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?

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.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, seafloor protection could avoid some CO₂ emissions while preserving critical marine ecosystems from degradation. However, the effectiveness of protection and the magnitude of avoided CO₂ emissions associated with protection are understudied and currently unclear. Therefore, we will “Keep Watching” this potential climate solution.

What is it?

Protect Seafloors aims to reduce human impacts that can degrade sediment carbon stocks and increase CO₂ emissions. Protection is conferred through legal mechanisms, such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which are managed with the primary goal of conserving nature. The seafloor stores over 2,300 Gt of carbon (roughly 8,400 Gt CO₂‑eq) in the top one meter of sediment. This marine carbon can be stable and remain sequestered for millennia. However, degradation of the seafloor from a range of human activities can disturb bottom sediments, resuspending the carbon and increasing its microbial conversion into CO₂. Currently, degradation of the seafloor primarily results from fishing practices, such as trawling and dredging, which are estimated to occur across 1.3% of the global ocean. Additional sources of degradation include undersea mining, infrastructure development (for offshore wind farms, oil, and gas), and laying telecommunications cables. Estimates of seafloor degradation are highly uncertain due to data limitations and the unpredictable nature of how these activities may expand in the future.

Does it work?

More evidence is needed to confirm whether legal seafloor protection is effective at reducing degradation and the extent to which degradation results in increased CO₂ emissions. While ~8% of the seafloor is currently protected through MPAs, there is mixed evidence that legal protection reduces degradation and CO₂ emissions. For instance, in a review of 49 studies examining the impacts of bottom trawling and dredging on sediment organic carbon stocks, most (61%) showed no change, while nearly a third (29%) showed carbon loss. More recent work suggests that trawling intensity might drive these mixed results, with more heavily trawled areas showing clear reductions in sediment organic carbon. Additionally, the few existing global estimates of CO₂ emissions from trawling and dredging range from 0.03 to 0.58 Gt CO₂/yr, highlighting the need for further research. The effectiveness of MPAs at preventing seafloor degradation is also mixed. In strictly protected areas with enforcement of no-take policies that prevent bottom fishing, MPAs could help minimize degradation and retain seafloor carbon. However, implementation can be challenging, as over half of existing MPAs generally allow high-impact activities. For instance, trawling and dredging occur more frequently in MPAs than in non-protected areas in the territorial waters of Europe.

Why are we excited?

Advantages of seafloor protection include its potential low cost and its ability to conserve often understudied biodiversity and ecosystems.  Human activities, such as trawling and dredging, impact marine organisms on the seafloor, and ecosystem recovery can take years to occur. In the case of undersea mining, ecosystems may never fully recover. Increases in CO₂ emissions along the seafloor from degradation can also enhance local acidification and reduce the ocean's buffering capacity, both of which can affect marine organisms and the carbon sequestration capacity of seawater. Protection can also increase fisheries yields in neighboring waters and reduce other negative impacts of seafloor disturbances. While costs are somewhat uncertain, MPA expenses have been estimated to be an order of magnitude less than the often unseen ecosystem service benefits gained with protection, suggesting MPA expansion could provide cost savings.

Why are we concerned?

Disadvantages of seafloor protection include uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness of preventing degradation and avoiding CO₂ emissions, as well as the potential increased risk of disturbance to other ocean areas. The amount and fate of CO₂ generated due to the degradation of seafloor carbon is complex and understudied. It can take months or even centuries for CO₂ produced at depth to reach the sea surface and atmosphere. Current estimates of CO₂ emissions due to dredging and trawling are widely debated and highly variable due to differing methods and assumptions. Large amounts of organic carbon will inevitably re-settle after seafloor disturbances, with no impact on CO₂, but estimates of just how much remain uncertain. The risk of protection-induced leakage, where a reduction in disturbances, such as trawling and dredging in MPAs, leads to increased fishing effort in other ocean areas, is also potentially high.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, methane digesters can reduce emissions only under some conditions. However, because of high methane leakage rates, relatively high costs, and the risk that they may incentivize high-emission activities, methane digesters are not broadly applicable for large-scale deployment. We will “Keep Watching” this potential climate solution.

What is it?

Methane digesters are specialized devices that utilize anaerobic digestion to convert agricultural, industrial, or municipal organic waste into useful products, such as biogas and digestate, in a controlled environment. Using methane digesters to treat organic waste reduces emissions by capturing methane that would have otherwise been released during uncontrolled anaerobic decomposition in landfills, manure lagoons, or other waste facilities. Methane digester-produced biogas, which is roughly 50% methane and 50% CO₂, along with some trace gases, can be used directly as a fuel or refined further into biomethane to replace natural gas use for heat, electricity, transportation, or industrial processes. Biogas can potentially reduce emissions from electricity or heat generation if it is used to replace a more emissions-intensive fuel. Biomethane, also called renewable natural gas, can be used as a drop-in replacement anywhere natural gas is used, such as in industrial processes.

Does it work?

The effectiveness of methane digesters for reducing emissions varies depending on the type of feedstock used and the amount of methane that leaks from the digester and any associated tanks, valves, and pipes. For manure and municipal organic waste, which often degrade in anaerobic environments and can emit methane directly to the atmosphere, capturing that methane in a methane digester and using the resulting biogas to replace a fossil fuel energy source can result in a net emissions reduction if methane leakage rates are low. In contrast, using agricultural crop residues, which typically degrade aerobically and produce CO₂, as feedstock for a methane digester may yield little or no reduction in net GHG emissions, largely due to methane leaks. Use of biogas for energy can also reduce emissions if it replaces a more carbon-intensive fuel. 

Why are we excited?

Methane digesters have been deployed in many parts of the world at various scales, from household to centralized industrial-scale digesters. They can use a wide variety of organic feedstocks from the agricultural, municipal, and industrial sectors. For municipal organic waste and concentrated livestock manure, methane digesters are more effective at reducing emissions than landfilling or most other manure management strategies. The biogas produced can be stored and used for on-site energy needs or as a fuel source for dispatchable electricity that supports intermittent clean energy options such as solar and wind generation. It can also be sold to provide additional sources of revenue for farmers or waste disposal facilities. The use of methane digesters can reduce noxious odors from waste, and the digestate can be used as material for animal bedding or fertilizer, reducing demand for synthetic fertilizers. 

Why are we concerned?

The most serious problem with methane digesters is that they are a significant source of methane leaks. Few data are available on leakage rates; however, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that methane leakage from biogas production can range from 0% to 12%, which is significantly higher than the average global methane leakage rate for oil and gas production of 1.2% in 2024. Over a 20-year time frame, methane is more than 80 times more potent than CO₂ at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Therefore, using methane digesters to process waste material that would otherwise degrade aerobically in order to produce methane-rich biogas could, due to high methane leakage rates, have an even greater warming impact than if the waste were left alone. The collection, transportation, and processing of feedstocks and the operation of the methane digesters also produce GHG emissions from fuel use. 

Methane digesters have a high capital cost and are more expensive than other forms of manure methane abatement, such as covers, physical treatments, or chemical treatments. Financial support from governments can help with the upfront installation costs, while low-cost feedstocks and expensive conventional fuel prices could help create an environment where biogas production is economically viable. However, these economic incentives may encourage poor farming practices or increased waste production. For example, dairy farmers may consider increasing their herd size to capitalize on revenues from the outputs of methane digesters, an outcome that would increase total methane emissions from agriculture. There are also health and safety concerns, as there have been instances of digester explosions and leaks that have injured people or harmed the environment.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, deploying district cooling is a potentially impactful option for reducing emissions from buildings as demand for cooling continues to grow. However, upfront cost and project complexity are major barriers to deployment, and a lack of data is a barrier to deeper analysis. This potential solution is therefore classified as “Keep Watching.”

What is it?

District cooling consists of a centralized cooling system that distributes chilled water to multiple buildings through a network of insulated underground pipes. The cooled water absorbs heat from the buildings, replacing the need for air conditioners or chillers in each building. District cooling can produce cooled water from a variety of renewable sources, such as renewable electricity, solar cooling, and natural cooling sources, including seawater, lakewater, rivers, and groundwater. It can even use waste heat from industry to generate cooling. Many systems include thermal energy storage facilities where frozen water, cold water, or phase change materials are cooled when electricity prices are low for use during peak hours to save costs and reduce strain on the electricity grid. District cooling is best applied to high-density areas and can be combined with district heating to provide year-round conditioning. 

Does it work?

When district cooling replaces conventional standalone systems in residential and commercial buildings, it can reduce emissions through two main mechanisms. First, many district cooling systems exchange heat with natural sources of cooling such as oceans, deep lakes, and rivers, a process that can be many times more energy efficient than conventional cooling systems. This results in reduced energy use and reduced emissions from the electricity used to operate the system. Second, district cooling systems can reduce the use of refrigerants with high global warming potentials, which can leak at all stages of a cooling system’s lifespan. When replacing standalone systems, district cooling can significantly reduce the total volume of refrigerants used. In addition, some district cooling systems do not use any refrigerants at all (e.g., exchanging heat with ocean or deep lake water), and many are able to use refrigerants with low global warming potentials. For instance, the Zuidas International Business Hub in the Netherlands adopted a district cooling system that uses lake cooling combined with chillers, reducing emissions by 75% compared to conventional cooling systems. 

Why are we excited?

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global carbon emissions from cooling buildings reached 1.02 Gt CO₂‑eq in 2022. The majority of emissions associated with cooling are from standalone systems such as window air conditioners and chillers that serve a single building. District cooling systems are relatively rare at this time, with most capacity found in the United States and the Gulf Arab States. While existing district cooling systems can be made less emitting, there may be greater potential for new systems because demand for cooling is increasing by ~4%/yr as global temperatures rise and as standards of living improve in regions that experience high temperatures. This is raising concerns about the new electricity generating capacity needed when demand peaks on very hot days. District cooling systems can reduce overall energy use for cooling relative to standalone systems, and when paired with cool thermal storage, can significantly reduce demand during peak hours and on hot days. Building owners can enjoy less maintenance costs, more reliable cooling, and increased floor space when district cooling systems replace bulkier standalone cooling systems. In dense areas with good access to natural or low-cost cooling sources, district cooling systems can cost less to operate and offer lifetime savings despite the higher upfront costs. 

Why are we concerned?

Deploying district cooling systems has high upfront costs and requires extensive planning and coordination among a wide range of stakeholders. These projects can face challenges in getting financing due to a lack of confidence for both investors and customers, uncertainty about future loads, and regulatory barriers. These can be especially challenging in low- and middle-income countries where demand for cooling is growing rapidly. Many buildings are likely to invest in standalone systems in the near term, locking them into alternatives and weakening the business case for district systems in the area. Meanwhile, the full potential is difficult to assess due to a lack of data on district cooling systems globally.