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.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, green hydrogen holds long-term potential in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, particularly long-haul aviation and freight trucking. It is technologically feasible, but currently hampered by high costs, severe infrastructure gaps, and limited commercial readiness. While it is unlikely to be deployed at scale this decade, we will “Keep Watching” green hydrogen as innovation and policy evolve.

What is it?

Green hydrogen is a clean, emissions-free liquid fuel produced through electrolysis powered by renewable energy that can replace fossil fuels in some transportation sectors. Unlike hydrogen from fossil fuels (gray or blue hydrogen), green hydrogen generates no CO₂ emissions during production. For transportation, green hydrogen can be used in two main ways: (1) in fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) to generate electricity onboard and power electric motors, or (2) combusted in specially designed hydrogen combustion engines or turbines. For aviation, liquid hydrogen may fuel aircraft engines directly, be used to produce synthetic jet fuels, or power fuel cell airplanes. For long-haul trucking, hydrogen can replace diesel by powering fuel cell trucks, which offer long range and fast refueling.

Does it work?

Green hydrogen is being produced and used in pilot projects and select transportation initiatives globally. Hydrogen combustion engines and fuel cells are currently in use and have been shown to reduce emissions compared to fossil fuels. For aviation, aircraft manufacturers, such as Airbus, have hydrogen-powered planes in development, with test flights expected by 2030, but it could be several decades before they are put into commercial use. In heavy-duty trucking, several major automakers, including Toyota and Hyundai, have already commercialized hydrogen trucks in limited markets, such as China and Japan.

Why are we excited?

Green hydrogen is one of the few near-zero-emission fuels with the potential to decarbonize aviation and long-haul trucking, where battery-electric solutions currently face range and weight constraints. If produced using abundant, low-cost renewables, green hydrogen could significantly cut emissions in sectors responsible for nearly 15% of global transport emissions. In aviation, hydrogen-based fuels like e-kerosene could save around five million tons of CO₂ per year in Europe by 2030. In trucking, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are beginning to roll out but remain a niche market. Looking ahead, hydrogen has strong potential: by 2050, it could meet up to 30% of energy demand in long-haul trucking and significantly reduce aviation emissions, particularly for short- and medium-haul flights, but it will have to compete with advances in battery-electric options. Hydrogen enables fast refueling and long range, making it a strong candidate for freight and intercity applications. Additionally, investment in green hydrogen infrastructure could unlock cross-sectoral benefits, supporting decarbonization of industry, power, and potentially heating. As electrolyzer costs fall and renewable power expands, the economics and emissions profile of green hydrogen are likely to improve.

Why are we concerned?

Despite its promise, green hydrogen for transport faces significant technical, economic, and logistical hurdles. Electrolysis is energy-intensive, and green hydrogen production is still expensive (US$300–600/t CO₂ avoided for trucking and US$500–1500/t CO₂ for aviation), making it much more costly than diesel or jet fuel but comparable to sustainable aviation fuel today. It is also less energy-dense by volume than other fuels, requiring complex transportation and storage (especially for aviation, where cryogenic tanks are needed) and limiting payload capacity. In addition to producing contrails, hydrogen leakage, though not a GHG, can contribute to indirect global warming effects. There are also safety concerns related to flammability and explosiveness, and a complete overhaul of transportation and refueling infrastructure is needed for both aviation and trucking. Green hydrogen requires entirely new infrastructure for production, storage, and distribution, including refueling stations for trucks and specialized handling systems for liquid or compressed hydrogen at each airport the airplane uses. The absence of this infrastructure creates a major barrier to adoption in aviation and long-haul trucking, where fuel logistics, safety standards, and scale are critical for commercial viability. Hydrogen remains a niche fuel due to its low energy density per volume, the need for cryogenic storage in aviation, limited refueling infrastructure, and high cost. While technically viable, major deployment for aviation and trucking is still nascent. Without a clear business case or strong policy incentives, uptake will remain limited in the near term.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) has the potential to reduce emissions in the aviation sector, particularly for long-haul flights where few alternatives exist. However, pathways with the lowest emissions are not yet cost-effective and face significant challenges to scaling production due to feedstock constraints, land conversion pressure, and the need to meet robust sustainability standards. Based on our assessment, SAF is a climate solution to “Keep Watching.”

What is it?

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a low-carbon alternative to conventional jet fuel that uses non-petroleum feedstocks such as waste oils, agricultural residues, and municipal solid waste. SAF is produced through chemical processes that convert these feedstocks into fuels that meet the same technical standards as fossil-based jet fuel, allowing them to be blended and used in existing aircraft engines and fueling infrastructure without modification. As of 2025, existing SAFs are only approved for use in blends; no SAF is yet certified for 100% use in commercial aircraft (also known as “neat SAF”) for passenger flights.

Does it work?

Life-cycle emissions vary widely depending on the feedstock and production pathway. Multiple SAF production pathways – such as hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FT), and alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) – have been approved by international aviation standards bodies. However, as of 2025, the HEFA pathway (which uses vegetable oils, waste oils, or fats) is the only commercially deployed method to produce significant amounts of SAF. 

While some SAFs could achieve low emissions, others, especially those using food crops or poorly regulated waste streams, deliver uncertain climate benefits or can even increase emissions compared to conventional fuels. (We include emissions from burning biomass and biofuels, using default Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] stationary combustion emission factors for each feedstock. See the Drawdown Explorer primer on “Effectiveness” of solutions.) Others, such as FT pathways, which use municipal solid waste or agricultural waste and residues, have the greatest potential for emissions reduction.

Real-world use of SAF is already underway: over 450,000 commercial flights have flown using SAF blends as of early 2025. SAF is currently being supplied at major airports in Europe, the United States, and Asia, with dozens of airlines integrating SAF into operations or entering offtake agreements. However, SAF supplies less than 0.5% of global jet fuel use. 

Why are we excited?

Sustainable aviation fuels may reduce contrails, potentially significantly reducing aviation’s climate impact. SAF can be used in existing aircraft and fueling systems without requiring new infrastructure or major redesigns. This makes it one of the few ready-to-deploy solutions for long-haul and international flights, which are difficult to electrify or replace. SAF production from waste oils and residues can deliver additional benefits, such as reduced methane emissions from organic waste streams and improved waste management. Growing policy support, rising carbon prices, and airline demand are accelerating development. 

Why are we concerned?

Despite its promise, SAF faces significant limitations and challenges that could constrain its impact and scalability. In the United States, soybean oil is one of the most commonly used feedstocks for HEFA SAF, and its production faces similar land use and ecological risks and constraints as corn ethanol. Whereas in Europe, waste oils and fats are more commonly used. Measurement, reporting, and verification of actual emissions reductions can be complex, especially when land-use change, indirect emissions, or supply chain impacts are involved. 

Due to limited feedstock availability, SAF is highly unlikely to meet the ambitious 2050 goals set by industry organizations and government institutions. Effective SAFs must be combined with other strategies, like demand reduction and new aircraft technologies, to achieve substantial emissions reductions. 

Another major concern is cost. Current SAF prices are substantially higher than fossil jet fuel, ranging from US$300 to over US$1,500 per ton of CO₂ avoided, depending on the pathway. Without strong policy support, this cost premium poses a barrier to widespread adoption.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, the widespread use of bioplastics is challenged by their potential ecological risks and currently high costs. While bioplastics offer some environmental benefits in niche applications, their climate impact is inconsistent and hinges on feedstock type, manufacturing practices, and waste management. Therefore, we conclude that Deploy Bioplastics is a solution to “Keep Watching.”

What is it?

Bioplastics (also called biopolymers) are plastic alternatives made from renewable biological sources, such as corn, sugarcane, crop residues, or other plants, instead of fossil fuels. Bioplastics are produced by extracting sugars or starches from plants and converting them through chemical or biological processes into chemical building blocks that form the basic structure of plastics. Because plants absorb atmospheric CO₂ through photosynthesis, the carbon stored in bioplastics is considered biogenic, as it is already part of the natural carbon cycle. In contrast, petrochemical plastics are made by extracting and refining oil or natural gas, which releases new (formerly buried) carbon into the atmosphere. Bioplastics cut emissions by replacing fossil carbon feedstocks with biomass-based feedstocks. Some bioplastics are durable, non-biodegradable, chemically identical to traditional plastics (i.e., “drop-in” bioplastics), and recyclable. Others are biodegradable and can be designed to break down in compost. Emissions from bioplastics come from growing and processing biomass (which requires energy and land use), manufacturing the plastics, and managing their end-of-life waste. Bioplastics can achieve climate benefits when the emissions from production and end of life are kept low enough to realize the advantages of biogenic carbon.

Does it work?

The basic idea of bioplastics is scientifically and chemically sound, with their development and commercialization ongoing since the 1990s. Numerous studies support the effectiveness of bioplastics in reducing atmospheric CO₂ emissions from feedstock production and manufacturing stages compared to fossil-based plastics, particularly when made from sustainably sourced biomass under energy-efficient conditions and properly composted or recycled. However, other studies show bioplastics have inconsistent emissions reduction performance. Global adoption also remains limited, representing only about 0.5% of total plastics production (approximately 2–2.5 Mt out of 414 Mt, according to European Bioplastics). 

Why are we excited?

Bioplastics, particularly biologically derived and biodegradable polymers, have functional advantages in reducing fossil fuel dependence and mitigating plastic pollution. By sourcing raw materials from renewable biomass instead of petroleum (e.g., oil, natural gas), bioplastics can lower CO₂ emissions in the production stage, especially when accounting for biogenic carbon uptake during plant cultivation. Some types of bioplastics are interchangeable with traditional plastics and can be produced with existing plastic manufacturing systems, easing the transition. Compostable plastics simplify disposal in applications where contamination with food or organic waste occurs, enabling organic recycling and returning carbon and other nutrients to soil. Biodegradable bioplastics are also advantageous for products that are often discarded and may leak into the environment. Studies show that two widely used commercial bioplastics, polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), biodegrade 60–80% in composting conditions within 28–30 days, while cellulose-based and starch-based plastics can fully degrade in soil and marine environments in 180 days and 50 days, respectively. These functional benefits, combined with potential additional benefits, such as soil enrichment and waste stream simplification, make bioplastics appealing in specific, targeted use cases. More broadly, they can significantly contribute to emissions reduction efforts in materials production when designed for circularity and supported by infrastructure that facilitates appropriate end-of-life waste treatment. 

Why are we concerned?

Despite their promise, bioplastics have several limitations as a viable climate solution, including relatively low emissions reduction potential and possible risks and adverse impacts from their large-scale deployment. Current production is low. To reach a meaningful 20–30% marketplace share by 2040, bioplastics would need to expand manufacturing by approximately 30% per year, nearly double the current pace. This could put pressure on land and food systems, since current bioplastics rely on food-based crops for industrial-level production. This raises sustainability concerns around food security and could potentially drive unintended land-use changes such as deforestation or cropland conversion. Furthermore, the effectiveness of reducing emissions by replacing conventional plastics with bioplastics is low and inconsistent. Some bioplastics produce more life cycle emissions than conventional plastics. The likely climate impact of replacing 20–30% of traditional plastics with bioplastics is <0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. End-of-life treatment is also a major challenge. Many bioplastics are incompatible with home composting and current recycling streams, and improperly composted or landfilled biodegradable bioplastics can emit methane. Finally, bioplastics remain 2–3 times more expensive than conventional plastics.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, SMRs are a plausible and potentially impactful climate solution, but they are not yet ready for widespread deployment. The core technology is credible and carries significant potential for reducing GHG emissions. However, readiness, cost certainty, and deployment evidence are still lacking. For now, we will “Keep Watching” SMRs.

What is it?

Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are advanced reactors that produce low-carbon electricity by harnessing the heat from nuclear fission, an established and well-understood physical process. The innovation of SMRs lies primarily in their design. Typically smaller than traditional reactors, with a capacity of less than 300 megawatts (MW), SMRs are factory-built for enhanced quality control. This design allows them to be delivered to installation sites more quickly and potentially at a lower cost compared to conventional reactors, which typically range in capacity from about 700 MW to over 1,600 MW. While SMRs are generally considered "utility-scale" in their capacity, their smaller size makes them a viable option for smaller-scale applications, such as large micro-grids. These reactors can be assembled in a modular fashion, allowing incremental capacity additions. Additionally, some SMR designs boast enhanced safety features, including passive cooling systems that can function without external power sources, reducing the risks associated with reactor overheating or meltdowns. Currently, several countries are planning the deployment of SMRs, particularly China and the United States. Given their modular nature, several African countries, such as Ghana, are also looking toward SMRs to address their energy access deficits. Based on current plans, the International Energy Agency expects several countries to have multiple SMRs installed and operational by around 2030.

Does it work?

The physics behind SMRs is sound, and their potential as low-carbon energy sources is also scientifically valid, as they do not emit GHG emissions during operation. Several pilot SMR projects have also been launched. SMRs have yet to move beyond the demonstration phase to widespread commercial adoption. No SMR is currently deployed at the scale necessary to reduce global emissions measurably. Furthermore, independent, peer-reviewed empirical data on long-term operational performance, scalability, and cost remain sparse. While several countries, including the United States, Hungary, China, and Ghana, have announced plans or are discussing deploying SMRs within the next decade, those plans are still in the preparatory stages.

Why are we excited?

SMRs have several features that make them appealing as a potential climate solution. If scaled appropriately, they could displace fossil-fuel-based power generation and reduce carbon emissions significantly. Projected deployment scenarios by the Nuclear Energy Agency suggest that by 2050, the global SMR market could reach 375 gigawatts of installed capacity, avoiding up to 15 Gt of cumulative CO₂ emissions. Their smaller size and modular nature reduce financial risk, making them potentially more accessible to developing countries or smaller utilities. They are also flexible in siting and can complement variable renewable energy sources like solar and wind by providing reliable baseload or backup power. Additionally, SMRs could help decarbonize hard-to-electrify sectors like process heat in industry or remote energy systems. These attributes have prompted excitement among proponents who see SMRs as a scalable, flexible, and resilient solution for emissions-free power. 

Why are we concerned?

Despite their promise, SMRs face several challenges that limit their readiness for large-scale deployment. Safety remains a concern – not necessarily because of design flaws, but because any nuclear reactor carries inherent risks. Waste disposal and the potential for proliferation of nuclear materials remain persistent issues. Regulatory hurdles are also significant, as existing frameworks are often geared toward conventional reactors and may slow the licensing of newer designs. The cost of SMRs is another outstanding question. Recent analyses by Wood Mackenzie suggest that SMRs could cost US$6,000 to US$8,000 per kilowatt of capacity, which is well above the costs of utility-scale solar (US$1,448) or onshore wind (US$2,098). Deployment timelines also pose a challenge. Given the urgency of climate action, technologies that cannot be deployed at scale within the next 10–15 years may offer limited near-term benefits. A recent study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis opines that SMRs are still too costly, too time-consuming to construct, and too risky to significantly impact the transition away from fossil fuels in the next decade. While peer-reviewed academic studies have been conducted, a comprehensive, independent evaluation of large-scale deployment remains absent.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, nuclear fusion is a promising alternative form of electricity generation, but it is still at a theoretical stage and will not be ready for large-scale deployment within the next 10–15 years, when it could have the most impact on meeting global climate targets. We will “Keep Watching” this potential climate solution.

What is it?

Nuclear fusion is the process by which two individual elements are fused together into a single larger element using high pressure and temperature; this reaction releases large amounts of energy. This is the same reaction that happens in stars such as the sun. The energy from the fusion reaction can then be harnessed to produce electricity without emitting GHGs. Nuclear fusion power plants are best suited for centralized, large-scale generation (500 MW–1.2 GW of electricity output).

Does it work?

Nuclear fusion experiments have been carried out that prove the scientific principle is sound. However, only in recent years have experiments succeeded in producing more energy than was needed to initiate and sustain the fusion reaction. There have been no nuclear fusion power plants built to date, and it is unlikely that nuclear fusion–powered electricity generation will be ready for deployment before 2050.

Why are we excited?

Nuclear fusion energy offers several advantages as a solution to climate change, including high power density, the ability to deliver “firm” power (i.e., power that can be relied upon to meet demand when needed), and no GHG emissions. In addition, the most commonly used fuel for nuclear fusion – hydrogen – is readily accessible, there is no risk of a nuclear meltdown, and the process produces relatively little nuclear waste, meaning the risk of nuclear proliferation is almost nonexistent. Some research suggests that nuclear fusion could provide up to 15% of total electricity production either by replacing existing centralized power plants (e.g., oil and gas, coal, nuclear fission) that have reached end-of-life or to satisfy growing demand for electricity as access and electrification increase.

Why are we concerned?

Nuclear fusion is not considered remotely close to being ready to deploy as a climate solution. It faces many technical challenges, including uncertainties related to fusion reactor design and optimal fuel types. The costs for nuclear fusion–produced electricity are highly uncertain and are expected to grow compared to existing estimates. Current estimates for nuclear fusion energy costs exceed US$150/MWh, nearly double the 2020 price per MWh for other energy sources. There are also large uncertainties about the policy environment for nuclear fusion plants, which could hinder both development and deployment. Currently, projections suggest that nuclear fusion reactors could be introduced between 2050 and 2060. This means that even under optimistic conditions, nuclear fusion is unlikely to make a significant contribution to meeting 2050 emissions reduction targets. 

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.