What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, improving district heating for industry by integrating low-carbon heat sources has the potential to significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels and the emissions they generate. However, the lack of data, combined with the complexity of such projects and the growing interest in alternative decarbonization pathways, makes this a potential solution to “Keep Watching.”

What is it?

District heating systems consist of a network of underground pipes that distribute heat to a large number of buildings, including industrial buildings. In the industrial sector, district heating is used by light industries and for processes such as drying, paper making, food processing, as well as space heating and even heat-driven chillers for refrigeration. Industry is well-suited to district heating because it typically has steady and predictable heat demand throughout the year. Current district heating systems rely heavily on coal and natural gas for heat generation, often as part of combined heat and power generation. Low-carbon alternatives for district heating can include burning biomass, electric heat pumps, solar thermal, deep geothermal, and even waste heat from other industries. 

Does it work?

Shifting district heating for industry from conventional heat sources to low-carbon heat sources will significantly reduce emissions. Our analysis for district heating use by commercial and residential buildings shows that significant emissions can be avoided by shifting to electric boilers, heat pumps, biomass boilers, and the use of waste heat (see Improve District Heating: Buildings). Similar outcomes are likely possible for industrial district heating use, and emissions reductions will increase as more renewables are integrated into the electricity systems used to power electric boilers and heat pumps. 

Why are we excited?

District heating for industry currently produces significant emissions. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), district heating for all applications accounted for 4% of global emissions in 2022, and roughly 40% of the heat energy from district heating was delivered to industry. China is a major adopter of district heating for industries, with the combustion of coal supplying much of that heat. The shift to renewable heat sources is likely to increase because both China and the EU have policies targeting the adoption of renewables in district heating. Because district heating systems serve multiple buildings, a single project to replace fossil fuels with renewables can have a large impact. Such projects also have the benefit of reducing local air pollution. 

Why are we concerned?

Although simple on paper, replacing fossil fuel systems with lower-carbon alternatives in district heating systems can be an extended undertaking involving many stakeholders and years of planning. Some low-carbon options may not be suitable for industrial processes that require higher temperatures than those needed for space heating. There is also a significant lack of publicly available data about how industry currently uses district heating and the opportunities and challenges involved in shifting to renewables. In the meantime, industrial heat pumps with higher temperature outputs (100–200°C) are increasingly available and could become a low-carbon competitor to the use of a conventional district heating system.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, we find that fishing vessel efficiency improvements are ready to deploy and feasible, but probably have limited climate impact because the wild capture fisheries sector contributes a relatively small share of global GHG emissions. These improvements will likely provide long-term cost savings and added benefits for ecosystems and air quality. We conclude this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it?

Improving fishing vessel efficiency reduces CO₂ emissions by using gear, vessel, or operational changes that lower fuel use in wild capture fisheries. Vessel upgrades include propulsion-related changes, such as installation of more efficient engines, and non-propulsion-related alterations, such as modified bows and hulls that reduce drag. Changing to low-fuel-use gear to catch fish, when and where possible, can also reduce CO₂ emissions. Operational changes, such as speed reductions or route optimization, can likewise lead to more efficient fuel use.

Does it work?

Vessel efficiency improvements are expected to deliver substantial fuel savings. An estimated 60–90% of emissions in wild capture fisheries, which emit roughly 0.18 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr in total, likely result from fuel consumption. Speed reductions alone can reduce fuel use by up to 30%. Vessel modifications could provide fuel savings of up to 20% in small fishing vessels, which comprise roughly 86% of all motorized fishing vessels globally. Upgrading engines and other propulsion-related equipment can reduce fuel use by up to 30%. Gear switching, when viable, can also be highly effective at improving fuel use efficiency, particularly if the target species are typically caught using methods such as trawling, which has a high carbon footprint. 

Why are we excited?

The average emissions per ton of landed fish in wild capture fisheries have grown by over 20% since 1990, highlighting the need for efficiency improvements. Many of these improvements can be implemented without sacrificing fishing effort or opportunities, and some operational changes, such as reducing vessel speed, can be done without any new equipment. All changes reduce fuel use, saving fishers money over time and likely resulting in fewer emissions of harmful air pollutants, such as sulfur oxides and black carbon. Some upgrades could deliver additional benefits to air quality and ocean ecosystems. Cleaner engines can further reduce air pollution through more complete combustion of fuel, and gear changes could benefit seafloor ecosystems, which can be damaged from bottom fishing practices, such as trawling and dredging. Additionally, some fishing gear has high bycatch rates, and switching to gear that allows for more exclusive capture of target species can reduce waste.

Why are we concerned?

Even with widespread adoption, efficiency improvements that reduce fuel use are unlikely to have a major climate impact. Efficiency improvements could also inadvertently encourage increases in fishing effort, which would increase fuel use and offset emissions cuts. Initial costs to upgrade can be highly variable, but might be high in some cases and therefore not feasible for some fishers. Gear switching can result in lower fish catches, as some methods might not be as efficient. Some operational changes, such as reducing speeds, could lead to fishers arriving at fishing grounds late.

What is our assessment?

While Improve Aquaculture is unlikely to have a major climate impact, our assessment concludes that it is “Worthwhile” due to its ability to reduce pressure on wild fish stocks and terrestrial biomass, and because efficiency improvements made now are likely to scale into greater climate impact as the sector continues to expand.

What is it?

GHG emissions from aquaculture can be reduced by increasing the feed conversion efficiency of the cultured animals and decarbonizing on-farm energy use. Aquaculture – farming aquatic animals or plants for food or other purposes – is rapidly growing and now accounts for over half of the global production of aquatic animals, exceeding wild capture fisheries. Over 7% of human-consumed protein is aquaculture-produced. As this sector has grown, it has become increasingly reliant on external feed sources, with the share of non-fed aquaculture (e.g., bivalves that feed from the water column) dropping from nearly 40% in 2000 to 27% in 2022. Improving feed conversion ratios (FCR) – the amount of feed it takes to produce a given amount of biomass – can lower feed demand and reduce CO₂ and other GHG emissions tied to feed production and transport. FCRs can be improved by feed formulations that increase digestibility, genetic or breeding modifications to improve digestive efficiency in the cultured animal, species-specific feed formulations, and optimizing ration size and feeding frequency. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use can help reduce CO₂ emissions from common equipment, such as aerators and water pumps.

Does it work?

Interventions to improve feed and energy efficiency can reduce CO₂ emissions from aquaculture operations, although the potential achievable climate impact of these actions is currently unlikely to be globally meaningful (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Total annual emissions from aquaculture were estimated to be 0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr in 2017, with nearly 60% of that attributed to feed production. Improving FCR is both plausible and effective, since it directly reduces the amount of food needed to cultivate fish and other species, thereby lowering emissions tied to feed production and transport. Between 1995 and 2007, improvements in FCR have ranged between 5 to 15% for a variety of species, including shrimp, salmon, carp, and tilapia.

Decarbonizing on-farm energy use can reduce equipment-related emissions, particularly in intensive systems that use energy for automated feeding systems, water temperature control, and circulation and aeration systems. In general, the potential impact of decarbonizing varies widely because on-farm energy use differs significantly across species and production systems. For instance, shrimp and prawn farming use nearly 20,000 MJ/t of live weight (LW), with over 75% from electricity, while bivalve production uses around 3,000 MJ/t of LW supplied largely by diesel.

Why are we excited?

Improving feed efficiency in aquaculture reduces demand for captured wild fish used in feed, reducing pressure on overfished stocks. It also lowers reliance on terrestrial biomass, such as soy, wheat, and rice, which come with additional land-use and emission costs. More efficient feeding can help reduce nutrient pollution, which can be responsible for high methane and nitrous oxide fluxes in some inland aquaculture systems. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use might ultimately lead to lower long-term operating costs and improved energy reliability.

Why are we concerned?

There are relatively few drawbacks associated with improving aquaculture. In the case of decarbonizing on-farm energy use, upfront costs could be high. For instance, installing solar panels or upgrading pumps can be financially challenging for small-scale operations. Energy use on farms can also vary throughout the day and night, which might not always align with renewable energy sources, like solar, without storage. 

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, blue hydrogen is feasible and ready to deploy, but there is little real-world evidence for its effectiveness or ability to scale. The expansion of this technology to replace current grey hydrogen production or to support the transition to a global hydrogen economy will perpetuate and possibly expand the use of fossil fuels. Because of this risk, we conclude that producing blue hydrogen is “Not Recommended”.

What is it?

Blue hydrogen production is an industrial process that produces hydrogen (H₂) from fossil fuels – either natural gas or coal – combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to reduce CO₂ emissions produced during the process. Today, most hydrogen is grey hydrogen made from natural gas without any CCS. The addition of CCS prevents the release of some of the CO₂ generated during the hydrogen production process; capturing, concentrating, and then storing it permanently underground. 

Does it work?

The technologies for making hydrogen from natural gas, predominantly steam methane reformation (SMR), are well-established and have been used to produce hydrogen for close to a century. CCS technology is also available and currently deployed in multiple industrial and power generation applications. The SMR hydrogen production process generates GHG emissions from two sources: methane leaks from the gas used as feedstock and fuel used to power the production process, and GHG emissions from both the SMR process and combustion of gas (or other fuels) for energy, including CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide, and black carbon. CCS can be applied to capture CO₂ produced during the SMR process, for post-combustion capture of CO₂ from the plant’s energy use, or for both. Incorporating CCS to capture emissions from the H₂ production process adds costs and increases energy use, but it could theoretically reduce CO₂ emissions by more than 90%. However, current adoption of blue hydrogen is very low – less than 1% of global hydrogen production – and there is little real-world evidence to support its effectiveness and scalability. The few commercial facilities currently in operation capture only about 60% or less of the emitted CO₂. Because CCS is energy-intensive, it requires more fuel to power the blue hydrogen production plant. This can also increase fugitive methane leaks due to increased gas-powered energy consumption. If implemented adequately, carbon storage can be permanent. The captured CO₂ can also be used as a chemical precursor for the manufacture of other products or for enhanced oil recovery; however, these post-capture uses of CO₂ emit GHGs, thereby reducing or eliminating the emissions reduction efficacy of CCS. Currently, only ~8% of CO₂ captured from blue hydrogen production is injected into dedicated geological storage, with the rest used in industry, enhanced oil recovery, and other applications. 

Why are we excited?

Hydrogen can be combusted as a zero-emissions fuel, used to store energy to produce electricity, or deployed as a feedstock in industrial, transportation, and energy systems. The production of any hydrogen type – blue, grey, or green hydrogen – could facilitate the expansion of hydrogen infrastructure and the development of the global hydrogen economy, which is an important step in scaling hydrogen. Blue hydrogen is more technologically ready and cheaper than green hydrogen, which is made from water using electrolysis powered by renewable energy. Blue hydrogen is more expensive to produce than grey hydrogen, but the cost per ton of CO₂ removed could be relatively low. Estimates range from US$60–110/t CO₂, although these costs are uncertain and, with lower CCS effectiveness, they could increase to ~US$260/t CO₂. If implemented with low fugitive methane emissions and high CCS efficiencies, blue hydrogen could substantially reduce emissions compared to current grey hydrogen production. The climate impact of scaling blue hydrogen could be high. Estimates and targets for blue hydrogen production by 2050 range from ~30–85 Mt H₂. At that scale, even modest emissions savings relative to grey hydrogen would have a climate impact above 0.09 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr by 2050. However, achieving this depends on the quality of the infrastructure and rate of technology scaling, both of which are unproven. 

Why are we concerned?

Currently, 6% of the world’s natural gas and 2% of its coal are used to make hydrogen. As hydrogen production ramps up, blue hydrogen – even though it reduces production emissions compared to grey hydrogen – would perpetuate and could even increase the global market for fossil fuels. If the future implementation of green hydrogen is set back, blue hydrogen could create a long-term dependency on fossil fuels. Furthermore, any hydrogen produced from natural gas leads to methane leaks, regardless of whether CO₂ is captured. Methane is a potent short-lived GHG, meaning its impact on climate warming is stronger in the near-term. This is why reducing methane emissions is an urgent emergency brake climate action. Building and expanding a new industry that relies on natural gas as both a feedstock and fuel, and which inevitably leaks methane, is counterproductive to solving the climate crisis. 

If and when there is a transition to a global hydrogen economy, blue hydrogen is a less effective climate solution than green hydrogen. Although this technology could be a transitional solution between grey and green hydrogen, blue hydrogen risks diverting resources away from green hydrogen development or ready-to-deploy renewable energy technologies, such as onshore wind or distributed solar PV. There are mixed expert opinions about the realistic level of avoided emissions that blue hydrogen may reach. Additionally, there is uncertainty around whether CCS can meet its technical potential at a reasonable cost.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, vertical farms are not an effective climate solution. The tremendous energy use and embodied emissions of vertical farm operations outweigh any potential savings of reducing food miles or land expansion. Moreover, the ability of vertical farms to truly scale to be a meaningful part of the global food system is extremely limited. We therefore classify this as “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.

What is it?

Vertical farms are facilities that grow crops indoors, with multiple layers of plants stacked on top of each other, using artificial lights, large heating and cooling systems, humidity controls, water pumps, and complex building automation systems. In principle, vertical farms can dramatically shrink the land “footprint” of agriculture, and this could help reduce the need for agricultural land. Moreover, by growing crops closer to urban centers, vertical farms could potentially reduce “food miles” and the emissions related to food transport.

Does it work? 

The technology of growing some kinds of crops – especially greens and herbs – in indoor facilities is well developed, but there is no evidence to show that doing so can reduce GHG emissions compared to growing the same food on traditional farms. Theoretically, vertical farms could reduce emissions associated with agricultural land expansion and food transportation. However, the operation and construction of vertical farms require enormous amounts of energy and materials, all of which cause significant emissions. Vertical farms require artificial lighting (even with efficient LEDs, this is a considerable energy cost), heating, cooling, humidity control, air circulation, and water pumping – all of which require energy. Vertical farms could be powered by renewable sources; however, this is an inefficient method for reducing GHG emissions compared to using that renewable energy to replace fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation. Growing food closer to urban centers also does not meaningfully reduce emissions because emissions from “food miles” are only a small fraction of the life cycle emissions for most farmed foods. Recent research has found that the carbon footprint of lettuce grown in vertical farms can be 5.6 to 16.7 times greater than that of lettuce grown with traditional methods.

Why are we excited?

While vertical farms are not an effective strategy for reducing emissions, they may have some value for climate resilience and adaptation. Vertical farms offer a protected environment for crop growth and well-managed water use, and they can potentially shield plants from pests, diseases, and natural disasters. Moreover, the controlled environment can be adjusted to adapt to changing climate conditions, helping ensure continuous production and lowering the risks of crop loss.

Why are we concerned?

Vertical farms use enormous amounts of energy and material to grow a limited array of food, all at significant cost. That energy and material have a significant carbon emissions cost, no matter how efficient the technology becomes. On the whole, vertical farms appear to emit far more GHGs than traditional farms do. Moreover, vertical farms are expensive to build and operate, and are unlikely to play a major role in the world’s food system. At present, they are mainly used to grow high-priced greens, vegetables, herbs, and cannabis, which do not address the tremendous pressure points in the global food system to feed the world sustainably. There are also concerns about the future of the vertical farming business. While early efforts were funded by venture capital, vertical farming has struggled to become profitable, putting its future in doubt.
 

What is our assessment?

The use of corn ethanol as a transportation biofuel, which has led to the expansion and intensification of corn production, does not reduce GHG emissions compared to gasoline. Based on this finding, using corn ethanol is not a plausible approach for reducing emissions and is “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.

What is it?

Corn ethanol is a liquid biofuel that is blended with gasoline to displace a fraction of the petroleum-based fuel with a renewable fuel derived from plants. Proponents claim that blending corn ethanol with gasoline reduces emissions because the CO₂ produced from combusting the ethanol is offset, or balanced out, by the atmospheric CO₂ absorbed by the corn plant during growth. Corn ethanol is made from corn grain by breaking down the starch in the kernels into sugar and then fermenting it into a liquid. In the United States, the world leader in biofuel production, almost 90% of biofuel is corn ethanol. Most gasoline now sold in the U.S. contains about 10% corn ethanol, and, in 2025, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program requires production of more than 15 billion gallons of this biofuel. Currently, it is primarily made from corn kernels; the technology for producing biomass-derived ethanol from other, non-edible parts of the corn plant is not yet commercially viable. Brazil is the second-largest producer of ethanol, but uses sugarcane as a feedstock. 

Does it work?

The Renewable Fuel Standard requires that the life cycle emissions from corn ethanol be at least 20% lower than those of conventional gasoline. However, based on comprehensive life cycle emissions analyses, using corn ethanol does not reduce emissions compared to gasoline. The main reasons for this are that the production of corn and processing it into ethanol generate large amounts of emissions, including from land conversion, fertilizer-related nitrous oxide emissions, and the industrial process of fermenting the corn into ethanol. The most prominent recent study reported that corn ethanol life cycle emissions were, at best, no less than gasoline and, more likely, were 24% higher. Corn ethanol is also more emissions-intensive than ethanol made from other plants, like sugar cane. 

Why are we excited?

Ethanol has been used as a transportation fuel, including as a blend with gasoline, for more than a century. It boosts the octane number of fuel, improves engine performance and fuel economy, and reduces emissions of harmful pollutants like unburned hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. Ethanol has also been used to replace other harmful and polluting gasoline additives, including lead and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). Ethanol produced from non-edible biological feedstocks with lower production emissions, such as switchgrass or cellulose from crop residues, has the potential to reduce emissions. 

Why are we concerned?

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program requires that biofuels be blended into the transportation fuel supply at annually increasing increments. The United States now uses one-third of its corn to generate more than 15 billion gallons of ethanol per year. Not only does this mandated program not reduce emissions (it more likely increases emissions), but it also consumes corn that could otherwise be used for food or animal feed. The increased demand for corn for ethanol has increased corn prices, which in turn have contributed to the conversion of grasslands and semi-natural ecosystems to grow more corn. When grasslands, woodlands, or other natural ecosystems are plowed and converted to cropland, the carbon stored in the vegetation and soil is emitted to the atmosphere. Between 2008 and 2016, the conversion of 1.8 Mha of natural and semi-natural land in the U.S. released about 400 million metric tons of CO₂ from vegetation and soil. The increased corn production also increased the application of synthetic fertilizers, which has increased nitrate leaching, phosphorus runoff, and emissions of nitrous oxide, a powerful GHG (see Improve Nutrient Management). These problems are particularly severe in the U.S. Midwest and the Mississippi River drainage.

What is our assessment?

Using CCS on fossil-fueled power plants will reduce electricity production emissions, but it is more expensive, more energy-intensive, and more polluting than readily available, cheaper, and cleaner alternatives like wind, solar, and geothermal. Based on this, and the risk that large-scale deployment of CCS on fossil-fueled power plants could drive continued production and use of coal and gas, we conclude that using CCS on fossil fuel power plants is “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.

What is it?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that reduces GHG emissions from fossil fuel-powered electricity generation facilities by selectively capturing CO₂ from the power plant’s exhaust flue, preventing it from entering the atmosphere. The captured CO₂ is then concentrated, compressed, and permanently stored underground. There are other commercially available CCS technologies, such as pre-combustion capture and oxy-fuel combustion, but these are used almost exclusively for industrial processes like gas processing and cannot be readily retrofitted to existing power plants. CCS can also be applied to capture CO₂ from other industrial facilities that generate emissions from fuel combustion or production processes, like cement or ethanol production plants, or from biomass energy power plants. Instead of permanent storage, captured CO₂ can also be used as a chemical precursor for the manufacture of other products or for enhanced oil recovery, but, compared to geologic storage, these post-capture uses of CO₂ emit GHGs, thereby reducing or eliminating the emissions reduction efficacy of CCS. 

Does it work?

The technology and chemistry for the selective capture of CO₂ from the exhaust of a power plant are effective. There are numerous chemical, membrane, and cryogenic methods for capturing CO₂, but monoethanolamine (MEA) is the predominant commercially available chemical absorbent currently in use in power plants with CCS. CO₂ capture efficiency varies with the type of reactive absorbent material and plant operations. Most CCS installations target 90% CO₂ capture rates, although actual capture rates are usually lower. CCS infrastructure is large, and the process of capturing CO₂ from power plant exhaust is complex, expensive, and energy-intensive. CCS requires the flue gas to be pumped to different parts of the power plant, the CO₂ to be captured and then separated from the sorbent material, and the concentrated CO₂ to be compressed for transport and storage. Energy for all these processes comes from the power plant. Various studies estimate CCS consumes at least 15–25% of the plant’s total generation capacity, with most of the energy used to separate the CO₂ and regenerate the sorbent material. 

CCS has been used in pilot studies and commercial operations in a few dozen coal and natural gas power plants since the late 1990s. Despite the functional effectiveness of the technology, use of CCS to reduce power plant emissions has not been broadly adopted, and most CCS projects initiated in the past three decades have failed or been discontinued. Based on various assessments and projections, deployment of CCS on power plants has consistently lagged behind its expected contribution to emissions reduction. There are currently only four power plants with CCS in operation in the world, less than 0.05% of the global fossil fuel power plant fleet. According to a 2021 study, only 10% of proposed CCS projects for power plants have actually been implemented. Based on another study, 78% of all power plant and industrial manufacturing CCS pilot and demonstration plants with a project size greater than 0.3 Mt CO₂ /yr have been cancelled or put on hold. 

Why are we excited?

Globally, emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants are still increasing, primarily in China and India, where large numbers of new thermal power plants have been built in the last two decades. Given the typical 30- to 45-year operational lifespan for coal and gas power plants, retrofitting these newer plants with CCS could substantially reduce their operational emissions while also allowing plant owners and investors to recover their investments. Installation of CCS to reduce emissions can also be prioritized for power plants located near places with geologic storage and where alternative electricity generation options are limited. There is a large amount of active research underway to develop and test alternative carbon capture technologies, most aimed at increasing carbon capture efficiencies and reducing energy demands and costs. Other research on the factors contributing to the failure of most CCS projects to date may lead to the development of regulations and policies that require or incentivize the use of CCS for power plants, which could increase the current low implementation and success rates for this emissions reduction technology. 

Why are we concerned? 

While CCS can reduce the operational CO₂ emissions from fossil-fueled power plants, large-scale deployment of this technology will likely drive continued production and use of coal and gas. Even before fossil fuels are burned, extraction, transport, and processing generate substantial GHG emissions, particularly for gas. Therefore, in addition to perpetuating the fossil fuel industry, even 90% efficient CCS reduces only a fraction of the life cycle emissions from coal and gas. 

Widespread deployment of CCS in the electricity sector could also delay or crowd out deployment of wind, solar, and geothermal energy, slowing the clean energy transition that is already underway. Beyond these risks, the three-decade-long failure of power plant CCS to make the transition from pilot-scale science and technology to large-scale commercial deployment reflects its systemic problems and limitations. Unlike wind and solar energy, which have seen costs decline rapidly with development and deployment, CCS on power plants shows little evidence of a learning curve. It remains very expensive and very energy-intensive. A large-scale CCS demonstration project can cost more than US$1 billion to build and, in addition to its operational costs, CCS consumes at least 15–25% of the energy that the plant could otherwise sell to customers. CCS-related energy requirements could mean that a power company would need to build an additional power plant to compensate for reduced electricity deliveries from every four of its power plants equipped with CCS. 

Due to these high project risks and costs, as well as the lack of regulations and policies to require or support CCS on power plants, public and private investments in the technology have been falling. Despite all this, recent research shows that the vast majority of lobbying spending for government support of CCS comes from fossil fuel interests, which have publicly stated that they view the technology as a strategy to extend society’s use of fossil fuels. Finally, in contrast to most other climate solutions that provide other benefits to natural systems or human well-being, CCS on power plants does nothing to address or alleviate the current harm from toxic air pollution produced by fossil-fueled power plants.