Access to employment opportunities that support the economic status of households, communities, or governments

Icon

Deploy Silvopasture

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Cows grazing among trees
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Deploy Silvopasture solution as the adoption of agroforestry practices that add trees to grazing land, including planted pastures and natural rangelands. (Note that this solution does NOT include creating forested grazing land by thinning existing forest; this is a form of deforestation and not desirable in terms of climate.) Some silvopastures are open savannas, while others are dense, mature tree plantations. The trees may be planted or managed to naturally regenerate. Some silvopasture systems have been practiced for thousands of years, while others have been recently developed. All provide shade to livestock; in some systems, the trees feed livestock, produce timber or crops for human consumption, or provide other benefits.

Income & work,Food security
Animal well-being
Overview

In silvopasture systems, trees are planted or allowed to naturally regenerate on existing pasture or rangeland. Tree density is generally low, allowing sunlight through for good forage growth.

Silvopasture has multiple climate impacts, though carbon sequestration is the only one which has been thoroughly studied across all climates and sub-practices.

Silvopasture sequesters carbon in both soil and woody biomass. Carbon sequestration rates are among the highest of any farming system (Toensmeier, 2017). The lifetime accumulation of carbon in both soils and biomass is higher than for managed grazing alone (Montagnini et al., 2019; Nair et al., 2012).

Silvopasture can also reduce GHG emissions, though not in every case. We do not include emissions reductions in this analysis.

Conversion from pasture to silvopasture slightly increases capture and storage of methane in soils (Bentrup and Shi, 2024). In addition, in fodder subtypes of silvopasture systems, ruminant livestock consume tree leaves or pods. Many, but not all, of the tree species used in these systems have tannin content that reduces emissions of methane from enteric fermentation (Jacobsen et al., 2019). 

Some subtypes of silvopasture reduce nitrous oxide emissions from manure and urine, as grasses and trees capture nitrogen that microbes would otherwise convert to nitrous oxide. There are also reductions to nitrous oxide emissions from soils: 76–95% in temperate silvopastures and 16–89% in tropical-intensive silvopastures (Ansari et al., 2023; Murguietio et al., 2016).

Many silvopasture systems increase productivity of milk and meat. Yield increases can reduce emissions from deforestation by growing more food on existing farmland, but in some cases can actually worsen emissions if farmers clear forests to adopt the profitable practice (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2019). The yield impact of silvopasture varies with tree density, climate, system type, and whether the yields of other products (e.g., timber) are counted as well (Rojas et al., 2022). 

References

Ansari, J., Udawatta, R. P., & Anderson, S. H. (2022). Soil nitrous oxide emission from agroforestry, rowcrop, grassland and forests in North America: a review. Agroforestry Systems, 97(8), 1465-1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00870-y

Batcheler, M., Smith, M. M., Swanson, M. E., Ostrom, M., & Carpenter-Boggs, L. (2024). Assessing silvopasture management as a strategy to reduce fuel loads and mitigate wildfire risk. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 5954. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56104-3

Bentrup, G. & Shi, X. (2024) Multifunctional buffers: Design guidelines for buffers, corridors and greenways. USDA Forest Service. 

Bostedt, G., Hörnell, A., & Nyberg, G. (2016). Agroforestry extension and dietary diversity–an analysis of the importance of fruit and vegetable consumption in West Pokot, Kenya. Food Security, 8, 271-284.

Briske, D. D., Vetter, S., Coetsee, C., & Turner, M. D. (2024). Rangeland afforestation is not a natural climate solution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2727

Cadavid, Z., & BE, S. T. (2020). Sistemas silvopastoriles: aspectos teóricos y prácticos. CIPAV.

Cardinael, R., Umulisa, V., Toudert, A., Olivier, A., Bockel, L., & Bernoux, M. (2019). Revisiting IPCC Tier 1 coefficients for soil organic and biomass carbon storage in agroforestry systems. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12), 124020. 10.1088/1748-9326/aaeb5f

Chapman, M., Walker, W.S., Cook-Patton, S.C., Ellis, P.W., Farina, M., Griscom, B.W., & Baccani, A. (2019) Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands Global Change Biology, 26 (80), 4357-4365. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15121

Chatterjee, N., Nair, P. R., Chakraborty, S., & Nair, V. D. (2018). Changes in soil carbon stocks across the forest-agroforest-agriculture/pasture continuum in various agroecological regions: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 266, 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.07.014

Damania, Richard; Polasky, Stephen; Ruckelshaus, Mary; Russ, Jason; Amann, Markus; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca; Gerber, James; Hawthorne, Peter; Heger, Martin Philipp; Mamun, Saleh; Ruta, Giovanni; Schmitt, Rafael; Smith, Jeffrey; Vogl, Adrian; Wagner, Fabian; Zaveri, Esha. 2023. Nature's Frontiers: Achieving Sustainability, Efficiency, and Prosperity with Natural Capital. Environment and Sustainable Development series. Washington, DC: World Bank

de Sherbinin, A., VanWey, L. K., McSweeney, K., Aggarwal, R., Barbieri, A., Henry, S., Hunter, L. M., Twine, W., & Walker, R. (2008). Rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.05.005

Den Herder, M., Moreno, G., Mosquera-Losada, R. M., Palma, J. H., Sidiropoulou, A., Freijanes, J. J. S., & Burgess, P. J. (2017). Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 241, 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.005

Di Prima, S., Wright, E. P., Sharma, I. K., Syurina, E., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2022). Implementation and scale-up of nutrition-sensitive agriculture in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of what works, what doesn’t work and why. Global Food Security, 32, 100595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100595

deStefano, A, & Jacobson, M.G. (2018) Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: A review. Agroforestry Systems, 92, 285-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0212-y

Dudley, N., Eufemia, L., Fleckenstein, M., Periago, M. E., Petersen, I., & Timmers, J. F. (2020). Grasslands and savannahs in the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration Ecology, 28(6), 1313-1317 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13272

Dupraz, C, and Liagre, F.(2011) Agroforesterie: Des Arbres et des Cultures. Editions France Agricole.

FAO Statistical Service (2024) FAOStat. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/

Feliciano, D., Ledo, A., Hillier, J., & Nayak, D. R. (2018). Which agroforestry options give the greatest soil and above ground carbon benefits in different world regions?. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 254, 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.032

Frelat, R., Lopez-Ridaura, S., Giller, K. E., Herrero, M., Douxchamps, S., Djurfeldt, A. A., Erenstein, O., Henderson, B., Kassie, M., Paul, B. K., Rigolot, C., Ritzema, R. S., Rodriguez, D., Van Asten, P. J. A., & Van Wijk, M. T. (2016). Drivers of household food availability in sub-Saharan Africa based on big data from small farms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(2), 458–463. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518384112

Garrett, H. E., Kerley, M. S., Ladyman, K. P., Walter, W. D., Godsey, L. D., Van Sambeek, J. W., & Brauer, D. K. (2004). Hardwood silvopasture management in North America. In New Vistas in Agroforestry: A Compendium for 1st World Congress of Agroforestry, 2004 (pp. 21-33). Springer Netherlands.

Goracci, J., & Camilli, F. (2024). Agroforestry and animal husbandry. IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.1006711

Government of Colombia 2020 Actualización de la Contribución Determinada a Nivel Nacional de Colombia. Government of Colombia.

Greene, H., Kazanski, C. E., Kaufman, J., Steinberg, E., Johnson, K., Cook-Patton, S. C., & Fargione, J. (2023). Silvopasture offers climate change mitigation and profit potential for farmers in the eastern United States. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 1158459.

Hart, D.R.T, Yeo, S, Almaraz, M, Beillouin, D, Cardinael, R, Garcia, E, Kay, S, Lovell, S.T., Rosenstock, T.S., Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S, Stolle, F, Suber, M, Thapa, B, Wood, S & Cook-Patton, S.C (2023). “Priority science can accelerate agroforestry as a natural climate solution”. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8209212

Husak, A. L., & Grado, S. C. (2002). Monetary benefits in a southern silvopastoral system. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 26(3), 159-164 https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/26.3.159

IPCC (2019). Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. 

IPCC AR6 WG3 (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926

Jacobsen (2019) “Secondary metabolites in leaf hay as a mitigation option for enteric methane production in ruminants”. Aarhus University. 

Jose, S., & Dollinger, J. (2019). Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agroforestry systems, 93, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00366-8

Lal, R., Smith, P., Jungkunst, H. F., Mitsch, W. J., Lehmann, J., Nair, P. R., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2018). The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. Journal of soil and water conservation, 73(6), 145A-152A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A

Lee, S., Bonatti, M, Löhe, K, Palacios, V., Lana, M.A., and Sieber, S (2020) “Adoption potentials and barriers of silvopastoral systems in Colombia: Case of Cundinamarca region” Cogent Environmental Science 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2020.1823632

Lemes, A. P., Garcia, A. R., Pezzopane, J. R. M., Brandão, F. Z., Watanabe, Y. F., Cooke, R. F., ... & Gimenes, L. U. (2021). Silvopastoral system is an alternative to improve animal welfare and productive performance in meat production systems. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 14092. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93609-7

Lorenz, K., & Lal, R. (2018). Carbon sequestration in agricultural ecosystems. Springer, Cham. 

Mehrabi, Z., Tong, K., Fortin, J., Stanimirova, R., Friedl, M., & Ramankutty, N. (2024). Global agricultural lands in the year 2015. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 2024, 1-44. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-279

Montagnini, F (2019). “Función de los sistemas agroforestales en la adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático”. Sistemas agroforestales: Funciones productivas, socioeconómicas y ambientales, 269-299.

Murgueitio, E., Uribe, F., Molina, C., Molina, E., Galindo, W., Chará, J., & González, J. (2016). Establecimiento y manejo de sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos con Leucaena. Editorial CIPAV, Cali, Colombia. 

Nair, P.K. R. (2012) “Climate change mitigation: A low-hanging fruit of agroforestry”. Agroforestry: The future of global land use, 31-69.

Ortiz, J., Neira, P., Panichini, M., Curaqueo, G., Stolpe, N. B., Zagal, E., & Gupta, S. R. (2023). Silvopastoral systems on degraded lands for soil carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa, 207-242.

Pent, G. J. (2020). Over-yielding in temperate silvopastures: a meta-analysis. Agroforestry Systems, 94(5), 1741-1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-00494-6

Pezo, D., Ríos, N., Ibrahim, M., & Gómez, M. (2018). Silvopastoral systems for intensifying cattle production and enhancing forest cover: the case of Costa Rica. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Poudel, S., Pent, G., & Fike, J. (2024). Silvopastures: Benefits, past efforts, challenges, and future prospects in the United States. Agronomy, 14(7), 1369.

Quandt, A, Neufeldt, G, & Gorman, K (2023). “Climate change adaptation through agroforestry: Opportunities and gaps”. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 60, 101244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101244

Rivera, J. E., Serna, L., Arango, J., Barahona, R., Murgueitio, E., Torres, C. F., & Chará, J. (2023). Silvopastoral systems and their role in climate change mitigation and Nationally Determined Contributions in Latin America. In Silvopastoral systems of Meso America and Northern South America (pp. 25-53). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Rojas, D, & Rodriguez Anido, N. (2022) Potential of silvopastoral systems for the mitigation of greenhouse gasses generated in the production of bovine meat. In Sistemas silvopastoriles: Hacia una diversificación sostenible. CIPAV.

Riset, J.Å., Tømmervik, H. & Forbes, B.C. (2019) “Sustainable and resilient reindeer herding”. In Reindeer Caribou Health Dis, (23–43). 

Shelton (2021) Leucaena: The productive and sustainable forage legume. University of Queensland.

Shi, L., Feng, W., Xu, J., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2018). Agroforestry systems: Meta‐analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land Degradation & Development, 29(11), 3886-3897. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3136

Smith, M. M., Bentrup, G., Kellerman, T., MacFarland, K., Straight, R., Ameyaw, L., & Stein, S. (2022). Silvopasture in the USA: A systematic review of natural resource professional and producer-reported benefits, challenges, and management activities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 326, 107818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107818

Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S. Griscom, B., Griffey, V., Munshi, E., Chapman, M. (2024) “Maximizing tree carbon in cropland and grazing lands while sustaining yields”. Carbon Balance and Management 19:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00268-y

Toensmeier, E. (2017). Perennial staple crops and agroforestry for climate change mitigation. Integrating landscapes: Agroforestry for biodiversity conservation and food sovereignty, 439-451.

Udawatta, R. P., Walter, D., & Jose, S. (2022). Carbon sequestration by forests and agroforests: A reality check for the United States. Carbon footprints, 1(8). 10.20517/cf.2022.06 

Zeppetello, L. R. V., Cook-Patton, S. C., Parsons, L. A., Wolff, N. H., Kroeger, T., Battisti, D. S., ... & Masuda, Y. J. (2022). Consistent cooling benefits of silvopasture in the tropics. Nature communications, 13(1), 708. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28388-4

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We found a median carbon sequestration rate of 9.81 t CO₂/ha/yr (Table 1). This is based on an above-ground biomass (tree trunks and branches) accumulation rate of 6.43 t CO₂/ha/yr and a below-ground biomass (roots) accumulation rate of 1.61 t CO₂/ha/yr using a root-to-shoot ratio of 0.25 (Cardinael et al., 2019). These are added to the soil organic carbon sequestration rate of 1.76 t CO₂/ha/yr to create the combined total.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Carbon sequestration.

Unit: t CO₂-eq/ha/yr

25th percentile 4.91
mean 14.70
median (50th percentile) 9.81
75th percentile 20.45

100-yr basis

Left Text Column Width

Reductions in nitrous oxide and methane and sustainable intensification impacts are not yet quantifiable to the degree that they can be used in climate mitigation projections.

left_text_column_width
Cost

Because baseline grazing systems are already extensive and well established, we assumed there is no cost to establish new baseline grazing land. In the absence of global data sets on costs and revenues of grazing systems, we used a global average profit per hectare of grazing land of US$6.28 from Damnnia et al. (2023).

Establishment costs of silvopasture vary widely. We found the cost to establish one hectare of silvopasture to be US$1.06–4,825 (Dupraz & Liagre, 2011; Lee et al., 2011). Reasons for this wide range include the low cost of natural regeneration and the broad range in tree density depending on the type of system. We collected costs by region and used a weighted average to obtain a global net net cost value of US$424.20.

Cost and revenue data for silvopasture were insufficient. However, data on the impact on revenues per hectare are abundant. Our analysis found a median 8.7% increase in per-hectare profits from silvopasture compared with conventional grazing, which we applied to the average grazing value to obtain a net profit of US$6.82/ha. This does not reflect the very high revenues of silvopasture systems in some countries.

We calculated cost per t CO₂‑eq sequestered by dividing net net cost/ha by total CO₂‑eq sequestered/ha.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂-eq

median $43.25

100-yr basis & 20-yr basis are the same.

Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

There is not enough information available to determine a learning curve for silvopasture. However, anecdotal evidence showed establishment costs decreasing as techniques for broadscale mechanized establishment were developed in Australia and Colombia (Murguietio et al., 2016; Shelton et al., 2021).

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Deploy Silvopasture is a DELAYED climate solution. It works more slowly than nominal or emergency brake solutions. Delayed solutions can be robust climate solutions, but it’s important to recognize that they realize their full potential for some time.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Permanence

Living biomass and soil organic matter only temporarily hold carbon (decades to centuries for soil organic matter, and for the life of the tree or any long-lived products made from its wood in the case of woody biomass). Sequestered carbon in both soils and biomass is vulnerable to fire, drought, long-term shifts to a drier precipitation regime, and other climate change impacts, as well as to a return to the previous farming or grazing practices. Such disturbances can cause carbon to be re-emitted to the atmosphere (Lorenz & Lal, 2018). 

Saturation

Like all upland, terrestrial agricultural systems, over the course of decades, silvopastures reach saturation and net sequestration slows to nearly nothing (Lorenz & Lal, 2018). 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Lack of data on the current adoption of silvopasture is a major gap in our understanding of the potential of this solution. One satellite imaging study found 156 million ha of grazing land with over 10 t C/ha in above-ground biomass, which is the amount that indicates more than grass alone (Chapman et al., 2019). However, this area includes natural savannas, which are not necessarily silvopastures, and undercounts the existing 15.1 million ha of silvopasture known to be present in Europe (den Herder et al., 2017).

Sprenkle-Hippolite et al. (2024) estimated a current adoption of 141.4 Mha, or 6.0% of grazing land (Table 3). We have chosen this more recent figure as the best available estimate of current adoption.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2023) adoption level.

Unit: million ha

mean 141.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

There is little quantifiable information reported about silvopasture adoption.

left_text_column_width
Adoption Ceiling

Grazing is the world’s largest land use at 2,986 million ha (Mehrabi et al., 2024). Much grazing land is too dry for trees, while other grasslands that were not historically forest or savanna should not be planted with trees in order to minimize water use and protect grassland habitat (Dudley et al., 2020). Three studies estimated the total potential area suitable for silvopasture (including current adoption). 

Lal et al. (2018) estimated the technical potential for silvopasture adoption at 550 Mha.

Chapman et al. (2019) estimated the suitable area for increased woody biomass on grazing land as 1,890 Mha. 

Sprenkle-Hippolite (2024) assessed the maximum area of grazing land to which trees could be added without reducing livestock productivity. They calculated a total of 1,589 Mha, or 67% of global grazing land (Table 4). To our knowledge, this is the most accurate estimate available. 

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: ha installed

25th percentile 1,069,000,000
mean 1,343,000,000
median (50th percentile) 1,588,000,000
75th percentile 1,739,000,000

Unit: % of grazing land

25th percentile 45
mean 36
median (50th percentile) 53
75th percentile 58
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

In our Achievable – High scenario, global silvopasture starts at 141.4 million ha and grows at the Colombian Nationally Determined Contribution growth rate of 6.5%/yr. This would provide the high end of the achievable potential at 206.3 million ha by 2030, of which 64.9 million ha are newly adopted (Table 5). For the Achievable – Low scenario, we chose 1/10 of Colombia’s projected growth rate. This would provide 147.0 million ha of adoption by 2030, of which 5.6 million ha are new.

Few estimates of the global adoption potential of silvopasture are available, and even those for the broader category of agroforestry are rare due to the lack of solid data on current adoption and growth rates (Shi et al., 2018; Hart et al., 2023). The IPCC estimates that, for agroforestry overall, 19.5% of the technical potential is economically achievable (IPCC AR6 WG3, 2022). Applying this rate to Sprenkle-Hippolite’s estimated 1,588 million ha technical potential yields an achievable potential of 310 million ha of convertible grazing land.

Our high adoption rate reaches 13% of the adoption ceiling by 2030. This suggests that silvopasture represents a large but relatively untapped potential that will require aggressive policy action and other incentives to spur scaling.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: million ha

Current Adoption 141.4
Achievable – Low 147.0
Achievable – High 206.3
Adoption Ceiling 1,588.0

Unit: million ha

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 5.6
Achievable – High 64.9
Adoption Ceiling 1,447.4
Left Text Column Width

Carbon sequestration continues only for a period of decades; because silvopasture is an ancient practice with some plantings centuries old, we could not assume that previously adopted hectares continue to sequester carbon indefinitely. Thus, we make the conservative choice to calculate carbon sequestration only for newly adopted hectares.

Carbon sequestration impact is 0.00 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for current adoption, 0.05 for Achievable – Low, 0.64 for Achievable – High, and 14.20 for our Adoption Ceiling.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂-eq/yr

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 0.05
Achievable – High 0.64
Adoption Ceiling 14.20

100-yr basis, New adoption only 

Left Text Column Width

Lal et al. (2018) estimated a technical global carbon sequestration potential of 0.3–1.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Sprenkle-Hyppolite et al. (2024) estimated a silvopasture technical potential of 1.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, which assumes a tree density of 2–6 trees/ha, which is substantially lower than typical silvopasture. For agroforestry overall (including silvopasture and other practices), the IPCC estimates an achievable potential of 0.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and a technical potential of 4.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits

Food Security

While evidence on the impact of silvopasture on yields is mixed, this practice can improve food security by diversifying food production and income sources (Bostedt et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2022). In pastoralists in Kenya, Bostedt et al. (2016) found that agroforestry practices were associated with increased dietary diversity, an important aspect of food and nutrition security. Diverse income streams can mediate household food security during adverse conditions, such as droughts or floods, especially in low- and middle-income countries (de Sherbinin et al., 2007; Di Prima et al., 2022; Frelat et al., 2016). 

Income & Work 

Silvopasture can also increase and diversify farmer income. Tree fruit and timber often provide additional income for ranchers. A study in the southern United States showed that silvopasture systems generated 10% more income than standalone cattle production (Husak and Grado et al., 2002). A more comprehensive analysis across the eastern United States (Greene et al., 2023) found that virtually all silvopasture systems assessed had a positive 20- and 30-yr internal rate of return (IRR). For some systems, the 30-yr IRR can be >15% (Greene et al., 2023).

Animal Well-being

By providing shade, silvopasture systems reduce heat stress experienced by livestock. Heat stress for cattle begins at 30 °C or even lower in some circumstances (Garrett et al., 2004). In the tropics, the cooling effect of integrating trees into a pastoral system is 0.32–2.4 °C/t of woody carbon added/ha (Zeppetello et al., 2022). Heifers raised in silvopasture systems had higher body mass and more optimal body temperature than those raised in intensive rotational grazing systems (Lemes et al., 2021). Improvement in livestock physiological conditions probably results from access to additional forage, increased livestock comfort, and reduced heat stress in silvopastoral systems. Silvopasture is highly desirable for its improvements to animal welfare (Goracci & Camilli, 2024).

Nature Protection

Trees boost habitat availability, enhance landscape connectivity, and aid in forest regeneration and restoration. In most climates they provide a major boost to biodiversity compared with pasture alone (Smith et al., 2022; Pezo et al., 2018). 

Water Quality

Perennials in silvopasture systems could reduce runoff and increase water infiltration rates relative to open rangelands (Smith et al., 2022; Pezo et al., 2018). This increases the resilience of the system during drought and high heat. 

left_text_column_width
Risks

Some of the tree and forage species used in silvopastures are invasive in certain contexts. For example, river tamarind (Leucaena leucocephala) is a centerpiece in intensive silvopasture in Latin America, where it is native, but also in Australia, where it is not. Australian producers have developed practices to limit or prevent its spread (Shelton et al., 2021).

Livestock can damage or kill young trees during establishment. Protecting trees or excluding grazing animals during this period increases costs (Smith et al., 2022).

Poorly designed tree layout can make herding, haying, fencing, and other management activities more difficult. Tree densities that are too high can reduce livestock productivity (Cadavid et al., 2020).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Silvopasture represents a way to produce some ruminant meat and dairy in a more climate-friendly way. This impact can contribute to addressing emissions from ruminant production, but only as part of a program that strongly emphasizes diet change and food waste reduction.

left_text_column_width

Forms of silvopasture that increase milk and meat yields can reduce pressure to convert undeveloped land to agriculture.

left_text_column_width

Silvopasture is a technique for restoring farmland.

left_text_column_width

Silvopasture is a form of savanna restoration.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Silvopasture and forest restoration can compete for the same land. 

left_text_column_width

Silvopasture is a kind of agroforestry, though in this iteration of Project Drawdown “Deploy Agroforestry” refers to crop production systems only. With that said, some agroforestry systems integrate both crops and livestock with the trees, such as the widespread parkland systems of the African Sahel.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

1 ha converted from grazing land to silvopasture

t CO₂-eq/unit/yr
9.81
units
Current 05.6×10⁶6.49×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0 0.050.64
US$ per t CO₂-eq
43
Delayed

CO₂

Trade-offs

Solutions that improve ruminant production could undermine the argument for reducing ruminant protein consumption in wealthy countries. 

Certain silvopasture systems reduce per-hectare productivity of meat and milk, even if overall productivity increases when the yields of timber or food from the tree component are included. For example, silvopasture systems that are primarily focused on timber production, with high tree densities, will have lower livestock yields than pasture alone - though they will have high timber yields.

The costs of establishment are much higher than those of managed grazing. There is also a longer payback period (Smith et al., 2022). These limitations mean that secure land tenure is even more important than usual, to make adoption worthwhile (Poudel et al., 2024).

left_text_column_width
Geographic Guidance Introduction

Silvopasture is primarily appropriate for grazing land that receives sufficient rainfall to support tree growth. While it can be implemented on both cropland and grassland, if adopted on cropland, it will reduce food yield because livestock produce much less food per hectare than crops. In the humid tropics, a particularly productive and high-carbon variation called intensive silvopasture is an option. Ideally, graziers will have secure land tenure, though pastoralist commons have been used successfully.

Areas too dry to establish trees (<450 mm annual precipitation) are not suitable for silvopasture by tree planting, but regions that can support natural savanna may be suitable for managed natural regeneration.

Most silvopasture today appears in sub-Saharan Africa (Chapman et al., 2019), though this may reflect grazed natural savannas rather than intentional silvopasture. This finding neglects well-known systems in Latin America and Southern Europe. 

Chapman et al. (2019) listed world grasslands by their potential to add woody biomass. According to their analysis, the countries with the greatest potential to increase woody biomass carbon in grazing land are, in order: Australia, Kazakhstan, China, the United States, Mongolia, Iran, Argentina, South Africa, Sudan, Afghanistan, Russia, and Mexico. Tropical grazing land accounts for 73% of the potential in one study. Brazil, China, and Australia have the highest areas, collectively accounting for 37% of the potential area (Sprenkle-Hippolite 2024).

We do not present any maps for the silvopasture solution due to the uncertainties in identifying current areas where silvopasture is practiced, and in identifying current grasslands that were historically forest or savanna. 

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Silvopasture
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Lower the risk for farmers transitioning from other pastoral systems.
  • Increase understanding of silvopasture.
  • Reduce technical and bureaucratic complexity.
  • Establish or expand technical assistance programs.
  • Simplify incentive programs.
  • Ensure an appropriate and adequate selection of tree species are eligible for incentives.
  • Establish a silvopasture certification program.
  • Create demonstration farms.
  • Strengthen land tenure laws.
  • Incentivize lease structures to facilitate silvopasture transitions on rented land.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Seek support from technical assistance programs and extension services.
  • Seek out networks of adopters to share information, resources, best practices, and collective marketing.
  • If available, leverage incentive programs such as subsidies, tax rebates, grants, and carbon credits.
  • Negotiate new lease agreements to accommodate silvopasture techniques or advocate for public incentives to reform lease structures.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Prioritize suppliers and source from farmers who use silvopasture.
  • Provide innovative financial mechanisms to encourage adoption.
  • Participate in and help create high-quality carbon credit programs.
  • Incentivize silvopasture transitions in lease agreements.
  • Support the creation of a certification system to increase the marketability of silvopasture products.
  • Join coalitions with other purchasers to grow demand.
  • Collaborate with public and private agricultural organizations on education and training programs. 

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Educate farmers and those who work in the food industry about the benefits of silvopasture.
  • Communicate any government incentives for farmers to transition to silvopasture.
  • Explain how to take advantage of incentives.
  • Provide training material and/or work with extension services to support farmers transitioning to silvopasture, such as administering certification programs.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved incentives for farmers, stronger land tenure laws, and flexible lease agreements.

Further information:

Investors
  • Use capital like low-interest or favorable loans to support farmers and farmer cooperatives exploring silvopasture projects.
  • Invest in credible, high-quality carbon reduction silvopasture projects.
  • Invest in silvopasture products (e.g., fruits, berries, and other tree products)
  • Encourage favorable lease agreements between landowners or offer favorable costs and benefit-sharing structures.
  • Consider banking through community development financial institutions or other institutions that support farmers. 

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide grants and loans for establishing silvopasture and support farmland restoration projects that include silvopasture.
  • Support capacity-building, market access, education, and training opportunities for smallholder farmers – especially those historically underserved – through activities like farmer cooperatives, demonstration farms, and communal tree nurseries.
  • Consider banking through Community Development Financial Institutions or other institutions that support farmers. 

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Use your platform to build awareness of silvopasture and its benefits, incentive programs, and regulatory standards.
  • Provide technical information to practitioners.
  • Host community dialogues such as Edible Connections to engage the public about silvopasture and other climate-friendly farming practices.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve the affordability and equipment needed to plant and manage trees.
  • Refine satellite tools to improve silvopasture detection.
  • Develop ways to monitor changes in soil and biomass.
  • Standardize data collection protocols.
  • Create a framework for transparent reporting and reliable verification.
  • Fill gaps in data, such as quantifying the global adoption potential of silvopasture and regional analysis of revenue and operating costs/hectare. 

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Purchase silvopasture products and support farmers who use the practice.
  • Request silvopasture products at local markets.
  • Encourage policymakers to help farmers transition.
  • Encourage livestock farmers to adopt the practice.
  • Host community dialogues such as Edible Connections to engage the public about silvopasture and other climate-friendly farming practices.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Carbon Sequestration: mixed to high consensus

There is a high level of consensus about the carbon biosequestration impacts of silvopasture, including for the higher per-hectare sequestration rates relative to improved grazing systems alone. A handful of reviews, expert estimations, and meta-analyses have been published on the subject. These include:

Cardinael et al. (2018) assembled data by climate and region for use in the national calculations and reporting. 

Chatterjee et al. (2018) found that converting from pasture to silvopasture increases carbon stocks. 

Lal et al. ( 2018) estimated the technical adoption and mitigation potential of silvopasture and other practices.

Udawatta et al. (2022) provided an up- to date meta-analysis for temperate North America. 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from two reviews, two meta-analyses, one expert opinion and three original studies reflecting current evidence from a global scale. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Other climate impacts: low consensus

There is low consensus on the reduction of methane from enteric emissions, nitrous oxide from manure, and CO₂ from avoided deforestation due to increased productivity. We do not include these climate impacts in our calculations.

Adoption potential: low consensus

Until recently there was little understanding of the current adoption of silvopasture. Sprenkle-Hyppolite et al. (2024) used Delphi expert estimation to determine current adoption and technical potential. Rates of adoption and achievable potential are still largely unreported or uninvestigated. See the Adoption section for details.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Improve Annual Cropping

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
FALO & Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Farmers on much of the world’s 1.4 billion ha of cropland grow and harvest annual crops – crops like wheat, rice, and soybeans that live for one year or less. After harvest, croplands are often left bare for the rest of the year and sometimes tilled, exposing the soil to wind and rain. This keeps soil carbon levels low and can lead to soil erosion. There are many ways to improve annual cropping to protect or enhance the health of the soil and increase soil organic matter. Project Drawdown’s Improve Annual Cropping solution is a set of practices that protects soils by minimizing plowing (no-till/reduced tillage) and maintaining continuous soil cover (by retaining crop residues or growing cover crops). This increases soil carbon sequestration and reduces nitrous oxide emissions. These techniques are commonly used in conservation agriculture, regenerative, and agro-ecological cropping systems. Other annual cropping practices with desirable climate impacts – including compost application and crop rotations – are omitted here due to lack of data and much smaller scale of adoption. 

Extreme weather events
Income & work,Food security
Nature protection,Land resources,Water resources
Overview

The Improve Annual Cropping solution incorporates several practices that minimize soil disturbance and introduce a physical barrier meant to prevent erosion to fragile topsoils. Our definition includes two of the three pillars of conservation agriculture: minimal soil disturbance and permanent soil cover (Kassam et al., 2022).

Minimal Soil Disturbance

Soil organic carbon (SOC) – which originates from decomposed plants – helps soils hold moisture and provides the kinds of chemical bonding that allow nutrients to be stored and exchanged easily with plants. Soil health and productivity depend on microbial decomposition of plant biomass residues, which mobilizes critical nutrients in soil organic matter (SOM) and builds SOC. Conventional tillage inverts soil, buries residues, and breaks down compacted soil aggregates. This process facilitates microbial activity, weed removal, and water infiltration for planting. However, tillage can accelerate CO₂ fluxes as SOC is lost to oxidation and runoff. Mechanical disturbance further exposes deeper soils to the atmosphere, leading to radiative absorption, higher soil temperatures, and catalyzed biological processes – all of which increase oxidation of SOC (Francaviglia et al., 2023).

Reduced tillage limits soil disturbance to support increased microbial activity, moisture retention, and stable temperature at the soil surface. This practice can increase carbon sequestration, at least when combined with cover cropping. These effects are highly contextual, depending on tillage intensity and soil depth as well as the practice type, duration, and timing. Reduced tillage further reduces fossil fuel emissions from on-farm machinery. However, this practice often leads to increased reliance on herbicides for weed control (Francaviglia et al., 2023).

Permanent Soil Cover

Residue retention and cover cropping practices aim to provide permanent plant cover to protect and improve soils. This can improve aggregate stability, water retention, and nutrient cycling. Farmers practicing residue retention leave crop biomass residues on the soil surface to suppress weed growth, improve water infiltration, and reduce evapotranspiration from soils (Francaviglia et al., 2023).

Cover cropping includes growth of spontaneous or seeded plant cover, either during or between established cropping cycles. In addition to SOC, cover cropping can help decrease nitrous oxide emissions and bind nitrogen typically lost via oxidation and leaching. Leguminous cover crops can also fix atmospheric nitrogen, reducing the need for fertilizer. Cover cropping can further be combined with reduced tillage for additive SOC and SOM gains (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015; Francaviglia et al., 2023).

Improved annual cropping practices can simultaneously reduce GHG emissions and improve SOC stocks. However, there are biological limits to SOC stocks – particularly in mineral soils. Environmental benefits are impermanent and only remain if practices continue long term (Francaviglia et al., 2023).

References

Abdalla, M., Hastings, A., Cheng, K., Yue, Q., Chadwick, D., Espenberg, M., Truu, J., Rees, R. M., & Smith, P. (2019). A critical review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity. Global Change Biology, 25(8), 2530–2543. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14644 

Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., Cattaneo, A., & Kokwe, M. (2015). Climate smart agriculture? Assessing the adaptation implications in Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 753-780.

Bai, X., Huang, Y., Ren, W., Coyne, M., Jacinthe, P.-A., Tao, B., Hui, D., Yang, J., & Matocha, C. (2019). Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 25(8), 2591–2606. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14658

Blanco‐Canqui, H., Shaver, T. M., Lindquist, J. L., Shapiro, C. A., Elmore, R. W., Francis, C. A., & Hergert, G. W. (2015). Cover crops and ecosystem services: Insights from studies in temperate soils. Agronomy journal, 107(6), 2449-2474.

Blanco-Canqui, H., & Francis, C. A. (2016). Building resilient soils through agroecosystem redesign under fluctuating climatic regimes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(6), 127A-133A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.71.6.127A 

Cai, A., Han, T., Ren, T., Sanderman, J., Rui, Y., Wang, B., Smith, P., Xu, M., & Li, Y. (2022). Declines in soil carbon storage under no tillage can be alleviated in the long run. Geoderma, 425, 116028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116028 

Clapp, J. (2021). Explaining growing glyphosate use: The political economy of herbicide-dependent agriculture. Global Environmental Change, 67, 102239.

Cui, Y., Zhang, W., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X., Luo, J., & Zou, J. (2024). Effects of no-till on upland crop yield and soil organic carbon: A global meta-analysis. Plant and Soil, 499(1), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05854-y

Damania, R., Polasky, S., Ruckelshaus, M., Russ, J., Amann, M., Chaplin-Kramer, R., ... & Zaveri, E. (2023). Nature's Frontiers: Achieving Sustainability, Efficiency, and Prosperity with Natural Capital. World Bank Publications.

Dupraz, C., and Liagre, F. (2011). Agroforesterie: des arbres et des cultures. France Agricole Editions, 2011. 

Fitton, N., Alexander, P., Arnell, N., Bajzelj, B., Calvin, K., Doelman, J., Gerber, J. S., Havlik, P., Hasegawa, T., Herrero, M., Krisztin, T., van Meijl, H., Powell, T., Sands, R., Stehfest, E., West, P. C., and Smith, P. (2019). The vulnerabilities of agricultural land and food production to future water scarcity. Global Environmental Change, 58:101944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101944 

Francaviglia, R., Almagro, M., & Vicente-Vicente, J. L. (2023). Conservation Agriculture and Soil Organic Carbon: Principles, Processes, Practices and Policy Options. Soil Systems, 7(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7010017 

Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., ... & Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645-11650.

Hassan, M. U., Aamer, M., Mahmood, A., Awan, M. I., Barbanti, L., Seleiman, M. F., ... & Huang, G. (2022). Management strategies to mitigate N₂O emissions in agriculture. Life, 12(3), 439.

Hu, Q., Thomas, B. W., Powlson, D., Hu, Y., Zhang, Y., Jun, X., Shi, X., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Soil organic carbon fractions in response to soil, environmental and agronomic factors under cover cropping systems: A global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 355, 108591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108591

Jat, H. S., Choudhary, K. M., Nandal, D. P., Yadav, A. K., Poonia, T., Singh, Y., Sharma, P. C., & Jat, M. L. (2020). Conservation Agriculture-based Sustainable Intensification of Cereal Systems Leads to Energy Conservation, Higher Productivity and Farm Profitability. Environmental Management, 65(6), 774–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01273-w

Jayaraman, S., Dang, Y. P., Naorem, A., Page, K. L., & Dalal, R. C. (2021). Conservation Agriculture as a System to Enhance Ecosystem Services. Agriculture, 11(8), 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11080718

Jian, J., Du, X., Reiter, M. S., & Stewart, R. D. (2020). A meta-analysis of global cropland soil carbon changes due to cover cropping. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 143, 107735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107735

Joshi, D. R., Sieverding, H. L., Xu, H., Kwon, H., Wang, M., Clay, S. A., Johnson, J. M., Thapa, R., Westhoff, S., & Clay, D. E. (2023). A global meta-analysis of cover crop response on soil carbon storage within a corn production system. Agronomy Journal, 115(4), 1543–1556. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21340

Kan, Z.-R., Liu, W.-X., Liu, W.-S., Lal, R., Dang, Y. P., Zhao, X., & Zhang, H.-L. (2022). Mechanisms of soil organic carbon stability and its response to no-till: A global synthesis and perspective. Global Change Biology, 28(3), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15968

Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., & Derpsch, R. (2022). Successful Experiences and Lessons from Conservation Agriculture Worldwide. Agronomy, 12(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040769

Lal, R., Smith, P., Jungkunst, H. F., Mitsch, W. J., Lehmann, J., Nair, P. R., ... & Ravindranath, N. H. (2018). The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. Journal of soil and water conservation, 73(6), 145A-152A.

Lessmann, M., Ros, G. H., Young, M. D., & de Vries, W. (2022). Global variation in soil carbon sequestration potential through improved cropland management. Global Change Biology, 28(3), 1162–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15954

Luo, Z., Wang, E., & Sun, O. J. (2010). Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 139(1), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.08.006

Martínez-Mena, M., Carrillo-López, E., Boix-Fayos, C., Almagro, M., García Franco, N., Díaz-Pereira, E., Montoya, I., & De Vente, J. (2020). Long-term effectiveness of sustainable land management practices to control runoff, soil erosion, and nutrient loss and the role of rainfall intensity in Mediterranean rainfed agroecosystems. CATENA, 187, 104352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104352

McClelland, S. C., Paustian, K., & Schipanski, M. E. (2021). Management of cover crops in temperate climates influences soil organic carbon stocks: A meta-analysis. Ecological Applications, 31(3), e02278. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2278

Moukanni, N., Brewer, K. M., Gaudin, A. C. M., & O’Geen, A. T. (2022). Optimizing Carbon Sequestration Through Cover Cropping in Mediterranean Agroecosystems: Synthesis of Mechanisms and Implications for Management. Frontiers in Agronomy, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.844166 

Mrabet, R., Singh, A., Sharma, T., Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Basch, G., Moussadek, R., & Gonzalez-Sanchez, E. (2023). Conservation Agriculture: Climate Proof and Nature Positive Approach. In G. Ondrasek & L. Zhang (Eds.), Resource Management in Agroecosystems. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108890

Nabuurs, G-J., R. Mrabet, A. Abu Hatab, M. Bustamante, H. Clark, P. Havlík, J. House, C. Mbow, K.N. Ninan, A. Popp, S. Roe, B. Sohngen, S. Towprayoon, 2022: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.009

Nyagumbo, I., Mupangwa, W., Chipindu, L., Rusinamhodzi, L., & Craufurd, P. (2020). A regional synthesis of seven-year maize yield responses to conservation agriculture technologies in Eastern and Southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 295, 106898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106898

Ogle, S. M., Alsaker, C., Baldock, J., Bernoux, M., Breidt, F. J., McConkey, B., Regina, K., & Vazquez-Amabile, G. G. (2019). Climate and Soil Characteristics Determine Where No-Till Management Can Store Carbon in Soils and Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 11665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47861-7

Paustian, K., Larson, E., Kent, J., Marx, E., & Swan, A. (2019). Soil C Sequestration as a Biological Negative Emission Strategy. Frontiers in Climate, 1, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2019.00008 

Pittelkow, C. M., Liang, X., Linquist, B. A., van Groenigen, K. J., Lee, J., Lundy, M. E., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R. T., & van Kessel, C. (2015). Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature, 517(7534), Article 7534. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13809

Poeplau, C., & Don, A. (2015). Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops–A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200, 33-41.

Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Jat, M. L., Gerard, B. G., Palm, C. A., Sanchez, P. A., & Cassman, K. G. (2014). Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4(8), 678–683. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2292

Prestele, R., Hirsch, A. L., Davin, E. L., Seneviratne, S. I., & Verburg, P. H. (2018). A spatially explicit representation of conservation agriculture for application in global change studies. Global Change Biology, 24(9), 4038–4053. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14307

Project Drawdown (2020) Farming Our Way Out of the Climate Crisis. Project Drawdown.

Quintarelli V, Radicetti E, Allevato E, Stazi SR, Haider G, Abideen Z, Bibi S, Jamal A, Mancinelli R. Cover crops for sustainable cropping systems: a review. Agriculture. 2022 Dec 3;12(12):2076.

Rosa, L. (2022). Adapting agriculture to climate change via sustainable irrigation: Biophysical potentials and feedbacks. Environmental Research Letters, 17: 063008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac7408 

Searchinger, T., R. Waite, C. Hanson, and J. Ranganathan. (2019). World Resources Report: Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/ WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf.

Stavi, I., Bel, G., & Zaady, E. (2016). Soil functions and ecosystem services in conventional, conservation, and integrated agricultural systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0368-8

Su, Y., Gabrielle, B., Beillouin, D., & Makowski, D. (2021). High probability of yield gain through conservation agriculture in dry regions for major staple crops. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 3344. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82375-1

Sun, W., Canadell, J. G., Yu, L., Yu, L., Zhang, W., Smith, P., Fischer, T., & Huang, Y. (2020). Climate drives global soil carbon sequestration and crop yield changes under conservation agriculture. Global Change Biology, 26(6), 3325–3335. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15001 

Tambo, J. A., & Mockshell, J. (2018). Differential Impacts of Conservation Agriculture Technology Options on Household Income in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics, 151, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.005

Tiefenbacher, A., Sandén, T., Haslmayr, H.-P., Miloczki, J., Wenzel, W., & Spiegel, H. (2021). Optimizing Carbon Sequestration in Croplands: A Synthesis. Agronomy, 11(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050882

Toensmeier, E. (2016). The Carbon Farming Solution: A Global Toolkit of Perennial Crops and Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Climate Change Mitigation and Food Security. Green Publishing. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-carbon-farming-solution/?srsltid=AfmBOoqsMoY569HfsXOdBsRguOzsDLlRZKOnyM4nyKwZoIALvPoohZlq 

Vendig, I., Guzman, A., De La Cerda, G., Esquivel, K., Mayer, A. C., Ponisio, L., & Bowles, T. M. (2023). Quantifying direct yield benefits of soil carbon increases from cover cropping. Nature Sustainability, 6(9), 1125–1134. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01131-7

WCCA (2021). The future of farming: Profitable and sustainable farming with conservation agriculture. 8th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, Vern Switzerland.

Wooliver, R., & Jagadamma, S. (2023). Response of soil organic carbon fractions to cover cropping: A meta-analysis of agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 351, 108497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108497

Xing, Y., & Wang, X. (2024). Impact of agricultural activities on climate change: a review of greenhouse gas emission patterns in field crop systems. Plants, 13(16), 2285.

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Avery Driscoll

  • Erika Luna

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Eric Toensmeier

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Emily Cassidy, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Based on seven reviews and meta-analyses, which collectively analyzed over 500 studies, we estimate that this solution’s SOC sequestration potential is 1.28 t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr. This is limited to the topsoil (>30 cm), with minimal effects at deeper levels (Sun et al., 2020; Tiefenbacher et al., 2021). Moreover, carbon sequestration potential isn't constant over time. The first two decades show the highest increase, followed by an equilibrium or SOC saturation (Cai, 2022; Sun et al., 2020).

The effectiveness of the Improve Annual Cropping solution heavily depends on local geographic conditions (e.g., soil properties, climate), crop management practices, cover crop biomass, cover crop types, and the duration of annual cropping production – with effects typically better assessed in the long term (Abdalla et al., 2019; Francaviglia et al., 2023; Moukanni et al., 2022; Paustian et al., 2019).

Based on reviewed literature (three papers, 18 studies), we estimated that improved annual cropping can potentially reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 0.51 t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr (Table 1). Cover crops can increase direct nitrous oxide emissions by stimulating microbial activity, but – compared with conventional cropping – lower indirect emissions allow for reduced net nitrous oxide emissions from cropland (Abdalla et al., 2019). 

Nitrogen fertilizers drive direct nitrous oxide emissions, so genetic optimization of cover crops to increase nitrogen-use efficiencies and decrease nitrogen leaching could further improve mitigation of direct nitrous oxide emissions (Abdalla et al., 2019). 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions and removing carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr

25th percentile 0.29
median (50th percentile) 0.51
75th percentile 0.80

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr

25th percentile 0.58
median (50th percentile) 1.28
75th percentile 1.72

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr

25th percentile 0.88
median (50th percentile) 1.80
75th percentile 2.52
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Because baseline (conventional) annual cropping systems are already extensive and well established, we assume there is no cost to establish new baseline cropland. In the absence of global datasets on costs and revenues of cropping systems, we used data on the global average profit per ha of cropland from Damiana et al. (2023) to create a weighted average profit US$76.86/ha.

Based on 13 data points (of which seven were from the United States), the median establishment cost of the Improve Annual Cropping Solution is $329.78/ha. Nine data points (three from the United States) provided a median increase in profitability of US$86.01/ha. 

The net net cost of the Improve Annual Cropping solution is US$86.01. The cost per t CO2 -eq is US$47.80 (Table 2).

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

median 47.80
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

We found limited information on this solution’s learning curve. A survey of farmers in Zambia found a reluctance to avoid tilling soils because of the increased need for weeding or herbicides and because crop residues may need to be used for livestock feed (Arslan et al., 2015; Searchinger et al., 2019).

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Improve Annual Cropping is a DELAYED climate solution. It works more slowly than nominal or emergency brake solutions. Delayed solutions can be robust climate solutions, but it’s important to recognize that they realize their full potential for some time.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

As with other biosequestration solutions, carbon stored in soils via improved annual cropping is not permanent. It can be lost quickly through a return to conventional agriculture practices like plowing, and/or through a regional shift to a drier climate or other human- or climate change–driven disturbances. Carbon sequestration also only continues for a limited time, estimated at 20–50 years (Lal et al., 2018)).

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Kassam et al. (2022) provided regional adoption from 2008–2019. We used a linear forecast to project 2025 adoption. This provided a figure of 267.4 Mha in 2025 (Table 3).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2025) adoption level.

Unit: Mha of improved annual cropping installed

Drawdown estimate 267.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Between 2008–2009 and 2018–2019 (the most recent data available), the cropland area under improved annual cropping practices nearly doubled globally, increasing from 10.6 Mha to 20.5 Mha at an average rate of 1.0 Mha/yr (Kassam et al., 2022), equivalent to a 9.2% annual increase in area relative to 2008–2009 levels. Adoption slowed slightly in the latter half of the decade, with an average increase of 0.8 Mha/yr- between 2015–2016 and 2018–2019, equivalent to 4.6% annual increase in area relative to 2015–2016 levels. 

Median adoption is 1.11 ha/yr. The median, mean, and 25th and 75th percentiles are shown in Table 4.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2008–2009 to 2018–2019 adoption trend.

Unit: Mha adopted/yr

25th percentile 0.54
mean 1.41
median (50th percentile) 1.11
75th percentile 2.04
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

Griscom et al. (2017) estimate that 800 Mha of global cropland are suitable – but not yet used for – cover cropping, in addition to 168 Mha already in cover crops (Popelau and Don, 2015). We update the 168 Mha in cover crops to 267 Mha based on Kassam (2022). Griscom et al.’s estimate is based on their analysis that much cropland is unsuitable because it already is used to produce crops during seasons in which cover crops would be grown. Their estimate thus provides a maximum technical potential of 1,067 Mha (Table 5). 

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mha

Adoption ceiling 1,067
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The 8th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture (8WCCA) set a goal to achieve adoption of improved annual cropping on 50% of available cropland by 2050 (WCCA 2021). That provides an adoption ceiling of 700 Mha – though this is not a biophysical limit. 

We used the 2008–2019 data from Kassam (2022) to calculate average annual regional growth rates. From these we selected the 25th percentile as our low achievable level (Table 6).

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha installed

Current Adoption 267.4
Achievable – Low 331.7
Achievable – High 700.0
Adoption Ceiling 1,067.0

Unit: Mha installed

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 64.2
Achievable – High 432.6
Adoption Ceiling 868.6
Left Text Column Width

Carbon sequestration continues only for a period of decades; because adoption of improved annual cropping was already underway in the 1970s (Kassam et al., 2022), we could not assume that previously adopted hectares continue to sequester carbon indefinitely. Thus we make the conservative choice to calculate carbon sequestration only for newly adopted hectares. We use the same conservative assumption for nitrous oxide emissions. 

Combined effect is 0.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for current adoption, 0.12 for Achievable – Low, 0.78 for Achievable – High, and 1.56 for our Adoption Ceiling.

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 0.03
Achievable – High 0.22
Adoption Ceiling 0.45

(from nitrous oxide)

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 0.08
Achievable – High 0.56
Adoption Ceiling 1.12

(from SOC)

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 0.12
Achievable – High 0.78
Adoption Ceiling 1.56
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

The soil and water benefits of this solution can lead to agricultural systems that are more resilient to extreme weather events (Mrabet et al., 2023). These agricultural systems have improved uptake, conservation, and use of water, so they are more likely to successfully cope and adapt to drought and dry conditions (Su et al., 2021). Additionally, more sustained year-round plant cover can increase the capacity of cropping systems to adapt to high temperatures and extreme rainfall (Blanco-Canqui & Francis, 2016; Martinez-Mena et al., 2020).

Droughts

Increased organic matter due to improved annual cropping increases soil water holding capacity. This increases drought resilience (Su et al., 2021). 

Income & Work

Conservation agriculture practices can reduce costs on fuel, fertilizer, and pesticides (Stavi et al., 2016). The highest revenues from improved annual cropping are often found in drier climates where higher yields are more likely. Nyagumbo et al. (2020) found that smallholder farms in sub-Saharan Africa using conservation agriculture had the highest returns on crop yields when rainfall was low. Tambo et al. (2018) found when smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa jointly employed the three aspects of conservation agriculture – reduced tillage, cover crops, and crop rotation – households and individuals saw the largest income gains.

Food Security

Improved annual cropping can improve food security by increasing the amount and the stability of crop yields. A meta-analysis of studies of South Asian cropping systems found that those following conservation agriculture methods had 5.8% higher mean yield than cropping systems with more conventional agriculture practices (Jat et al., 2020). Evidence supports that conservation agriculture practices especially improve yields in water scarce areas (Su et al., 2021). Nyagumbo et al. (2020) found that smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa experienced reduced yield variability when using conservation agriculture practices.

Nature Protection

Improved annual cropping can increase biodiversity below and above soils (Mrabet et al., 2023). Increased vegetation cover improves habitats for arthropods, which help with pest and pathogen management (Stavi et al., 2016).

Land Resources

Improved annual cropping methods can lead to improved soil health through the increased stability of soil structure, increased soil nutrients, and improved soil water storage (Francaviglia et al., 2023). This can reduce soil degradation and erosion (Mrabet et al., 2023). Additionally, more soil organic matter can lead to additional microbial growth and nutrient availability for crops (Blanco-Canqui & Francis, 2016). 

Water Quality

Runoff of soil and other agrochemicals can be minimized through conservation agricultural practices (Jayaraman et al., 2021), reducing the amount of nitrate and phosphorus that leach into waterways and contribute to algal blooms and eutrophication (Jayaraman et al., 2021). Abdalla et al. (2019) found that cover crops reduced nitrogen leaching.

left_text_column_width
Risks

Herbicides – in place of tillage – are used in many but not all no-till cropping systems to kill (terminate) the cover crop. The large-scale use of herbicides in improved annual cropping systems can produce a range of environmental and human health consequences. Agricultural impacts can include development of herbicide-resistant weeds (Clapp, 2021). 

If cover crops are not fully terminated before establishing the main crop, there is a risk that cover crop can compete with the main crop (Quintarelli et al., 2022). 

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Improved annual cropping has competing interactions with several other solutions related to shifting annual practices. For each of these other solutions, the Improve Annual Cropping solution can reduce the area on which the solution can be applied or the nutrient excess available for improved management. 

left_text_column_width

COMPETING

In no-till systems, cover crops are typically terminated with herbicides, often preventing incorporation of trees depending on the type of herbicide used.

left_text_column_width

Land managed under the Improve Annual Cropping solution is not available for perennial crops.

left_text_column_width

Improved annual cropping typically reduces fertilizer demand, reducing the scale of climate impact under improved nutrient management. 

left_text_column_width

Our definition of improved annual cropping requires residue retention, limiting the additional area available for deployment of reduced burning.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

1 ha of cropland

t CO₂-eq/unit/yr
1.8
units
Current 06.42×10⁷4.33×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0 0.120.78
US$ per t CO₂-eq
48
Delayed

CO₂, N₂O

Trade-offs

Some studies have found that conservation tillage without cover crops can reduce soil carbon stocks in deeper soil layers. They caution against overreliance on no-till as a sequestration solution in the absence of cover cropping. Reduced tillage should be combined with cover crops to ensure carbon sequestration (Luo et al., 2010; Ogle et al., 2019; Powlson et al., 2014).

left_text_column_width
tCO2-eq/ha
0400

Millennia of agricultural land use have removed nearly 500 Gt CO2-eq from soils

Agriculture has altered the soil carbon balance around the world, resulting in changes (mostly losses) of soil carbon. Much of the nearly 500 Gt CO2-eq lost in the last 12,000 years is now in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

Sanderman, J. et al. (2017). The soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use [Data set]. PNAS 114(36): 9575–9580. doi:10.1073/pnas.1706103114

tCO2-eq/ha
0400

Millennia of agricultural land use have removed nearly 500 Gt CO2-eq from soils

Agriculture has altered the soil carbon balance around the world, resulting in changes (mostly losses) of soil carbon. Much of the nearly 500 Gt CO2-eq lost in the last 12,000 years is now in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

Sanderman, J. et al. (2017). The soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use [Data set]. PNAS 114(36): 9575–9580. doi:10.1073/pnas.1706103114

Geographic Guidance Introduction

Adoption of this solution varies substantially across the globe. Currently, improved annual cropping practices are widely implemented in Australia and New Zealand (74% of annual cropland) and Central and South America (69%), with intermediate adoption in North America (34%) and low adoption in Asia, Europe, and Africa (1–5%) (Kassam et al., 2022), though estimates vary (see also Prestele et al., 2018). Future expansion of this solution is most promising in Asia, Africa, and Europe, where adoption has increased in recent years. Large areas of croplands are still available for implementation in these regions, whereas Australia, New Zealand, and Central and South America may be reaching a saturation point, and these practices may be less suitable for the relatively small area of remaining croplands.

The carbon sequestration effectiveness of this solution also varies across space. Drivers of soil carbon sequestration rates are complex and interactive, with climate, initial soil carbon content, soil texture, soil chemical properties (such as pH), and other land management practices all influencing the effectiveness of adopting this solution. Very broadly, the carbon sequestration potential of improved annual cropping tends to be two to three times higher in warm areas than cool areas (Bai et al., 2019; Cui et al., 2022; Lessmann et al., 2021). Warm and humid conditions enable vigorous cover crop growth, providing additional carbon inputs into soils. Complicating patterns of effectiveness, however, arid regions often experience increased crop yields following adoption of this solution whereas humid regions are more likely to experience yield losses (Pittelkow et al., 2015). Yield losses may reduce adoption in humid areas and can lead to cropland expansion to compensate for lower production. 

Uptake of this solution may be constrained by spatial variation in places where cover cropping is suitable. In areas with double or triple cropping, there may not be an adequate interval for growth of a cover crop between harvests. In areas with an extended dry season, there may be inadequate moisture to grow a cover crop.

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Annual Cropping
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Provide local and regional institutional guidance for improving annual cropping that adapts to the socio-environmental context.
  • Integrate soil protection into national climate mitigation and adaptation plans.
  • Remove financial incentives, such as subsidies, for unsustainable practices and replace them with financial incentives for carbon sequestration practices.
  • Place taxes or fines on emissions and related farm inputs (such as nitrogen fertilizers).
  • Reform international agricultural trade, remove subsidies for emissions-intensive agriculture, and support climate-friendly practices.
  • Strengthen and support land tenure for smallholder farmers.
  • Mandate insurance schemes that allow farmers to use cover crops and reduce tillage.
  • Support, protect, and promote traditional and Indigenous knowledge of land management practices.
  • Set standards for measuring, monitoring, and verifying impacts on SOC accounting for varying socio-environmental conditions.
  • Develop economic budgets for farmers to adopt these practices.
  • Invest in or expand extension services to educate farmers and other stakeholders on the economic and environmental benefits of improved annual cropping.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Implement no-till practices and use cover crops.
  • Utilize or advocate for financial assistance and tax breaks for farmers to use improved annual cropping techniques.
  • Adjust the timing and dates of the planting and termination of the cover crops in order to avoid competition for resources with the primary crop.
  • Find opportunities to reduce initial operation costs of no-tillage and cover crops, such as selling cover crops as forage or grazing.
  • Take advantage of education programs, support groups, and extension services focused on improved annual cropping methods.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Source from producers implementing improved annual cropping practices, create programs that directly engage and educate farmers, and promote inspiring case studies with the industry and wider public.
  • Create sustainability goals and supplier requirements that incorporate this solution and offer pricing incentives for compliant suppliers.
  • Invest in companies that utilize improved annual cropping techniques or produce the necessary inputs.
  • Promote and develop markets for products that employ improved annual cropping techniques and educate consumers about the importance of the practice.
  • Stay abreast of recent scientific findings and use third-party verification to monitor sourcing practices.
  • Offer financial services – including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants – to support low-carbon agriculture (e.g., sustainable land management systems).
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improving annual cropping techniques and local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improving annual cropping techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Educate farmers on sustainable means of agriculture and support implementation.
  • Help integrate improved annual cropping practices as part of the broader climate agenda.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor soil health.
  • Offer resources and training in financial planning and yield risk management to farmers adopting improved annual cropping approaches.
  • Partner with research institutions and businesses to co-develop and distribute region-specific best practices.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

Investors
  • Integrate science-based due diligence on improved annual cropping techniques and soil health measures into all farming and agritech investments.
  • Encourage companies in your investment portfolio to adopt improved annual cropping practices.
  • Offer access to capital, such as low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants to improve annual cropping.
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that improve annual cropping, such as soil management equipment and related software.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Offer access to capital, such as low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants to support improving annual cropping, (e.g., traditional land management).
  • Conduct and share research on improved annual cropping techniques and local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved annual cropping techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Educate farmers on traditional means of agriculture and support implementation.
  • Help integrate improved annual cropping practices as part of the broader climate agenda.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor soil health.
  • Offer resources and training in financial planning and yield risk management to farmers adopting improved annual cropping approaches.
  • Partner with research institutions and businesses to co-develop and distribute region-specific best practices.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that improve annual cropping, such as soil management equipment and related software.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved annual cropping techniques and local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved annual cropping techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Educate farmers on traditional means of agriculture and support implementation.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor soil health.
  • Research the regional impacts of cover crops on SOC and SOM and publish the data.
  • Partner with research institutions and businesses to co-develop and distribute region-specific best practices.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.
  • Work with farmers and other private organizations to improve data collection on uptake of improved annual cropping techniques, effectiveness, and regional best practices.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Help develop standards for measuring, monitoring, and verifying impacts on SOC accounting for varying socio-environmental conditions.
  • Research the regional impacts of cover crops (particularly outside the United States) on SOC and SOM, and publish the data.
  • Create tracking and monitoring software to support farmers' decision-making.
  • Research the application of AI and robotics for crop rotation.
  • Improve data and analytics to monitor soil and water quality, assist farmers, support policymaking, and assess the impacts of policies.
  • Develop education and training applications to improve annual cropping techniques and provide real-time feedback.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Participate in urban agriculture or community gardening programs that implement these practices.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor soil health.
  • Work with farmers and other private organizations to improve data collection on uptake of improved annual cropping techniques, effectiveness, and regional best practices.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved annual cropping techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Educate farmers on traditional means of agriculture and support implementation.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Carbon sequestration from cover cropping: High consensus

The impacts of improved annual cropping practices on soil carbon sequestration have been extensively studied, and there is high consensus that adoption of cover crops can increase carbon sequestration in soils. However, estimates of how much carbon can be sequestered vary substantially, and sequestration rates are strongly influenced by factors such as climate, soil properties, time since adoption, and how the practices are implemented.

The carbon sequestration benefits of cover cropping are well established. They have been documented in reviews and meta-analyses including Hu et al. (2023) and Vendig et al. (2023). 

Carbon sequestration from reduced tillage: Mixed

Relative to conventional tillage, estimates of soil carbon gains in shallow soils under no-till management include average increases of 5–20% (Bai et al., 2019; Cui et al., 2022; Kan et al., 2022). Lessmann et al. (2021) estimated that use of no-till is associated with an average annual increase in carbon sequestration of 0.88 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr relative to high-intensity tillage. 

Nitrous oxide reduction: Mixed

Consensus on nitrous oxide reductions from improved annual cropping is mixed. Several reviews have demonstrated a modest reduction in nitrous oxide from cover cropping (Abdalla et al., 2019; Xing & Wang, 2024). Reduced tillage can result in either increased or decreased nitrous oxide emissions (Hassan et al., 2022). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 10 reviews and meta-analyses reflecting current evidence at the global scale. Nonetheless, not all countries are represented. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Improve Nutrient Management

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Farm equipment applying fertilizer selectively
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Improve Nutrient Management solution as reducing excessive nitrogen use on croplands. Nitrogen is critical for crop production and is added to croplands as synthetic or organic fertilizers and through microbial activity. However, farmers often add more nitrogen to croplands than crops can use. Some of that excess nitrogen is emitted to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a potent GHG. 

Droughts
Income & work,Food security,Health
Nature protection
Overview

Agriculture is the dominant source of human-caused emissions of nitrous oxide (Figure 1; Tian et al., 2020). Nitrogen is critical for plant growth and is added to croplands in synthetic forms, such as urea, ammonium nitrate, or anhydrous ammonia; in organic forms, such as manure or compost; and by growing legume crops, which host microbes that capture nitrogen from the air and add it to the soil (Adalibieke et al., 2023; Ludemann et al., 2024). If more nitrogen is added than crops can use, the excess can be converted to other forms, including nitrous oxide, through microbial processes called denitrification and nitrification (Figure 2; Reay et al., 2012).

Figure 1. The agricultural nitrogen cycle represents the key pathways by which nitrogen is added to croplands and lost to the environment, including as nitrous oxide. The “4R” nutrient management principles – right source, right rate, right time, right place – increase the proportion of nitrogen taken up by the plant, therefore reducing nitrogen losses to the environment.

Diagram of agricultural nitrogen cycle.

Illustrations: BioRender CC-BY 4.0

Farmers can reduce nitrous oxide emissions from croplands by using the right amount and the right type of fertilizer at the right time and in the right place (Fixen, 2020; Gao & Cabrera Serrenho, 2023). Together, these four “rights” increase nitrogen use efficiency – the proportion of applied nitrogen that the crop uses (Congreves et al., 2021). Improved nutrient management is often a win-win for the farmer and the environment, reducing fertilizer costs while also lowering nitrous oxide emissions (Gu et al., 2023).

Improving nutrient management involves reducing the amount of nitrogen applied to match the crop’s requirements in areas where nitrogen is currently overapplied. A farmer can implement the other three principles – type, time, and place – in a number of ways. For example, fertilizing just before planting instead of after the previous season’s harvest better matches the timing of nitrogen addition to that of plant uptake, reducing nitrous oxide emissions before the crop is planted. Certain types of fertilizers are better suited for maximizing plant uptake, such as extended-release fertilizers, which allow the crop to steadily absorb nutrients over time. Techniques such as banding, in which farmers apply fertilizers in concentrated bands close to the plant roots instead of spreading them evenly across the soil surface, also reduce nitrous oxide emissions. Each of these practices can increase nitrogen use efficiency and decrease the amount of excess nitrogen lost as nitrous oxide (Gao & Cabrera Serrenho, 2023; Gu et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024; You et al., 2023).

For this solution, we estimated a target rate of nitrogen application for major crops as the 20th percentile of the current rate of nitrogen application (in tN/t crop) in areas where yields are near a realistic ceiling. Excess nitrogen was defined as the amount of nitrogen applied beyond the target rate (see Adoption and Appendix for more details). Our emissions estimates include nitrous oxide from croplands, fertilizer runoff, and fertilizer volatilization. They do not include emissions from fertilizer manufacturing, which are addressed in the Deploy Low-Emission Industrial Feedstocks and Increase Industrial Efficiency solutions. We excluded nutrient management on pastures from this solution due to data limitations, and address nutrient management in paddy rice systems in the Improve Rice Management solution instead. 

References

Adalibieke, W., Cui, X., Cai, H., You, L., & Zhou, F. (2023). Global crop-specific nitrogen fertilization dataset in 1961–2020. Scientific Data, 10(1), 617. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02526-z

Almaraz, M., Bai, E., Wang, C., Trousdell, J., Conley, S., Faloona, I., & Houlton, B. Z. (2018). Agriculture is a major source of NOx pollution in California. Science Advances, 4(1), eaao3477. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao3477

Antil, R. S., & Raj, D. (2020). Integrated nutrient management for sustainable crop production and improving soil health. In R. S. Meena (Ed.), Nutrient Dynamics for Sustainable Crop Production (pp. 67–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8660-2_3

Bijay-Singh, & Craswell, E. (2021). Fertilizers and nitrate pollution of surface and ground water: An increasingly pervasive global problem. SN Applied Sciences, 3(4), 518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04521-8

Chivenge, P., Saito, K., Bunquin, M. A., Sharma, S., & Dobermann, A. (2021). Co-benefits of nutrient management tailored to smallholder agriculture. Global Food Security, 30, 100570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100570

Deng, J., Guo, L., Salas, W., Ingraham, P., Charrier-Klobas, J. G., Frolking, S., & Li, C. (2018). Changes in irrigation practices likely mitigate nitrous oxide emissions from California cropland. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 32(10), 1514–1527. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB005961

Domingo, N. G. G., Balasubramanian, S., Thakrar, S. K., Clark, M. A., Adams, P. J., Marshall, J. D., Muller, N. Z., Pandis, S. N., Polasky, S., Robinson, A. L., Tessum, C. W., Tilman, D., Tschofen, P., & Hill, J. D. (2021). Air quality–related health damages of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), e2013637118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013637118

Elberling, B. B., Kovács, G. M., Hansen, H. F. E., Fensholt, R., Ambus, P., Tong, X., Gominski, D., Mueller, C. W., Poultney, D. M. N., & Oehmcke, S. (2023). High nitrous oxide emissions from temporary flooded depressions within croplands. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01095-8

Fixen, P. E. (2020). A brief account of the genesis of 4R nutrient stewardship. Agronomy Journal, 112(5), 4511–4518. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20315

Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., … Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

Gao, Y., & Cabrera Serrenho, A. (2023). Greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizers could be reduced by up to one-fifth of current levels by 2050 with combined interventions. Nature Food, 4(2), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00698-w

Gerber, J. S., Carlson, K. M., Makowski, D., Mueller, N. D., Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri, I., Havlík, P., Herrero, M., Launay, M., O’Connell, C. S., Smith, P., & West, P. C. (2016). Spatially explicit estimates of nitrous oxide emissions from croplands suggest climate mitigation opportunities from improved fertilizer management. Global Change Biology, 22(10), 3383–3394. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13341

Gerber, J. S., Ray, D. K., Makowski, D., Butler, E. E., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C., Johnson, J. A., Polasky, S., Samberg, L. H., & Siebert, S. (2024). Global spatially explicit yield gap time trends reveal regions at risk of future crop yield stagnation. Nature Food, 5(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00913-8 

Gong, C., Tian, H., Liao, H., Pan, N., Pan, S., Ito, A., Jain, A. K., Kou-Giesbrecht, S., Joos, F., Sun, Q., Shi, H., Vuichard, N., Zhu, Q., Peng, C., Maggi, F., Tang, F. H. M., & Zaehle, S. (2024). Global net climate effects of anthropogenic reactive nitrogen. Nature, 632(8025), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07714-4

Gu, B., Zhang, X., Lam, S. K., Yu, Y., van Grinsven, H. J. M., Zhang, S., Wang, X., Bodirsky, B. L., Wang, S., Duan, J., Ren, C., Bouwman, L., de Vries, W., Xu, J., Sutton, M. A., & Chen, D. (2023). Cost-effective mitigation of nitrogen pollution from global croplands. Nature, 613(7942), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05481-8

Hergoualc’h, K., Akiyama, H., Bernoux, M., Chirinda, N., del Prado, A., Kasimir, Å., MacDonald, J. D., Ogle, S. M., Regina, K., & van der Weerden, T. J. (2019). Chapter 11: nitrous oxide Emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application (2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/4_Volume4/19R_V4_Ch11_Soils_nitrous oxide_CO₂. pdf

Hergoualc’h, K., Mueller, N., Bernoux, M., Kasimir, Ä., van der Weerden, T. J., & Ogle, S. M. (2021). Improved accuracy and reduced uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories by refining the IPCC emission factor for direct nitrous oxide emissions from nitrogen inputs to managed soils. Global Change Biology, 27(24), 6536–6550. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15884

IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)].

Lam, S. K., Suter, H., Mosier, A. R., & Chen, D. (2017). Using nitrification inhibitors to mitigate agricultural nitrous oxide emission: A double-edged sword? Global Change Biology, 23(2), 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13338

Lawrence, N. C., Tenesaca, C. G., VanLoocke, A., & Hall, S. J. (2021). Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils challenge climate sustainability in the US Corn Belt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(46), e2112108118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112108118

Ludemann, C. I., Wanner, N., Chivenge, P., Dobermann, A., Einarsson, R., Grassini, P., Gruere, A., Jackson, K., Lassaletta, L., Maggi, F., Obli-Laryea, G., van Ittersum, M. K., Vishwakarma, S., Zhang, X., & Tubiello, F. N. (2024). A global FAOSTAT reference database of cropland nutrient budgets and nutrient use efficiency (1961–2020): Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Earth System Science Data, 16(1), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-525-2024

Menegat, S., Ledo, A., & Tirado, R. (2022). Greenhouse gas emissions from global production and use of nitrogen synthetic fertilisers in agriculture. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 14490. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18773-w

Michaelowa, A., Hermwille, L., Obergassel, W., & Butzengeiger, S. (2019). Additionality revisited: Guarding the integrity of market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, 19(10), 1211–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1628695

Mueller, N. D., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature, 490(7419), Article 7419. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420

Patel, N., Srivastav, A. L., Patel, A., Singh, A., Singh, S. K., Chaudhary, V. K., Singh, P. K., & Bhunia, B. (2022). Nitrate contamination in water resources, human health risks and its remediation through adsorption: A focused review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(46), 69137–69152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22377-2

Pinder, R. W., Davidson, E. A., Goodale, C. L., Greaver, T. L., Herrick, J. D., & Liu, L. (2012). Climate change impacts of US reactive nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(20), 7671–7675. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114243109

Porter, E. M., Bowman, W. D., Clark, C. M., Compton, J. E., Pardo, L. H., & Soong, J. L. (2013). Interactive effects of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment and climate change on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Biogeochemistry, 114(1), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-012-9803-3

Qiao, C., Liu, L., Hu, S., Compton, J. E., Greaver, T. L., & Li, Q. (2015). How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. Global Change Biology, 21(3), 1249–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12802

Qin, Z., Deng, S., Dunn, J., Smith, P., & Sun, W. (2021). Animal waste use and implications to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 16(6), 064079. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac04d7

Reay, D. S., Davidson, E. A., Smith, K. A., Smith, P., Melillo, J. M., Dentener, F., & Crutzen, P. J. (2012). Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2(6), 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1458

Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G., Noble, A., Matthews, N., Gordon, L., Wetterstrand, H., DeClerck, F., Shah, M., Steduto, P., de Fraiture, C., Hatibu, N., Unver, O., Bird, J., Sibanda, L., & Smith, J. (2017). Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6

Rurinda, J., Zingore, S., Jibrin, J. M., Balemi, T., Masuki, K., Andersson, J. A., Pampolino, M. F., Mohammed, I., Mutegi, J., Kamara, A. Y., Vanlauwe, B., & Craufurd, P. Q. (2020). Science-based decision support for formulating crop fertilizer recommendations in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 180, 102790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102790

Scavia, D., David Allan, J., Arend, K. K., Bartell, S., Beletsky, D., Bosch, N. S., Brandt, S. B., Briland, R. D., Daloğlu, I., DePinto, J. V., Dolan, D. M., Evans, M. A., Farmer, T. M., Goto, D., Han, H., Höök, T. O., Knight, R., Ludsin, S. A., Mason, D., … Zhou, Y. (2014). Assessing and addressing the re-eutrophication of Lake Erie: Central basin hypoxia. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 40(2), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.02.004

Selim, M. M. (2020). Introduction to the integrated nutrient management strategies and their contribution to yield and soil properties. International Journal of Agronomy, 2020(1), 2821678. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2821678

Shcherbak, I., Millar, N., & Robertson, G. P. (2014). Global metaanalysis of the nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (nitrous oxide) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(25), 9199–9204. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322434111

Shindell, D. T., Faluvegi, G., Koch, D. M., Schmidt, G. A., Unger, N., & Bauer, S. E. (2009). Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. Science, 326(5953), 716–718. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174760

Sobota, D. J., Compton, J. E., McCrackin, M. L., & Singh, S. (2015). Cost of reactive nitrogen release from human activities to the environment in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 10(2), 025006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/025006

Tian, H., Xu, R., Canadell, J. G., Thompson, R. L., Winiwarter, W., Suntharalingam, P., Davidson, E. A., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Prather, M. J., Regnier, P., Pan, N., Pan, S., Peters, G. P., Shi, H., Tubiello, F. N., Zaehle, S., Zhou, F., … Yao, Y. (2020). A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature, 586(7828), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2780-0

van Grinsven, H. J. M., Bouwman, L., Cassman, K. G., van Es, H. M., McCrackin, M. L., & Beusen, A. H. W. (2015). Losses of ammonia and nitrate from agriculture and their effect on nitrogen recovery in the European Union and the United States between 1900 and 2050. Journal of Environmental Quality, 44(2), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.03.0102

Vanlauwe, B., Descheemaeker, K., Giller, K. E., Huising, J., Merckx, R., Nziguheba, G., Wendt, J., & Zingore, S. (2015). Integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa: Unravelling local adaptation. SOIL, 1(1), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-491-2015

Wang, C., Shen, Y., Fang, X., Xiao, S., Liu, G., Wang, L., Gu, B., Zhou, F., Chen, D., Tian, H., Ciais, P., Zou, J., & Liu, S. (2024). Reducing soil nitrogen losses from fertilizer use in global maize and wheat production. Nature Geoscience, 17(10), 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01542-x

Wang, Y., Li, C., Li, Y., Zhu, L., Liu, S., Yan, L., Feng, G., & Gao, Q. (2020). Agronomic and environmental benefits of Nutrient Expert on maize and rice in Northeast China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(22), 28053–28065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09153-w

Ward, M. H., Jones, R. R., Brender, J. D., de Kok, T. M., Weyer, P. J., Nolan, B. T., Villanueva, C. M., & van Breda, S. G. (2018). Drinking water nitrate and human health: an updated review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1557. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071557

Withers, P. J. A., Neal, C., Jarvie, H. P., & Doody, D. G. (2014). Agriculture and eutrophication: where do we go from here? Sustainability, 6(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6095853

You, L., Ros, G. H., Chen, Y., Shao, Q., Young, M. D., Zhang, F., & de Vries, W. (2023). Global mean nitrogen recovery efficiency in croplands can be enhanced by optimal nutrient, crop and soil management practices. Nature Communications, 14(1), 5747. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41504-2

Zaehle, S., Ciais, P., Friend, A. D., & Prieur, V. (2011). Carbon benefits of anthropogenic reactive nitrogen offset by nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Geoscience, 4(9), 601–605. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1207

Zhang, X., Fang, Q., Zhang, T., Ma, W., Velthof, G. L., Hou, Y., Oenema, O., & Zhang, F. (2020). Benefits and trade-offs of replacing synthetic fertilizers by animal manures in crop production in China: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 26(2), 888–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14826

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

  • Eric Toensmeier

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

Effectiveness

We relied on the 2019 IPCC emissions factors to calculate the emissions impacts of improved nutrient management. These are disaggregated by climate zone (“wet” vs. “dry”) and by fertilizer type (“organic” vs. “synthetic”). Nitrogen use reductions in wet climates, which include ~65% of the cropland area represented in this analysis (see Appendix for details), have the largest impact. In these areas, a 1 t reduction in nitrogen use reduces emissions by 8.7 t CO₂‑eq on average for synthetic fertilizers and by 5.0 t CO₂‑eq for organic fertilizers. Emissions savings are lower in dry climates, where a 1 t reduction in nitrogen use reduces emissions by 2.4 t CO₂‑eq for synthetic fertilizers and by 2.6 t CO₂‑eq for organic fertilizers. While these values reflect the median emissions reduction for each climate zone and fertilizer type, they are associated with large uncertainties because emissions are highly variable depending on climate, soil, and management conditions. 

Based on our analysis of the adoption ceiling for each climate zone and fertilizer type (see Appendix), we estimated that a 1 t reduction in nitrogen use reduces emissions by 6.0 t CO₂‑eq at the global average (Table 1). This suggests that ~1.4% of the applied nitrogen is emitted as nitrous oxide at the global average, which is consistent with existing estimates (IPCC, 2019). 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /tN, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 4.2
median (50th percentile) 6.0
75th percentile 7.7
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Improving nutrient management typically reduces fertilizer costs while maintaining or increasing yields, resulting in a net financial benefit to the producer. Gu et al. (2023) found that a 21% reduction in global nitrogen use would be economically beneficial, notably after accounting for increased fertilizer use in places that do not currently have adequate access. Using data from their study, we evaluated the average cost of reduced nitrogen application considering the following nutrient management practices: increased use of high-efficiency fertilizers, organic fertilizers, and/or legumes; optimizing fertilizer rates; altering the timing and/or placement of fertilizer applications; and use of buffer zones. Implementation costs depend on the strategy used to improve nutrient management. For example, optimizing fertilizer rates requires soil testing and the ability to apply different fertilizer rates to different parts of a field. Improving timing can involve applying fertilizers at two different times during the season, increasing labor and equipment operation costs. Furthermore, planting legumes incurs seed purchase and planting costs. 

Gu et al. (2023) estimated that annual reductions of 42 Mt of nitrogen were achievable globally using these practices, providing total fertilizer savings of US$37.2 billion and requiring implementation costs of US$15.9 billion, adjusted for inflation to 2023. A 1 t reduction in excess nitrogen application, therefore, was estimated to provide an average of US$507.80 of net cost savings, corresponding to a savings of US$85.21 per t CO₂‑eq of emissions reductions (Table 2).

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact, 100-yr basis.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

mean -85.21
Left Text Column Width
Methods and Supporting Data

Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A., & Hegewisch, K. C. (2018). TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958–2015. Scientific Data, 5(1), 170191. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.191

Adalibieke, W., Cui, X., Cai, H., You, L., & Zhou, F. (2023). Global crop-specific nitrogen fertilization dataset in 1961–2020. Scientific Data, 10(1), 617. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02526-z

Gerber, J. S., Ray, D. K., Makowski, D., Butler, E. E., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C., Johnson, J. A., Polasky, S., Samberg, L. H., & Siebert, S. (2024). Global spatially explicit yield gap time trends reveal regions at risk of future crop yield stagnation. Nature Food, 5(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00913-8 

IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)].

Mehta, P., Siebert, S., Kummu, M., Deng, Q., Ali, T., Marston, L., Xie, W., & Davis, K. F. (2024). Half of twenty-first century global irrigation expansion has been in water-stressed regions. Nature Water, 2(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-024-00206-9

Learning Curve

The improved nutrient management strategies considered for this solution are already well-established and widely deployed (Fixen, 2020). Large nitrogen excesses are relatively easy to mitigate through simple management changes with low implementation costs. As nitrogen use efficiency increases, further reductions may require increasingly complex mitigation practices and increasing marginal costs. Therefore, a learning curve was not quantified for this solution.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Improve Nutrient Management is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Emissions reductions from improved nutrient management are permanent, though they may not be additional in all cases.

Permanence

As this solution reduces emissions rather than enhancing sequestration, permanence is not applicable.

Additionality

Additionality requires that the emissions benefits of the practice are attributable to climate-related incentives and would not have occurred in the absence of incentives (Michaelowa et al., 2019). If they are not contingent on external incentives, fertilizer use reductions implemented solely to maximize profits do not meet the threshold for additionality. However, fertilizer reductions may be additional if incentives are required to provide access to the technical knowledge and soil testing required to identify optimal rates. Other forms of nutrient management (e.g., applying nitrification inhibitors, using extended-release or organic fertilizers, or splitting applications between two time points) may involve additional costs, substantial practice change, and technical expertise. Thus, these practices are likely to be additional.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Given that improved nutrient management takes a variety of forms and data on the adoption of individual practices are very limited, we leveraged several global datasets related to nitrogen use and yields to directly assess improvements in nitrogen use efficiency (see Appendix for details).

First, we calculated nitrogen use per t of crop produced using global maps of nitrogen fertilizer use (Adalibieke et al., 2023) and global maps of crop yields (Gerber et al., 2024) for 17 major crops (see Appendix). Next, we determined a target nitrogen use rate (t N/t crop) for each crop, corresponding to the 20th percentile of nitrogen use rates observed in croplands with yield gaps at or below the 20th percentile, meaning that actual yields were close to an attainable yield ceiling (Gerber et al., 2024). Areas with large yield gaps were excluded from the calculation of target nutrient use efficiency because insufficient nitrogen supply may be compromising yields (Mueller et al., 2012). Yield data were not available for a small number of crops; for these, we assumed reductions in nitrogen use to be proportional to those of other crops.

We considered croplands that had achieved the target rate and had yield gaps lower than the global median to have adopted the solution. We calculated the amount of excess nitrogen use avoided from these croplands as the difference in total nitrogen use under current fertilization rates relative to median fertilizer application rates. As of 2020, croplands that had achieved the adoption threshold for improved nutrient management avoided 10.45 Mt of nitrogen annually relative to the median nitrogen use rate (Table 3), equivalent to 11% of the adoption ceiling.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2020) adoption level.

Unit: tN/yr

estimate 10,450,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Global average nitrogen use efficiency increased from 47.7% to 54.6% between 2000 and 2020, a rate of approximately 0.43%/yr (Ludemann et al., 2024). This increase accelerated somewhat in the latter decade, from an average rate of 0.38%/yr to 0.53%/yr. Underlying this increase were increases in both the amount of nitrogen used and the amount of excess nitrogen. Total nitrogen additions increased by approximately 2.64 Mt/yr, with the amount of nitrogen used increasing more rapidly (1.99 Mt/yr) than the amount of excess nitrogen (0.65 Mt/yr) between 2000 and 2020 (Ludemann et al., 2024). Although nitrogen use increased between 2000 and 2020 as yields increased, the increase in nitrogen use efficiency suggests uptake of this solution.

left_text_column_width
Adoption Ceiling

We estimated the adoption ceiling of improved nutrient management to be 95.13 Mt avoided excess nitrogen use/year (Table 4), including current adoption. This value reflects our estimate of the maximum potential reduction in nitrogen application while avoiding large yield losses and consists of the potential to avoid 62.25 Mt of synthetic nitrogen use and 32.88 Mt of manure and other organic nitrogen use, in addition to current adoption. In total, this is equivalent to an additional 68% reduction in global nitrogen use. The adoption ceiling was calculated as the difference between total nitrogen use at the current rate and total nitrogen use at the target rate (as described in Current Adoption), assuming no change in crop yields. For nitrogen applied to crops for which yield data were not available, the potential reduction in nitrogen use was assumed to be proportional to that of crops for which full data were available.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: tN/yr

estimate 105,580,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We estimated that fertilizer use reductions of 69.85–91.06 Mt of nitrogen are achievable, reflecting current adoption plus nitrogen savings due to the achievement of nitrogen application rates equal to the median and 30th percentile of nitrogen application rates occurring in locations where yield gaps are small (Table 5).

This range is more ambitious than a comparable recent estimate by Gu et al. (2023), who found that reductions of approximately 42 Mt of nitrogen are avoidable via cost-effective implementation of similar practices. Differences in target nitrogen use efficiencies underlie differences between our estimates and those of Gu et al., whose findings correspond to an increase in global average cropland nitrogen use efficiency from 42% to 52%. Our estimates reflect higher target nitrogen use efficiencies. Nitrogen use efficiencies greater than 52% have been widely achieved through basic practice modification without compromising yields or requiring prohibitively expensive additional inputs. For instance, You et al. (2023) estimated that the global average nitrogen use efficiency could be increased to 78%. Similarly, cropland nitrogen use efficiency in the United States in 2020 was estimated to be 71%, and substantial opportunities for improved nitrogen use efficiency are still available within the United States (Ludemann et al., 2024), though Lu et al. (2019) and Swaney et al. (2018) report slightly lower estimates. These findings support our slightly more ambitious range of achievable nitrogen use reductions for this solution.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: tN/yr

Current Adoption 10,450,000
Achievable – Low 69,850,000
Achievable – High 91,060,000
Adoption Ceiling 105,580,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that improved nutrient management has the potential to reduce emissions by 0.63 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with achievable emissions reductions of 0.42–0.54 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 6). This is equivalent to an additional 56–76% reduction in total nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use, based on the croplands represented in our analysis.

We estimated avoidable emissions by multiplying our estimates of adoption ceiling and achievable adoption by the relevant IPCC 2019 emissions factors, disaggregated by climate zone and fertilizer type. Under the adoption ceiling scenario, approximately 70% of emissions reductions occurred in wet climates, where emissions per t of applied fertilizer are higher. Reductions in synthetic fertilizer use, which are larger than reductions in organic fertilizer use, contributed about 76% of the potential avoidable emissions. We estimated that the current implementation of improved nutrient management was associated with 0.06 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of avoided emissions. 

Our estimates are slightly more optimistic but well within the range of the IPCC 2021 estimates, which found that improved nutrient management could reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 0.06–0.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂-eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.06
Achievable – Low 0.42
Achievable – High 0.54
Adoption Ceiling 0.63
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Food Security

While excessive nutrients cause environmental problems in some parts of the world, insufficient nutrients are a significant problem in others, resulting in lower agricultural yields (Foley et al., 2011). Targeted, site-specific, efficient use of fertilizers can improve crop productivity (Mueller et al., 2012; Vanlauwe et al., 2015), improving food security globally. 

Health

Domingo et al. (2021) estimated about 16,000 premature deaths annually in the United States are due to air pollution from the food sector and found that more than 3,500 premature deaths per year could be avoided through reduced use of ammonia fertilizer, a secondary particulate matter precursor. Better agriculture practices overall can reduce particulate matter-related premature deaths from the agriculture sector by 50% (Domingo et al., 2021). Nitrogen oxides from fertilized croplands is another source of agriculture-based air pollution, and improved management can lead to decreased respiratory and cardiovascular disease (Almarez et al., 2018; Sobota et al., 2015). 

Nitrate contamination of drinking water due to excessive runoff from agriculture fields has been linked to several health disorders, including methemoglobinemia and cancer (Patel et al., 2022; Ward et al., 2018). Reducing nutrient runoff through better management is critical to minimize these risks (Ward et al., 2018). 

Income & Work

Better nutrient management reduces farmers' input costs and increases profitability (Rurinda et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). It is especially beneficial to smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, where site-specific nutrient management programs have demonstrated a significant increase in yield (Chivenge et al., 2021). A review of 61 studies across 11 countries showed that site-specific nutrient management resulted in an average increase in yield by 12% and increased farmer’s’ income by 15% while improving nitrogen use efficiency (Chivenge et al., 2021). 

Nature Protection

Nutrient runoff from agricultural systems is a major driver of water pollution globally, leading to eutrophication and hypoxic zones in aquatic ecosystems (Bijay-Singh & Craswell, 2021). Nitrogen pollution also harms terrestrial biodiversity through soil acidification and increases productivity of fast-growing species, including invasives, which can outcompete native species (Porter et al., 2013). Improved nutrient management is necessary to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads to water bodies (Withers et al., 2014; van Grinsven et al., 2019) and terrestrial ecosystems (Porter et al., 2013). These practices have been effective in reducing harmful algal blooms and preserving biodiversity in sensitive water systems (Scavia et al., 2014). 

Resilience to Drought

Balanced nutrient concentration contributes to long-term soil fertility and improved soil health by enhancing organic matter content, microbial diversity, and nutrient cycling (Antil & Raj, 2020; Selim, 2020). Healthy soil experiences reduced erosion and has higher water content, which increases its resilience to droughts and extreme heat (Rockström et al., 2017).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Although substantial reductions in nitrogen use can be achieved in many places with no or minimal impacts on yields, reducing nitrogen application by too much can lead to yield declines, which in turn can boost demand for cropland, causing GHG-producing land use change. Reductions in only excess nitrogen application will prevent substantial yield losses.

left_text_column_width

Some nutrient management practices are associated with additional emissions. For example, nitrification inhibitors reduce direct nitrous oxide emissions (Qiao et al., 2014) but can increase ammonia volatilization and subsequent indirect nitrous oxide emissions (Lam et al., 2016). Additionally, in wet climates, nitrous oxide emissions may be reduced through the use of manure instead of synthetic fertilizers (Hergoualc’h et al., 2019), though impacts vary across sites and studies (Zhang et al., 2020). Increased demand for manure could increase livestock production, which has high associated GHG emissions. Emissions also arise from transporting manure to the site of use (Qin et al., 2021).

Although nitrous oxide has a strong direct climate-warming effect, fertilizer use can cool the climate through emissions of other reactive nitrogen-containing compounds (Gong et al., 2024). First, aerosols from fertilizers scatter heat from the sun and cool the climate (Shindell et al., 2009; Gong et al., 2024). Moreover, other reactive nitrogen compounds from fertilizers shorten the lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, reducing its warming effects (Pinder et al., 2012). Finally, nitrogen fertilizers that leave farm fields through volatilization or runoff are ultimately deposited elsewhere, enhancing photosynthesis and sequestering additional carbon in plants and soils (Zaehle et al., 2011; Gong et al., 2024). Improved nutrient management would reduce these cooling effects.

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Improved nutrient management will reduce emissions from the production phase of biomass crops, increasing their benefit.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Improved nutrient management will reduce the GHG production associated with each calorie and, therefore, the impacts of the Improve Diets and Reduce Food Loss and Waste solutions will be reduced

left_text_column_width

Each of these solutions could decrease emissions associated with fertilizer production, but improved nutrient management will reduce total demand for fertilizers.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

t avoided excess nitrogen application/yr

t CO₂-eq/unit
6
units
Current 1.05×10⁷6.99×10⁷9.11×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0.06 0.420.54
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-85
Gradual

N₂O

tCO2-eq/ha
01

The Problem — Emissions of Nitrous Oxide Coming from Over-fertilized Soils

The world’s agricultural lands can emit high levels of nitrous oxide (N2O), the third most powerful greenhouse gas. These emissions stem from overusing nitrogen-based fertilizers, especially in regions in China, India, Western Europe, and central North America (in red). While crops absorb some of the nitrogen fertilizer we apply, much of what remains is lost to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide pollution or to local waterways as nitrate pollution. Using fertilizers more wisely can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution while maintaining high levels of crop production.

Analysis: Project Drawdown; Driscoll et al, In prep.

tCO2-eq/ha
01

The Problem — Emissions of Nitrous Oxide Coming from Over-fertilized Soils

The world’s agricultural lands can emit high levels of nitrous oxide (N2O), the third most powerful greenhouse gas. These emissions stem from overusing nitrogen-based fertilizers, especially in regions in China, India, Western Europe, and central North America (in red). While crops absorb some of the nitrogen fertilizer we apply, much of what remains is lost to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide pollution or to local waterways as nitrate pollution. Using fertilizers more wisely can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution while maintaining high levels of crop production.

Analysis: Project Drawdown; Driscoll et al, In prep.

Geographic Guidance Introduction

Improved nutrient management will have the greatest emissions reduction if it is targeted at areas with the largest excesses of nitrogen fertilizer use. In 2020, China, India, and the United States alone accounted for 52% of global excess nitrogen application (Ludemann et al., 2024). Improved nutrient management could be particularly beneficial in China and India, where nutrient use efficiency is currently lower than average (Ludemann et al., 2024). You et al. (2023) also found potential for large increases in nitrogen use efficiency in parts of China, India, Australia, Northern Europe, the United States Midwest, Mexico, and Brazil under standard best management practices. Gu et al. (2024) found that nitrogen input reductions are economically feasible in most of Southern Asia, Northern and Western Europe, parts of the Middle East, North America, and Oceania.

In addition to regional patterns in the adoption ceiling, greater nitrous oxide emissions reductions are possible in wet climates or on irrigated croplands compared to dry climates. Nitrous oxide emissions tend to peak when nitrogen availability is high and soil moisture is in the ~70–90% range (Betterbach-Bahl et al., 2013; Elberling et al., 2023; Hao et al., 2025; Lawrence et al., 2021), though untangling the drivers of nitrous oxide emissions is complex (Lawrence et al., 2021). Water management to avoid prolonged periods of soil moisture in this range is an important complement to nutrient management in wet climates and on irrigated croplands (Deng et al., 2018).

Importantly, improved nutrient management, as defined here, is not appropriate for implementation in areas with nitrogen deficits or negligible nitrogen surpluses, including much of Africa. In these areas, crop yields are constrained by nitrogen availability, and an increase in nutrient inputs may be needed to achieve target yields. Additionally, nutrient management in paddy (flooded) rice systems is not included in this solution but rather in the Improve Rice Production solution.

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Nutrient Management
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Focus policies and regulations on the four nutrient management principles – right rate, type, time, and place.
  • Create dynamic nutrient management policies that account for varying practices, environments, drainage, historical land use, and other factors that may require adjusting nutrient regulations.
  • Offer financial assistance responsive to local soil and weather conditions, such as grants and subsidies, insurance programs, and tax breaks, to encourage farmers to comply with regulations.
  • Mandate insurance schemes that allow farmers to reduce fertilizer use.
  • Mandate nutrient budgets or ceilings that are responsive to local yield, weather, and soil conditions.
  • Require farmers to formulate nutrient management and fertilizer plans.
  • Mandate efficiency rates for manure-spreading equipment.
  • Ensure access to and require soil tests to inform fertilizer application.
  • Invest in research on alternative organic nutrient sources.
  • Create and expand education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Use the four nutrient management principles – right rate, type, time, and place – to guide fertilizer application.
  • Utilize or advocate for financial assistance and tax breaks for farmers to improve nutrient management techniques.
  • Create and adhere to nutrient and fertilizer management plans.
  • Conduct soil tests to inform fertilizer application.
  • Use winter cover crops, crop rotations, residue retention, and split applications for fertilizer.
  • Improve the efficiency of, and regularly calibrate, manure-spreading equipment.
  • Leverage agroecological practices such as nutrient recycling and biological nitrogen fixation.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management.
  • Take advantage of education programs, support groups, and extension services focused on improved nutrient management.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Provide incentives for farmers in primary sourcing regions to adopt best management practices for reducing nitrogen application.
  • Invest in companies that use improved nutrient management techniques or produce equipment or research for fertilizer application and testing.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Promote products produced with improved nutrient management techniques and educate consumers about the importance of the practice.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate improved nutrient management techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved nutrient management techniques, alternative organic fertilizers, or local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that support improved nutrient management such as precision fertilizer applicators, alternative fertilizers, soil management equipment, and software.
  • Invest in ETFs and ESG funds that hold companies committed to improved nutrient management techniques in their portfolios.
  • Encourage companies in your investment portfolio to adopt improved nutrient management.
  • Provide access to capital at reduced rates for farmers adhering to improved nutrient management.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide financing for farmers to improve nutrient management.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate nutrient management techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved nutrient management, alternative organic fertilizers, or local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved nutrient management, alternative organic fertilizers, or local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve technology and cost-effectiveness of precision fertilizer application, slow-release fertilizer, alternative organic fertilizers, nutrient recycling, and monitoring equipment.
  • Create tracking and monitoring software to support farmers' decision-making.
  • Research and develop the application of AI and robotics for precise fertilizer application.
  • Improve data and analytics to monitor soil and water quality, assist farmers, support policymaking, and assess the impacts of policies.
  • Develop education and training applications to promote improved nutrient management and provide real-time feedback.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Create or join community-supported agriculture programs that source from farmers who used improved nutrient management practices.
  • Conduct soil tests on your lawn and garden and reduce fertilizer use if you are over-fertilizing.
  • Volunteer for soil and water quality monitoring and restoration projects.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships dedicated to improving nutrient management.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

There is high scientific consensus that reducing nitrogen surpluses through improved nutrient management reduces nitrous oxide emissions from croplands. 

Nutrient additions to croplands produce an estimated 0.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (range 0.7–1.1 Gt CO₂ -e/yr) of direct nitrous oxide emissions from fields, plus approximately 0.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of indirect emissions from fertilizers that runoff into waterways or erode (Tian et al., 2020). Nitrous oxide emissions from croplands are directly linked to the amount of nitrogen applied. Furthermore, the amount of nitrous oxide emitted per unit of applied nitrogen is well quantified for a range of different nitrogen sources and field conditions (Reay et al., 2012; Shcherbak et al., 2014; Gerber et al., 2016; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2019; Hergoualc’h et al., 2021). Tools to improve nutrient management have been extensively studied, and practices that improve nitrogen use efficiency through right rate, time, place, and type principles have been implemented in some places for several decades (Fixen, 2020; Ludemann et al., 2024).

Recently, Gao & Cabrera Serrenho (2023) estimated that fertilizer-related emissions could be reduced up to 80% by 2050 relative to current levels using a combination of nutrient management and new fertilizer production methods. You et al. (2023) found that adopting improved nutrient management practices would increase nitrogen use efficiency from a global average of 48% to 78%, substantially reducing excess nitrogen. Wang et al. (2024) estimated that the use of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers could reduce nitrogen losses to the environment 70–75% for maize and wheat systems. Chivenge et al. (2021) found comparable results in smallholder systems in Africa and Asia.

The results presented in this document were produced through analysis of global datasets. We recognize that geographic biases can influence the development of global datasets and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Appendix

In this analysis, we calculated the potential for reducing crop nitrogen inputs and associated nitrous oxide emissions by integrating spatially explicit, crop-specific data on nitrogen inputs, crop yields, attainable yields, irrigated extent, and climate. Broadly, we calculated a “target” yield-scaled nitrogen input rate based on pixels with low yield gaps and calculated the difference between nitrous oxide emissions under the current rate and under the hypothetical target emissions rate, using nitrous oxide emissions factors disaggregated by fertilizer type and climate. 

Emissions factors

We used Tier 1 emissions factors from the IPCC 2019 Refinement to the 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, including direct emissions factors as well as indirect emissions from volatilization and leaching pathways. Direct emissions factors represent the proportion of applied nitrogen emitted as nitrous oxide, while we calculated volatilization and leaching emissions factors by multiplying the proportion of applied nitrogen lost through these pathways by the proportion of volatilized or leached nitrogen ultimately emitted as nitrous oxide. Including both direct and indirect emissions, organic and synthetic fertilizers emit 4.97 kg CO₂‑eq/kg nitrogen and 8.66 kg CO₂‑eq/kg nitrogen, respectively, in wet climates, and 2.59 kg CO₂‑eq/kg nitrogen and 2.38 kg CO₂‑eq/kg nitrogen in dry climates. We included uncertainty bounds (2.5th and 97.5th percentiles) for all emissions factors. 

We classified each pixel as “wet” or “dry” using an aridity index (AI) threshold of 0.65, calculated as the ratio of annual precipitation to potential evapotranspiration (PET) from TerraClimate data (1991–2020), based on a threshold of 0.65. For pixels in dry climates that contained irrigation, we took the weighted average of wet and dry emissions factors based on the fraction of cropland that was irrigated (Mehta et al., 2024). We excluded irrigated rice from this analysis due to large differences in nitrous oxide dynamics in flooded rice systems.

Current, target, and avoidable nitrogen inputs and emissions

Using highly disaggregated data on nitrogen inputsfrom Adalibieke et al. (2024) for 21 crop groups (Table S1), we calculated total crop-specific inputs of synthetic and organic nitrogen. We then averaged over 2016–2020 to reduce the influence of interannual variability in factors like fertilizer prices. These values are subsequently referred to as “current” nitrogen inputs. We calculated nitrous oxide emissions under current nitrogen inputs as the sum of the products of nitrogen inputs and the climatically relevant emissions factors for each fertilizer type.

Next, we calculated target nitrogen application rates in terms of kg nitrogen per ton of crop yield using data on actual and attainable yields for 17 crops from Gerber et al., 2024 (Table S1). For each crop, we first identified pixels in which the ratio of actual to attainable yields was above the 80th percentile globally. The target nitrogen application rate was then calculated as the 20th percentile of nitrogen application rates across low-yield-gap pixels. Finally, we calculated total target nitrogen inputs as the product of actual yields and target nitrogen input rates. We calculated hypothetical nitrous oxide emissions from target nitrogen inputs as the product of nitrogen inputs and the climatically relevant emissions factor for each fertilizer type.

The difference between current and target nitrogen inputs represents the amount by which nitrogen inputs could hypothetically be reduced without compromising crop productivity (i.e., “avoidable” nitrogen inputs). We calculated avoidable nitrous oxide emissions as the difference between nitrous oxide emissions with current nitrogen inputs and those with target nitrogen inputs. For crops for which no yield or attainable yield data were available, we applied the average percent reduction in nitrogen inputs under the target scenario from available crops to the nitrogen input data for missing crops to calculate the avoidable nitrogen inputs and emissions. 

This simple and empirically driven method aimed to identify realistically low but nutritionally adequate nitrogen application rates by including only pixels with low yield gaps, which are unlikely to be substantially nutrient-constrained. We did not control for other factors affecting nitrogen availability, such as historical nutrient application rates or depletion, rotation with nitrogen fixing crops, or tillage and residue retention practices.

left_text_column_width

Table S1. Crops represented by the source data on nitrogen inputs (Adalibieke et al., 2024) and estimated and attainable yields (Gerber et al., 2024). Crop groups included consistently in both datasets are marked as “both,” and crop groups represented in the nitrogen input data but not in the yield datasets are marked as “nitrogen only.”

Crop Dataset(s)
BarleyBoth
CassavaBoth
CottonBoth
MaizeBoth
MilletBoth
Oil PalmBoth
PotatoBoth
RiceBoth
RyeBoth
RapeseedBoth
SorghumBoth
SoybeanBoth
SugarbeetBoth
SugarcaneBoth
SunflowerBoth
Sweet PotatoBoth
WheatBoth
GroundnutNitrogen only
FruitsNitrogen only
VegetablesNitrogen only
OtherNitrogen only
Left Text Column Width
Updated Date

Mobilize Electric Cars

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Transportation
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Electrify Vehicles Fuel Switching
Image
Electric car plugged into charging station
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Electric cars are four-wheeled passenger cars that run on electricity, usually from the electricity grid and stored in onboard batteries (i.e., not including fuel cell electric cars). This definition includes electric pickup trucks, motorhomes, and other such vehicles. It does not include two-wheeled vehicles or hybrid cars (which combine an electric motor with a gasoline or diesel engine). It also does not include freight and commercial vehicles, such as electric heavy trucks, buses, and ambulances. We define Mobilizing Electric Cars as replacing fossil fuel–powered cars (i.e., those powered by internal combustion engines) with electric equivalents, as well as building out the necessary infrastructure (especially charging stations) to support them.

Income & work,Health
Water quality,Air quality
Overview

Electric cars provide the same functionality as fossil fuel–powered cars, but use electric motors rather than fuel-burning engines. The energy for the motors comes from an onboard battery, which is normally charged using electricity from the grid.

Electric cars have no direct tailpipe emissions, since electric motors do not burn fuel to function. The grid electricity used to charge their batteries may have come from fossil fuel-burning power plants, meaning electric cars are not entirely free of direct emissions. However, in most electrical grids, even those that mainly generate electricity from fossil fuels, electric cars usually still produce fewer emissions per pkm than fossil fuel–powered cars. This is for three reasons. First, large, fixed power plants and efficient electric grids can convert fossil fuels into useful energy more efficiently than smaller, mobile internal combustion engines in cars. In extreme cases, such as grids powered entirely by coal, this might not be the case, particularly if the grid has a lot of transmission and distribution losses. Second, the powertrain of an electric car delivers electricity from the battery to the wheels much more efficiently than the powertrain of a fossil fuel–powered car, which wastes much more energy as heat (International Transport Forum, 2020; Mofolasayo, 2023; Verma et al., 2022). Third, electric cars’ powertrains enable regenerative braking, where the kinetic energy of the car’s motion is put back into the battery when the driver brakes (Yang et al., 2024).

Electric cars reduce emissions of CO₂,  methane, and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere by replacing fuel-powered cars, which emit these gases from their tailpipes.

References

APEC. (2024). Connecting Traveler Choice with Climate Outcomes: Innovative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Policies and Practices in the APEC Region through Traveler Behavioral Change. https://www.apec.org/publications/2024/09/connecting-traveler-choice-with-climate-outcomes--innovative-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reduction-policies-and-practices-in-the-apec-region-through-traveler-behavioral-change 

Agusdinata, D. B., Liu, W., Eakin, H., & Romero, H. (2018). Socio-environmental impacts of lithium mineral extraction: Towards a research agenda. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae9b1

Anenberg, S. C., Miller, J., Henze, D., & Minjares, R. (2019, February 26). A global snapshot of the air pollution-related health impacts of transportation sector emissions in 2010 and 2015. International Council on Clean Transportation. https://theicct.org/publication/a-global-snapshot-of-the-air-pollution-related-health-impacts-of-transportation-sector-emissions-in-2010-and-2015/

Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2024). Electric Vehicle Outlook 2024. Bloomberg. https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/

Carey, J. (2023). The other benefit of electric vehicles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(3), e2220923120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2220923120

Castelvecchi, D. (2021). Electric cars and batteries: How will the world produce enough? Nature, 596(7872), 336–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02222-1

Choma, E. F., Evans, J. S., Hammitt, J. K., Gómez-Ibáñez, J. A., & Spengler, J. D. (2020). Assessing the health impacts of electric vehicles through air pollution in the United States. Environment International, 144, 106015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106015

Dillman, K. J., Árnadóttir, Á., Heinonen, J., Czepkiewicz, M., & Davíðsdóttir, B. (2020). Review and Meta-Analysis of EVs: Embodied Emissions and Environmental Breakeven. Sustainability, 12(22), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229390

Electric vehicle database. (2024). Energy consumption of full electric vehicles. Electric Vehicle Database. https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-car

Fakhrooeian, P., Pitz, V., & Scheppat, B. (2024). Systematic Evaluation of Possible Maximum Loads Caused by Electric Vehicle Charging and Heat Pumps and Their Effects on Common Structures of German Low-Voltage Grids. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 15(2), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15020049

Garcia, E., Johnston, J., McConnell, R., Palinkas, L., & Eckel, S. P. (2023). California’s early transition to electric vehicles: Observed health and air quality co-benefits. The Science of the Total Environment, 867, 161761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161761

Goetzel, N., & Hasanuzzaman, M. (2022). An empirical analysis of electric vehicle cost trends: A case study in Germany. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 43, 100825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100825

Guarnieri, M., & Balmes, J. R. (2014). Outdoor air pollution and asthma. Lancet, 383(9928), 1581–1592. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60617-6

IEA. (2022). Electric Vehicles: Total Cost of Ownership Tool. IEA. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/electric-vehicles-total-cost-of-ownership-tool

IEA. (2024). Global EV Outlook 2024. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024

International Council on Clean Transportation. (2024). Clearing the air: Why EVs can outperform conventional vehicles in freezing temperatures. International Council on Clean Transportation. https://theicct.org/clearing-the-air-why-evs-can-outperform-conventional-vehicles-in-freezing-temperatures-oct24/

International Transport Forum. (2020). Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New Mobility (Corporate Partnership Board). OECD. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/environmental-performance-new-mobility.pdf

IPCC. (2022). Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf

Jones, S. J. (2019). If electric cars are the answer, what was the question? British Medical Bulletin, 129(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldy044

Kerr, G. H., Goldberg, D. L., & Anenberg, S. C. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic reveals persistent disparities in nitrogen dioxide pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(30), e2022409118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022409118

Kittner, N., Tsiropoulos, I., Tarvydas, D., Schmidt, O., Staffell, I., & Kammen, D. M. (2020). Chapter 9—Electric vehicles. In M. Junginger & A. Louwen (Eds.), Technological Learning in the Transition to a Low-Carbon Energy System (pp. 145–163). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818762-3.00009-1

Larson, E., Grieg, C., Jenkins, J., Mayfield, E., Pascale, A., Zhang, C., Drossman, J., Williams, R., Pacala, S., Socolow, R., Baik, E., Birdesy, R., Duke, R., Jones, R., Haley, B., Leslie, E., Paustain, K., & Swan, A. (2021). Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts. Princeton University. https://lpdd.org/resources/princeton-report-net-zero-america/

Melaina, M., Bush, B., Eichman, J., Wood, E., Stright, D., Krishnan, V., Keyser, D., Mai, T., & McLaren, J. (2016). National Economic Value Assessment of Plug-in Electric Vehicles: Volume I (No. NREL/TP-5400-66980). National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States). https://doi.org/10.2172/1338175

Milovanoff, A., Posen, I. D., & MacLean, H. L. (2020). Electrification of light-duty vehicle fleet alone will not meet mitigation targets. Nature Climate Change, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00921-7

Mofolasayo, A. (2023). Assessing and Managing the Direct and Indirect Emissions from Electric and Fossil-Powered Vehicles. Sustainability, 15(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021138

Nguyen, C. T. P., Nguyễn, B.-H., Ta, M. C., & Trovão, J. P. F. (2023). Dual-Motor Dual-Source High Performance EV: A Comprehensive Review. Energies, 16(20), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16207048

Nickel Institute. (2021a). Asia Pacific and UK Automotive ICE vs EV Total Cost of Ownership. https://nickelinstitute.org/media/8d993d1b8165b23/tco-asia-pacific-automotive.pdf

Nickel Institute. (2021b). European Union and UK Automotive ICE vs EV Total Cost of Ownership. https://nickelinstitute.org/media/8d9058c08d2bcf2/avicenne-study-tco-eu-and-uk-automotive.pdf

Nickel Institute. (2021c). North American Automotive ICE vs EV Total Cost of Ownership. https://nickelinstitute.org/media/8d993d0fd3dfd5b/tco-north-american-automotive-final.pdf

Pan, S., Yu, W., Fulton, L. M., Jung, J., Choi, Y., & Gao, H. O. (2023). Impacts of the large-scale use of passenger electric vehicles on public health in 30 US. metropolitan areas. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 173, 113100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113100

Pennington, A. F., Cornwell, C. R., Sircar, K. D., & Mirabelli, M. C. (2024). Electric vehicles and health: A scoping review. Environmental Research, 251, 118697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118697

Peters, D. R., Schnell, J. L., Kinney, P. L., Naik, V., & Horton, D. E. (2020). Public health and climate benefits and trade‐offs of U.S. vehicle electrification. GeoHealth, 4, e2020GH000275. 

https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GH000275 

Ravi, S. S., & Aziz, M. (2022). Utilization of Electric Vehicles for Vehicle-to-Grid Services: Progress and Perspectives. Energies, 15(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020589

Ren, Y., Sun, X., Wolfram, P., Zhao, S., Tang, X., Kang, Y., Zhao, D., & Zheng, X. (2023). Hidden delays of climate mitigation benefits in the race for electric vehicle deployment. Nature Communications, 14(1), 3164. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38182-5

Requia, W. J., Mohamed, M., Higgins, C. D., Arain, A., & Ferguson, M. (2018). How clean are electric vehicles? Evidence-based review of the effects of electric mobility on air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions and human health. Atmospheric Environment, 185, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.040

Roberts, C. (2022). Easy Street for Low-Carbon Mobility? The Political Economy of Mass Electric Car Adoption. In G. Parkhurst & W. Clayton (Eds.), Electrifying Mobility: Realising a Sustainable Future for the Car (Vol. 15, pp. 13–31). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-994120220000015004

Sovacool, B. K. (2019). The precarious political economy of cobalt: Balancing prosperity, poverty, and brutality in artisanal and industrial mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Extractive Industries and Society, 6(3), 915–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.05.018

Szyszkowicz, M., Kousha, T., Castner, J., & Dales, R. (2018). Air pollution and emergency department visits for respiratory diseases: A multi-city case crossover study. Environmental Research, 163, 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.043

Vega-Perkins, J., Newell, J. P., & Keoleian, G. (2023). Mapping electric vehicle impacts: Greenhouse gas emissions, fuel costs, and energy justice in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 18(1), 014027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aca4e6

Verma, S., Dwivedi, G., & Verma, P. (2022). Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in comparison to combustion engine vehicles: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 49, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.666

Weiss, M., Dekker, P., Moro, A., Scholz, H., & Patel, M. K. (2015). On the electrification of road transportation – A review of the environmental, economic, and social performance of electric two-wheelers. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 41, 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.007

WHO. (2024). Number of registered vehicles. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/number-of-registered-vehicles

Yang, C., Sun, T., Wang, W., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., & Zha, M. (2024). Regenerative braking system development and perspectives for electric vehicles: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 198, 114389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114389

Yoder, K. (2023, June 14). The environmental disaster lurking beneath your neighborhood gas station. Grist. https://grist.org/accountability/gas-stations-underground-storage-tank-leaks-environmental-disaster/

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Cameron Roberts, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Heather Jones, Ph.D.

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Jason Lam

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda Smith, Ph.D.
Effectiveness

Every million pkm shifted from fossil fuel–powered cars to electric cars reduces 48.52 t CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Table 1), or 49.13 t CO₂‑eq on a 20-yr basis. 

We found this by collecting data on electricity consumption for a range of electric car models (Electric Vehicle Database, 2024) and multiplying it by the global average emissions per kWh of electricity generation. Fossil fuel–powered cars emit 115.3 t CO₂‑eq/pkm on a 100-yr basis (116.4 t CO₂‑eq/pkm on a 20-yr basis). Electric cars already have lower emissions in countries with large shares of renewable, nuclear, or hydropower generation in their electricity grids (International Transport Forum, 2020; Verma et al., 2022).

These data come disproportionately from North America and Europe, and, notably, leave out China, which has made major progress on electric cars in recent years and has many of its own makes and models. 

Electric cars today are disproportionately used in high- and upper-middle-income countries, whose electricity grids emit fewer GHG emissions than the global average per unit of electricity generated (IEA, 2024). Electric cars in use today reduce more emissions on average than the figure we have calculated. 

Electric cars have higher embodied emissions than fossil fuel–powered cars, due to the GHG-intensive process of manufacturing batteries. This gives them a carbon payback period which ranges from zero to over 10 years (Dillman et al., 2020; Ren et al., 2023).

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/million pkm

25th percentile 38.95
mean 49.54
median (50th percentile) 48.52
75th percentile 62.82

Shifted from fossil fuel–powered cars to electric cars, 100-yr basis.

Left Text Column Width
Cost

Including purchase price, financing, fuel and electricity costs, maintenance costs, and insurance, electric cars cost on average US$0.05 less per pkm (US$49,442.19/million pkm) than fuel-powered cars. This is based on a population-weighted average of the cost differential between electric and fossil fuel–powered cars in seven countries: Japan, South Korea, China, the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (Nickel Institute, 2021b, 2021c, 2021a). 

While this analysis found that electric cars are less expensive than fossil fuel–powered cars almost everywhere, the margin is often quite small. The difference is less than US$0.01/pkm (US$10,000/million pkm) in South Korea, the United States, and Germany. In some markets, electric cars are more expensive per pkm than fossil fuel–powered cars (IEA, 2022).

This amounts to savings of US$1,019/t CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Table 2), or US$1,006/t CO₂‑eq avoided emissions on a 20-yr basis). 

Our analysis does not include costs that are the same for both electric and fossil fuel–powered cars, including taxes, insurance costs, and public costs of building road infrastructure.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

median -1,019
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

For every doubling in electric car production, costs decline by approximately 23% (Table 3; Goetzel & Hasanuzzaman, 2022; Kittner et al., 2020; Weiss et al., 2015). 

In addition to manufacturing improvements and economies of scale, this reflects rapid technological advancements in battery production, which is a significant cost component of an electric powertrain (Weiss et al., 2015).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed solution base.

Unit: %

25th percentile 23.00
mean 22.84
median (50th percentile) 23.00
75th percentile 24.00
Left Text Column Width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Mobilize Electric Cars is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

The effectiveness of electric cars in mitigating GHG emissions is critically dependent on the emissions associated with electricity production. In electricity grids dominated by fossil fuels, electric cars have far higher emissions than in jurisdictions with low-emission electricity generation (International Transport Forum, 2020; IPCC, 2022; Milovanoff et al., 2020).

Electric car adoption faces a major obstacle in the form of constraints on battery production. While electric car battery production is being aggressively upscaled (IEA, 2024), building enough batteries to replace a significant fraction of fossil fuel–powered cars is an enormous challenge and will likely slow down a transition to electric cars, even if there is very high consumer demand (Milovanoff et al., 2020). 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Approximately 28 million electric cars are in use worldwide (IEA, 2024). This corresponds to about 819,000 million pkm traveled by electric car worldwide each year (Table 4). We assume that all of this travel would be undertaken by a fossil fuel–powered car if the car’s occupants did not use an electric car. Adoption is much higher in some countries, such as Norway, where the share of electric cars was 29% in 2023.

To convert the IEA’s electric car estimates into pkm traveled, we needed to determine the average passenger-distance that each passenger car travels per year. Using population-weighted data from several different countries, the average car carries 1.5 people and travels an average of 29,250 pkm/yr. Multiplying this number by the number of electric cars in use gives the total travel distance shift from fossil fuel–powered cars to electric cars.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Current (2024) adoption level.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Population-weighted mean 818,900

Implied travel shift from fossil fuel-powered cars to electric cars.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Globally, about 104 billion pkm are displaced from fossil fuel–powered cars by electric cars every year (Table 5). The number of new electric cars purchased each year is growing at an average rate of over 10% (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2024; IEA, 2024), although purchase rates have declined slightly from record highs between 2020–2022. Global purchases of electric cars are still increasing by around 3.6 million cars/yr. This is based on globally representative data (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2024; IEA, 2024).

Despite this impressive rate of growth, electric cars still have a long way to go before they replace a large percentage of the more than 2 billion cars currently driven (WHO, 2024).

left_text_column_width

Table 5. 2023-2024 adoption trend.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Median, or population-weighted mean 104,000

Implied travel shift from fossil fuel-powered cars to electric cars.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

The adoption ceiling for electric cars is equal to the total passenger-distance driven by the more than 2 billion cars worldwide (WHO, 2024). Using a population-weighted mean of the average distance (in pkm) traveled per car annually, this translates to about 59 trillion pkm (Table 6).

Replacing every single fossil fuel–powered car with an electric car would require an enormous upscaling of electric car production capacity, rapid development of charging infrastructure, cost reductions to increase affordability, and technological improvements to improve suitability for more kinds of drivers and trips. It would also face cultural obstacles from drivers who are attached to fossil fuel–powered cars (Roberts, 2022).

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Median, or population-weighted mean 59,140,000

Implied travel shift from fossil fuel-powered cars to electric cars.

Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The achievable adoption of electric car travel ranges from about 26–47 trillion pkm displaced from fossil fuel–powered cars (Table 7).

Various organizations have produced forecasts for electric car adoption. These are not assessments of feasible adoption per se; they are instead trying to predict likely rates of adoption, given various assumptions about the future (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2024; IEA, 2024). However, they are useful in that they take a large number of different variables into account to make their estimates. To convert these estimates of future likely adoption into estimates of the achievable adoption range, we apply some assumptions to the numbers in the scenario projections. 

To find a high rate of electric car adoption, we assume that every country could reach the highest rate of adoption projected to occur for any country. Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s (2024) Economic Transition scenario predicts that Norway will reach an 80% electric vehicle stock share by 2040. We therefore set our high adoption rate at 80% worldwide. This corresponds to 1,617 million total electric cars in use, or 47 trillion pkm traveled by electric car. An important caveat is that with a global supply constraint in the production of electric car batteries, per-country adoption rates are somewhat zero-sum. Every electric car purchased in Norway is one that cannot be purchased elsewhere. Therefore, for the whole world to achieve an 80% electric car stock share, global electric car and battery production would have to increase radically. While this might be possible due to technological improvements or radical increases in investment, it should not be taken for granted.

To identify a lower feasible rate of electric car adoption, we simply take the highest estimate for global electric car adoption. Bloomberg’s Economic Transition scenario predicts 44% global electric car adoption by 2050. This corresponds to 890 million electric cars, or 26 trillion pkm.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: million pkm/yr.

Current Adoption 818,900
Achievable – Low 26,020,000
Achievable – High 47,310,000
Adoption ceiling (physical limit) 59,140,000
Left Text Column Width

Electric cars are currently displacing 0.040 Gt CO₂‑eq of GHG emissions from the transportation system on a 20-yr basis (Table 8), or 0.040 Gt CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis. 

If electric cars reach 44% of the global car stock share by 2040, as Bloomberg (2024) projects, without any change in the total number of cars on the road, they will displace 1.263 Gt CO₂‑eq GHG emissions on a 100-yr basis (1.279 Gt CO₂‑eq  on a 20-yr basis).

If electric cars globally reach 80% of car stock share, as Bloomberg projects might happen in Norway by 2040, they will displace 2.296 Gt CO₂‑eq GHG emissions on a 100-yr basis (2.325 Gt CO₂‑eq on a 20-yr basis).

If electric cars replace 100% of the global car fleet, they will displace 2.870 Gt CO₂‑eq  GHG emissions on a 100-yr basis (2.906 Gt CO₂‑eq on a 20-yr basis).

These numbers are based on the present-day average emissions intensity from electrical grids in countries with high rates of electric car adoption. If more clean energy is deployed on electricity grids, the total climate impact from electric cars will increase considerably.

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.040
Achievable – Low 1.263
Achievable – High 2.296
Adoption ceiling (physical limit) 2.870
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Air Quality

The adoption of electric cars reduces emissions of air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxides, and especially carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. It has a smaller impact on particulate emissions (Requia et al., 2018). Some air pollution reductions are limited (particularly PM and ozone) due to heavier electric cars and pollution from brakes, tires, and wear on the batteries (Carey, 2023; Jones, 2019).

Water Quality

Substituting electric car charging points for gas stations can eliminate soil and water pollution from leaking underground gas tanks (Yoder, 2023). 

Health

Since electric cars do not have tailpipe emissions, they can mitigate traffic-related air pollution, which is associated with asthma, lung cancer, increased emergency department visits for respiratory disease, and increased mortality (Anenberg et al., 2019; Guarnieri & Balmes, 2014; Pan et al., 2023; Pennington et al., 2024; Requia et al., 2018; Szyszkowicz et al., 2018). Transitioning to electric cars can reduce exposure to air pollution, improve health, and prevent premature mortality (Garcia et al., 2023; Larson et al., 2021; Peters et al., 2020).

The health benefits of adopting electric cars vary spatially and partly depend upon how communities generate electricity (Choma et al., 2020), but there is evidence that they have improved health. A study in California found a reduction in emergency department visits in ZIP codes with an increase in zero-emissions cars (Garcia et al., 2023). By 2050, projections estimate that about 64,000–167,000 deaths could be avoided by adopting electric cars (Larson et al., 2021).

Communities rich in racial and ethnic minorities tend to be located near highways and major traffic corridors and so are disproportionately exposed to air pollution (Kerr et al., 2021). Transitioning to electric cars could improve health in marginalized urban neighborhoods that are located near highways, industry, or ports (Pennington et al., 2024). These benefits depend upon an equitable distribution of electric cars and infrastructure to support the adoption of electric cars (Garcia et al., 2023). Low-income households may not see the same savings from an electric car due to the cost and stability of electricity prices and distance to essential services (Vega-Perkins et al., 2023)

Income & Work

Adopting electric cars can reduce a household’s energy burden, or the proportion of income spent on residential energy (Vega-Perkins et al., 2023). About 90% of United States households that use a car could see a reduction in energy burden by transitioning to an electric car. Money spent to charge electric cars is more likely to stay closer to the local community where electricity is generated, whereas money spent on fossil fuels often benefits oil-producing regions. This benefits local and national economies by improving their trade balance (Melaina et al., 2016).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Mining minerals necessary to produce electric car batteries carries environmental and social risks. This has been associated with significant harms, particularly in lower-income countries that supply many of these minerals (Agusdinata et al., 2018; Sovacool, 2019).

Electric cars might also pose additional safety risks due to their higher weight, which means they have longer stopping distances and can cause more significant damage in collisions and to pedestrians and cyclists (Jones, 2019). This risk includes dual-motor electric cars that incorporate two electric motors – one for the front axle and one for the rear – providing all-wheel drive (AWD) capabilities. The addition of a second motor increases the vehicle's weight and complexity, which can lead to higher energy consumption and reduced overall efficiency. Moreover, the increased manufacturing costs associated with dual-motor systems can result in higher purchase prices for consumers (Nguyen et al., 2023). However, this configuration enhances vehicle performance, offering improved acceleration, traction, and handling, particularly in adverse weather conditions which are valued by some consumers. 

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Electric car batteries can potentially be used as stationary batteries for use as energy storage to balance electrical grids, either through vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology or with degraded electric car batteries being installed in stationary battery farms as a form of reuse (Ravi & Aziz, 2022). 

The effectiveness of electric cars in reducing GHG emissions increases as electricity grids become cleaner, since lower-carbon electricity further reduces the emissions associated with car charging. 

left_text_column_width

Competing

Electric cars compete with heat pumps for electricity. Installing both heat pumps and electric cars could strain the electric grid’s capacity (Fakhrooeian et al., 2024).

left_text_column_width

Scaling up the production of electric cars requires more mining of critical minerals, which could affect ecosystems that are valuable carbon sinks (Agusdinata et al., 2018).

left_text_column_width

Getting travelers onto bicycles, sidewalks, public transit networks, or smaller electric vehicles (such as electric bicycles) provides a greater climate benefit than getting them into electric cars. There is an opportunity cost to deploying electric cars because those resources could otherwise be used to support these more effective solutions (APEC, 2024).

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

1 million passenger-kilometers

t CO₂-eq/unit
48.52
units/yr
Current 818,9002.6×10⁷4.73×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0.04 1.262.3
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-1,019
Gradual

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

Electric car batteries are currently quite emissions-intensive to produce, resulting in high embodied emissions. While the embodied emissions are higher for electric cars than fossil fuel–powered cars, the results are mixed when coupling these with operating emissions. Dillman et al.’s (2020) review of the literature on this topic found that producing the average battery-electric car emits 63% more GHG emissions than the average gasoline-powered car, and 77% more GHG emissions than the average diesel-powered car. Taking their lower tailpipe emissions into account, this gives them a GHG payback period of zero to more than 10 years. In some cases, the emissions payback period is longer than the expected lifespan of the electric car, meaning it will have higher life cycle GHG emissions than a comparable gasoline or diesel-powered car. However, the ITF (2020) found that the lifetime emissions from manufacturing, operation, and infrastructure are lower for electric cars. All of these studies relied on assumptions, including the type of car, size of battery, electricity grid, km/yr, and lifetime. 

There is some criticism against any solution that advocates for car ownership, contending that the focus should be on solutions such as Enhance Public Transit that reduce car ownership and usage. Jones (2019) noted “there is little evidence to suggest that EVs can offer the universal solution that global governments are seeking,” and that efforts to popularize electric cars “may be better directed at creating more efficient public transport systems, rather than supporting personal transportation, if the significant health disbenefits of car use during the past 150 years are to be in any way reduced.”

Milovanoff et al. (2020) offered similar criticism: “Closing the mitigation gap solely with EVs would require more than 350 million on-road EVs (90% of the fleet), half of national electricity demand, and excessive amounts of critical materials to be deployed in 2050. Improving [the] average fuel consumption of fossil fuel–powered vehicles, with stringent standards and weight control, would reduce the requirement for alternative technologies, but is unlikely to fully bridge the mitigation gap. There is therefore a need for a wide range of policies that include measures to reduce vehicle ownership and usage.”

Allocating the limited global battery supply to privately owned electric cars might undermine the deployment of other solutions that also require batteries, but are more effective at avoiding GHG emissions (Castelvecchi, 2021). These could include electric buses, electric rail, and electric bicycles.

left_text_column_width
Mt CO2-eq
0–4
4–8
8–12
12–16
16–20
> 20
No data

Annual road transportation emissions, 2024

Cars are the largest source of vehicle emissions, which are shown here for urban areas.

Kott, T., Foster, K., Villafane-Delgado, M., Loschen, W., Sicurello, P., Ghebreselassie, M., Reilly, E., and Hughes, M. (2024). Transportation sector - Global road emissions. [Data set]. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL), Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved March 12, 2025 from https://climatetrace.org

Mt CO2-eq
0–4
4–8
8–12
12–16
16–20
> 20
No data

Annual road transportation emissions, 2024

Cars are the largest source of vehicle emissions, which are shown here for urban areas.

Kott, T., Foster, K., Villafane-Delgado, M., Loschen, W., Sicurello, P., Ghebreselassie, M., Reilly, E., and Hughes, M. (2024). Transportation sector - Global road emissions. [Data set]. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL), Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved March 12, 2025 from https://climatetrace.org

Geographic Guidance Introduction

Electric cars can effectively mitigate climate change in all geographic regions, although there is spatial variability that influences per-pkm effectiveness and potential solution uptake. Effectiveness heavily depends on the carbon intensity of the charging source, which varies greatly between and within countries. The effectiveness of electric cars decreases for larger vehicles, favored in some countries (Jones, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2023).  

The uptake of electric cars can be significantly influenced by socioeconomic factors, including the relative costs of fuels and electricity, the capacity of civil society to provide adequate charging infrastructure, and the availability of subsidies for electric vehicles.

Extreme temperatures can negatively impact vehicle range, both by slowing battery chemistry and increasing energy demands for regulating passenger compartment temperature, which can adversely affect consumers’ perceptions of electric car suitability in locations with such climates (International Council on Clean Transportation, 2024).

Electric cars are most effective in regions with low-carbon electricity grids (International Transport Forum, 2020; Verma et al., 2022). This includes countries with high hydro power (including Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and parts of Canada such as British Columbia and Quebec), nuclear energy (such as France), and renewables (including Portugal, New Zealand, and parts of the United States, including California and some of the Northwest) (IEA, 2024). Electric car adoption is growing rapidly in a number of regions. For future scaling, targeting countries with supportive policies, renewable energy potential, and growing urban populations will deliver the greatest climate benefits.

Action Word
Mobilize
Solution Title
Electric Cars
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Create government procurement policies to transition government fleets to electric cars.
  • Provide financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for electric car production and purchases that gradually reduce as market adoption increases.
  • Provide complimentary benefits for electric car drivers, such as privileged parking areas, free tolls, and access schemes.
  • Use targeted financial incentives to assist low-income communities in purchasing electric cars and to incentivize manufacturers to produce more affordable options.
  • Develop charging infrastructure, ensuring adequate spacing between stations and equitable distribution of stations.
  • Invest in R&D or implement regulations to improve manufacturing, adoption, supply chain standards, and circularity of electric cars, particularly batteries.
  • Transition fossil fuel electricity production to renewables while promoting the transition to electric cars.
  • Disincentivize fossil fuel–powered car ownership by gradually introducing taxes, penalties, buy-back programs, or other mechanisms.
  • Offer educational resources and one-stop shops for information on electric vehicles, including demonstrations, cost savings, environmental impact, and maintenance.
  • Work with industry and labor leaders to construct new electric car plants and to transition fossil fuel–powered car manufacturing into electric car production.
  • Set regulations for sustainable use of electric car batteries and improve recycling infrastructure.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure that environmental and human rights standards are met for supply chains.
  • Incentivize or mandate life-cycle assessments and product labeling (e.g., Environmental Product Declarations).
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for electric car adoption.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Produce and sell affordable electric car models.
  • Collaborate with dealers to provide incentives, low-interest financing, or income-based payment options.
  • Develop charging infrastructure, ensuring adequate spacing between stations and equitable distribution of stations.
  • Invest in R&D to improve manufacturing, adoption, supply chain standards, and circularity of electric cars, particularly batteries.
  • Offer educational resources and one-stop shops for information on electric cars, including demonstrations, cost savings, environmental impact, and maintenance.
  • Work with policymakers and labor leaders to construct new electric car plants and to transition fossil fuel–powered car manufacturing into electric car production.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure that environmental and human rights standards are met for supply chains.
  • Invest in recycling and circular economy infrastructure.
  • Conduct life-cycle assessments and ensure product labeling (e.g., Environmental Product Declarations).
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for electric car adoption.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Set company procurement policies to transition corporate fleets to electric cars.
  • Take advantage of any financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for electric car purchases.
  • Create long-term purchasing agreements with electric car manufacturers to support stable demand and improve economies of scale.
  • Install charging stations and offer employee benefits for electric car drivers, such as privileged parking areas.
  • Invest in R&D to improve manufacturing, adoption, supply chain standards, and circularity of electric cars, particularly batteries.
  • Work with industry and labor leaders to transition fossil fuel–powered car manufacturing into electric car production.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote electric car adoption.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure that environmental and human rights standards are met for supply chains.
  • Educate customers and investors about the company's transition to electric cars and encourage them to learn more about them.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for electric car adoption.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Set organizational procurement policies to transition fleets to electric cars.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for electric car purchases.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote electric car adoption.
  • Install charging stations and offer employee benefits for electric car drivers, such as privileged parking areas.
  • Advocate for or provide improved charging infrastructure.
  • Offer workshops or support to low-income communities for purchasing and owning electric cars.
  • Work with industry and labor leaders to transition fossil fuel–powered car manufacturing into electric car production.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure that environmental and human rights standards are met for supply chains.
  • Advocate for regulations on lithium-ion batteries and investments in recycling facilities.
  • Offer educational resources and one-stop shops for information on electric cars, including demonstrations, cost savings, environmental impact, and maintenance.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for electric car adoption.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in electric car companies.
  • Support portfolio companies in transitioning their corporate fleets.
  • Invest in companies that provide charging equipment or installation.
  • Invest in R&D to improve manufacturing, adoption, supply chain standards, and circularity of electric cars, particularly batteries.
  • Invest in electric car companies, associated supply chains, and end-user businesses like rideshare apps.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure that environmental and human rights standards are met for supply chains.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for electric car adoption. 

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Set organizational procurement policies to transition fleets to electric cars.
  • Install charging stations and offer employee benefits for electric car drivers, such as privileged parking areas.
  • Take advantage of any financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for electric car purchases.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote electric car adoption.
  • Advocate for or provide improved charging infrastructure.
  • Offer financial services such as low-interest loans or grants for purchasing electric cars and charging equipment.
  • Offer workshops or support to low-income communities for purchasing and owning electric cars.
  • Work with industry and labor leaders to transition fossil fuel–powered car manufacturing into electric car production.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure that environmental and human rights standards are met for supply chains.
  • Advocate for regulations on lithium-ion batteries and investments in recycling facilities.
  • Offer educational resources and one-stop shops for information on electric cars, including demonstrations, cost savings, environmental impact, and maintenance.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for electric car adoption.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • If purchasing a new car, buy an electric car.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for electric car purchases.
  • Share your experiences with electric cars through social media and peer-to-peer networks, highlighting the cost savings, benefits, incentive programs, and troubleshooting tips.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote electric car adoption.
  • Advocate for improved charging infrastructure.
  • Help improve the circularity of electric car supply chains through design, advocacy, or implementation.
  • Conduct in-depth life-cycle assessments of electric cars in particular geographies.
  • Research ways to reduce weight and improve the performance of electric cars while appealing to customers.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure that environmental and human rights standards are met for supply chains.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for electric car adoption.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve the circularity of supply chains for electric car components.
  • Reduce the amount of critical minerals required for electric car batteries.
  • Innovate low-cost methods to improve safety, labor standards, and supply chains in mining for critical minerals.
  • Research ways to reduce weight and improve the performance of electric cars while appealing to customers.
  • Develop vehicle-grid integration and feasible means of using the electrical capacity of electric cars to manage the broader grid.
  • Improve techniques to repurpose used electric car batteries for stationary energy storage.
  • Develop methods of converting fossil fuel–powered car manufacturing and infrastructure to electric.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • If purchasing a new car, purchase an electric car.
  • Take advantage of any financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for electric car purchases.
  • Share your experiences with electric cars through social media and peer-to-peer networks, highlighting the cost-savings, benefits, incentive programs, and troubleshooting tips.
  • Help shift the narrative around electric cars by demonstrating capability and performance.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote electric car adoption.
  • Advocate for improved charging infrastructure.
  • Help improve ciricularity of electric car supply chains.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure that environmental and human rights standards are met for supply chains.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for electric car adoption.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions: Mixed

There is a high level of consensus among major organizations and researchers working on climate solutions that electric cars offer a substantial reduction in GHG emissions compared to fossil fuel–powered cars. This advantage is strongest in places where electricity in the grid comes from sources with low GHG emissions, but it persists even if fossil fuels play a major role in energy production. 

Major climate research organizations generally see electric cars as the primary means of reducing GHG emissions from passenger transportation. This perspective has received criticism from some scholars who argue that electric cars have been overstated as a climate solution, pointing to supply constraints, embodied emissions, and emissions from electricity generation (Jones, 2019; Milovanoff et al., 2020). Embodied emissions are outside the scope of this assessment. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2022) estimated well-to-wheel (upstream and downstream emissions) GHG emissions intensity from gasoline and diesel cars at 139 g CO₂‑eq/pkm and 107 g CO₂‑eq/pkm, respectively. They estimated that electric cars running on low-carbon electricity (solar, wind, and nuclear sourced) emit 9 g CO₂‑eq/pkm; electric cars running on natural gas electricity emit 104 g CO₂‑eq/pkm; and electric cars running entirely on coal electricity emit 187 g CO₂‑eq/pkm. These estimates include upstream emissions, such as those from oil refining and coal mining.

The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2024) noted that “[a] battery electric car sold in 2023 will emit half as much as fossil fuel–powered equivalents over its lifetime. This includes full life-cycle emissions, including those from producing the car.” 

The International Transport Forum (ITF) (2020) estimated that fossil fuel–powered cars emit 162 g CO₂‑eq/pkm, while electric cars emit 125 g CO₂‑eq/pkm. This included embodied and upstream emissions, which are outside the scope of this assessment..

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 15 reviews and meta-analyses and 24 original studies reflecting current evidence from 52 countries, primarily the IEA’s Electric Vehicle Outlook 2024), the Electric Vehicle Database 2024), the International Transportation Forum’s life cycle analysis on sustainable transportation 2020), the Nickel Institute’s cost estimates on electric cars (Nickel Institute, 2021b, 2021c, 2021a). We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Mobilize Electric Bicycles

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Transportation
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Electrify Vehicles Fuel Switching
Image
Parent riding electric bicycle with children seated in back carrier
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Mobilize Electric Bicycles solution as increased travel by bicycles that have an electric motor to supplement the effort of the rider, but require the rider to turn the pedals to activate the motor. Some sources refer to electric mopeds or motorcycles as electric bicycles, but those modes of transportation fall within Project Drawdown’s Mobilize Electric Scooters & Motorcycles solution and are not covered here. Also known as pedelecs or e-bikes, electric bicycles can be deployed as privately owned electric bicycles or as shared electric bicycles, which are available as part of bicycle sharing networks typically operated at the city level for short-term rental on a per-trip basis.

Income & work,Health
Air quality
Overview

Electric bicycles use electric power to supplement the muscular effort of the rider. Like conventional bicycles and other forms of nonmotorized transportation, electric bicycles get some of their motive power from human muscle power, which in turn comes from food calories – a form of closed-loop biomass power with no emissions (see Project Drawdown’s Improve Nonmotorized Transportation solution). Unlike conventional bicycles, however, electric bicycles get additional power from electricity, which comes from the grid and is stored in a battery.

This partial reliance on grid electricity, as well as the production of the battery and electric motors, increases the carbon emissions and cost of an electric bicycle compared to those of a conventional bicycle. Nevertheless, electric bicycle emissions remain far lower than the emissions of cars (including electric cars), meaning that every passenger-kilometer (pkm) moved from a car to an electric bicycle achieves significant GHG emissions savings. 

Since the additional electric power enables electric bicycle riders to cover longer distances at greater speeds, climb larger hills, and carry heavier loads – and do it all with substantially less physical effort – electric bicycles can substitute for more car trips than conventional bicycles can. This can amplify electric bicycles’ potential carbon savings relative to conventional bicycles, even if the savings per pkm traveled are lower. Electric bicycles also tend to get used at high rates, and a large proportion of pkm by electric bicycle are pkm that would otherwise have been by car (Bigazzi & Wong, 2020; Bourne et al., 2020; Cairns et al., 2017; Fukushige et al., 2021).

Shared electric bicycles can enhance this effect. The need for docking stations and rebalancing services (i.e., the use of larger vehicles to reposition bicycles to avoid one-way trips that create shortages in some places and surpluses in others) increases the carbon emissions of electric bicycles per pkm compared with private electric bicycles. By renting out electric bicycles one trip at a time, however, bicycle-share systems can make electric bicycles affordable to a larger percentage of the public, further increasing the number of pkm that can be shifted to electric bicycles.

The adoption of electric bicycles reduces emissions of CO₂ and methane from cars by displacing pkm traveled via car. When electric bicycles replace a trip by a gasoline- or diesel-powered car, they also eliminate reliance on fossil fuels to complete that trip. Even if the electricity used to power electric bicycles comes from fossil fuels, those emissions are relatively small and could eventually be replaced with low-emission electricity through the deployment of renewables or similar technologies.

References

Astegiano, P., Fermi, F., & Martino, A. (2019). Investigating the impact of e-bikes on modal share and greenhouse emissions: A system dynamic approach. Transportation Research Procedia, 37, 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.12.179

Berjisian, E., & Bigazzi, A. (2019). Summarizing the impacts of electric bicycle adoption on vehicle travel, emissions, and physical activity. UBC REACT LAb. https://civil-reactlab.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2019/07/BerjisianBigazzi_ImpactsofE-bikes_Report_July2019.pdf

Bigazzi, A., & Wong, K. (2020). Electric bicycle mode substitution for driving, public transit, conventional cycling, and walking. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 85, 102412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102412

Bourne, J. E., Cooper, A. R., Kelly, P., Kinnear, F. J., England, C., Leary, S., & Page, A. (2020). The impact of e-cycling on travel behaviour: A scoping review. Journal of Transport & Health, 19, 100910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100910

Bucher, D., Buffat, R., Froemelt, A., & Raubal, M. (2019). Energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials resulting from different commuter electric bicycle adoption scenarios in Switzerland. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 114, 109298. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109298 

Cairns, S., Behrendt, F., Raffo, D., Beaumont, C., & Kiefer, C. (2017). Electrically-assisted bikes: Potential impacts on travel behaviour. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 103, 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.03.007

Carracedo, D., & Mostofi, H. (2022). Electric cargo bikes in urban areas: A new mobility option for private transportation. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 16, 100705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100705

Dekker, P. (2013). Electrification of road transport-An analysis of the economic performance of electric two-wheelers. Utrecht University. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/13022/Thesis%20P.W.K.%20Dekker%2012%20May%202013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

eBicycles. (2025a). How much does an electric bike cost? E-bike price breakdown [2025]. 

https://www.ebicycles.com/how-much-does-an-electric-bike-cost/ 

eBicycles. (2025b). Useful facts & stats of e-bikes [for 2025] + infographic. https://www.ebicycles.com/ebike-facts-statistics/ 

Ebike Canada. (2025). The best electric bikes & scooters in canada for 2025. Ebike Canada. 

https://ebikecanada.com/best-electric-bike-and-scooter/ 

Fishman, E., & Cherry, C. (2016). E-bikes in the Mainstream: Reviewing a Decade of Research. Transport Reviews, 36(1), 72-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1069907

Fukushige, T., Fitch, D. T., & Handy, S. (2021). Factors influencing dock-less E-bike-share mode substitution: Evidence from Sacramento, California. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 99, 102990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102990

Galatoulas, N.-F., Genikomsakis, K. N., & Ioakimidis, C. S. (2020). Spatio-Temporal Trends of E-Bike Sharing System Deployment: A Review in Europe, North America and Asia. Sustainability, 12(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114611

Gössling, S., Choi, A., Dekker, K., & Metzler, D. (2019). The social cost of automobility, cycling and walking in the European Union. Ecological Economics, 158, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.016 

Guidon, S., Becker, H., Dediu, H., & Axhausen, K. W. (2018). Electric bicycle-sharing: A new competitor in the urban transportation market?: An empirical analysis of transaction data. Arbeitsberichte Verkehrs- Und Raumplanung, 1364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.016 

Hanna, J. (2023). Bike Share Toronto 2023 business review.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/pa/bgrd/backgroundfile-240804.pdf 

Helton, J. (2025). Ride with power: The top electric bikes for 2025, as chosen by experts. Road & Track. https://www.roadandtrack.com/gear/lifestyle/g46464030/best-electric-bikes/ 

Huang, Y., Jiang, L., Chen, H., Dave, K., & Parry, T. (2022). Comparative life cycle assessment of electric bikes for commuting in the UK. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 105, 103213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103213 

Innovation Origins. (2023). The booming rise of shared e-bikes in urban mobility. https://innovationorigins.com/en/the-booming-rise-of-shared-e-bikes-in-urban-mobility/ 

International Transport Forum. (2020). Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New Mobility (Corporate Partnership Board). OECD. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/environmental-performance-new-mobility.pdf

Jones, B. (2019). Electric Bike Maintenance Cost. BicycleVolt. https://bicyclevolt.com/electric-bike-maintenance-cost/ 

Koning, M., & Conway, A. (2016). The good impacts of biking for goods: Lessons from Paris city. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 4(4), 259-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2016.08.007

Langford, B. C., Chen, J., & Cherry, C. R. (2015). Risky riding: Naturalistic methods comparing safety behavior from conventional bicycle riders and electric bike riders. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 82, 220-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.05.016

Langford, B. C., Cherry, C. R., Bassett, D. R., Fitzhugh, E. C., & Dhakal, N. (2017). Comparing physical activity of pedal-assist electric bikes with walking and conventional bicycles. Journal of Transport & Health, 6, 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.06.002

Li, Q., Fuerst, F., & Luca, D. (2023). Do shared E-bikes reduce urban carbon emissions? Journal of Transport Geography, 112, 103697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103697

Luxe Digital. (2025). The best electric bikes: upgrade your commute for a sustainable ride. Luxe Digital. 

https://luxe.digital/lifestyle/garage/best-electric-bikes/ 

Matasyan, A. (2015). Technical analysis and market study of electric bicycles. https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/77272?locale-attribute=en 

Mellino, S., Petrillo, A., Cigolotti, V., Autorino, C., Jannelli, E., & Ulgiati, S. (2017). A Life Cycle Assessment of lithium battery and hydrogen-FC powered electric bicycles: Searching for cleaner solutions to urban mobility. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(3), 1830–1840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.10.146 

Mordor Intelligence. (2022). Asia Pacific e-bike market (2017-2029). https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/asia-pacific-e-bike-market

N, A. (2023). Maintenance costs for an electric bike. Bike LVR.

https://bikelvr.com/bikes/e-bikes/maintenance-costs-for-an-electric-bike/ 

de Nazelle, A., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Antó, J., Brauer, M., Briggs, D., Charlotte Braun-Fahrlander, C., Cavill, N., Cooper, A., Desqueyroux, H., Fruin, S., Hoek, G., Panis, L., Janssen, N., Jerrett, M., Joffe, M., Andersen, Z., van Kempen, E., Kingham, S., Kubesch, N., Leyden, K., Marshall, J., Matamala, J., Mellios, G., Mendez, M., Nassif, H., Ogilvie, D., Peiró, R., Pérez, K., Rabl, A., Ragettli, M., Rodríguez, D., Rojas, D., Ruiz, P., Sallis, J., Terwoert, J., Toussaint, J., Tuomisto, J., Zuurbier, M., & Lebret, E. (2011). Improving health through policies that promote active travel: A review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment. Environment International, 37(4), 767-777.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.02.003 

PBSC Urban Solutions. (2022). The Meddin Bike-sharing World Map Report 2022 edition. https://bikesharingworldmap.com/reports/bswm_mid2022report.pdf

Pekow, C. (2024, April 1). E-bikes could cut smog, energy use and congestion globally—But will they? Mongabay Environmental News. https://news.mongabay.com/2024/04/e-bikes-could-cut-smog-energy-use-and-congestion-globally-but-will-they/

Philips, I., Anable, J., & Chatterton, T. (2022). E-bikes and their capability to reduce car CO₂ emissions. Transport Policy, 116, 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.11.019

Platt, S. M., Haddad, I. E., Pieber, S. M., Huang, R.-J., Zardini, A. A., Clairotte, M., Suarez-Bertoa, R., Barmet, P., Pfaffenberger, L., Wolf, R., Slowik, J. G., Fuller, S. J., Kalberer, M., Chirico, R., Dommen, J., Astorga, C., Zimmermann, R., Marchand, N., Hellebust, S., … Prévôt, A. S. H. (2014). Two-stroke scooters are a dominant source of air pollution in many cities. Nature Communications, 5(1), 3749. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4749

Precedence Research. (2024). E-bike market poised for robust expansion | CAGR of 10.16%. 

https://www.precedenceresearch.com/insights/e-bike-market 

Roberts, C. (2023). Diversity in passenger mobility: Where it went and how to bring it back. One Earth, 6(1), 11-13. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.12.008

Roberts, C. (2020). Into a headwind: Canadian cycle commuting and the growth of sustainable practices in hostile political contexts. Energy Research and Social Science, 70. Scopus. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101679

Rodriguez Mendez, Q., Fuss, S., Lück, S., & Creutzig, F. (2024). Assessing global urban CO₂ removal. Nature Cities, 1(6), 413-423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00069-x

Shi, Z., Wang, J., Liu, K., Liu, Y., & He, M. (2024). Exploring the usage efficiency of electric bike-sharing from a spatial–temporal perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 129, 104139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104139 

So, A. (2024). Best electric bikes (2025): Hauling, commuting, mountain biking. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/gallery/best-electric-bikes/ 

Stewart, D., & Ramachandran, K. (2022, March 31). E-bikes merge into the fast lane. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/smart-micromobility-e-bikes.html

Strategic Market Research. (2024). E-bikes statistics and trends 2024. https://www.strategicmarketresearch.com/blogs/e-bikes-statistics 

Summit Bike Share. (2023). Summit bike share end of year report 2023. https://www.summitcountyutah.gov/2415/Summit-Bike-Share 

Teixeira, J. F., Silva, C., & Moura e Sá, F. (2021). Empirical evidence on the impacts of bikesharing: A literature review. Transport Reviews, 41(3), 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1841328

The Freedonia Group. (2024). Global E-Bikes—Market Size, Market Share, Market Leaders, Demand Forecast, Sales, Company Profiles, Market Research, Industry Trends and Companies. The Freedonia Group. https://www.freedoniagroup.com/industry-study/global-e-bikes

Thomas, A. (2022). Electric bicycles and cargo bikes—Tools for parents to keep on biking in auto-centric communities? Findings from a US metropolitan area. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 16(7), 637-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2021.1914787

https://www.ctc-n.org/technologies/promotion-non-motorised-transport

Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2010). Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.006

Wamburu, J., Lee, S., Hajiesmaili, M. H., Irwin, D., & Shenoy, P. (2021). Ride Substitution Using Electric Bike Sharing: Feasibility, Cost, and Carbon Analysis. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., 5(1), 38:1-38:28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3448081

WHO. (2022). Number of registered vehicles. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/number-of-registered-vehicles 

WHO. (2023). Despite notable progress, road safety remains urgent global issue. https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2023-despite-notable-progress-road-safety-remains-urgent-global-issue

World Bank. (2024). World Development Indicators. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0037712/World-Development-Indicators

Weiss, M., Dekker, P., Moro, A., Scholz, H., & Patel, M. K. (2015). On the electrification of road transportation – A review of the environmental, economic, and social performance of electric two-wheelers. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 41, 348-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.007

Yang, Y., Okonkwo, E. G., Huang, G., Xu, S., Sun, W., & He, Y. (2021). On the sustainability of lithium ion battery industry – A review and perspective. Energy Storage Materials, 36, 186-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2020.12.019

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Heather Jones, Ph.D.

  • Cameron Roberts, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Per 1,000 private electric bicycles, approximately 110.5 t CO₂‑eq/yr is offset by displacing trips taken by higher-emission transportation modes such as cars and public transit (Table 1). 

Per 1,000 shared electric bicycles, approximately 14.44 t CO₂‑eq/yr is offset. This lower value is due to the additional emissions produced in the operation of a shared electric-bicycle system (e.g., due to the need to reposition bicycles after they accumulate in some locations while becoming depleted in others). Additionally, other modes of transportation are shifted to shared electric bicycles at different rates than privately owned electric bicycles – notably shifted less from car travel. These factors limit the total GHG emissions reduced per shared electric bicycle.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /1,000 electric bicycles, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 58.87
mean 136.1
median (50th percentile) 110.5
75th percentile 220.5

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /1,000 electric bicycles, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 1.415
mean 14.62
median (50th percentile) 14.44
75th percentile 34.31
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Electric bicycles vary significantly in cost, but generally are more expensive than traditional bicycles due to the cost of batteries, motors, and other electronic components, as well as the need for more durable mechanical components. 

Private electric bicycles cost about US$2,700, plus another few hundred dollars per year in maintenance costs. All told, assuming a 10-year lifespan, electric bicycles cost about US$600/yr to operate . The average privately owned electric bicycle is ridden 2,400 km/yr; since 28.67% of that distance is shifted from car trips, electric bicycles displace approximately 688 pkm/yr traveled by car. Car travel costs US$0.53/pkm while electric bicycle travel costs US$0.25/pkm, meaning every pkm traveled via electric bicycle saves US$0.28. Multiplied over 688 pkm/yr, this translates to every electric bicycle saving its owner approximately US$193/yr in avoided car trips (Bucher et al., 2019; Carracedo & Mostofi, 2022; eBicycles, 2025a; Ebike Canada, 2025; Gössling et al., 2019; Helton, 2025; Huang et al., 2022; International Transport Forum, 2020; Jones, 2019; Luxe Digital, 2025; Mellino et al., 2017; N, 2023; So, 2024; Weiss et al., 2015).

Most of the costs of riding an electric bicycle are up-front costs. As a result, electric bicycle owners who shift more trips from a car onto their electric bicycle will significantly increase their savings. Privately owned electric bicycles save US$1,748 for every t CO₂‑eq they avoid (Table 2).

Shared electric bicycles are more expensive to the system provider than privately owned electric bicycles due to greater needs for infrastructure, maintenance, operating expenses, and services, such as rebalancing. Shared electric bicycles cost US$2.42/pkm and displace an average of 156 pkm/yr from car trips per bicycle. The same distance traveled by car costs US$83, meaning that shared electric bicycles cost an additional US$295/yr compared to traveling the same distance by car (Gössling et al., 2019; Guidon et al., 2018; Hanna, 2023; Matasyan, 2015; Summit Bike Share, 2023). Shared electric bicycles cost US$22,860/t CO₂‑eq avoided due to their higher costs, higher emissions, and the lower chance that riders on shared electric bicycles would otherwise have been traveling by car.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per climate impact.

Unit: US$ (2023) per t CO₂‑eq , 100-year basis

median -1,748

Unit: US$ (2023) per t CO₂‑eq , 100-year basis

median 22,860

*Cost to the provider of the system, not the user

Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Learning rates for electric bicycles are often negative (i.e., prices increase with cumulative production). This is largely because electric bicycle batteries have grown larger over time, causing the bicycles to become more expensive (Dekker, 2013; Weiss et al., 2015). The learning rate per electric bicycle ranges from 15% to –43%(Table 3). This range has improved the general value proposition of electric bicycles, however, since larger batteries enable electric bicycles to go further and faster than before.

To compensate for this, it is useful to calculate the learning rate per kWh battery capacity rather than per bicycle. On this measure, Dekker (2013) calculates a learning rate of 7.9% cost reduction per kWh of electric bicycle battery capacity for every doubling of cumulative production.

These estimates are based on analyses published in 2013 and 2015, respectively, and therefore do not take into account more recent advances in electric bicycle production. More up-to-date research on electric bicycle learning rates is needed to inform future assessments on this topic.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of cumulative electric bicycle production.*

Unit: %

25th percentile -43.50
mean -26.86
median (50th percentile) -36.00
75th percentile 15

* These data are from 2013 and 2015, due to a lack of available research on this topic.

Unit: %

25th percentile
mean
median (50th percentile) 7.90
75th percentile

* These data are from 2013 and 2015, due to a lack of available research on this topic.

Left Text Column Width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Mobilize Electric Bicycles is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Electric bicycles do not only compete with cars for the total passenger transport demand; a given electric bicycle trip might also substitute for public transit. This can sometimes still be beneficial since, as electric bicycles often have lower per-kilometer emissions than public transit vehicles (International Transport Forum, 2020). However, an electric bicycle trip might also substitute for a conventional bicycle trip or for a pedestrian journey, in which case electric bicycle usage would actually increase emissions. Finally, some electric bicycle trips are new journeys, meaning that they would not occur at all if the traveler did not have an electric bicycle, which also increases emissions (Astegiano et al., 2019; Berjisian & Bigazzi, 2019; Bourne et al., 2020; Cairns et al., 2017; Dekker, 2013).

Generally speaking however, electric bicycles still shift enough passenger car trips to make up for this effect, although the scale can be more marginal with shared electric bicycle systems. However, electric bicycles are more likely to substitute more for whichever forms of transportation their users were already using previously (Wamburu et al., 2021). This means that wider adoption of electric bicycles in car-dependent North American suburbs, for example, will have a much clearer and more beneficial climate impact than in a dense, pedestrianized European city center, or in a low-income country where most people do not have access to a car (although in these contexts electric bicycles could still produce major social and economic benefits).

Our estimates of the total adoption ceiling potential of electric bicycles (described in the Adoption section) are based on the ratio of adoption between electric bicycles and cars, on the grounds that each electric bicycle avoids some amount of car travel. However, the relationship is not necessarily quite so simple. Car trips with passengers might require more than one electric bicycle trip to replace them (unless the passengers are children, who can be carried as passengers on electric bicycles). On the other side of the equation, some households own more than one car per person. Having more than one electric bicycle per car would therefore not meaningfully reduce car trips. Lastly, our approach of tracking electric bicycle adoption in relation to car ownership neglects people whose use of an electric bicycle enables them to avoid owning a car at all. Estimates of adoption should be taken as rough guesses, rather than authoritative forecasts.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Private electric bicycles have experienced significant growth since 2015. We estimate there are approximately 278 million private electric bicycles in use in the world today (Table 4). 

Data on this subject typically include throttle-assisted electric bicycles, e-scooter/trotinettes, and sometimes mopeds and motorcycles; these are not included in this solution. Data from China, the highest adopter of electric bicycles, does not usually distinguish between types of electric two-wheelers. For this reason, we used more conservative estimates, preferring to understate adoption than overstate it. We used several global estimates, data on electric bicycle sales in Canada, the United States, and Europe, and stock estimates from the Asia-Pacific region (eBicycles, 2025b; Mordor Intelligence, 2022; Precedence Research, 2024; Stewart & Ramachandran, 2022;, Strategic Market Research, 2024; The Freedonia Group, 2024). To convert from European and American sales data to stocks data, we assumed that all electric bicycles sold over the past 10 years (the lifespan of an electric bicycle) are still in use today. We then calculated the number of electric bicycles per 1,000 people in each of the three regions, used those three values to calculate a population-weighted global mean adoption rate, and multiplied the result by the number of residents of high- and upper-middle income countries worldwide (where we assume most electric bicycle adoption takes place). This calculation provided a global estimate.

Shared electric bicycle schemes now exist in many cities around the world, with at least 2 million shared electric bicycles currently in use as part of electric bicycle sharing systems (eBicycles, 2025b; Innovation Origins, 2023; PBSC Urban Solutions, 2022; Strategic Market Research, 2024). This is a conservative estimate because research published in a reputable academic journal claimed that China has 8.7 million shared electric bicycles in 2022 (Shi et al., 2024). 

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Current (2024) adoption level.

Unit: 1,000 electric bicycles

mean* 277,600

* Population-weighted

Unit: 1,000 electric bicycles

mean* 2,000

* Population-weighted

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Private electric bicycles are being adopted at a rate of about 37 million new bicycles every year (Table 5; eBicycles, 2025b; Mordor Intelligence, 2022; Precedence Research, 2024; Stewart & Ramachandran, 2022; Strategic Market Research, 2024; The Freedonia Group, 2024). Electric bicycles are also attracting interest from consumers who do not normally ride bicycles, including people in rural areas (Philips et al., 2022) and members of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. 

Shared electric bicycles are being added to cities at a rate of approximately 413,000/yr (eBicycles, 2025b; Innovation Origins, 2023; PBSC Urban Solutions, 2022; Strategic Market Research, 2024). Cities and private companies are adding shared electric bicycle systems at a rate of around 30/yr (Galatoulas et al., 2020).Based on these data, we calculate a 37.97% compounding annual growth rate in electric bicycle sharing system installations around the world. 

left_text_column_width

Table 5. 2023–2024 adoption trend.

Unit: 1,000 electric bicycles/yr

25th percentile 34,000
population-weighted mean 37,330
median (50th percentile) 38,000
75th percentile 40,000

Unit: 1,000 electric bicycles/yr

25th percentile
population-weighted mean
median (50th percentile) 412.5
75th percentile
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

Because we model electric bicycles as a solution primarily due to their ability to shift travel from fossil fuel–powered cars, we estimate adoption by reference to the ratio of electric bicycles to cars. This doesn’t mean that people without access to a car won’t use electric bicycles; it means that they are not shifting their pkm from fossil fuel–powered cars and therefore are not included in the calculations of shifting from car to electric bicycle. 

Private electric bicycles’ adoption ceiling (Table 6) would be approximately 2 billion around the world: one for every car (World Health Organization, 2021). This would mean that every motorist has an electric bicycle as a ready alternative to a car.

Shared electric bicycles’ adoption ceiling can be measured similarly, except that we assume these systems are only viable in cities. Therefore, we set the maximum adoption ceiling of shared electric bicycles to be 1.3 billion – the number of cars in cities around the world. we estimated by multiplying the global urban population (4.45 billion) by the global average car registrations per 1,000 people (286.2) (World Health Organization, 2021; World Bank, 2024).

This upper-bound scenario faces many of the same caveats as the upper-bound scenario for the Nonmotorized Transportation solution: It would require a revolution in support for electric bicycles:new infrastructure, new traffic laws, a substantial increase in electric battery production capacity, and major changes to built environments, including increases in population and land-use density to make more journeys feasible by electric bicycle. However, this scenario would require less dramatic change than a similar upper-bound scenario for the Improve Nonmotorized Transportation solution because electric bicycles go faster, have higher carrying capacities, can travel longer distances, and are easier to use than nonmotorized travel modes (Weiss et al., 2015).

A limitation of this analysis is that one electric bicycle per car does not necessarily correspond to one electric bicycle per person traveling in a car. For example, it is possible that replacing one car trip with electric bicycles would result in multiple electric bicycle trips in order to carry multiple passengers. Our estimates should therefore be seen as approximate. 

It is also possible for total electric bicycle adoption and usage to exceed car use (i.e., electric bicycles also replace other modes of transportation or generate new trips). We do not consider this scenario in our adoption ceiling because additional adoption above car adoption would not produce a major climate benefit.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: 1,000 electric bicycles

Adoption ceiling 2,022,000

Unit: 1,000 electric bicycles

Adoption ceiling 1,273,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Private electric bicycles are currently in use across the Asia-Pacific region at a rate of approximately 0.07 electric bicycles for every car. A low achievable adoption rate might see every country in the world achieve this same ratio, which would lead to a global electric bicycle fleet of 421 million (Table 7). For a higher rate of adoption, we posit one electric bicycle in use for every two cars. This would see just more than 1 billion electric bicycles in use worldwide.

Using the median and 75th percentile of the ratio of shared electric bicycles to cars (for which we have data) as the rate of adoption seen in every city in the world leads to 22 to 69 million shared electric bicycles in cities worldwide.

Note: We based these estimates on electric bicycles per car rather than electric bicycles per person because the climate impact of electric bicycle adoption in a given place depends on the availability of cars to replace. 

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: 1,000 electric bicycles

Current Adoption 277,600
Achievable – Low 421,300
Achievable – High 1,011,000
Adoption Ceiling 2,022,000

Unit: 1,000 electric bicycles

Current Adoption 2,000
Achievable – Low 22,010
Achievable – High 69,260
Adoption Ceiling 1,273,000
Left Text Column Width

If every motorist had an electric bicycle they used to replace at least some car trips), it would mitigate 224 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr – equal to the total global carbon emissions produced by cars, minus the emissions that would be produced due to electric bicycles traveling the same distance. If there were one electric bicycle for every two cars, it would avoid 117 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr. And if global electric bicycle adoption reached the rate currently seen in the Asia-Pacific region (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand), it would avoid 47 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 8).

Our Achievable – Low scenario of 22 million shared electric bicycles in cities worldwide would save 284 kt CO₂‑eq/yr. Our Achievable – High scenario of 69.3 million shared electric bicycles worldwide would save 895 kt CO₂‑eq/yr. The maximum possible shared electric bicycle deployment would save approximately 16.6 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr.

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂-eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.0307
Achievable – Low 0.0466
Achievable – High 0.1117
Adoption Ceiling (Physical limit) 0.2235

Unit: Gt CO₂-eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.00002584
Achievable – Low 0.0002844
Achievable – High 0.0008949
Adoption Ceiling (Physical limit) 0.01645
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Health

Electric assistance reduces the physical fitness and other health benefits of cycling. However, electric bicycles still require pedaling, and studies show that this level of effort required can still have substantial health benefits (Berjisian & Bigazzii, 2019; Langford et al., 2017). Electric bicycles can also enable people to cycle who might not otherwise be able to (Bourne et al., 2020). Additionally, electric bicycles can reduce total car traffic, which could reduce the risk of injury and death from car crashes, which kill 1.2 million people annually (WHO, 2023). Similarly, electric bicycles can reduce health impacts of traffic noise (de Nazelle et al., 2011).

Income & Work

In addition to being cheaper than car travel, electric bicycles allow people to travel farther and faster than they could on foot, on a conventional bicycle, or (often) on public transit. These time and money savings provide an economic benefit (Bourne, 2020). 

Air Quality

The fossil fuel–powered vehicles most similar to electric bicycles (motorcycles, scooters, etc.) are extremely polluting (Platt et al., 2014). Substituting electric bicycles for these can substantially reduce air pollution.

Other

Electric bicycles provide quality-of-life benefits for some people who use them (Bourne, 2020; Carracedo & Mostofi, 2022; Teixeira et al., 2022; Thomas, 2022). Electric bicycles can also reduce traffic congestion and save time (Koning & Conway, 2016).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Electric bicycles pose some safety concerns, centering on an ongoing debate over whether electric cyclists ride more recklessly than other cyclists (Fishman & Cherry, 2016; Langford et al., 2015). While electric bicycles have a lower injury rate than conventional bicycles, when injuries do happen during electric bicycle travel the health consequences tend to be more severe due to the higher speed (Berjisian & Bigazzi, 2019). There may also be risks related to the bicycles’ lithium-ion batteries catching fire. Strong regulations can minimize this risk (Pekow, 2024). Improved infrastructure, such as separated bike lanes and paths, can also reduce the safety risks associated with electric bicycles (Roberts, 2020).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Electric bicycles can complement other forms of low-carbon mobility, especially those that reduce dependence on private cars. People who rely on public transit, conventional travel, pedestrian travel, carpools, or other sustainable modes of transportation for some kinds of trips can use electric bicycles to fill in some of the gaps in their personal transportation arrangements (Roberts, 2023). For public transit in particular, electric bicycles can play an important last-mile role, enabling transit riders to more easily access stops. This is important because research suggests that the key to a low-carbon mobility system is to enable people to live high-quality lives without owning cars (Van Acker & Witlox, 2010).

left_text_column_width

Electric bicycles require a lot less space than private cars. If sufficient adoption of electric bicycles and other alternatives to private cars enables a reduction in car lanes, parking spaces, and related infrastructure, then some of this space could be reallocated to ecosystem conservation through revegetation and other land-based methods of GHG sequestration (Rodriguez Mendez et al., 2024). 

left_text_column_width

Competing

Electric bicycles compete with electric and hybrid cars for adoption.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

1,000 electric bicycles

t CO₂-eq/unit
110.5
units
Current 277,600421,3001.01×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0.03 0.050.11
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-1,748
Gradual

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

1,000 electric bicycles

t CO₂-eq/unit
14.44
units
Current 2,00022,01069,260
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 2.58×10⁻⁵ 2.84×10⁻⁴8.95×10⁻⁴
US$ per t CO₂-eq
22,860
Gradual

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

If an electric bicycle replaces primarily car trips, it provides an unambiguous climate benefit. If it replaces public transit, the size of the benefit will depend on the specifics of the public transit system it replaces. If it replaces pedestrian trips or conventional cycling trips, or generates new trips, the net climate benefit is negative. Travel survey data suggest that electric bicycles replace enough car journeys to more than offset any journeys by the more sustainable modes of transportation they replace (Bigazzi & Wong, 2020; Bourne et al., 2020; Cairns et al., 2017; Fukushige et al., 2021). However, electric bicycles in cities that already have very low-carbon mobility systems, or in lower-income countries where car ownership is rare, might have a net negative climate impact. 

Electric bicycles also require batteries, the production and disposal of which generates pollution (Yang et al., 2021). However, electric bicycles require much less battery capacity than many other electrification technologies, such as electric vehicles (Weiss et al., 2015).

left_text_column_width
Mt CO2–eq
0–4
4–8
8–12
12–16
16–20
> 20
No data

Annual road transportation emissions, 2024

Cars are the largest source of road transportation vehicle emissions, which are shown here for urban areas.

Kott, T., Foster, K., Villafane-Delgado, M., Loschen, W., Sicurello, P., Ghebreselassie, M., Reilly, E., and Hughes, M. (2024). Transportation sector - Global road emissions [Data set]. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL), Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved March 12, 2025 from https://climatetrace.org

Mt CO2–eq
0–4
4–8
8–12
12–16
16–20
> 20
No data

Annual road transportation emissions, 2024

Cars are the largest source of road transportation vehicle emissions, which are shown here for urban areas.

Kott, T., Foster, K., Villafane-Delgado, M., Loschen, W., Sicurello, P., Ghebreselassie, M., Reilly, E., and Hughes, M. (2024). Transportation sector - Global road emissions [Data set]. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL), Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved March 12, 2025 from https://climatetrace.org

Geographic Guidance Introduction

Electric bicycle effectiveness in mitigating climate change varies by region, depending on the carbon intensity of the charging electricity, the extent to which they replace higher-emission travel (such as cars, motorcycles, or taxis), and the need and type of vehicle used for rebalancing shared electric bicycles (International Transport Forum, 2020). They are most effective in areas with cleaner electricity grids and where they can substitute for cars. 

Since electric bicycles are more effective when replacing cars, this means that wider adoption of electric bicycles in car-dependent regions, such as North American suburbs, will have a much more significant climate impact than in a dense, pedestrianized European city center or in a low-income country where most people do not have access to a car (although in these contexts electric bicycles could still produce significant social and economic benefits) (Wamburu et al., 2021).

Socio-economic and infrastructural factors play a major role in adoption. These include upfront costs of private electric bicycles, availability and affordability of shared electric bicycles, supportive cycling infrastructure, and policies such as subsidies or rebates. In many countries, electric bicycles increase the accessibility of nonmotorized transport to older adults, people with disabilities, and those commuting longer distances or in hilly areas by reducing physical effort (Bourne et al., 2020).

Future geographic targets for scaling adoption with strong climate and equity outcomes include South and Southeast Asian cities (e.g., Dhaka, Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City) with high trip density, short trip lengths, and growing pollution concerns, all of which make them ideal for adoption. Sub-Saharan African cities (e.g., Kampala, Accra) where electric bicycles could complement or replace informal motorcycle taxis, reducing emissions and improving affordability and safety, are also important targets. North America has potential as both private and shared programs are beginning to expand in urban areas, helped by municipal investment and rising consumer interest.

Action Word
Mobilize
Solution Title
Electric Bicycles
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Establish policies that reduce the associated time, distance, risk, and risk perception for users and potential users.
  • Provide financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for electric bicycle production and purchases.
  • Use targeted financial incentives to assist low-income communities in purchasing electric bicycles and to incentivize manufacturers to produce more affordable options.
  • Develop local bicycle and charging infrastructure, such as building physically separated bicycle lanes.
  • Have locking posts installed in public spaces that can accommodate electric bicycles.
  • Increase maintenance of bicycle infrastructure, such as path clearing.
  • Create international standards for the manufacturing and classification of electric bicycles.
  • Transition fossil fuel electricity production to renewables while promoting the transition to electric bicycles.
  • Offer one-stop shops for information on electric and non-motorized bicycles, including demonstrations and educational resources on cost savings, environmental impact, and maintenance.
  • Set regulations for sustainable use of electric bicycle batteries and improve recycling infrastructure.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure supply chain environmental and human rights standards – particularly, for the production of batteries.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for electric and non-motorized bicycle adoption.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Share your experiences with electric bicycles, providing tips and reasons for choosing this mode of transportation..
  • Participate in local bike groups, public events, and volunteer opportunities.
  • Advocate tor local officials for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives.
  • Provide information and resources to help individuals, households, and business owners take advantage of state and local tax benefits or rebates for electric bicycle purchases.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Advocate for better cycling infrastructure and sharing systems with city officials.
  • Educate customers about local bicycle infrastructure and encourage them to engage public officials.
  • Offer employees who agree to forgo a free parking space the annualized cash value or cost of that parking space as a salary increase.
  • Provide battery recycling services.
  • Offer free classes for electric bicycle maintenance and repair; educate employees about what they should know before purchasing an electric bicycle.
  •  
  • Install locking posts, parking, and security for electric bicycles.
  • Provide adequate onsite storage and charging, create educational materials on best practices for commuting, and offer pre-tax commuter benefits to encourage employee ridership.
  • Encourage electric bicycle use in company fleets by replacing or supplementing vehicles for local deliveries or transiting between office locations.
  • Incorporate electric bicycle programs into company sustainability and emission reduction initiatives;communicate how those programs support broader company goals. 

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Inform the public about the health and environmental benefits of electric bicycles.
  • Educate the public on government incentives for electric bicycles and how to take advantage of them.
  • Provide impartial information on local electric bicycle infrastructure, best practices for maintenance, and factors to consider when renting or buying electric bicycles.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved infrastructure and incentives.
  • Administer public initiatives such as ride-share or buy-back programs.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in electric bicycle companies and start-ups, including battery and component suppliers.
  • Explore investment opportunities that address supply chain issues such as battery suppliers and maintenance providers.
  • Invest in companies conducting R&D to improve electric bicycle performance, decrease the need for materials, and reduce maintenance costs.
  • Invest in public or private electric bicycle sharing systems.
  • Finance electric bicycle purchases via low-interest loans.
  • Invest in charging infrastructure for electric bicycles.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Award grants to local organizations advocating for improved bicycle infrastructure and services.
  • Support access through the distribution or discounting of electric bicycles and help educate community members about relevant incentives.
  • Strengthen local infrastructure and build local capacity for infrastructure design and construction.
  • Ensure that donated bicycles are appropriate for the environment and that recipients have access to maintenance and supplies.
  • Sponsor community engagement programs such as group bike rides or free maintenance classes.
  • Assist with local policy design.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Lead by example and use an electric bicycle as a regular means of transport.
  • Focus public messages on key decision factors for commuters, such as associated health and fitness benefits, climate and environmental benefits, weather forecasts, and traffic information.
  • Showcase principles of safe urban design and highlight dangerous areas.
  • Share detailed information on local bike routes, general electric bicycle maintenance tips, items to consider when purchasing a bike, and related educational information.
  • Collaborate with schools to teach bicycle instruction, including safe riding habits and maintenance tips.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Examine and improve elements of battery design and maintenance.
  • Improve electric bicycle infrastructure design.
  • Improve circularity, repairability, and ease of disassembly for electric bicycles.
  • Increase the physical carrying capacities for users of electric bicycles to facilitate shopping and transporting children, pets, and materials.
  • Improve other variables that increase the convenience, safety, and comfort levels of nonmotorized transportation.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Share your experiences with electric bicycles; provide tips and reasons for choosing this mode of transportation.
  • Participate in local bike groups, public events, and volunteer opportunities.
  • Advocate to employers and local businesses to provide incentives for electric bicycle usage and help start local initiatives.
  • Advocate to local officials for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions: High

When people purchase electric bicycles, they tend to use them often, with many of the trips they take on electric bicycles replacing trips that would otherwise have been taken via private car (Bigazzi & Wong, 2020; Bourne et al., 2020; Cairns et al., 2017; Fukushige et al., 2021). The evidence is similarly conclusive regarding the ability of shared electric bicycles to replace a large number of car trips. However, evidence regarding the carbon benefits of shared electric bicycles is more mixed due to the additional emissions required to run a shared electric-bicycle system.

Berjiisian and Bigazzi (2019) reviewed much of the literature on electric bicycles. and found that electric bicycle trips are shifted from car trips (44%) and transit trips (12%) providing significant emissions benefits. Other net benefits include less travel by cars, lower GHG emissions and more physical activity. “E-bike adoption is expected to provide net benefits in the forms of reduced motor vehicle travel, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and increased physical activity. A little more than half of e-bike trips are expected to shift travel from motor vehicles (44% car trips and 12% transit trips), which is sufficient to provide significant emissions benefits.”

Weiss et al. (2015) surveyed evidence of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of electric bicycles. They found that electric bicycles are more efficient and less polluting than cars. They reduce exposure to pollution as their environmental impacts come mainly from being produced and the electricity that they use, both of which are usually outside of urban areas.

Philips et al. (2022) investigated the potential for electric bicycles to replace car trips in the UK. Their geospatial model provided a good indication of what might be possible in other places and showed that electric bicycles have considerable potential in rural areas as well as urban ones. 

Li et al. (2023) reported that based on the mix of mode share replaced, shared electric bicycle trips decreased carbon emissions by 108–120 g/km carbon emissions than fossil fuel-powered cars per kilometer.”

This research is biased toward high-income countries. While there is substantial research on electric bicycles in China, that country often considers e-scooters (which do not have pedals) and throttle-assisted electric bikes as interchangeable with pedelecs electric bicycles. This made it hard to include Chinese research in our analysis. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research harmonization and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions in the future.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Enhance Public Transit

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Transportation
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift to Alternatives
Image
Train with city in the distance
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Enhance Public Transit solution as increasing the use of any form of passenger transportation that uses publicly available vehicles (e.g., buses, streetcars, subways, commuter trains, and ferries) operating along fixed routes. It does not include increasing the use of publicly available forms of transportation without fixed routes, such as taxis, except when these transport options supplement a larger public transit system (for example, to help passengers with disabilities). It also does not include increasing the use of vehicles traveling over long distances, such as intercity trains, intercity buses, or aircraft. The cost per climate unit is the cost to the transit provider, not the passenger.

Income & work,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Air quality
Overview

Public transit vehicles are far more fuel-efficient – and thus less GHG-intensive – on a per-pkm basis than fossil fuel–powered cars. Diesel-powered buses emit fewer GHGs/pkm than cars because of their much higher occupancy. Electric buses further reduce GHG emissions (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018), as do forms of public transit that already run on electricity. Finally, a fleet of large, centralized public transit vehicles operating along fixed routes is usually easier to electrify than a fleet of fossil fuel–powered cars. 

Enhancing public transit to reduce emissions from transportation relies on two processes. First is increasing the modal share of existing public transit networks by encouraging people to travel by public transit rather than car. This requires building new public transit capacity while also overcoming political, sociocultural, economic, and technical hurdles. Second is improving the emissions performance of public transit networks through electrification and efficiency improvements. We accommodate the latter in this solution by assuming that all shifted trips to buses are electric buses.

These two processes are linked in complex ways. For example, construction of the new public transit networks needed to accommodate additional demand creates an opportunity to install low-carbon vehicles and infrastructures, and bringing additional passengers onto an underused public transit network generates close to zero additional GHG emissions. However, since these complexities are difficult to calculate, we assume that all increases in public transit ridership are supported by a linear increase in capacity.

Buses, trains, streetcars, subways, and other public-transit vehicles predate cars. During the 19th century, most cities developed complex and efficient networks of streetcars and rail that carried large numbers of passengers (Norton, 2011; Schrag, 2000). As a result, it’s clear that a good public transit network can provide for the basic mobility needs of most people, and can therefore substitute for most – if not all – transportation that fossil fuel–powered cars currently provide. Today, public transit networks worldwide already collectively deliver trillions of pkm, not only in big cities but also in small towns and rural areas. 

We identified several different types of public transit:

Buses

Low-capacity vehicles running on rubber tires on roads. Buses in the baseline are a mix of diesel and electric. For the purposes of this solution, we assume that all buses serving shifted trips are electric.

Trams or streetcars

Mid-capacity vehicles running on steel rails that for at least part of their routes run on roads with traffic, rather than in a dedicated rail corridor or tunnel.

Metros, subways, or light rail

High-capacity urban train systems using their own dedicated right-of-way that may or may not be underground.

Commuter rail

Large trains running mostly on the surface designed to bring large numbers of commuters from the suburbs into the core of a city that often overlap with regional or intercity rail.

Other modes

Ferries, cable cars, funiculars, and other forms of public transit that generally play a marginal role.

We assessed all modes together rather than individually because public transit relies on the interactions among different vehicles to maximize the reach, speed, and efficiency of the system. Public transit reduces emissions of CO₂,  methane, and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere by replacing fuel-powered cars, which emit these gases from their tailpipes. Some diesel-powered buses in regions that have low quality diesel emit black carbon. The black carbon global annual total emissions from transportation is negligible compared with carbon emissions and is therefore not quantified in our study. 

References

American Public Transit Association. (2020). Economic impact of public transportation investment – American Public Transportation Association. https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/research-reports/economic-impact-of-public-transportation-investment/

American Public Transit Association. (2021). National Transit Database Tables. American Public Transportation Association. https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit-statistics/ntd-data-tables/

Beaudoin, J., Farzin, Y. H., & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. C. (2015). Public transit investment and sustainable transportation: A review of studies of transit’s impact on traffic congestion and air quality. Research in Transportation Economics, 52, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.004

Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2018). Electric buses in cities: Driving towards cleaner air and lower CO₂ .

Börjesson, M., Fung, C. M., & Proost, S. (2020). How rural is too rural for transit? Optimal transit subsidies and supply in rural areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 88, 102859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102859

Borck, R. (2019). Public transport and urban pollution. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 77, 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2019.06.005

Brown, A. E. (2017). Car-less or car-free? Socioeconomic and mobility differences among zero-car households. Transport Policy, 60, 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.09.016

Brunner, H., Hirz, M., Hirschberg, W., & Fallast, K. (2018). Evaluation of various means of transport for urban areas. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 8(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0149-0

Christensen, L., & Vázquez, N. S. (2013). Post-harmonised European National Travel Surveys. Proceedings from the Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University, 20(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.td.v1i1.5701

Department for Transport. (2024). Transport Statistics Finder: Interactive Dashboard. Department for Transport. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMGE2YTQ5YTMtMDkwNC00MjBmLWFkNjUtMjBjZjUzZWU0ZjNmIiwidCI6IjI4Yjc4MmZiLTQxZTEtNDhlYS1iZmMzLWFkNzU1OGNlNzEzNiIsImMiOjh9

Ecke, L. (2023, December 19). German Mobility Panel—Startseite (KIT) [Text]. Lisa Ecke. https://mobilitaetspanel.ifv.kit.edu/english/

Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Summary of Travel Trends: 2022 National Household Travel Survey. US Department of Transportation. https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2022/pub/2022_NHTS_Summary_Travel_Trends.pdf

Goel, D., & Gupta, S. (2017). The Effect of Metro Expansions on Air Pollution in Delhi. The World Bank Economic Review, 31(1), 271–294. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhv056

Gouldson, A., Sudmant, A., Khreis, H., & Papargyropoulou, E. (2018). The Economic and Social Benefits of Low-Carbon Cities: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. https://urbantransitions.global/en/publication/the-economic-and-social-benefits-of-low-carbon-cities-a-systematic-review-of-the-evidence/

Guo, S., & Chen, L. (2019). Can urban rail transit systems alleviate air pollution? Empirical evidence from Beijing. Growth and Change, 50(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12266

Health Affairs. (2021). Public Transportation in the U.S. RWJF. https://www.rwjf.org/content/rwjf-web/us/en/insights/our-research/2021/07/public-transportation-in-the-us-a-driver-of-health-and-equity.html

Hemmat, W., Hesam, A. M., & Atifnigar, H. (2023). Exploring noise pollution, causes, effects, and mitigation strategies: A review paper. European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, 1(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejtas.2023.1(5).86

Ilie, N., Iurie, N., Alexandr, M., & Vitalie, E. (2014). Rehabilitation of the tram DC traction with modern power converters. 2014 International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE), 704–709. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEPE.2014.6970000

International Transport Forum. (2020). Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New Mobility (Corporate Partnership Board). OECD. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/environmental-performance-new-mobility.pdf

IPCC. (2023). Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation—IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/renewable-energy-sources-and-climate-change-mitigation/

Kennedy, C. A. (2002). A comparison of the sustainability of public and private transportation systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area. Transportation, 29(4), 459–493. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016302913909

Kuminek, T. (2013). Energy Consumption in Tram Transport. Logistics and Transport. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Energy-Consumption-in-Tram-Transport-Kuminek/2aa2d97130a8e51ea7f64913c2065e8437126774

Lim, L. K., Muis, Z. A., Hashim, H., Ho, W. S., & Idris, M. N. M. (2021). Potential of Electric Bus as a Carbon Mitigation Strategies and Energy Modelling: A Review. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 89, 529–534. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2189089

Lovasi, G. S., Treat, C. A., Fry, D., Shah, I., Clougherty, J. E., Berberian, A., Perera, F. P., & Kioumourtzoglou, M.-A. (2023). Clean fleets, different streets: Evaluating the effect of New York City’s clean bus program on changes to estimated ambient air pollution. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 33(3), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-022-00454-5

Litman, T. (2024). Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2014). Fear and safety in transit environments from the women’s perspective. Security Journal, 27(2), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.9

Mahmoud, M., Garnett, R., Ferguson, M., & Kanaroglou, P. (2016). Electric buses: A review of alternative powertrains. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.019

Martinez, D., Mitnik, O., Salgado, E., Yãnez-Pagans, P., & Scholl, L. (2020). Connecting to Economic Opportunity: The Role of Public Transport in Promoting Women’s Employment in Lima | Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41996-019-00039-9

Mees, P. (2010). Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age. Earthscan.

Norton, P. D. (2011). Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. MIT Press.

Ortiz, F. (2002). Biodiversity, the City, and Sprawl. Boston University Law Review, 82(1), 145–194.

Padeiro, M., Louro, A., & da Costa, N. M. (2019). Transit-oriented development and gentrification: A systematic review. Transport Reviews, 39(6), 733–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1649316

Prieto-Curiel, R., & Ospina, J. P. (2024). The ABC of mobility. Environment International, 185, 108541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108541

Qi, Y., Liu, J., Tao, T., & Zhao, Q. (2023). Impacts of COVID-19 on public transit ridership. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 12(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2021.11.003

Rodrigues, A. L. P., & Seixas, Sonia. R. C. (2022). Battery-electric buses and their implementation barriers: Analysis and prospects for sustainability. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 51, 101896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101896

Rodriguez Mendez, Q., Fuss, S., Lück, S., & Creutzig, F. (2024). Assessing global urban CO₂ removal. Nature Cities, 1(6), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00069-x

Serulle, N. U., & Cirillo, C. (2016). Transportation needs of low income population: A policy analysis for the Washington D.C. metropolitan region. Public Transport, 8(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-015-0119-2

Schaller, B. (2017). Unsustainable? The Growth of App-Based Ride Services and Traffic, Travel and the Future of New York City. Schaller Consulting.

Schrag, Z. M. (2000). “The Bus Is Young and Honest”: Transportation Politics, Technical Choice, and the Motorization of Manhattan Surface Transit, 1919-1936. Technology and Culture, 41(1), 51–79.

Sertsoz, M., Kusdogan, S., & Altuntas, O. (2013). Assessment of Energy Efficiencies and Environmental Impacts of Railway and Bus Transportation Options. In I. Dincer, C. O. Colpan, & F. Kadioglu (Eds.), Causes, Impacts and Solutions to Global Warming (pp. 921–931). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7588-0_48

Statistics Netherlands. (2024, July 4). Mobility; per person, personal characteristics, modes of travel and regions [Webpagina]. Statistics Netherlands. https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/figures/detail/84709ENG

Swanstrom, T., Winter, W., & Wiedlocher, L. (2010). The Impact of Increasing Funding for Public Transit. https://librarysearch.adelaide.edu.au/discovery/fulldisplay/alma9928308820601811/61ADELAIDE_INST:UOFA

Tayal, D., & Mehta, A. (2021). Working Women, Delhi Metro and Covid-19: A Case Study in Delhi-NCR | The Indian Journal of Labour Economics. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41027-021-00313-1?fromPaywallRec=true

UITP. (2024). A global analysis of transit data. CityTransit Data. https://citytransit.uitp.org

US Department of Transportation. (2010). Public transportation’s role in responding to climate change. US Department of Transportation. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange2010.pdf

Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2010). Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.006

Venter, C., Jennings, G., Hidalgo, D., & Pineda, A. (2017). The equity impacts of bus rapid transit: A review of the evidence and implications for sustainable transport: International Journal of Sustainable Transportation: Vol 12 , No 2—Get Access. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15568318.2017.1340528

Xiao, C., Goryakin, Y., & Cecchini, M. (2019). Physical Activity Levels and New Public Transit: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(3), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.10.022

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Cameron Roberts

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows

  • James Gerber

  • Yusuf Jameel 

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Heather Jones

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda Smith

  • Tina Swanson

Effectiveness

Our calculations suggest that an efficiently designed public transit system using the best available vehicle technologies (especially battery-electric buses) would save 58.26 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm (0.000058 t CO₂‑eq /pkm) on a 100-yr basis compared with fossil fuel–powered cars, in line with the estimates by other large transportation focused organizations (International Transport Forum, 2020; US Department of Transportation, 2010). This number is highly sensitive to public transit vehicle occupancy, which we estimated using the most recent available data (American Public Transit Association, 2021). Increasing the number of trips taken via public transit would likely increase occupancy, although ideally not to the point of passenger discomfort. This elevated ridership would significantly reduce public transit’s pkm emissions.

To arrive at this figure, we first estimated the emissions of fossil fuel–powered cars as 115 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm (0.000115 t/pkm, 100-yr basis). We then separately calculated the emissions of commuter rail, metros and subways, trams and light rail systems, and electric buses. We used data on the modal share of different vehicles within public transit systems around the world (although much of the available data are biased towards systems in the United States and Europe) to determine what each transit system’s emissions would be per million pkm given our per-million-pkm values for different transit vehicles (UITP, 2024). The median of these city-level values is 58 t CO₂‑eq /pkm (0.000058 t/pkm, 100-yr basis). Subtracting this value from the per-pkm emissions for cars gives us the public transit GHG savings figure cited above. Note that none of these values includes embodied emissions (such as emissions from producing cars, buses, trains, roads, etc.), or upstream emissions (such as those from oil refineries).

Pessimistic assumptions regarding the emissions and occupancy of public transit vehicles, and optimistic assumptions about emissions from cars, can suggest a much more marginal climate benefit from public transit (see the 25th percentile row in Table 1). In most cases, however, well-managed public transit is likely to produce a meaningful climate benefit. Such an outcome will depend on increasing the average occupancy of vehicles, which faces a challenge because transit has seen declining occupancies since the COVID-19 pandemic (Qi et al., 2023). For this reason, encouraging additional use of public transit networks without expanding these networks can have an outsized impact because it will allow the substitution of fossil fuel–powered car trips by trips on public transit vehicles for which emissions would not change meaningfully as a result of adding passengers.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/million pkm, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.127
mean 61.76
median (50th percentile) 58.27
75th percentile 106.7

The extremely large range of values between the 25th and 75th percentile is the result of 1) the large diversity of public transit systems in the world and 2) multiplying multiple layers of uncertainty (e.g., varying estimates for occupancy, energy consumption per vehicle kilometer (vkm), percent of pkm reliant on buses vs. trains).

Left Text Column Width
Cost

Under present-day public transit costs and revenues, it costs the transit provider US$0.23 to transport a single passenger one kilometer. In comparison, travel by car costs the consumer US$0.42/pkm. On a per passenger basis, for the transit provider, public transit is almost 50% cheaper than car transportation, costing US$0.20/pkm less. Combined with the emissions reductions from using public transit, this means that the emissions reductions from shifting people out of cars onto public transit has a net negative cost, saving US$3,300/t CO₂‑eq mitigated (Table 2). 

This figure includes all relevant direct costs for travel by public transit and by car, including the costs of infrastructure, operations, vehicle purchase, and fuel. It does not include external costs, such as medical costs resulting from car crashes. Capital costs (i.e., the large fixed costs of building public transit infrastructure) are accounted for via the annualized capital costs listed in public transit agencies’ financial reports. 

A very large proportion of the total costs of providing public transit is labor (e.g., wages for bus drivers and station attendants). This cost is unlikely to come down as a result of technological innovations (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018).

For an individual passenger, however, the marginal costs of public transit (i.e., the fares they pay) can sometimes be higher than the marginal costs of driving. This is in large part due to many external costs of driving which are borne by society at large (Litman, 2024). However, increasing the public transit availability would likely increase occupancy, which would in turn drive costs down.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

median -3300

Transit provider cost, not passenger cost.

Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Public transit is a largely mature technology with limited opportunities for radical cost-saving innovation. While our research did not find any papers reporting a learning curve in public transit as a whole, battery-electric buses are in fact subject to many of the same experience effects of other battery-electric vehicles. Although there are no studies assessing declines in the cost of electric buses as a whole, there are studies assessing learning curves for their batteries, which is the most costly component. The cost of batteries used in battery-electric buses has declined 19.25% with each doubling of installed capacity (Table 3).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed solution base.

Unit: %

25th percentile 18.63
mean 19.25
median (50th percentile) 19.25
75th percentile 19.88

This applies only to the cost of batteries in electric buses, not to public transportation as a whole.

Left Text Column Width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Enhance Public Transit is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Public transit competes for passengers not just with cars, but also with other transportation modes – some of which have lower emissions on average. If an increase in public transit’s modal share comes at the expense of nonmotorized transportation (i.e., pedestrian travel or cycling), or electric bicycles, this will result in a net increase in emissions. Similarly, public transit could generate additional trips that would not have occurred if the public transit network those trips were taken on did not exist. Under this scenario, a net increase in emissions would occur; however, these new trips might bring additional social benefits that would outweigh these new emissions.

Low occupancy could also diminish the climate benefit of enhancing public transit. While it is certainly possible to build effective and efficient public transit networks in suburban and rural areas, there is a risk that such networks could have high per-pkm GHG emissions if they have low average occupancy (Mees, 2010). It is therefore important to efficiently plan public transit networks, ensure vehicles are right-sized and have efficient powertrains, and promote high levels of ridership even in rural areas to maximize the climate benefit of these kinds of networks.

Upscaling public transit networks – and, crucially, convincing more motorists to use them – is an enduring challenge that faces cultural resistance in some countries, issues with cost, and sometimes a lack of political will. Successfully enhancing public transit will require that these hurdles are overcome.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

In cities around the world surveyed over the last 15 years, public transit has an average modal share of approximately 26.2% of trips. In comparison, fossil fuel–powered cars account for 51.4% of all trips, while nonmotorized transportation accounts for 22.4% (Prieto-Curiel & Ospina, 2024). The 26.2% of trips taken via public transit corresponds to approximately 16.7 trillion pkm traveled on public transit in cities every year (Table 4).

These numbers are calculated from modal share data (i.e., the percentage of trips in a given city that are taken via various modes of transportation). We estimated total pkm traveled by assuming a global average daily distance traveled, using travel surveys from the United States as well as several European countries (Christensen & Vázquez, 2013; Department for Transport, 2024; Ecke, 2023; Federal Highway Administration, 2022; Statistics Netherlands, 2024). We used Prieto-Curiel and Ospina’s (2024) global population-weighted mean modal share as our global adoption value. The other statistical measures in Table 4 reflect the distribution of estimates drawn from the literature, most of which do not account for population, and therefore give too much weight to small cities, skewing the results. 

We assumed that Prieto-Curiel and Ospina’s data refers only to urban modal share. While the database does include some small towns and rural areas, most of the modal share data we found comes from cities. Public transit can be useful in rural areas (Börjesson et al, 2020), but we did not attempt to estimate rural public transit adoption in this assessment .

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Current (2024) adoption level.

Unit: million pkm/yr 

25th percentile 512,900
Population-weighted mean 16,720,000
median (50th percentile) 5,106,000
75th percentile 15,080,000

We used the population-weighted mean calculated by Prieto-Curiel and Ospina (2024) as our authoritative estimate to carry forward to other calculations.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Based on data from Prieto-Curiel and Ospina (2024) and the UITP (2024) for 1,097 cities worldwide, the rate of adoption of public transit has not changed since 2010, with the median annual growth rate equal to 0 (Table 5). This was calculated using all of the cities in Prieto-Curiel and Ospina’s (2024) database for which modal share data exist.

Despite the lack of a global trend in public transit use, some cities, including Amsterdam, Edinburgh, and Leeds, report double-digit growth rates in the use of public transit.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. 2023–2024 adoption trend.

Unit: million pkm/yr

25th percentile -697,100
mean 71,490
median (50th percentile) 0.00
75th percentile 1,791,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

Public transit could theoretically replace all trips currently undertaken by fossil fuel–powered cars. This would amount to 75 trillion pkm on public transit annually, worldwide (Table 6). This would not be feasible to achieve in practice, as it would require construction of new public transit vehicles and infrastructure on an unfeasibly large scale, and massive changes to living patterns for many people. It would also be much more expensive than we calculated above, because such a change would require extending public transit coverage into areas where it would be highly uneconomic. Public transit is capable of providing a good transportation option in rural areas, but there is a limit to its benefits when population densities are low even by rural standards. Even in cities, this scenario would require a radical redesign of some neighborhoods to prioritize public transit. Such large public transit coverage would also inevitably shift other modes of transportation, such as pedestrian travel and cycling, leading to an even higher pkm total than that suggested by current adoption of fossil fuel–powered cars.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: million pkm/yr

median (50th percentile) 75,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The achievable range of public transit adoption is 22.2–41.9 trillion pkm traveled by public transit in cities globally.

To estimate the upper bound of achievable adoption, we assumed that urban trips taken by fossil fuel–powered car (currently 51.4% of trips globally) can be shifted to public transit until public transit increases to 76.6% of trips (the current highest modal share of public transit in any city with a population of more than 1 million) or until car travel decreases to 12.0% of trips (the current lowest modal share of fossil fuel–powered cars in any city with a population of more than 1 million). This equals a shift of 25.2 trillion pkm from fossil fuel–powered car travel to public transit, which, added to present-day public transit trips (16.7 trillion trips/yr), equals 41.9 trillion pkm/yr (Table 7).

To set the lower bound, we performed the same calculation as above, but on a regional basis, adding up all the resultant modal shifts to get a global figure. For example, every northern European city might reach the public transit modal share of London (44.5% of trips), while every South Asian city might reach that of Mumbai (52.0% of trips). Having done that, we then added together the public transit adoption rates from all world regions, apart from three (Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia) for which we did not find any modal share data. This corresponds to a shift of 5.5 trillion pkm/yr from cars to public transit, and a total achievable public transit adoption rate of 22.2 trillion pkm/yr.

Achieving both of these levels of adoption would require not only major investments in expanding public transit networks, but also major changes in how cities are planned so as to allow more areas to be effectively served by transit. These levels of adoption would also require overcoming cultural and political resistance to abandoning cars in favor of public modes. However, unlike the scenario discussed under Adoption Ceiling, these scenarios are feasible, since they are based on real achievements by cities around the world.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Current Adoption 16,720,000
Achievable – Low 21,980,000
Achievable – High 41,910,000
Adoption Ceiling 75,000,000
Left Text Column Width

If all public transit trips were taken by fossil fuel–powered cars instead of by public transit, they would result in an additional 0.97 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of emissions (Table 8).

The global potential climate impact of enhancing public transit, if all car trips were shifted onto public transit systems, is 4.37 Gt. As discussed under Adoption Ceiling, this is an unrealistic scenario.

In a more realistic scenario, if every city in the world shifted car traffic onto public transit until it reached the public transit modal share of Hong Kong (i.e., the high estimate of achievable adoption), it would save 2.44 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr globally. Meanwhile, if every city shifts car trips to public transit until it reaches the car modal share of the region’s least car-dependent city (i.e., the low estimate of achievable adoption), it would save 1.28 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.97
Achievable – Low 1.28
Achievable – High 2.44
Adoption Ceiling 4.37
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Air Quality

GHG emissions from transportation are often emitted with other harmful air pollutants. Consequently, reducing fuel consumption by replacing transport by fossil fuel–powered cars with public transit can lead to cleaner air. The scale of this benefit varies by location and is influenced by differences in emission levels between private and public transit travels and the relative demand substitutability between modes (Beaudoin et al., 2015). For U.S. cities, significant investment in public transit could cut pollution around 1.7% on average (Borck, 2019). The benefits are more significant in low- and middle-income countries, where fossil fuel–powered cars are more polluting due to lenient air quality regulations (Goel & Gupta, 2017; Guo & Chen, 2019).

Health Benefits

Improved air quality due to enhanced public transit has direct health benefits, such as lowering cardiovascular disease risk, and secondary health benefits, such as increased physical activity (Xiao et al., 2019), fewer traffic-related injuries, lower rates of cancer, and enhanced access to health-care facilities and nutritious food (Gouldson et al., 2018; Health Affairs, 2021).

Equality

Limited access to transportation restricts labor participation, particularly for women. Expanding public transit can foster gender equity by improving women’s access to employment opportunities. For example, in Peru expansion of public transit has led to improvements in women’s employment and earnings (Martinez et al., 2020). Similarly, in India, the extension of the light rail system in Delhi has increased women’s willingness to commute for work (Tayal & Mehta, 2021).

Public transit enhances community connectivity by providing accessible transportation options. Expanded mobility allows individuals to reach employment, health-care, education, and recreational sites with greater ease, heightening social inclusion. The social equity benefits of public transit are especially significant for low-income people in terms of time and cost savings and safety and health benefits (Serulle & Cirillo, 2016; Venter et al., 2017). 

Income & Work

Investment in enhancing public transit can also generate substantial economic returns. The APTA estimated that each US$1 billion invested in transit can create 49,700 jobs and yield a five-to-one economic return (APTA, 2020). According to another study, shifting 50% of highway funds to mass transit systems in 20 U.S. metropolises could generate more than 1 million new transit jobs within five years (Swanstrom et al., 2010). 

Nature Protection

An indirect benefit of enhanced public transit is its contribution to reducing resource consumption, such as the minerals used in manufacturing personal vehicles. Enhanced public transit can also improve land-use efficiency by curbing urban sprawl, which helps reduce pollution and limit biodiversity loss (Ortiz, 2002). 

left_text_column_width
Risks

If expanded service on high-quality public transit systems replaced journeys from nonmotorized transportation or electric bicycles rather than from cars – or if expanded service on high-quality public transit systems generated journeys that would not have otherwise happened – this will have a net-negative climate impact, since public transit has higher per-pkm GHG emissions than electric bicycles or not traveling (International Transport Forum, 2020). 

There may be cases where public transit networks cannot be implemented efficiently enough to provide a meaningful benefit compared to fossil fuel–powered cars in terms of GHG emissions. This would occur in places where there are so few potential riders that most trips would have a very low occupancy. The result would be a much higher rate of emissions per pkm. However, effective public transit networks can be built in suburban and even rural areas (Börjesson et al., 2020; Mees, 2010).

Finally, expanding public transit networks has proven very difficult in recent years. Entrenched preferences for car travel, reluctance on the part of governments to invest heavily in new transit infrastructure, and local political challenges over land use, noise, gentrification, and similar issues are all obstacles to increased public transit use. Public transit expansion has faced stronger headwinds in recent years in particular, due to both the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and competition from new (and mostly less sustainable) mobility services, such as app-based ride-hailing (Shaller, 2017).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

For people living without cars, public transit provides a crucial service that is hard to replace for certain kinds of trips, such as trips over long distances, with small children, or carrying large objects. As a result, public transit plays a large role in making it more viable for people to live without owning a car (Brown, 2017). Research suggests that the key to a low-carbon mobility system is to reduce the need for people to own cars altogether (Van Acker & Witlox, 2010).

left_text_column_width

Public transit requires a lot less space than cars. Some of this space could be reallocated to ecosystem conservation through revegetation and other land-based methods of GHG sequestration (Rodriguez Mendez et al., 2024).

left_text_column_width

Competing 

Electric cars and public transit compete for pkm. Consequently, increased use of public transit could reduce kilometers traveled using electric cars. 

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

million passenger kilometers (million pkm)

t CO₂-eq/unit/yr
58.27
units/yr
Current 1.67×10⁷2.2×10⁷4.19×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0.97 1.282.44
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-3,300
Gradual

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

Public transit vehicles are sometimes unsafe, particularly for vulnerable groups such as women (Loukaitou-Sideris, 2014). In some circumstances – although this remains controversial – new public transit routes can also lead to gentrification of neighborhoods, forcing people to move far away from city centers and use cars for travel (Padeiro et al., 2019). 

Expansion of public transit networks could also have negative consequences in areas directly adjacent to transit infrastructure. Diesel buses create air pollution (Lovasi et al., 2022), and public transit networks of all types can create noise pollution (Hemmat et al., 2023).

left_text_column_width
Population (millions)
1
10
30
Active Mobility
Public Transport
Private Cars

Primary mode of transport

Mapping the primary mode of transportation reveals mobility patterns and opportunities to shift travel toward lower-emitting modes.

Prieto-Curiel, R. and Ospina, Juan P. (2024). The ABC of mobility [Data set]. Environmental International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108541. Retrieved May 9, 2025 from https://github.com/rafaelprietocuriel/ModalShare/tree/main

Population (millions)
1
10
30
Active Mobility
Public Transport
Private Cars

Primary mode of transport

Mapping the primary mode of transportation reveals mobility patterns and opportunities to shift travel toward lower-emitting modes.

Prieto-Curiel, R. and Ospina, Juan P. (2024). The ABC of mobility [Data set]. Environmental International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108541. Retrieved May 9, 2025 from https://github.com/rafaelprietocuriel/ModalShare/tree/main

Geographic Guidance Introduction

Public transit is most effective in urban areas with high population density, where buses, subways, trams, and commuter rail can efficiently carry large numbers of passengers. Electrified or low-emission transit modes achieve the greatest climate impact, especially in regions with clean electricity grids (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018). However, even diesel-based public transit systems can outperform fossil fuel-powered cars on a per-pkm basis if they have high ridership and operate efficiently.

Socioeconomic and political factors, including investment capacity, institutional coordination, and public perceptions of reliability, safety, and comfort, highly influence the adoption and effectiveness of public transit. Regions with well-funded public infrastructure, integrated fare systems, and strong governance tend to have the highest adoption and climate benefits. Conversely, underinvestment, informal transit dominance, or poorly maintained systems can undermine public transit’s potential (Börjesson et al., 2020; Mees, 2010).

High public transit adoption is seen in Western and Northern Europe, Post-Soviet countries, East Asia (including Japan, South Korea, and China), and some Latin American cities, like Bogotá and Santiago. In contrast, many developing regions face barriers to public transit expansion, such as inadequate funding, urban sprawl, or a reliance on informal minibus systems. However, these same areas offer some of the highest potential for impact. Rapid urbanization, growing demand for mobility, and severe air quality challenges create strong incentives to expand and modernize transit networks.

Action Word
Enhance
Solution Title
Public Transit
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Use public transit and create incentive programs for government employees to use public transit.
  • Improve and invest in local public transit infrastructure, increasing routes and frequency while improving onboard safety, especially for women.
  • Electrify public buses, vans, and other vehicles used in the public transit system.
  • Implement the recommendations of transit-oriented development, such as increasing residential and commercial density, placing development near stations, and ensuring stations are easily accessible.
  • Provide online information, ticketing, and payment services.
  • Implement regional or nationwide public transit ticketing systems.
  • Consider a wide range of policy options that include demand-side options, such as free fare or fare reductions, and that are informed by citizen-centered approaches.
  • Create dedicated coordinating bodies across government agencies, businesses, and the public to develop public transit.
  • Disincentivize car trips in areas serviced by public transit through reduced access, increases in parking fares, congestion charges, taxes, or other means.
  • Incorporate social signaling in public transit information and signage, such as smiley faces and “sustainable transport” labels.
  • Develop public transit awareness campaigns – starting from early childhood – focusing on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and lifestyle sustainability.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Use public transit and create incentive programs for government employees to utilize public transit.
  • Increase routes and frequency while also improving onboard safety, especially for women.
  • Electrify public buses, vans, and other vehicles used in the public transit system.
  • Incorporate social signaling in public transit information and signage, such as smiley faces and “sustainable transport” labels.
  • Provide online information, ticketing, and payment services
  • Implement regional or nationwide public transit ticketing systems.
  • Consider a wide range of policy options that include demand-side options, such as free fare or fare reductions, and that are informed through citizen-centered approaches.
  • Create dedicated coordinating bodies across government agencies, businesses, and the public to develop public transit.
  • Develop public transit awareness campaigns – starting from early childhood – focusing on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and a sustainable lifestyle.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Use public transit and encourage employees to do so when feasible.
  • Encourage public transit use for company purposes.
  • Offer employees who agree to forego a free parking space the annualized cash value or cost of that parking space as a salary increase.
  • Incorporate company policies on public transit use into company sustainability and emission reduction initiatives and communicate how they support broader company goals.
  • Ensure your business is accessible via public transit and offer information on nearest access points both online and in person.
  • Offer employees pre-tax commuter benefits to include reimbursement for public transit expenses.
  • Create and distribute educational materials for employees on commuting best practices.
  • Partner with, support, and/or donate to infrastructure investments and public transit awareness campaigns.
  • Advocate for better public transit systems with city officials.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Use public transit and encourage staff to do so when feasible.
  • Offer staff pre-tax commuter benefits to include reimbursement for public transit expenses.
  • Offer employees who agree to forego a free parking space the annualized cash value or cost of that parking space as a salary increase.
  • Expand access to underserved communities by providing fare assistance through microgrants and/or public-private partnerships.
  • Create, support, or partner with existing public transit awareness campaigns that – starting from early childhood – focus on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and a sustainable lifestyle.
  • Ensure your office is accessible via public transit and offer information – online and in person – on the nearest access points.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved infrastructure and incentives for riders.
  • Advocate for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives.
  • Host or support community participation in local public transit infrastructure design.
  • Join public-private partnerships to encourage, improve, or operate public transit.

Further information:

Investors
  • Use public transit and encourage staff to do so when feasible.
  • Encourage public transit use for company purposes.
  • Invest in electric battery and component suppliers for public buses and vehicle fleets.
  • Deploy capital to efforts that improve public transit comfort, convenience, access, and safety.
  • Seek investment opportunities that reduce material and maintenance costs for public transit.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Use public transit and encourage staff to do so when feasible.
  • Award grants to local organizations advocating for improved public transit and services.
  • Expand access to underserved communities by providing fare assistance through microgrants and/or public-private partnerships.
  • Improve and finance local infrastructure and public transit capacity.
  • Build local capacity for infrastructure design, maintenance, and construction.
  • Assist with local policy design or provide means for assessments, data collection, citizen participation, and other steps in the policymaking process.
  • Create, support, or partner with existing public transit awareness campaigns that – starting from early childhood – focus on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and a sustainable lifestyle.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Lead by example and use public transit regularly.
  • Create, support, or partner with existing public transit awareness campaigns that – starting from early childhood – focus on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and a sustainable lifestyle.
  • Share detailed information on local public transit routes.
  • Assist with local policy design or provide means for assessments, data collection, citizen participation, and other steps in the policymaking process.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved infrastructure, noting specific locations that need improvements and incentives for riders.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Use public transit and encourage your colleagues to use public transit when feasible.
  • Improve electric batteries and electrification infrastructure for public buses and vehicles.
  • Develop models for policymakers to demonstrate the impact of public transit policies on pollutant emissions, health, and other socioeconomic variables.
  • Conduct randomized control trials and collect longitudinal data on the impacts of interventions to increase public transit usage.
  • Innovate better, faster, and cheaper public transit networks – focusing on infrastructure, operations, and public transit vehicles.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Use public transit and encourage your household and neighbors to use public transit when feasible.
  • Share your experiences with public transit, as well as tips and reasons for choosing this mode of transportation.
  • Advocate to local officials for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Advocate to employers and local businesses to provide incentives and start local initiatives.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing transportation emissions: High

Experts agree that public transit usually produces fewer GHG/pkm than fossil fuel–powered cars (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018; Brunner et al., 2018; Ilie et al., 2014; International Transport Forum, 2020; Kennedy, 2002; Kuminek, 2013; Lim et al., 2021; Mahmoud et al., 2016; Rodrigues & Seixas, 2022; Sertsoz et al., 2013). There is also consensus on two points: First, shifting people from cars to public transit even under status-quo emissions levels will reduce transport emissions overall; second, opportunities exist to decarbonize the highest-emitting parts of public transit systems through electrification, especially buses (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018).

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023), public transit can help decrease vehicle travel and lower GHG emissions by reducing both the number and length of trips made in fossil fuel–powered cars (medium confidence). Adjustments to public transportation operations – such as increasing bus stop density, reducing the distance between stops and households, improving trip duration and frequency, and lowering fares – can encourage a shift from fossil fuel–powered car use to public transit.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2018) provides a good overview of the state of electric buses – a technology crucial to reduce the public transit fleet’s fossil fuel consumption, and help transition these fleets entirely to electric power. It determined that electric buses have significantly lower operating costs and can be more cost-effective than conventional buses when considering total ownership costs.

Litman (2024) found that “High quality (relatively fast, convenient, comfortable, and integrated) transit can attract discretionary passengers who would otherwise drive, which reduces traffic problems including congestion, parking costs, accidents, and pollution emissions. This provides direct user benefits, since they would not change mode if they did not consider themselves better off overall.”

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 28 reviews and meta-analyses and 23 original studies reflecting current evidence from 32 countries, primarily the American Public Transit Association (APTA, 2020), Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2018), International Transport Forum (2020), and UITP (2024). We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Improve Nonmotorized Transportation

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Transportation
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift to Alternatives
Image
Many people in a crosswalk viewed from above
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define Improve Nonmotorized Transportation as increasing any form of travel that does not use a motor or engine. In theory, this includes a huge range of transportation modes, including horses, cross-country skis, sailboats, hand-operated rickshaws, and animal-drawn carriages. In practice, pedestrian travel and cycling account for most nonmotorized utilitarian passenger travel.

Income & work,Health
Nature protection,Air quality
Overview

Travel shifted from motorized to nonmotorized transportation saves GHG emissions – mostly CO₂, but also small amounts of nitrous oxide and methane (Center for Sustainable Systems, 2023) – that a fossil fuel-powered car would otherwise emit. Nonmotorized transportation uses human muscle power to move people from place to place. 

We divided nonmotorized transportation into three subcategories: 1) pedestrian travel, including walking and the use of mobility aids such as wheelchairs; 2) private bicycles owned by the user, meaning that they are typically used for both the outgoing and return legs of a trip; and 3) shared bicycles, which are sometimes used for only one leg of a trip and so have to be repositioned by other means.

Pedestrian travel

Pedestrian travel (including both walking and travel using mobility aids such as wheelchairs) has the advantage of being something that most people can do and often does not require special equipment or dedicated infrastructure (although some infrastructure, such as sidewalks, can be helpful). Pedestrian travel is 81.7% of global urban nonmotorized pkm. 

Private bicycles

Private bicycles cost money and require maintenance but enable travel at much faster speeds and therefore longer distances. Private bicycles are 13% of global urban nonmotorized pkm.

Shared bicycles 

Shared bicycles eliminate the financial overhead of bicycle ownership, but usually only permit travel within specific urban areas and sometimes between established docking stations. Shared bicycles are 5.1% of global urban nonmotorized pkm. 

Note that we did not include electric bicycles in this analysis. Electric bicycles are analyzed as a separate solution.

While improving nonmotorized transportation can be a valuable climate solution virtually anywhere, we limit our analysis to cities due to the high number of relatively short-distance trips and the abundance of available data compared with rural locations.

The fuel for cycling and pedestrian travel is the food the traveler eats. When the traveler metabolizes the food, they produce CO₂. Some studies factor the GHG emissions produced by the additional metabolism required by nonmotorized transportation into its climate impact because of the emissions that come from the food system (Mizdrak et al., 2020). This is controversial, however, because it is unclear whether pedestrians and cyclists have a higher calorie intake than people who travel in other ways (Noussan et al., 2022). Furthermore, additional food eaten to fuel physical labor is not typically counted in life-cycle analyses. This analysis, therefore, does not consider the upstream climate impacts of food calories that fuel cycling, pedestrian travel, driving, or any other activity.

References

AAA. (2024). AAA’s Your driving costs – AAA Exchange. https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/aaas-your-driving-costs/

Adamos, G., Nathanail, E., Theodoridou, P., & Tsolaki, T. (2020). Investigating the effects of active travel in health and quality of life. Transport and Telecommunication Journal, 21(3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2020-0018

Autocosts.org. (2024). World statistics of car costs. Autocosts.Info. https://autocosts.info/worldstats

Blondiau, T., van Zeebroeck, B., & Haubold, H. (2016). Economic benefits of increased cycling. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 2306–2313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.247

Bonilla-Alicea, R. J., Watson, B. C., Shen, Z., Tamayo, L., & Telenko, C. (2020). Life cycle assessment to quantify the impact of technology improvements in bike-sharing systems. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(1), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12860

Bopp, M., Sims, D., & Piatkowski, D. (2018). Benefits and risks of bicycling. 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812642-4.00002-7

Brand, C., Dons, E., Anaya-Boig, E., Avila-Palencia, I., Clark, A., de Nazelle, A., Gascon, M., Gaupp-Berghausen, M., Gerike, R., Götschi, T., Iacorossi, F., Kahlmeier, S., Laeremans, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Pablo Orjuela, J., Racioppi, F., Raser, E., Rojas-Rueda, D., Standaert, A., … Int Panis, L. (2021). The climate change mitigation effects of daily active travel in cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 93, 102764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102764

Burnham, A., Gohlke, D., Rush, L., Stephens, T., Zhou, Y., Delucci, M. A., Birky, A., Hunter, C., Lin, Z., Ou, S., Xie, F., Proctor, C., Wiryadinata, S., Liu, N., & Boloor, M. (2021). Comprehensive total cost of ownership quantifications for vehicles with different size classes and powertrains (ANL/ESD-21/4). Argonne National Laoratory. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf

Center for Sustainable Systems. (2023). Personal transportation factsheet (CSS01-07). University of Michigan. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/mobility/personal-transportation-factsheet

Christensen, L., & Vázquez, N. S. (2013). Post-harmonised european national travel surveys. Proceedings from the Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University, 20(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.td.v1i1.5701

CityTransit Data. (2025). A global analysis of transit data. CityTransit Data. https://citytransit.uitp.org/ 

DeMaio, P. (2009). Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future. Journal of Public Transportation, 12(4), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.12.4.3

Department for Transport. (2024). Department for transport statistics NTS 0101: Trips, distance travelled, and time taken: England, 1972 onwards [Dataset]. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMGE2YTQ5YTMtMDkwNC00MjBmLWFkNjUtMjBjZjUzZWU0ZjNmIiwidCI6IjI4Yjc4MmZiLTQxZTEtNDhlYS1iZmMzLWFkNzU1OGNlNzEzNiIsImMiOjh9

European Commission. (2019). Handbook on the external costs of transport. European Commission. https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/03/CE_Delft_4K83_Handbook_on_the_external_costs_of_transport_Final.pdf

Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Summary of travel trends: 2022 National Household Travel Survey. US Department of Transportation. https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2022/pub/2022_NHTS_Summary_Travel_Trends.pdf

Fishman, E., & Schepers, P. (2016). Global bike share: What the data tells us about road safety. Journal of Safety Research, 56, 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.11.007 

Flanagan, E., Lachapelle, U., & El-Geneidy, A. (2016). Riding tandem: Does cycling infrastructure investment mirror gentrification and privilege in Portland, OR and Chicago, IL? Research in Transportation Economics, 60, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.07.027

Glazener, A., & Khreis, H. (2019). Transforming our cities: Best practices towards clean air and active transportation. Current Environmental Health Reports, 6(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-0228-1

Gössling, S., Neger, C., Steiger, R., & Bell, R. (2023). Weather, climate change, and transport: A review. Natural Hazards, 118(2), 1341–1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06054-2

Gössling, S., Choi, A., Dekker, K., & Metzler, D. (2019). The social cost of automobility, cycling and walking in the European Union. Ecological Economics, 158, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.016

Günther, M., & Krems, J. (2022). The liveable city—How effective planning for infrastructure and personal mobility can improve people’s experiences of urban life. 13th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2022). https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002372

International Transport Forum. (2020). Good to go? Assessing the environmental performance of new mobility (Corporate Partnership Board). OECD. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/environmental-performance-new-mobility.pdf

International Transport Forum. (2021). ITF Transport Outlook 2021. OECD. https://www.itf-oecd.org/itf-transport-outlook-2021 

Hymel, K. M., Small, K. A., & Dender, K. V. (2010). Induced demand and rebound effects in road transport. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(10), 1220–1241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2010.02.007

IPCC. (2023). Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation—IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/renewable-energy-sources-and-climate-change-mitigation/

Litman, T. (2011). Environmental reviews & case studies: Why and how to reduce the amount of land paved for roads and parking facilities. Environmental Practice, 13(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046610000530

Litman, T. (2024). Evaluating active transport benefits and costs: Guide to valuing walking and cycling improvements and encouragement programs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf

Mailloux, N. A., Henegan, C. P., Lsoto, D., Patterson, K. P., West, P. C., Foley, J. A., & Patz, J. A. (2021). Climate solutions double as health interventions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413339

Mizdrak, A., Cobiac, L. J., Cleghorn, C. L., Woodward, A., & Blakely, T. (2020). Fuelling walking and cycling: Human powered locomotion is associated with non-negligible greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66170-y

Montoya-Torres, J., Akizu-Gardoki, O., & Iturrondobeitia, M. (2023). Measuring life-cycle carbon emissions of private transportation in urban and rural settings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 96, 104658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104658

Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Cole-Hunter, T., de Nazelle, A., Dons, E., Gerike, R., Götschi, T., Int Panis, L., Kahlmeier, S., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2015). Health impact assessment of active transportation: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 76, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.04.010

Münzel, T., Molitor, M., Kuntic, M., Hahad, O., Röösli, M., Engelmann, N., Basner, M., Daiber, A., & Sørensen, M. (2024). Transportation noise pollution and cardiovascular health. Circulation Research, 134(9), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.123.323584

de Nazelle, A., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Antó, J., Brauer, M., Briggs, D., Charlotte Braun-Fahrlander, C., Cavill, N., Cooper, A., Desqueyroux, H., Fruin, S., Hoek, G., Panis, L., Janssen, N., Jerrett, M., Joffe, M., Andersen, Z., van Kempen, E., Kingham, S., Kubesch, N., Leyden, K., Marshall, J., Matamala, J., Mellios, G., Mendez, M., Nassif, H., Ogilvie, D., Peiró, R., Pérez, K., Rabl, A., Ragettli, M., Rodríguez, D., Rojas, D., Ruiz, P., Sallis, J., Terwoert, J., Toussaint, J., Tuomisto, J., Zuurbier, M., & Lebret, E. (2011). Improving health through policies that promote active travel: A review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment. Environment International, 37(4), 767-777.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.02.003 

Noussan, M., Campisi, E., & Jarre, M. (2022). Carbon intensity of passenger transport modes: A review of emission factors, their variability and the main drivers. Sustainability, 14(17), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710652

Prieto-Curiel, R., & Ospina, J. P. (2024). The ABC of mobility. Environment International, 185, 108541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108541

Pro Cycling Coaching. (2025). Bike Time Calculator: How Long Does It Take to Bike Any Distance. https://www.procyclingcoaching.com/resources/bike-time-calculator 

Rodriguez Mendez, Q., Fuss, S., Lück, S., & Creutzig, F. (2024). Assessing global urban CO₂ removal. Nature Cities, 1(6), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00069-x

Roser, M. (2024). Data review: How many people die from air pollution? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths

Seum, S., Schulz, A., & Phleps, P. (2020). The future of driving in the BRICS countries (study update 2019). Institute for Mobility Research. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Future-of-Driving-in-the-BRICS-Countries-(Study-Seum-Schulz/707da41b03f064dea00e7d35124b1c51bfd78053

Shindell, D. T., Lee, Y., & Faluvegi, G. (2016). Climate and health impacts of US emissions reductions consistent with 2 °C. Nature Climate Change, 6(5), 503–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2935

Staatsen, B., Nijland, H., Kempen, E., van Hollander, A., de Franssen, A., & Kamp, I. (n.d.). Assessment of health impacts and policy options in relation to transport-related noise exposures (815120002).

State of Colorado. (2016). Economic and health benefits of cycling and walking. Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade. https://choosecolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Economic-and-Health-Benefits-of-Bicycling-and-Walking-in-Colorado-4.pdf

Statistics Netherlands. (2024, July 4). Mobility; per person, personal characteristics, modes of travel and regions [Webpagina]. Statistics Netherlands. https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/figures/detail/84709ENG

TNMT. (2021). The environmental impact of today’s transport types. TNMT. https://tnmt.com/infographics/carbon-emissions-by-transport-type/

Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2010). Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.006

Verma, S., Dwivedi, G., & Verma, P. (2022). Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in comparison to combustion engine vehicles: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 49, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.666

Volker, J. M. B., & Handy, S. (2021). Economic impacts on local businesses of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure: A review of the evidence. Transport Reviews, 41(4), 401–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1912849

WHO. (2023). Despite notable progress, road safety remains urgent global issue. https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2023-despite-notable-progress-road-safety-remains-urgent-global-issue

Xia, T., Zhang, Y., Crabb, S., & Shah, P. (2013). Cobenefits of replacing car trips with alternative transportation: A review of evidence and methodological issues. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2013(1), 797312. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/797312

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Heather Jones, Ph.D.

  • Cameron Roberts, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel , Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D. 

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda Smith, Ph.D.
Effectiveness

Nonmotorized transportation can save 115.6 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, compared with fossil fuel–powered cars (Table 1). This makes it a highly effective climate solution. Every trip shifted from a fossil fuel–powered car to cycling or pedestrian travel avoids most, if not all, of the GHG emissions associated with car travel. Nonmotorized transportation effectiveness is calculated by taking the share of each mode and multiplying it by its effectiveness, and adding this value from all three modes. 

Cars produce 116 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm (International Transport Forum, 2020; IPCC, 2023; Montoya-Torres et al., 2023; TNMT, 2021; Verma et al., 2022). Note that this value does not correspond directly to the estimates arrived at in most of these references because it is common practice to include embodied and upstream emissions in life-cycle calculations. Because we do not include embodied and upstream emissions (which are accounted for in other solutions), our estimate for the current emissions from the global vehicle fleet comes from an original calculation using values from these sources and arrives at a lower figure than they do.

Pedestrian travel and private bicycles have negligible direct emissions (Bonilla-Alicea et al., 2020; Brand et al., 2021; International Transport Forum, 2020; Noussan et al., 2022; TNMT, 2021). This means people avoid all direct GHG emissions from driving fossil fuel–powered cars when they use nonmotorized transportation instead. Thus, shifting from cars to nonmotorized transportation saves 116 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, not including indirect emissions, such as those from manufacturing the equipment and infrastructure necessary for those forms of mobility. Life-cycle emissions from cycling are approximately 12 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, most of which come from manufacturing bicycles (Bonilla-Alicea et al., 2019; Brand et al., 2021; ITF, 2020; Montoya-Torres et al., 2023; Noussan et al., 2020; TNMT, 2021), while emissions from pedestrian travel are negligible (TNMT, 2021). These life-cycle emissions are not quantified for this analysis, but may be addressed by other solutions in the industrial sector.

Shared bicycles provide fewer emissions savings than privately owned bicycles do. Shared bicycle schemes have direct GHG emissions of 7.49 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, about 109 fewer than the average fossil fuel-powered car. Because people sometimes use shared bicycles for one-way trips, the bike-sharing system can become unbalanced, with fewer bicycles in places where people start their journeys and more bicycles in places where people end them. This is fixed by driving the shared bicycles from places with surplus to places with shortage, which increases emissions. The total increase in emissions caused by this can be mitigated through measures such as using electric vehicles to reposition the bikes or incentivizing riders to reposition the bicycles themselves without the use of a vehicle. 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, 100-yr basis

Nonmotorized Transportation
25th percentile 99.33
mean 118.8
median (50th percentile) 115.6
75th percentile 136.9
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Driving a fossil fuel–powered car has private costs (i.e., those that accrue to the motorist themselves) of US$0.25/pkm and public costs (for roads, lights, traffic enforcement, etc.) of US$0.11/pkm. It generates public revenues of US$0.03/pkm from taxes, fees, fines, etc. (AAA, 2024; Autocosts.org, 2024; Burnham et al., 2021; Gössling et al., 2019). This means that its net cost to the passenger is US$0.32/pkm. Cars also have externality costs, such as the cost of health care due to road injuries or air pollution (Litman, 2024). We do not factor these externalities into our cost analysis.

Nonmotorized transportation (costs weighted by mode share) has private costs of US$0.08/pkm and public costs US$0.04/pkm. It produces no revenues to the user. It has a net cost of US$0.12/pkm and saves US$0.21/pkm compared with car travel. This equals a savings of US$1,771/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2).

Pedestrian travel has private costs of US$0.09/pkm (mostly for shoes) and public costs of US$0.1/pkm (for sidewalks, staircases, bridges, etc.). It produces no new revenues. It has a net cost of US$0.10/pkm and saves US$0.23/pkm compared to car travel (Gössling et al., 2019; Litman, 2024). 

Private bicycles have private costs of US$0.06/pkm (for the cost of the bicycle itself, as well as repairs, clothing, etc.) and public costs of US$0.002/pkm (for bike lanes and other infrastructure). They produce no new revenues. They have net costs of US$0.07/pkm and save US$0.26/pkm compared to car travel (Gössling et al., 2019; Litman, 2024). These costs are cheaper than those of pedestrian travel on a per-pkm basis because, while a bicycle costs more than a pair of shoes, it can also travel much farther.

Shared bicycle systems have different cost structures. They can be very expensive (US$9.00/km in London), free (Buenos Aires) and very inexpensive (less than US$0.00 in Tehran) based on what operators charge users. Rides are usually priced by time rather than distance (DeMaio, 2009). Calculations were made as to distance covered by time to arrive at a price per km (CityTransit Data, 2025; Fishman & Schepers, 2016; Pro Cycling Coaching, 2025). Assuming that this roughly covered operating costs, it means that these systems cost US$0.22/pkm more than car travel.

An important consideration for each of these is that we must divide the cost of a bicycle, car, pair of shoes, or piece of infrastructure (road, bike lane, sidewalk) by the pkm of travel it supports over its lifespan. This means that nonmotorized transportation, which is cheaper but slower than cars, can have less of a cost advantage per pkm than might seem intuitive, and is part of the reason why cycling is cheaper per pkm than pedestrian travel. In addition, all of these estimates are based on very limited data and research and should be treated as approximate. Lastly, per-pkm infrastructural costs of cycling and pedestrian travel will decrease as cyclists and pedestrians use the infrastructure more intensively.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Nonmotorized Transportation
median -1,771
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Walking and cycling are mature technologies, so the concept of a learning rate is not applicable.

There is also limited opportunity for cost reductions in cycling or pedestrian infrastructure built using construction techniques very similar to those used in the road industry. However, while learning effects might not do much to reduce the costs of nonmotorized transportation infrastructure, they could do a great deal to improve its effectiveness. Safe cycling infrastructure, in particular, has improved considerably over the past few decades. This could continue into the future as best practices are further improved.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Improve Nonmotorized Transportation is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Increases to the modal share of nonmotorized transportation only have the benefits discussed here if they replace travel by car. Replacing public transit travel with travel using nonmotorized transportation will have a much smaller climate benefit. The climate benefit of nonmotorized mobility will also diminish if the average emissions of the global car fleet shrink, for example, due to the wider adoption of electric vehicles. 

There are also uncertainties around trip length. A small number of long trips taken by car will not be replaceable by nonmotorized transportation. Replacing the average trip by car with cycling or pedestrian travel will, in many cases, require that trip to be shortened (for example, by placing businesses closer to people’s homes). If this is not possible, increased adoption of nonmotorized transportation will apply to only some trips, reducing the impact on both emissions and costs.

Weather and climate pose significant challenges and risks for nonmotorized transportation. Extreme heat or cold, wind, rain, or storms can make people reluctant to travel without the protection of a vehicle and, in some cases, can make doing so unsafe (Gössling et al., 2023). This will reduce the adoption of nonmotorized transportation in some places, although it can be mitigated through measures such as providing information and subsidies for proper clothing, removing or grooming snow on bicycle paths, and providing indoor/covered paths that allow pedestrians to travel through a city without exposure to the elements.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Analysts most frequently report adoption of nonmotorized transportation as a percentage modal share of all trips taken in a city. Cities around the world have radically different modal shares of bicycle and pedestrian trips. Cities in LMICs often have a high nonmotorized modal share because many people cannot afford cars. Cities in high-income countries are often difficult to navigate without a car, resulting in low modal shares for nonmotorized transportation (Prieto-Curiel & Ospina, 2024). 

Prieto-Curiel and Ospina (2024) estimated that northern North America (the United States and Canada) had the lowest modal share of nonmotorized transportation, at 3.5%. Western Europe reached 29% modal share, while Western and Eastern Africa reached 42.9% and 46%, respectively.

Converting these numbers into vehicle-kilometers traveled on a national level for various countries requires assumptions. A population-weighted average of data available from the United States and several Western European countries finds that people take approximately three 13.2 km trips per day, totaling 39.7 km of daily travel with considerable variation between countries (Christensen & Vázquez, 2013; Department for Transport, 2024; Federal Highway Administration, 2022; Statistics Netherlands, 2024). For example, English people in 2022 traveled an average of 25.5 km/day, while Americans in 2020 traveled 53.5 km/day. The value we use in our analysis comes from a population-weighted average that excludes data from 2020 and 2021 to exclude data skewed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Because the United States has by far the highest population of the countries for which we found data, it skews the average much higher than many of the European countries. World data (ITF, 2021) reports that nonmotorized transportation is 14.4% of all urban pkm.

We assumed that in urban environments, each trip taken by nonmotorized transportation corresponds to one fewer car trip of this average length. This implies that nonmotorized transportation currently shifts approximately 12.9 trillion pkm from cars (Table 3). However, it should be noted that this figure includes low-income countries, where some residents have less access to private vehicles.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2024) adoption level.

Unit: million pkm/yr*

25th percentile 1,913,000
mean 12,860,000
median (50th percentile) 8,617,000
75th percentile 22,340,000

*These data are extrapolated from a range of individual city estimates from 2010 to 2020 and are limited by the fact that not all cities have accurate data on passenger travel modal share. We used the mean value from Prieto-Curiel and Ospina (2024) as the authoritative estimate of current adoption here and for calculations in future sections.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

In all cities for which appropriate data exist, nonmotorized transportation showed a growth rate of 0.45% of all passenger trips per year (Prieto-Curiel & Ospina, 2024). This amounts to 114 billion pkm (Table 4) according to our estimation procedure outlined above. In some cities, adoption has grown much more quickly. For example, Hanover, Germany, achieved an average growth of 7.8%/yr in 2011–2017, which amounts to approximately 593 million additional pkm traveled by bicycle every year during that time. However, the rate of adoption is extremely variable. The 25th percentile of estimates shows a global decline in nonmotorized transportation to the tune of 312 billion fewer pkm shifted to nonmotorized modes every year.

Adoption rates of nonmotorized transportation vary widely within a country and between different years within the same city (Prieto-Curiel & Ospina, 2024).

Many people, particularly in LMICs, walk or cycle because they have limited access to a vehicle. When countries become wealthier, travel often shifts from nonmotorized transportation to cars (Seum et al., 2020). If transportation policy in these countries prioritizes car-free mobility, high levels of nonmotorized transportation adoption could potentially be preserved even as living standards increase.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2023–2024 adoption trend.

Unit: million pkm/yr

25th percentile -311,800
mean 68,450
median (50th percentile) 114,400
75th percentile 687,200
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

We estimated that 20.2% of all trips in cities worldwide, or approximately 12.9 trillion pkm/yr, are traveled by nonmotorized transportation, while 66.2%, or approximately 42.2 trillion pkm/yr, are traveled by fossil fuel–powered car. This suggests that switching all urban trips currently taken by car to nonmotorized transportation would lead to a nonmotorized modal share of 86.4% in cities globally, or 55 trillion pkm/yr (Table 5).

This calculation uses the same assumptions discussed under Current Adoption above. In this case, however, our assumption that every nonmotorized trip is shifted from a car trip of the same length requires further justification. We are not assuming that very long car trips, trips on highways, etc., are replaced directly by bicycle or pedestrian trips. Instead, we assume that shorter nonmotorized trips can substitute for longer car trips with appropriate investment in better urban planning and infrastructure. So, for example, a 10 km drive to a large grocery store could be replaced by a 1 km walk to a neighborhood grocery store. 

This would require replanning many cities so they better accommodate shorter trips. It would also require improving options for people with disabilities or those carrying heavy loads. And it would face climatic and topographic constraints. Furthermore, it is unlikely that all car traffic would ever be substituted by any single alternative mode. Other sustainable modes, particularly public transit, are likely to play a role.

It is also possible for rural trips to be undertaken by nonmotorized transportation. Indeed, this is already very common in low-and middle-income countries. However, rural data are sparse, and discerning how many trips could be shifted to nonmotorized travel in these areas is highly speculative. Therefore, we omit rural areas from our analysis.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: million pkm/yr

median (50th percentile) 55,090,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

To estimate the upper bound of feasible adoption, we assumed that urban trips taken by fossil fuel–powered cars can be shifted to nonmotorized transportation until the latter accounts for 65% of trips (the current highest modal share of nonmotorized transportation in any city with a population of more than one million) or until car travel decreases to 7% of trips (the current lowest modal share of fossil fuel–powered cars in any city with a population of more than one million). 

The global modal share of car travel is 51.4% of trips, or 37.6 trillion pkm/yr, and the global modal share of nonmotorized transportation in cities is 22.4% of trips, or 12.9 trillion pkm/yr. If we shift modal share from cars to nonmotorized transportation until it reaches 65% of travel in cities, that leaves the modal share of cars in cities at 8.8%, still higher than the 7% modal share mentioned above. This amounts to a total modal share shift of 42.6% in all global cities. Multiplying this by the global urban population of 4.4 billion and factoring in the average annual travel distance per capita of 16,590 pkm/yr results in a total of 31.2 million pkm/yr shifted from car travel to nonmotorized transportation in cities around the world, for a total of 41.5 trillion pkm/yr (Table 6).

To set the lower bound, we do the same calculation as above, but for each individual region, adding up all the resultant modal shifts to get a global figure. So, for example, every East Asian city might reach the nonmotorized transportation modal share of Singapore (23% of trips), while every northern European city might reach that of Copenhagen, Denmark (41% of trips). This corresponds to a total achievable nonmotorized transportation modal share of 28.6 trillion pkm/yr.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Current Adoption 12,860,000
Achievable – Low 28,630,000
Achievable – High 41,490,000
Adoption Ceiling 55,090,000
Left Text Column Width

If all cycling and pedestrian trips undertaken today would otherwise have happened by car, they are currently displacing approximately 1.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr emissions (Table 7). This is an overestimate, however, since this figure includes data from places where most people have low access to cars.

Walking and private bicycles have a different effectiveness than shared bicycles. To calculate the climate impacts of different levels of adoption, we applied the effectiveness in the share of each mode of nonmotorized transportation. Walking and private bicycling are 94.4% of nonmotorized pkm and shared bicycling is 5.3%. This gives nonmotorized transportation effectiveness at reducing emissions 115.6 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm.

On the lower end, if every city achieved a pedestrian and cycling modal share equivalent to the least-motorized city in its region, it would save 3.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. On the higher end, if every city shifted enough passenger car traffic to achieve a car modal share as low as Hong Kong, China, it would save 4.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. If all trips taken by car were shifted onto nonmotorized transportation (an unrealistic scenario), it would save 6.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 1.487
Achievable – Low 3.310
Achievable – High 4.797
Adoption Ceiling 6.370
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Air Pollution and Health

Air pollution kills approximately 7 million people yearly (Roser, 2024). By reducing vehicle emissions, nonmotorized transportation can alleviate related air pollution (Mailloux et al., 2021) and thereby reduce premature deaths. For example, cutting U.S. transportation emissions by 75% by 2030 could prevent 14,000 premature deaths annually due to decreased exposure to PM2.5 and ozone (Shindell et al., 2016). 

Nonmotorized transportation has other health and safety benefits (Blondiau et al., 2016; European Commission, 2019; Glazener & Khreis, 2019; Gössling et al., 2023; Mueller et al., 2015; State of Colorado, 2016; Xia et al., 2013). Switching from driving to walking or cycling boosts health by promoting physical activity and decreasing risks of cardiovascular issues, diabetes, and mental disorders (Mailloux et al., 2021).

Noise pollution from motorized vehicles has significant impacts on cardiovascular health, mental health, and sleep disturbances, contributing to 1.6 million lost healthy life years in 2004 and up to 1,100 deaths attributable to hypertension in Europe in 2024 (Staatsen et al., 2004; Munzel et al., 2024). Enhancing nonmotorized transportation can reduce the health impacts of traffic noise (de Nazelle et al., 2011).

Finally, nonmotorized transportation improves quality of life. It increases opportunities for human connection, integrates physical activity and fun into daily commutes, and increases the autonomy of less mobile groups such as children and elders. Cities with high modal shares for nonmotorized transportation generally have high quality of life (Adamos et al., 2020; Günther & Krems, 2022; Glazener and Khreis, 2019).

The use of nonmotorized transportation can reduce car crashes, which kill around 1.2 million people annually (WHO, 2023).

Income and Work

Nonmotorized transportation infrastructure tends to be good for local businesses. Cyclists and pedestrians are more likely to stop at businesses they pass and therefore spend more money locally, creating more jobs (Volker & Handy, 2021). 

Nature Protection

In 2011, roads and associated infrastructure accounted for 10–30% of land in residential areas and 50–70% of land in commercial areas (Litman, 2011). Transforming these lands into green spaces could provide additional habitats and reduce biodiversity loss while increasing the protection of land, soil, and water resources (European Commission, 2019).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Some literature suggested that nonmotorized transportation can lead to gentrification because bike lanes and pleasant walkable streets can increase property values, driving people who used to live in a neighborhood into other places that might still be car-dependent (Flanagan et al., 2016). This risk can be addressed by ensuring that nonmotorized transportation infrastructure is built in an equitable way, connecting different neighborhoods regardless of their social and economic status. Increasing the number of neighborhoods accessible without a car will mean that people do not have to pay a premium to live in those neighborhoods. This will avoid making accessibility without a car a privilege that only the wealthy can afford.

Cycling in a city with lots of traffic and poor cycling infrastructure puts cyclists at risk of injury from collisions with cars. This risk, however, comes mainly from the presence of cars on roads. Reducing the number of cars on the road by shifting trips to other modes can improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians (Bopp et al., 2018).

The positive impacts that nonmotorized transportation have on traffic congestion could be self-defeating if not managed well. This is because less congestion will make driving more appealing, which can, in turn, lead to additional induced demand, increasing car use and congestion (Hymel et al., 2010).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Nonmotorized transportation can help passengers access public transit systems, train stations, and carpool pickup points. This is important because research suggests that the key to a low-carbon mobility system is to reduce the need for people to own cars (Van Acker & Witlox, 2010).

left_text_column_width

Electric bicycles use the same infrastructure as nonmotorized transportation – especially conventional bicycles. Building bike lanes, bike paths, mixed-use paths, and similar infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians can also help with the uptake of electric bicycles. This is even more true for shared electric bicycles, which can and often do use the same sharing systems as shared conventional bicycles.

left_text_column_width

One way to encourage the adoption of electric cars is through electric car–sharing services, in which people can access a communal electric car when they need it. This has the additional benefit of reducing the need for car ownership, which is closely correlated with car use (Van Acker and Witlox, 2010). Good nonmotorized transportation infrastructure can make it easier for users of these services to access shared vehicles parked at central locations.

left_text_column_width

Nonmotorized transportation requires a lot less space than cars. Some of this space could be reallocated to ecosystem conservation and other land-based methods of GHG sequestration. In 2011, roads and parking accounted for 10–30% of land in residential areas and 50–70% of land in commercial areas (Litman, 2011). Transforming 35% of the land area of European cities alone into green spaces could sequester an additional 26 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr. Globally, this kind of effort could sequester 0.1–0.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Rodriguez Mendez et al., 2024).

left_text_column_width

Competing

Electric cars, hybrid cars, and nonmotorized transportation compete for the same pool of total pkm. Increased use of nonmotorized transportation could reduce kilometers traveled using electric cars. 

left_text_column_width
Consensus

Consensus of effectiveness in decarbonizing the transport sector: High

The large reductions in emissions that come from shifting passenger transportation from fossil fuel-powered cars to nonmotorized modes are not controversial. There is some disagreement, however, over how many pkm traveled by car can be realistically shifted to nonmotorized transportation.

Brand et al. (2021) compared the GHG emissions of active transportation with those of cars. They concluded that “locking in, investing in and promoting active travel should be a cornerstone of sustainability strategies, policies and planning.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023) sixth assessment report mentioned nonmotorized transportation as a solution in its transportation chapter. The authors expressed high confidence in the potential of these transportation modes to reduce emissions and recommended policy and infrastructural measures to support them.

Litman’s (2024) study of the costs and benefits of active transportation summarized the direct financial costs as well as externalities associated with pedestrian and bicycle travel compared with travel by fossil fuel–powered car. Litman noted that “active transport can provide relatively large energy savings if it substitutes for short urban trips that have high emission rates per mile due to cold starts (engines are inefficient during the first few minutes of operation) and congestion. As a result, each 1% shift from automobile to active travel typically reduces fuel consumption 2–4%.”

This research is, unfortunately, heavily biased toward richer countries, especially in Europe and North America, even though nonmotorized transportation plays a very important role in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The research on this topic is also biased toward cities, even though nonmotorized transportation can be a valuable means of mobility in rural areas. 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 19 reviews and meta-analyses and 14 original studies reflecting current evidence from 84 countries, primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

one million passenger-kilometers (pkm)

t CO₂-eq/unit
115.6
units/yr
Current 1.29×10⁷2.86×10⁷4.15×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 1.49 3.314.8
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-1,771
Gradual

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

Production of equipment (such as bicycles) and infrastructure (such as sidewalks) creates some emissions, but these are small when divided by the total distance traveled by pedestrians and cyclists. On a per-pkm basis, this makes little difference in the emissions saved by nonmotorized transportation. 

left_text_column_width
% population
0–20
20–40
40–60
60–80
> 80

Percentage of city population living near protected bikeways, 2023

Proximity to related infrastructure, such as protected bikeways, facilitates the safe and convenient use of nonmotorized modes of transportation.

Reich, D. T. & Braga, K. (2024). Atlas of Sustainable City Transport [Data set]. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Retrieved June 2, 2025 from atlas.itdp.org

% population
0–20
20–40
40–60
60–80
> 80

Percentage of city population living near protected bikeways, 2023

Proximity to related infrastructure, such as protected bikeways, facilitates the safe and convenient use of nonmotorized modes of transportation.

Reich, D. T. & Braga, K. (2024). Atlas of Sustainable City Transport [Data set]. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Retrieved June 2, 2025 from atlas.itdp.org

Geographic Guidance Introduction

Nonmotorized transportation effectiveness is high across all geographic regions, though the built environment, safety, and socio-cultural norms heavily shape its adoption and impact. Key determinants of effectiveness include the extent of safe and connected infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, bike lanes, protected intersections), land-use patterns supporting short trips, and public policies prioritizing nonmotorized transportation.

Overall, effectiveness depends on adoption. In many cities across Europe and Asia, walking and cycling remain integral to daily travel. Cities like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Tokyo have successfully integrated nonmotorized modes into their broader transport systems through dedicated infrastructure and supportive urban design. In contrast, cities in North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of Latin America often lack safe, accessible infrastructure, which limits adoption.

Socioeconomic factors, including income levels, urban design, and perceptions of status, also influence the adoption of nonmotorized transport. In wealthier regions, cycling may be viewed as a lifestyle choice or an environmental statement, whereas in lower-income settings, it may be perceived as a necessity or even a sign of economic disadvantage, influencing user behavior and policy support (Seum et al., 2020).

Although shared bicycles have a lower effectiveness than walking or private bicycles, they are much more effective than cars. Increasing the number of shared bicycle systems in any geographic area can increase adoption and, therefore, make them more effective. This is particularly effective in lower-income areas where owning a private bicycle might be cost-prohibitive (Litman, 2024). Increasing shared systems in less urban and more suburban areas can be more effective, as they often replace trips made by car (Brand et al., 2021).

Nonmotorized modes are generally resilient and functional in a wide range of climates. Extreme weather conditions, including high heat, heavy rainfall, or snow, can reduce walking and cycling, although these can be mitigated through appropriate infrastructure (e.g., shaded or covered walkways, snow clearing, bike shelters).

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Nonmotorized Transportation
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Reduce the associated time, distance, risk, and risk perception of nonmotorized transportation.
  • Improve infrastructure such as sidewalks, footpaths, and bike lanes.
  • Implement traffic-calming methods such as speed bumps.
  • Increase residential and commercial density.
  • Use a citizen-centered approach when designing infrastructure.
  • Enact infrastructure standards for nonmotorized transportation, such as curb ramp designs, and train contractors to implement them.
  • Establish public bike-sharing programs.
  • Create dedicated coordinating bodies across government agencies, businesses, and the public to develop nonmotorized infrastructure.
  • Disincentivize car ownership through reduced access, increases in parking fares, taxes, or other means. 

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Share your experiences, tips, and reasons for choosing your modes of transportation.
  • Participate in local bike groups, public events, and volunteer opportunities.
  • Advocate to local officials for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations for improvements.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives.
  • Create “bike buses” or “walking buses” for the community and local schools.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Ensure your business is accessible via nonmotorized transportation.
  • Advocate for better infrastructure for nonmotorized transportation.
  • Educate customers about the local infrastructure.
  • Partner with other businesses to encourage employees to cycle or walk.
  • Encourage employees to walk or cycle to and from work as their circumstances allow.
  • Create educational materials for employees on commuting best practices.
  • Offer employees pre-tax commuter benefits to include reimbursement for nonmotorized travel expenses.
  • Organize staff bike rides to increase familiarity and comfort with bicycling.
  • Install adequate bike storage, such as locking posts.
  • Emphasize walking and biking as part of company-wide sustainability initiatives and communicate how walking and biking support broader GHG emission reduction efforts.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Ensure your office is accessible to nonmotorized transportation.
  • Advocate for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives.
  • Create “bike buses” or “walking buses” for the community and/or local schools.
  • Offer free classes on subjects such as bike maintenance, local bike routes, or what to know before purchasing a bike.
  • Host or support community participation in local infrastructure design.
  • Join public-private partnerships to encourage biking and walking, emphasizing the health and savings benefits.

Further information:

Investors
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Deploy capital to efforts that improve bicycle and walking comfort, convenience, access, and safety.
  • Invest in public or private bike-sharing systems.
  • Invest in local supply chains for bicycles and other forms of nonmotorized transportation.
  • Seek investment opportunities that reduce material and maintenance costs for bicycles.
  • Finance bicycle purchases via low-interest loans.
  • Consider investments in nonmotorized transportation start-ups.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Award grants to local organizations advocating for improved walking and bicycle infrastructure.
  • Build capacity for walking and bicycle infrastructure design and construction.
  • Support organizations that distribute, refurbish, and/or donate bikes in your community.
  • Facilitate access to bicycle maintenance and supplies.
  • Host or support community education or participation efforts.
  • Donate fixtures such as street lights, guardrails, and road signs.
  • Educate the public and policymakers on the benefits and best practices of nonmotorized transportation.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Focus messages on key decision factors for nonmotorized commuters, such as the associated health benefits and importance of fitness, climate and environmental benefits, weather forecasts, and traffic information.
  • Highlight principles of safe urban design and point out dangerous areas.
  • Share information on local bike and walking routes, general bike maintenance tips, items to consider when purchasing a bike, and related educational information.
  • Collaborate with schools on bicycle instruction, including safe riding habits and maintenance.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Examine and improve elements of infrastructure design.
  • Improve circularity, repairability, and ease of disassembly for bikes.
  • Increase the physical carrying capacities (storage) for walkers and bicyclists to facilitate shopping and transporting children, pets, and materials.
  • Identify and encourage the deployment of messaging that enhances nonmotorized transportation use.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Share your experiences, tips, and reasons for choosing nonmotorized transportation.
  • Participate in local bike groups, public events, and volunteer opportunities.
  • Advocate to local officials for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives for using nonmotorized transportation.
  • Create “bike buses” or “walking buses” for the community and local schools.

Further information:

Sources
Updated Date

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Improve Materials
Image
Worker sprays insulation in building frame.
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials is defined as using alternative building insulation materials in place of conventional ones. In particular, we highlight the impact of using cellulose instead of glass, mineral, or plastic insulation in new and retrofit buildings. Cellulose insulation manufacture and installation emits fewer GHGs to reach the same operational insulating performance than does manufacture and installation of conventional materials.

Income & work,Health
Water resources
Overview

Thermal insulation materials are used in the walls, roofs, and floors of buildings to help maintain comfortable indoor temperatures. However, manufacture and installation of insulation materials produces GHG emissions. These are called embodied emissions because they occur before the insulation is used in buildings. Insulation embodied emissions offset a portion of the positive climate impacts from using insulation to reduce heating and cooling demand. A Canadian study found that over 25% of residential embodied emissions from manufacturing building materials can be due to insulation (Magwood et al., 2022). Using cellulose insulation made primarily from recycled paper avoids some embodied emissions associated with conventional insulation.

Insulation is manufactured in many different forms, including continuous blankets or boards, loose fill, and sprayed foam (Types of Insulation, n.d.). Most conventional insulation materials are nonrenewable inorganic materials such as stone wool and fiberglass. These require high temperatures (>1,300 °C) to melt the raw ingredients, consuming thermal energy and releasing CO₂ from fossil fuel combustion or grid power generation (Schiavoni et al., 2016). Other common insulations are plastics, including expanded polystyrene (EPS), extruded polystyrene (XPS), polyurethane (PUR), and polyisocyanurate (PIR). Producing these plastics requires the extraction of fossil fuels – primarily petroleum – for feedstocks, as well as high amounts of energy for processing (Harvey, 2007). 

F-gases are often used as blowing agents to manufacture rigid foam board insulation or install sprayed foam insulation (Figure 1). F-gases are GHGs with GWPs that can be hundreds or thousands of times higher than CO₂. High-GWP F-gases used in foam production are released into the atmosphere during all subsequent stages of the foam’s life cycle (Biswas et al., 2016; Waldman et al., 2023). The climate benefits of this solution during the installation stage are primarily due to avoiding these blowing agents. 

Alternative insulation is produced from plant or animal biomass (bio-based materials, see Figure 2) or waste products (recycled materials). Alternative insulation materials provide climate benefits by consuming less manufacturing energy, using renewable materials in place of fossil fuels, and eliminating high-GWP blowing agents (Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance, 2024). 

Figure 3 compares a variety of conventional and alternative insulation materials. While many bio-based and recycled materials could be used as alternatives to these conventional materials, this solution focuses on cellulose due to its effectiveness in avoiding emissions, low cost, and wide availability. Cellulose insulation is made primarily from recycled paper fibers, newsprint, and cardboard. These products are made into fibers and blended with fire retardants to produce loose or batt cellulose insulation (Figure 4) (Waldman et al., 2023; Wilson, 2021).

Figure 1. Properties and adoption of conventional and alternative insulation materials. Costs and emissions will vary from the values here depending on the insulation form (board, blanket, loose-fill, etc.).

Category Material High-GWP F-gases used? Median manufacturing and installation emissions* Mean product and installation cost** Estimated market share
(% by mass)
Conventional materials Stone wool No 0.31 623 20
Glass wool (fiberglass) No 0.29 508 34
EPS No 0.38 678 22
XPS Yes, sometimes 9.44 702 7
PUR/PIR Yes, sometimes 6.14 1,000 11
Alternative materials Cellulose No 0.05 441 2–13
Cork No 0.30 1,520 Commercially available, not widely used
Wood fiber No 0.13 814 Commercially available, not widely used
Plant fibers (kenaf, hemp, jute) No 0.18 467 Commercially available, not widely used
Sheep’s wool No 0.14 800 Commercially available, not widely used
Recycled PET plastic No 0.12 2,950 Commercially available, not widely used

*t CO₂‑eq (100-yr) to insulate 100m² to 1m²·K/W

**2023 US$ to insulate 100m² to 1m²·K/W. We use mean values for cost analysis to better capture the limited data and wide range of reported costs.

Although we are estimating the impact of using cellulose insulation in all buildings, the unique circumstances of each building are important when choosing the most appropriate insulation material. In this solution, we don’t distinguish between residential and commercial buildings, retrofit or new construction, different building codes, or different climates, but these would be important areas of future study.

In this solution, the effectiveness, cost, and adoption are calculated over a specified area (100 m2) and thermal resistance (1 m2·K/W). The chosen adoption unit ensures that all data are for materials with the same insulating performance. Due to limited material information, we assumed that insulation mass scales linearly with thermal resistance.

To better understand the adoption unit, a one-story residential building of 130 m2 floor area would require approximately 370 m2 of insulation area (RSMeans from The Gordian Group, 2023). For a cold climate like Helsinki, Finland, code requires insulation thermal resistance of 11 m2·K/W (The World Bank, n.d.). For a warm climate like Jerusalem, Israel, envelope thermal resistance requirements average 1.1 m2·K/W (The World Bank, n.d.). Therefore, depending on the location, anywhere from approximately 4–40 adoption units insulating 100 m2 to 1 m2·K/W may be needed to insulate a small single-story home to the appropriate area and insulation level.

Take Action Intro

Would you like to help deploy alternative insulation? Below are some ways you can make a difference, depending on the roles you play in your professional or personal life.

These actions are meant to be starting points for involvement and may or may not be the most important, impactful, or doable actions you can take. We encourage you to explore, get creative, and take a step that is right for you!

References

Adams, M., Burrows, V., & Richardson, S. (2019). Bringing embodied carbon upfront: Coordinated action for the building and construction sector to tackle embodied carbon. World Green Building Council, Advancing Net Zero, Ramboll, & C40 Cities. https://worldgbc.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/22123951/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf

Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. (2016, October 15). https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/10/20161015%2003-23%20PM/Ch_XXVII-2.f-English%20and%20French.pdf

Andersen, B., & Rasmussen, T. V. (2025). Biobased building materials: Moisture characteristics and fungal susceptibility. Building and Environment, 112720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112720

Asdrubali, F., D’Alessandro, F., & Schiavoni, S. (2015). A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 4, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2015.05.002

Biswas, K., Shrestha, S. S., Bhandari, M. S., & Desjarlais, A. O. (2016). Insulation materials for commercial buildings in North America: An assessment of lifetime energy and environmental impacts. Energy and Buildings, 112, 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.12.013

Cabeza, L. F., Boquera, L., Chàfer, M., & Vérez, D. (2021). Embodied energy and embodied carbon of structural building materials: Worldwide progress and barriers through literature map analysis. Energy and Buildings, 231, 110612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110612

Carbon Removals Expert Group Technical Assistance. (2023, December). Review of certification methodologies for long-term biogenic carbon storage in buildings. European Commission. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/policy_carbon_expert_biogenic_carbon_storage_in_buildings_en.pdf

Deer, C., George, M., Kaluza, P., Loudon, Moore, G., Musick, M., Musick, R., Seifert, R., & Woodward, J. (2007). Alaska Residential Building Manual. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. https://www.ahfc.us/application/files/2813/5716/1325/building_manual.pdf

Esau, R., Jungclaus, M., Olgyay, V., & Rempher, A. (2021). Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Low-Cost, High-Value Opportunities. RMI. http://www.rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings

Fabbri, M., Rapf, O., Kockat, J., Fernández Álvarez, X., Jankovic, I., & Sibileau, H. (2022). Putting a stop to energy waste: How building insulation can reduce fossil fuel imports and boost EU energy security. Buildings Performance Institute Europe. https://www.bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Putting-a-stop-to-energy-waste_Final.pdf

Forestry Production and Trade. (2023). [Dataset]. FAOSTAT. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO

Füchsl, S., Rheude, F., & Röder, H. (2022). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of thermal insulation materials: A critical review. Cleaner Materials, 5, 100119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100119

Gelowitz, M. D. C., & McArthur, J. J. (2017). Comparison of type III environmental product declarations for construction products: Material sourcing and harmonization evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.133

Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency, and the United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). GlobalABC Roadmap for Buildings and Construction: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/globalabc-roadmap-for-buildings-and-construction-2020-2050

Grazieschi, G., Asdrubali, F., & Thomas, G. (2021). Embodied energy and carbon of building insulating materials: A critical review. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100032

Harvey, L. D. D. (2007). Net climatic impact of solid foam insulation produced with halocarbon and non-halocarbon blowing agents. Building and Environment, 42(8), 2860–2879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.028

Installed Cost of Residential Siding Comparative Study. (2023). RSMeans / The Gordian Group. https://www.gobrick.com/content/userfiles/files/RSMeans%20Residential%20Siding%20Comparative%20Cost%20Wall%20System%20Study%20Final%202023-09-15.pdf

Insulation Choices Revealed in New Study. (2019, June 19). Home Innovation Research Labs. https://www.homeinnovation.com/trends_and_reports/trends/insulation_choices_revealed_in_new_study

International Energy Agency. (2023). Building envelopes. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/building-envelopes

International Energy Agency, International Renewable Energy Agency, & United Nations Climate Change High-Level Champions. (2023). Breakthrough agenda report 2023. https://www.iea.org/reports/breakthrough-agenda-report-2023

Jelle, B. P. (2011). Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation materials and solutions – Properties, requirements and possibilities. Energy and Buildings, 43(10), 2549–2563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.05.015

Kumar, D., Alam, M., Zou, P. X. W., Sanjayan, J. G., & Memon, R. A. (2020). Comparative analysis of building insulation material properties and performance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131, 110038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110038

Magwood, C., Bowden, E., & Trottier, M. (2022). Emissions of Materials Benchmark Assessment for Residential Construction Report. Passive Buildings Canada and Builders for Climate Action.

Malhotra, A., & Schmidt, T. S. (2020). Accelerating Low-Carbon Innovation. Joule, 4(11), 2259–2267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.09.004

Mályusz, L., & Pém, A. (2013). Prediction of the learning curve in roof insulation. Automation in Construction, 36, 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.04.004

Mapping energy efficiency: A global dataset on building code effectiveness and compliance: Country profiles. (n.d.). [Dataset]. The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/buildinggreen/doc/building_green_country_profile.pdf

Maskell, D., Da Silva, C., Mower, K., Rana, C., Dengel, A., Ball, R., Ansell, M., Walker, P., & Shea, A. (2015, June 22). Properties of bio-based insulation materials and their potential impact on indoor air quality. First International Conference on Bio-based Building Materials, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

McGrath, T., Seigel, K., & Dickinson, M. (2023). Embodied Carbon and Material Health in Insulation. Healthy Building Network, Perkins&Will. https://habitablefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/96-Carbon-Health-Insulation.pdf

Naldzhiev, D., Mumovic, D., & Strlic, M. (2020). Polyurethane insulation and household products – A systematic review of their impact on indoor environmental quality. Building and Environment, 169, 106559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106559

Northeast Bio-based Materials Collective 2023 summit proceedings. (2023). https://massdesigngroup.org/sites/default/files/file/2024/Northeast%20Bio-Based%20Materials%20Collective%202023%20Summit%20Proceedings.pdf

Petcu, C., Hegyi, A., Stoian, V., Dragomir, C. S., Ciobanu, A. A., Lăzărescu, A.-V., & Florean, C. (2023). Research on Thermal Insulation Performance and Impact on Indoor Air Quality of Cellulose-Based Thermal Insulation Materials. Materials, 16(15), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16155458

Rabbat, C., Awad, S., Villot, A., Rollet, D., & Andrès, Y. (2022). Sustainability of biomass-based insulation materials in buildings: Current status in France, end-of-life projections and energy recovery potentials. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 156, 111962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111962

Riverse. (2024, August). Methodology: Biobased construction materials. https://www.riverse.io/methodologies/biobased-construction-materials

RSMeans from The Gordian Group. (2023). Installed Cost of Residential Siding Comparative Study. https://www.gobrick.com/content/userfiles/files/RSMeans%20Residential%20Siding%20Comparative%20Cost%20Wall%20System%20Study%20Final%202023-09-15.pdf

SaravanaPrabhu, G., & Vidjeapriya, R. (2021). Comparative Analysis of Learning Curve Models on Construction Productivity of Diaphragm Wall and Pile. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1197(1), 012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012004

Schiavoni, S., D׳Alessandro, F., Bianchi, F., & Asdrubali, F. (2016). Insulation materials for the building sector: A review and comparative analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 988–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.045

Schulte, M., Lewandowski, I., Pude, R., & Wagner, M. (2021). Comparative life cycle assessment of bio-based insulation materials: Environmental and economic performances. GCB Bioenergy, 13(6), 979–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12825

Stamm, R., Johnson, R., Clarity, C., McGrath, T., Singla, V., & Hasson, M. K. (2022). Chemical and Environmental Justice Impacts in the Life Cycle of Building Insulation. Energy Efficiency for All, Healthy Building Network. https://informed.habitablefuture.org/resources/research/20-chemical-and-environmental-justice-impacts-in-the-life-cycle-of-building-insulation-report-brief

Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance. (2024, March). The Use of Natural Insulation Materials in Retrofit. https://stbauk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/The-use-of-natural-insulation-materials-in-retrofit.pdf

The Freedonia Group. (2024). Global Insulation Report. https://www.freedoniagroup.com/industry-study/global-insulation

The World Bank. (n.d.). Mapping Energy Efficiency: A GLobal Dataset on Building Code Effectiveness and Compliance. https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/buildinggreen/doc/building_green_main_findings.pdf

Types of Insulation. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/types-insulation

Waldman, B., Hyatt, A., Carlisle, S., Palmeri, J., & Simonen, K. (2023). 2023 Carbon Leadership Forum North American Material Baselines. Carbon Leadership Forum, University of Washington. https://carbonleadershipforum.org/clf-material-baselines-2023/

Wang, Z., & Wang, D. (2023). Can Paper Waste Be Utilised as an Insulation Material in Response to the Current Crisis. Sustainability, 15(22), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215939

Wi, S., Kang, Y., Yang, S., Kim, Y. U., & Kim, S. (2021). Hazard evaluation of indoor environment based on long-term pollutant emission characteristics of building insulation materials: An empirical study. Environmental Pollution, 285, 117223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117223

Wilson, A. (2021). The BuildingGreen Guide to Thermal Insulation: What You Need to Know About Performance, Health, and Environmental Considerations. BuildingGreen, Inc.

Zabalza Bribián, I., Valero Capilla, A., & Aranda Usón, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D. 

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda Smith, Ph.D.

  • Tina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

To insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W using entirely cellulose insulation in place of the current baseline mix of insulation materials is expected to avoid 1.59 t CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Table 1). Effectiveness for this solution measures the one-time reduced emissions from manufacturing and installing insulation. Insulation also reduces the energy used while a building is operating, but those emissions are addressed separately in the Improve Building Envelopes solution. 

Conventional insulation cost was considered to be a weighted average cost of the current baseline insulation mix, including a small amount of cellulose insulation currently in use.

The largest contributor to conventional insulation embodied emissions is using high-GWP blowing agents to manufacture or install XPS, PUR, or PIR foam. We assumed the use of F-gas blowing agents for all foams, although these are already being regulated out of use globally (Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, 2016) and an unknown amount of low-GWP blowing agents are currently use (such as hydrocarbons or CO₂ ). Therefore, we anticipate the effectiveness of this solution will decrease as F-gases are used less in the future. We assumed that 100% of blowing agents are emitted over the product lifetime.

Cellulose has the greatest avoided emissions of all of the alternative materials we evaluated (Figure 1). The next most effective materials were recycled PET, wood fibers, and sheep’s wool. Conventional materials like XPS, PUR, and PIR that are foamed with F-gases had the highest GHG emissions. For bio-based materials, we did not consider biogenic carbon as a source of carbon sequestration due to quantification and permanence concerns. 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /insulation required to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.98
mean 1.34
median (50th percentile) 1.59
75th percentile 1.81
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Available cost data are variable for all materials, particularly those in early-stage commercialization. The mean cost of purchasing and installing cellulose insulation is less than that of any other conventional or alternative insulation material (Figure 1). Compared with the average cost of conventional insulation, the mean cost savings for cellulose insulation is US$193/100 m2 insulated to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W. Since most buildings are insulated over greater areas to higher thermal resistances, these savings would quickly add up. When considering the mean cost per median climate impact, cellulose insulation saves US$121/t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis), making it an economically and environmentally beneficial alternative (Table 2).

We considered conventional insulation cost to be a weighted average cost of the current baseline insulation mix, including a small amount of cellulose insulation currently in use.

For conventional insulation, material costs of purchasing the insulation are higher than costs for installation (US$540 and US$97, respectively, to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W). Cellulose has a lower product cost and comparable installation costs to conventional materials. We considered all costs to be up-front and not spread over the lifetime of the material or building. For each material type, cost will vary based on the form of the insulation (board, loose, etc.) and this should be accounted for when comparing insulation options for a particular building. 

We determined net costs of insulation materials by adding the mean cost to purchase the product and the best estimation of installation costs based on available information. Installation costs were challenging to find data on and therefore represent broad assumptions of installation type and labor. Cost savings were determined by subtracting the weighted average net cost of conventional materials to the net cost of an alternative material. Although we used median values for other sections of this assessment, the spread of data was large for product cost estimates and the mean value was more appropriate in the expert judgment of our reviewers. 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

estimate -121
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Little information is available about the learning rate for new insulation materials. Mályusz and Pém (2013) evaluated how labor time decreased with repetitive cycles for installing roof insulation. They found a learning rate of ~90%, but only for this specific insulation scenario, location, and material. Additionally, this study does not include any product or manufacturing costs that may decrease with scale.

In general, labor time for construction projects decreases with repetitive installation, including improved equipment and techniques and increased construction crew familiarity with the process (SaravanaPrabhu & Vidjeapriya, 2021). However, Malhotra and Schmidt (2020) classify building envelope retrofits as technologies that are highly customized based on user requirements, regulations, physical conditions, and building designs, likely leading to learning rates that are slow globally but where local expertise could reduce installation costs.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

 At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than nominal and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Manufacturing and installation emissions reductions due to the use of alternative building thermal insulation materials are both permanent and additional. 

Permanence: There is a low risk of the emissions reductions for this solution being reversed. By using cellulose insulation instead of inorganic or plastic-based insulation, a portion of the manufacturing and installation emissions are never generated in the first place, making this a permanent reduction. Emissions from high-temperature manufacturing, petroleum extraction, and blowing agent use are all reduced through this approach.

Additionality: The GHG emissions reductions from alternative insulation materials are additional because they are calculated here relative to a baseline insulation case. This includes a small amount of cellulose materials included in baseline building insulation. Therefore, avoided emissions represent an improvement of the current emissions baseline that would have occurred in the absence of this solution. 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Adoption data are extremely limited for alternative insulation materials. All adoption data and estimates are assumed to apply to both residential and commercial buildings, although in reality the uptake of alternative insulation materials will vary by building type due to differences in structures, climate, use type, and regulations. We assume that future uptake of alternative insulation is used only during retrofit or new construction, or when existing insulation is at the end of its functional lifetime.

European sources report that 2–13% of the insulation market is alternative materials. Depending on the source, this could include renewable materials, bio-based insulation, or recycled materials. In 2018 in the United States, 5% of total insulation area in new single-family homes was insulated with cellulose (Insulation Choices Revealed in New Study, 2019).

To convert estimated cellulose adoption percentage into annual insulation use, we estimated 26 Mt of all installed global insulation materials in 2023 based on a report from The Freedonia Group (2024). We calculated an annual use of approximately 1.7 billion insulation units of 100 m2 at a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W. Therefore, the median cellulose adoption is 140 million units/yr at 100 m2 at 1 m2·K/W, calculated from the median of the 2–13% adoption range. 

Since this calculation is based on more alternative materials than just cellulose and is heavily reliant on European data where we assume adoption is higher, this estimate of current adoption (Table 3) is most likely an overestimate.

The little adoption data that were considered in this section are mostly for Europe, and some for the United States. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2017–2022) adoption level.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W

25th percentile 9000000
mean 130000000
median (50th percentile) 140000000
75th percentile 170000000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Very few data are available that quantify adoption trends. In a regional study of several bio-based insulation materials, Rabbat et al. (2022) estimated French market annual growth rates of 4–10%, with cellulose estimated at 10%. Petcu et al. (2023) estimated the European adoption of recycled plastic and textile insulation, biomass fiber insulation, and waste-based insulation to have increased from 6% to 10% between 2012 and 2020.

When accounting for the calculated current adoption, these growth rates mean a median estimated annual increase of 500,000 insulation units/yr required to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W. The increasing adoption of biobased insulation decreases the use of conventional insulation materials in those regions.

This adoption trend (Table 4) is likely an overestimate, as it is biased by high European market numbers and based on the likely high estimate we made for current adoption. 

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2012–2020 adoption trend.

Unit: annual change in units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W

25th percentile 500000
mean 800000
median (50th percentile) 500000
75th percentile 1300000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

No estimates have been found for the adoption ceiling of this solution, although we expect it to be high given low rates of current adoption and projected increases in building construction in the coming decades [International Energy Agency (IEA), International Renewable Energy Agency, & United Nations Climate Change High-Level Champions, 2023]. Two physical factors that could influence adoption are availability of alternative materials and thickness of insulation.

For cellulose insulation, availability does not seem to limit adoption. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2023) reports that there is a much higher annual production of cellulose-based materials (>300 Mt annually of cartonboard, newsprint, and recycled paper) than the overall demand for insulation globally (>25 Mt annual demand; Global Insulation Report, 2024). However, other uses for cellulose products may create competition for this supply.

Increased thickness of insulation could also be a limiting factor since this would reduce adoption by decreasing building square footage, in particular making retrofits more challenging and expensive. Deer et al. (2007) reported that the average cellulose thermal resistance is similar to mineral and glass wool, and lower than plastic insulations made of polystyrene and other foams. If we assume that 50% of plastic insulation cannot be replaced with cellulose due to thickness limitations, this would represent ~20% of current insulation that could not be replaced without structural changes to the building. Therefore, we calculate the adoption ceiling to be 80% of the current insulation that would be reasonably replaceable or 140 million units/yr required to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W (Table 5).

Uptake of celllose insulation could also be limited by its susceptibility to absorbing moisture, limiting its use in wet climates or structures that retain moisture, such as flat roofs. Commercialization of alternative insulation materials beyond cellulose and in many different forms (e.g., board, loose-fill) will increase the adoption ceiling across more building types.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: units of insulation installed to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W/yr.

25th percentile N/A
mean N/A
median (50th percentile) 140000000 (estimate)
75th percentile N/A
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

No estimates have been found for feasible global adoption of this solution. Rabbat et al. (2022) estimated the adoption levels of several bio-based insulation materials in France in 2050. For cellulose wadding, this was estimated to be 2.1 times the commercialized volume in France in 2020. Although we do not expect France to be representative of the rest of the world, if the predicted adoption trend holds across the world then we expect low adoption in 2050 to be 2.1 times greater than 2023 adoption. This is 29 million units/yr to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W (Table 6).

The IEA (2023) claims that building envelopes need to have their retrofit rate increase by 2.5 times over the current rate in order to meet net zero targets (2023). This is a reasonable high-adoption scenario. Assuming that more retrofits of buildings occur and greater amounts of alternative insulation are installed in new buildings, we estimate that high future adoption of new insulation could occur at 2.5 times the rate of the low-adoption scenario. This is 73 million units/yr to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W (Table 6).

Adoption will be facilitated or limited by local regulations around the world. Building codes will determine the location and extent of use of cellulose or other bio-based insulation. We expect uptake to be different between residential and commercial buildings, but due to insufficient data, we have grouped them in our adoption estimates.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: units of insulation installed to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m2·K/W/yr

Current Adoption 14000000
Achievable – Low 29000000
Achievable – High 73000000
Adoption Ceiling 140000000
Left Text Column Width

The climate impacts for this solution are modest compared to current global GHG emissions. Not all conventional insulations have a high environmental impact due to the use of a wide range of materials, forms, and installation methods as well as the recent adoption of lower-GWP blowing agents. Therefore, the potential for further emissions savings is limited.

We quantified the effectiveness and adoption of cellulose insulation, which has the lowest emissions and, therefore, the highest climate impacts of the insulation materials we evaluated. With high adoption, 1.2 Gt CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis could be avoided over the next decade (Table 7).

While we only considered the adoption of cellulose insulation in this analysis, a realistic future for lowering the climate impact of insulation may include other bio-based materials, too. Utilizing a greater range of materials should increase adoption and climate impact due to more available forms, sources, and thermal resistance values of bio-based insulation.

Note that the current climate impact is calculated using a current materials baseline that includes a small fraction of cellulose. This means that the reported current adoption impact is a slight underestimate compared with the impacts for replacing entirely conventional insulation with the current amount of cellulose insulation in use.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.022
Achievable – High 0.046
Achievable – Low 0.12
Achievable Ceiling 0.22
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income & Work

Some alternative insulations can be cheaper than conventional materials. Although there is large variation in evaluation methods and reported costs, our analysis found that cellulose and plant fibers are cheaper than conventional insulation materials such as stone wool, glass wool, and EPS (Figure 1). Depending on the applicable climate conditions and insulation form, switching to alternative insulation materials can result in cost savings for consumers, including homeowners and business owners.

Health

Conventional insulation materials may contribute to poor indoor air quality, especially during installation, and contribute to eye, skin, and lung irritation (Naldzhiev et al., 2020; Stamm et al., 2022; Wi et al., 2021). Additionally, off-gassing of flame retardants and other volatile organic compounds and by-products of conventional insulation can occur shortly after installation (Naldzhiev et al., 2020). Using bio-based alternative insulation products can minimize the health risks during and after installation (McGrath et al., 2023).

Water Resources

Although there is not a scientifically consistent approach to compare the environmental impacts of conventional and alternative insulation materials, a review analysis of 47 studies on insulation concluded that bio-based insulation materials generally have lower impacts as measured through acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation potentials compared than do conventional materials (Füchsl et al., 2022). Other alternative materials such as wood fiber and miscanthus also tend to have a lower environmental footprint (Schulte et al., 2021). The water demand for wood and cellulose is significantly lower than that for EPS (about 2.8 and 20.8 l/kg respectively compared with 192.7 l/kg for EPS) (Zabalza Bribián et al., 2011). While the limited evidence suggests that the alternative material tends to be better environmentally, there is an urgent need to conduct life cycle assessments using a consistent approach to estimate the impact of these materials.

left_text_column_width
Risks

Cellulose insulation is susceptible to water absorption, which can lead to mold growth in wet or humid environments (Andersen & Rasmussen, 2025; Petcu et al., 2023). Mitigating this risk either requires an antifungal treatment for the material or limits adoption to particular climates. The thermal performance of cellulose insulation can decrease over time due to water absorption, settling, or temperature changes, but installing it as dense-packed or damp-spray can mitigate this (Wang & Wang, 2023; Wilson, 2021).

Bio-based insulation materials tend to be combustible, meaning they contribute more to the spread of a fire than non-combustible stone or glass insulation. Some bio-based materials are classified as having minimal contribution to a fire, such as some cellulose forms, rice husk, and flax (Kumar et al., 2020). These materials are less likely to contribute to a fire than very combustible plastic insulation such as EPS, XPS, and PUR. Fire codes – as well as other building and energy codes – could limit adoption, risking a lack of solution uptake due to regulatory setbacks (Northeast Bio-Based Materials Collective 2023 Summit Proceedings, 2023). 

Additives such as fire retardants and anti-fungal agents are added to bio-based insulation along with synthetic binders, which can lead to indoor air pollution from organic compounds, although likely in low concentrations (Maskell et al., 2015; Rabbat et al., 2022).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Upgrading insulation to lower-cost and lower-emitting alternative materials should increase the adoption of other building envelope solutions as they can be installed simultaneously to optimize cost and performance. 

left_text_column_width

Increasing the manufacturing of cellulose insulation, which contains large amounts of recycled paper, could increase the revenues for paper recycling.

left_text_column_width

Competing

The use of biomass as raw material for insulation will reduce the availability and increase the cost of using it for other applications. For cellulose, global production of cellulose materials (>300 Mt annually of cartonboard, newsprint, and recycled paper (Forestry Production and Trade, 2023)) is an order of magnitude higher than the demand for insulation materials (>25 Mt annual demand (The Freedonia Group, 2024)), so the overall impact should be small.

left_text_column_width

Reducing the demand for conventional insulation products and instead making insulation that produces fewer GHGs during manufacturing would slightly reduce the global climate impact of other industrial manufacturing solutions. This is because less energy overall would be used for manufacturing, and therefore other technologies for emissions reductions would be less impactful for insulation production.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

(insulation units of 100 m2 and 1 m2·K/W)/yr

t CO₂-eq/unit
1.59
units
Current 1.4×10⁷2.9×10⁷7.3×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0.02 0.050.12
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-121
Emergency Brake

CO₂, F-gas

Trade-offs

Bio-based insulation materials including cellulose often have lower thermal resistance than some conventional insulation materials. In particular, bio-based materials may require a thicker layer than plastic insulation to reach the same insulating performance (Esau et al., 2021; Rabbat et al., 2022). Usable floor area within a building would need to be sacrificed to accommodate thicker insulation, which would potentially depreciate the structure or impact the aesthetic value (Jelle, 2011). This would be a more significant trade-off for retrofit construction and buildings in densely developed urban areas.

Sourcing bio-based materials has environmental trade-offs that come from cultivating biomass, such as increased land use, fertilizer production, and pesticide application (Schulte et al., 2021). Using waste or recycled materials could minimize these impacts. Binders and flame-retardants may also be required in the final product, leading to more processing and material use (Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance, 2024).

left_text_column_width
Geographic Guidance Introduction

The effectiveness of deploying alternative insulation is not inherently dependent on geographic factors since it addresses emissions embodied in the manufacture and deployment of insulation materials. However, due to a lack of related data, we assumed a consistent global breakdown of currently used insulation materials when in reality, the exact mix of insulation currently used in different geographic locations will affect the emissions impact of switching to alternative materials.

Building insulation is used in higher quantities in cold or hot climates, so deploying alternative insulation is more likely to be relevant and adopted in such climates. Other geographic factors also impact adoption: Areas with higher rates of new construction will be better able to design for cellulose or other alternative insulation materials, and drier climates will face a lower risk of mold growth on these materials. Local building codes, including fire codes, can also affect the adoption of alternative materials.

There are no maps for the Alternative Insulation solution. It is intended to address emissions embodied in the manufacture and deployment of insulation materials and has no intrinsic dependence on geographic factors.

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Alternative Insulation Materials
Classification
Highly Recommended
Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Offer grants for developers utilizing alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Create financing programs for private construction in low-income or under-resourced communities.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Fund research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop and improve existing alternative insulation materials or innovate new materials with enhanced insulation performance.
  • Investigate ways to increase the durability of alternative insulation, such as resistance to moisture, pests, and fire.
  • Find uses for recycled materials in alternative insulation and ways to improve the circular economy.
  • Innovate new manufacturing methods that reduce electricity use and emissions.
  • Design new application systems for alternative insulation that can be done without much additional training or licensing/certification.
  • Create new methods of disposal for conventional insulation during demolitions.
  • Research adoption rates of alternative insulation materials across regions and environments.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for installing alternative insulation.
  • Whenever possible, install insulation that does not use F-gas blowing agents.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct local research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Organize local “green home tours” and open houses to showcase climate-friendly builds and foster demand by highlighting cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Capture community feedback and share it with local policymakers to address barriers such as permitting logistics or upfront costs, helping to share policies that drive adoption.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing building sector emissions: Mixed

There is scientific consensus that using building insulation with lower embodied emissions will reduce GHG emissions, but expert opinions about the magnitude of possible emissions reductions as well as the accuracy of determining these reductions are mixed. 

Biswas et al. (2016) determined that, for insulation, avoided emissions from reduced heating and cooling energy tend to outweigh the embodied emissions. However, others emphasize that as buildings become more energy-efficient, material embodied emissions become a larger factor in their carbon footprint (Cabeza et al., 2021; Grazieschi et al., 2021). Embodied emissions from insulation can be substantial: Esau et al. (2021) analyzed a mixed-use multifamily building and found that selecting low-embodied-carbon insulation could reduce building embodied emissions by 16% at no cost premium.

Multiple studies have found that some sustainable insulation materials have lower manufacturing emissions than traditional insulation materials (Asdrubali et al., 2015; Füchsl et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2020; Schiavoni et al., 2016). However, researchers have highlighted the difficulty in evaluating environmental performance of different insulation materials (Cabeza et al., 2021; Grazieschi et al., 2021). Gelowitz and McArthur (2017) found that construction product Environmental Product Declarations contain many errors and discrepancies due to self-contradictory or missing data. Füschl et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis and cautioned that “it does not appear that a definitive ranking [of insulation materials] can be drawn from the literature.” In our analysis, we attempt to compare climate impact between materials but acknowledge that this can come from flawed and inconsistent data.

Despite the difficulties in comparing materials, there is high consensus that cellulose is a strong low-emissions insulation option due to its low embodied carbon, high recycled content, and good thermal insulating performance (Wilson, 2021).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from four reviews and meta-analyses, 14 original studies, three reports, 27 Environmental Product Declarations, and two commercial websites reflecting current evidence from eight countries as well as data representing global, North American, or European insulation materials. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Improve Landfill Management

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Cut Fugitive Emissions
Image
Methane tap valve from a landfill
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Landfill management is the process of reducing methane emissions from landfill gas (LFG). As bacteria break down organic waste in an environment without oxygen, they produce methane and release it into the atmosphere if there are no controls in place. This solution focuses on two methane abatement strategies: 1) gas collection and control systems (GCCSs) and methane use/destruction, and 2) biocovers. When methane is used or destroyed it is converted into CO₂ (Garland et al., 2023).

Income & work,Health,Equality
Air quality
Overview

Landfill management relies on several practices and technologies that prevent methane from being released into the atmosphere. When organic material is broken down, it creates LFG, which usually is half methane and half CO₂, and water vapor (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2024a). Methane that is directly released into the atmosphere has a GWP of 81 over a 20-yr basis and a GWP of 28 over a 100-yr basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2023). This means methane is 81 times more effective at trapping heat than CO₂. Because methane is a short-lived climate pollutant that has a much stronger warming effect than CO₂ over a given time period, abating methane will have a relatively large near-term impact on slowing global climate change (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2023). LFG contains trace amounts of oxygen, nitrogen, sulfides, hydrogen, and other organic compounds that can negatively affect nearby environments with odors, acid rain, and smog (New York State Government, 2024).

Methods for reducing methane emissions can be put into two broad strategies (Garland et al., 2023):

GCCS and methane use/destruction utilizes pipes to route LFG to be used as an energy source or to flare. The gas can be used on-site for landfill equipment or refined into biomethane and sold; unrefined LFG can also be sold to local utilities or industries for their own use. In areas where electricity generation is carbon intensive, the LFG can help to reduce local emissions by displacing fossil fuels. Methane that can’t be used for energy is burned in a flare during system downtime or at the end of the landfill life, when LFG production has decreased and collecting it no longer makes economic sense. High-efficiency (enclosed) flares have a 99% methane destruction rate. Open flares can be used but research from Plant et al. (2022) has found that the methane destruction rate in practice is much lower than the 90% value the EPA assumes. 

Biocovers are a type of landfill cover designed to promote bacteria that convert methane to CO₂ and water. Biocovers have an organic layer that provides an environment for the bacteria to grow and a gas distribution layer to separate the landfill waste from the organic layer. Non-biocover landfill covers – made with impermeable material like clay or synthetic materials – can also be used to prevent methane from being released. The methane oxidation from these covers will be minimal – they mostly serve to limit LFG from escaping – but they can then be used in conjunction with GCCS to improve gas collection. Landfills also use daily and interim landfill covers. It is important to note that studies on biocover abatement potential and cost are limited and biocovers may not be appropriate for all situations.

Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) involves regularly monitoring for methane leaks and modifying or replacing leaking equipment. LDAR does not directly reduce emissions but is used to determine where to apply the above technology and practices and is considered a critical part of methane abatement strategies. Methane can be monitored through satellites, drones, continuous sensors, or on-site walking surveys (Carbon Mapper, 2024). LDAR is an important step in identifying where methane escapes from the gas collection infrastructure or landfill cover. Quick repairs help reduce GHG emissions while allowing more methane to be used for energy or fuel. The Appendix shows where methane can escape from landfills.

References

Abichou, T. (2020). Using methane biological oxidation to partially finance sustainable waste management systems and closure of dumpsites in the Southern Mediterranean region. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-020-00157-z 

Auth, K., & Kincer, J. (2022). Untangling ‘stranded assets’ and ‘carbon lock-in’. Energy for Growth Hub. https://energyforgrowth.org/article/untangling-stranded-assets-and-carbon-lock-in/ 

Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Garland, E. (2024a). Deploying advanced monitoring technologies at US landfills. RMI. https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/03/wasteMAP_united_states_playbook.pdf 

Ayandele, E., Bodas, J., Krishnakumar, A., & Orakwe, L. (2024b). Mitigating methane emissions from municipal solid waste: A playbook for Lagos, Nigeria. RMI. https://rmi.org/insight/waste-methaneassessment-platform/ 

Ayandele, E., Bodas, J., Gautam,l S., & Velijala, V. (2024c). Sustainable organic waste management: A playbook for Lucknow, India. RMI. https://www.teriin.org/policy-brief/sustainable-organic-waste-management-playbook-lucknow-india 

Barton, D. (2020). Fourth five-year review report for Fresno municipal sanitary landfill superfund site Fresno county, California. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100021516.pdf 

Brender, J. D., Maantay, J. A., Chakraborty, J. (2011). Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 101(S1). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3222489/pdf/S37.pdf 

Cai, B., Lou, Z., Wang, J., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Liu, J., & Gao, Q. (2018). CH₄ mitigation potentials from China landfills and related environmental co-benefits. Science Advances, 4(7). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8400 

Carbon Mapper (2024, March 28). Study finds landfill point source emissions have an outsized impact and opportunity to tackle U.S. waste methane. https://carbonmapper.org/articles/studyfinds-landfill 

Casey, J. A., Cushing, L., Depsky, N., & Morello-Frosch, R. (2021). Climate justice and California's methane superemitters: Environmental equity assessment of community proximity and exposure intensity. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21), 14746-14757. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04328 

City of Saskatoon. (2023). Landfill gas collection & power generation system. Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://www.saskatoon.ca/services-residents/power-water-sewer/saskatoon-light-power/sustainable-electricity/landfill-gas-collection-power-generation-system 

DeFabrizio, S., Glazener, W., Hart, C., Henderson, K., Kar, J., Katz, J., Pratt, M. P., Rogers, M., Ulanov, A., & Tryggestad, C. (2021). Curbing methane emissions: How five industries can counter a major climate threat. McKinsey Sustainability. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/sustainability/our%20insights/curbing%20methane%20emissions%20how%20five%20industries%20can%20counter%20a%20major%20climate%20threat/curbing-methane-emissions-how-five-industries-can-counter-a-major-climate-threat-v4.pdf 

Dobson, S., Goodday, V., & Winter, J. (2023). If it matters, measure it: A review of methane sources and mitigation policy in Canada. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 16(3-4), 309–429. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000146

Fries, J. (2020, March 26). Unique landfill gas solution found. Penticton Herald. https://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/article_874b5c9c-6fb5-11ea-87ce-2b2aedf77300.html 

Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/landfill_monitoring_memo_series.pdf 

Global Climate & Health Alliance. (2024). Methane & health. Retrieved September 24, 2024. https://climateandhealthalliance.org/initiatives/methane-health/ 

Global Methane Initiative. (2022). Policy maker’s handbook for measurement, reporting, and verification in the biogas sector. https://www.globalmethane.org/resources/details.aspx?resourceid=5182

Global Methane Initiative (2024). 2023 accomplishments in methane mitigation, recovery, and use through U.S.-supported international efforts. https://www.epa.gov/gmi/us-government-global-methane-initiative-accomplishments 

Global Methane Pledge (2023). Lowering organic waste methane initiative (LOW-Methane). Retrieved March 6, 2025. https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/news/lowering-organic-waste-methane-initiative-low-methane 

Gómez-Sanabria, A., & Höglund-Isaksson, L. (2024). A comprehensive model for promoting effective decision-making and sustained climate change stabilization for South Africa. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/19897/1/Final_Report_SAFR.pdf

Government of Canada. (2024). Canada gazette, part I, volume 158, number 26: Regulations respecting the reduction in the release of methane (waste sector). Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2024/2024-06-29/html/reg5-eng.html 

Industrious Labs. (2024a). The hidden cost of landfills. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/657706be7f29a20fe54692a03dbedce8809721e8.pdf 

Industrious Labs. (2024b). Turning down the heat: How the U.S. EPA can fight climate change by cutting landfill emissions. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/b562620948374268b8c6da61ec1c44960a8d5879.pdf 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Sixth assessment report (AR6).https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ 

International Energy Agency. (2021). Global methane tracker 2021: Methane abatement and regulation. https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021/methane-abatement-and-regulation 

International Energy Agency. (2023). Net zero roadmap: A global pathway to keep the 1.5℃ goal in reach - 2023 update. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach 

International Energy Agency. (2025). Methane tracker: Data tools. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker 

Krause, M. Kenny, S., Stephensons, J. & Singleton, A (2023). Food waste management: Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/food-waste-landfill-methane-10-8-23-final_508-compliant.pdf

Malley, C. S., Borgford-Parnell, N. Haeussling, S., Howard, L. C., Lefèvre E. N., & Kuylenstierna J. C. I. (2023). A roadmap to achieve the global methane pledge. Environmental Research: Climate, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/acb4b4 

Martin Charlton Communications. (2020). Features : Landfill biocovers. APEGS. https://www.apegs.ca/features-landfill-biocovers 

Martuzzi, M., Mitis, F., & Forastiere, F. (2010). Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp216 

MethaneSAT. (n.d.). Solving a crucial climate challenge. Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://www.methanesat.org/satellite/ 

Nesser, H., Jacob, D. J., Maasakkers, J. D., Lorente, A., Chen, Z., Lu, X., Shen, L., Qu, Z., Sulprizio, M. P., Winter, M., Ma, S., Bloom, A. A., Worden, J. R., Stavins, R. N., & Randles, C. A. . (2024). High-resolution US methane emissions inferred from an inversion of 2019 TROPOMI satellite data: Contributions from individual states, urban areas, and landfills. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 24, 5069-5091 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5069-2024 

New York State Government. (2024). Important things to know about landfill gas. Retrieved September 3, 2024. https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/landfill_gas.htm 

Nisbet, E. G., Fisher, R. E., Lowry, D., France, J. L., Allen, G., Bakkaloglu, S., Broderick, T. J., Cain, M., Coleman, M., Fernandez, J., Forster, G., Griffiths, P. T., Iverach, C. P., Kelly, B. F. J., Manning, M. R., Nisbet-Jones, P. B. R., Pyle, J. A., Townsend-Small, A., al-Shalaan, A., Warwick, N., & Zazeri, G. (2020). Methane mitigation: Methods to reduce emissions,on the path to the Paris agreement. Review of Geophysics, 58(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000675 

Ocko, I. B., Sun, T., Shindell, D., Oppenheimer, M. Hristov, A. N., Pacala, S. W., Mauzerall, D. L., Xu, Y. & Hamburg, S. P. (2021). Acting rapidly to deploy readily available methane mitigation measures by sector can immediately slow global warming. Environmental Research, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf9c8 

Olaguer, E. P. (2021). The potential ozone impacts of landfills. Atmosphere, 12(7), 877. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12070877 

Plant, G., Kort, E. A., Brandt, A. R., Chen, Y., Fordice, G., Negron, A. M. G., Schwietzke, S., Smith, M., & Zavala-araiza, D. (2022). Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Science, 377(6614), 1566-1571 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq0385 

Powell J. T., Townsend, T. G., & Zimmerman, J. B. (2015). Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 162-165 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2804

SaveOnEnergy. (2024). Landfills: The truths about trash dumps by the numbers. Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://www.saveonenergy.com/resources/landfill-statistics/ 

Scarapelli, T. R., Cusworth, D. H., Duren, R. M., Kim, J., Heckler, J., Asner, G. P., Thoma, E., Krause, M. J., Heins, D., & Thorneloe, S. (2024). Investigating major sources of methane emissions at US landfills. Environmental Science & Technology. 58(29). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c07572

Scharff, H. Soon, H., Taremwa, S. R., Zegers, D., Dick, B., Zanon, T. V. B., & Shamrock, J. (2023). The impact of landfill management approaches on methane emissions. Waste Management & Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231200742 

Scheutz, C., Pedersen, R. B., Petersen, P. H., Jørgensen, J. H. B., Ucendo, I. M. B., Mønster, J. G., Samuelsson, J., Kjeldsen, P. (2014). Mitigation of methane emission from an old unlined landfill in Klintholm, Denmark using a passive biocover system. Waste Management. 34(7), 1179-1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.015 

Siddiqua, A., Hahladakis, J.N. & Al-Attiya, W.A.K.A. (2022). An overview of the environmental pollution and health effects associated with waste landfilling and open dumping. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29, 58514–58536 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21578-z 

Sperling Hansen Associates (2020). 7 Mile landfill operational biocover study. https://www.rdmw.bc.ca/media/2020%2003%2017%207Mile%20Landfill%20Operational%20Biocover%20Study.pdf 

Stern, J. C., Chanton, J., Ahicou, T., Powelson, D., Yuan, L., Escoriza, S. & Bogner, J.. (2007). Use of a biologically active cover to reduce landfill methane emissions and enhance methane oxidation. Waste Management 27(9), 1248-1258 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.07.018 

Stone, E. (2023, September 7). Landfills: 'Zombie' landfills emit tons of methane decades after shutting down. Here's why that's a big problem. LAist. https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/zombie-landfills-emit-tons-of-methane-decades-after-shutting-down-heres-why-thats-a-big-problem 

Sweeptech. (2022). What is a landfill site’s environmental impact?. Retrieved March 7, 2025. https://www.sweeptech.co.uk/what-is-a-landfill-site-and-how-does-landfill-impact-the-environment/#:~:text=The%20average%20size%20of%20a,for%20these%20massive%20waste%20dumps. 

Tangri, N. (2010). Respect for recyclers: Protecting the climate through zero waste. Gaia. https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Respect-for-Recyclers-English_1.pdf 

Towprayoon, S., Ishigaki, T., Chiemchaisri, C., & Abdel-Aziz, A. O. (2019). Chapter 3: Solid waste disposal. In 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. International Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/5_Volume5/19R_V5_3_Ch03_SWDS.pdf

Trashcans Unlimited. (2022). Biggest landfill in the world. Retrieved March 7, 2025. https://trashcansunlimited.com/blog/biggest-landfill-in-the-world/ 

UN Environment Program. (2021). Global methane assessment: Benefits and costs of mitigating methane emissions. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Global non-CO₂ greenhouse gas emission projections & mitigation 2015 - 2050. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/transitioning-low-gwp-alternatives-residential-and-commercial-air

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024a). Basic information about landfill gas. Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024b). Benefits of landfill gas energy projects. Retrieved September 23, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/benefits-landfill-gas-energy-projects 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Accomplishments of the landfill methane outreach program. Retrieved March 5, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/accomplishments-landfill-methane-outreach-program 

Van Dingenen, R., Crippa, M., Maenhout, G., Guizzardi, D., & Dentener, F. (2018). Global trends of methane emissions and their impacts on ozone concentrations. European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c40e6fc4-dbf9-11e8-afb3-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

Vasarhelyi, K. (2021, April 15). The hidden damage of landfills. University of Colorado Boulder. https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2021/04/15/hidden-damage-landfills#:~:text=The%20average%20landfill%20size%20is,liners%20tend%20to%20have%20leaks 

Waste Today. (2019, June 26). How landfill covers can help improve operations. Retrieved April 13, 2025. https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/news/interim-daily-landfill-covers/ 

Zhang, T. (2020, May 8). Landfill earth: A global perspective on the waste problem. Universitat de Barcelona. https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/170328/1/Landfill%20Eart.%20A%20Global%20Perspective%20on%20the%20Waste%20Problem.pdf 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Jason Lam

Contributors

  • Yusuf Jameel

  • Daniel Jasper

  • James Gerber

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Erika Luna

  • Paul West

  • Amanda Smith

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

Effectiveness

According to the IPCC, preventing 1 Mt of emitted methane avoids 81.2 Mt CO₂‑eq on a 20-yr basis and 27.9 Mt CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Smith et al., 2021, Table 1). If the methane is burned (converted into CO₂), the contribution to GHG emissions is still less than that of methane released directly into the atmosphere. Methane abatement can immediately limit future global climate change because of its outsized impact on global temperature change, especially when looking at a 20-yr basis.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: tCO₂‑eq/Mt of methane abated

100-yr GWPl 27,900,000
Left Text Column Width
Cost

To abate 1 Mt of methane, GCCS and methane use/destruction have an initial cost of around US$410 million, an operating cost of roughly US$191 million, and revenue in the neighborhood of US$383 million. The net savings over a 30-yr amortization period is US$179 million. This means capturing and selling landfill methane will be a net economic gain for most landfill operators. We included LDAR operating costs in the overall operating costs for GCCS and methane use/destruction, although LDAR can be used prior to installation or with other strategies such as biocovers. We split the median costs for GCCS and methane use/destruction between 20-yr and 100-yr GWP (Table 2a).

Biocovers have an initial cost to abate 1 Mt of methane around US$380 million, operating costs of roughly US$0.4 million, and revenue of about US$0 million, and an overall net cost over a 30-yr amortization period of US$13 million. This means that using biocovers to abate landfill methane has a net cost. If a carbon credit system is in place, biocovers can recoup the costs or generate profits. Biocovers are reported to have lower installation and operation costs than GCCS because they are simpler to install and maintain, and can be used where local regulations might limit a landfill operator’s ability to capture and use methane (Fries, 2020). Table 2b shows that the median costs for biocovers are split between 20-yr and 100-yr GWP.

We found very limited data for the baseline scenario, which follows current practices without methane abatement. We considered the baseline costs to be zero for initial costs, operational costs, and revenue because landfills without management – such as open landfills or sanitary landfills with no methane controls – release methane as part of their regular operations, do not incur additional maintenance or capital costs, and lack any energy savings from capturing and using methane.

Few data were available to characterize the initial costs of implementing landfill methane capture. We referenced reports from Ayandele et al. (2024a), City of Saskatoon (2023), DeFabrizio et al. (2021), and Government of Canada (2024), but the context and underlying assumptions costs were not always clear. 

Landfills are typically 202–243 ha (Sweeptech, 2022); however, the size can vary greatly, with the world’s largest landfill covering 890 ha (Trashcans Unlimited, 2022). Because larger landfills make more methane, facility size helps determine which methane management strategies make the most sense. We assumed the average landfill covered 243 ha when converting costs to our common unit. 

Data on revenues from the sale of collected LFG are also limited. We found some reports of revenue generated at a municipal level or monetized benefits from GHG emission reductions priced according to a social cost of methane or carbon credit system (Abichou, 2020; Government of Canada, 2024). These values may not apply at a global scale, especially when the credits are supported by programs such as the United States’ use of Renewable Identification Numbers.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Median (100-yr basis) -6.42
Median (20-yr basis) -2.21

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Median (100-yr basis) 0.47
Median (20-yr basis) 0.16
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Landfill GCCSs are mature; we do not foresee declining implementation costs for these solutions due to extensive use of the same installation equipment and materials in other industries and infrastructure. Automation of GCCS settings and monitoring may improve efficiencies, but installation costs will stay largely the same. 

Landfill covers are a mature technology, having been used to control odors, fires, litter, and scavenging since 1935 (Barton, 2020). Biocover landfill cover costs could decrease as recycled organic materials are increasingly used in their construction. It is not clear how the cost of biocovers might decrease as adoption grows. 

Though LDAR might provide gains around efficiencies, little research offers insights here.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Improve Landfill Management is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than nominal and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Approximately 61% of methane generated from food waste happens within 3.6 years of being landfilled (Krause, et al., 2023). In the United States, the EPA requires GCCS to be installed after five years of the landfill closing, meaning that much of the food waste methane will evade GCCS before it is installed (Industrious Labs, 2024b). In contrast, biocovers can quickly (up to three months) reduce methane emissions once the bacteria have established (Stern et al., 2007). GCCS and biocovers should be installed as soon as possible to capture as much of the early methane produced from food waste. Due to unstable methane production during early- and end-of-life gas production, low-calorific flares or biocovers may be needed to destroy any poor-quality gas that has collected. Strategies that prevent organic waste from being deposited at landfills are captured in other Project Drawdown solutions: Deploy Methane Digesters, Increase Composting, and Reduce Food Loss and Waste.

The effectiveness of landfill management depends on methane capture and destruction efficiency. The EPA previously assumed methane capture efficiency to be 75% and then revised it to 65%; however, the actual recovery rate in the United States is closer to 43% (Industrious Labs, 2024b). 

Our assessment does not include the impact of the CO₂ created from the destruction of methane.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

We found little literature quantifying the current adoption of LFG methane abatement. We estimate that GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies account for approximately 1.6 Mt/yr of abated global methane. 

We did not find unaggregated data about current adoption of biocovers or global data for landfill methane abatement that we could use to allocate the contribution to each landfill methane abatement strategy. A large portion of data for current adoption is from sources focused on landfills in the U.S.. Around 70 Mt of methane is currently being emitted globally from landfills in 2024 (IEA, 2025; Ocko et al., 2021). 

Table 3a shows the statistical ranges among the sources we found for current adoption of GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies. We were not able to find sources measuring the current adoption of biocovers and the amount of methane abated and assume it was 0 in 2023 (Table 3b).

The EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program helps reduce methane emissions from U.S. landfills. The program has worked with 535 of more than 3,000 U.S. landfills (EPA, 2024; Vasarhelyi, 2021). Global Methane Initiative (GMI) members abated 4.7 Mt of methane from 2004 to 2023 (GMI, 2024). Because GMI members cover only 70% of human-caused methane emissions overall – including wastewater and agricultural emissions this is an overestimate of current landfill methane abatement. Holley et al. (2024) determined that while some methane abatement was occuring in Mexico, only 0.13 Mt of methane was abated from 2018 to 2020, which is about 12% of Mexico’s 2021 solid waste sector methane emissions. India and Nigeria recently installed some GCCS and methane use/destruction systems, but these are excluded from our analysis due to unclear data (Ayandele et al., 2024b; Ayandele et al., 2024c). Industrious Labs (2024b) found that GCCS were less common than expected – the EPA assumes a 75% gas recovery rate for well-managed landfills. A study on Maryland landfills found that only half had GCCS in place, with an average collection efficiency of 59% (Industrious Labs, 2024b). 

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2023) adoption level.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 1.26
mean 1.64
median (50th percentile) 1.59
75th percentile 2.00

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0
mean 0
median (50th percentile) 0
75th percentile 0
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Few studies explicitly quantify the adoption of methane abatement technologies over time; we estimated the adoption trend to be 0.22 Mt/yr of methane abated – mainly from GCCS and methane use/destruction. We were not able to find unaggregated data for the adoption trend of biocovers, so we estimated adoption from EPA (2024), GMI (2024), Industrious Labs (2024b), and Van Dingenen et al. (2018). The EPA (2024) provided adoption data for a limited number of U.S. landfills that showed increasing methane abatement 2000–2013, a plateau 2013–2018, and slower progress 2018–2023 (Figure 2).

left_text_column_width
Enable Download
Off

GMI (2024) show a gradual increase in methane abatement 2011–2022. However, these data do not differentiate landfill methane abatement from other abatement opportunities, and even include wastewater systems and agriculture. When the GMI (2024) data are used to estimate adoption trends, they result in an overestimate. Van Dingenen et al. (2018) attributed a decreasing trend in landfill methane emissions 1990–2012 to landfill regulations implemented in the 1990s. Table 4a shows statistical ranges among the sources we found for the adoption trend of landfill methane strategies. Due to a lack of sources, we assume a zero value for the adoption trend of biocovers (and the amount of methane abated) as shown in Table 4b.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2011–2022 adoption trend.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0.05
mean 0.38
median (50th percentile) 0.22
75th percentile 0.54

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0
mean 0
median (50th percentile) 0
75th percentile 0
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

GCCS and methane use/destruction have an estimated adoption ceiling of 70 Mt/yr of methane abated based on the IEA’s (2025) estimate for methane emissions from the landfill waste sector. We assumed that current landfill methane emissions would remain the same into the future with no changes in waste produced or waste diversion employed.

Biocovers have an estimated adoption ceiling of 70 Mt/yr of methane based on the IEA’s (2025) estimate for methane emissions from the landfill waste sector. We assumed that current landfill methane emissions would remain the same into the future with no changes in waste produced or waste diversion employed.

The maximum possible abatement of LFG methane critically depends on the efficiency of the abatement technology; Powell et al. (2015) found that closed landfills (those not actively receiving new waste) were 17% more efficient than open landfills. Even so, research from Nesser et al. (2024) found that the gas capture efficiency among United States landfills was significantly lower than EPA assumptions – closer to 50% rather than 75%. Industrious Labs (2024b) found that landfill methane emissions could be reduced by up to 104 Mt of methane 2025–2050. Using biocovers and installing GCCS earlier (with consistent operation standards) may help reduce emissions throughout the landfill’s lifespan. Tables 5a and 5b show the adoption ceiling for GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies, and for biocovers when used separately.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

median (50th percentile) 70

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

median (50th percentile) 70
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The amount of methane that can be abated from landfills is highly uncertain due to the difficulty in quantifying where and how much methane is emitted and how much of those emissions can be abated. 

GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies have an achievable adoption range of 5–35 Mt/yr of methane (Table 6a). These values are aligned with estimates from DeFabrizio et al. (2021) and Scharff et al. (2023) for landfill methane abatement. 

Biocovers have an achievable adoption range of 35–57 Mt/yr of methane (Table 6b). This value is aligned with estimates of biocover gas destruction efficiency from Duan et al. (2022) and Scheutz et al. (2014). 

The use of these methane abatement strategies would still release around 13–65 Mt/yr of methane into the atmosphere (IEA, 2025). The amount of methane abated from both GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies and biocovers will vary with what kind of waste reduction and organic diversion is used (which can increase or decrease depending on the amount of organics sent to landfills). 

We referenced CCAC (2024), EPA (2011), Fries (2020), Industrious Labs (2024b), Lee et al. (2017), and Sperling Hansen (2020) when looking at the achievable adoption for global landfill methane abatement. Several resources focused on landfills in Canada, Denmark, South Korea, and the United States. We based the adoption achievable for biocovers only on sources that include the percentage of gas capture (destruction) efficiency over landfill sites. We exclude studies that include the percentage of biogas oxidized because they focus on specific areas where biocovers were applied. It is important to note that biocovers do not capture methane – they destroy it through methane oxidation. In addition, biocovers’ gas capture efficiency will not reach its optimal rate until the bacteria establishes. It may take up to three months (Stern et al., 2007) for methane oxidation rates to stabilize, and – because environmental changes can impact the bacteria’s methane oxidation rate – the value presented here likely overestimates biocover methane abatement potential in practice. Stern et al. (2007) found that biocovers can be a methane sink and oxidation rates of 100% have been measured at landfills. 

Few studies have examined how methane abatement is affected when all strategies are combined. A single landfill’s total methane abatement would likely increase with each added strategy, the total methane abatement is not expected to be additive between the strategies. For example, If a GCCS system can capture a large portion of LFG methane, then adding a biocover to the same landfill will play a reduced role in methane abatement. The values presented do not consider which geographies are best suited for specific methane abatement strategies. Compared with reality, those values may appear generous. 

Long-term landfill methane abatement will be necessary to manage emissions from previously deposited organic waste. Strong regulations for waste management can encourage methane abatement strategies at landfills and/or reduce the amount of organics sent their way. The infrastructure for these methane abatement strategies can still be employed in geographies without strong regulations. Tables 6a and 6b show the statistical low and high achievable ranges for GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies and for biocovers (when used separately) based on different reported sources for adoption ceilings.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Current Adoption 1.60
Achievable – Low 4.50
Achievable – High 34.78
Adoption Ceiling 69.56

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 35.13
Achievable – High 57.04
Adoption Ceiling 69.56
Left Text Column Width

Landfill methane abatement has a high potential for climate impact. 

GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies can significantly reduce landfill GHG emissions (table 7a).

Biocovers can be a useful strategy for controlling LFG methane (table 7b) because they can oxidize methane in areas where GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies are not applicable. In addition, this strategy can help destroy methane missed from GCCS and even remove methane from the atmosphere (Stern et al., 2007). The lower cost for installation and operation when compared to installing GCCS systems and increased applicability at landfills large and small are encouraging factors for broadening their use around the world. 

LDAR can help identify methane leaks,allowing for targeted abatement (Industrious Labs, 2024a). 

Research has not quantified how methane abatement is affected by combining these strategies. We anticipate that the total methane abatement would increase with each additional strategy, but we don’t expect them to be additive. The general belief is that biocovers are useful for reducing methane emissions in areas where a GCCS cannot be installed and will also help to remove residual methane emissions from GCCS systems. If there is a large increase in waste diversion, the abatement potential could be 0.13–1.59 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for landfill methane abatement (DeFabrizio et al, 2021; Duan et al., 2022). In this scenario there will also be reduced sources of revenue due to lower LFG methane production affecting the economics.

UNEP (2021) underscored the need for additional methane measures to stay aligned with 1.5 °C scenarios. Meeting these goals requires the implementation of landfill GCCS and biocovers as well as improved waste diversion strategies – such as composting or reducing food loss and waste – to reduce methane emissions. The amount of landfill methane available to abate will grow or shrink depending on the amount of organic waste sent to landfills. Previously deposited organic waste will still produce methane for many years and will still require methane abatement.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.04
Achievable – Low 0.13
Achievable – High 0.97
Adoption Ceiling 1.94

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.13
Achievable – Low 0.37
Achievable – High 2.82
Adoption Ceiling 5.65

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0
Achievable – Low 0.98
Achievable – High 1.59
Adoption Ceiling 1.94

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis

Current Adoption 0
Achievable – Low 2.85
Achievable – High 4.63
Adoption Ceiling 5.65
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Air Quality

Using LFG for energy in place of other non-renewable sources – such as coal or fuel oil – reduces emissions of air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and particulate matter (EPA, 2024b; Siddiqua et al., 2022). Untreated LFG is also a source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in low concentrations. Capturing and burning LFG to generate electricity reduces the hazards of these air pollutants. Methane emissions can contribute to landfill fires, which pose risks to the health and safety of nearby communities by releasing black carbon and carbon monoxide (Global Climate & Health Alliance [GCHA], 2024). Reducing landfill fires by capturing methane can also help improve local air quality. Landfill methane emissions can contribute to ozone pollution, particularly when other non-methane ozone precursors are present (Olaguer, 2021). 

Health

Landfill emissions can contribute to health issues such as cancer, respiratory and neurological problems, low birth weight, and birth defects (Brender et al., 2011; Industrious Labs, 2024a; Siddiqua et al. 2022). By reducing harmful air pollutants, capturing landfill methane emissions minimizes the health risks associated with exposure to these toxic landfill compounds. Capturing LFG can reduce malodorous landfill emissions – pollutants such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide – that impact human well-being (Cai et al., 2018).

Equality

Landfill management practices that reduce community exposure to air pollution have implications for environmental justice (Casey et al., 2021). A large review of waste sites in the United States and Europe found that landfills are disproportionately located near low-income communities and near neighborhoods with racially and ethnically marginalized populations (Marzutti et al., 2010). Reducing disproportionate exposures to air pollution from landfills may mitigate poor health outcomes in surrounding communities (Brender et al., 2011).

Income and Work

Generating electricity from LFG can create local jobs in drilling, piping, design, construction, and operation of energy projects. In the United States, LFG energy projects can create 10–70 jobs per project (EPA, 2024b).

left_text_column_width
Risks

GCCS can be voluntarily implemented with sufficient methane generated by the landfill and favorable natural gas prices, but when natural gas prices are low, it makes less economic sense (IEA, 2021). There is also a risk of encouraging organics to be sent to landfills in order to maintain methane capture rates. Reducing the amount of waste made in the first place will allow us to better utilize our resources and for the organic waste that is created; it can be better served with waste diversion strategies such as composting or methane digesters. 

Without policy support, regulation, carbon pricing mechanism, or other economic incentives – biocover adoption may be limited by installation costs. Some tools (like the United Nations’ clean development mechanism) encourage global landfill methane abatement projects. There have been criticisms of this mechanism’s effectiveness for failing to support waste diversion practices and focusing solely on GCCS and incinerator strategies (Tangri, 2010). Collected LFG methane can be used to reduce GHG emissions for hard to abate sectors but continued reliance on methane for industries where it is easier to switch to clean alternatives could encourage new natural gas infrastructure to be built which risks becoming a stranded asset and locking infrastructure to emitting forms of energy (Auth & Kincer, 2022).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Landfill management can have a reinforcing impact on other solutions that reduce the amount of methane released to the atmosphere. By using strategies like GCCS, methane destruction, and LDAR, the landfill waste sector can help demonstrate the effectiveness and economic case for abating methane. This would build momentum for widespread adoption of methane abatement because successes in this sector can be leveraged in others as well. For example, processes and tools for identifying methane leaks are useful beyond landfills; LDAR as a key strategy for identifying methane emissions can be applied and studied more widely.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Landfill management can have a competing impact with solutions that provide clean electricity. Capturing methane uses natural gas infrastructure and can reduce the cost of using methane and natural gas as a fuel source. As a result, it could prolong the use of fossil fuels and slow down the transition to clean electricity sources.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

1 Mt methane abated

t CO₂-eq/unit
2.79×10⁷
units
Current 1.594.534.78
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0.04 0.130.97
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-6
Emergency Brake

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, BC

Solution Basics

1 Mt methane abated

t CO₂-eq/unit
2.79×10⁷
units
Current 035.1357.04
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0 0.981.59
US$ per t CO₂-eq
0
Emergency Brake

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Landfill management strategies outlined in this solution can help to reduce methane emissions that reach the atmosphere. However, the methane used as fuel or destroyed will still emit GHGs. Strategies to capture CO₂ emissions from methane use will be needed to avoid adding any GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Research on this topic takes global methane emissions from landfills in 2023, and assumes they were fully combusted and converted to CO₂ emissions.

left_text_column_width
Mt CO2–eq
< 0.5
0.5–1
1–3
3–5
> 5

Annual emissions from solid waste disposal sites, 2024

Landfills release methane when organic material breaks down. Globally, municipal solid waste was responsible for about 67 Mt of methane emissions in 2023. This methane contributed 19% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2023, and is equivalent to 1,809 Mt CO2-eq based on a 100-year time scale.

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste sector: Estimating CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://climatetrace.org

International Energy Agency. (2024). Methane tracker: Data tools. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker

Mt CO2–eq
< 0.5
0.5–1
1–3
3–5
> 5

Annual emissions from solid waste disposal sites, 2024

Landfills release methane when organic material breaks down. Globally, municipal solid waste was responsible for about 67 Mt of methane emissions in 2023. This methane contributed 19% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2023, and is equivalent to 1,809 Mt CO2-eq based on a 100-year time scale.

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste sector: Estimating CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://climatetrace.org

International Energy Agency. (2024). Methane tracker: Data tools. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker

Geographic Guidance Introduction

Methane emissions from landfills can vary geographically (IPCC, 2006) since rates of organic matter decomposition and methane generation depend on climate. In practice, however, landfill management has a more significant impact on related emissions and is correlated with country income levels.  

Many high-income countries have landfills that are considered sanitary landfills (where waste is covered daily and isolated from the environment) and have high waste collection rates. Basic covers are placed on the landfills to reduce the risk of odor, scavenging, and wildlife accessing the waste, and there are regulations in place to manage and capture landfill gas (LFG) emissions. These landfills are better prepared to install Gas Collection and Control Systems (GCCS) and methane use or destruction infrastructure. 

For landfills in low- and middle-income countries, existing waste management practices and regulations can vary widely. In countries like the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nigeria, waste may not be regularly collected; when it is, it is often placed in open landfills where waste lies uncovered, as documented by Ayandele et al. (2024d). This can negatively impact the environment by attracting scavengers and pest animals to the landfill. When this occurs, methane is more easily released to the atmosphere or burned as waste, the latter process creating pollutants that impact the nearby environment (not to mention generating additional GHG emissions).

Overall, managing methane emissions from landfills can be improved everywhere with stronger regulations for high-income countries that will ensure the methane generated from landfills is captured with GCCS and used or destroyed. For low- and middle-income countries, regular waste collection and storage of waste in sanitary landfills need to be implemented first before GCCS technology can be installed. Biocovers can be used around the world but may have the most impact in low- and middle-income countries as they may not have the expertise or infrastructure to effectively use GCCS methane use or destruction strategies (Ayandele et al., 2024d).

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Landfill Management
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set standards for landfill emissions and goals for reductions.
  • Improve LDAR and emissions estimates by setting industry standards and investing in public research.
  • Mandate early installation of landfill covers and/or GCCSs for new landfills; mandate immediate installation for existing landfills.
  • Set standards for landfill covers and GCCS.
  • Invest in infrastructure to support biogas production and utilization.
  • Regulate industry practices for timely maintenance, such as wellhead turning and equipment monitoring.
  • Set standards for methane destruction, such as high-efficiency flares.
  • Conduct or fund research to fill the literature gap on policy options for landfill methane.
  • Reduce public food waste and loss, invest in infrastructure to separate organic waste before reaching the landfill (see Reduce Food Loss and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Improve LDAR at landfills for surface and fugitive emissions.
  • Install landfill biocovers as well as GCCSs.
  • Invest in infrastructure to support biogas production and utilization.
  • Ensure timely maintenance, such as wellhead turning and equipment monitoring.
  • Improve methane destruction practices, such as using high-efficiency flares.
  • Set goals to reduce landfill methane emissions from operations and help set regional, national, international, and industry reduction goals.
  • Conduct, contribute to, or fund research on technical solutions (e.g., regional abatement strategies) and policy options for landfill methane.
  • Separate food and organic waste from non-organic waste to create separate disposal streams (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Require suppliers to meet standards for low-carbon waste management.
  • If your company participates in the voluntary carbon market, fund high-integrity projects that reduce landfill emissions.
  • Proactively collaborate with government and regulatory actors to support policies that abate landfill methane.
  • Reduce your company’s food waste and loss (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Assist with monitoring and estimating landfill emissions.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support landfill methane abatement.
  • Publish research on policy options for landfill methane abatement.
  • Join or support efforts such as the Global Methane Alliance.
  • Encourage policymakers to create ambitious targets and regulations.
  • Pressure landfill companies and operators to improve their practices.
  • Reduce your organization’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Investors
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Invest in projects that abate landfill methane emissions.
  • Pressure and influence private landfill operators within investment portfolios to implement methane abatement strategies, noting that some strategies, such as selling captured methane, can be sources of revenue and add value for investors.
  • Pressure and influence other portfolio companies to incorporate waste management and landfill methane abatement into their operations and/or net-zero targets.
  • Provide capital for nascent or regional landfill methane abatement technologies and LDAR instruments.
  • Seek impact investment opportunities, such as sustainability-linked loans in entities that set landfill methane abatement targets.
  • Reduce your company’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Provide capital for methane monitoring, de-risking, and abatement in the early stages of implementing landfill methane reduction technologies.
  • Support global, national, and local policies that reduce landfill methane emissions.
  • Support accelerators or multilateral initiatives like the Global Methane Hub.
  • Explore opportunities to fund landfill methane abatement strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, proper methane destruction, monitoring technologies, and other equipment upgrades.
  • Advance awareness of the air quality, public health, and climate benefits of landfill methane abatement.
  • Reduce your organization’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • If applicable, contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Provide technical assistance (e.g., monitoring and reporting landfill emissions) to businesses, government agencies, and landfill operators working to reduce methane emissions.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support landfill methane abatement.
  • Educate the public on the urgent need to abate landfill methane.
  • Join or support joint efforts such as the Global Methane Alliance.
  • Advocate to policymakers for more ambitious targets and regulations for landfill emissions.
  • Pressure landfill operators to improve their practices.
  • Reduce your food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop new LDAR technologies that reduce cost and required capacity.
  • Develop new biocover technologies sensitive to regional supply chains and/or availability of materials.
  • Improve methane destruction practices to reduce CO₂ emissions.
  • Research and improve estimates of landfill methane emissions.
  • Create new mechanisms to reduce public food waste and loss, and separate organic waste from landfill waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • If possible, contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • If harmful landfill management practices impact you, document your experiences.
  • Share documentation of harmful practices and/or other key messages with policymakers, the press, and the public.
  • Advocate to policymakers for more ambitious targets and regulations for landfill emissions.
  • Support public education efforts on the urgency and need to address landfill methane.
  • Reduce your food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in abating landfill methane emissions: High

There is a high consensus that methane abatement technologies are effective; they can often be deployed cost effectively with an immediate mitigating effect on climate change. 

Though many strategies are universally agreed-upon as effective, waste management practices vary between countries from what we found in our research. China, India, and the United States are the three largest G20 generators of municipal solid waste, though much of the data used in our assessment are from Western countries (Zhang, 2020). Ocko et al. (2021) found that economically feasible methane abatement options (including waste diversion) could reduce 80% of landfill methane emissions from 2020 levels by 2030. Methane abatement can reduce methane emissions from existing organic waste – which Stone (2023) notes can continue for more than 30 years. 

Scharff et al. (2023) found capture efficiencies of 10–90% depending on the LFG strategy used. They compared passive methods, late control of the landfill life, and early gas capture at an active landfill. The EPA (Krause et al., 2023) found that 61% of methane generated by food waste – which breaks down relatively quickly – evades gas capture systems at landfills. This illustrates how early installation of these capture systems can greatly help reduce the total amount of methane emitted from landfills. The EPA findings also highlight the potential impact of diverting organic waste from landfills, preventing LFG from being generated in the first place. 

Ayandele et al. (2024c) found that the working face of a landfill can be a large source of LFG and suggest that timely landfill covers – biocover-style or otherwise – can reduce methane released; timing of abatement strategies is important. Daily and interim landfill covers can prevent methane escape before biocovers are installed. 

Biocovers have a reported gas destruction rate of 26–96% (EPA, 2011; Lee et al. 2017). They could offer a cost-effective way to manage any LFG that is either missed by GCCS systems or emitted in the later stages of the landfill when LFG production decreases and is no longer worth capturing and selling (Martin Charlton Communications, 2020; Nisbet et al., 2020; Sperling Hansen Associates, 2020). Biocovers can also be applied soon after organic waste is deposited at a landfill as daily or interim covers where it is not as practical to install GCCS infrastructure and gas production has not yet stabilized (Waste Today, 2019). Scarapelli et al. (2024) found in the landfills they studied that emissions from working faces are poorly monitored and 79% of the observed emissions originated from landfill work faces. Covering landfill waste with any type of landfill cover (biocover or not), will reduce the work face emissions. 

LDAR can reduce landfill methane emissions by helping to locate the largest methane leaks and so allowing for more targeted abatement strategies. LDAR can also help identify leaks in landfill covers or in the GCCS infrastructure (Industrious Labs, 2024a). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 24 reviews and meta-analyses and 26 original studies reflecting current evidence from six countries, Canada, China, Denmark, Mexico, South Korea, and the United States, and from sources examining global landfill methane emissions. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Appendix

The following figures provide examples of where methane can escape from landfills and where sources of emissions have been found. This shows the difficulty in identifying where methane emissions are coming from and the importance of well maintained infrastructure to ensure methane is being abated.

left_text_column_width

Figure A1. Sources of methane emissions at landfills. Source: Garland et al. (2023).

Diagram of landfill components and emissions sources

Source: Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/landfill_monitoring_memo_series.pdf 

Enable Download
On

Figure A2. Source of methane leaks at landfills. Source: Ayandele et al. (2024a).

Source: Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Garland, E. (2024a). Deploying advanced monitoring technologies at US landfills. RMI. 

Enable Download
On
Updated Date

Deploy LED Lighting

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency
Image
Office building exterior showing many floors of indoor lit offices
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Deploy LED Lighting solution as replacing energy-inefficient light sources with light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Lighting accounts for 15–20% of electricity use in buildings. Using LEDs reduces the electricity that building lighting consumes, and thereby cuts GHG emissions from global electricity generation.

Income & work,Health
Water quality,Air quality
Overview

LED technology for lighting indoor and outdoor spaces is more energy-efficient than other lighting sources currently on the market (Zissis et al., 2021). This is because LEDs are solid-state semiconductors that emit light generated through a direct conversion of the flow of electricity (electroluminescence) rather than heating a tungsten filament to make it glow. More of the electrical energy goes to producing light in an LED lamp than in less-efficient alternative lighting technologies such as incandescent light bulbs or compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) (Koretsky, 2021; Nair & Dhoble, 2021a). This difference offers significant energy-efficiency gains (see Figure 1).

Globally, lighting-related electricity consumption can account for as much as 20% of the total annual electricity used in buildings (Gayral, 2017; Pompei et al., 2020; Pompei et al., 2022). In 2022, the IEA estimated that total electricity consumption for lighting buildings globally was 1,736 TWh (Lane, 2023). Schleich et al. (2014) and others have argued that buildings consume more electricity for lighting when occupants perceive a lighting source as efficient (rebound effect). However, the growing adoption of LED lighting over the years has significantly optimized electricity consumption from building lighting, especially in residential buildings (Lane, 2023).

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006), generating electricity from fossil fuels emits CO₂,  methane, and nitrous oxide. Replacing inefficient lamps with LEDs cuts these emissions by reducing electricity demand. LEDs often have a power rating of 4–10W, which is 3–10 times lower than alternatives. LEDs also last significantly longer: With a lifespan that can exceed 25,000 hours, they vastly outperform incandescent bulbs (1,000 hours) and CFLs (10,000 hours), as shown in Figure 1. LED’s longevity leads to potential long-term savings due to fewer replacements. The amount of light produced per energy input (luminous efficacy) is up to 10 times greater than alternative lighting sources. This means substantially more lighting for less energy.

Figure 1. A comparison of light sources for building lighting (data from Lane, 2023; Mathias et al., 2023; Nair & Dhoble, 2021b; Xu, 2019).

Light source type Power rating (watts) Luminous efficacy (lumens/watt) Lifespan (hours)
Incandescent 40–100 10–15 1,000
CFL 12–20 60–63 10,000
LED 4–10 110–150 25,000–100,000

The International Energy Agency (IEA) and other international bodies report LED market penetration in terms of percentages of the global lighting market (Lane, 2023). We chose this approach to track the impact of adopting LEDs.

Take Action Intro

Would you like to help deploy LED lighting? Below are some ways you can make a difference, depending on the roles you play in your professional or personal life.

These actions are meant to be starting points for involvement and may or may not be the most important, impactful, or doable actions you can take. We encourage you to explore, get creative, and take a step that is right for you!

References

Albatayneh, A., Juaidi, A., Abdallah, R., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2021). Influence of the advancement in the LED lighting technologies on the optimum windows-to-wall ratio of Jordanians residential buildings. Energies, 14(17), 5446. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/17/5446

Amann, J. T., Fadie, B., Mauer, J., Swaroop, K., & Tolentino, C. (2022). Farewell to fluorescent lighting: How a phaseout can cut mercury pollution, protect the climate, and save money. https://www.aceee.org/research-report/b2202

Behar-Cohen, F., Martinsons, C., Viénot, F., Zissis, G., Barlier-Salsi, A., Cesarini, J. P.,…Attia, D. (2011). Light-emitting diodes (LED) for domestic lighting: Any risks for the eye? Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, 30(4), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2011.04.002

Booysen, M. J., Samuels, J. A., & Grobbelaar, S. S. (2021). LED there be light: The impact of replacing lights at schools in South Africa. Energy and Buildings, 235, 110736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110736

Bose-O'Reilly, S., McCarty, K. M., Steckling, N., & Lettmeier, B. (2010). Mercury exposure and children's health. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 40(8), 186–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2010.07.002

Build Up. (2019). Overview_Decarbonising the non-residential building stock. European Commission. Retrieved 05 March 2025 from https://build-up.ec.europa.eu/en/resources-and-tools/articles/overview-decarbonising-non-residential-building-stock

Cenci, M. P., Dal Berto, F. C., Schneider, E. L., & Veit, H. M. (2020). Assessment of LED lamps components and materials for a recycling perspective. Waste Management, 107, 285-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.028

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2024). Power sector programs - progress report. https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/progress-report

Forastiere, S., Piselli, C., Silei, A., Sciurpi, F., Pisello, A. L., Cotana, F., & Balocco, C. (2024). Energy efficiency and sustainability in food retail buildings: Introducing a novel assessment framework. Energies, 17(19), 4882. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/19/4882

Fu, X., Feng, D., Jiang, X., & Wu, T. (2023). The effect of correlated color temperature and illumination level of LED lighting on visual comfort during sustained attention activities. Sustainability, 15(4), 3826. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3826

Gao, W., Sun, Z., Wu, Y., Song, J., Tao, T., Chen, F.,…Cao, H. (2022). Criticality assessment of metal resources for light-emitting diode (LED) production – a case study in China. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 6, 100380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100380

Gasparotto, J., & Da Boit Martinello, K. (2021). Coal as an energy source and its impacts on human health. Energy Geoscience, 2(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engeos.2020.07.003

Gayral, B. (2017). LEDs for lighting: Basic physics and prospects for energy savings. Comptes Rendus Physique, 18(7), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2017.09.001

Gromada, A., & Trębska, P. (2024). Energy efficiency—case study for households in poland. Energies, 17(18), 4592. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/18/4592

Hasan, M. M., Moznuzzaman, M., Shaha, A., & Khan, I. (2024). Enhancing energy efficiency in Bangladesh's readymade garment sector: The untapped potential of LED lighting retrofits. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-05-2024-0009

Henneman, L., Choirat, C., Dedoussi, I., Dominici, F., Roberts, J., & Zigler, C. (2023). Mortality risk from United States coal electricity generation. 382(6673), 941–946. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.adf4915

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2022 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories volume 3: Energy; Chapter 2: Stationary combustion. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2022). Targeting 100% LED lighting sales by 2025. https://www.iea.org/reports/targeting-100-led-lighting-sales-by-2025

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). Global floor area and buildings energy intensity in the net zero scenario, 2010-2030. Retrieved 06 March 2025 from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-floor-area-and-buildings-energy-intensity-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2010-2030

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2024). World energy balances. IEA. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances

Iskra-Golec, I., Wazna, A., & Smith, L. (2012). Effects of blue-enriched light on the daily course of mood, sleepiness and light perception: A field experiment. 44(4), 506-513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153512447528

Kamat, A. S., Khosla, R., & Narayanamurti, V. (2020). Illuminating homes with LEDs in india: Rapid market creation towards low-carbon technology transition in a developing country. Energy Research & Social Science, 66, 101488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101488

Khan, N., & Abas, N. (2011). Comparative study of energy saving light sources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.072

Koretsky, Z. (2021). Phasing out an embedded technology: Insights from banning the incandescent light bulb in europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 82, 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102310

Lane, K. (2023, 11 July 2023). Lighting. International Energy Agency (IEA). Retrieved 13 December 2024 from https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/lighting

Lee, K., Donnelly, S., & Phillips, G. (2024). 2020 U.S. Lighting market characterization. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2371534

Lee, K., Nubbe, V., Rego, B., Hansen, M., & Pattison, M. (2021). 2020 LED manufacturing supply chain. U. S. DOE. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/ssl-2020-led-mfg-supply-chain-mar21.pdf

Mathias, J. A., Juenger, K. M., & Horton, J. J. (2023). Advances in the energy efficiency of residential appliances in the US: A review. Energy Efficiency, 16(5), 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-023-10114-8

Moadab, N. H., Olsson, T., Fischl, G., & Aries, M. (2021). Smart versus conventional lighting in apartments - electric lighting energy consumption simulation for three different households. Energy and Buildings, 244, 111009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111009

Moyano, D. B., Moyano, S. B., López, M. G., Aznal, A. S., & Lezcano, R. A. G. (2020). Nominal risk analysis of the blue light from LED luminaires in indoor lighting design. Optik, 223, 165599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2020.165599

Nair, G. B., & Dhoble, S. J. (2021a). 2 - fundamentals of LEDs. In G. B. Nair & S. J. Dhoble (Eds.), The fundamentals and applications of light-emitting diodes (pp. 35–57). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819605-2.00002-1

Nair, G. B., & Dhoble, S. J. (2021b). 6 - general lighting. In G. B. Nair & S. J. Dhoble (Eds.), The fundamentals and applications of light-emitting diodes (pp. 155–176). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819605-2.00006-9

Pattison, M., Hansen, M., Bardsley, N., Elliott, C., Lee, K., Pattison, L., & Tsao, J. (2020). 2019 lighting R&D opportunities. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1618035

Periyannan, E., Ramachandra, T., & Geekiyanage, D. (2023). Assessment of costs and benefits of green retrofit technologies: Case study of hotel buildings in Sri Lanka. Journal of Building Engineering, 78, 107631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107631

Placek, M. (2023). LED lighting in the United States - statistics & facts. Statista. Retrieved 09 February 2025 from https://www.statista.com/topics/1144/led-lighting-in-the-us/#topicOverview

Pompei, L., Blaso, L., Fumagalli, S., & Bisegna, F. (2022). The impact of key parameters on the energy requirements for artificial lighting in Italian buildings based on standard en 15193-1:2017. Energy and Buildings, 263, 112025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112025

Pompei, L., Mattoni, B., Bisegna, F., Blaso, L., & Fumagalli, S. (2020, 9–12 June 2020). Evaluation of the energy consumption of an educational building, based on the uni en 15193–1:2017, varying different lighting control systems. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2020 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe)

Sarigiannis, D. A., Karakitsios, S. P., Antonakopoulou, M. P., & Gotti, A. (2012). Exposure analysis of accidental release of mercury from compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Science of The Total Environment, 435–436, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.026

Saunders, H. D., & Tsao, J. Y. (2012). Rebound effects for lighting. Energy Policy, 49, 477-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.050

Schleich, J., Mills, B., & Dütschke, E. (2014). A brighter future? Quantifying the rebound effect in energy efficient lighting. Energy Policy, 72, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.028

Schratz, M., Gupta, C., Struhs, T. J., & Gray, K. (2016). A new way to see the light: Improving light quality with cost-effective led technology. IEEE Industry Applications Magazine, 22(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIAS.2015.2459089

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2021). SADC member states welcome the introduction of new efficient lighting standards. UNIDO. Retrieved 05 March 2025 from https://www.unido.org/news/sadc-member-states-welcome-introduction-new-efficient-lighting-standards

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2016). Solid-state lighting R&D plan. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f32/ssl_rd-plan_%20jun2016_2.pdf

Xiong, Y., Guo, H., Nor, D. D. M. M., Song, A., & Dai, L. (2023). Mineral resources depletion, environmental degradation, and exploitation of natural resources: Covid-19 aftereffects. Resources Policy, 85, 103907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103907

Xu, Y. (2019). Chapter 2.1 - nature and source of light for plant factory. In M. Anpo, H. Fukuda, & T. Wada (Eds.), Plant factory using artificial light (pp. 47–69). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813973-8.00002-6

Zhang, H., Cai, J., & Braun, J. E. (2023). A whole building life-cycle assessment methodology and its application for carbon footprint analysis of U.S. Commercial buildings. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 16(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2022.2107071

Zissis, G., Bertoldi, P., & Serrenho, T. (2021). Update on the status of LED-lighting world market since 2018. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC122760

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Henry Igugu, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Megan Matthews

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda Smith, Ph.D.

  • Tina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Replacing 1% of the building lighting market with LED lamps avoids approximately 7.09 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr emissions on a 100-yr basis (Table 1) or 7.15 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr on a 20-yr basis.

We estimated this solution’s effectiveness (Table 1) by multiplying the global electricity savings intensity (kWh/%) by an emissions intensity (g/kWh) for each GHG emitted due to electricity generation. Using the IEA (2024)’s energy balances data, we estimated emissions intensities of approximately 529 g/kWh for CO₂, 0.07 g/kWh for methane and 0.01 g/kWh for nitrous oxide. Country-specific data were limited. Therefore, we developed the savings intensity using the IEA’s adoption trend (%/yr) and electricity consumption reduction (kWh/yr) for residential buildings globally (Lane, 2023). We then scaled up the savings intensity to represent all buildings (since LEDs are applicable in all types of buildings), but we could not find global data specifying the energy savings potential of converting the lighting market in nonresidential buildings to LEDs. Notably, artificial lighting’s energy consumption varies across building types (Moadab et al., 2021) and is typically greater in nonresidential buildings (Build Up, 2019). This presents some level of uncertainty, but also suggests that our estimates could be conservative – and that there is potential for even greater savings in nonresidential buildings.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/% lamps LED/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 7090000
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Our lifetime initial cost estimate of switching 1% of the global building lighting market to LEDs is approximately US$1.5 billion. Because LEDs use less electricity than alternative lamps, they cost less to operate, resulting in operating costs of –US$1.3 billion/yr (i.e., cost savings). Building owners typically are not paid to use LED lighting; therefore, the revenue is zero. After amortizing the initial cost over 30 years, the net annual cost for this solution is –US$1.2 billion/yr globally. Thus, replacing other bulbs with LEDs saves money despite the initial cost.

We estimated the cost (Table 2) by first identifying initial and operating costs from studies that retrofitted buildings with LEDs, such as Periyannan et al. (2023), Hasan et al. (2024), and Forastiere et al. (2024). We then divided the costs by the impact of the LED retrofit on the amount of electricity consumed by lighting in each study and multiplied this by the global electricity savings intensity (kWh/%) we estimated during the effectiveness analysis. The result was the cost per percent of lamps in buildings converted to LED lighting (US$/% lamps LED).

We estimated the cost per unit climate impact by dividing the annual cost savings per adoption unit by the CO₂‑eq emissions reduced yearly per adoption unit (Table 2).

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

median -175.0

Negative values reflect cost savings.

Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

As LEDs became more common in building lighting, costs dropped significantly in recent years.

Trends based on LED adoption data (Lane, 2023) and the cost of LED lighting (Pattison et al., 2020) showed a 29.7% drop in cost as LED adoption doubled between 2016 and 2019.

The cost data we used to identify the learning curve for this solution (Table 3) are specific to the United States and limited to pre-2020. More recent LED cost data may show additional cost benefits, but this value may not be applicable for other countries. However, the cost data we analyzed do provide a useful sample of the broader LED cost-reduction trend.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed solution base

Units: %

Estimate 29.7
Left Text Column Width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Deploy LED Lighting is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Our effectiveness analysis is based on the current state of LED technology. If the adoption ceiling is attained, further improvements to the amount of light that LEDs generate per unit electricity could enhance the solution’s impact through further reductions in electricity use.

The rebound effect – where building occupants use more lighting in response to increased energy-efficiency of lamps – is a well-established concern (Saunders and Tsao, 2012; Schleich et al. 2014). We attempted to address this concern by using IEA data on actual electricity consumption originating from building lighting to determine both its effectiveness and cost implications (Lane, 2023).

We did not fully account for the cost savings that potentially arise from fewer bulb replacements, since LEDs may replace various types of lamps. Because LEDs last significantly longer than all alternative lamp technologies, building owners may require fewer replacements when using LED lamps compared with other lighting sources.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Lane (2023) found that LED lamps represented 50.5% of the lighting market globally for residential buildings in 2022, but does not provide adoption data specific to nonresidential buildings. Studies that provide global or geographically segmented LED adoption data for all building types are also limited. Therefore, we assume 50.5% to be representative of LED adoption across all buildings globally (Table 4).

Other studies highlight adoption levels across various countries. The data captured in these studies and reports provide context with specific adoption levels from different regions (see Geographic Guidance).

The IEA and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report that LEDs are increasingly the preferred choice of homeowners and the general building lighting market. This preference is evident in the growing market share of LED lamps sold and installed annually (Lane, 2023; Lee et al., 2024).

In general, the solution’s current adoption globally is substantial, and we recognize that some countries possess more room for the solution to scale. While adoption barriers vary across regions, many countries are establishing lighting standards to drive LED adoption, especially across Africa [(IEA, 2022; United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), 2021].

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Current (2022) adoption level.

Units: % lamps LED

Estimate 50.5
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Adoption of LEDs has grown approximately 3.75%/yr over the past two decades.

Lane (2023) found that the proportion of lamps sold annually for building lighting that are LEDs grew from 1.1% in 2010 to 50.5% in 2022 (Figure 2). We estimated the adoption trend (Table 5) by determining the percentage growth between successive years, and calculating the variances.

left_text_column_width

Figure 2. Trend in LED adoption between 2010 and 2022 (adapted from Lane, 2023).

Source: Lane, K. (2023, 11 July 2023). Lighting. International Energy Agency (IEA). Retrieved 13 December 2024 from https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/lighting

Enable Download
On

Data on the growth of LEDs across regional building lighting markets are limited. Lee et al. (2024)’s analysis of the U.S. lighting market found 46.5% growth 2010–2020, which translates to 4.65% annually. Zissis et al. (2021) reported 26% growth for France for 2017–2020, which averages 8.67% annually.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. 2010–2022 adoption trend.

Units: % lamps LED market share growth/yr

25th percentile 2.85
mean 4.12
median (50th percentile) 3.75
75th percentile 5.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

The adoption ceiling (Table 6) is 100%, meaning all lamps in buildings are LEDs. Lane (2023) projects 100% LED market penetration by 2030. If current adoption trends continue, 100% LED adoption is a practical and achievable upper limit. However, countries will need to overcome challenges such as regulatory enforcement, financial, and technology access issues, while preventing the entrance of inferior quality LEDs into their lighting market (IEA, 2022).

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Adoption ceiling

Units: % lamps LED

Estimate 100
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We estimate a low achievable adoption scenario of 87% based on Statista’s projections about LED lighting market penetration by 2030 (Placek, 2023). The values were similar in Zissis et al. (2021).

For the high achievable scenario, we projected 10 years beyond the 2022 adoption level using the mean adoption trend of 4.12%/yr. This translates to a 41% growth on top of the current adoption level of 50.5%, summing up to a 92% LED adoption level (Table 7).

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: % lamps LED

Current Adoption 50.5
Achievable – Low 87
Achievable – High 92
Adoption Ceiling 100
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that current adoption cuts about 0.36 Gt CO₂‑eq emissions on a 100-yr basis compared with the previous alternative lighting sources (Table 8). The low achievable adoption scenario of 87% LED lamps could cut emissions 0.62 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr due to reduced electricity consumption, while a high achievable adoption scenario of 92% LED lamps could cut emissions 0.65 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. If the adoption ceiling of 100% LEDs for lighting buildings is reached, we estimate that 0.71 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr could be avoided (Table 8).

LED lighting could further cut electricity consumption as LED technology continues to improve. However, the technology’s future climate impacts will depend on the emissions of future electricity-generation systems.

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.36
Achievable – Low 0.62
Achievable – High 0.65
Adoption Ceiling 0.71
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Air & Water Quality

The lower electricity demand of LEDs could help reduce emissions from power plants and so improve air quality (Amann et al., 2022). Additionally, LEDs can mitigate small amounts of mercury found in fluorescent lights (Amann et al., 2022). Mercury contamination from discarded bulbs in landfills can leach into surrounding water bodies and accumulate in aquatic life. LEDs also have longer lifespans than fluorescent and incandescent bulbs (Nair & Dhoble, 2021b) which can reduce the amount of discarded bulbs and further mitigate environmental degradation from landfills. 

Income & Work

Because LEDs use less electricity than fluorescent and incandescent light bulbs (Khan & Abas, 2011), households and businesses using LED technology can save money on electricity costs. The payback period for the initial investment from lower utility bills is about one year for residential buildings and about two months for commercial buildings (Amann et al., 2022). LED lighting can contribute to savings by minimizing energy demand for cooling, since LEDs emit less heat than fluorescent and incandescent bulbs (Albatayneh et al., 2021; Schratz et al., 2016). However, it could also lead to a greater need for space heating in some regions. LED lights also last longer than alternative lighting technologies, which can lead to lower maintenance costs (Schratz et al., 2016).

Health

Reductions in air pollution due to LED lighting’s lower electricity demand decrease exposures to pollutants such as mercury and fine particulate matter generated from fossil fuel-based power plants, improving the health of nearby communities [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2024]. These pollutants have been linked to increased morbidity from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, asthma, infections, and cancer, (Gasparotto & Martinello, 2021) and to increased risk of mortality (Henneman et al., 2023). Because LEDs do not contain mercury, they can mitigate small health risks associated with mercury exposure when fluorescent light bulbs break (Bose-O’Reilly et al., 2010; Sarigiannis et al., 2012). Switching to LEDs can also enhance a visual environment and improve occupants’ well-being, visual comfort, and overall productivity when lamps with the appropriate lighting quality and correlated color temperature are selected (Fu et al., 2023; Iskra-Golec et al., 2012; Nair & Dhoble, 2021b).

left_text_column_width
Risks

We found limited data indicating risks with choosing LEDs over other lighting sources. Concerns about eye health raised in the early days of LED adoption (Behar-Cohen et al., 2011) have been allayed by studies that found that LEDs do not pose a greater risk to the eye than comparable lighting sources (Moyano et al. 2020). 

LED manufacturing uses metals like gold, indium, and gallium (Gao et al., 2022). This creates environmental risks due to mining (Xiong et al., 2023) and makes LED supply chains susceptible to macroeconomic uncertainties (Lee et al., 2021). With growing adoption of LED lights, there is also the risk of greater electronic waste at the end of the LED’s lifespan. Therefore, recycling is increasingly important (Cenci et al., 2020). 

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Other lighting sources such as incandescent lamps are known to produce some heat, thus adding to the cooling load. LEDs are more energy-efficient, and therefore could reduce the cooling requirements of a space. 

left_text_column_width

Competing

Some studies demonstrate an increase in the indoor heating requirements when switching to LED lighting from other lighting sources, such as incandescent lamps, that produce more heat than LEDs. The difference is often small, but worth taking into account when adopting LEDs in a building with previously energy-inefficient lighting.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

% lamps LED

t CO₂-eq/unit
7.09×10⁶
units
Current 50.58792
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq/yr
Current 0.36 0.620.65
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-175
Gradual

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

LED lamp manufacturing creates more emissions than manufacturing other types of lamps. For example, Zhang et al. (2023) compared the manufacturing emissions of a 12.5W LED lamp with a 14W CFL and a 60W incandescent bulb. These light sources provided similar levels of illumination (850–900 lumens). The production of one LED bulb resulted in 9.81 kg CO₂‑eq emissions, while the CFL and incandescent resulted in 2.29 and 0.73 kg CO₂‑eq emissions, respectively. However, LEDs are preferred because their longevity results in fewer LED lamps required to provide the same amount of lighting over time. LEDs can last 25 times longer than incandescent lamps with an identical lumen output (Nair & Dhoble, 2021b; Xu, 2019; Zhang et al., 2023). 

left_text_column_width
% LED lamps
< 20
20–40
40–60
> 60
No data

Percentage of lamps that are LEDs, circa 2020

The percentage of lamps used to light buildings that are LEDs varies around the world, with limited data available on a per-country basis.

Miah, M. A. R., & Kabir, R. (2023). Energy savings forecast for solid-state lighting in residential and commercial buildings in Bangladesh. IEEE PES 15th Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/APPEEC57400.2023.10561921

U.S. Department of Energy (2024). 2020 U.S. lighting market characterization. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/ssl-lmc2020_apr24.pdf

World Furniture Online (2017). The lighting fixtures market in Australia and New Zealand. https://www.worldfurnitureonline.com/report/the-lighting-fixtures-market-in-australia-and-new-zealand/

Zissis, G., Bertoldi, P., & Serrenho, T. (2021). Update on the status of LED-lighting world market since 2018. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC122760

% LED lamps
< 20
20–40
40–60
> 60
No data

Percentage of lamps that are LEDs, circa 2020

The percentage of lamps used to light buildings that are LEDs varies around the world, with limited data available on a per-country basis.

Miah, M. A. R., & Kabir, R. (2023). Energy savings forecast for solid-state lighting in residential and commercial buildings in Bangladesh. IEEE PES 15th Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/APPEEC57400.2023.10561921

U.S. Department of Energy (2024). 2020 U.S. lighting market characterization. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/ssl-lmc2020_apr24.pdf

World Furniture Online (2017). The lighting fixtures market in Australia and New Zealand. https://www.worldfurnitureonline.com/report/the-lighting-fixtures-market-in-australia-and-new-zealand/

Zissis, G., Bertoldi, P., & Serrenho, T. (2021). Update on the status of LED-lighting world market since 2018. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC122760

Geographic Guidance Introduction

The Deploy LED Lighting solution can be equally effective at reducing electricity use across global regions because the efficiency gained by replacing other bulbs with LEDs is functionally identical. However, its climate impact will vary with the emissions intensity of each region’s electricity grid. Secondary considerations associated with uptake of LED lighting also can vary with climate and hence geography. In particular, the decrease in heating associated with LED lighting can reduce demands on air conditioning, leading to increased incentive for solution uptake in warmer climates.

Historically, a few countries typically account for the bulk of LEDs purchased. For example, 30% of the 5 billion LEDs sold globally in 2016 were sold in China. In the same period, North America accounted for 15% while Western Europe, Japan, and India represented 11%, 10%, and 8% of the LEDs sold, respectively (Kamat et al., 2020; U.S. DOE, 2016). Essentially, the growing sales of LEDs drove global adoption levels from 17.6% of the building lighting market in 2016 to 50.5% in 2022 (Lane, 2023). However, current adoption still varies considerably around the world. For instance, Lee et al. (2024) reported that LED market penetration in the U.S. was 47.5% in 2020, compared with 43.3% globally in the same period (Lane, 2023). Meanwhile, LED adoption in France was 35% in 2017, and countries in the Middle East such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey had over 70% LED adoption that same year; residential buildings in the United Kingdom had 13% LED adoption in 2018, while Japan had 60% LED adoption as of 2019 (Zissis et al., 2021). This demonstrates potential to scale LED adoption in the future, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the bulk of new building occurs (IEA, 2023).

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
LED Lighting
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Use regulations to phase out and replace energy-inefficient lighting sources with LEDs.
  • Set regulations that encourage sufficient lighting to limit the overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Require that public lighting use LEDs.
  • Use financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LEDs.
  • Revise building energy-efficiency standards to reflect energy savings of LEDs.
  • Develop production standards and mandate labeling for LEDs.
  • Build sufficient inspection capacity for LED manufacturers and penalize noncompliance with standards.
  • Use energy-efficiency purchase agreements to help support utility companies during the transition to LED lighting.
  • Invest in research and development that improves the cost and efficiency of LED lighting.
  • Develop a certification program for LED lighting.
  • Create exchange programs or buy-back programs for inefficient light bulbs.
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Take advantage of or advocate for financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the production of LED lighting.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing materials.
  • Invest in research and development to improve efficiency and cost of LEDs.
  • Adhere to, or advocate for, national LED standards.
  • Develop, produce, and sell LED lighting that imitates incandescent or other familiar lighting.
  • Consider bundling services with retrofitting companies and collaborating with utility companies to offer rebates or other incentives.
  • Improve self-service of LEDs by reducing obstacles to installation and ensuring LEDs can be easily replaced.
  • Help create positive perceptions of LED lighting by showcasing usage, cost savings, and emissions reductions.
  • Create feedback mechanisms, such as apps that alert users to real-time benefits such as energy and cost savings.
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Retrofit existing operations for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing LED lighting materials.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Invest in research and development that improves the cost and efficiency of LED lighting.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Retrofit existing operations for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing LED lighting materials.
  • Take advantage of, or advocate for, financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Advocate for regulations to phase out and replace energy-inefficient lighting sources with LEDs.
  • Advocate for production standards and labeling for LEDs.
  • Call for regulations that encourage sufficient lighting to limit the overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Help develop, support, or administer a certification program for LED lighting.
  • Create national catalogs of LED manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Investors
  • Retrofit existing operations for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Invest in LED manufacturers, supply chains, and supportive industries.
  • Support research and development to improve the efficiency and cost of LEDs.
  • Invest in LED companies.
  • Fund companies that provide retrofitting services (energy service companies).
  • Invest in businesses dedicated to advancing LED use.
  • Ensure portfolio companies do not produce or support non-LED lighting supply chains.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Retrofit existing operations for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Provide financing such as low-interest loans, grants, and micro-grants to help accelerate LED adoption.
  • Fund companies that provide retrofitting services (energy service companies).
  • Advocate for regulations to phase out energy-inefficient lighting sources and replace them with LEDs.
  • Call for regulations that encourage sufficient lighting to limit the overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Help develop, support, or administer a certification program for LED lighting.
  • Create national catalogs of LED manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Retrofit buildings for LED lighting, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Help create positive perceptions of LED lighting by highlighting your personal usage, cost and energy savings, and emissions reductions.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing materials.
  • Take advantage of, or advocate for, financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Advocate for regulations to phase out energy-inefficient lighting sources and replace them with LEDs.
  • Advocate for LED standards.
  • Advocate for regulations that encourage sufficient lighting and guard against overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Help develop, support, or administer a certification program for LED lighting.
  • Create national catalogs of LED manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing materials.
  • Improve the efficiency and cost of LEDs.
  • Improve LED lighting to imitate familiar lighting, offer customers settings, and augment color rendering.
  • Improve self-service of LEDs by reducing obstacles to installation and ensuring LEDs can be replaced individually.
  • Help develop standards for LEDs.
  • Create feedback mechanisms, such as apps that alert users to real-time benefits such as energy and cost savings.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Retrofit for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Help create positive perceptions of LED lighting by highlighting your personal usage, cost and energy savings, and emissions reductions.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing materials.
  • Take advantage of or advocate for financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Advocate for regulations to phase out and replace energy-inefficient lighting sources with LEDs.
  • Advocate for LED standards.
  • Advocate for regulations that encourage sufficient lighting to limit the overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

The level of consensus about the effectiveness of replacing other lighting sources with LEDs is High. 

Using LEDs significantly minimizes the electricity required to light buildings, thereby reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation. Many countries are phasing out other lighting sources to reduce GHG emissions (Lane, 2023).

The IEA reported that global adoption of LEDs drove a nearly 30% reduction in annual electricity consumption for lighting in homes between 2010 and 2022 (Lane, 2023). Hasan et al. (2024) indicated that LEDs could reduce the lighting energy usage of buildings (and their resulting GHG emissions) in Bangladesh by 50%. Periyannan et al. (2023) recorded significant electricity savings after evaluating the impact of retrofitting hotels in Sri Lanka with LEDs. Forastiere et al. (2024)’s analysis of the retail buildings in Italy showed an 11% reduction in energy consumption from replacing other lamps with LEDs. Booysen et al., (2021) also achieved significant energy reduction with lighting retrofits in South African educational buildings.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from six original studies and three public sector/multilateral agency reports, which collectively reflect current evidence both globally and from six countries on four different continents. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date
Subscribe to Income &amp; work
Back to top