The U.S. Department of Justice sided with Colorado’s local governments, which is the most recent case of a growing wave of governments pushing for lawsuits against the big oil companies, demanding them to pay for their climate damages.

Climate Litigation against Big Oil Companies

Oil giants have known the dangers of burning fossil fuels for decades. With their persistent efforts to block action that will control carbon pollution, they were able to also deny that the science behind the claim was not clear. 

But since the world knew that the big oil companies are aware of the damages their products make to the climate, a wave of lawsuits from counties, cities, and states came forward. These climate litigations, reaching almost 2 dozen now, seek to place fossil fuel companies on trial for deceiving the public.  

However, not a single one of them made it to trial. They’ve been bouncing around between state and federal courts, with oil giants in control to delay any decision. 

The DoJ brief on the Colorado case, Suncor v. Boulder County, against two oil companies – Suncor and Exxon – might soon end the inaction. The brief argued that the case should be heard in state court, not federal, which is favorable to the plaintiffs.

The Colorado case started in 2018 when the city and county of Boulder sued Suncor Energy as well as Exxon. They seek millions of dollars to improve their infrastructure to cope with climate change. 

The Colorado government claimed that the oil giants are violating the state’s consumer protection laws by selling fossil fuels in the state. That’s despite the fact that these oil companies definitely know that their products would damage the climate. 

Burning of fossil fuels can result in more damaging disasters such as wildfires, floods, droughts, and more fatal heat waves, which is what the state is witnessing today. 

Experts noted that the DoJ brief on the Colorado case is an action by the Biden administration supporting the climate lawsuits. A law professor said that the governments are now siding with climate advocates. 

When the Supreme Court reviews this case, it can be a turning point for climate litigation against oil companies.

Other Climate Lawsuits Filed

State governments across the US have filed lawsuits claiming that oil giants, namely Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and BP, deceived the public about the damage of their products, which caused devastating climate disasters.  

In 2017, California cities and counties began the trend by suing plenty of fossil fuel companies for deceptive marketing. The plaintiffs use the state’s tort laws that protect the public from misleading advertising. 

Attorneys general in other states followed suit. 

In 2018, Rhode Island also filed a similar lawsuit against big oil companies for deceiving people about the dangers of climate change. 

A year after that, the New York state accused Exxon of misleading shareholders about climate change. But a judge ruled that the state attorney general failed to show enough evidence against the oil giant. 

In 2020, another climate lawsuit was filed in Hawaii. The city and county of Honolulu were after the oil companies, pushing them to pay for their climate damages. The big oil defendants include Exxon, Sunoco, and Chevron. 

Despite an ongoing appeal from the fossil fuel industry, a Hawaii judge ordered that a discovery process begins. It is a pre-trial step in which both parties collect pieces of evidence from documents and witnesses.

Amidst the progress of the lawsuits, oil companies continue to argue that the case isn’t really about deceptive marketing. It’s more about the broader question of climate change, which should be moved to the federal courts.

A law professor at the University of Hawaii commented on this, saying:

“The fossil fuel companies are afraid of state courts… They are petrified of state courts who are closer to the problem, closer to the issues, and absolutely terrified of going in front of juries of real people.”

The oil companies also argue that local governments have been encouraging the production and use of oil and gas. 

Proponents of climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies likened the litigation to cases against big tobacco companies in the 1990s. Cigarette companies were ordered to settle damages of over $240 billion after decades of denying that smoking can cause cancer. 

Tobacco companies agreed to pay annual sums of money to the states to compensate for healthcare costs related to smoking.

So, if the climate lawsuits ended up favoring the plaintiffs, they would compel oil companies to also pay for climate damages. It will also make the banking sector think that investing in fossil fuels is a risky business. 

Judges have repeatedly rejected oil companies’ line of reasoning and the plaintiffs maintained that the lawsuits belong in state court. It’s now up to the Supreme Court to weigh on the case.

Supreme Court Decision: federal vs. state court

The Supreme Court turned to the solicitor general for help to decide on where the Colorado case belongs. The official said that the case should not be removed to federal court but remain in the state court.

There are two options for the Supreme Court to push these climate lawsuits forward. It can agree to hear the case or it can take it up. Either way, the lawsuit will proceed back in the state court. 

In that case, it will impact other pending climate lawsuits, with all the cases being heard in state courts.   

If the SC decides to hear the case, the trial can happen in the fall and the court can decide next year. In this case, all other similar cases would be on hold until the final decision comes down.

Once the climate lawsuits proceed to trial, juries would most likely see a decades-long trail of evidence showing how oil companies deceived the public about climate change like the “Exxon Knew” controversy. 

The post Will Big Oil Be Forced to Pay for Climate Damages appeared first on Carbon Credits.

The European Commission (EC) proposed the Net-Zero Industry Act to ramp up manufacturing of clean technologies in the EU and make the bloc prepared for the clean energy transition. 

The Act is part of the $270 billion Green Deal Industrial Plan announced by EC President Ursula von der Leyen in Davos last month. The Plan will support Europe’s race to green transition and boost its net zero industry. 

The EU net zero ecosystem doubled in value from 2020 to 2021, hitting 100 billion Euros. But currently, the region still largely relies on imports for most of its net zero technologies as follows: 

Over 90% of solar photovoltaic (PV) wafers and other PV components are from China 
More than ¼ of electric cars and batteries are also from China 

In fact, China accounts for 90% of global investments in net zero technology manufacturing facilities and the proposed Act will try to change that.

What is the Net-Zero Industry Act?

The Net-Zero Industry Act will create a simpler and more predictable legal framework for net zero industries in the EU. It will make the region’s energy system more sustainable and secure while creating better conditions for net zero projects.

The goal of the Act is to make Europe’s overall strategic net zero tech manufacturing capacity reach at least 40% of the bloc’s deployment needs by 2030.  

Achieving this aim will help the EU speed up progress toward its energy and climate targets and move towards climate neutrality. Moreover, the Act will boost the region’s industry competitiveness, create green jobs, and support Europe’s efforts to be energy independent. 

As per the EC President: 

“We need a regulatory environment that allows us to scale up the clean energy transition quickly. The Net-Zero Industry Act will do just that. It will create the best conditions for those sectors that are crucial for us to reach net-zero by 2050… Demand is growing in Europe and globally, and we are acting now to make sure we can meet more of this demand with European supply.” 

With that, the Net-Zero Industry Act sets out a clear framework to reduce the EU’s reliance on highly concentrated imports. 

The proposed legislation supports, in particular, strategic net zero technologies that can significantly contribute to the EU’s decarbonization goals. These include: 

solar photovoltaic and solar thermal, 
onshore wind and offshore renewable energy, 
batteries and storage, 
heat pumps and geothermal energy, 
electrolyzers and fuel cells, 
biogas/biomethane, 
carbon capture, utilization and storage, and 
grid technologies 

The Act also supports other net zero tech sustainable alternative fuels technologies, advanced technologies to produce energy from nuclear processes with minimal waste from the fuel cycle, small modular reactors, and related best-in-class fuels. 

Key Drivers of Net Zero Technology Investments

The Net-Zero Industry Act will attract investment into net zero technologies above through the following actions as stated on the EC site.

Creating enabling conditions: 

The regulation will improve conditions for investment in net zero technologies by: (1) enhancing information, (2) cutting red tape in developing projects, and (3) making permit-granting processes simpler and faster. 

The Act also proposes to prioritize Net-Zero Strategic Projects, which are considered essential for reinforcing the resilience and competitiveness of the EU net zero industry. These specifically include projects that store captured carbon emissions. 

Boosting carbon capture: 

The Act seeks to achieve a yearly injection capacity of 50 Mt in strategic carbon storage sites in Europe by 2030. Notable contributions will be from oil and gas companies operating in the EU. 

With this goal, developing carbon capture and storage in the region will become a viable climate solution, especially for hard-to-abate sectors. 

Strengthening skills: 

Through Net-Zero Industry Academies, training and education will be provided to ensure there would be enough skilled workforce to support the production of net zero technologies. This will also help create quality jobs for the industry. 

Facilitating access to markets:  

The Act demands public officials to factor in sustainability and resilience criteria in public auctions of net zero tech. This will promote supply diversification in the sector. 

Promoting innovation: 

Lastly, the Net-Zero Industry Act enables Member States to establish regulatory sandboxes for testing net zero tech and bolstering innovation. 

Implementation: Who oversees the Act?

The Net-Zero Industry Platform will be responsible for overseeing the measures or actions proposed by the Act. The Platform will bring together the EC and Member States to exchange information and coordinate actions. 

Industry experts and representatives are also welcome to contribute knowledge and expertise to the Platform. Together, they will see to it that data is available for tracking progress toward the goals of the Act. 

The Platform will drive investment and foster contacts across the EU’s net zero sectors. It will help identify the needs, barriers, and best practices for projects across the bloc.

Its actions and decisions will be most likely guided by the following net zero technology trends:

The proposed Act needs discussion and agreement by the European Parliament and the EU Council before it comes into force.

The post The EU Net-Zero Industry Act Explained appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Removing carbon dioxide through dead trees and storing it for thousands of years underground is a mission that seems to attract nobody. But a California startup, Kodama Systems, is persistent enough to take on the challenge.

After all, ensuring that dead trees keep carbon out of the atmosphere for millenia and bury them below the ground is one novel way to help mitigate climate change. And a novel concept also came out of that – wood vault – a carbon storage facility that you probably haven’t heard of.

This article will talk about the wood vault, its key factors, and what makes this biomass carbon storage challenging.

Carbon Removal and Storage in the Woods

Several researchers and startups have been looking into the potential of wood to lock up carbon in its biomass. It can be either by burying it or storing remains of dead trees to slow down decomposition. That will also limit the release of carbon back into the atmosphere.

Trees are a natural carbon storage facility, capturing huge amounts of CO2. But once they die and rot, that carbon they’re holding on their biomass goes back to the air.

That’s why the idea of storing dead trees underground pops up to prevent re-emissions. If this concept works as planned, it can offer a cheap way to help lock in carbon and keep global temperatures at bay.

In a broader term, wood harvesting and storage is a hybrid Nature-Engineering combination method to combat climate change. It refers to harvesting wood sustainably and storing it for carbon sequestration.

To date, this carbon storage technology has only been purposefully tested in small-scale demonstration projects. But Kodama aims to show that it’s possible to do it on a large-scale.

Kodama Systems is a forest management firm headquartered in the Sierra Nevada foothills town of Sonora. It was founded in summer last year and has been operating stealthily since then.

The company has raised over $6 million from Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Congruent Ventures, and other investors.

Moreover, Stripe also provided a $250,000 research grant to the company and its research partner, the Yale Carbon Containment Lab. That funding is part of Stripe’s broader commitment to carbon removal.

The grant will support a pilot effort to bury waste biomass harvested from California forests in the Nevada desert. It will also back the study that will determine how well the wood vault method avoids the emissions of GHGs.

Others refer to this carbon storage as “biomass burial”. It has the potential to be a cost-efficient, large-scale option for carbon removal and storage.

But until it’s been studied more closely and demonstrated to work on large scales, it remains to be seen… how much and how long.

How much carbon can the wood vault system store? How much will this carbon storage tech cost? And how long can it keep carbon out of the air?

Let’s break down each question and address them one-by-one… starting off with the concept of wood vault.

What is a Wood Vault?

It may sound like a storage where you can keep your personal things away but it’s much different. But it’s a storage facility though.

While it works pretty well as a vault, where things are kept, wood vault refers to an especially engineered structure or facility that keeps wood biomass from decomposing or rotting. Its purpose is for semi-permanent wood storage as carbon sequestration.

Wood vaults come in various types and the major one uses soil. Other types include the ones in water and dry/cold conditions.

The illustration below shows the wood vault in a standard soil profile. Its key factors are the following:

Woody biomass is buried deep underground, away from the biologically active topsoil.
The wood is buried in a manner that ensures anaerobic (active in the absence of oxygen) condition. Or it’s stored in dry or cold conditions that prevent decomposition for durable carbon storage.
The biomass burial process is similar to the first step of coal formation as shown below.

Compared to natural coal formation where plants are buried in favorable conditions at a slow rate, the rate of wood vault burial is faster due to human intervention through wood harvesting and carbon storage construction.

Biomass burial is the exact opposite of dig-and-burn that hastens fossil fuel oxidation. As such, it’s a natural way to somehow undo the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels.

The Wood Vault in a standard soil profile:

Source: Zeng & Hausmann, 2022.

Wood biomass is buried in the subsoil, in B-horizon or lower horizon as shown above. The dead timber is then capped with low permeable material such as clay to achieve anaerobic condition. But if the subsoil provides enough low permeability, there’s no need for capping.

Upon proper enclosure, the original topsoil is backfilled for vegetation or other use.

The transparent enclosure in the image is for visual purposes only. The actual material used varies depending on the specific version or type of wood vault used.

Here’s one version of the vault, then followed by other different versions applicable.

Version 1.1 above is a basic wood vault unit partially above ground and partially underground. It’s divided into cells, with each cell sealed once filled. After the top is finally enclosed, the original topsoil is placed back (dark brown) for grass to grow. Reddish brown represents clay or clay-like liner.

The area can then be used for purposes such as cropland, park, solar farm, or grazing land.

More versions of Wood Vault: Version 1.2: fully above-ground (Barrow); Version 2: fully underground (Pit/Quarry/Mine); Version 3: aboveground shelter/warehouse; Version 4: Stacked units (Super Vault): each sub-unit is one of Tumulus or Barrow Source: Zeng & Hausmann, 2022.

Burying the Dead… Biomass

Wood is 50% carbon by mass. And forests are mostly trees, both living and dead.

Forest experts think that too aggressive fire suppression policies led to overgrown forests. They believe that this is increasing the risk of more damage in case wildfires happen.

Add to this the hotter and drier forest conditions due to climate change, so what you get… is more danger for a wildfire to spread. Therefore, several states decided to fund initiatives that clear out forests to lessen those dangers which include.

Undergrowth removal
Cutting down trees
Controlled burns to prevent wildfires from reaching forest crowns

These efforts can produce more forest wastes. Not to mention that harvested plants and trees are often left piled up in cleared areas. Only if they’re stored safely somewhere else, but no.

The logs and other parts of a dead tree are either burned or left to rot. Unfortunately, it brings back the carbon stored in wood biomass into the atmosphere, causing more warming.

This is where Kodama’s wood vault project kicks in…

The company hopes to resolve both problems of carbon emissions and wildfires. They’re developing automated ways to thin out overcrowded forests for cheaper and faster thinning. They’ll be loading stripped limbs that are too small to sell into trucks and transport them into the wood vault.

Kodama’s burial mound will be in the Nevada desert. It will be 7 yards high, 3 yards deep, and 58 yards long and across.

The company will cover the biomass with a geotextile liner, bury it under soil, with a layer of native vegetation on topsoil. The region has dry conditions – perfect for a storage facility that repels decomposers from rotting the buried biomass.

So, what about the costs and storage durability?

Under ideal conditions, the carbon in the wood stays there for thousands of years.

But the Kodama team plans to create smaller side vaults designed in various ways. They’ll continue to monitor the vaults and compare their performance when it comes to leakage and decomposition rates. From that observed data, the company will be able to produce long-term carbon storage estimates and other relevant findings.

The Challenge: Burial Cost

A research paper found out that storing wood biomass can remove billions of tons of carbon each year at a cost of less than $100/ton. Yet, there are still many areas left unknown.

Add to that, local residents and environmental campaigners are opposing forest thinning. That’s for the reason that doing it is laborious and costly. One has to pay for the workers collecting the wood biomass and for those digging the holes of the wood vault.

Plus, the cost of a Wood Vault facility also includes several other things such as land purchase, construction, and operation. Work and quality control are also a large budget item. While transport of wood from source to the facility is estimated at a rate of $5/ton for a 25-mile haul.

In total, the estimated cost for the 1 ha wood vault unit will be $1.2–1.8 million for storing 100,000 tCO2 in a year, at a price of $12–18/tCO2 sequestered.

Estimated Cost of Building a Wood Vault (1 ha)

Moreover, the entire process needs a lot of energy.

In effect, the emissions caused by removing, transporting, and burying wood have to be tallied and counted against the total carbon stored.

Interestingly, there’s about 56 million “bone dry” tons of waste biomass produced every year in California alone. These are wastes from logging, agriculture, fire prevention activities, and other activities.

While the opportunity is high, there’s some risks involved, too. It can create unintended incentives to remove more trees or agricultural wastes than necessary. After all, removing biomass also decreases the levels of nutrients that plants and trees get from decaying matter.

But as more and more companies like Kodama are seeking out to take on carbon removal solutions, the demand will also grow.

Another positive aspect of wood vaults is the value for later land use. Unlike a foul-smelling landfill for municipal wastes and chemicals, a wood vault is clean, safe, and stable.

And the best part?

Companies can earn revenue not just from forest thinning work, but also from carbon credits generated by wood vaults. For each tonne of carbon sequestered by the wood vault, each credit is also generated.

The post Wood Vault: a Carbon Storage System to lock CO2 away appeared first on Carbon Credits.

In partnership with The Mexican Foodbanking Network, a Miami-based climate tech company, CoreZero, has developed a method to create carbon credits to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions of food waste through the voluntary carbon market.

CoreZero had quantified the prevention of 221,800 tons of carbon emissions and converted them into carbon credits.

World’s First Carbon Credits from Food Waste

The 221,800 carbon credits are the world’s first carbon credits from food rescue. They represent the beginning of an option to offset that converts waste into value.

CoreZero Sustainability Director Nicolás Dobler said:

“We are excited to assist in driving incremental value out of waste and monetizing efforts to scale up social and environmental impacts, saving more products and reducing the food gap for those in need while contributing to climate change mitigation… Our model is replicable to scale the impact of zero-waste projects globally, enabling a new and disruptive vertical of offsetting that provides social, economic, and environmental benefits.”

Emissions of Food Waste 

Production, transportation, and handling of food generate significant carbon emissions. The global food system emits about a third of total annual GHG emissions. Food waste represents about half of this footprint and when food ends up in landfills, it releases methane.

One study found that in 2017, global food waste emitted 9.3 billion tonnes of CO2e (GtCO2e). That’s about the same as the total combined emissions of the US and the EU for the same year. 

In the United States alone, the carbon emissions of food waste are equal to those of 42 coal-fired power plants. 

The Environmental Protection Agency or EPA estimated that each year, U.S. food loss and waste releases 170 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (million MTCO2e) GHG emissions. This doesn’t even include landfill emissions.

Globally, the waste sector accounts for about 20% of human-driven methane emissions. This greenhouse gas is even more potent and has 80x the warming power of CO2 over two decades.

Overall, GHG emissions from food that’s never eaten accounts for about 6% or higher of global total emissions.  

Another study found that almost 24% of food’s emissions come from food that is lost in supply chains or wasted by consumers. 

Meanwhile, two-thirds of the emissions (15%) is due to poor storage and handling techniques, spoilage during transport and processing, and lack of refrigeration. The remaining 9% of emissions is from food thrown away by consumers and retailers. 

To put that figure in context, it’s about 3x the aviation sector’s global carbon footprint. In other contexts, food waste will be the 3rd largest country emitter. The U.S. accounts for 13% while China 21%.

Reducing Food Waste and Climate Change

When food gets wasted, all inputs used in producing, processing, transporting, preparing, and storing it also go to waste. Food loss and waste also contributes to the climate crisis with its significant carbon footprint. 

And CoreZero seeks to help ramp up initiatives that have an actionable impact in food waste reduction. The company’s CEO and founder, Jean Pierre Azañedo, understands the responsible waste approach to both address the hunger crisis and climate change. Azañedo has over a decade of experience in waste management.

The climate tech firm’s methodology measures and quantifies the impact that reducing food waste has on climate change. 

Through its quantification and monetization method, both nonprofits and businesses can monetize their positive actions with carbon credits. Companies can get those credits and then use them to offset their own carbon emissions. 

CoreZero’s from waste to carbon credits is a 3-step approach to climate innovation. 

Integrate. CoreZero’s platform integrates into your operations to assess the project’s potential, identify the methodology and define the emission factors that apply.
Quantify. They measure your positive impact and convert it into carbon reduction units, tracked and reported using blockchain technology and verified through an independent third-party process.
Monetize. Carbon reduction units transformed into tradable carbon credits and monetized in the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM).

With this approach, CoreZero aims to transform the 1.3 billion tons of food waste each year into carbon credits. Thus, it becomes a turning point in how food waste and offsetting are now considered by NGOs, companies, and individuals. 

As Azañedo noted:

“I hope this turning point contributes to a change of perspective towards waste and its value… We designed a way to accelerate waste avoidance and valorization to tackle climate change. The potential of waste is boundless, so let’s, as a society, choose not to be wasteful with waste.”

The post Turning 1.3 billion tons of Food Waste into Carbon Credits appeared first on Carbon Credits.