What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, improved ruminant breeding is one of the few promising solutions for reducing enteric methane production from the many millions of ruminants, including those managed on pasture and rangeland. However, it is not a climate solution that will yield quick results, nor is it ready for large-scale deployment at this time. Instead, it should be considered a wise mid- to long-term climate investment that we will “Keep Watching.”

What is it?

Selective breeding can produce ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, that produce less enteric methane during digestion. Enteric methane represents 21% of humanity’s methane emissions, equivalent to 2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Enteric methane is produced by microbes in the digestive system – primarily in the rumen, which is the first stomach compartment – and not by ruminants themselves, but its production is a symptom of inefficient digestion by the animal. Therefore, breeding for more efficient use of food by ruminants can reduce enteric methane emissions, while also potentially increasing meat and milk production. 

Does it work? 

Selective breeding of ruminants for reduced enteric methane production has been shown to be effective. One 10-year pilot breeding program resulted in a 12% methane reduction in animals born in the last generation. Other studies have reported emissions reductions ranging from 4 to 45 percent. The effect can be cumulative, with greater reductions in enteric methane production with every selected generation of ruminants. 

Why are we excited?

Despite their disproportionate climate impact, ruminant meat and dairy products are in high demand. Any strategy that can reduce methane emissions per kilogram of meat or milk could, if broadly adopted, yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq per year). A major advantage of this selective breeding approach is that it is suitable for both confined and grazing ruminants. The vast majority of ruminant animals spend all or part of their lives on pasture or rangeland. In contrast, feed additives, which can also reduce enteric methane production, are only suitable for confined animals. In addition, there is some evidence that this solution could increase the meat and milk productivity of ruminants by capturing energy from feed and forages that would otherwise have been lost as enteric methane.

Why are we concerned?

Breeding ruminants to reduce enteric methane production is not a climate solution that will show quick results. It will require prolonged testing using expensive measurement equipment on thousands of animals and selective breeding for each breed of each ruminant livestock species over many generations. Some researchers say that decade-long breeding programs will be required. Other than a few research projects, however, the current adoption of selective breeding for methane reduction is very low. Furthermore, selective breeding focused only on methane reduction could result in the loss of other desirable traits, such as productivity or adaptation to local conditions and farming systems. It is also possible that reducing enteric methane emissions per kilogram of milk or meat may not necessarily reduce total emissions if, for example, farmers or ranchers increase their herd sizes. Finally, there is the concern that improved ruminant breeding could be used as a smokescreen to divert attention from the importance of reducing consumption of ruminant meat and milk products in the diets of wealthy countries and reducing food waste of ruminant products.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, feed additives are a promising technology that could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions. A few, including 3-NOP, are just on the threshold of commercial adoption and may be widely used by confined ruminant producers in the coming years. The current use of feed additives is low, and the effectiveness of most feed additive compounds is not well-documented. Consequently, wide-scale adoption is largely confined to confined livestock in high-income countries. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

What is it?

Feed additives are a diverse group of natural and synthetic compounds that, when fed daily, can reduce enteric methane production in ruminant livestock, including cattle, sheep, and goats. Enteric methane from livestock is the source of 21% of humanity’s methane emissions, or 2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Feed additives reduce enteric methane production by suppressing the activity of microbes in the digestive system. 3-NOP (3-nitrooxypropanol) is a synthetic that inhibits an enzyme involved in enteric methane production.

Does it work?

More than 170 different feed additives have been developed and tested so far, but only a few of them have been studied enough to offer predictable outcomes and proper doses. Methane reductions from these well-studied additives typically range from 10-30%. The feed additive 3-NOP, the first compound approved for commercial use, reduces enteric methane by an average of 32.5%. A second feed additive derived from active compounds found in Asparagopsis seaweed has shown promising results in some studies and has recently received regulatory approval in two countries. In addition, because different feed additives use different mechanisms to suppress enteric methane production, it’s possible that multiple additives can be used together to achieve greater methane reductions. The great majority of other additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns.

Why are we excited?

Ruminants are a major source of methane emissions, yet ruminant meat and dairy products are in high demand. Therefore, any strategy that can reduce methane emissions per kilogram of meat or milk is potentially very valuable and, if broadly adopted, could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq per year). The feed additive 3-NOP, first approved for commercial use in two countries in 2021, is now legal in 55 countries. Research on other feed additives is active and generally well-supported with funding from philanthropic and investment sources. Although current use of feed additives is very low, successful research and pilot studies, increasing regulatory approvals, and strong positive interest from the livestock industry suggest that wider-scale adoption of this emissions reduction technology could occur quickly. In addition to potential emissions reduction benefits, some additives offer other benefits such as increased productivity and parasite control.

Why are we concerned?

Because they must be fed daily as a supplement to a concentrated feed, use of feed additives is limited to ruminants managed under confined conditions. Most of the billions of ruminant animals today are raised or managed in extensive grazing or pastoralist systems, often in small herds in remote areas. This makes use of feed additives infeasible, although some research is underway to develop methane-reducing compounds that could be added to water troughs instead of to feed. Feed additives are also costly. Though they may be cost-effective in terms of dollars per ton of CO₂‑eq reduced, the cost of additives themselves would likely be prohibitive for smallholders and pastoralists in low-income countries. These limitations mean that feed additives, as currently under development, are only suitable for a subset of total ruminant livestock – those that are raised in confinement systems in wealthy countries. The great majority of feed additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns. There are also other challenges, including regulatory issues, public acceptance, and effects on livestock and human health. There is also concern that feed additives could be used to divert attention from the importance of reducing ruminant meat and milk products in the diets of wealthy countries and reducing food waste of ruminant products.

What is our assessment? 

Based on our analysis, micro wind turbines (MWTs) are a promising technology for reducing emissions, but given the limited potential for global adoption and variable financial viability, they do not meet our threshold for global climate solutions (<0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Despite the low climate impact and high costs, Deploy Micro Wind Turbines is an important solution for achieving energy equity. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

What is it? 

MWTs are small-scale turbines that rely on natural wind to generate electricity, charge batteries, or power equipment. Specific definitions for MWTs vary from country to country. Our analysis assessed energy production and GHG emissions reduction potential for wind turbines rated to generate a maximum of 100 kW of electrical power. MWTs are actively used for a variety of applications, including telecommunications, lighting, and agriculture. The total installed capacity for MWTs globally as of 2023 is nearly 1.8 GW or 0.002% of utility-scale onshore wind capacity. MWTs are most commonly used in rural settings.

Does it work? 

When connected to a regional or national electricity grid, MWTs can reduce baseline electricity grid emissions by reducing reliance on fossil fuel energy sources. Off-grid MWTs, which accounted for more than 90% of commercial sales in 2019, help electrify industrial and agricultural processes that otherwise may have been powered by fossil fuels, such as diesel or natural gas. Energy production from MWTs is highly dependent on the availability of consistent wind speeds, with the majority of turbines requiring an average wind speed of around 5 m/s to generate electricity. As long as sufficient wind resources are available, MWTs are effective at producing electricity to meet local energy demand and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Why are we excited? 

MWTs reduce reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation, whether they are connected to an electric grid or isolated for local energy use. For grid-connected systems, more available renewable energy sources reduce the need for fossil fuel–based energy generation to meet demand. MWTs isolated from the electricity grid still reduce the local carbon footprint of a household, farm, or commercial building. Globally, the average household consumes approximately 17,000 kWh of electricity annually. Depending on the size of the turbine, local wind energy can produce 1,000–20,000 kWh/yr. Fluctuations in wind speed throughout the day and year can lead to unreliable power output, but this risk can be reduced by integrating batteries or hybrid electricity generation systems, such as combining wind and solar photovoltaics (PV). In addition to emissions reduction, MWTs are crucial tools for expanding electricity access worldwide. Since MWTs can operate independently of an electric grid, they can electrify rural areas where transmission lines are nonexistent or challenging to install. For example, many populations in Africa live in remote areas that could be well-served by installing MWTs to power telecommunications and other local electrification needs. Increasing interest in smart energy systems and Internet of Things technologies presents promising future applications for MWTs.

Why are we concerned? 

While MWTs show potential for expanding electrification, they have a number of limitations compared to other small-scale renewable energy technologies, like solar photovoltaics. First, real-world performance due to wind speed variability and turbulence at installation sites can be unpredictable and is often substantially lower than manufacturers’ power ratings. Second, life-cycle emissions from manufacturing and installation can be more than five times higher for small-scale wind than for large, multi-MW turbines. Energy payback times – the time period for the MWT to generate enough clean energy to offset the energy used during manufacturing and installation – can be long, sometimes exceeding the 20– to 25-year lifetime of the turbine. Third, MWTs are expensive, with up-front costs ranging from approximately US$3,000/kW to more than US$10,000/kW. Even after including financial incentives to partially offset high upfront costs, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for residential MWTs in the United States was estimated at US$0.28/kWh. Not only was this higher than average U.S. residential electricity rates (US$0.1–0.24/kWh), but it was also more than double the LCOE for residential solar PV (US$0.12/kWh). Finally, noise pollution and vibration are environmental concerns for the wide-scale adoption of MWTs in urban areas. In addition, MWT performance can be poor in urban and suburban areas because buildings and other obstacles disrupt airflow. There is a general consensus in the scientific community and commercial market that MWTs are worthwhile electricity sources for many agricultural and industrial applications where cost is less prohibitive, but they remain a niche technology due to uncertain global economic viability and lack of reliable power generation in suburban and urban areas.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, boosting appliance and equipment efficiency is a promising strategy for reducing GHG emissions, but significant leaps in efficiency and shifts in user behavior are needed to counteract the rebound effect and realize its impact. This potential climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it?

Appliance and equipment efficiency typically refers to larger devices in residential buildings that run on electricity, such as refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, dishwashers, dryers, and televisions. Energy-efficient appliances or equipment consume less electricity when operated than do inefficient devices. Therefore, boosting appliance efficiency reduces the CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions from electricity generation. As of 2022, the energy consumed by household appliances globally was more than twice the total energy used to cool both residential and nonresidential buildings, and about half the energy used for heating. To drive higher efficiency for these devices, various countries have established regional energy efficiency standards, rating systems, and labeling programs. Currently, homeowners can readily access a variety of options on the appliance market, and less efficient devices can easily be replaced. However, income levels, especially in low- and middle-income countries, may affect people’s actual ability to purchase certain appliances, although these devices are increasingly becoming cheaper.

Does it work?

Improving the efficiency of appliances and equipment functionally reduces the energy required to run these devices. Various field studies have demonstrated the effect of efficiency gains on lowering electricity consumption. However, the rise in appliance ownership per household and the growing total number of households have offset the collective climate impact expected from efficiency improvements. Globally, the number of households grew from about 1.5 billion in 2000 to 2.2 billion in 2021. Considering the concurrent increase in the global average units owned per household, the number of appliances in use has essentially doubled over the same period. For example, we estimate that over two decades, the number of televisions owned grew from about 1.4 to 2.8 billion units, refrigerators grew from 0.9 to 1.7 billion units, and washing machines grew from about 0.6 to 1.1 billion units. This growth resulted in rising electricity consumption by appliances annually, from 2,880 TWh in 2000 to 5,734 TWh in 2022, which translates to a 99% global increase, largely driven by the Asia-Pacific region.

Why are we excited?

Boosting appliance and equipment efficiency allows homeowners to realize operational cost savings as a result of lower electricity consumption and utility bills. Compared with less efficient devices, using appliances with higher efficiency ratings functionally reduces peak electricity demand, alleviating strain on the electric grid. The advent of smart devices and the Internet of Things (IoT) also helps to automate the operation of these appliances, optimizing their runtime while minimizing the energy consumed. Initial purchasing costs are also declining, making efficient appliances more accessible and affordable. 

Access to high-efficiency appliances also yields additional benefits. For example, access to energy-efficient refrigerators and freezers means that food waste can be minimized with less energy, leading to better food security. Similarly, multimedia equipment, such as television sets, offers access to critical information. Further cuts in GHG emissions are also possible as the electric grid transitions to renewable energy sources.

Why are we concerned?

Despite the potential benefits, the efficiency improvements in household appliances and equipment have not effectively translated into a positive climate impact. This is largely due to the significant rebound effect, or the increase in appliances owned by households as these devices become cheaper and more efficient. Considering the role of appliances in providing a greater quality of life, limiting the increase in appliance purchases is dismissible. The markets for appliances and equipment in many countries also still consist of pre-owned devices, which are less efficient. Some countries, such as Ghana, have established legislation to prevent the importation of pre-owned devices. This approach ensures that the appliances bought by homeowners will run on the newest, most efficient technologies. Recent findings from regions with stringent energy rating systems also suggest that regulations and programs can lead to a 50% cut in the electricity consumed by appliances. Global initiatives, such as the United for Efficiency (U4E) partnership, which seeks to shift appliance markets in low- and middle-income countries into high-efficiency devices, are increasingly needed for the potential energy savings to be realized as a climate solution.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, using low-flow fixtures is a cost-effective strategy for reducing water consumption, but has only a modest impact on GHG emissions. Therefore, this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it?

Low-flow fixtures lessen the total consumption of water by reducing flow rates through a household faucet or shower. Less hot water use means fewer emissions from the energy source used to heat the water, and it also means fewer emissions from pumping and treating tap water. Heating water for showers, sinks, and other domestic appliances is often the second largest source of emissions from buildings after space heating. Modern low-flow showerheads can produce comparable pressure and coverage to traditional showerheads through aeration and/or laminar flow. Aerators for faucets and low-flow showerheads are relatively low-cost investments that users can install themselves.

Does it work?

Low-flow fixtures reduce emissions from heating, delivering, and treating water by reducing hot water consumption. There is ample evidence for water savings with low-flow fixtures, as well as for the linkage between quantity and source of energy used for water heating and GHG emissions. Additionally, there is substantial research on the emissions from treating and pumping water, which can be reduced through water conservation. Low-flow fixtures are readily available, and performance labels are available to help consumers select quality products.

Why are we excited?

Low-flow fixtures conserve water, which reduces emissions, reduces energy demand, saves consumers money, and helps with sustainable water resource management. Households that adopt low-flow fixtures can enjoy significant utility bill savings because these fixtures reduce both water consumption and the energy used to heat water in the home. Faucet aerators also produce a smoother water stream with less splashing, and along with low-flow showerheads, are low-cost and simple to install. Household water conservation practices, such as low-flow fixtures, can help with regional sustainable water resource management and defer infrastructure expansion projects. This is particularly important in areas where water resources are increasingly strained due to climate change, growing populations, and other factors. In some regions, community water conservation efforts have had measurable impacts on water treatment costs, resulting in lower water rates for consumers.  

Why are we concerned?

Even with widespread adoption, low-flow fixtures would have a relatively small impact on GHG emissions. Moreover, the low cost and ease of replacement mean that low-flow fixtures can be easily reverted to less efficient fixtures, eliminating the emissions impact and other benefits. Lastly, although modern quality low-flow showerheads are comparable to traditional fixtures, the poor quality of early low-flow showerheads may have contributed to decreasing levels of adoption in some areas.

What is our assessment?

The overall effectiveness of seaweed cultivation for food as a climate solution remains uncertain. It could deliver climate benefits at modest cultivation scales while providing a useful end product. Expansion could also benefit land and food systems by reducing agricultural pressures, but it may introduce environmental trade-offs in the ocean that are not yet well understood. We will “Keep Watching” this solution.

What is it?

This solution involves expanding the cultivation of marine seaweed for human consumption as an alternative to higher-emission, lower-protein foods. These can include grains (e.g., wheat, rye, maize, oats, and rice) and, to a lesser extent, vegetables (e.g., potatoes, cassava, broccoli, and cabbage). By switching part of food production from land to ocean systems, seaweed farming helps avoid some sources of terrestrial agricultural emissions, such as those from fertilizer, irrigation, and soil disturbance. Seaweed cultivation, at modest scales and in suitable locations, does not require additional nutrients or irrigation, which can result in lower emissions. Emissions from physical cultivation activities also differ, with tractor use in land-based agriculture being replaced by emissions from boat operations in seaweed farming. Currently, roughly 80% of cultivated seaweed is consumed by humans in food products. 

Does it work?

The climate impact of cultivating seaweed is understudied, but existing estimates suggest that growing a ton of seaweed generates less than a quarter of the emissions from growing a ton of vegetables, such as broccoli and cabbage. The actual climate impact will depend on which types of foods are displaced in diets. Replacing higher-emission, low-protein foods, such as some grain-based staples (e.g., bread or rice), with seaweed could provide even greater climate benefits. More data are needed to assess full cradle-to-grave emissions for seaweed that include transport, processing, and storage prior to consumption. Actual benefits may be lower once full life cycle emissions are considered, or higher if seaweed replaces more emissions-intensive foods. 

Why are we excited?

Unlike terrestrial crops, seaweed cultivation does not require fresh water for irrigation or pesticides for pest management. It is the fastest-growing sector of global aquaculture, and can produce higher biomass yields per area than some land-based crops. Because it grows in the ocean, seaweed farming reduces land demand, which can therefore support terrestrial biodiversity and conservation efforts. If deployed in the right place, seaweed cultivation can also help reduce nutrient pollution in coastal areas. 

Compared with other seaweed-based climate solutions, farming seaweed for food could achieve a meaningful global climate impact using far less ocean area (1–2 Mha versus 6–7 Mha estimated for solutions like Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking), though estimates remain highly uncertain. Cultivation might also provide additional carbon removal benefits by selecting for high-productivity cultivars and strategically placing farms in areas where carbon fixation and burial are naturally high. 

Finally, global diets currently overrely on starch-rich grain crops, highlighting a potential opportunity for seaweed, which is a nutritious source of protein, essential fatty acids, and minerals, to replace these foods and diversify diets in many regions. Across commonly consumed species, seaweeds are generally low in fat and calories and can be rich in fiber and micronutrients, including iron, iodine, calcium, and magnesium. 

Why are we concerned?

There are several environmental and feasibility concerns associated with seaweed cultivation, especially if it is expanded to use large areas of ocean habitat. Global estimates of ocean area suitable for seaweed cultivation range substantially, from 10 to 4,800 Mha, but often lack consideration for real-world nutrient limitations or ecological impacts. A more recent analysis that considers nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron limitations suggests that the viable ocean seaweed farming area is closer to 400 Mha. If regions are prioritized based on where cultivation is not nutrient-limited, where it can achieve high carbon removal efficiency, and where there are lower risks of adverse ecological impacts, potential seaweed farming areas could be limited to the western North Pacific and North Atlantic. The costs of such an expansion are also poorly understood, with some cost estimates per ton of CO₂ fairly high.

Similarly, it’s unclear how viable seaweed is as a large-scale substitute for low-protein foods in real-world diets. Using vegetables as an example, achieving a climate impact of at least 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr could require replacing over 25% of global vegetable production. Assuming productivity typical of subtidal seaweed (6.6 t C/ha/yr), this would translate to an additional ~2.6 Mha of ocean cultivation. An area of 2.6 Mha would equate to a 100-meter-wide continuous belt of seaweed cultivation along 22% of the global coastline. For comparison, seaweed cultivation currently covers less than 400,000 ha. 

At large scales, seaweed cultivation could alter food webs through competition with phytoplankton for nutrients and/or requiring external nutrient inputs, raising serious concerns similar to Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking. Cultivation can have a range of other negative impacts on coastal ecosystems, too. Seaweed farms established in or near seagrass beds, for instance, can displace existing habitats and species. More research is needed to assess these trade-offs, including the spatial scale required for a globally meaningful climate impact and how seaweed cultivation relates to potential land-use benefits. Further work is also needed to evaluate whether seaweed cultivation could deliver greater climate benefits through other emerging products, rather than as a direct food replacement.

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).

What is our assessment?

Our analysis concludes that, despite its limited global impact for reducing emissions, Reduce Overfishing is a “Worthwhile” climate solution that has other important benefits for ecosystem health and long-term food security.

What is it?

Reducing overfishing lowers fuel use and CO₂ emissions from wild capture fishing vessels by reducing fishing effort on overfished stocks. This is typically achieved through management actions, such as seasonal closures, gear restrictions, and catch limits. Fishing effort, whether measured as the hours spent fishing or distance traveled, is generally proportional to fuel use. In addition to immediate reductions in emissions, reducing overfishing can allow overfished stocks to recover, which can lead to reduced future emissions since fuel use is lowered when fish are easier to catch and harvested sustainably.

Does it work?

Reducing fishing effort in locations with depleted and overfished wild fish stocks is expected to reduce emissions from fishing vessels. When stocks are overfished, fishers must exert additional effort, traveling further and/or searching longer to make the same catch, which increases fuel use and CO₂ emissions. Reducing overfishing through management actions, such as harvest control rules, gear restrictions, seasonal closures, stronger enforcement of existing regulations, and establishment of marine protected areas, can help fish stocks recover. Other policy tools, such as reducing harmful fuel subsidies that currently enable many otherwise unprofitable fishing fleets, are also likely to result in lower fuel use and CO₂ emissions. Healthy fish stocks can be caught with lower fishing effort, translating to future fuel savings and reduced CO₂ emissions. Global estimates suggest that reductions in overfishing could avoid up to 0.08 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, representing almost half of the entire capture fisheries sector's annual emissions (0.18 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ).

Why are we excited?

Currently, overfishing affects more than 35% of global wild marine fish stocks, increasing by 1%, on average, every year. Reducing overfishing not only lowers fuel use and emissions but also allows overfished stocks to recover. Healthy fish stocks strengthen marine food webs and contribute to ecosystem resilience and biodiversity. Overfishing has widespread consequences for diverse marine ecosystems, such as kelp forests, where declines in fish have led to overgrazing of the kelp by sea urchins. Over time, management interventions will also likely improve the sustainability and long-term reliability of coastal livelihoods and food security by supporting sustainable fisheries.

Why are we concerned?

Policy and management tools for reducing overfishing and, by extension, fishing-related emissions come with some challenges. For instance, management measures or legal protections may not be fully effective if implementation or enforcement is weak. Management and enforcement can be particularly challenging on the high seas, where jurisdiction is limited or shared across many nations, and where illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing can be widespread. Even when effective, fish stock recovery can take years to decades, and the costs and trade-offs are unlikely to be evenly distributed across fishing fleets. In the short term, efforts to reduce overfishing could create economic challenges for small-scale fishers who may have fewer resources and less capacity to adapt to management restrictions.

What is our assessment? 

Based on our analysis, improved manure management using impermeable covers and physical or chemical treatments will reduce emissions, although not by a globally meaningful amount. However, because these manure management techniques are broadly available, we conclude this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it? 

Manure generated from industrial livestock production contains significant quantities of organic carbon and nitrogen. Under low-oxygen conditions, bacteria convert organic material in manure to methane through anaerobic decomposition. Liquid manure, particularly from pigs and cows, produces significant quantities of methane. In oxygen-rich conditions, organic nitrogen in manure undergoes chemical reactions to produce nitrous oxide. Once produced, these GHGs diffuse towards the surface of the manure storage tank, where they are emitted into the atmosphere.

Improved manure management interrupts the production or release of methane and nitrous oxide through a structural barrier, or physical or chemical treatment processes. Manure storage covers made from impermeable synthetic materials effectively prevent the release of GHGs, and can be utilized in conjunction with biogas systems for energy generation. Chemical treatments, such as acidification and the addition of additives, suppress microbial activity, thereby inhibiting methane and nitrous oxide production. Physical processes, such as aeration and temperature reduction, similarly limit optimal conditions for microbial growth. Separating the solids and liquids from manure can also reduce the potential for methane production, enabling more effective solutions such as composting and anaerobic digestion.

Does it work? 

Available technologies for manure management are mature and market-ready. However, empirical evidence of their effectiveness for reducing methane emissions is limited. Pilot studies indicate high effectiveness of manure acidification, moderate effectiveness of impermeable synthetic covers, and low effectiveness of manure additives. Except for the use of natural and synthetic impermeable covers, the overall adoption of these techniques is low. 

Why are we excited? 

Improved manure management can provide environmental benefits by reducing air pollution, preventing nutrient leaching from organic solids that settle into sludge, mitigating eutrophication in downstream aquatic ecosystems, and preventing soil acidification. In the food system, manure management allows for better alignment between crop needs and natural fertilizer characteristics. Since hauling liquid manure is expensive, manure storage and treatment methods promote efficient nutrient cycling and reduce the need for energy-intensive synthetic fertilizers. Abated methane in manure also limits ground-level ozone production upon application, thereby improving crop yields.

At the farm scale, the wide range of treatment options allows for a high level of customization in the manure management process to achieve joint goals of nutrient management, revenue generation, and emission reductions. Covers also directly mitigate risks to farmworker health and safety from manure handling, and manure treatment can further limit exposure to irritants and noxious gases, improving the health of surrounding communities.

Why are we concerned?

Compared to no treatment and other manure-related solutions, such as composting and anaerobic digesters, evidence for the effectiveness of impermeable covers and manure treatment technologies is limited. At realistic levels of adoption, improving manure management is unlikely to have a globally meaningful climate impact (<0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). High costs are also a key barrier to wider adoption, ranging from US$110–145/t CO₂‑eq for synthetic covers to US$500–3,000/t CO₂‑eq for other treatments.