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.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, OAE could be a promising carbon removal technique, but it is not ready for large-scale deployment until the risks, costs, and effectiveness become clearer. We will “Keep Watching” this potential climate solution.

What is it?

OAE is the practice of adding alkalinity to seawater to increase the ocean’s ability to remove atmospheric CO₂. The addition of alkalinity through OAE mimics the natural process of weathering, or the physical and chemical breakdown of rocks. Rock weathering on land produces alkaline substances that eventually flow into the ocean through rivers and groundwater. This natural supply of alkalinity reduces ocean acidity, which affects the distribution of various carbon forms in the ocean. As alkalinity increases, CO₂ dissolved in seawater shifts toward more stable carbon forms, like bicarbonate and carbonate ions, that cannot exchange with air. This allows the ocean to remove more gaseous CO₂ from the atmosphere because the ocean and the atmosphere maintain a balance of CO₂ through gas movement at the sea surface. Most of the dissolved carbon in the ocean is bicarbonate and carbonate ions, which can persist in seawater for thousands of years. Under natural conditions, the ocean removes nearly 0.5 Gt of CO₂ annually. OAE generally relies on dissolving large amounts of ground-up rocks, either directly in the ocean or indirectly in water that is added to the ocean, to increase alkalinity and remove CO₂. This practice typically requires mining for alkaline rocks, though alkaline materials can also be sourced from waste by-products of other industries (e.g., steel slag, mine tailings) or commercially through human-made substances.

Does it work?

The science behind OAE is theoretically sound, and OAE is expected to result in durable storage over long time periods (>100 years). At scale, OAE could potentially remove over 1 Gt CO₂ /yr, but additional lab and field-based studies are needed to understand whether this approach is effective and safe. The majority of our understanding of OAE comes from models and laboratory experiments. However, when crushed minerals have been dispersed in field studies, the dissolution has not always occurred as expected. Several large-scale experimental trials are currently underway or planned, which will produce real-world data and inform monitoring and verification tactics needed to help refine and guide future implementation. These tests will also provide critical information on any ecological or community impacts. Various ways of implementing OAE are being developed, including ship-based dispersal, shoreline-based systems, and other approaches that leverage existing industrial waste streams or combine with other marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) techniques, such as electrochemical alkalinity generation.

Why are we excited?

OAE removes CO₂ from the atmosphere and stores it in the ocean as bicarbonate and carbonate ions, which are stable over long time periods. This means the CO₂ would be durably stored from the atmosphere for thousands of years. OAE could be scaled globally and can also mitigate local ocean acidification, a growing issue that threatens a range of marine ecosystems. Indeed, adding alkalinity to seawater has already been shown to mitigate ocean acidification in some coral reefs. Mitigating ocean acidification could also benefit fisheries and aquaculture, highlighting the potential for OAE to provide additional local benefits beyond carbon removal.

Why are we concerned?

Several technical, environmental, and social concerns surround OAE. The effectiveness could be limited by real-world conditions that either transport the alkaline materials away from the ocean’s surface before CO₂ can be absorbed or result in unexpected chemical reactions or biological uptake of the added alkalinity. Measuring and verifying the amount of CO₂ permanently stored using OAE is also challenging and will rely on a combination of field data and complex numerical models, which will require significant effort to collect and develop. Beyond these technical challenges, OAE poses potential environmental risks on land and in the ocean. On land, OAE could require an expansion of mining that rivals the cement industry, which could have negative environmental impacts on human and ecosystem health. In the ocean, increased alkalinity and the potential release of metals from the source rocks could negatively affect some marine life, but our understanding of the effects on individual species and food webs is limited. OAE could also interfere with existing ocean uses (e.g., fisheries, recreation) in some places and could have other unintended consequences as well. For instance, research suggests that OAE reduces natural alkalinity production in some ocean areas. In addition, OAE faces several social challenges. To be successful, mCDR approaches, like OAE, will require rapid, meaningful, and just community engagement. Public concerns about OAE have already led to a pilot project cancellation, highlighting the importance of public perception for OAE feasibility. It is also unclear if OAE can be scaled globally at reasonable costs, with current estimates highly variable but generally over US$100/t CO₂. Lastly, acquiring and dispersing sufficient alkaline materials could be challenging at scale, particularly because some materials are currently energy-intensive to source, transport, and/or produce.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, enhanced rock weathering is a promising carbon removal technique, but it is not ready for large-scale deployment. We will “Keep Watching” this potential climate solution.

What is it?

Enhanced rock weathering is a practice that removes CO₂ from the atmosphere by accelerating the natural chemical and physical breakdown, or weathering, of rocks such as basalt, olivine, or limestone. This is typically achieved by crushing the rocks into dust or sand-sized particles to increase their surface area before applying them to croplands, beaches, or directly into the ocean, the latter of which is also a form of carbon removal known as ocean alkalinity enhancement. During weathering, the rock surface chemically reacts with atmospheric CO₂ that is dissolved in rain or ocean water. This reaction produces bicarbonate ions containing the carbon from the captured CO₂ and positively charged cations, such as magnesium or calcium, depending on the type of rock. For land-based enhanced rock weathering, the bicarbonate needs to be flushed out to the ocean, where it is stable and can be securely stored for thousands of years.  

Does it work?

The basic idea of enhanced rock weathering is scientifically and geologically sound. Its effectiveness in converting atmospheric CO₂ into bicarbonate has been demonstrated in laboratory and field trials for several rock types and application sites. There are currently numerous research and demonstration projects underway. More than a dozen companies are selling enhanced rock weathering-based carbon removal credits, with nearly 10,000 t CO₂ reported to have been removed as of early 2025.

Why are we excited?

Enhanced rock weathering has several features that improve the likelihood that it can be scaled up to remove and store globally meaningful amounts of atmospheric CO₂ (>0.1 Gt CO₂/yr). Since enhanced rock weathering utilizes a natural process – mineralization – it does not need to be combined with other technologies to capture CO₂ from the air or durably store it. Moreover, it does not require external energy for the carbon capture and storage process, although it does use energy and generate emissions from the mining, crushing, transport, and deployment of the crushed rock. Suitable rock types, such as basalt, which is widely used in construction, paving, and concrete, are common and often locally available. Globally, there are large areas of land and ocean surface on which enhanced rock weathering could be deployed, including on croplands where current agricultural practices often already include regular application of soil amendments. A recent study suggested that extensive deployment of enhanced rock weathering on U.S. agricultural lands could sequester 0.16–0.30 Gt CO₂/yr by 2050. Other studies have shown that the application of crushed rock to croplands for enhanced rock weathering can improve soil pH, provide essential soil nutrients, and improve crop yields.

Why are we concerned?

There are numerous challenges for enhanced rock weathering, as well as potential risks and adverse impacts from its large-scale deployment. Numerous studies on both land- and ocean-based enhanced rock weathering have shown that the amounts of atmospheric CO₂ converted into bicarbonate are highly variable, dependent on rock type, soil type, application rates, and other variables, and are therefore difficult to accurately predict and model. This makes measurement, reporting, and verification of the amount of CO₂ captured and stored, which is essential for the carbon market, reliant on extensive and expensive field measurements and customized models. There are also concerns about the harmful impacts of heavy metals, like nickel or chromium, that can be released during weathering, as well as other ecological impacts and environmental justice concerns, particularly for crushed rock deployed on beaches or in the ocean. Finally, costs for deployment and the purchase of enhanced rock weathering-based carbon credits are relatively high (>US$200–US$500/t CO₂ removed) and will likely remain high if verification continues to depend on large numbers of field measurements and carbon removal cannot be easily modeled. There is a general consensus in the scientific community that the current knowledge base is not sufficient to reliably or accurately quantify the CO₂ captured and stored by most land- or ocean-based enhanced rock weathering deployments.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, cultivated meat is promising in its ability to reduce emissions from meat production, but the impact on a large scale remains unclear. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

What is it?

Cultivated meat (also called lab-grown or cultured meat) is a cellular agriculture product that, when used to replace meat from livestock, can reduce emissions. Cultivated meat is developed through bioengineering. Its production uses sample cells from an animal, in addition to a medium that supports cell growth in a bioreactor. Energy is required to produce the ingredients for the growth medium and to run the bioreactor (e.g., for temperature control, the mixing processes, aeration).

Does it work? 

Since the development of cultivated meat is still in its infancy, there is limited evidence on its emissions savings potential from large-scale production. Preliminary estimates differ by an order of magnitude, depending on the energy source used in the lab environment. Using fossil energy sources, emissions generated from the production of 1 kg of cultivated meat could reach 25 kg CO₂‑eq. If renewable energy is used, emissions could be about 2 kg CO₂‑eq/kg of cultivated meat. By comparison, producing a kilogram of beef from livestock generates 80–100 kilograms CO₂‑eq, on average. Almost half of those emissions from livestock beef are in the form of methane. Producing pig meat and poultry meat generates about 12 kg and 10 kg CO₂‑eq, respectively. Based on these estimates, cultivated meat could substantially reduce the emissions of beef. Compared to pork and chicken, however, its emissions depend on the source of energy used during production.

Why are we excited?

The cultivated meat industry is fairly new but growing rapidly. The first cell-cultivated meat product was developed in 2013. In 2024, there were 155 companies involved in the industry, located across six continents, mostly based in the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. Agriculture is responsible for about 22% of global GHG emissions, and raising livestock, especially beef, is particularly emissions-intensive. Therefore, cultivated meat has great potential to reduce related emissions as demand for meat continues to grow across the world. Cultivated meat enables the production of a large amount of meat from a single stem cell. This means that far fewer animals will be needed for meat production. Cultivated meat is also more efficient at converting feed into meat than chickens, which reduces emissions associated with feed production and demand for land.

Why are we concerned?

Concerns about cultivated meat include scalability, cost, and consumer acceptance. Because cultivated meat is still an emerging area of food science, the cost of production may be prohibitive at a large scale. Although cell culture is routinely performed in industrial and academic labs, creating the culture medium for mass-market production at competitive prices will require innovations and significant cost reductions. There are still many unknowns about the commercial potential of cultivated meat and whether consumers will accept the products. In 2024, companies began to move from research labs to larger facilities to start producing meat for consumers. Several countries now allow the sale of cultivated meat. In the United States, about one-third of adults find the concept of cultivated meat appealing, and only about 17% would be likely to purchase it, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Good Food Institute. However, even substituting a fraction of the beef consumed in the United States with cultivated meat could have an important impact on reducing emissions. Cultivated meat is a novel food and may require consumer education and producer transparency on production methods and safeguards in order to become more widely accepted.