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

The next big climate deadline is for meat and dairy

News Feed
Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Piglets stand in their enclosure at a pig farm in western France. | Jean-Francois Monier/AFP/GettyImages It’s a lot sooner than you think. For years, climate scientists have called for a phase-out of fossil fuels to avoid catastrophic global warming. Now, according to a first-of-its-kind survey of more than 200 environmental and agricultural scientists, we must also drastically reduce meat and dairy production — and fast. Global livestock emissions should peak by 2030 or sooner to meet the Paris climate agreement target of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the surveyed climate experts said. In high- and middle-income countries, which produce and consume the overwhelming majority of the global meat and dairy supply, livestock emissions should peak much earlier than in low-income countries. “We need to see major changes in livestock production and consumption — really deep and rapid changes over the next decade,” said Helen Harwatt, an environmental social scientist and lead author of the survey report, which was published last week by Harvard’s animal law and policy program, where Harwatt is a fellow. The survey was also co-authored by researchers Matthew Hayek, Paul Behrens, and William Ripple. Asked how rapidly global livestock emissions should fall after they peak, the experts’ most common response was a 50 percent or more decrease within five years after peaking. And the most effective way to do that, most survey respondents agreed, is by reducing the amount of meat and dairy humanity produces and consumes. But such a peak, let alone a swift reduction in the amount of meat we eat, is nowhere in sight. Rising global meat consumption, along with vanishingly little government policy designed to change diets or cut pollution from factory farms, means we’re all but guaranteed to miss even the least ambitious targets suggested by climate and agricultural scientists in the Harvard survey. Last year, a United Nations and OECD analysis predicted global meat consumption — a good but imperfect proxy for livestock emissions — won’t actually peak until 2075. Livestock emissions are primarily generated by cows’ methane-rich burps, animal manure, and the corn and soy produced to feed farmed animals. Globally, the sector accounts for around 15 to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and is the leading driver of deforestation, which further exacerbates climate change. Andrew Skowron/We Animals Media Cows are milked inside a 60-stall rotating carousel on a large dairy farm in Poland. But animal agriculture has largely evaded environmental regulation, and only 12 of the 175 countries that have signed on to the Paris climate agreement have committed to reduce livestock emissions. Nearly two decades ago, a United Nations report marked the livestock sector as one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Ever since, there’s been a steady drip of research on the need to scale back meat production in high- and middle-income countries. Industry is fighting back. A well-oiled PR machine composed of shadowy communications groups, industry-funded academics, and pro-meat influencers all push out the message that livestock aren’t so bad for the planet. Their claims have ranged from misleading scientific arguments to hollow corporate greenwashing to outright disinformation. Harwatt’s survey cuts through all this noise, revealing a consensus among climate scientists that the annual slaughter of around 80 billion land animals for food is simply unsustainable. How to slash meat’s carbon footprint: produce a lot less of it As pressure increases for the livestock industries to reduce emissions, companies and governments have announced a slate of technologies and farming practices they claim will help reduce meat and dairy’s carbon footprint. This includes things like improving manure management, changing animals’ diets and genetics, and “regenerative agriculture,” a type of farming that aims to sequester and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere inside the soil. But according to the new survey’s respondents, these industry-touted practices won’t do nearly as much to cut pollution from cow burps and chicken poop as raising and eating fewer animals. Around three-quarters of respondents said reducing livestock production and consumption would make a large or very large contribution to shrinking the livestock sector’s carbon footprint. Less than half of respondents said the same about the practices often promoted by industry. “We need to drastically reduce livestock numbers, particularly in high- and middle-income countries — the evidence shows that clearly,” said Pete Smith, a survey respondent and climate scientist at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. Smith is an authority on the issue, acting as a lead author on United Nations environmental reports for over two decades. Almost half the survey respondents said that replacing beef with lower-emissions meats like pork, poultry, and farmed fish would make a large or very large contribution to emissions reduction. But Smith warns against this because raising those species still requires a significant amount of farmland to grow corn and soy to feed them. In other words, they’re still far more carbon-intensive than plant-based foods. “They’re eating products that are grown on land that could be growing food for humans instead, so it’s still a really inefficient thing to do to swap out ruminant [beef, lamb, goat] products for other different types of meat,” Smith said. Jo-Anne McArthur/Animal Equality/We Animals Media An industrial egg-laying facility on the outskirts of Madrid, Spain, holds hundreds of thousands of hens. Hens are typically kept in small cages to lay eggs for 18 months before they are shipped to slaughter and replaced by younger, higher-productivity hens. At this facility, the cage housing system is stacked seven rows high. It would be far better for the environment and animal welfare to transition to growing “plant-based products that can be consumed directly by humans,” he said. “I think that’s got to be the way forward. And that’s the one that will free up the most land that will allow us to create the carbon sinks that we need.” One survey question asked how our diets would need to change if the livestock sector were required to reduce emissions to align with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Participants answered on a sliding scale, with minus five meaning a more animal-based diet, zero meaning maintaining current diets, and five meaning more plant-based diets. On average globally, respondents said, we’d need to adopt a diet much richer in plant-based foods. But scientific consensus is often no match for politics. Navigating the politics of meat In the US, there’s been no legislation passed to meaningfully reduce livestock emissions, as industry has lobbied hard against proposed regulations. European policymakers seeking to regulate animal agriculture have been met with fierce opposition. In the Netherlands, farmers have jammed up highways with tractors and set fire to hay bales in protest of new limits on livestock pollution. “As we have seen by the recent protests in Europe, it’s really becoming a left/right, or a liberal/conservative dividing line,” said Lukas Fesenfeld, a researcher at ETH Zurich and lecturer at the University of Bern who studies environmental and food policy. Fesenfeld did not participate in the survey. Fesenfeld said it’s also a political economy issue, meaning that there aren’t many actors who would benefit economically from a radical reduction in livestock numbers. Meanwhile, the powerful meat lobby has a strong interest in maintaining the status quo. There’s also the personal element: People like meat, and government policy designed to reduce its supply would be highly unpopular. A solution, Fesenfeld said, is to implement policy in a certain sequence — first carrots, then sticks — that could help reduce political blowback and ensure a more just transition. First, governments could fund research and development to make meat and dairy alternatives taste better and become more affordable, while supporting farmers growing crops for a more plant-based food supply chain. Denmark, Germany, and other countries are experimenting with such policies. Second, there’s a lot the public sector could do to change the food environment to be more climate-friendly. For example, buying more plant-based meals with government dollars — like at schools and hospitals — and working with restaurants, grocers, and cafeterias to offer more plant-based options (and better market them). Over the last two years, for example, New York City’s hospital system served 1.2 million plant-based meals, which it says reduced its food carbon footprint by 36 percent in 2023, saved money, and had high reported satisfaction from patients. Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office In April 2023 at NYC Health & Hospitals’ Culinary Center, Rohit T. Aggarwala — head of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection — and Mayor Eric Adams released the city’s first integrated greenhouse gas inventory, which incorporates emissions from the production and consumption of food. These two approaches could eventually make more aggressive policies, like reducing agricultural subsidies for livestock production or making large meat companies pay for excessive pollution, more politically digestible. “It’s a really challenging thing, actually, for policymakers and the industry to think about the kind of depth and pace of the reductions that the experts are saying are needed,” Harwatt said. But after decades of inaction, we’re left with two options: aggressive policy to achieve that required depth and pace of reductions, or a dire level of global warming. A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!

Small white-haired piglets with large pink ears and noses stand in a group in western France on September 7, 2014.
Piglets stand in their enclosure at a pig farm in western France. | Jean-Francois Monier/AFP/GettyImages

It’s a lot sooner than you think.

For years, climate scientists have called for a phase-out of fossil fuels to avoid catastrophic global warming. Now, according to a first-of-its-kind survey of more than 200 environmental and agricultural scientists, we must also drastically reduce meat and dairy production — and fast.

Global livestock emissions should peak by 2030 or sooner to meet the Paris climate agreement target of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the surveyed climate experts said. In high- and middle-income countries, which produce and consume the overwhelming majority of the global meat and dairy supply, livestock emissions should peak much earlier than in low-income countries.

A bar chart showing that a majority of respondents said livestock emissions in high-income countries should peak before 2025 to align with the Paris Agreement.

“We need to see major changes in livestock production and consumption — really deep and rapid changes over the next decade,” said Helen Harwatt, an environmental social scientist and lead author of the survey report, which was published last week by Harvard’s animal law and policy program, where Harwatt is a fellow. The survey was also co-authored by researchers Matthew Hayek, Paul Behrens, and William Ripple.

Asked how rapidly global livestock emissions should fall after they peak, the experts’ most common response was a 50 percent or more decrease within five years after peaking. And the most effective way to do that, most survey respondents agreed, is by reducing the amount of meat and dairy humanity produces and consumes.

But such a peak, let alone a swift reduction in the amount of meat we eat, is nowhere in sight. Rising global meat consumption, along with vanishingly little government policy designed to change diets or cut pollution from factory farms, means we’re all but guaranteed to miss even the least ambitious targets suggested by climate and agricultural scientists in the Harvard survey.

Last year, a United Nations and OECD analysis predicted global meat consumption — a good but imperfect proxy for livestock emissions — won’t actually peak until 2075.

Livestock emissions are primarily generated by cows’ methane-rich burps, animal manure, and the corn and soy produced to feed farmed animals. Globally, the sector accounts for around 15 to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and is the leading driver of deforestation, which further exacerbates climate change.

Inside a warehouse, a large metal carousel is tightly packed with cows, who are each held in separated enclosures with their heads held in place between metal bars. Andrew Skowron/We Animals Media
Cows are milked inside a 60-stall rotating carousel on a large dairy farm in Poland.

But animal agriculture has largely evaded environmental regulation, and only 12 of the 175 countries that have signed on to the Paris climate agreement have committed to reduce livestock emissions.

Nearly two decades ago, a United Nations report marked the livestock sector as one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Ever since, there’s been a steady drip of research on the need to scale back meat production in high- and middle-income countries.

Industry is fighting back. A well-oiled PR machine composed of shadowy communications groups, industry-funded academics, and pro-meat influencers all push out the message that livestock aren’t so bad for the planet. Their claims have ranged from misleading scientific arguments to hollow corporate greenwashing to outright disinformation.

Harwatt’s survey cuts through all this noise, revealing a consensus among climate scientists that the annual slaughter of around 80 billion land animals for food is simply unsustainable.

How to slash meat’s carbon footprint: produce a lot less of it

As pressure increases for the livestock industries to reduce emissions, companies and governments have announced a slate of technologies and farming practices they claim will help reduce meat and dairy’s carbon footprint. This includes things like improving manure management, changing animals’ diets and genetics, and “regenerative agriculture,” a type of farming that aims to sequester and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere inside the soil.

But according to the new survey’s respondents, these industry-touted practices won’t do nearly as much to cut pollution from cow burps and chicken poop as raising and eating fewer animals.

A stacked bar chart depicting the response of climate and agricultural scientists when asked to rate the effectiveness of various solutions to decrease meat and dairy production emissions. The majority responded that reducing meat and dairy consumption and reducing the number of farmed animals would be the most effective solutions.

Around three-quarters of respondents said reducing livestock production and consumption would make a large or very large contribution to shrinking the livestock sector’s carbon footprint. Less than half of respondents said the same about the practices often promoted by industry.

“We need to drastically reduce livestock numbers, particularly in high- and middle-income countries — the evidence shows that clearly,” said Pete Smith, a survey respondent and climate scientist at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. Smith is an authority on the issue, acting as a lead author on United Nations environmental reports for over two decades.

Almost half the survey respondents said that replacing beef with lower-emissions meats like pork, poultry, and farmed fish would make a large or very large contribution to emissions reduction. But Smith warns against this because raising those species still requires a significant amount of farmland to grow corn and soy to feed them. In other words, they’re still far more carbon-intensive than plant-based foods.

“They’re eating products that are grown on land that could be growing food for humans instead, so it’s still a really inefficient thing to do to swap out ruminant [beef, lamb, goat] products for other different types of meat,” Smith said.

A person in a hazmat suit stands in a dimly lit aisle flanked on either side by fully packed chicken cages, pointing a camera at the cage before them. Jo-Anne McArthur/Animal Equality/We Animals Media
An industrial egg-laying facility on the outskirts of Madrid, Spain, holds hundreds of thousands of hens. Hens are typically kept in small cages to lay eggs for 18 months before they are shipped to slaughter and replaced by younger, higher-productivity hens. At this facility, the cage housing system is stacked seven rows high.

It would be far better for the environment and animal welfare to transition to growing “plant-based products that can be consumed directly by humans,” he said. “I think that’s got to be the way forward. And that’s the one that will free up the most land that will allow us to create the carbon sinks that we need.”

One survey question asked how our diets would need to change if the livestock sector were required to reduce emissions to align with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Participants answered on a sliding scale, with minus five meaning a more animal-based diet, zero meaning maintaining current diets, and five meaning more plant-based diets.

A graph depicting survey participants’ responses when asked to answer the following question: How would diets change if livestock emissions were reduced to align with the Paris Agreement? Answer: All countries would transition to more plant-based diets. High-income countries would have a significantly more plant-based diet than they currently do, followed by middle-income countries, and then low-income countries.

On average globally, respondents said, we’d need to adopt a diet much richer in plant-based foods. But scientific consensus is often no match for politics.

Navigating the politics of meat

In the US, there’s been no legislation passed to meaningfully reduce livestock emissions, as industry has lobbied hard against proposed regulations. European policymakers seeking to regulate animal agriculture have been met with fierce opposition. In the Netherlands, farmers have jammed up highways with tractors and set fire to hay bales in protest of new limits on livestock pollution.

“As we have seen by the recent protests in Europe, it’s really becoming a left/right, or a liberal/conservative dividing line,” said Lukas Fesenfeld, a researcher at ETH Zurich and lecturer at the University of Bern who studies environmental and food policy. Fesenfeld did not participate in the survey.

Fesenfeld said it’s also a political economy issue, meaning that there aren’t many actors who would benefit economically from a radical reduction in livestock numbers. Meanwhile, the powerful meat lobby has a strong interest in maintaining the status quo. There’s also the personal element: People like meat, and government policy designed to reduce its supply would be highly unpopular.

A solution, Fesenfeld said, is to implement policy in a certain sequence — first carrots, then sticks — that could help reduce political blowback and ensure a more just transition.

First, governments could fund research and development to make meat and dairy alternatives taste better and become more affordable, while supporting farmers growing crops for a more plant-based food supply chain. Denmark, Germany, and other countries are experimenting with such policies.

Second, there’s a lot the public sector could do to change the food environment to be more climate-friendly. For example, buying more plant-based meals with government dollars — like at schools and hospitals — and working with restaurants, grocers, and cafeterias to offer more plant-based options (and better market them).

Over the last two years, for example, New York City’s hospital system served 1.2 million plant-based meals, which it says reduced its food carbon footprint by 36 percent in 2023, saved money, and had high reported satisfaction from patients.

Chefs wearing tall white chef hats and black aprons serve food from buffet tables covered in lime green tablecloths. Mayor Eric Adams walks past, smiling, beside a chef wearing black-rimmed eyeglasses. Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office
In April 2023 at NYC Health & Hospitals’ Culinary Center, Rohit T. Aggarwala — head of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection — and Mayor Eric Adams released the city’s first integrated greenhouse gas inventory, which incorporates emissions from the production and consumption of food.

These two approaches could eventually make more aggressive policies, like reducing agricultural subsidies for livestock production or making large meat companies pay for excessive pollution, more politically digestible.

“It’s a really challenging thing, actually, for policymakers and the industry to think about the kind of depth and pace of the reductions that the experts are saying are needed,” Harwatt said. But after decades of inaction, we’re left with two options: aggressive policy to achieve that required depth and pace of reductions, or a dire level of global warming.

A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Laser-based lidar tech is rewriting history — if climate change doesn't erase it first

Multiple ancient cities have been discovered recently thanks to lidar. But time is running out for some sites

Tashbulak and Tugunbulak may be largely forgotten today, but the pair of Uzbekistani cities thrived during the Medieval era. Nestled in the Tien Shan mountains, the largest east to west mountain range on Earth, merchants from all over Europe and Asia would travel to Tashbulak and Tugunbulak to hawk their wares. Located on the famous Silk Road, Tashbulak and Tugunbulak was a nexus of trade and culture. More than a thousand years have passed since their heyday, however, and as humans continue to destroy our environment, archaeological treasures like those in these cities could be lost forever. But thanks to a powerful laser-based technology called lidar, ancient history is being illuminated like never before. Scientists still debate whether lidar stands for “laser imaging, detection and ranging” or “light detection and ranging.” Either acronym accurately summarizes the technology, which uses lasers to measure large areas by targeting a surface or object and measuring how long it takes for light to be reflected back.But no one is debating how lidar is helping preserve humanity’s most important treasures from our species’ tendency to destroy our natural environment. "All of the storytelling takes time, and time is critical right now." As for the lost cities of Tashbulak and Tugunbulak, anthropologist Michael Frachetti used lidar to conduct unprecedentedly detailed scans of the Medieval metropolis, which thrived approximately 2,000 meters above sea level between the 6th and 11th centuries. Their research was published in October in the journal Nature, with Frachetti marveling at how these ancient cities struggled with the same self-destructive habit of exploiting their natural resources. “There does appear to be an environmental factor which played a role in both the establishment of the cities in high altitude — in this case areas rich in ore and other resources,” Frachetti said. “We hypothesize that the investment these populations made in producing iron metallurgy would have had significant environmental impact on local forest resources used for fuel. This remains to be demonstrated scientifically, but given the scale of smelting documented at Tugunbulak, it makes sense that there would have been consequential effects on the ecology of this highland landscape.” Frachetti, who teaches at Washington University in St. Louis, added that “we think there is a broader lesson related to the impact of intensive exploitation of the environment and the ultimate sustainability of Urban settings, which we can extrapolate from this time in history.” Lidar image of La Mojana Raised Fields in Colombia (Courtesy of NV5)Ron Chapple agrees that lidar keeps reminding us about the importance of environmental protection. Chapple is the former CEO of GEO1, a company that specialized in utilizing lidar technology. He was an early investor in lidar technology, recognizing during his former career as an aerial cinematographer that it has the potential to transform archaeology. He regularly is consulted by scholars about how to use lidar, and today Chapple is VP Global Strategic Solutions at NV5, a multinational corporation that also specializes in lidar, imaging and analytics. He is particularly well-known for acquiring extremely detailed images of a lost city half a world away from Uzbekistan — Ciudad Perdida (literally Spanish for "lost city"), an ancient city in Colombia’s Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountains. Ciudad Perdida is believed to have been founded about 800 A.D., which is true would make it older than Machu Picchu by more than six centuries. Archaeologists dream of discovering more locations like Ciudad Perdida, and yet Chapple has watched with anxiety as human activity endangers these delicate sites. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. Indeed, last week a 1,100-year-old pyramid in Mexico collapsed into a pile of rubble because of heavy rainfall that was preceded by record-breaking drought that evaporated entire lakes. Tariakuiri Alvarez, a living member of the P'urhépecha tribe, told Live Science his ancestors would have interpreted the crumbling of the pyramid at Ihuatzio as a "bad omen." Salon spoke with Chapple about the future of lidar and how, because of climate change, he believes humanity needs to start using lidar as much as possible to protect our civilization’s greatest treasures before they are lost forever. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. What do we know for sure about climate change and its impact on the future of archeology? What about other human activities such as warfare or various forms of industrial, agricultural and other commercial development? I think it's safe to assume that climate change is going to change current human living patterns in a few different ways. For example, if the world is getting a little bit warmer where crops would say grow at a 2,000-foot elevation, now that it's warmer, the farmers might need to go upslope to 3,000-foot elevation and start clear-cutting areas so their crops can continue to grow. By clear cutting, you have the potential to damage untouched areas where there could be sites of archeological significance. "During the helicopter flight, we could see clear-cutting occurring within a couple of miles of the site that we were surveying." I think that's one of the main ones, as well as any similar type of development where there are more people moving on Earth, or if there is warfare, any human influence has the potential to expose untouched areas. If we can use lidar and survey those areas in advance, we not only may be able to preserve and record any evidence of ancient settlements, but that data could assist in better land planning. Likewise with sea level rise. Increasing ocean heights may cause migration from the coast to higher ground. Again, you're opening or removing forests with farming and development that could affect archeological sites. How does lidar offer a solution to these? We were doing archeological discovery in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountains in northern Colombia. During the helicopter flight, we could see clear-cutting occurring within a couple of miles of the site that we were surveying and in roughly similar terrain. Now we have no way of knowing if there was anything of historical value there or not, but it has the potential of modifying the land so that we may never know what history could have been hidden under the rainforest. Lidar image of Ciudad Perdida (Courtesy of NV5)How much of the data that your company has accumulated over the years can be realistically analyzed by qualified historians, anthropologists and other scholars who can actually transform it into meaningful stories and history? NV5 doesn’t deliver just numbers. NV5 believes in democratizing data, and we use algorithms that say, for archeologists, will highlight the contours of the ground. This visualization makes it easier for researchers to be able to look at that data and understand what they're looking at. In many cases, we are layering that data with other information such as imagery from either airplanes or satellites to provide more context. Aerial View of Ciudad Perdida (Courtesy of NV5)How do you tell a story with that data? How do you make that data easy to understand? All of the storytelling takes time, and time is critical right now. We analyze and learn what's out there. I think of Chris Fisher, an archeologist friend of mine who discovered ancient settlements in Honduras using lidar technology. Chris always says, “Is the Amazon natural,  or are we looking at an overgrown garden? In the 1500s, something like 90% of the population in South America was wiped out because of disease that came in when the Europeans settled and started to explore. For example, in 1520, when [Hernán] Cortés arrived in the densely populated Mexican city of Tenochtitlan, his soldiers brought along smallpox, which killed off 40% of the population in a single year. It harkens back to COVID-19 in an extreme sense. The more we learn about these civilizations that are now beneath the dense jungle canopy, the more we may be able to learn about our future. I'm thinking of the recent discoveries in Brazil and Uzbekistan using lidar. As I'm sure you saw, a research team in the Brazilian state of Rondônia discovered an 18th century Portuguese colonial city. In Uzbekistan, a different research team provided great detail about a pair of 6th to 11th century cities on the Silk Road, Tashbulak and Tugunbulak, that had thrived before being lost to time. What are your thoughts about the significance of these individual discoveries and how the average news consumer should internalize them in terms of their larger relevance? Is there something out there that's going to change our civilization dramatically? Maybe not today, because we have better ways to fight disease, but knowing what was out there is essential. Is it possible that some of the world’s greatest cities are still lying hidden beneath the Amazon rainforest, or in other undiscovered areas around our world? While I am not a doomsayer, with a catastrophic meteor or nuclear event, large swaths of civilization could be changed forever. What’s interesting to me about working with NV5 is that we provide data and analytics that will provide the tools for humanity to manage climate change and population growth. But back to archeology, we need to understand what was there before it's too late and provide the history that our fellow humans and children deserve. Read more about ancient history

Climate
Culture
Health

Cop29’s new carbon market rules offer hope after scandal and deadlock

Countries agree on how to create, trade and register credits to meet climate commitmentsIt was once among the most promising ways to funnel climate finance to vulnerable communities and nature conservation. The trading of carbon credits, each equal to a tonne of CO2 that has been reduced or removed from the atmosphere, was meant to target quick, cost-effective wins on climate and biodiversity. In 2022, demand soared as companies made environmental commitments using offsets, with the market surpassing $2bn (£1.6bn) while experiencing exponential growth. But the excitement did not last.Two years later, many carbon markets organisations are clinging on for survival, with several firms losing millions of dollars a year and cutting jobs. Scandals about environmentally worthless credits, an FBI charge against a leading project developer for a $100m fraud, and a lack of clarity about where money from offsets went has caused their market value to plunge by more than half. Predictions that standing rainforests and other carbon-rich ecosystems would become multibillion-dollar assets have not yet come to pass. Continue reading...

It was once among the most promising ways to funnel climate finance to vulnerable communities and nature conservation. The trading of carbon credits, each equal to a tonne of CO2 that has been reduced or removed from the atmosphere, was meant to target quick, cost-effective wins on climate and biodiversity. In 2022, demand soared as companies made environmental commitments using offsets, with the market surpassing $2bn (£1.6bn) while experiencing exponential growth. But the excitement did not last.Two years later, many carbon markets organisations are clinging on for survival, with several firms losing millions of dollars a year and cutting jobs. Scandals about environmentally worthless credits, an FBI charge against a leading project developer for a $100m fraud, and a lack of clarity about where money from offsets went has caused their market value to plunge by more than half. Predictions that standing rainforests and other carbon-rich ecosystems would become multibillion-dollar assets have not yet come to pass.But at Cop29 over the past two weeks, governments have given the sector fresh hope by signing off rules that will create an international carbon trading system for countries to meet their Paris commitments.In Azerbaijan on Saturday evening, governments agreed to rules on how countries can create, trade and register emission reductions and removals as carbon credits after years of deadlock on article 6 of the Paris agreement. It paves the way for top emitters such as Germany and Japan to buy cheap removals and reductions from decarbonisation schemes in developing countries such as renewable energy schemes, rainforest protection or tree-planting, counting them towards their own targets. Trading could begin as soon as 2025 once technical bodies have agreed on the finer details.If it works well, the market would fund the low-hanging fruit of climate mitigation while making sure emissions are capped in line with the Paris agreement. There is particularly strong interest in carbon removal, with many large tech firms buying credits and trying to scale up the market. After several false starts, negotiators and observers say this is the last chance to get it right.“International carbon markets have crashed twice in two decades. This was due to an erosion of credibility. At Baku, the operationalisation of international carbon trading under Paris can prevent a third meltdown that could be fatal,” said Axel Michaelowa, a carbon markets expert at the University of Zurich. “They are a powerful tool to accelerate the diffusion of low-carbon technology around the world. The Paris carbon market is now ready to roll out in 2025. It can accelerate mitigation and thus help close the gaping emissions gap that separates us from achieving the 1.5C target,” he said.Big concerns about carbon markets remain. In the run-up to Cop28 in Dubai last year, it emerged that vast tracts of African forest had been sold off in a series of huge carbon offsetting deals to a little-known UAE firm overseen by a member of Dubai’s royal family, prompting fears of a “new scramble for Africa” over the continent’s carbon resources.The potential size and impact of any country-level market is also unclear. Norway has reserved up to $740m (£590) for purchases under the Paris carbon market, signing agreements in Baku with Benin, Jordan, Senegal and Zambia, but there are questions over how many other developed countries will make purchases despite predictions it could soar into a multibillion-dollar market.Then, there is the issue of environmental integrity, which has repeatedly undermined faith in carbon credits, including the previous UN carbon trading system. A new study in Nature Communications published during the first week of Cop29 found that less than 16% of carbon credits issued represent real emissions reductions, meaning that the vast majority are hot air. Moments after governments approved the Paris carbon trading system, observers warned that the rules were not strict enough to avoid similar issues.Dr Lambert Schneider, one of the co-authors and a senior researcher at the Oeko-Institut, said these problems would undermine the Paris agreement if they spilled into the official UN system.“The available evidence suggests that many carbon credits are not backed by any actual emission reductions. If these quality issues continue under article 6, this could undermine our efforts to achieve our climate targets. It is critical that we fix the integrity issue of the market,” he said.“We currently see proposals on the table that would credit the natural absorption of carbon dioxide by forests. But these removals occur anyways and not because of any human intervention. If these credits are used by buyers to emit more, this would result in more carbon added up to the atmosphere. And the potential for issuing such credits is very large,” he said.There have been efforts to clean up standards in the sector, which could form part of the UN market. Verra, the leading carbon credit standard which was the subject of a joint Guardian investigation into their rainforest offsets that found they were mostly worthless, is introducing a new system for generating the carbon credits. Mandy Rambharos, the non-profit’s CEO, said they were determined to get it right and move on from recent issues.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“We’ve invested in millions of dollars for no guarantee of any return [in the new rainforest carbon credit methodology]. It’s all done at risk,” she said. “We need to take accountability for some things that went wrong. But I’m saying as well, it’s not just Verra.“The idea to grow the carbon market is to get climate financing to the right places. A London taxpayer is not going to give thousands of dollars to developing countries to reduce the emissions, especially if you’re not sure about those developing countries’ commitment. We’re all in the same bucket, whether it’s Mali, Saudi Arabia or China; that’s where the idea of where carbon markets came about,” she added.This month, a carbon credit integrity initiative – the ICVCM – approved three rainforest methodologies as high quality, including Verra’s new rules, meaning that buyers can trust that the credits represent real emission reductions. But those involved with the process have raised concerns about their approval. The Guardian understands that many experts did not think the methodologies met the standards. This is strongly contested by the ICVCM.Credits such as this could eventually form part of country-to-country carbon deals, and experts say that ensuring these deals have real environmental benefits will be key to their success.“The new rules are a start, but the risk of abuse still remains alive and well,” said Injy Johnstone, a research fellow at the University of Oxford. “We have to learn the lessons of past mistakes and watch for new ones this system could create, otherwise we risk the Paris agreement becoming a market failure,” she said.

Climate
Conservation
Forests

COP29 Highlights Costa Rica’s Role in Climate-Resilient Tourism

Costa Rica continues to lead the charge in sustainable tourism by championing the Baku Declaration on Climate Action, unveiled on November 20 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan. The declaration, endorsed by over 50 countries, highlights tourism’s critical role in combating climate change and building resilience. It calls for integrating […] The post COP29 Highlights Costa Rica’s Role in Climate-Resilient Tourism appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica continues to lead the charge in sustainable tourism by championing the Baku Declaration on Climate Action, unveiled on November 20 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan. The declaration, endorsed by over 50 countries, highlights tourism’s critical role in combating climate change and building resilience. It calls for integrating sustainable tourism practices into national climate strategies, showcasing the sector’s potential to drive eco-friendly development. “Tourism is a major contributor to global economic growth, providing livelihoods for millions. However, it is also responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, ecosystem degradation, and remains vulnerable to climate change,” said COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev. During Tourism Day at COP29, the Baku Declaration encouraged national tourism administrations to align their efforts with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—commitments made under the Paris Agreement. It also called for embedding climate action into tourism policies and accelerating National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) to build resilience against climate impacts. Franz Tattenbach, Costa Rica’s Minister of Environment and Energy, reaffirmed Costa Rica’s leadership during initial discussions. As chair of the UN Tourism Sustainability Committee, Tattenbach emphasized the urgent need to decarbonize tourism through green initiatives that protect biodiversity and ecosystems. “Costa Rica is committed to accelerating National Adaptation Plans in the tourism sector, ensuring greater resilience to climate change impacts,” Tattenbach said. Participating countries pledged to strengthen the Glasgow Declaration on Climate Action in Tourism, which provides a voluntary framework for increasing stakeholder commitments to climate adaptation and mitigation. This includes reducing emissions, adopting sustainable travel practices, and promoting responsible tourism globally. As the world navigates a path toward sustainability, Costa Rica’s leadership in climate-resilient tourism offers a blueprint for harmonizing economic growth with environmental stewardship. The post COP29 Highlights Costa Rica’s Role in Climate-Resilient Tourism appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Climate
Sustainable

The Biden Administration Put $7 Billion Into “Hydrogen Hubs.” Critics Smell a Boondoggle.

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In the fall of 2023, the Biden administration announced $7 billion in funding for seven hydrogen hubs, slated to be built across the country over the next eight to 12 years. If all goes as planned, one of those hubs, the Mid-Atlantic […]

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In the fall of 2023, the Biden administration announced $7 billion in funding for seven hydrogen hubs, slated to be built across the country over the next eight to 12 years. If all goes as planned, one of those hubs, the Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub (MACH2)—a network of more than a dozen interconnected hydrogen production centers, storage facilities, pipelines, and new solar farms that will power these operations—will stretch from southeastern Pennsylvania and neighboring southern New Jersey into Delaware. Expected to receive $750 million in federal funding, MACH2 is projected to create roughly 20,800 jobs in the Delaware Valley region, of which 6,400 will be permanent. The US Department of Energy (DOE) says that a sufficiently robust buildout of hydrogen production could power steelmaking, cement production, and other energy-intensive heavy industries, which account for more than a fifth of national carbon emissions and have been notoriously hard to decarbonize, as well as fueling ships, airplanes, and trucks. But some environmentalists and energy experts question whether investing so much money in hydrogen could siphon funding from more effective decarbonization strategies. Even a so-called “green” hub, which runs entirely on renewable energy, they say, might not provide the promised carbon-reduction benefits and could potentially even increase emissions. And residents of potential host communities—particularly the hard-pressed city of Chester, Pennsylvania, where some of the MACH2 facilities are planned—are concerned that they will bear the brunt of the potential risks and health hazards that hydrogen production and transport could bring. “Safety knowledge and best practices for the production and transportation of hydrogen are well-established and mature.” Scientists discovered how to extract usable hydrogen from water molecules using electrolysis in the 1800s, and as far back as 1874, novelist Jules Verne predicted it would someday be “the coal of the future.” Hydrogen is, after all, the most abundant element on the planet, and it produces no carbon emissions when burned. The United States already produces 10 million metric tons of hydrogen a year—but most of it is derived from natural gas and is largely used in petroleum refining and in making ammonia for manufacturing fertilizer. Every ton of ammonia produced generates 2.6 tons of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report published in Green Chemistry. Still, scaling up low- or zero-carbon hydrogen production wasn’t considered financially viable until passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which offer substantial tax credits to producers of clean hydrogen. Today, some proposed hubs are planning on producing “blue” hydrogen—that is, hydrogen created using natural gas but with the resulting carbon emissions captured and stored underground. Representatives of the MACH2 hub say that 82 percent of their production will be “green,” meaning powered by solar and wind; 15 percent will be “pink”—powered by the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants, in southern New Jersey; and the remaining 3 percent will be “orange”—powered by biogas, which is produced when organic matter decomposes in an anaerobic environment. Despite MACH2’s commitment to using green energy, some environmental advocates and local residents have reservations. Will the production facilities and pipelines pose threats to the environment and human health? Will the development process be transparent? Will jobs for community members materialize? A year after the official announcement, the hub has shared few details with the public—locations of facilities, potential environmental impacts, how the project would benefit communities—saying plans have not yet been finalized pending permit approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), commitments from private investors, and contract negotiations between the DOE and the companies that will operate as part of the hub, who are expected to provide investments to match their government-awarded funds. More information will be released in the project’s next phase, expected to begin in the coming year. The lack of specificity has unnerved environmental and community groups. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network, an environmental advocacy nonprofit, is alarmed by what it sees as a lack of proper safety precautions. Part of MACH2’s plan involves repurposing old fossil fuel infrastructure to carry hydrogen. Like many aspects of the project, what that means isn’t yet clear. “These projects are often placed in areas that have less political power and representation. We should have the right of refusal.” MACH2 officials are currently creating an inventory of underutilized infrastructure, according to Matt Krayton, the communications lead for the hub. He says the hub would likely repurpose existing pipeline rights of way—every pipeline needs approval from landowners whose property would be crossed—and possibly the pipelines themselves, which would be re-sleeved with a hydrogen-safe polymer to prevent leaks. Some 1,600 miles of hydrogen pipelines are already operating across the US, and Nick Barilo, executive director of the Center for Hydrogen Safety at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, noted that all combustible fuels carry a certain amount of risk, and hydrogen is no more dangerous than natural gas. “The US industry has been using hydrogen for over a century,” Barilo said. “Safety knowledge and best practices for the production and transportation of hydrogen are well-established and mature.” In some potential host communities, like Chester, Pennsylvania, assurances like Barilo’s fall flat. Fifteen miles outside of Philadelphia, the city once bustled with manufacturing and heavy industry. But after World War II, plants began to shutter, and the city entered a long decline. By 2020, its population was half its 1950 peak. Today, a third of Chester residents live in poverty, and the city, which declared bankruptcy in 2022, is host to 11 industries classified by the DEP as hazardous, including one of the largest incinerators in the nation. Chester’s asthma rate is double the state level, according to an analysis conducted by the Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology, at the University of Pennsylvania. “These [industries] assault us every day,” said Zulene Mayfield of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living. “And it is sanctioned by the state.” “These projects are often placed in areas that have less political power and representation,” said Kearni Warren, a local outreach coordinator for the Clean Air Council, an environmental health advocacy organization. “We should have the right of refusal when it comes to projects that put our health and safety at risk.” When MACH2 finalizes its arrangements with the DEP and formally begins Phase 1 of the project, which includes a community engagement plan and detailed plans for building sites, residents may start to see if their skepticism is warranted. But the industry still faces headwinds over its potential costs and benefits. Although burning hydrogen produces no direct greenhouse gas emissions, hydrogen that leaks into the atmosphere, according to a 2022 research paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, increases concentrations of other greenhouse gases, like methane, ozone, and water vapor. “Any time you’re handling [hydrogen], producing it, transporting it, storing it — [the molecule] is so small that the risk of leaks is significant,” said Talor Musil, a field manager at the Pennsylvania-based nonprofit Environmental Health Project. And according to a recent report published by Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, an energy and climate policy think tank, making green hydrogen to power short-haul planes and heavy-duty vehicles—two sectors often touted as ripe for adopting hydrogen—is neither economical nor efficient. Roughly 20 to 30 percent of hydrogen’s energy value is lost in the process of splitting water molecules, the report said, and another 15 percent may be lost during compression and storage. The Energy Innovation report ranked the potential end uses for hydrogen by their long-term viability and determined that it made the most financial and environmental sense for refining oil and producing ammonia for fertilizer, while also having value in steelmaking and long-haul aviation and marine shipping. Energy experts agree on these high-value uses for hydrogren, but the Inflation Reduction Act guarantees a tax credit for the fuel, no matter what its end use, for 10 years. Given rapid advances in battery technology, said the Energy Innovations report, it will be hard to justify hydrogen’s expense in industries like trucking—which can operate far more cheaply using electricity—when the credit ends. A recent study by a group of Harvard researchers estimated that depending on what it’s ultimately used for, green hydrogen may wind up being even less cost effective at fighting climate change than direct air capture of CO2, which the International Energy Agency estimated would have an operating cost, when scaled up, of between $230 and $630 per metric ton of CO2 captured. And then there’s the matter of impact. The seven hubs combined are projected to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 25 million metric tons of CO2 a year (not counting the emissions linked with hydrogen production). The total tonnage is not significant, some experts say—it amounts to less than half of one percent of total US CO2 emissions—considering the $7 billion in taxpayer support. But the Energy Department considers the hubs a catalyst, a way to “kickstart a national network of clean hydrogen producers, consumers, and connective infrastructure”; presumably, costs of hydrogen production will drop as the industry develops. Unless the federal government implements strict rules on carbon capture and the use of green energy for the hubs, the industry could actually increase overall emissions, according to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Last November, Rachel Fakhry, the NRDC’s policy director for emerging technologies, testified before the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee that, for hydrogen to be truly sustainable, green hubs would need to abide by three main tenets: buying electricity from newly built renewable energy sources, rather than pulling existing renewables from the grid (a requirement known as “additionality”); matching their hourly use with the availability of green energy, which prevents hubs from dipping into fossil fuels and buying clean energy credits after the fact; and using clean energy that’s produced close to the hubs, ensuring that its delivery doesn’t lead to increased emissions. Legislators and industry groups are already indicating they will challenge a proposed additionality requirement. As the federal government works to finalize how it will regulate the hydrogen tax credits, energy experts continue to grapple with the potential significance, and value, of the proposed hubs. “One of the big challenges in the broader field of serious, big systems decarbonization is we’re sort of talking about various imaginaries,” said Danny Cullenward, a climate economist and senior fellow at University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. “We’re throwing money at the hubs. We’re throwing money through this tax credit at the production of hydrogen. But there isn’t really anything resembling a coordinated strategy for what’s the right use of hydrogen,” he said. “It’s actually a really weird thing, if you think about it.”

Climate
Chemicals
Government

Sardinia fights for the climate future: What this ancient island's struggle can teach the world

This autonomous island has seen a cultural revival sparked by the battle to control its energy future

GAVOI, SARDINIA — On the staircase to the mayor’s office of Gavoi, a screen projects the daily count of energy production and carbon emissions reduction from the solar panels that adorn the municipal buildings in this charming mountain town, as if suggesting that the direction of the energy policy for the second largest island in the Mediterranean is on target.  As thousands of climate advocates descend on Baku, Azerbaijan, this week for the 2024 U.N. Climate Change Conference, better known as COP29, Sardinian President Alessandra Todde reiterated her island’s intent to address the “climate emergency” through strong “collective action” in the Mediterranean, citing the recent flooding disasters in Valencia, Spain and the south of Sardinia. But the roadmap for such collective action here — technically, Sardinia is an "autonomous region" of Italy, with its own government — presents a new path forward as a European climate leader on different terms. Sardinia has broken with the Italian government in Rome in a showdown over a "speculative assault” of private energy projects, political power and its implications of autonomous rule in an age of climate change. Thousands of protesters converged on the Sardinian capital of Cagliari last month to deliver an extraordinary package — more than 210,000 signatures from an island of 1.6 million inhabitants — on behalf of the “Pratobello 24” initiative, which aims to reclaim the region’s jurisdiction over urban planning, including renewable energy installations.  "Sardinia, like it or not, will not accept to passively suffer decisions made from above," President Alessandra Todde declared, in a salvo clearly directed at right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. In ways similar to protests seen from Greece to Australia to the “wind rush” in Brazil, and even in Swedish activist Greta Thunberg’s protest against Europe’s largest onshore wind farm on indigenous Sami territory in Norway, the Sardinian rebellion emerges as a powerful cautionary tale: Central government officials must learn follow the lead of locally-based planners in addressing climate action. Sardinians are quick to remind visitors that this crisis is more than a handful of wind turbines tilting above an archaeological site. Nor is it a simple “not in my backyard” complaint, of the kind echoed from Cape Cod to Ireland.  In an effort uniting often acrimonious political parties earlier this summer, the Regional Council under the newly-elected Todde passed an emergency 18-month suspension of a mind-boggling number of wind turbine and photovoltaic projects ushered in under former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi's administration in 2021 and meant to exploit Sardinia, among other regions, to meet European Union benchmarks for national carbon reductions.  That didn’t land well in Rome. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, still reeling from the electoral rebuke of her right-wing alliance in Sardinia's elections last spring, immediately announced her government’s intention to challenge the region’s jurisdiction in Italy's Constitutional Court.  While that jurisdictional question heads to the courtroom, Todde’s regional government approved a legislative decree in mid-September to set "provisions for the identification of areas and surfaces suitable and unsuitable for the installation of renewable energy systems," marking the island as the first Italian region to “propose a law on suitable areas approximately three months in advance of the deadline set by the Government.” "Sardinia, like it or not, will not accept to passively suffer decisions made from above," Todde declared, in a salvo clearly directed at Meloni. Ancient Rome's emperors once feared the wind power along the “insane mountains” on this island. Now it is the Sardinians who are gobsmacked by the Roman obsession with wind power and its possible destruction of their island. According to the Italian-based multinational TERNA, the largest independent electrical grid operator in Europe, applications by outside companies for renewable projects in Sardinia, underscored by E.U. incentives and funds, now number well over 750, potentially producing nearly nine times the amount of clean energy required in the Italian decree. “We inherited a region without rules regarding the installation of renewable energy plants,” declared Todde, “with many authorizations effectively out of control.” Saddled with the highest utility rates anywhere in Italy, Sardinians also know that nearly three-fourths of the energy production on the island comes from fossil fuels, including the only two coal-fired plants in the entire country, both dependent on imported coal, which have been given an extension to operate until 2027. But even that doesn't tell the whole story; nearly 40% of the energy those plants produce is exported to mainland Italy. For Todde's administration, the response is clear: Sardinia plans to lead a green energy transition on its own terms, consulting with municipalities, territories and citizens.  Invoking the island’s autonomous status, which makes it one of five regions in Italy granted special jurisdiction over planning and regulatory provisions, Sardinia's Regional Council has not abandoned the Draghi-era benchmarks for renewable energy, but intends to restrict them to “suitable areas” that ensure protection of the landscape, along with cultural and environmental assets. That laudable-sounding goal may be more complicated to achieve than it sounds. A cultural reawakening is spreading across the island, aligning diverse groups committed to municipal rights, cultural and archaeological preservation, environmental protection — and a history of resistance. Diverse voices of rebellion are growing ever more pointed, with increasing protests and blockades. The energy transition, activists say, must serve the island, not subjugate it. A “revolt of the olives” emerged as a symbolic showdown in Selargius, a small municipality near Cagliari, where TERNA's expropriation and destruction of a farmer’s olive grove brought out an army of shovel-wielding supporters to plant new olive trees. Even "Casino Royale" film star Caterina Murino returned to her native island and met with Todde, invoking the resistance of Sardinia's 14th-century hero Eleanor of Arborea as a model for regional leadership. Last week, jazz legend Paolo Fresu performed on Italian national TV along with popular TV host Geppi Cucciari, who joined her fellow Sardinian in reading his monologue dedicated to the island's heritage, "The Wind Knows."  Sardinians fear this energy transition will transform their landscape and invade their territory, with the greatest benefits going to Italian and international corporate speculators. From interviews around the island, it is clear that those who live here and love the island fear they will suffer a cultural uprooting, one similar to what has happened over previous centuries, and even millennia. This assertion of Sardinia’s ancient heritage might be the greatest outcome of this crisis. A cultural reawakening is spreading across the island, aligning diverse groups committed to municipal rights, cultural and archaeological preservation, environmental protection — and a history of resistance. Beyond its fabled beaches, Sardinia is not an “empty stage,” as both ancient and modern-day Romans have conceived it. Considered by archaeologists as an “open museum,” the island possesses the highest density of Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeological sites in Europe. One only has to visit the pioneering Nurnet geoportal website, which tracks the island’s archaeological wonders, including those of the Nuragic civilization, which served as a cradle of architectural and maritime innovation in the Bronze Age, beginning around 1800 B.C. Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course. “The risk is that the areas of great environmental, historical and archaeological value in Sardinia will be irremediably compromised,” former Baunei mayor Angela Corrias recently told me. Many such sites, such as the Bronze Age "nuraghe" or tower fortress known as Genna Maria, risk losing their status as anchors for cultural tourism, locals fear, due to the encroachment of wind and solar projects. Villanovaforru mayor Maurizio Onnis filed a formal comment on the environmental and cultural impact of the wind farm proposal in August, declaring that the “historical-identity elements of the landscape” at Nuraghe Genna Maria would be “fractured,” resulting in the “disintegration” of the panoramic and environmental values of the area. Todde’s regional government even joined a court challenge against a solar proposal near the UNESCO World Heritage Site at Barumini. A regional court recently struck down a project proposed near Pranu Muttedu, a Neolithic necropolis that has been called the Sardinian Stonehenge. Some activists invoke a historic uprising against an Italian military facility in Pratobello in 1969, and an awareness of Sardinia's colonial legacy remains a factor today: More than 60% of Italian military operations, including war games and bombing ranges, have claimed over a quarter of the island's territory. A century before the military takeover, deforestation of the island by Italian railways and companies left Sardinia “literally razed as if by a barbarian invasion,” declared the legendary Sardinian journalist and Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci in 1919. He also pointed out the effects of destruction on the island’s climate: “We inherited today’s Sardinia, alternating long dry seasons and flooding showers.” Today’s climate crisis, therefore, is not a new story for this island. Yet Sardinia has never lacked for ideas or innovators. In the midst of this cultural revival, Sardinians see their ancient history as a continuum of today’s endeavors; writers, artists and cultural tourism groups are engaged in a process they call "re-storification," unearthing and forging new stories, rituals, and gatherings that recover the withered or denied strands of history and reshape a continuum between the past and present. That includes climate action. In fact, the Regional Council passed its own environmental energy plan in 2016, spelling out a path to a renewable energy transition and 50% reduction of carbon emissions by 2030.  Amid political turmoil and changing regional administrations, the plan fell through the cracks as Draghi's government in Rome ramrodded its decree over Sardinian silence, more than consent. That era of silence in Sardinia is over now.  Former Sardinian president and Tiscali founder Renato Soru, the “Bill Gates of Italy,” who created the first subscription-free internet company in Italy, has issued his own Project Sardinia plan for renewable energy. The regional newspaper Unione Sarda, which has become a clearinghouse of information over the “wind assault,” promotes the "Pratobello law," an initiative to grant territories the power to decide over energy projects. In the once-abandoned village of Rebeccu, the MusaMadre Project has inspired a revival based on the power of eco-cultural arts projects. Sardinians are not waiting on the government to move forward. “Soon we will have already created an Eden,” Stefania Demurtas and Salvatore Marongiu told me, as we walked in the shade of fruit trees through their agro-forestry project, Tenute il Maggese, in the eastern Ogliastra area. “A regenerative future is waiting for us in Sardinia.” In the meantime, Sardinia’s fate as a climate leader, and its authority to decide its own energy future, will be decided in the courts. But the island's message to Italy — and the faltering COP29 negotiations — has already set its course. . Read more from Jeff Biggers on the climate crisis

Climate
Energy
Crisis

Suggested Viewing

TripleF***

The spirit of a movement that sometimes reminds us of our young revolutionary self, who still believed that he:she could change the world. This green filmed documentary mirrors the global situation and the diversity of climate change related activism.6 continents, 3 dozen filmmakers, countless activists and seasoned scientists. It is not about just one person but about many who stand up. TripleF*** is a documentary on the global climate movement, containing material from six continents (North - and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Antarctica), filmed green by cooperating film teams on site. The topic of climate activism itself as a protagonist takes us on a global journey to activists' lives and forms a dialogue within. Why did so many young people became activists? What is life as an activist like, how do they deal with political stagnation, harsh criticism and even threats and why do they still continue? Very personal but not private - to protect the activists' privacy, sensitive topics are woven in as a fictional part. This is the first of 5 Episodes. In this episode, which also stands for itself as a midlength film, the history of climate change related activism is highlighted. In its core spirit of a holistic approach, the project is been realized similarly to its topic of the climate activists' movement: independent, global, green.

Climate
Activism
Documentary

The Pleasure of Killing Bugs

In the near future, the climate crisis reaches an irreversible point. A nun and a priest meet to talk about the disappearance of insects.

Climate
Fiction
Student

Uncovering the Permian Climate Bomb

The fossil fuel industry is building a global threat in the oil fields of West Texas. Miguel Escoto, who has lived close to this region his whole life, witnesses the industry’s villainy for the first time by viewing oil and gas site emissions through optical gas imaging cameras, becoming a stand-in for a world that has yet to grasp the gravity of the Permian Climate Bomb.

Pollution
Activism
Climate

Silent Skies - The First Electric Plane Flyover

Silent Skies follows the groundbreaking journey of three Pennsylvania college students who orchestrated and piloted the first ever fully electric airplane stadium flyover. Stunning fans with a whisper-quiet show, this event signaled the dawn of America's transition to electric aviation. The students completed a record breaking trip flying the airplane from its base in Hartford, CT to the stadium in Easton, PA, recharging at enroute airports directly from a fleet of electric F-150 trucks. The air travel industry faces an unprecedented challenge: decarbonization. Historically, new aviation technologies are met with consumer skepticism. Demonstrating electric aircraft today, ahead of widespread adoption, is key for building consumer trust, political support, and sustained investment. The flyover was witnessed by 10,000+ attendees, thousands more on ESPN+ and created a precedent for the FAA to approve manned electric aircraft demonstrations over populated areas. Textron eAviation and Ford amplified the event through their social media channels and the film premiered at San Francisco Climate Week.

Technology
Transportation
Climate

Resilience

In 1998, a vast power grid serving 5 million people in Canada was destroyed by an ice storm. Twenty years later researchers of that disaster are developing a new kind of resilient power grid. Based in part on the book The Grid and the Village, the film explores how to protect grids and the people they serve from war, terrorist attack, and extreme weather.

Energy
Climate
Crisis

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.