What is our assessment?

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

What is it?

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

Does it work?

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

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

Why are we excited?

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

Why are we concerned?

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

What is our assessment?

Our analysis finds that Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking could have high potential environmental risks, including unknown impacts on marine ecosystems. It is also unclear how effective or durable carbon storage in the deep sea is from this approach. There are likely better alternative uses for terrestrial biomass, and cultivating seaweed at climate-relevant scales is probably not feasible. Even if it were, seaweed would probably provide greater value through other applications. Therefore, Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking is currently “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.

What is it?

Ocean biomass sinking relies on sinking terrestrial plant material and/or seaweed grown in the ocean to the deep sea or seafloor where it can be stored long-term. Cultivating and sinking seaweed removes carbon from the surface ocean, whereas sinking terrestrial biomass material can help reduce emissions that might otherwise occur if the material instead decomposed on land. While not a current practice, terrestrial biomass grown explicitly for sinking would also constitute a form of carbon removal. When biomass sinks naturally, most of it is degraded into CO₂ or other forms of carbon before reaching the deep sea. Deliberate sinking of biomass might avoid some of this degradation by expediting its delivery to the deep sea, depending on the method used. Once sunk, the biomass and any CO₂ or other forms of carbon produced from its degradation can be isolated from the atmosphere for decades to centuries due to the ocean’s slow circulation times at depth. Biomass sinking can be accomplished using active methods, like submersibles, or passive methods, like letting weighted bundles sink on their own. There has been a recent focus on sinking material in low-oxygen ocean basins (e.g., the Black Sea), which might help further minimize degradation, while improving the durability of sequestered carbon due to the long circulation time-scales typical of these regions.

Does it work?

Global estimates suggest that ~11% of carbon produced in natural seaweed ecosystems might be sequestered at depth, generally defined as below the mixed layer at around 1,000 m. However, very few studies have documented the export efficiency, or the fraction of carbon in surface waters that makes its way to the deep sea, of purposefully sunk terrestrial and seaweed biomass, as this practice is currently in the early stages of development and research. If biomass is quickly sunk, most carbon might make its way to the deep sea, while passive sinking techniques, if slower, could result in higher degradation rates. Sequestration also depends on the storage efficiency and durability of carbon once at depth. Some initial research suggests that biomass degradation may be slowed in low-oxygen basins, but this also remains poorly characterized in field studies. It is similarly unclear how durable the carbon stored below the mixed layer will be over climate-relevant timescales, both in the deep sea in general and in low-oxygen basins specifically.

Why are we excited?

The advantages of ocean biomass sinking include its potential ability to use land-based biomass that might otherwise be degraded in landfills or incinerated, both of which lead to CO₂ emissions. In some regions, seaweed cultivation could help reduce nutrient pollution, provide habitat for marine organisms, and locally buffer against ocean acidification. Estimates of potential climate impacts suggest that ocean biomass sinking using biomass from seaweed farms could theoretically exceed 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Still, those estimates remain highly speculative and require more research. Costs are poorly quantified, but some estimates suggest they could be low to moderately expensive compared to other marine carbon dioxide removal approaches, close to US$100/t CO₂.

Why are we concerned?

Ocean biomass sinking has many environmental and social risks that, though not currently fully understood, could make it unfeasible to deploy the technology at scale. Deep-sea and seafloor ecosystems are highly understudied, and it's unclear how new biomass might alter these unique environments. Potential impacts include increased acidification, nutrient pollution, and oxygen depletion of the deep sea, which could affect diverse marine life. Large-scale seaweed cultivation could reduce phytoplankton abundance, disrupt food webs, and deplete nutrients needed by other ecosystems. Cultivation in open ocean areas might relieve demand for coastal space, but they are often nutrient-poor, and adding nutrients raises serious concerns (see Ocean Fertilization). Terrestrial biomass sources could introduce contaminants into the ocean due to inadvertent inclusion of plastics or other pollutants in sunken biomass. This practice also comes with social risks. Some countries might disproportionately bear negative impacts wherever biomass is cultivated and/or sunk, as it could alter marine food webs and livelihoods. There could also be issues with public perception due to historical injustices around ocean dumping, potentially impeding future projects without meaningful community engagement and transparency. 

Moreover, there are numerous technical challenges relating to the effectiveness and durability of carbon sequestration. Biomass sources differ in how easily they break down, affecting how much carbon is stored at depth. Sunk biomass could also potentially release other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. The location where biomass is disposed of also matters, impacting how much carbon reaches and stays at depth. However, all of these factors remain poorly constrained. Operational and technical challenges are also significant. To remove at least 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr using marine biomass, nearly 7 million ha of ocean – over 60% of the global coastline – could be needed for seaweed cultivation, which is impractical. Measurement and verification pose additional hurdles. In the case of seaweed cultivation, tracking carbon removal requires monitoring both CO₂ uptake at the ocean’s surface and export as well as storage at depth across large spatial and temporal scales. In addition, the opportunity cost of sinking terrestrial biomass is high due to competing land-based uses, as waste biomass and crop residues are finite resources. Growing new biomass explicitly for ocean sinking would introduce new risks, given that land is also a finite resource. Similarly, seaweed probably has higher value and carbon benefits as food, fertilizer, and other products.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, blue hydrogen is ready to deploy and feasible, but there is mixed consensus and limited data on its effectiveness in reducing emissions. Its climate impact has the potential to be high, but only if adopted effectively and at a large scale, both of which are currently unproven. If deployed correctly, this technology could serve as an interim solution to reduce gray hydrogen emissions while progress is made on scaling and reducing the costs of green hydrogen. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

What is it?

Hydrogen is a fuel that can be used in place of fossil fuels in industrial, transportation, and energy systems. To deploy hydrogen as an energy source or feedstock, it first needs to be extracted from other compounds. Each “color” is an informal term specifying hydrogen produced through a unique hydrogen production path, each with different associated supply chains, processes, and energy GHG emissions. Gray hydrogen, which uses natural gas as the source of hydrogen atoms and electricity, is the most produced and has high production emissions, estimated at 10–12 t CO₂-eq/t hydrogen on a 100-yr basis. One way to reduce emissions is by switching to blue hydrogen, which still uses fossil fuels but also uses CCS technologies to prevent the release of some of the CO₂ generated during production. Blue hydrogen has the potential to be a lower-emission source of energy relative to gray hydrogen or direct fossil fuel combustion.

Does it work?

Blue hydrogen is a plausible way to reduce emissions from gray hydrogen production. However, expert opinions are mixed on the magnitude of emissions that can be abated by producing blue hydrogen in place of gray hydrogen. The effectiveness of emissions reduction hinges on two main factors: the rate at which upstream methane leaks and carbon capture rates, both of which are challenging to predict on a global scale. There is uncertainty around these performance metrics and the ability to effectively store and transport captured CO₂ at scale. Due to low current adoption, there is little real-world data to answer these questions. As of 2023, blue hydrogen comprised <1% of worldwide hydrogen production. While adding carbon capture to gray hydrogen production should help prevent emissions, there is limited evidence for both effectiveness and the ability to scale of this technology.

Why are we excited?

Compared to other types of low-carbon hydrogen, including green hydrogen produced from electrolysis powered by renewable energy, blue hydrogen is a technologically developed and lower-cost option. Without a currently viable and cost-effective alternative to gray hydrogen that does not use fossil fuels, blue hydrogen can be a near-term option to facilitate the transition to a global hydrogen economy. Expert estimates of cost per emissions avoided range widely, but the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates US$60–85/t CO₂ for lower carbon capture rates (55–70%) and US$85–110/t CO₂ for higher carbon capture rates (>90%). However, these costs are uncertain: with lower estimates of effectiveness, the cost could increase to ~US$260/t CO₂, including the cost to transport and store CO₂. If implemented with low GHG fugitive emissions and high CCS efficiencies, blue hydrogen can reduce emissions by more than 60% relative to current gray hydrogen production on a 100-yr CO₂‑eq basis. In this case, the climate impact of scaling blue hydrogen could be high. Estimates and targets for blue hydrogen production by 2050 range from ~30–85 Mt hydrogen. At that scale, even modest emissions savings relative to gray hydrogen (3 t CO₂‑eq/t hydrogen, 20-yr basis) would have a climate impact above 0.09 Gt CO₂-eq/yr by 2050. However, achieving this depends on the quality of the infrastructure and rate of technology scaling, both of which are unproven.

Why are we concerned?

While it has some advantages, blue hydrogen is still a less effective solution than green hydrogen, while costing more than gray hydrogen. Though it could be useful for near-term energy decarbonization, this risks taking resources away from renewable energy and green hydrogen development while perpetuating and increasing fossil fuel use. The infrastructure required to scale hydrogen-based energy is expensive and will require technical advances and policy incentives to be competitive with fossil fuels. There are mixed expert opinions about the realistic level of avoided emissions that blue hydrogen may reach. The theoretical worst-performing blue hydrogen plants (low capture rates, high methane leaks, high-emission electricity sources) have been predicted to lead to more emissions on a near-term basis than direct natural gas combustion. Additionally, there is uncertainty around whether CCS can meet its technical potential at a reasonable cost. While experts predict >95% carbon capture rates are possible, facilities currently in operation capture less than this target, some less than 60% of all emitted carbon. For blue hydrogen to be feasible and scalable, CO₂ transport and storage need to be low-emitting, stable, and available. Only ~8% of CO₂ currently captured from blue hydrogen production is injected in dedicated storage, with the rest used in industry, enhanced oil recovery, and other applications. Finally, an understudied risk is hydrogen leaks. Hydrogen transport and storage require larger volumes than fossil fuels, increasing the risk of leaks. Hydrogen has an indirect planet-warming effect by increasing the levels of other atmospheric GHGs. At scale, the IEA estimates that high hydrogen leak rates could contribute 0.1 Gt CO₂-eq/yr in emissions, potentially canceling out any positive climate impacts.