea drilling are incompatible with these limits,” she said.The ban on new licences – which applies to potential fields that have not yet received any form of permit – should prevent about 4bn barrels of oil being produced. The government will consult next year on how to implement this ban.Labour faces stiff challenges, however, from the oil and gas industry, and from oil and gas workers and the unions which represent them.Mark Wilson, operations director for Offshore Energies UK, which represents the oil and gas industry, said: “UK oil and gas demand is forecast to outstrip domestic production, even if these resources are brought to market. Limiting the production and therefore the supply of UK oil and gas within a mature and declining basin like the North Sea is not an effective way to address the challenge of delivering a net zero energy future.“Preventing the development of existing reserves and resources won’t fix the climate challenge, but it will threaten UK jobs, communities and income and negatively impact the livelihoods of the skilled people whose expertise we need to deliver the UK’s net zero goals.”Uplift’s Khan said the government must provide a “just transition” for workers, but pointed out that the future of the North Sea would be one of steep decline, even if resources were poured into extraction.“New drilling is not the answer for the UK’s energy workers. In the past decade, despite new fields being approved and hundreds of new licenses being handed out, the number of jobs supported by the industry has more than halved as the North Sea declines,” Khan highlighted.“What supply chains, workers, and their communities have long needed is a proper plan to create good quality, clean energy jobs in the places that need them most. This is the critical job for government. Approving new drilling delays the UK’s transition and distracts from the urgent action that workers need today.”A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “Our priority is a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North Sea in line with our climate and legal obligations, which drives towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills and good, long-term jobs. We will not revoke existing oil and gas licences and will manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan, and we will not issue new oil and gas licences to explore new fields.”The spokesperson added: “Clean, homegrown energy is the best way to protect bill payers and secure Britain’s energy independence while tackling climate change, which is why we announced the biggest ever investment in offshore wind and are moving ahead with new North Sea industries like carbon capture and storage and hydrogen.”

CO2
Government
Energy

TikTok’s annual carbon footprint is likely bigger than Greece’s, study finds

Average user generates greenhouse gases equal to driving an extra 123 miles in gas-powered car a year, data showsTikTok’s annual carbon footprint is likely larger than that of Greece, according to a new analysis of the social media platform’s environmental impact, with the average user generating greenhouse gases equivalent to driving an extra 123 miles in a gas-powered car each year.Estimates from Greenly, a carbon accounting consultancy based in Paris, place TikTok’s 2023 emissions in the US, UK and France at about 7.6m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) – higher than those associated with Twitter/X and Snapchat in the same region. Continue reading...

TikTok’s annual carbon footprint is likely larger than that of Greece, according to a new analysis of the social media platform’s environmental impact, with the average user generating greenhouse gases equivalent to driving an extra 123 miles in a gas-powered car each year.Estimates from Greenly, a carbon accounting consultancy based in Paris, place TikTok’s 2023 emissions in the US, UK and France at about 7.6m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) – higher than those associated with Twitter/X and Snapchat in the same region.TikTok has 1 billion users worldwide and Greenly’s findings placed its carbon footprint just above Instagram’s – even though Instagram has nearly double TikTok’s user base.The reason behind this lies in the unique addictiveness of TikTok’s platform. The average Instagram user spends 30.6 minutes on the app per day. Meanwhile, the average TikTok user spends a whopping 45.5 minutes scrolling.“The whole algorithm is built around the massification of videos,” explained Alexis Normand, the chief executive of Greenly. “Addictiveness also has consequences in terms of incentivizing people to generate more and more [of a carbon] footprint on an individual basis.”Given that the US, UK and France make up just under 15% of TikTok’s global user base, the platform’s overall carbon footprint is likely around 50m metric tonnes of CO2e. And since these data center calculations don’t include other smaller sources of TikTok’s emissions, such as the emissions associated with office spaces and employee commuting, this is likely an underestimation.For context, Greece’s annual carbon emissions for 2023 were 51.67m metric tonnes of CO2e.TikTok’s users also have the second-highest emissions per minute of use on social media according to Greenly’s analysis, just after YouTube. One minute on TikTok will burn 2.921 grams of CO2e, on average, while one minute on YouTube will burn 2.923 grams. One minute on Instagram burns 2.912 grams.The small differences add up. Due to the sheer amount of content on the platform, as well as longer average scroll times, TikTok users have the highest yearly emissions. The average TikTok user will burn 48.49kg of CO2e on the app in one year, according to Greenly’s analysis. In second place comes YouTube, with an average user burning 40.17kg of CO2e. Instagram users will burn just 32.52kg of CO2e.According to the Environmental Protection Agency, that’s the difference between driving a gas car driving 123 miles (TikTok), 102 miles (YouTube) and 82.8 miles (Instagram).The study examined the carbon footprint associated with each user per minute by incorporating the emissions associated with data centers, which made up about 99% of the footprint, and the emissions associated with charging devices after using the platforms.TikTok’s emissions are the most opaque of the social media platforms. Tech giants such as Meta and Google release detailed reports to the Carbon Disclosure Project every year, even posting their findings to their respective websites. TikTok has no publicly available emissions data.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOther social media companies, while also reporting sky-high emissions, have made commitments to power their data centers with clean energy. The quality of these commitments varies widely. An investigation by the Guardian showed that four of the five top tech companies were using offset-like renewable energy credits (Recs) to underreport their emissions data by approximately 662%.TikTok has made a commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030. The company has a plan called “Project Clover”, implemented in 2023, that is tasked with meeting this goal while enhancing overall data security. However, only one renewable data center has been built to date: a €12bn facility in Norway that runs on 100% renewable energy.It is unclear whether or not these reporting practices and commitments will persist under new ownership – a US appeals court has upheld a law that will require Chinese firm ByteDance to sell the platform to a non-Chinese entity by 19 January 2025, though the firm is trying to delay this until a recently friendlier Trump administration is inaugurated.If the platform is bought by a US company, rules passed this year would require the firm to publicly disclose its emissions if they are “material” to investors, though Trump will likely reverse this.TikTok did not respond to request for comment.

CO2
Energy
Climate

North Dakota Regulators Consider Underground Carbon Dioxide Storage Permits for Midwest Pipeline

A North Dakota panel will consider whether to approve permits for underground storage of carbon dioxide that a proposed pipeline would carry from ethanol plants throughout the Midwest

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota panel will consider Thursday whether to approve permits for underground storage of hundreds of millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide that a proposed pipeline would carry from ethanol plants throughout the Midwest.Approval from the governor-led, three-member Industrial Commission would be another victory for Summit Carbon Solutions' controversial project, though further court challenges are likely. Last month, the company gained approval for its North Dakota route, and Iowa regulators also have given conditional approval.Also on Thursday, Minnesota utility regulators were scheduled to consider approval for a 28-mile leg of the project of the project.Summit's 2,500-mile, $8 billion pipeline would transport planet-warming CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska for underground storage in central North Dakota.North Dakota Republican Gov. Doug Burgum chairs the Industrial Commission, which includes the state attorney general and agriculture commissioner and oversees a variety of energy topics and state-owned enterprises.Summit applied for permits for three storage facilities, which would hold a combined, estimated maximum of 352 million metric tons of CO2 over 20 years. The pipeline would carry up to 18 million metric tons of CO2 per year to be injected about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) underground, according to an application fact sheet.Summit's documents detail a well site layout encompassing a pump/meter building, gas detection stations, inlet valves and emergency shutoff valve.Carbon dioxide would move through the pipeline in a pressurized form to be injected deep underground into a rock formation.Jessie Stolark, who leads a group that includes Summit and supports the project, said the oil industry has long used similar technology.“We know that this can be done safely in a manner that is protective of human health and underground sources of drinking water,” said Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition.A North Dakota landowners group is challenging a property rights law related to the underground storage, and attorney Derrick Braaten said they likely would challenge the granting of permits for the storage plans.“The landowners that I'm working with aren't necessarily opposed to carbon sequestration itself,” Braaten said. “They're opposed to the idea that a private company can come in and use their property without having to negotiate with them or pay them just compensation for taking their private property and using it.”Carbon capture projects such as Summit's are eligible for lucrative federal tax credits intended to encourage cleaner-burning ethanol and potentially result in corn-based ethanol being refined into jet fuel.Some opponents argue the amount of greenhouse gases sequestered through the process would make little difference and could lead farmers to grow more corn despite environmental concerns about the crop.In Minnesota, utility regulators were expected to decide Thursday whether to grant a route permit for a small part of the overall project, a 28-mile (45-kilometer) segment that would connect an ethanol plant in Fergus Falls to Summit’s broader network.An administrative law judge who conducted hearings recommended in November that the Public Utilities Commission grant the permit, saying the panel lacks the legal authority to reject it. The judge concluded that the environmental impacts from the Minnesota segment would be minimal, that the environmental review met the legal requirements, and noted that Summit has secured agreements from landowners along most of the recommended route. Commission staff, the state Department of Commerce and Summit largely concurred with those findings.Environmental groups that oppose the project dispute the judge’s finding that the project would have a net benefit for the environment. In addition to North Dakota, Summit has a permit from Iowa for its route, but regulators for that state required the company to obtain approvals for routes in the Dakotas and underground storage in North Dakota before it can begin construction. The Iowa Utilities Commission's approval sparked lawsuits related to the project.In Nebraska, where there is no state regulatory process for CO2 pipelines, Summit is working with individual counties to advance its project. At least one county has denied a permit.Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

CO2
Agriculture
Health

Regulators Approve North Dakota Section of Planned 5-State Midwest Carbon Dioxide Pipeline

Utility regulators in North Dakota have approved a carbon dioxide pipeline that would span five Midwestern states

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota utility regulators granted approval on Friday for a span of a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline that would cross five Midwestern states — a key victory for the company that has faced vociferous landowner objections and various hurdles and setbacks in its plans.The state Public Service Commission voted unanimously to approve a siting permit for Summit Carbon Solutions' modified, 333-mile route in North Dakota. The company's proposed $8 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline system would carry tons of planet-warming CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in five states for storage deep underground in North Dakota.No construction has begun anywhere on Summit’s proposed route. Iowa has approved the project, but other hurdles remain in North Dakota as well as South Dakota, Minnesota and Nebraska.The approval is a win for the company after North Dakota initially denied a permit in 2023, shortly followed by rejection in South Dakota. Another company, Navigator CO2 Ventures, canceled its project around the same time due to the “unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved, particularly in South Dakota and Iowa."North Dakota Public Service Commission Chairman Randy Christmann urged Summit not to use eminent domain, “at least not more than absolutely necessary.” Eminent domain is not in the panel's jurisdiction or a part of the siting process, he said.Summit CEO Lee Blank told reporters the company is pleased with the panel's decision. He said Summit has worked with landowners on a voluntary basis and will continue to do so.“Our goal is, again, to acquire as much right of way possible as we can voluntarily, and ultimately at the end of the day, we hope to do 100% of that,” Blank said.Summit said Friday it has acquired easements for over 82% of its North Dakota route.Republican state Sen. Jeff Magrum, an opponent whose district the pipeline would cross, said he’d rather see investments in roads, bridges and dams instead of “Green New Deal projects that don’t create any benefit for our state or our country.” He expects the panel’s decision to be challenged.Carbon-capture skeptics say the technology is untested at scale and allows the fossil-fuel industry to continue largely unchanged.In August, the Iowa Utilities Commission issued Summit a hazardous liquid pipeline permit after approving the company's application in June. The panel also granted Summit the right of eminent domain over numerous parcels of land.But the company cannot start construction in Iowa until it has route approvals from both Dakotas and approval for underground storage in North Dakota, among other requirements. The Iowa panel's decision sparked lawsuits in opposition.Christmann said the permit has no restrictions based on what any other states do.The North Dakota panel had denied Summit a siting permit in August 2023. The regulators said Summit hadn't sufficiently addressed several issues, including geologic instability, wildlife areas, cultural resource impacts and some landowner concerns.Soon afterward, the panel agreed to reconsider, beginning more than a year of meetings and document filings.Summit submitted three storage facility permit applications to North Dakota’s Department of Mineral Resources, but no decision has been made.In 2022, Minnkota Power Cooperative and Summit agreed to collaborate on developing CO2 storage in central North Dakota, a pact that also lets Summit use Minnkota's previously permitted 100-million-ton underground storage.In September 2023, South Dakota's Public Utilities Commission denied Summit's permit application after commission staff said the route would violate county ordinances for setback distances. Summit has said it plans to reapply this month for a permit.In a referendum earlier this month, South Dakota voters rejected a suite of regulations that opponents said would deny local control over such projects and consolidate authority with state regulators. Supporters had promoted it as a “landowner bill of rights.” The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is expected to decide Dec. 12 whether to approve a 28-mile segment of pipeline that would connect an ethanol plant near Fergus Falls to Summit’s network in North Dakota. An administrative law judge recommended that the commissioners find that the environmental review for the Minnesota section met the legal requirements, and issue a route permit to Summit. Critics had expressed concerns to the judge about the impacts on farms and water resources, and suggested there were better ways to reduce CO2 emissions. They also argued that the environmental review should have been expanded to look at the impacts of the broader proposed Midwest Carbon Express pipeline network, with which Summit would connect.In Nebraska, where there is no state regulatory process for CO2 pipelines, Summit is working with individual counties to advance its project. At least one county has denied a permit.AP reporter Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this story.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

CO2
Government
Technology

The Largest Carbon Capture Project in the U.S. Could Be in West Texas. Do Residents Want It?

West Texans will have their say this week regarding a proposed carbon dioxide injection site when the Environmental Protection Agency holds a series of public meetings in Ector County

ODESSA, Texas (AP) — West Texans will have their say this week regarding a proposed carbon dioxide injection site when the Environmental Protection Agency holds a series of public meetings in Ector County.The proposed project — which has been under review for the last two years — would be the largest of its kind in the United States. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, or Oxy, an oil and gas company based in Houston, wants federal approval to capture and store an estimated 722,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide in three injection wells 4,400 feet underground.“We know that achieving global net zero by 2050 requires technological solutions that can quickly reduce emissions on a large-scale,” William Fitzgerald, a spokesperson for Oxy, said in a statement. Oxy “has been safely and securely storing CO2 underground for more than 50 years.”Known as Stratos, the facility would be located 20 miles southwest of Odessa. Oxy previously broke ground last year. Public testimony begins Wednesday with an information session at 7 p.m. and ends Oct. 7. The agency can take up to 90 days to issue a final decision, including changes to the proposal.If approved, Oxy would receive what’s known as Class VI permits, the first of their kind in Texas and the surrounding region that includes New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and 66 Tribal Nations.Certain sectors of the energy industry have embraced carbon capture and storage to propel the nation toward its climate goals. For its part, the federal government has put up about $12 billion for eligible projects under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.Climate advocates argue that the evidence about the advantages of decarbonization is insufficient and that it falls short of offsetting the greenhouse gases emitted by removing them from the atmosphere.Companies are pursuing projects anyway. Multiple plans to capture and store carbon dioxide are underway in Texas, including a natural gas power plant in Baytown owned by Calpine Texas CCUS Holdings, which was eligible for up to $270 million in federal dollars. A second San Antonio-based gas company, Howard Energy Partners, was awarded $3 million in federal money to “evaluate the technical and economic feasibility” of transporting 250 million tons of carbon dioxide from the Gulf Coast. Another project in southeast Texas, owned in part by Chevron, spans almost 100,000 acres.None, however, are close to the amount of carbon dioxide Oxy hopes to capture, inject and store underground.Oxy is one of the top oil and gas producers in the Permian Basin. With roughly 2.8 million acres between Texas and New Mexico and the biggest direct air capture facility in its portfolio, the company has become a household name in the Texas oil and gas industry. The proposed injection sites will create 120 jobs, Oxy said in a statement.Oxy said the Stratos project will provide more jobs, workforce training programs, educational opportunities and economic development in the region, but did not provide specifics. Earlier reports said the site will cost about $1 billion to construct.While it is unclear whether this project qualified for federal incentives, 1PointFive, the company’s subsidiary dedicated to carbon capture, in September received $500 million for a direct air capture plant in South Texas.Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of oil and gas production. When a fossil fuel company burns coal, crude oil, or natural gas, it emits carbon dioxide. The greenhouse gas traps heat and prevents the atmosphere from cooling.Oxy intends to capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and put it underground. Federal regulators determined that the energy firm met every requirement under the Safe Drinking Water Act and accounted for the protection of groundwater. Their review also concluded that the risk of seismicity due to the injections was minimal.And if necessary, the permit “also puts requirements in place in the event of potential groundwater contamination and/or seismic activity, including shutting down injection operations,” an agency spokesperson said.Oxy will capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through direct air capture, or DAC. The technology separates the gas from other particles in the air and then raises the temperature to incinerate them, leaving only the carbon dioxide. The equipment compresses the remaining gas by raising the pressure until it is the consistency of a brine that is transported and stored permanently in pockets of rock underground.According to the proposal, Oxy will monitor the pressure and temperature of the proposed sites on the surface of the well and downhole. Temperature and pressure gauges will be measured every second on the surface and every ten seconds in the well, providing a reading every ten minutes. A change in pressure could indicate a problem.The proposal stated that operators would monitor corrosion in the well four times a year or every three months. Similarly, the groundwater will be monitored every three months unless the regulators ask for additional testing. After three years, groundwater monitoring will occur once annually. The company must alert the EPA 30 days before most tests or if there are any changes. It must also alert them of any malfunctions within 24 hours.The oil and gas industry introduced carbon capture and sequestration to remediate excess greenhouse gas emissions from its operations since the 1970s. These emissions harm human health and deteriorate the atmosphere, and scientists agree they spur climate change. Industry leaders say it will help the country meet its climate goals and cool global temperatures.The benefits of carbon capture and storage have been fiercely debated for as long as the technology has existed. Climate advocates and scientists have been skeptical. They say no project has worked fast enough to offset the greenhouse gas emissions from major emitters.A handful of proposals in Louisiana were subject to backlash from the community, which expressed concerns over contamination.Commission Shift, a Texas-based watchdog group, said carbon capture and storage threaten groundwater sources. In a statement, the organization said the EPA should refrain from approving the project until the state resolves other lingering issues with saltwater injections, another underground disposal technique contributing to earthquakes in West Texas.“Outside of the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of (carbon caputure) as a climate mitigation solution, the injection and sequestration of carbon dioxide is dangerous to the land, water, communities, and ecosystems nearby,” Paige Powell, senior policy manager for Commission Shift, said in a statement on Friday.Ramanan Krishnamoorti, senior vice president of energy at The University of Houston, said neither the public nor the industry should consider carbon capture a permanent solution. He said that residents should pay particular attention to the precautions that Oxy and the EPA will take in case of a leak or contamination.“We need not build up our hopes that this is the be-all, end-all solution, but the solution that has a time and place,” said Krishnamoorti, an advocate of carbon capture and sequestration technology. “Let’s use it as appropriate, but with very clear eyes that we understand what the hazards are, what the risks are, and how do we make sure that we lessen the risk to the maximum extent possible, and yet be able to do it reasonably.”This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

CO2
Climate
Energy

Suggested Viewing

A Low Carbon Future for China’s Furnace Cities

China’s economic development and rapid urbanization has led to a dramatic rise in energy consumption due to excessive heating and air-conditioning causing carbon emissions of immense proportions. China’s government has set the ambitious target of reducing CO2 emissions by 40–45% by 2020 against the 2005 baseline. A UK/China-funded team working on how to solve the problem in some of the most extreme climate regions in China. The team discovers groundbreaking solutions using computational-fluid-dynamics simulations.

CO2
Energy
Climate

The Carbon Chronicles

The Carbon Chronicles: Who owns the air? The Carbon Chronicles is an experimental animated visualisation of the build-up of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses has radically altered the Earth’s atmosphere. It is a collaboration between artists from the Manifest Data Lab and scientists from the British Antarctic Survey. The animation maps from the industrial revolution to the present day the regions contributing most to the climate crisis, which can be traced through the stalagmite growths representing CO2 emissions growing out from the different countries. Beginning with the UK in the 1750s, emissions from coal start enveloping the planet, other regions soon follow. By the late 1800s through to the current period, growing industrial and extraction activity in the Global North is responsible for 92% of CO2 with 8% coming from the Global South. The spread of CO2 described in the animation mirrors the wider historic processes of power distribution visited on poorer countries and shows that the atmosphere is as contested a space as the territories beneath it. The work describes a living breathing planet, under the pressure of human produced exhalations of CO2. It attributes responsibility in ways that can inform the need for equitable solutions to the climate crisis that are mindful of the historic consequences of carbon exploitation and its impacts. The Carbon Chronicles informs the need for equitable solutions to the climate crisis that are mindful of the historic consequences of carbon exploitation to ask: Who Owns the Air?

Animation
CO2
Experimental

CO2? CO-Nee!

Joep van Dijk is a passionate climate scientist. He likes to search for extreme examples that show how life can be lived sustainably. This documentary follows Joep on his CO2-neutral journey from Amsterdam to the United States of America and shows how this choice inspires himself and others to live a climate conscious life.

Climate
CO2
Sustainable

THE SPRAYER

In the land occupied with the sprayers army, no one has the right to grow any kind of plants either in public or private. So many of the people and soldiers do not even know how a plant grows or looks like, until one day one of the soldiers finds a seed buried deep down in the dust and his curiosity is just the beginning of something extraordinary, something big, something revolutionary.

Plants
CO2
Animation

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.