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.

What is our assessment?

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

What is it?

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

Does it work?

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

Why are we excited?

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

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

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

Why are we concerned?

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

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

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

What is our assessment?

Alternative grazing may reduce SOC loss that’s common in continuous overgrazing by allowing areas to rest, but evidence that it delivers additional carbon removal is inconsistent and limited to niche environmental conditions and geographies. Therefore, we will “Keep Watching” this solution.

What is it?

Alternative grazing, also called adaptive multi-paddock, rotational, holistic, regenerative, or mob grazing, is a suite of ruminant livestock movement strategies that differ from conventional continuous grazing. Conventional continuous grazing mostly allows unmanaged grazing of a large pasture with limited or no structured rest periods for vegetation recovery. Alternative grazing uses multiple fenced paddocks and frequent animal movement, short grazing periods to redistribute pressure, and enforced rest periods for forage. The proposed carbon removal mechanism is that improved grazing management could increase SOC storage by enhancing plant growth, especially below ground root growth. 

Does it work?

The biological mechanism by which recovering vegetation can increase SOC is well understood, but factors such as climate, soil type, prior land use, slope, and stocking rate often have greater influence on SOC than the type of grazing practice. Results from the few higher-quality studies suggest that alternative grazing does not produce consistent, additional, or durable SOC gains relative to continuous grazing. Most positive SOC findings come from wetter regions with higher rainfall, including lands converted from cropland, where gains may occur regardless of grazing style. Positive SOC findings rarely measure changes over time at the same site and often are based on shallow soil samples. A global meta-analysis found that strategic-rest grazing increased vegetation biomass only when stocking rates were reduced, and even then it did not guarantee SOC gains. 

Why are we excited?

Alternative grazing, in limited and context-specific cases, can deliver localized ecosystem benefits, particularly where grazing is already occurring and degradation is severe. Managing grazing away from waterways and heavily compacted areas can reduce overgrazing damage and in some regions may benefit grassland bird habitat, though evidence is limited.

Why are we concerned?

There are several reasons to be concerned about alternative grazing. 

Creating areas of rest away from cattle grazing accrues additional management costs related to labor, fencing (physical or virtual), and water infrastructure, which could reduce adoption and scalability. Education gaps limit the ability of livestock managers to adopt the best approach.

Alternative grazing practices can result in reduced animal weight gains and associated increases in enteric methane emissions per unit of beef protein produced, potentially offsetting or outweighing any small, temporary SOC gains relative to continuous grazing. Any claimed SOC gains from grazing management are difficult to measure and verify. Many studies lack baseline SOC measurements, adequate controls, sufficient duration, or adequate soil-depth sampling, making it difficult to attribute carbon gains to grazing practices. In particular, grazing-specific solutions need to be compared with no-grazing or protected native ecosystems nearby, where carbon storage is greater and use does not generate methane.

A last key concern is that alternative grazing is frequently framed as a way to fix the climate impacts of beef production, the highest-GHG-emitting food option, rather than reducing beef demand through improving diets. Like feed additives and genetic efficiency gains, this can overstate production-side fixes, obscure the need for demand-side shifts, and delay more effective carbon removal pathways. 

What is our assessment?

Improving irrigation water use efficiency is a promising strategy for reducing emissions. However, additional data are needed to evaluate the magnitude of its impact and its effectiveness, especially under different environmental and management conditions. Therefore, this solution is classified as "Keep Watching."

What is it? 

Improving irrigation water use efficiency involves optimizing the timing, volume, and method of irrigation to reduce water use while still meeting crop water demand, thereby reducing emissions from soils, extracted groundwater, and pumping. Irrigation is the practice of adding water to croplands or pastures to reduce crop water stress and increase productivity. However, irrigation also creates wet soil conditions that promote nitrous oxide emissions, releases greenhouse gases that had been dissolved in groundwater, and, in some cases, uses energy to pump water. Increasing water use efficiency will reduce the duration of near-saturated soil conditions, potentially reducing nitrous oxide emissions from soils. For the ~40% of global irrigated croplands that rely on groundwater, increasing water use efficiency will reduce emissions from groundwater. For irrigation systems that use pumps powered by fossil fuels or non-renewable electricity, improving water use efficiency can also reduce pumping-related emissions. Of note, energy use for pumping is also addressed by Deploy Electric Irrigation Pumps. 

Does it work?

Although the mechanisms by which improved irrigation water use efficiency can reduce emissions from soils, groundwater, and pumping are scientifically sound, the effectiveness of this solution is context-dependent, and data on effectiveness and potential impact are very limited.

Irrigation contributes to nitrous oxide emissions by stimulating denitrification, a microbial process that produces nitrous oxide emissions and tends to occur when soils are nearly saturated with water. Reducing the frequency and duration of near-saturated conditions through improved irrigation water use efficiency will likely reduce associated pulses of nitrous oxide emissions. One recent study reported that irrigation increased nitrous oxide emissions from U.S. croplands by 2.9 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr. However, data on nitrous oxide emissions under different types of irrigation management, including improved water use efficiency, are not yet available.

For croplands irrigated with groundwater, reducing water use will directly reduce emissions from groundwater degassing. Groundwater is often supersaturated in CO₂, meaning that it contains more dissolved CO₂ gas than the atmosphere. The excess CO₂ in groundwater accumulates from two sources: 1) the air space in soils tends to have high CO₂ concentrations from microbial respiration, and groundwater absorbs some of the CO₂ as it percolates through the soil profile; and 2) groundwater reacts with carbonate-containing minerals in aquifers. Similarly, dissolved nitrous oxide can also accumulate in groundwater, particularly in regions with heavy fertilizer use. However, the concentration of these GHGs in groundwater remains uncertain as it varies substantially between aquifers. Recent studies have estimated that degassing of CO₂ from groundwater produces 1.7–3.6 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr in the U.S., and one global study reported 6 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr ; however, many uncertainties remain in these studies. 

For croplands that already rely on pumps for irrigation, improving irrigation scheduling to reduce water use will reduce emissions from energy use. However, other croplands rely on surface water and gravity irrigation methods and do not require pumps. For these croplands, switching to sprinklers or drip irrigation will increase water use efficiency but will also require the addition of pumps and associated energy use emissions. 

Why are we excited?

Irrigation has a tremendous impact on the planet, accounting for nearly 90% of human-caused consumptive water use. Globally, around 23% of croplands are irrigated. Therefore, opportunities to increase water use efficiency abound, and improvements in irrigation water management can have widespread impacts. Many places are facing surface water shortages and groundwater depletion, and improving irrigation practices is a critical part of sustainable water management as resource availability changes. Increases in irrigation water use efficiency have the potential to help alleviate water scarcity when coupled with appropriate policy reforms. Moreover, reducing water use can also reduce energy and water costs for producers, and reductions in runoff can improve water quality and slow erosion, benefitting biodiversity and soil health. 

Why are we concerned?

Due to limited data, the effects of irrigation on emissions from groundwater and soils remain poorly understood. Additional data, including direct field measurements, are needed before we can confidently assess the effectiveness of improved irrigation water use efficiency in reducing emissions. The effectiveness of this solution depends on environmental and management conditions, the extent to which water use is reduced, and the method used to improve irrigation water use efficiency. 

It is important that improvements in irrigation water use efficiency do not compromise crop yields. Efforts to improve irrigation water use efficiency that impose water stress and reduce yields can lead to the expansion of agricultural land, resulting in the loss of carbon-rich ecosystems.