Carbon Emissions Increase for World’s Wealthiest Nations

During the pandemic, carbon emissions dropped nearly 6%. However, according to the latest Climate Transparency Report, carbon levels are on the rise again.

The biggest offenders? The G20 – who are responsible for 75% of emissions worldwide.

The report found that carbon emissions are on track to rise 4% across the world’s wealthiest nations by the end of this year.

The report’s authors blame the increase in emission levels due to fossil fuels. Gas usage has been up by 12% since 2015, and coal use is projected to rise by 5% this year too.

Emissions levels have increased to the point that China, India, and Argentina are on track to top their 2019 emissions levels. It is important to note that China is responsible for 60% of the increase. However, coal increases are taking place across the US and India as well.

Most G20 members didn’t use pandemic recovery packages to promote climate initiatives. For example, out of the US $1.8 trillion package, only $300 billion went into “green” programs.

What is being done to combat carbon emissions?

Though carbon emissions are increasing, the report did have some positive news.

Renewables are now 12% of power, compared to 10% in 2020. Plus, all G20 members have new 2030 carbon plans to present during the COP26 summit at the end of the month. Most G20 countries now acknowledge the need to reach net-zero targets by 2050.

Though these moves are a step in the right direction, leaders must put stringent policies into place. Investing in technology and carbon markets, which have grown exponentially, are both ways to fight climate change. Experts expect the global carbon market to be valued at $22T by 2050.

If this report highlights anything, it is that more needs to be done – especially from the G20. As US President John F. Kennedy once said, “For those to whom much is given, much is required.”

The Green(peace) Revolt?

0

Search “Greenpeace” and “carbon offsets” and you’ll get some surprising results.

At least, they’ll be surprising – if you still think that Greenpeace is anything less than beyond radical.

At a time when companies all around the world are gathering behind carbon credits & offsets.

Greenpeace is publishing articles like:

The latest and greatest in Greenpeace’s single-handed war on carbon offsets landed a couple of week ago.

Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director for Greenpeace, called for a complete end to carbon offsets in a Reuters interview.

“There’s no time for offsets. We are in a climate emergency and we need phasing out of fossil fuels.”

Surprised? Greenpeace makes a three-part case against the voluntary carbon market:

  • Offsets take too long/are unreliable
  • Only radical decarbonization will reduce CO2 levels
  • Offsets are mere greenwash

This “greenwashing” accusation is the heart of the matter. So, is Greenpeace onto something? Or are they once again ignoring the real benefits of carbon offsets in a push to achieve their own version of a perfect solution – one that doesn’t work in real life?

The Greenwash Accusation

More and more businesses are jumping into the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM), expanding their own portfolio of offsets and using terms like “NetZero” and “carbon neutral” in their advertising.

The energy sector alone witnessed a 5x increase in offsets between 2020 and the first half of 2021!

In response, radical environmentalists like Greenpeace are increasingly deploying the greenwashing accusation as a means of discrediting any big-business solutions to the climate crisis.

Vast growth in the size of the VCM? Greenwashing!

Ever-increasing efforts to achieve carbon-neutral practices? Greenwashing!

Greenpeace raises some legitimate concerns with the current state of the young VCM. Most nature-based offsets do have a long lifespan – 20 years or more – but they get applied instantly. Forests can burn or become diseased, and the overall impact of a given offset may not always be what was predicted.

At the same time, calling the entire VCM greenwashing hints at a darker motivation:

Greenpeace doesn’t think businesses can or should solve their own problems. 

No one denies that the same business sectors that drive our modern world are also responsible for the vast majority of GHG emissions.

But Greenpeace, and their allies, don’t think that businesses should have a voluntary role in addressing those issues. The key word there is voluntary – governments should, in Greenpeace’s solution, play a far more active role in forcing big business to decarbonize.

What Greenpeace suggests is simple, but not reasonable: massive reduction in GHG emissions as fast as possible, even when that reduction would cripple or transform entire sectors of the economy.

The only way to decarbonize that quickly is to reduce production and consumption in those sectors. That means dramatically reducing the amount of meat and dairy products people consume.

What would the impact be on rural communities? How would that transformation affect the agricultural and meat-producing sectors more broadly?

These are questions Greenpeace doesn’t answer, instead they falling back on their claims about how dire the need is.

Offsets: part of a real-world solution to the climate crisis

Lost in Greenpeace’s protests is the fact that carbon offsets and the VCM are real-world solutions to real-world problems. The VCM allows farmers to shift production, turning farmland into grassland or forests for offsets.

Those offsets provide a much-needed revenue stream for those farmers, easing the transition. In fact, some offsets, like no-till farming, provide environmentally-friendly ways to continue production and still achieve GHG reductions.

Is the VCM perfect? No. But it’s worth remembering three things:

  • The VCM is in the early stages
  • Standards are improving
  • VCM growth recognizes the problem

Offsets have only taken off in the past decade. Growth has been meteoric in the past few years, but the market is still young. Like all emerging markets, standards will improve and companies can adjust to increasing regulation and best practices.

Finally, what Greenpeace fails to see is that the VCM is a genuine recognition of the problem. It may not be a perfect solution, but the rapid growth of the VCM speaks to a growing recognition of the climate change problem.

For that, Greenpeace should be praising the VCM – Not revolting against it.

The Royal ESG Investing Firm

Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, have joined Ethic – a fintech asset manager focusing on ESG investing.

Their goal is to promote investments that are aligned with the Environmental, Social, and Governance movement, to make sustainable investing mainstream.

In a joint Dealbook interview, Meghan said, “From the world I come from, you don’t talk about investing… You don’t have the luxury to… That sounds so fancy. My husband has been saying for years, ‘Gosh, don’t you wish there was a place where if your values were aligned like this, you could put your money to that same sort of thing?’

Ethic’s dedication to sustainable investing.

According to Doug Scott, an Ethic founder, Ethic screens companies and sectors based on social responsibility criteria. This includes racial justice, climate change, and labor issues.

Ethic currently has $1.3 billion under management. Assets have tripled since they started in 2015.

“You already have the younger generation voting with their dollars and their pounds.” said Harry. He feels this platform is the next step since people can invest in causes dear to them.

Interest in sustainable investing is growing.

As the effects of climate change become more apparent, individuals, companies, and governments want to fight against it. This is being done through technological innovation and carbon offset projects – which are booming.

Right now, the carbon credit and offset industry is expected to reach $22 trillion by 2050. Its growth has been fueled by approaching Paris Agreement deadlines, as well as the upcoming COP26 summit.

With Harry and Meghan serving as “impact partners” and investors, Ethic and other companies that promote sustainable investing can all play a part in combating climate change. It’s encouraging to see those with a voice using it for good.

Harry and Meghan were introduced to Ethic by friends. They hope their involvement will make investing more accessible to younger people.

How Google Cloud is Helping Customers Go Green

Did you know that Google is carbon neutral? It’s true. They reached carbon neutrality in 2007 by purchasing carbon offsets. Now, to combat climate change, Google has a new goal in mind: They want to help other companies go green, too. There are two ways Google feels it can do this:

1.) By creating tools that can measure and report carbon emissions related to cloud services.

2.) Through Google Earth Engine satellite imagery and geospatial data platform that businesses can use.

Using the Google Cloud to Go Green.

While these programs have typically been consumer-driven, businesses want in. They feel using Google’s platform can help them find ways to reduce their own emissions.

According to Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai, “Every CEO I talk to is focused on sustainability. And so, using Google Cloud to help them make that transition is a real innovation opportunity.”

Since Google has updated its tools to help customers find data centers that use less carbon, customers opt for the green choice 50% of the time.

Why Companies Want to Go Green.

So what is the driving force behind companies wanting to go green? Renewed commitments to the Paris Agreement and the upcoming COP26 summit. Both have fueled interest in the carbon credit industry as well. Since carbon offsets have played a significant role in helping Google become carbon neutral, companies have noticed.

If you combine carbon offsets with Google’s innovation, net-zero goals for Google (by 2030) and the world (by 2050) seem much more in reach.

London-based entrepreneur David Mytton said that Google isn’t “claiming that everything is great and 100% renewable right now. They’re saying, ‘this is where we’re at, this is where we’re going to get to.”

The more companies that join Google on this green journey, the better.

Blue Carbon from Floating Farms Seaweed

Blue Carbon is sequestered from coastal ecosystems like salt marshes, mangroves, or even seaweed.

Seaweed levels are in decline as they are unable to flourish in warmer water.

Seaweed is an integral part of our ecosystem, so declining levels are a concern. It serves as a habitat for marine creatures — including fish — and a significant food source for us.

The good news is that floating offshore farms can increase seaweed production — an environmental and economic win.

Floating farms work by upwelling cooler waters to stimulate growth on offshore platforms – a method that has proven successful. An experimental floating farm located off the coast of the Philippines is one of the largest in the world and has had exceptional results.

Currently, solar-powered turbines are used to suck water up from a depth of several hundred meters through flexible piping. The plan is to experiment with wind-powered and wave-powered turbines, too.

If this method works (all indications show that it does), it could boost seaweed production and the ecosystems that rely on seaweed. Parts of these ecosystems, which would capture carbon, could then be “sunk” into the ocean as a means of carbon storage.

Cooling the ocean surface by encouraging upwelling may even impact atmospheric temperature. And, while we aren’t quite there yet, if this is, in fact, effective, we very well could be. However, it would have to be conducted significantly (we’re talking across millions of hectares/acres).

Environmental projects that demonstrate such promise may even be considered for high-quality offset projects used in the carbon credit industry.

The global carbon market is expected to reach $22 trillion by 2050. It has expanded exponentially this year as governments and companies alike scramble to meet Paris Agreement goals.

It is important to note that increasing seaweed production doesn’t just positively impact the environment but also the commercial seaweed industry, which brings in between $6 billion and $40 billion per year.

Innovation through floating farms, carbon offsets, and other technological advances are precisely what the world needs to achieve environmental objectives.

What is COP26? The Most Important Conference For Carbon

COP26, short for Conference of the Parties 26, is the 26th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference.

It will take place this year in Glasgow, Scotland, between October 31 – November 12 2021.

The “Parties” involved are all the signatory parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty formed to combat the threat of human-driven climate change.

This framework was first established in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and signed by 154 countries. The COP is the supreme decision-making body of the UNFCCC, and annual COP meetings are held to check up on each member’s progress in meeting the targets laid out by the convention.

The first conference, COP1, was held in 1995, and one has been held every year since with the exception of 2020, due to the global pandemic.

Under the UNFCCC, signatory countries are split into different categories: Annex I, Annex II, Least-developed Countries (LDCs), and Non-Annex I.

Annex I countries consist of the most developed countries in the world such as the U.S. and the E.U., as well as a number of Economies in Transition (EITs) like Poland.

Annex II is a subset of Annex I that doesn’t include any of the EITs – in other words, Annex II comprises only countries with the most industrialized and well-established economies. Annex II countries have the additional responsibility of providing financial support as well as technical expertise to other parties of the UNFCCC, on top of their own emissions reduction commitments.

Least-developed countries are among the poorest and least-developed countries of the world, and the size of their economies and extent of their infrastructure is such that their emissions, as well as their ability to effect changes to their emissions, are limited. These countries are given special statuses under the UNFCCC.

Finally, Non-Annex I countries cover all the remaining parties that are neither Annex I countries nor LDCs. These consist of most of the world’s developing economies.

Initially, the aim of the framework was for all Annex I countries to stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

However, at the first COP meeting in 1995, it was determined that the goals originally set out by the UNFCCC were insufficient to combat the effect of climate change caused by human activity.

Eventually, this would lead to the establishment of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, an extension of the UNFCCC’s original framework.

What’s the Kyoto Protocol?

The Kyoto Protocol was an extension of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that was first signed in Japan in 1997.

Originally implemented because the UNFCCC’s greenhouse gas emissions targets were deemed insufficient to counteract the effects of human-driven climate change, the Kyoto Protocol was ratified late in 2004 and came into force in 2005.

The Kyoto Protocol laid out both emissions reduction targets for all its participating countries, as well as a timeline for achieving said reductions. The Kyoto Protocol also formed the first basis for a global carbon credit market by implementing a mechanism that would allow for signatory countries polluting over their targets to offset their excess emissions by purchasing allowances from other countries. Participating countries could also offset their excess emissions by funding emission reduction projects in other countries.

A total of 37 countries, including nearly all Annex I countries, participated in the first commitment period running from 2008-2012. Notably, the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and Canada initially did but later withdrew from the treaty in 2011 without meeting its target.

Of the remaining 36 countries, all of them were able to meet their emissions reduction goals, though 9 of those 36 had to rely on offsetting mechanisms in order to do so.

Still, despite these efforts, global emissions of carbon dioxide rose 60% between 1990 and 2013.

At the end of COP18 in 2012, an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon, which created a second commitment period that would run through the end of 2020. However, at this point the Kyoto Protocol was a 15-year-old treaty and criticized as being outdated; the second commitment period only covered approximately 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

While the Kyoto Protocol had indeed resulted in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in several countries, it was considered insufficiently binding and not adequately effective in meaningfully reducing global emissions. At the same time that an extension to the Kyoto Protocol was decided upon, an agreement was also reached that a successor to the Protocol was needed.

A deadline of 2015 was set for this new agreement to be adopted. And in 2015, at COP21 held in Paris, France, the Paris Agreement would come to supersede the Kyoto Protocol.

What’s the Paris Agreement?

The Paris Agreement, also known as the Paris Climate Accords, is the most recent international climate change treaty. Drafted at the end of 2015 and first signed in April 2016, the Agreement became effective in November 2016.

As of October 2021, only five countries in the world have yet to ratify the Paris Agreement: Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen. While the U.S. under President Trump briefly withdrew from the Agreement in 2020, the country rejoined under President Biden in 2021.

Though the Paris Agreement is considered the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, it’s a separate entity from the Protocol, which expired at the end of December 2020.

One marked distinction between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is that instead of just Annex I countries, every country must submit a plan to reduce its emissions – a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). As a result, even developing, non-Annex I countries must submit emissions reduction plans under the Agreement.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement doesn’t cover specific commitment periods, but instead operates on rolling five-year cycles. The first cycle began in 2020, with 113 NDCs submitted, and new NDCs must be submitted every five years. Each subsequent NDC must also contain more aggressive emissions reduction targets than the last.

However, currently there’s no legally binding component of the Agreement that forces countries to set a certain target level for their emissions reductions. As a result, it’s currently projected that the world will not reach the Paris Agreement’s max 2°C temperature increase goal based on the current submitted NDCs.

While there is a mechanism in the Agreement to increase emissions reduction targets over time, one criticism of the Paris Agreement is that like its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, it doesn’t do enough. Still, it’s definitely a significant step forward in the fight against climate change, and already the Paris Agreement has been used in legal action, most notably in the Netherlands.

One Article of the Paris Agreement that hasn’t been fully implemented yet is Article 6, which governs the structure of carbon credits and carbon offsets. Article 6 is at the top of every country’s agenda at COP26. Once realized, Article 6 would solidify the foundation for an international carbon credit market that was first laid out in the Kyoto Protocol, leading to the establishment of a UNFCCC-compliant regulated carbon market.

Australian Carbon Offset Prices Surge, Jumping 75%

In a race to meet emissions levels set by the Australian government, industries have rushed to purchase AACU carbon credits, causing offset prices to jump 75%. Prices are currently at an all-time high of $29.50 (up from $16.52 at the start of 2021).

The COP26 summit, which is scheduled to start at the end of this month, is another reason behind the surge. Most nations feel behind on meeting targets, so credits have become limited as more and more purchases occur. For example, EU carbon prices have soared this year as well, costing $69.39 per ton.

ACCU’s are issued by The Clean Energy Regulator, which is expecting to issue 17 million ACCUs this year (an increase from 16 million last year). Though there is a shortage now, ACCU anticipates growth as they partner with farmers for reforestation and soil carbon projects. Carbon capture and storage projects have also been approved to generate credits.

The global carbon market is expected to reach $22 trillion by 2050, which isn’t surprising. Carbon credits provide an opportunity to offset emissions, improve the environment, and spark economic development, which is why international interest has increased.

According to Bret Harper, the Director of Research for Reputex – Australia’s leading provider of research, pricing, and advisory services for the local energy and environmental markets, “There’s unanticipated demand creating a scramble for credits.”

Harper went on to say that the “Demand for these credits just keeps going up and up and up as more entities realize what it’s going to take to get to net zero. I think demand will do nothing but increase broadly.”

There’s no doubt that technological advances are needed to reduce carbon emissions. However, when innovation, regulation, and carbon offsets work together to achieve net-zero emissions, the world’s 2050 goals may very well be possible.

Major Wall Street Firm Buys 1 Million Acres of Forest for Carbon Credits

Oak Hill Advisors – a prominent debt investor that manages $52 billion, has teamed up with carbon credits firm Bluesource to purchase one million acres of North American woodlands.

The purchase is valued at $500 million, with the main goal to manage the properties and generate forest offsets.

Adam Kerzner, Senior Partner and Portfolio Manager at Oak Hill, said, “We view this to be an incredibly large opportunity. This transition is happening in real-time, and forestry assets continue to be a measurable way of removing carbon from the atmosphere. We’re excited about the ability to invest in attractive assets while also providing significant environmental benefit.”

Other big companies, such as Microsoft Corp. and BP PLC, are on the hunt for offsets as well – to show investors their commitment towards achieving climate change goals.

Though many companies are developing technology to reduce their emissions or even capture and store their emissions, carbon credits are an effective and immediate way to offset carbon, improve the environment, and even stimulate economic development, which is why interest is at an all-time high.

Last year, BP purchased a controlling stake in Bluesource’s rival Finite Carbon, and J.P. Morgan Asset Management purchased a timberland investment firm as well. Even Weyerhaeuser Co. – one of the largest private U.S. Forest owners and timber producers – will be stepping into the offset industry since the price of carbon credits is more than what they could earn through the timber on specific properties.

According to Kevin Townsend, Bluesource’s Chief Commercial Officer, “The properties we’re looking for are properties that won’t be managed sustainably, that are not going to do sequestration without a sale.”

With the COP26 summit just around the corner, governments and companies alike are working fervently to meet regulations set by the Paris Agreement, and carbon offsets have a significant role to play.

Right now, the global carbon market is expected to reach $22 trillion by 2050.

Diamonds, Sportswear, Concrete, and Sunglasses from Capture Carbon?

Concrete, diamonds, sunglasses, sportswear, water pipe coating, and more can all be made using captured carbon.

Companies in this space have raised over $800 million, 3X more than in 2020. And they are just getting started.

Right now, humans release around 50 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. 10 billion tons will need to be captured annually by 2050.

Reusing carbon can prove to be a beneficial solution for companies, consumers, and the environment alike. Plus, with customers looking for ways to reduce their own carbon footprint, products produced through captured carbon can be a significant selling point.

Combine these efforts with the carbon credit industry, and you have a real solution to fight climate change.

Nicholas Flanders, a co-founder of Twelve, which uses chemical processes to reuse CO2, agrees. He believes recycling carbon is better than storing it underground since “This technology can go toe to toe with fossil fuels” without additional financial incentives to remove carbon.

According to Ryan Shearman, Chief Executive of Aether Diamonds, which grows diamonds in a lab captured by CO2, says that customers “Have demonstrated that they’re willing to pay a bit of a premium.”

Robert Niven, CEO of CarbonCure Technologies, which makes technology that injects CO2 into fresh concrete, and strengthens it by locking in the carbon, sees the same.

“About 90% of our uptake has been from independent concrete producers large and small that are just looking for that competitive edge.”

Consumers want to support environmental initiatives. Many take steps to reduce their footprint each day (such as riding a bike instead of driving a car or purchasing carbon credits to offset airline travel). Others are choosing to only invest in companies that are offsetting and reducing their carbon. Products created through carbon capture would naturally spark their interest.

A Columbia University report released in May shows that all fossil-based products that could use recycled CO2 account for approximately 6.8 billion tons of emissions. As companies find additional ways to utilize carbon instead of emitting it, the world’s net-zero goals could very well become a reality.

Google Goes Green

Google announced earlier this week that it was tweaking it’s search results to reward greener, more environmentally-friendly results.

Google Maps will show low-carbon routes.

Google Maps will show low-carbon routes.

Google Flights will let you compare CO2 emissions as well as overall price.

Google Flights will let you compare CO2 emissions as well as overall price.

These “sustainability initiatives,” as Google calls them, also apply to their “Things to Do” search results as well as simple searches such as for hotels.

These In other words, Google is taking a broad-brush approach that rewards green alternatives across the board.

Google Ads and their Youtube platforms have recently also begun to block ads from parties looking to spread climate change misinformation.

“Google as sustainability leader” is the obvious conclusion, but something has been lost in the shuffle. Like all industry-leading companies, Google is both driving the market and responding to it.

In this case, Google’s own sustainability drives fit in with a broader, consumer-led green initiative that has slowly been building steam.

Green wave, or green-washing?

Before we sink into Google’s own initiatives, there’s an important question to be asked…

  • Are green initiatives, like Google’s, actually helpful?
  • Or are they simply green-washing – attempts to be seen as environmentally impactful without actually changing anything?

The debate divides even the staunchest anti-emissions voices.

Greenpeace condemns carbon offsets which are a key part of many green initiatives (more on that next week).

On the other hand, Greta Thunberg supports them, but the debate over green initiatives illustrates just how contentious – and how important – the issues are.

The debates are public, prolonged, and prolific – and that, more than anything else, is probably a good illustration of how deep the movement goes.

Broader adoption

Green initiatives don’t simply appeal to big companies; over 65% of consumers prioritize green options. 

While that sounds great, the number breaks down a bit – only a quarter of those consumers actually follow through and regularly purchase environmentally-friendly goods.

There’s room for green initiatives to grow – but with over half of consumers at least nominally interested in going green, it’s no wonder that Google took steps to encourage that interest.

Green is Granular: Lessons from Google

So, what can we learn from Google?

Most of the coverage has, quite rightly, focused on the potential benefits stemming directly from Google’s decisions.

  • Google’s own estimates calculate that adding CO2 estimates to Google Flights could save roughly one million tonnes of CO2e per year – the equivalent of 200,000 cars taken off the road. 

That’s still a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of tonnes of CO2 emissions produced annually.

But it’s a sizeable drop nonetheless.

In fact, that’s the main takeaway. Green initiatives work best when they’re granular. Adding a carbon emissions calculator to Google Flights empowers consumers to make a down-to-earth decision.

Commuters can vote with their pocketbooks, using the market to reward lower-carbon flights and punish unnecessarily wasteful ones. It’s a type of Green social credit system.

Google’s changes across the board follow the same model. Maps will show routes that use less fuel and are responsible for lower emissions.

Google’s Shopping results will prioritize products that are energy-efficient, particularly for energy-intensive appliances.

Long-term, Google plans to add comparison tools that can calculate the impact of hybrid and electric vehicles against fossil-fuel counterparts.

In every case, Google appears to be basing its calculations on real-world factors: highways vs side roads, lower inclines routes, newer aircraft against older, less-efficient models. Google wants to “make the sustainable choice the easy choice,” as Sundar Pichai stated in Google’s announcement video.

It’s also the logical choice. Empowering the average consumer is the only way to turn the groundswell of support for green initiatives into a long-lasting green wave – that’s just as true for enterprise-level carbon offsets as it is for your next flight.