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

Opinion: How a California climate win could end up destroying rainforests — and what to do about it

News Feed
Thursday, March 14, 2024

Half the diesel fuel in California is made not from unsustainable petroleum but from renewable biomass such as waste and plant oils. Soon all our diesel will be biofuels. This is particularly good for the environment if the fuel is made from wastes and residues, but it’s much less so if it’s made from crops that use energy and land but don’t produce food.Unfortunately, a proposed amendment to California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard threatens to put the state, the country and the world on a course toward relying more heavily on diesel produced from crops, ensuring more widespread destruction of rainforests and diversion of farmland from food to energy production.California pioneered the standard to support the development and use of lower-carbon fuels for transportation. It effectively encourages oil companies to subsidize low-carbon fuels and electric vehicles without bankrupting them, and the only costs to taxpayers are administrative. This innovative policy has been replicated in Oregon, Washington and Canada, while other states and Congress are considering comparable measures.The fuel standard incentivizes the use of renewable diesel made from oil waste and crops, a major success of the policy. Renewable diesel can be used in virtually any diesel engine, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70% or more when it’s made from waste oils.The environmental benefits are much less substantial, however, when the fuel is made from crop-based oils such as soybean or canola. That’s because those crops require energy, fertilizer and land, among other environmental consequences.Renewable diesel offers such a compelling business opportunity to oil companies that two Bay Area refineries are being converted to produce it, possibly by the end of this year. California-inspired renewable diesel is booming across the country.As the industry grows, however, it’s having some unintended consequences. Until recently, most renewable diesel was made from waste cooking oil, rendered beef fat and corn-ethanol byproducts. But now those domestic sources of waste oil are largely tapped out. Indeed, the U.S. has to import not only waste-based fuels but also the wastes and residues themselves to supply our processors.That means more and more renewable diesel is likely to come from oil produced from soybeans and other food crops. We know from experience that increasing demand for plant-based oils — whether for food, animal feed or biofuels — leads to more slashing and burning of tropical rainforests in Southeast Asia and South America to expand palm and soy oil production. This deforestation releases mass quantities of greenhouse gases by burning trees that have sequestered carbon over centuries. It also harms watersheds, disrupts Indigenous communities and causes a raft of other social and environmental problems.If what happened in California stayed in California, we wouldn’t be so concerned. Global vegetable oil producers probably could replace California’s remaining fossil-fuel-based diesel without much additional harm.But other jurisdictions that have adopted or are considering policies like California’s are watching the state carefully. And the Treasury Department, European Union and global airlines are about to embrace plant oils as a substitute for the fossil fuels used in aviation. What California decides about renewable diesel will therefore have far-reaching effects.The California Air Resources Board is updating the Low Carbon Fuel Standard this year to raise its targets and make other adjustments, including expanding its scope to include jet planes operating within the state. It is not, however, proposing to rein in the use of crop-based fuels. If the board does not address this issue, it could spur extensive conversion of tropical forests and food production to energy generation.So what should be done? We have two ideas.The first is to update the fuel standard’s almost 10-year-old estimate of the greenhouse gas impact of increased crop production. There is considerable evidence that the current estimate greatly understates actual emissions. Crops such as soybeans would become less attractive for renewable diesel production if the standard were corrected.It’s an elegant and seemingly simple adjustment. The problem is that there is no scientifically established method for making an estimate, even after extensive study. Picking a new number risks interminable debate and lawsuits by the oil industry and other threatened interests.We lean toward a second idea, which is to cap the use of crops to produce fuels. Most environmental groups favor this approach, and the California Air Resources Board has considered it. But while it’s a straightforward concept, it would be complicated to implement and would have to be updated frequently to provide flexibility to companies as conditions change.Whatever approach regulators take, they should do it quickly, before the rapid growth of renewable diesel has irreversible repercussions. Inaction risks sending one of California’s key climate policies off course in ways that will reverberate around the world.Colin Murphy is the deputy director of the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy, where he co-leads the Low Carbon Fuel Policy Research Initiative. Daniel Sperling is a professor of engineering and environmental science and policy at UC Davis and a former member of the California Air Resources Board.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard encourages use of renewable diesel from biomass. But it could encourage deforestation for energy crops such as soybeans and canola.

Half the diesel fuel in California is made not from unsustainable petroleum but from renewable biomass such as waste and plant oils. Soon all our diesel will be biofuels. This is particularly good for the environment if the fuel is made from wastes and residues, but it’s much less so if it’s made from crops that use energy and land but don’t produce food.

Unfortunately, a proposed amendment to California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard threatens to put the state, the country and the world on a course toward relying more heavily on diesel produced from crops, ensuring more widespread destruction of rainforests and diversion of farmland from food to energy production.

California pioneered the standard to support the development and use of lower-carbon fuels for transportation. It effectively encourages oil companies to subsidize low-carbon fuels and electric vehicles without bankrupting them, and the only costs to taxpayers are administrative. This innovative policy has been replicated in Oregon, Washington and Canada, while other states and Congress are considering comparable measures.

The fuel standard incentivizes the use of renewable diesel made from oil waste and crops, a major success of the policy. Renewable diesel can be used in virtually any diesel engine, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70% or more when it’s made from waste oils.

The environmental benefits are much less substantial, however, when the fuel is made from crop-based oils such as soybean or canola. That’s because those crops require energy, fertilizer and land, among other environmental consequences.

Renewable diesel offers such a compelling business opportunity to oil companies that two Bay Area refineries are being converted to produce it, possibly by the end of this year. California-inspired renewable diesel is booming across the country.

As the industry grows, however, it’s having some unintended consequences. Until recently, most renewable diesel was made from waste cooking oil, rendered beef fat and corn-ethanol byproducts. But now those domestic sources of waste oil are largely tapped out. Indeed, the U.S. has to import not only waste-based fuels but also the wastes and residues themselves to supply our processors.

That means more and more renewable diesel is likely to come from oil produced from soybeans and other food crops. We know from experience that increasing demand for plant-based oils — whether for food, animal feed or biofuels — leads to more slashing and burning of tropical rainforests in Southeast Asia and South America to expand palm and soy oil production. This deforestation releases mass quantities of greenhouse gases by burning trees that have sequestered carbon over centuries. It also harms watersheds, disrupts Indigenous communities and causes a raft of other social and environmental problems.

If what happened in California stayed in California, we wouldn’t be so concerned. Global vegetable oil producers probably could replace California’s remaining fossil-fuel-based diesel without much additional harm.

But other jurisdictions that have adopted or are considering policies like California’s are watching the state carefully. And the Treasury Department, European Union and global airlines are about to embrace plant oils as a substitute for the fossil fuels used in aviation. What California decides about renewable diesel will therefore have far-reaching effects.

The California Air Resources Board is updating the Low Carbon Fuel Standard this year to raise its targets and make other adjustments, including expanding its scope to include jet planes operating within the state. It is not, however, proposing to rein in the use of crop-based fuels. If the board does not address this issue, it could spur extensive conversion of tropical forests and food production to energy generation.

So what should be done? We have two ideas.

The first is to update the fuel standard’s almost 10-year-old estimate of the greenhouse gas impact of increased crop production. There is considerable evidence that the current estimate greatly understates actual emissions. Crops such as soybeans would become less attractive for renewable diesel production if the standard were corrected.

It’s an elegant and seemingly simple adjustment. The problem is that there is no scientifically established method for making an estimate, even after extensive study. Picking a new number risks interminable debate and lawsuits by the oil industry and other threatened interests.

We lean toward a second idea, which is to cap the use of crops to produce fuels. Most environmental groups favor this approach, and the California Air Resources Board has considered it. But while it’s a straightforward concept, it would be complicated to implement and would have to be updated frequently to provide flexibility to companies as conditions change.

Whatever approach regulators take, they should do it quickly, before the rapid growth of renewable diesel has irreversible repercussions. Inaction risks sending one of California’s key climate policies off course in ways that will reverberate around the world.

Colin Murphy is the deputy director of the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy, where he co-leads the Low Carbon Fuel Policy Research Initiative. Daniel Sperling is a professor of engineering and environmental science and policy at UC Davis and a former member of the California Air Resources Board.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

More Logging Is Proposed to Help Curb Wildfires in the US Pacific Northwest

U.S. officials are proposing increased logging on federal lands across the Pacific Northwest under changes to a sweeping forest management plan that’s been in place for three decades

U.S. officials would allow increased logging on federal lands across the Pacific Northwest in the name of fighting wildfires and boosting rural economies under proposed changes to a sweeping forest management plan that’s been in place for three decades.The U.S. Forest Service proposal, released Friday, would overhaul the Northwest Forest Plan that governs about 38,000 square miles (99,000 square kilometers) in Oregon, Washington and California.The plan was adopted in 1994 under President Bill Clinton amid pressure to curb destructive logging practices that resulted in widespread clearcuts and destroyed habitat used by spotted owls. Timber harvests dropped dramatically in subsequent years, spurring political backlash.But federal officials now say worsening wildfires due to climate change mean forests must be more actively managed to increase their resiliency. Increased logging also would provide a more predictable supply of trees for timber companies, officials said, helping rural economies that have suffered after lumber mills shut down and forestry jobs disappeared.The proposal could increase annual timber harvests by at least 33% and potentially more than 200%, according to a draft environmental study. The number of timber-related jobs would increase accordingly.Harvest volumes from the 17 national forests covered by the Northwest Forest Plan averaged about 445 million board feet annually over the past decade, according to government figures. Cutting more trees would help reduce wildfire risk and make communities safer, the study concluded. That would be accomplished in part by allowing cuts in some areas with stands of trees up to 120 years old — up from the current age threshold of 80 years.The change could help foster conditions conducive to growing larger, old growth trees that are more resistant to fire, by removing younger trees, officials said.A separate pending proposal from President Joe Biden's administration aims to increase protections nationwide for old growth trees, which play a significant role in storing climate change-inducing carbon dioxide.“Much has changed in society and science since the Northwest Forest Plan was created,” Jacque Buchanan, regional forester for the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Region, said in a statement. He said the proposal would help the agency adapt to shifting conditions, as global warming increases the frequency of droughts and other extreme weather events.The proposed plan also calls for closer cooperation between the Forest Service and Native American tribes to tap into tribal knowledge about forest management. Tribes were excluded when the 1994 plan was crafted.Environmentalists greeted the proposal with skepticism. The group Oregon Wild said it was “deeply troubling” that the Forest Service would release the proposal just ahead of a change in presidential administrations.“It appears that the Forest Service wants to abandon the fundamental purpose of the Northwest Forest Plan–protecting fish and wildlife and the mature and old-growth forests they need to survive,” John Persell, an attorney for the group, said in a statement.A draft environmental study examined several potential alternatives, including leaving the existing plan’s components in place or changing them to either reduce or increase logging. A timber industry representative who co-chaired an advisory committee on the Northwest Forest Plan said the proposed plan resulted from discussions involving committee members, the Forest Service and others.“We want to see a modern approach to federal forest stewardship that protects us from catastrophic wildfires, reduces toxic smoke, meaningfully engages tribes, and delivers for our rural communities and workers,” said Travis Joseph, president of the American Forest Resource Council.The publishing of the proposal begins a 120-day public comment period. The Forest Service's environmental review is expected to be completed by next fall and a final decision is due in early 2026.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Forests
Climate
Government

How do you save a rainforest? Leave it alone

Research shows that, instead of replanting rainforests, allowing them to bounce back naturally would work best

Johnny Appleseed’s heart was in the right place when he walked all over the early United States planting fruit trees. Ecologically, though, he had room for improvement: To create truly dynamic ecosystems that host a lot of biodiversity, benefit local people, and produce lots of different foods, a forest needs a wide variety of species. Left on their own, some deforested areas can rebound surprisingly fast with minimal help from humans, sequestering loads of atmospheric carbon as they grow. New research from an international team of scientists, recently published in the journal Nature, finds that 830,000 square miles of deforested land in humid tropical regions — an area larger than Mexico — could regrow naturally if left on its own. Five countries — Brazil, Indonesia, China, Mexico, and Colombia — account for 52 percent of the estimated potential regrowth. According to the researchers, that would boost biodiversity, improve water quality and availability, and suck up 23.4 gigatons of carbon over the next three decades.  “A rainforest can spring up in one to three years — it can be brushy and hard to walk through,” said Matthew Fagan, a conservation scientist and geographer at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and a coauthor of the paper. “In five years, you can have a completely closed canopy that’s 20 feet high. I have walked in rainforests 80 feet high that are 10 to 15 years old. It just blows your mind.”  That sort of regrowth isn’t a given, though. First of all, humans would have to stop using the land for intensive agriculture — think big yields thanks to fertilizers and other chemicals — or raising hoards of cattle, the sheer weight of which compacts the soil and makes it hard for new plants to take root. Cows, of course, also tend to nosh on young plants.  Planting a bunch of the same species of tree — à la Johnny Appleseed — pales in comparison to a diverse rainforest that comes back naturally. Secondly, it helps for tropical soil to have a high carbon content to nourish plants. “Organic carbon, as any person who loves composting knows, really helps the soil to be nutritious and bulk itself up in terms of its ability to hold water,” Fagan said. “We found that places with soils like that are much more likely to have forests pop up.” And it’s also beneficial for a degraded area to be near a standing tropical forest. That way, birds can fly across the area, pooping out seeds they have eaten in the forest. And once those plants get established, other tree-dwelling animal species like monkeys can feast on their fruits and spread seeds, too. This initiates a self-reinforcing cycle of biodiversity, resulting in one of those 80-foot-tall forests that’s only a decade old.  The more biodiversity, the more a forest can withstand shocks. If one species disappears because of disease, for instance, another similar one might fill the void. That’s why planting a bunch of the same species of tree — à la Johnny Appleseed — pales in comparison to a diverse rainforest that comes back naturally.  “When you have that biodiversity in the system, it tends to be more functional in an ecological sense, and it tends to be more robust,” said Peter Roopnarine, a paleoecologist at the California Academy of Sciences, who studies the impact of the climate on ecosystems but wasn’t involved in the new paper. “Unless or until we can match that natural complexity, we’re always going to be a step behind what nature is doing.” Governments and nonprofits can now use the data gathered from this research to identify places to prioritize for cost-effective restoration, according to Brooke Williams, a research fellow at the University of Queensland and the paper’s lead author. “Importantly, our dataset doesn’t inform on where should and should not be restored,” she said, because that’s a question best left to local governments. One community, for instance, might rely on a crop that requires open spaces to grow. But if the locals can thrive with a regrown tropical forest — by, say, earning money from tourism and growing crops like coffee and cocoa within the canopy, a practice known as agroforestry — their government might pay them to leave the area alone.  Susan Cook-Patton, senior forest restoration scientist at the Nature Conservancy, said that more than 1,500 species have been used in agroforestry worldwide. “There’s a lot of fruit trees, for example, that people use, and trees that provide medicinal services,” Cook-Patton said. “Are there ways that we can help shift the agricultural production towards more trees and boost the carbon value, the biodiversity value, and livelihoods of the people living there?” The tricky bit here is that the world is warming and droughts are worsening, so a naturally regrowing forest may soon find itself in different circumstances. “We know the climate conditions are going to change, but there’s still uncertainty with some of that change, uncertainty in our climate projection models,” Roopnarine said. So while a forest is very much stationary, reforestation is, in a sense, a moving target for environmental groups and governments. A global goal known as the Bonn Challenge aims to restore 1.3 million square miles of degraded and deforested land by 2030. So far, more than 70 governments and organizations from 60 countries, including the United States, have signed on to contribute 810,000 square miles toward that target. Sequestering 23.4 gigatons of carbon over three decades may not sound like much in the context of humanity’s 37 gigatons of emissions every year. But these are just the forests in tropical regions. Protecting temperate forests and sea grasses would capture still more carbon, in addition to newfangled techniques like growing cyanobacteria. “This is one tool in a toolbox — it is not a silver bullet,” Fagan said. “It’s one of 40 bullets needed to fight climate change. But we need to use all available options.” This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/climate/save-rainforest-carbon-science-biodiversity/. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org Read more about carbon capture and trees

Forests
Agriculture
Chemicals

Whistleblower Sounds Alarm About Destruction of Tribal Sites in North Carolina

A career archaeologist with the U.S. Forest Service says managers have been engaging in irresponsible and illegal behavior that has resulted in damage to Native American sites across the forested slopes of North Carolina

Spear points, hammer stones and picks lost to history under layers of leaves, roots and rocks — it was the evidence Scott Ashcraft was looking for. The ancient tools were inadvertently unearthed in 2021 by a bulldozer fighting a wildfire along a steep slope in western North Carolina. Ashcraft, a career U.S. Forest Service archaeologist, knew these wooded mountainsides held more clues to early human history in the Appalachian Mountains than anyone had imagined.He tried for years to raise the alarm to forest managers, saying outdated modeling that ignored the artifacts sometimes hidden on steep terrain — especially sites significant to Native American tribes — needed to be reconsidered when planning for prescribed fires, logging projects, new recreational trails and other work on national forest lands. Instead, Ashcraft says managers retaliated against him and pushed ahead with their plans, often violating historic preservation and environmental protection laws by side stepping consultations with tribes, limiting input from state archaeologists and systematically suppressing scientific data.In a letter shared with The Associated Press, Ashcraft sent his concerns Thursday to top officials in the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Interior Department, White House Council on Native American Affairs and National Congress of American Indians. He described an escalating pattern of illegal, unethical and irresponsible behavior by forest managers in North Carolina that stands in sharp contrast to the historic strides the Biden administration has made nationally to include Indigenous expertise when making decisions about public land management.Although the case focuses on a single state, Ashcraft said it highlights a bigger problem — that there are no guardrails to keep the Forest Service from using outdated modeling and skirting requirements to consult with tribes before moving ahead with projects.“It’s seems that project completion, feathers in caps and good performance evaluations have outweighed the protection of cultural resources,” Ashcraft told the AP in an interview.The letter is the latest salvo in a federal whistleblower case that began when Ashcraft filed a lengthy disclosure with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's inspector general in 2023. That office turned the case back to the Forest Service, where regional officials declared that legal requirements had been met.The whistleblower disclosure gained the attention of preservation experts and other researchers as hostility by forest managers mounted against Ashcraft, the heritage resources program manager for the Pisgah National Forest.Emails and other documents reviewed by the AP show many of Ashcraft's duties were reassigned to other employees and he was prohibited from communicating with tribes.Regional forest officials have not directly addressed allegations of retaliation against Ashcraft, but they have doubled down on promises to work with the dozen tribes that have ancestral connections to the Nantahala and Pisgah national forests.Nationally, the Biden administration has moved toward recognizing the connection Native Americans have to their homelands through the publication of action plans and guidance for dealing with sacred sites. In 2022, President Joe Biden issued a memo aimed at setting minimum standards for how agencies should carry out consultations with tribes.It appears that system broke down in North Carolina, said Valerie Grussing, the executive director of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. The group has been in discussions with tribes and top forest officials about violations there.“What’s happened at the forest unit and the regional level is egregious. It’s unconscionable,” she said. “It’s not just a breaking of the federal trust responsibility, but of established relationships.”James Melonas, supervisor of the four forests in North Carolina, said in a statement that an independent group of experts was tapped last year to review several projects to ensure compliance with federal laws and tribal consultation obligations after “an internal concern” was raised.The experts recommended more training for employees on the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and a full review of the forest heritage program. Regional forest officials said that internal review was done in May, confirming that obligations were met.“Honoring this rich tribal heritage along with co-stewardship of these lands with tribal nations is a top priority for the Forest Service," Melonas said.Some tribal officials say the Forest Service did not reach out to them when conducting the reviews.Ashcraft’s attorneys have partnered with the legal nonprofit Whistleblower Aid. They contend that Ashcraft has put his career on the line to bring attention to what they described as the “willful destruction of Native American heritage sites.”Andrew Bakaj, chief legal counsel for Whistleblower Aid, said virtually none of the key stakeholders with knowledge of the violations were interviewed as part of the agency's review and the report has been kept out of the public eye.The concerns raised by the whistleblower are not the first time the Forest Service has been accused of not following procedures. Documents obtained by the AP in 2016 revealed that portions of the Trail of Tears were ripped up in eastern Tennessee when an employee approved the construction of berms and trenches without authorization. The Forest Service later apologized to the Cherokee Nation and other tribes.Ashcraft has surveyed vast tracts of forest over his 31-year career. Without further investigation of steep slopes, he said the extent of the damage done in western North Carolina as a result of managers relying on outdated modeling can't be fully known.The whistleblower disclosure provides examples in which forest managers have allegedly tried to obstruct further archaeological investigations on steep slopes. It states that recreational trail projects – including a multimillion-dollar effort to expand hiking and biking networks east of Asheville -- have already been built over some areas and that prescribed burns have been implemented despite the need for more assessments and tribal consultation.“These actions are irreparably damaging or destroying an untold sum of Native American cultural and archeological sites including some of great significance. This conduct continues to this day,” Ashcraft warned in his letter.The intent isn't to stop work on forest lands, Ashcraft said, but rather to document sites before they're altered or reroute work in cases where areas are more sensitive and need protection.The Center for the Investigation of Native and Ancient Quarries has worked with Ashcraft and other scientists to uncover dozens of sites — many of which have a “surprising density” of Native American cultural materials and evidence of land use dating back thousands of years.Within the scar of the Seniard Creek Fire south of Asheville, they turned up stone axes and other tools used for digging at quartz and soapstone quarries — all examples of what researchers described as engineering feats by sophisticated societies that called this region home about 6,000 years ago."Here we are at higher elevations and steeper slopes with an absolutely magnificent resource eroding downslope,” said Philip LaPorta, executive director of the center and adjunct senior research scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.LaPorta said discoveries like the one near Asheville should make people think differently about how Indigenous people used steep landscapes.The whistleblower disclosure was shared with the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Catawba Indian Nation, the Muscogee Nation and the United Keetoowah Band.The Eastern Band of Cherokee were hopeful about having more meaningful and frequent consultations with forest managers after the agency adopted a revised plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in 2023. However, a specialist with the tribe said not much has changed. In his letter, Ashcraft wrote that the identification and preservation of Native American heritage sites goes beyond a single agency, tribe or whistleblower. "It concerns all of us,” he wrote. “Protection of these resources is a duty shared by actors across state and federal government, sovereign tribes as well as civil society. When one fails — spectacularly and in bad faith — it is up to the rest to step in.”For Native Americans, Grussing said it goes beyond the artifacts found in a particular spot. It's an intangible energy that comes from being connected to a place.“That's what is at stake," she said. "These are irreplaceable cultural resources and places. They’re nonrenewable.”Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Forests
Agriculture
Government

Global carbon emissions inch upwards in 2024 despite progress on EVs, renewables and deforestation

As world leaders gather at COP29 to consider reducing emissions, the latest global carbon budget shows CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels are still going up, not down, despite some promising signs.

Susan Santa Maria, ShutterstockCarbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase, year on year. This sobering reality will be presented to world leaders today at the international climate conference COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Our latest annual stocktake shows the world is on track to reach a new record: 37.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ emitted from fossil fuels in 2024. This is an increase of 0.8% from the previous year. Adopting renewable energy and electric vehicles is helping reduce emissions in 22 countries. But it’s not enough to compensate for ongoing global growth in fossil fuels. There were also signs in 2023 suggesting natural systems may struggle to capture and store as much CO₂ in the future as they have in the past. While humanity is tackling deforestation and the growth in fossil CO₂ emissions is slowing, the need to reach an immediate peak and decline in global emissions has never been so acute. The Global Carbon Project The Global Carbon Budget is an annual planetary account of carbon sources and sinks, which soak up carbon dioxide and remove it from the atmosphere. We include anthropogenic sources from human activities such as burning fossil fuels or making cement as well as natural sources such as bushfires. When it comes to CO₂ sinks, we consider all the ways carbon may be taken out of the atmosphere. This includes plants using CO₂ to grow and CO₂ being absorbed by the ocean. Some of this happens naturally and some is being actively encouraged by human activity. Putting all the available data on sources and sinks together each year is a huge international effort involving 86 research organisations, including Australia’s CSIRO. We also use computer models and statistical approaches to fill out the remaining months to the end of the year. Fossil fuel emissions up This year’s growth in carbon emissions from fossil fuels is mainly from fossil gas and oil, rather than coal. Fossil gas carbon emissions grew by 2.4%, signalling a return to the strong long-term growth rates observed before the COVID pandemic. Gas emissions grew in most large countries, but declined across the European Union. Oil carbon emissions grew by 0.9% overall, pushed up by a rise in emissions from international aviation and from India. The rebound in international air travel pushed aviation carbon emissions up 13.5% in 2024, although it’s still 3.5% below the pre-COVID 2019 level. Meanwhile, oil emissions from the United States and China are declining. It’s possible oil emissions have peaked in China, driven by growth in electric vehicles. Coal carbon emissions went up by 0.2%, with strong growth in India, small growth in China, a moderate decline in the US, and a large decline in the European Union. Coal use in the US is now at its lowest level in 120 years. The United Kingdom closed its last coal power plant in 2024, 142 years after the first one was opened. With strong growth in wind energy replacing coal, the UK CO₂ emissions have almost been cut in half since 1990. Changing land use Carbon emissions also come from land clearing and degradation. But some of that CO₂ can be taken up again by planting trees. So we need to examine both sources and sinks on land. Global net CO₂ emissions from land use change averaged 4.1 billion tonnes a year over the past decade (2014–23). This year is likely to be slightly higher than average with 4.2 billion tonnes, due to drought and fires in the Amazon. That amount represents about 10% of all emissions from human activities, the rest owing to fossil fuels. Importantly, total carbon emissions – the sum of fossil fuel emissions and land-use change emissions – have largely plateaued over the past decade, but are still projected to reach a record of just over 41 billion tonnes in 2024. The plateau in 2014–23 follows a decade of significant growth in total emissions of 2% per year on average between 2004 and 2013. This shows humanity is tackling deforestation and the growth of fossil CO₂ emissions is slowing. However, this is not enough to put global emissions on a downward trajectory. Annual CO₂ emissions continue to increase, reaching a record high in 2024. The shaded area around each line shows the uncertainty in the estimates. Global Carbon Project, CC BY More countries are cutting emissions – but many more to go Fossil CO₂ emissions decreased in 22 countries as their economies grew. These countries are mainly from the European Union, along with the United States. Together they represent 23% of global fossil CO₂ emissions over the past decade (2014–23). This number is up from 18 countries during the previous decade (2004–13). New countries in this list include Norway, New Zealand and South Korea. In Norway, emissions from road transport declined as the share of electric vehicles in the passenger car fleet grew – the highest in the world at over 25% – and biofuels replaced fossil petrol and diesel. Even greater reductions in emissions have come from Norway’s oil and gas sector, where gas turbines on offshore platforms are being upgraded to electric. In New Zealand, emissions from the power sector are declining. Traditionally the country has had a high share of hydropower, supplemented with coal and natural gas. But now wind and particularly geothermal energy is driving fossil generation down. We are projecting further emissions growth of 0.2% in China, albeit small and with some uncertainty (including the possibility of no growth or even slight decline). China added more solar panels in 2023 than the US did in its entire history. Individual country emissions vary widely, but there are some signs of progress towards decarbonisation. Global Carbon Budget 2024/Global Carbon Project, CC BY-ND Nature shows troubling signs In the 1960s, our activities emitted an average of 16 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year globally. About half of these emissions (8 billion tonnes) were naturally removed from the atmosphere by forests and oceans. Over the past decade, emissions from human activities reached about 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year. Again, about half of these emissions (20 billion tonnes) were removed. In the absence of these natural sinks, current warming would already be well above 2°C. But there’s a limit to how much nature can help. In 2023, the carbon uptake on land dropped 28% from the decadal average. Global record temperatures, drought in the Amazon and unprecedented wildfires in the forests of Canada were to blame, along with an El Niño event. As climate change continues, with rising ocean temperatures and more climate extremes on land, we expect the CO₂ sinks to become less efficient. But for now, we expect last year’s land sink decline will recover to a large degree as the El Niño event has subsided. About half of the CO₂ emissions were removed from the atmosphere by forests and oceans. When we tally up all of the sources compared to the sinks, the budget should balance. We find a slight imbalance of 1.6Gt/year due to limitations of the data. Global Carbon Budget 2024/Global Carbon Project, CC BY Looking ahead Our latest carbon budget shows global fossil fuel emissions continue to increase, further delaying the peak in emissions. Global CO₂ emissions continue to track in the middle of the range of scenarios developed by the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We have yet to bend the emissions curve into the 1.5–2°C warming territory of the Paris Agreement. This comes at a time when it’s clear we need to be reducing emissions, to avoid worsening climate change. We also identified some positive signs, such as the rapid adoption of renewable energy and electric cars as they become cheaper and more accessible, supporting the march toward a net-zero emissions pathway. But turning these trends into global decarbonisation requires a far greater level of ambition and action. Pep Canadell receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Climate Systems Hub. Corinne Le Quéré receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the UK Royal Society. She was granted a research donation by Schmidt Futures (project CALIPSO – Carbon Loss In Plants, Soils and Oceans). Corinne Le Quéré is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee. Her position here is her own and does not necessarily reflect that of the Committee. Glen Peters receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme.Judith Hauck receives funding from the European Research Council (OceanPeak) and the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation program (OceanICU – Improving Carbon Understanding). The work reflects only the authors' view; the European Commission and their executive agency are not responsible for any use that may be made.Julia Pongratz receives funding from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.Pierre Friedlingstein receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Robbie Andrew receives funding from the Norwegian Environment Agency and the European Union's Horizon Europe.

Forests
Climate
Education

Campaigners in Italy urge pope to stop ‘sacrifice’ of 200-year-old tree for Xmas

Twenty-nine-metre tall fir destined to be chopped down and transported to St Peter’s Square in the VaticanEnvironmental campaigners in Italy’s northern Trentino province have started a campaign to stop the felling of a 200-year-old fir tree intended to form the centrepiece of the Vatican’s Christmas decorations.The so-called “Green Giant” is 29 metres tall and is due to be chopped down next week in a forest in the Ledro valley before being transported to the Vatican and positioned in St Peter’s Square, where it will then be unveiled on 9 December. Continue reading...

Environmental campaigners in Italy’s northern Trentino province have started a campaign to stop the felling of a 200-year-old fir tree intended to form the centrepiece of the Vatican’s Christmas decorations.The so-called “Green Giant” is 29 metres tall and is due to be chopped down next week in a forest in the Ledro valley before being transported to the Vatican and positioned in St Peter’s Square, where it will then be unveiled on 9 December.The Vatican’s Christmas tree tradition began in 1982 and ever since then a fir is donated each year, either from a region in Italy or another European country. The gift is often a source of pride.But several environmental associations in Trentino are determined to foil this year’s plan. They have written an open letter to Pope Francis asking him to stop what they described as “a useless sacrifice”. Meanwhile, more than 40,000 people have signed a petition and residents in Ledro, a town with a population of about 600, are reportedly planning a road-block protest to prevent the tree’s passage to Rome.The letter reminded the pontiff, who often lambasts climate crisis deniers, that some of his encyclicals have focused on safeguarding the environment.“It is inconsistent to talk about fighting climate change and then perpetuate traditions like this, which require the elimination of such an ancient and symbolic tree,” the associations wrote.The petition’s appeal urged people to sign against “the purely consumerist practice” of using living trees “for mere advertising purposes and a few ridiculous selfies”.However, Renato Girardi, the mayor of Ledro, hit back, telling the Italian press that he hadn’t expected “such malice”.“They are ruining the Christmas festivities just for a plant,” he added. “We only want to donate a fir tree, and I would like to underline that if it wasn’t donated it would end up in a sawmill.”He added that the valley’s forests are managed in compliance with PEFC, the European Commission forestry certification system.“The fir tree that will be removed is part of one of the lots that must be felled for the correct cultivation of the forest,” he said.Girardi denied claims by the campaigners that 39 more trees would be torn down and dispatched to the Vatican to adorn the internal areas of the tiny city-state in an operation alleged to cost €60,000 (£50,000).“There is no shortage of inaccuracies [in their appeal],” Girardi told the online newspaper, il Dolomiti. “It is true that 40 trees will go towards the Vatican but only one will be cut down in the woods of the Ledro while the other 39 will be purchased from specialised nurseries, because the Holy See had expressed, from the beginning preferred Nordmann fir trees suitable for interiors because they do not lose their needles. These trees have another particular characteristic: they do not grow in Ledro.”The cost of chopping down and transporting the Green Giant was, in fact, €6,000, he said.A spokesperson for the Vatican did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Forests
Climate
Crisis

Suggested Viewing

The Story of a Forest

In 2004, a generation of activists arose in South Florida, carrying the passion of direct action groups like Earth First. and the deep analysis of the global justice movement that had swept the country in the preceding years. These activists sought local issues that exemplified the threats of corporate globalization. They stumbled upon a plan from biotech industry giants acting in collusion with the administration of then-Governor Jeb Bush to clear a vast swath of land in the Northeast Everglades of Florida to accommodate The Scripps Biotech Research Institute - And it was on. Over the next ten years, endless county zoning meetings were counter-balanced by dozens of civil disobedience arrests and a near-constant flow of news headlines about the battle: lawsuits, scandal, corruption, tree sits, endangered species, pranks, blockades, and a roller coaster of incremental victories followed by devastating losses for years on end. THE STORY OF A FOREST captures it all in a 1/2 hour documentary about the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition (PBCEC) and Everglades Earth First!'s (EEF!) ten-plus year campaign to stop the Scripps Biotech development, with a focus on protecting biodiversity in the Briger forest and the Florida wetlands.

Activism
Forests
Business

Where Do They All Go?

Join us on an quiet trip into the woods and see all the sites, big and small, that you may not have noticed before. There are critters, birds, deer, trees, and great bodies of water that will capture your eye for you to gaze upon. But be forewarned, some day these great sites may disappear in place for something more modern. So enjoy what time you have to gaze on such sites, it may be your last.

Land Use
Experimental
Forests

Foresters

Some teenagers kidnap a kid in the forest and take him to their boss in a cottage.

Forests
Fiction
Youth

Juskatla

Juskatla weaves together perspectives of the people who live on the islands of Haida Gwaii—an archipelago on Canada’s Northwest coast, and the ancestral territories of the Haida Nation. From industrial loggers who harvest trees from ancient forests, to Sphenia Jones, a Haida matriarch who bears an intimate knowledge of her People’s territories, Juskatla meditates on the divergent ways of being that shape the islands and its people.

Forests
Indigenous
Culture

Talking Trees

Yes, trees can talk. They communicate through their roots. Please listen to what they have to say in this short film.

Forests
Extinction
Climate

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.