A rapidly expanding list of companies have announced plans to go “carbon neutral” or “net zero”. Often, these plans include at least some offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing credits from forest carbon offset programs.
But buyers beware: our look into how forest carbon offsets are determined and sold suggests that there is a lot of work to be done before we will be able to monetize the carbon absorptive power of trees in our effort to reduce net emissions.
Climate Now spoke with four experts: Dr. Charles Canham of The Cary Institute, Dr. Danny Cullenward, Policy Director of CarbonPlan, Dr. Grayson Badgley of Black Rock Forest and Columbia University, and Christine Cadigan of the American Forest Foundation to better understand what is and is not working in the forest carbon offset market.
Planting trees has become a bit of a cliché in the fight against climate change, with ubiquitous photos of presidents and CEOs planting a tree to show they’re serious about climate. But, how much impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide can tree planting really have?
In the first episode of a series on carbon dioxide removal techniques, we explore the potential and the limitations of using forests to draw anthropogenic carbon emissions out of the atmosphere.
For businesses, a changing climate is not just about worsening weather patterns. Businesses must be prepared for what is likely to be an era of rapidly accelerating change to many dimensions of their operations, including changes in shareholder expectations, supply chains, multi-dimensional risks to physical assets, and impacts on labor, among others.
A critical dimension to preparing for these changes is risk assessment and reporting. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was established in 2015 to provide businesses with guidance on how to disclose both financial risks and opportunities that are associated with our changing climate.
Emily Wasley, head of WSP USA’s Corporate Climate Resilience practice, explains the TCFD guidelines and the growing interest from businesses seeking to become resilient to a changing climate in this episode.
In the first episode of our two-part series, we learned how NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory made it to space despite overwhelming odds from David Crisp, the mission’s principal investigator.
Today, we released the sequel, where we explore the science of carbon dioxide remote sensing, and how the data collected by the OCO missions 2 and 3 can be used to address the climate crisis.
Dr. David Crisp returns, and with Dr. Annmarie Eldering, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Project Scientist for the OCO-3 mission, explains what we have learned so far from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory missions.
On the 24th of February, 2009, David Crisp was in the control center at Vandenberg Air Force base counting down the seconds for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory to launch.
It was a project he had led for a decade – and it was the first NASA mission that would measure atmospheric carbon dioxide from space.
Hundreds of millions of dollars and years of work had gone into that moment, but David and his team had yet to face their greatest challenge…
This week, Climate Now is releasing a two-part series on NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) missions, including the saga of its multi-decadal journey to completion and the impact it could have on the fight to end climate change.
David Crisp, Senior Research Scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, shares his experience as the Principal Investigator for the OCO missions with Climate Now in this episode.
Many climate change mitigation proposals are land-use intensive. Are these proposals feasible without negatively impacting biodiversity? Can we develop solutions for both the climate and biodiversity crises?
There has been an historic lack of collaboration between climate and conservation efforts. To address this, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) produced their first-ever joint report in June to determine solutions that benefit both biodiversity and climate change.
Dr. Pete Smith, a co-author of the IPBES/IPCC report and professor of Soils and Global Change at the University of Aberdeen, joined Climate Now to explain why biodiversity should not be forgotten in the climate fight.
The climate crisis has myriad effects on American businesses, from where properties are located and their likelihood of encountering extreme weather, to where materials are sourced and potential supply-chain complications. These effects inevitably carry with them financial risks and opportunities which can impact pensions, stock markets, and business operations.
So how can businesses begin to calculate their financial risk from the effects of climate change? And why is this seemingly impossible task important?
We’ll address this question with Tory Grieves, Vice President of Analytics for The Climate Service, a company that provides businesses the tools to calculate their climate-related financial risks and opportunities.
Is there such a thing as “perfect” energy? With nuclear fusion, the answer is maybe.
Fusion energy would be safe to human health, environmentally clean, and essentially limitless.
But, developing a sustainable fusion reaction still faces significant engineering hurdles and is likely decades away from becoming a reality.
So, where are we in the development of fusion technology? What technical challenges remain? And what practical challenges must be overcome to make fusion a competitive energy source?
Sir Steven Cowley, director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, and Dr. Aneeqa Khan, Research Fellow in Nuclear Fusion at The University of Manchester, answer these questions in this episode.
Despite being a reliable, zero-emissions alternative to energy derived from fossil fuels, nuclear energy remains mired in controversy.
Opponents often cite four reasons not to include nuclear in the portfolio of alternative energy sources that will replace fossil fuels: its cost, what to do with radioactive waste, the increased risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, and environment and health impacts resulting from accidents or meltdowns.
But how are these risks quantified and how do they compare to other energy sources, including carbon-intensive energy? As the climate crisis worsens, can we really afford to exclude nuclear from the list of solutions?
Dr. David Keith, internationally-recognized climate and energy scientist and entrepreneur out of Harvard University, helps us understand how the risks of employing nuclear compare to the risks of not using it.