It’s an alluring idea: industrial CO2 emissions are warming the climate, and many countries are working on capturing the gas and storing it underground. But why not recycle it into products that are both virtuous and profitable? As long as the recycling process avoids creating more carbon emissions — by using renewable energy, or excess resources that would otherwise be wasted — it can reduce the CO2 that industry pumps into the atmosphere and lower the demand for fossil fuels used in manufacturing. That’s a double climate win, proponents say.

This kind of recycling (sometimes called upcycling) is an increasingly crowded field, as companies big and small race to market a bewildering array of products made from CO2. Some are boutique items for the climate-conscious shopper — vodka or diamonds, for example — but most are staples of the global economy: fuels, polymers, other chemicals and building materials. More than 80 firms are working on new approaches to using CO2, noted a 2021 report by Lux Research, a market-research company in Boston, Massachusetts. The market for these products is tiny today, amounting to less than US$1 billion — but Lux predicts that it will grow to $70 billion by 2030, and could reach $550 billion by 2040.

This activity is being driven by a fall in the cost of renewable energy, along with rising carbon taxes and other climate incentives that are persuading firms to avoid CO2 emissions. At the same time, chemists have improved the efficiency of the underlying technologies.

But there are tough questions about whether CO2 recycling genuinely benefits the climate. Many of the products made this way only briefly delay carbon’s journey into the atmosphere — fuels are burnt, products made from chemicals degrade and the CO2 consumed during their creation is released again. That will happen at Tongyezhen: much of the methanol produced is destined to be burnt as fuel in China’s growing fleet of methanol-powered vehicles.

Meanwhile, some estimates suggest that the global market for recycled CO2 products is unlikely to lock up more than a few per cent of the CO2 that humans release into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, which totalled 36 billion tonnes last year. CRI’s plant, for one, will convert the equivalent of a little over 2 minutes’ worth of annual global CO2 emissions. “We can avoid a lot of that, for a lot less money, than we can by turning CO2 into stuff,” says Niall Mac Dowell, an energy-systems engineer at Imperial College London.

“The assumption that we can fix this climate-change problem in an economically attractive and easy way — at best it’s naive, and at worst it’s actively disingenuous,” he says. It’s an argument that’s heating up as CO2 recycling goes mainstream.

Continue Reading

Corporations love to talk about what they are doing to combat climate change. In TV ads and sustainability reports, corporations tout their efforts to increase efficiency, utilize clean energy, and ultimately achieve “net-zero” emissions.

But as Popular Information previously reported, these claims are often misleading and incomplete. A February report by the NewClimate Institute of 25 major corporations that pledged to reach net-zero found they have collectively made commitments to reduce just 20% of their current carbon footprint by 2040. The NewClimate Institute also found many of the plans to reach net-zero contain “subtle details and loopholes” that allow significant carbon emissions to continue or rely on dubious carbon offsets that do not actually contribute to carbon emissions reductions.

Amazon, for example, presents itself as a corporate leader on climate change. It even purchased the naming rights for the home of the NHL’s Seattle Kraken and called it “Climate Pledge Arena.” But the NewClimate Institute’s report found that Amazon’s pledge to reach net-zero emissions “remains unsubstantiated without any explicit reduction target for the company’s own emissions.” Amazon provides almost no information on so-called “Scope 3” emissions, which includes emissions from the goods sold by Amazon.

Continue Reading

Record-setting fires in the western US over the last decade caused severe air pollution, loss of human life, and property damage. Enhanced drought and increased biomass in a warmer climate may fuel larger and more frequent wildfires in the coming decades. The air quality impact of increased wildfires in a warming climate has often been overlooked in current model projections, owing to the lack of interactive fire emissions of gases and particles responding to climate change in Earth System Model (ESM) projection simulations.

This research combines multi-ensemble projections of wildfires in three ESMs (including GFDL’s ESM4) with an empirical statistical model, to predict fine particulate pollution in the late 21st century. The three ESMs were taken from the Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project using several different possible scenarios of how socioeconomic factors, as well as mitigation efforts, may change in the future.

Total carbon dioxide emissions from fires over western North America during August–September are projected to increase from present-day values by 60–110% under a strong-mitigation scenario, 100–150% under a moderate-mitigation scenario, and 130–260% under a low-mitigation scenario in 2080–2100.

Continue Reading

Research director at the think tank, Rod Campbell, described the subsidies of fossil fuel use and production as “perverse”, at a time when a growing number of Australian communities are being devastated by climate-change fuelled disasters like flooding and bushfires.

“This is bad economics and even worse climate policy. We are witnessing Australia’s flood-stricken communities trying to pick up the pieces while fossil fuel interests are cashing in the tune of over $22,000 a minute,” Campbell said.

“Worse still, these subsidies are growing and show no sign of slowing down. It is the Federal Government driving increases in fossil fuel subsidies, with $6.7 billion worth of new measures committed since the 2019 election.”

Continue Reading


This potential sign of state support could also renew discussions around broader waste planning efforts in Florida. While all forms of solid waste disposal generate emissions, landfill methane is an especially potent contributor to climate change and combustion facilities have a lower greenhouse gas emission profile.

“The support to level the playing field is indeed a step in the right direction,” said Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann, CEO of the Institute for Energy and Resource Management. “The better step would be to phase out landfilling altogether of untreated waste [and] focus on an integrated waste management system.” Schmidt-Pathmann and his colleagues also want to see more focus on the greenhouse gas implications of resource management.

Continue Reading

to top