What is our assessment?

There is strong evidence that green roofs sequester carbon and may reduce building energy consumption, although emissions reduction data are limited and vary with geography, roof design, and other factors. The potential climate impact of increasing green roofs is likely too small to be globally significant (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). The solution, however, is considered “Worthwhile” because it can reduce energy use in buildings and sequester carbon while helping communities adapt to climate change and benefiting human health, the environment, and building owners.

What is it?

Vegetation planted on specially engineered rooftops sequesters CO₂ through photosynthesis and provides indirect cooling for buildings through evapotranspiration, reflecting heat back to the atmosphere, and shading. This cooling plus the added insulation inherent in the design can reduce the air conditioning loads of the building, particularly compared to dark rooftop surfaces, and therefore reduce emissions from the electricity used to power cooling systems. Green roofs can also reduce heating energy use and corresponding GHG emissions due to the insulation that soils and plant matter provide. Green roofs are in use in all regions of the globe, but concentrated in high-income countries. 

Does it work?

There is strong evidence that green roofs sequester carbon and can reduce the energy consumption and therefore emissions from cooling and heating buildings. Carbon sequestration by vegetation on green roofs has been documented in several studies. A study in Germany found that plants absorbed 141 g carbon/m²/yr (517 g CO₂ /m²/yr) over a 5-year period. However, carbon sequestration rates are difficult to generalize due to variations in design, plant types, and climates. 

Reported building energy savings from green roofs can range from negligible to 60% or more for cooling. For heating the savings can reach 45% or more, but some studies also show a roughly 10% increase in heating energy use with a green roof. The large variability in energy savings outcomes is due to differences in climate; existing insulation and other properties of buildings; green roof design, vegetation and maintenance practices; and measurement and modeling approaches. The highest energy savings potential has been calculated in dry-winter subtropical highlands for cooling and in humid subtropical climates for heating. Areas with short and mild winters are most likely to see heating energy use increase with green roofs, but these areas often have net energy savings when heating and cooling are combined, and most studies of green roofs show a reduction in heating energy use. 

When combined with the carbon sequestration effect of vegetation, green roofs appear to consistently reduce GHG emissions. 

Why are we excited?

Green roofs and other urban green spaces (see Increase Urban Vegetation) provide valuable climate adaptation, human health, environmental, and economic benefits. Green roofs can help cities adapt to climate change because the vegetation reduces heat exposure during extreme heat, while the soil and root systems absorb stormwater – thereby reducing runoff and flooding risks during extreme rainfall. Green roofs improve human health because vegetation filters the air and reduces noise transmission, and interactions with green spaces, including green roofs, have been shown to improve mental well-being. Green roofs can increase biodiversity and habitat and remove water pollution. They also can increase the property value of a building and prolong the longevity of the roof.

Why are we concerned?

Increasing green roofs can be challenging due to high up-front cost, lack of supportive policies, structural and climate limitations, maintenance requirements, and lack of awareness. A green roof can cost three to six times more than a conventional roof, and although it can save energy for cooling and heating, the returns on investment can be lengthy and savings may not be enough to fully offset the higher costs. In addition, not all roofs can support vegetation, rooftop plants can struggle to survive in hot and dry climates, and green roofs may increase heating energy use in buildings in climates with short and mild winters. A green roof also requires maintenance such as watering, plant care, weed control, pruning, and regular inspections. Finally, a lack of awareness is a major barrier to greater adoption. We also noted a lack of measured, rather than modeled emissions reduction data and on current and potential green roof adoption globally. 

What is our assessment?

Based on our assessment, removing methane from the air using photocatalytic methane-oxidizing surface coatings is plausible, but its effectiveness and potential climate impact are currently limited by technological and practical uncertainties. However, because methane is such potent GHG, we will “Keep Watching” this solution. 

What is it?

This solution aims to remove methane from the air by coating large surfaces that contact air, such as buildings and wind turbine blades, with photocatalytic chemicals that convert methane to CO₂ on contact (Jackson et al., 2021; Lebling & Harasaki, 2025). Methane-oxidizing coatings use sunlight to drive the chemical reaction and rely on natural air movement to bring methane in the air into contact with the coated surface (Abernethy & Jackson, 2024). 

Does it work?

Methane is a potent but short-lived greenhouse gas, more than 80 times stronger than CO₂ at trapping heat on a 20-year basis (IPCC, 2023). Actions that accelerate methane conversion to CO₂ would reduce its disproportionate warming impact (Jackson et al., 2019). Several photocatalytic compounds, such as titanium dioxide, can convert methane into CO₂ and can be incorporated into thin coatings such as paint and applied to a variety of surfaces. However, the chemical reaction to convert methane to CO₂ is not 100% efficient and, because the atmospheric concentration of methane is so low (~2 ppm compared to 430 ppm for CO₂ ), the amount of methane removed is limited by the area of the coated surface and the rate at which methane molecules contact it (Abernethy & Jackson, 2024; Pennacchio et al., 2024). Research into using methane-oxidizing coatings is still in its early stages and limited to a few modeling and laboratory studies. Modeling estimates suggest that the area of coated surfaces needed to achieve a meaningful climate impact would be impractically large (Pennacchio et al., 2024). 

Why are we excited?

Because methane is such a potent GHG, actions that reduce its concentration in the atmosphere have immediate climate benefits. Unlike direct air capture or carbon capture and storage, there is no need to capture or store any gases because the goal is to oxidize methane to CO₂ (Ming et al., 2022). Using a chemical treatment that can be incorporated into coating materials such as paint is minimally invasive or disruptive. In addition, because the solution relies on natural air movement rather than fans, its energy demands and operating costs are low. The effectiveness of this solution could be enhanced if it were deployed in areas with habitually elevated methane concentrations, such as cattle, waste management facilities, oil and gas facilities, and rice paddies (Nisbet-Jones et al., 2021). 

Why are we concerned?

Significant advances in the methane removal efficiency of photocatalytic surface coatings are needed for this solution to be effective, scalable, and practical (Lebling & Harasaki, 2025). Other unknowns include the durability and lifespan of the photocatalytic coatings on different types of surfaces and under different environmental and weather conditions (Lei et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2023). Costs are unknown due to these limitations, and could be high relative to other more targeted methane reduction solutions such as managing oil and gas methane, managing coal mine methane, improving landfill management, and increasing centralized composting. New tools for monitoring and measuring changes in the low concentrations of atmospheric methane will need to be developed to quantify the amounts of methane removed for accurate accounting and verification. Finally, some researchers argue that use of photocatalytic coatings to neutralize potent GHGs would be more effectively and impactfully directed at longer-lived climate pollutants such as nitrous oxide (Lackner, 2020). 

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, Improve Steel Production using H₂-DRI-EAF powered by clean electricity has the potential to significantly reduce emissions. However, while the individual technologies for H₂-DRI-EAF are mature and their combined use has been piloted, the process has not yet been adopted in a meaningful way. We will “Keep Watching” this solution, but it is not ready for widespread adoption.

What is it?

Currently, making steel from iron ore relies heavily on coal and other fossil fuels to provide heat and reducing agents (chemicals that remove oxygen from iron ore). Improve Steel Production refers to using electric heat and hydrogen produced by electrolysis to reduce the iron ore (H₂-DRI) and electric arc furnaces (EAF) to melt the resulting iron and alloy it with carbon to make steel. The solution also requires the electricity used in these processes to include significant renewable energy or other low-carbon generation. The output is varying grades of steel with different degrees of hardness and brittleness determined by slight variations in carbon content. This solution does not include processes that rely on bioenergy or CCS, since the emissions from burning bioenergy contribute to climate change and CCS is not an effective climate solution.  

Does it work?

Replacing fossil fuels in steelmaking with H₂-DRI-EAF that uses electrolytic hydrogen and where all electricity comes from relatively clean sources results in significantly reduced emissions. Steel made today using fossil fuels for heat and as a reducing agent results in an estimated 1.8 t CO₂‑eq /t of steel. By contrast, steel made using H₂-DRI-EAF and low-carbon electricity would generate an estimated 0.12 t CO₂‑eq /t of steel and is a more energy-efficient process. EAF furnaces are already very common in steelmaking and for recycling existing steel, but are rarely combined with H₂-DRI. Although H₂-DRI was first used on an industrial scale in 2001, that plant was shut down for economic and political reasons, and economics remain a barrier. Finally, technologies to make industrial hydrogen from electricity are mature, but most hydrogen produced today is made from fossil fuels and is carbon-intensive. Active research is exploring other technologies that could become important for improving steel production in the future, most notably aqueous or molten oxide electrolysis, both of which use electricity to directly remove oxygen from iron ore, and can be combined with EAF to make steel.  

Why are we excited?

Steelmaking is classified as a hard-to-abate industry, and H₂-DRI-EAF powered by clean electricity is considered one of the best strategies for cutting emissions in this sector. The Net Zero Industry project forecasts that under an emissions-neutral steel scenario by 2050, roughly 40% of global steel production could depend on H₂-DRI-EAF, with the remainder consisting of recycled steel (47%), steelmaking with CCS (11%), or technologies not yet defined (2%). The impact is potentially significant, given that steelmaking accounted for an estimated 3.7 Gt of CO₂‑eq in 2019. Improved steelmaking has the additional benefit of reducing air and land pollution, as burning coal releases fine particulate matter, heavy metals, and other pollutants. In China, steel production is the largest industrial source of air pollution. As demand for steel is expected to increase up to 30% by 2050 due to demand from India and other low- and middle-income countries, it is critical that new and existing production shift to cleaner, lower-emission technologies, and that policies supporting this shift be implemented.  

Why are we concerned?

While proposed low-emission steel projects have attracted significant attention from the press, many have since been canceled or put on hold. As of 2025, we could find references to only a few pilot facilities producing improved steel as we have defined it here. The entire H₂-DRI-EAF process is considered to be at the large-scale prototype demonstration stage. However, contributing technologies such as electrolytic hydrogen production and EAF are more mature, and H₂-DRI was first used on an industrial scale in 2001. The higher cost of making low-emission steel is a significant barrier to industrial adoption and consumer demand. Electricity accounts for nearly half the cost of producing low-emission steel from iron ore. To increase adoption, improved steel facilities need to be located in areas that can readily supply both iron ore and abundant low-carbon, low-cost electricity. In areas such as China, where the electricity grid still relies heavily on fossil fuels, transitioning to H₂-DRI-EAF risks increasing emissions unless dedicated renewables are integrated into the project. To move this solution forward, new policies are needed to create an international market for low-emission steel. Meanwhile, existing steelmaking facilities typically have lifetimes of 25–40 years, which increases the likelihood of stranded assets or continued reliance on fossil fuels by 2050. Under its Sustainable Development Scenario, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that, by 2050, only 12% of cumulative direct emissions reductions in steelmaking will be due to electrification and the use of hydrogen (the IEA considered emissions from electricity to be indirect). Reducing demand for steel, incremental efficiency gains, and CCS are expected to make up the bulk of cumulative direct emissions reductions, according to the IEA projections.