“Houston, we have a problem!”
Apollo 13 and NASA’s popular but erroneous quotation as the astronauts communicated their discovery of the explosion defines well our climate situation. The world’s dependence on fossil fuels to simplify and power modern lives has only increased in the last centuries. And so inevitably has the amount of GHG emissions caused by human sources — by some estimates, it’s now higher than natural effects (55% anthropogenic versus 45% natural, source). Our methods to manage these emissions have not kept pace, however. Today, we have the opportunity to turn the tide through low-carbon solutions that reduce and avoid human-made emissions. But doing so requires support from individuals, businesses, and the public sector. All players need a clear and custom route to carbon neutrality.
A big and growing problem.
Environmentalists and NGOs have long warned about the impact of GHG emissions and fossil fuels on land, water, and air. Today, regulators, industries, and society alike recognize the need to limit our emissions and identify new solutions to the problem. While almost all countries have signed the Paris Agreement, according to the 2021 Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit there are only two countries that have achieved net-zero, and 6 that have policies in place to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Some claim that these commitments come late and that we need to take action sooner. Extinction Rebellion, a decentralized, international and politically non-partisan movement asks Governments to act now. Requesting to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2025.
Countries and companies are increasingly taking action. Consumer companies, including restaurants and airlines, are cutting emissions and reducing waste. Although these actions have yet to materially reduce emissions. They have sent a clear signal that the status quo can shift rapidly. Microsoft has plans not only to reduce its emissions but also to finance and develop carbon capture projects worldwide. The company has the target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.
A Challenge of increasing scale and complexity
The problem is big, global, and complex. According to the IPCC, human-induced warming reached 1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C per decade. This estimate does not account for natural climate change.
In recent decades, the population soar, the rising middle class globally has exacerbated the issue. The top three greenhouse gas emitters are China, the United States, and India. These countries contribute to almost half of the total emissions, 15 times more than the 100 bottom emitters (see Figure 1).
The IPCC predicts that under current emissions, induced global warming can reach over 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Although it does not sound a lot, it might have severe consequences to our cities and lands.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) consist of several gases, each with different properties and from different sources. (See Figure 2) Gases vary in their global warming potential due to differences, according to US EPA, “The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2)”. CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period because it is used as the reference. Methane (CH4) can have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years.
Not only GHG gases vary in their effects on climate, but also on the mitigation options. How to avoid the emissions in the first place needs also to be considered.
Additionally, because of behaviors and habits, as well as the absence of a well-developed solution and infrastructure, various types of gases are not correctly quantified nor avoided. All these factors complicate existing
efforts and often result in little action.
Let’s use Waste Management as an example, which accounts for over 15% of the US methane emissions (EPA). According to a recent published article, using satellite imagery not only gases (mainly methane) escape collection systems in the landfill, but even in composting and anaerobic digestion facilities, there is a leak that is not being accounted for.
GHG emissions can be grouped by type of gases but also by source. Energy to power our global economy is the biggest single generator of GHG emissions. Energy is used to power the industry, buildings, and transport. The other three major categories are agriculture, forestry & land use, followed by industry and waste. Each major category is typically split into subcategories. It is hard to read this global data and understand our impact as individuals or companies.
What is clear is that our economy has a huge footprint that needs to be tackled across the industry. Actions are needed by all players, from individuals to businesses and governments.
New technologies and solutions
Recent years have seen heightened interest in the potential of new technologies to avoid, or at least mitigate the adverse effects of GHG emissions.
Carbon capture
One of them is carbon capture. It englobes different technologies and has emerged as a feasible solution to provide decentralized and more broadly applicable reduction options. One technique involves the capture of CO2 after combustion, in existing gas or coal power plants. This solution does not avoid emissions through combustion or gasification in the first place.
Another technique called Direct Air Capture captures CO2 directly from the atmosphere. Making it a perfect option that reverses human-made emissions emitted during the last century. This solution can be decentralized but has lower efficiency. The carbon dioxide capture can be used as feedstock for the agricultural or chemical industry. It can also be stored underground in appropriate areas.
The technology remains at an early stage, and the prices and energy consumption from the CO2 capture process need to be reduced to adopt it at global scale.
Other tools
But we have not only seen technological developments. There are other legal and financial tools in place, such as a fee for emitting Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Pricing includes two main methods: Emission Trading Scheme and Carbon Tax. An ETS, also referred to as a cap-and-trade system, limits the total level of greenhouse gas emissions and allows those industries with low emissions to sell their extra allowances to larger emitters. By creating supply and demand for emissions allowances, an ETS establishes a market price for greenhouse gas emissions. The cap also ensures that emission reduction will take place to keep all industries within their allocated carbon budget.
In the EU, the Emissions Trading System (ETS) for the bigger polluting industries was set in 2005. The aim was to limit the emissions in different sectors, such as power generation and aviation. The ETS price has increased 50% in 2021 alone, reaching 50€ per tonne of CO2. Carbon pricing has proven to be an efficient tool that pushes industry players to decarbonize the industry. It is also true that it has some cons, such as a license to pollute and speculate with carbon emissions. While it is implemented in the EU and Canada, other big polluters such as Russia, India, or the United States do not have a national Carbon pricing system in place (see Figure 5).
A carbon tax on the other hand directly sets a price on CO2 by setting a tax on greenhouse gas emissions or on the carbon content of fossil fuels. The main difference from an ETS is that the emission reduction outcome of a carbon tax is not pre-defined but the carbon price is.
The higher the costs of Carbon Pricing the lower the gap to decarbonizing our economy. However, such schemes come with benefits and challenges and might create an unbalance if not implemented globally (see figure 6).
More tools include carbon accounting which should come before any kind of offset measure and the correct management of carbon.
The Business Case for Carbon Neutrality
Decarb has completed several comprehensive analyses of individual behaviors, businesses cases as well as economic viability of a number of neutrality paths. We have built a framework that we present in this document.
In most countries, companies that perform well will eventually be asked to lead the fight against climate change and to deliver results. This is because as the company becomes relevant typically means increasing the impact and carbon footprint. This occurs even if it is a technological company or product that is unrelated to the environment. But being a leader in sustainability requires an entirely new set of skills. If you don’t learn these skills, you’ll likely end up underperforming and feeling frustrated, and lose clients along the way.
The hierarchy of carbon management
Inspired by the waste hierarchy, at decarb we use a pyramid of carbon emissions management. It allows us to describe the many ways of managing the carbon emissions that we generate (See figure 7). But more importantly to prioritize actions.
Other than avoiding and reducing the carbon emissions we generate, capturing carbon is the best alternative. Leakage emissions into the environment are the least desirable, and carbon offset is preferable. Various stakeholders groups are actively pursuing initiatives to push decarbonizing practices towards the upper end of the hierarchy. The immediate concern is to avoid greenhouse emissions. For regions with developed economies and carbon pricing schemes, an intermediate target is to find cheaper alternatives to capture carbon and reuse it.
While the hierarchy of carbon management provides high-level guidance on which type of management is preferable, local specifications need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Different GHG gases with different GWP need to be assessed, for example, the presence of CFCs, and HFCs in refrigerants.
A full life cycle assessment of the products sometimes shows surprising results. For example, plastic materials might improve the environmental performance of a product, by reducing the weight and quantity of used materials. For some uses, single-use plastic bottles might be more sustainable than single-use glass bottles. These comparisons come with assumptions, such as a very effective plastic waste management and recycling in place.
Prevention and avoidance
Carbon emissions are embedded in our global economy and have allowed unprecedented human development in history. Carbon emissions are powering our energy, food chain, and industry, supporting and feeding 8 billion people. It is also a cause of human-made climate change with a severe impact on our planet.
The most effective solution is to prevent and avoid emissions in the first place. As an example, the Passive House standard for energy efficiency in a building, which reduces the building’s ecological footprint, can reduce emissions from a building up to 80%. The slightly higher primary energy and materials (isolation) needed for a Passive House compared to traditional housing, is quickly compensated by the savings in energy. Commuting by bike or using public transportation can reduce transport emissions by a factor of 10.
There are existing cost-effective alternatives at our disposal to reduce or carbon emissions at no cost. Some require an investment but have a payback time of a few years. According to some calculators, solar PV panels in the US have a payback time of 7 years, can increase your home value up to 3%, and will save you over $20,000 in 20 years.
Efficiency can be achieved at different scales. The city of Los Angeles has pioneered the use of smart lighting by converting 140,000 of its 215,000 street lights to LED. A system developed by Philips with an intelligent lighting management system, have reduced the city’s energy usage for street lighting by over 63%, saving at least US$9.5 million annually in operational and maintenance costs.
Usage of low-temperature heat that is currently lost in the atmosphere can be used for district heating or other low-temperature applications. These solutions make sense today at an industrial scale, but new applications for distributed systems and households are being developed.
There are significant steps that can be done, but it is not realistic to expect that these are adapted to all cases. According to McKinsey, energy efficiency represents about 40% of the greenhouse gas reduction potential at low cost. These projects and investments need to be prioritized before carbon offsetting measures for example. Some significant proven technologies and solutions will reduce operating costs.
Reduction of emission at source
While waiting for renewable energy technologies to fully mature and replace fossil-based fuel across the industry, carbon capture storage and utilization of fossil-based emissions are crucial to facilitate a quick transition. For instance, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is a common approach. It allows the implementation of carbon capture and storage in coal power plants. To facilitate this challenge we need important investments and new developments of commercial-scale facilities.
Carbon capture or carbon sequestration is a suite of technologies that can keep or retain carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from entering the atmosphere. CCS technologies are essential to limit climate crisis effects. Being key to decarbonize the industrial sector to meet the climate change target set at COP21.
During the last few decades, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) was best suited for large point sources of CO2 such as power plants. The gas and oil industry used the technology to improve oil extraction, by also improving the fuel quality. The process involves three main steps:
- The capture of CO2.
- Transportation to an injection sink.
- Underground storage.
As an alternative to storage, CO2 can be utilized in the industry. This post includes a review of the main technologies used, including real examples of plants that are in operation, as well as the current state of technology.
Globally, there are 22 demo projects for carbon capture and storage based on power generation with the majority share of pre- and post-combustion projects. There are a few demo projects based on oxyfuel combustion projects. Pre-combustion and post-combustion technologies used solvents (liquids), solid sorbents, and membrane systems to separate CO2 from other gases.
Carbon removal
Another alternative is Direct air capture (DAC), a technology that captures CO2 from ambient air. DAC can provide a carbon-neutral loop or allow for carbon negative schemes. Direct air capture is defined as the extraction of carbon dioxide from ambient air. Carbon capture technologies appeared in 1930, allowing capturing CO2 from the ambient. Space shuttles use the Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CRA) system to allow astronauts to breathe.
Climeworks and Carbon Engineering are two companies that have built commercial-scale DACS plants. It is a very flexible solution that can be implemented widely capturing carbon dioxide that has already been emitted. First, ambient air goes through a filter process where CO2 is separated from the air. The filter acts as a sorbent that separates the CO2, air is ejected with 80% less CO2. To separate the CO2 from the sorbent, there are different options using heat, pressure, or humidity. After the sorbents are regenerated, they are used again.
These systems can be developed in remote areas for decentralized solutions, the usage of non-recoverable heat.
Carbon offsets and RECs
A carbon offset is a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases made to compensate for emissions made elsewhere. CO2 has the same impact on the climate independently of where it is emitted and what the source is. Therefore if a tonne of carbon dioxide can be absorbed from the atmosphere in one part of the world more efficiently it should ‘cancel’ out a tonne of the gas emitted in another. Traditional carbon offsetting is, unfortunately, no guarantee with most projects available today.
A Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) on the other hand is a tradeable instrument that transfers ownership of the claim that one megawatt-hour (MWh) of renewable energy was generated and delivered either
to an end-user or onto the grid. Leading renewable energy programs such as the U.S. EPA Green Power Partnership to define new RECs as those generated from projects up to 15 years old.
While RECs can only be used to reduce an organization’s Scope 2 (indirect) emissions from purchased electricity, carbon offsets can be applied to any part of an organization’s overall GHG emissions footprint.
At decarb, we have identified the key elements of carbon offset to ensure quality and effectiveness. A carbon offset credit must have:
- Additionality: a carbon offset credit is additional if it would not have occurred in the absence of a market for offset credits. If the reductions would have happened anyway, let’s say by investing in solar panels to decarbonize the grid, the investment can happen nonetheless. Evaluating Additionality is hard, and there is no consensus.
- Measurable and verifiable: third-party scientific verification or accreditation that it is real. The avoided carbon emissions must be properly estimated, that indirect emissions are considered; but also to ensure that the project has been realized.
- Permanent: One challenge with using carbon offsets to compensate for CO2 emissions is that the effects of CO2 emissions are, while some will be removed naturally, around 25% can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is usual that carbon only needs to be kept out of the atmosphere for 100 years to be considered “permanent.”
- Not claimed by another entity: some projects have claimed carbon credits more than once, claims during financing but also throughout the lifetime for renewable electricity projects. A changing market also with RECs has pushed some players to develop PPAs, to ensure their counting is accurate.
- Not negative impact: no identified negativity claims, not only environmental but also social or biodiversity impacts. It is not sufficient to transfer the environmental harm.
Therefore, in theory, individuals and businesses can cancel out the impact of their emissions by investing in projects that reduce or store carbon. Such as forest preservation and tree planting, but carbon credits are also awarded for projects that reduce fossil fuels in other ways, such as wind farms, solar cookstoves, or better farming methods.
Emissions – Business as usual
According to the IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. Scientists also estimated anthropogenic (human-made) global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C per decade due to past and ongoing emissions. Even if we stop emitting today, the issues will remain, warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia.
Emissions will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise.
Additionally, global warming is being experienced in many land regions and seasons differently. With different intensities and frequencies. Impacts on natural and human systems from global warming have already been observed. From 50C heat waves in Canada to coral reefs dying in the Indian Ocean which might be irreversible.
Future risks depend on the current emissions and if we can remove GHG from the atmosphere.
Current policies to limit growth in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions will have some impact on reducing future warming. As we see in the chart developed by Robbie Andrew, senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research (CICERO), if no climate policies were implemented by the end of the century the average temperatures will likely increase by 4.1 to 4.8°C.
According to models published in a journal of the European Geosciences Union, by 2050 half of the glaciers will disappear in the Alpes. By the end of this century, in the worst-case scenarios, there will be none.
Where to focus, decarb fills the gap
Decarb can fill a gap in your current path to carbon neutrality. The climate change issue is real, with a severe impact on the environment. But too often as individuals we fail in taking action. We are overwhelmed by information daily, we have other issues in our life, and we do not know what to prioritize. We do not know what is the most cost-effective solution for a specific situation.
Depending on a mix of inputs that can vary substantially, the path to carbon neutrality will differ significantly. There is a lot of information available but it is difficult to process. Different tools and methodologies to account for one individual GHG footprint, products value chain, business GHG exist. But are general, or applicable to a specific aspect of our life, such as carbon offset of plane tickets.
Under the Paris Agreement, countries have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although current pledges are widely seen also in the private sector, they might remain insufficient to avoid dangerous outcomes in climate change.
These and other issues raise a key question with respect to how it is the most meaningful way to contribute to fighting climate change, which actions would bring an economic return, and which come at a cost. Decarb is here to create a custom path with the right solutions for you.
A real solution today
To tackle the global issue of climate change, we need significant efforts as a society but also to act individually with behaviors and habits that will make a real impact.
The ultimate solutions involve a combination of responsible consumption, prioritize low energy-intensive solutions as well as the development of cost-competitive and environmentally friendly alternatives.
Most of us would agree, however, that these societal changes are difficult to implement and probably years away. In the meantime – over the next year – as individuals, there are real solutions that we can implement to reduce our environmental footprint.
Circular solutions to reuse or repurpose our waste in the most efficient way. Change some behaviors that will play a part in these efforts and are ready to implement, technologically and financially viable alternatives. Some of them will provide savings to most families.
At Decarb, we believe in cross-collaboration, identifying solutions that are at reach today, prioritizing the ones that will have a more significant impact. We rely on a diverse coalition of collaborators both globally and locally that are enabling solutions allowing YOU to make the first steps.
Each day, more and more companies have pledged to become carbon neutral in the next years, investing in renewable energy, reducing their GHG emissions, and better managing their supply chain.
This move clearly signals that both the public and private sectors are ready to scale up efforts to combat one of the most pressing environmental issues of our times.
While this is a good start that may take some time to be realized, you can be part of the change and start today. We still have a long way to go before we finding a comprehensive, definitive solution, but we at Decarb propose a clear path with identifiable solutions that you can do.
A custom route to carbon neutrality
Each company and individual are in different situations. Therefore there are specific needs that need to be addressed and a custom path to carbon neutrality is needed. Solar PV panels and solar heating might make sense if you live in a house in Texas or California, but might not be a solution if you live downtown New York. At Decarb we develop a customized path for each individual and business based on their situation to minimize their carbon footprint in the most efficient way.
We prepare a dashboard so you can follow your progress, and prioritize the key actions taht will get closer to carbon
This is our goal, we want to make this as easy as it can get, either if you are a person or a company we want to help you on your path. Walking you through your decision-making, providing alternatives to your problems, helping you measure your impact, keeping track, and finally offsetting the carbon emissions you cannot avoid.
We understand that you have to travel, either if it is by plane, commuting in a car. We know that you have to eat, buy clothes, a house… You might have the feeling that no matter what you do, it has an impact. You are right, but we are here to help achieve carbon neutrality.
About
About Decarb, our mission is to help individuals, businesses, and society to tackle one of our most important challenges today, climate change, by measuring, reducing, and offsetting their carbon footprint. While other companies’ business model has included sustainability only recently, sustainability for us is a core value with our commitment to enable a low-carbon circular economy. We are a startup founded in 2020, with sustainability at its core. We help clients in their journey to carbon neutrality, from inspiration to fact base decisions enabling our clients to change and make an impact.
In addition, we use the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to help us prioritize our sustainability efforts and we have assigned the most relevant to each pillar
Other posts:
