Latest news with #emissionsReduction
CTV News
10 hours ago
- Business
- CTV News
Quebec dials back emissions projections due to global uncertainty
The Quebec government is scaling back its projections for greenhouse gas emissions reductions due to the Trump administration. A report published Thursday by the province's Environment Department says the current U.S. government has created a 'challenging environment for advancing climate action.' It points in particular to U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to impose tariffs, which it says have slowed down business investment, including in decarbonization. It also says the administration's attempts to challenge carbon pricing mechanisms in various U.S. states were 'exerting downward pressure on market prices.' 'The economic and political uncertainty caused by the new U.S. federal administration ... does not allow the deployment of measures as quickly and effectively as planned,' the report says. The government now estimates that measures being adopted in Quebec to reduce emissions will account for 65 per cent of the cuts needed to reach the province's 2030 emissions target, down from a projected 67 per cent last year. Quebec is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 37.5 per cent compared to 1990 levels by 2030. That's a drop of about 30 million tonnes from projected emissions in the absence of climate policies. The new report is an annual update on the province's progress toward meeting that goal. It estimates that planned measures will cut emissions by 19.4 million tonnes in 2030, a slight drop from last year's projections. The document also says the Canadian government's decision to scrap the federal consumer carbon price in April could harm the competitiveness of Quebec businesses. 'Uncertainty remains regarding the actions that will be taken by the federal government to combat climate change,' it reads. Quebec has so far maintained its own cap-and-trade carbon pricing system, which is linked with California's system. The report says Quebec's carbon price is a major driver of emissions reductions in the province, and revenue from the carbon market is an important source of funding for other climate measures in the government's plan. The report highlights $10.1 billion in planned government spending over the next five years, much of it to reduce emissions from transportation, industry and housing. It says new initiatives under development could lead to further emissions cuts and could get the province to between 67 and 72 per cent of its 2030 target. Despite dialling back its projections, the government says greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 0.9 million tonnes in Quebec between 2022 and 2023, and have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. The report also says there was a record number of electric-vehicle sales in Quebec in 2024, with more than 125,000 new registrations. Zero-emission vehicle sales made up nearly 31 per cent of light-duty vehicle sales that year, it says, and there were 375,000 electric vehicles on the road in Quebec last December. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 19, 2025. Maura Forrest, The Canadian Press
ABC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
NT government backflips on 2030 emissions reduction target promise
The Northern Territory government has revealed it will not implement a 2030 emissions reduction target that it promised before the last NT election. The Country Liberal Party (CLP) committed to a 43 per cent reduction in the NT's greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, six weeks out from the 2024 territory election. Then in opposition, the CLP's policy was in contrast to Territory Labor, which did not promise a 2030 emissions reduction target. Both major parties went into the election promising net zero emissions by 2050. At the time, the CLP was lauded by the Environment Centre NT for having "the strongest climate policy" of the two major parties. But in NT budget estimates on Wednesday, Environment Minister Josh Burgoyne said the CLP government had not adopted its promised 2030 emissions target. "[The 2030 target] is not current government policy," he said. "There's the [overarching] target of that net zero by 2050, which has yet to change." Under Australia's commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change, the country is committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. While in opposition, the CLP also supported Labor's legislated 50 per cent renewable energy target, but scrapped that in March. During a CLP central council meeting at the weekend, party delegates passed a motion supporting the abandonment of net zero and a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. In a social media post, CLP Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said the "current impact of these polices" did not "justify their burden of everyday Aussies". "It's high time we did something about it," she said. "While it's important to steward our country and environment well, that should not come at the cost of our economy and way of life." However, when asked in budget estimates about the central council meeting motion, Mr Burgoyne said the NT government was still committed to net zero. "Our position on net zero emissions has not changed since the position we took to the election," he said. "There's been no formal information provided by my department in regards to a changing in regards to net zero." During budget estimates, the NT government's executive director of environment, Paul Purdon, said the department was finalising a "first-look" assessment of climate risks in the territory. Mr Purdon said the assessment would be focused on future liveability in the NT, looking at "themes" such as community health and wellbeing, economic sustainability and natural disaster readiness. Asked why there was a lack of money for climate mitigation measures allocated in the NT budget in May, Mr Burgoyne said the assessment first needed to be finalised. "We need to first assess those risks, deal with the issues which we face here in the NT, and ensure our government, through our departments, are dealing with them in the best way possible," he said.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
John Crane introduces versatile next-generation Coaxial Seal, engineered for success and efficiency
New Type 93AX Coaxial Separation Seal reduces nitrogen consumption by up to 80% Designed to maintain seal performance even in the event of multiple failure scenarios Developed to address customers' pain points across the energy and process industries, including oil and gas, power generation and clean energy SLOUGH, England, June 17, 2025 /CNW/ -- John Crane, a global leader in rotating equipment solutions, and a business of Smiths Group plc, today announced the launch of the Type 93AX Coaxial Separation Seal – a next generation dry gas sealing solution engineered to help customers reduce emissions, improve equipment reliability, and lower operational costs. The Type 93AX builds on John Crane's legacy of industrial sealing expertise with a robust, fail-safe design that remains operational even in the event of multiple failure scenarios. Designed based on direct customer feedback, test data indicates the mechanical seal reduces nitrogen consumption by up to 80%, compared to conventional radial separation seals – offering significant efficiency and sustainability benefits. Addressing real industry challenges Research has shown that contamination is a significant contributor to dry gas seal failures, making it one of the leading causes of unscheduled maintenance and equipment downtime. The Type 93AX is engineered to prevent oil ingress from the compressor bearing chamber, minimising this risk and supporting more reliable, continuous operation. According to Deloitte, unplanned downtime costs the global process industries an estimated $50 billion annually, with equipment failure responsible for 42% of that unplanned downtime. In energy and process applications, this can result in losses of up to $42 million per facility per year, on average. The Type 93AX is designed to mitigate both performance and financial risks by extending the reliability of the dry gas seal system and reducing demand on supporting infrastructure such as nitrogen (N2) generators and air compressors. Three operating scenarios for added resilience The seal supports three operating modes and automatically adapts in failure situations to minimise disruption and contain gas or oil migration: Scenario 1: Standard operation: Non-contacting operation provides positive oil ingress mitigation. Scenario 2: Separation gas loss: Maintains non-contacting operation and oil control even without separation gas. Scenario 3: Dry gas seal failure: Restricts process gas leakage during compressor shutdown (up to 35 bar), while maintaining seal integrity up to 70 bar. Supporting operational and sustainability goals The Type 93AX helps contribute to sustainability goals through reduced emissions and lower energy usage. By cutting nitrogen use by up to 80%, it decreases demand on N2 generation systems – a source of both energy consumption and cost. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), improving industrial efficiency could cut global energy use by 12% by 2040, further underlining the importance of solutions like the Type 93AX. Mike Eason, Chief Technology Officer at John Crane, said: "Our customers told us they wanted a separation seal that increases safety, efficiency, and reliability. The Type 93AX delivers on these priorities. It's designed to keep working in real-world failure conditions to protect their most critical assets, and reduce environmental impact, while driving down OPEX and CAPEX. Eason continued: "The new seal is compatible with John Crane's dry gas seal portfolio and is supported by a global network of over 200 facilities, including manufacturing, sales and services, and 13 global turbo service centres in more than 50 countries. It can be sold as part of a bundled first-fit order or compressor upgrade, or supplied as a stand-alone product to meet customer-specific requirements. More information can be found here: About John Crane John Crane is a global leader in mission-critical technologies for the energy and process industries and an innovator in rotating equipment, encompassing mechanical seals, couplings, filtration systems, cutting-edge asset management, and digital diagnostics solutions. Blending a rich legacy of innovation with a commitment to service excellence, we have enabled our customers to operate reliably and sustainably for over a century. While recognising the role of traditional energy, we are pioneering solutions that enable cleaner alternatives, crafting a vision for a sustainable energy future. Our extensive global presence underscores our promise to customers, with over 200 facilities, including manufacturing, sales and service, in more than 50 countries across the globe. With over £1.1 billion in revenue in Fiscal Year 2024, we are an integral pillar of Smiths Group plc, a FTSE 100 listed industrial technology company dedicated to engineering a better future. Visit for more. View original content: SOURCE John Crane View original content: Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
RNZ News
11-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Lawyers sue government over emissions, claiming plan misses the mark
A lawyer says hardly anyone thinks the government's plan to plant around 700,000 hectares of trees, mostly pines, is a good idea. Photo: RNZ / Kate Newton A group of lawyers is suing the government over what they say are glaring holes in the country's emissions reduction plan. Lobby group Lawyers for Climate Action NZ has launched the action against Climate Minister Simon Watts. It alleges the government is failing to fulfil the basic legal requirements needed to meet its climate targets. Lawyer Jessica Palairet who is the group's executive director said the main thrust was that the government was not meeting its obligations under the Zero Carbon Act. It had obligations to make emissions remission plans every five years with "legal guardrails and requirements" that the Act imposed. It was a precedent-setting case, she told Morning Report , because the legal guardrails would be scrutinised in court. "This is the first time an emissions reductions plan like this has ever been challenged under New Zealand law. "We ultimately think the plan the government has made is risky, unlawful and misses the mark," Palairet said. The lawyers disputed the way the government had devised the plan, including that it had scrapped about 35 private policies without following the Act's policy. Pine tree. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King The government was also relying heavily on tree planting, with around 700,000 hectares to be planted by 2050, mostly of pine trees. "And it's pretty hard to find anyone who thinks that a good idea, including the government's own experts. "So we're also taking issue with the way the government reached that decision but also whether or not such a tree-heavy strategy is consistent with the government's obligations." The government's plan was failing to set the country up to meet future emissions targets "which we think is a pretty remarkable position". Side-stepping advice from the independent Climate Change Commission, the government last year appointed its own scientific panel to tell it what level of cuts would be consistent with a goal of creating "no additional warming" from farming. Both the commission and the lawyers believed the government was not making enough reforms to its centrepiece Emissions Trading Scheme, Palairet said. The commission had also been critical of the reliance of tree planting. "So this certainly forms part of the fabric of the case that we're going to be bringing." RNZ has approached Watts for comment. Last week Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called international scientists "worthies" for criticising the government's approach to methane . Luxon received a letter from 26 international climate change scientists accusing the government of "ignoring scientific evidence" over plans to lower its methane target. New Zealand has one of the highest per-capita methane rates in the world because of its farming exports and the current target is reducing methane by between 24 and 47 percent by 2050. Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish, my point was very clear, those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Biden's climate-smart ag program was better than nothing. Trump killed it.
The "Eating the Earth' column explores the connections between the food we eat and the climate we live in. Farms are a huge climate problem, so it was great that the Biden administration made a huge commitment to 'climate-smart agriculture.' But some details of its first $3 billion initiative to make agriculture climate-smarter were not so great. The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, launched by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in early 2022, provided generous grants to America's least cash-strapped agribusinesses, including Archer Daniels Midland, JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and PepsiCo, as well as America's most influential farm groups, representing corn, soybeans, cotton, pork, and dairy. A few of its 135 projects actually looked climate-harmful, financing emissions-boosting pseudo-solutions like biofuels, manure digesters, and grass-fed beef. Far too many grants went to scientifically controversial efforts to sequester carbon in farm soils through trendy 'regenerative' practices like planting cover crops and reducing tillage, and not enough flowed to simpler, evidence-backed strategies to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. And the Biden USDA's well-intentioned efforts to make sure a large portion of the grants went to smaller farms, specialty crops, sympathetic nonprofits, and traditionally underserved communities often seemed to take precedence over reducing emissions. I wrote a skeptical column about then-President Joe Biden's climate-smart approach back in 2022, so I had mixed feelings when the Trump administration cancelled the climate-smart commodities program this April. It was clearly a flawed program. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had a point when she mocked it as slow and bureaucratic. While her primary complaint that it didn't send enough money directly to farmers wasn't my primary complaint — USDA sends plenty of money directly to farmers! — even some Trump-hating advocates of sustainable farming agreed with her critique of its 'sky-high administration fees.' But no one truly believes the program's cancellation had much to do with flaws in its design or execution. Its fatal flaw, from the Trump perspective, was obviously its climate-smart premise; Rollins slagged it as 'largely built to advance the green new scam,' in violation of 'Trump administration priorities.' Those priorities are not a secret: This administration doesn't believe agriculture policy should have anything to do with the climate, which is why it scrubbed the word 'climate' from USDA's website. It doesn't care that agriculture generates one-fourth of all greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody who's concerned about the planet should be happy that an imperfect agricultural program was cancelled for the sin of trying to reduce agricultural emissions. As University of Iowa economist Silvia Secchi, one of the program's harshest critics, puts it, 'Regardless of my opinion of these grants, it makes no sense to kill them before we learn anything.' The Environmental Working Group published an analysis last year attacking Biden's climate-smart approach, but vastly prefers it to Trump's screw-the-climate approach. 'Even if we didn't love where all the money was going, it was better than just giving farmers subsidies,' says the group's Midwest director, Anne Schechinger. When President Donald Trump commits egregious transgressions — deporting a Venezuelan hairdresser to El Salvador or investigating the mayor of Chicago for bragging about his diverse staff — pundits often try to look balanced by criticizing the suboptimal behaviors he uses as excuses: Biden neglected the border; DEI went too far. There's a reluctance to simply say: This is egregious. Well, I spent the last six years reporting a book on how to feed the world without frying it, and I'll say this: Trump's belief that we shouldn't even try is egregious. Biden and his team deserve credit for making climate-smart a priority. Trump's USDA agreed to keep funding some of the climate-smart grants after farm groups protested their cancellation, but it's not calling them climate-smart anymore, and it won't pursue climate-smart investments in the future. It's defiantly climate-dumb. But I've also pointed out that it's boring to harp on the badness of a climate-denial administration doing climate-denial things. And there are lessons we can learn from the politics and substance of the climate-smart partnerships — about mistakes that shouldn't be repeated, and at least one remarkable success story that should be expanded worldwide. In my book, I tell the tale of a big internal Biden administration fight over climate-smart agriculture that never made it into the public eye. On one side was then-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who wanted to pay farmers to adopt regenerative practices — like keeping soils covered and minimizing soil disturbance — that he believed would sequester carbon in their soils and help reverse climate change. He loved the idea of fifth-generation Republican dirt farmers who wore John Deere hats and drove Ford F-150s embracing kinder and gentler approaches to their land that would help them earn a premium for sustainably grown commodities and sell soil-carbon credits as an extra crop. On the other side was White House climate aide David Hayes, who thought soil carbon was wildly overhyped — by the United Nations, environmentalists, foundations who seemed to cough up cash whenever they heard the word 'regenerative,' celebrity-studded documentaries like 'Kiss the Ground,' and even Big Ag and Big Food conglomerates eager to claim climate benefits for regenerative practices in their supply chains. Hayes pushed for at least half the climate-smart grants to go to less scientifically controversial efforts to reduce methane and nitrous oxide, which make up more than half of direct farm emissions. Hayes was right about the science. It's extraordinarily difficult to measure soil carbon accurately or ensure it remains underground. It's also extraordinarily difficult to build more soil carbon without adding more nitrogen in the form of fertilizer or manure, which have negative climate impacts of their own. Indigo Ag, a carbon-market leader that announced a plan in 2019 to help regenerative farmers sequester a trillion tons of soil carbon, has gotten less than one one-millionth of the way to that goal. Regenerative agriculture also tends to produce less food per acre, which means it requires more acres to produce the same amount of food, which means it accelerates the global march of farmland into carbon-rich forests and wetlands. 'There's just too much excitement about soil carbon,' Hayes told me. But Vilsack won on the politics. Most of the climate-smart grants promoted regenerative practices designed to move atmospheric carbon underground and help build new markets where farmers could sell soil-carbon credits — and the same was true for another $20 billion steered toward climate-smart agriculture by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Cover crops and no-till were by far the best-funded practices, even though there's at best mixed evidence that they can sequester much carbon. Biden even dropped a prime-time plug for cover crops into his first address to Congress. If USDA's soil-carbon obsession started the program on the wrong track, it strayed even further from its climate-smart mission by insisting that 40% of its grants go to underserved communities, and by promoting regenerative hemp, regenerative sorghum, and dozens of other alternatives to big row-crop commodities. Some of the resulting projects were just weird. One $20 million regenerative grant was divided among small farmers in New York, minority farmers in North Carolina, wine growers in California, and a nonprofit called Nature for Justice, as well as traditional big corn and soy producers in the Midwest and the giant agribusiness Corteva. It was hard to see a coherent strategy behind the grant, beyond spreading money across the country and checking all the Biden team's priority boxes. In any case, the Trump team has cancelled it, along with dozens of other grants that explicitly prioritized equity and diversity. Hayes did pressure USDA to make a serious commitment to verifying actual soil-carbon results, and to his credit, Vilsack agreed, creating a $300 million monitoring fund and steering a variety of grants toward data collection and measurement. Vilsack was excited to document the climate benefits underground, while Hayes suspected the department would learn that soil carbon was mostly a mirage; either way, it would gather valuable information. But the Trump administration is cancelling those data-focused grants, too, part of its push to scrap grants that proposed to send less than 65% of their cash directly to farmers, or had not yet sent any cash to farmers. The measurement grants generally sent more cash to scientists, universities, and companies like Indigo. The Trump team also axed most of the grants focused on large numbers of small farms growing unconventional crops, because they required much more administration. For example, the Pennsylvania group Pasa Sustainable Agriculture lost a $59 million grant because it planned to buy supplies like cover crops and tree seedlings in bulk for 2,000 farms as small as a quarter-acre rather than giving the cash to the farmers and making them buy supplies themselves. The association's director, Hannah Smith-Brubaker, says it was finally ready to ramp up in the field after spending just $2 million of its grant over the first two years, mostly on administration and preparation — and now it won't be spending anything. 'This was supposed to be an experiment,' Smith-Brubaker says. 'We'd spend five years tackling these problems on different types of farms with different practices, and we'd start to get some comprehensive answers about what works. It's such a shame that we won't.' Robert Bonnie, Vilsack's deputy who oversaw the grants, says there was a political strategy behind the grant program: By offering farmers carrots rather than sticks, and helping them develop markets for climate-smart commodities regardless of their personal climate views, USDA could build lasting support for evidence-based innovations in farm country. But he says he underestimated the Trump team's enthusiasm for policy vandalism, for trashing anything it could fit into its culture war against anything Biden-related or climate-related. 'It turns out there are no rules, and nothing matters,' Bonnie told me. Again, it's not the Biden team's fault that the Trump team hates the climate. But just as many climate hawks now wish the Inflation Reduction Act's clean-energy provisions had focused more on getting green stuff built quickly, and less on requiring union labor, American-made components, and other conditions unrelated to the climate, it's tempting to wonder what the climate-smart grants could have achieved before Trump ransacked them if they had focused on delivering quick emissions-reducing results. Actually, we don't have to wonder, because a single grant amounting to just 0.25% of the $3 billion climate-smart commodities program did exactly that. Four years ago, when a 23-year-old finance whiz named Tyler Hull was working for a farmland asset manager in Nashville, Tennessee, he spun off a subsidiary called AgriCapture to exploit the fledgling carbon markets that were starting to reward businesses for reducing emissions. Soil carbon was all the rage, and Hull figured that if he could persuade his firm's tenant cotton and corn farmers to plant cover crops, stop tilling, and adopt other regenerative practices that would sequester carbon underground, they could sell carbon credits and the company's land would get healthier. But once he dug into the science and mechanics of soil carbon capture, Hull concluded it was mostly bogus. He calculated that farmers could at best sequester one-fifth of a ton of carbon underground per acre, so they would earn less selling credits than they would spend on seeds for cover crops — and since tilling the soil in the future would release the sequestered carbon, the carbon-credit agreements would prohibit any tillage on the land for decades. 'It just didn't work,' Hull recalls. 'We had to pivot.' Hull soon stumbled across an emissions-reduction opportunity that wasn't bogus at all: reducing methane from rice fields through better water management. Methane-producing microbes that thrive in flooded rice fields are responsible for 10% of the world's agricultural emissions, but reducing the duration of flooding through practices like 'alternative wetting and drying' and 'furrow irrigation' can cut those emissions in half — the equivalent of up to two tons per acre, with no drag on yield and no restrictions on future land management. AgriCapture received a $7.5 million climate-smart grant in 2022, and it was the only project to start sending money to farmers that first year. It used remote sensing to document 30,000 tons of methane reductions on 25,000 acres, then sold the credits to an international bank. It also saved 9 billion gallons of fresh water without any loss of yield. This year, it's enrolling 150,000 acres, about 5% of U.S. rice production. The Trump administration is allowing the project to continue because it's already used most of its grant, and Hull says it will be able to keep expanding without additional federal subsidies. If rice farmers worldwide all adopted these practices, they could eliminate enough emissions to offset half the aviation industry. 'This can become the new normal,' Hull says. 'It's practical and profitable, and even if you don't care about global warming, it's saving water and creating a new export market for American farmers: carbon credits you can trust.' Regenerative agriculture is sexy and popular, with support from Al Gore, Joe Rogan, Rosario Dawson, the Indian mystic Sadhguru, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but its ability to move a lot of carbon from sky to soil remains speculative at best. By contrast, AgriCapture's effort to reduce methane by reducing flooding on rice fields is simple, effective, and potentially lucrative. There are also proven strategies to reduce methane from cow burps with feed additives, reduce nitrous oxide emissions by using fertilizer more efficiently, and store carbon above ground by planting trees and shrubs in pastures and fields — with climate benefits that are relatively easy to measure and monetize. The Biden team could have made an international splash by bringing those strategies to scale, if it hadn't been so excited about its soil-carbon experiment. Now that experiment is over, and that's Trump's fault. But in the future, if policymakers who do care about climate progress want to make climate action more popular with the public, they might want to focus on actions they know will help the climate. And if those actions can create measurable environmental benefits that farmers can get paid for, they might even be popular in farm country.
