What if the billions of tons of concrete poured around the world every year could also help fight climate change emissions? Washington State University researchers say they have developed an environmentally friendly way to create "carbon negative" concrete that removes carbon dioxide from the air. Concrete usually requires high temperatures and burning fuels, and the limestone used as an ingredient produces carbon dioxide when it decomposes. It is estimated that the 4 billion tons of concrete produced each year worldwide are responsible for 8% of annual human carbon dioxide production. But the WSU team created a formula that uses 30% of biochar—a type of charcoal made from organic waste—that, when mixed with concrete wastewater, can remove up to 23% of its weight of carbon dioxide from the air while maintaining similar strength to regular cement. Current methods of using biochar in concrete found that the strength of concrete was significantly reduced even when using 3%. But when added to concrete wastewater, the resulting paste achieved a compressive strength of about 4,000 pounds per square inch after 28 days compared to regular cement, the researchers said.

ChatGPT's artificial intelligence service has been the subject of much debate since its launch late last year. This new generative AI tool is capable of producing different kinds of text for many everyday uses, from information searches to book summaries and detailed cooking recipes. Some internet users even use it to write cover letters or best man speeches for weddings! Interest in ChatGPT increased last month with the release of an even more sophisticated and powerful version of GPT-4. However, every innovation has an ecological cost, as has been seen with other recent technologies such as cryptocurrencies or NFTs. And ChatGPT is definitely no exception. French app and platform Greenly, which allows companies to evaluate their CO2 emissions in real time, looked at the potential carbon footprint of ChatGPT-3. Greenly estimates that the GPT-3 version of the AI service could have a footprint of around 240 tonnes of CO2e, the equivalent of 136 round-trip flights between Paris and New York. The main source of ChatGPT-3 energy consumption lies in the data centers deployed to operate the service. Education systems alone account for 99 % of total emissions or 238 t of CO2 equivalent per year. The report states that operational electricity accounts for three-quarters of this footprint (ie 160 t CO2e), followed by server manufacturing (68.9 t CO2e) and refrigerant gas leakage (9.6 t CO2e). The remaining two tons of the carbon footprint estimated by Greenly are related to the design of the tool and its use with processes such as data storage, data transfer and the search process. This calculation is based on the scenario that a company uses ChatGPT to automatically send one million emails per month for one year. This puts into perspective the general enthusiasm for a tool that is considered revolutionary in many ways. Despite ChatGPT's convincing performance, says Greenly climate expert Tommy Catherine, it's worth asking whether it's worth the environmental cost, as carbon emissions increase significantly with every technological advance. (ETX)

As recently as July 2021, a WWF and Tesco study revealed that 40 % of food in the world is thrown away; now a comparative analysis by researchers from Nanjing Forestry University in China in collaboration with the National University of Singapore clearly points to the environmental disaster that this massive waste represents. It should be noted that the global food system is responsible for approximately one-third of total annual greenhouse gas emissions. In total, in 2017, scientists estimated that food waste produced 9.3 billion tons of CO2 (expressed in GtCO2e in a study published in the journal Nature Food). By comparison, this amount is almost equal to the combined total emissions of the United States and the European Union. And this is not without consequences for the planet: food waste is actually responsible for half of the carbon emissions produced by the food industry. By analyzing food supply data, this study provides new insight into the scale of the impact of food waste. It should be noted that when it comes to supply, we are talking about collection as well as production, storage, transportation, processing and sales. The researchers considered data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for at least 164 countries and regions for the period 2001 to 2017. In addition, data on 54 food products corresponding to four main categories were examined in detail: cereals and pulses; meat and animal products; root and oil plants; fruits and vegetables. The findings show that when data related to China, India, the United States and Brazil are combined, these giants produce about 44 % of global food supply-related emissions. And it is not grain, fruit or vegetable waste that is primarily responsible for CO2 emissions. Meat and animal products account for 73.4 % of global food supply-related emissions. The processing of beef and lamb produces 13 times more carbon emissions than the processing of tomatoes. (Cara lain follow berita kami)

Craig Cohon has had an unusual career. The 59-year-old Canadian helped bring Coca-Cola to Russia in the early 1990s and co-owned Cirque du Soleil in the country. He once managed an opera singer and worked for the World Economic Forum. Those decades of globetrotting have taken their toll on the planet. When Cohon set out to calculate his lifetime carbon footprint, taking into account everything from his journeys into adulthood to his childhood diet, he pegged it at 8,147 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent—28 times the global average. "I feel that I am 100% responsible and 100% guilty for my personal harm to the world and I am not 100% guilty because I was not aware at a deep level of unintended consequences," Cohon told Bloomberg Green. "But now that I understand it, I personally do something about it." (Olivia Rudgard)

Average levels of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere more than 417 ppm in 2022(opens in a new tab)and even recently reached a daily value of more than 424 ppm(opens in a new tab). When this story was first published in 2019, CO2 levels were around 412 ppm. They rise relentlessly. When Americans celebrated the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, the planet's atmosphere was vastly different from today's. Fifty years ago, scientists measured(opens in a new tab) The level of carbon dioxide—the planet's most important greenhouse gas—on Earth is about 325 parts per million, or ppm. Now, five decades later, that number has shot up to about 412 ppm, an increase of almost 90 ppm. It's a change that atmospheric researchers, geologists and climatologists call unparalleled in at least 800,000 years, although carbon dioxide levels likely haven't been this high in millions of years. "The rate of CO2 increase since the first Earth Day is unprecedented in the geologic record," said Dan Breecker, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Texas at Austin. "Without any way you look at it, it's completely unprecedented," agreed Kris Karnauskas, an associate professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. (Mark Kaufman)

New research by the IWG in collaboration with Arup reveals that working closer to home can significantly reduce carbon emissions in major cities in the UK and US, with reductions of up to 70% in Manchester and 87% in Los Angeles. Commuting to downtown offices every day has the largest carbon footprint of all modes of work, while splitting time between a local workspace/office, working from home, and occasional trips to downtown headquarters offers the largest carbon savings. In addition, replacing a car with a bicycle and upgrading offices to higher environmental standards also significantly reduces the carbon footprint. The study measured the environmental impact of hybrid work based on building and transport emissions in six US and UK cities, with a deep dive into the two main carbon contributors – London and LA. New York, Atlanta, Manchester and Glasgow were also investigated. Data from these cities has shown the potential for huge carbon savings in other cities around the world, such as South Africa, through the widespread adoption of hybrid work, which has spread rapidly among office workers who now use available technology to work where they are most comfortable and productive. . US cities showed the largest potential carbon savings when transportation due to the prevalence of car commuting was also taken into account, with Atlanta (90% reduction) just edged out by Los Angeles (87%) and New York (82%).

Environmental campaigners are calling on the UK government to take action after new analysis found a significant difference between the carbon footprint of washable and disposable nappies. According to a report commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), reusable nappies have 25 % less global warming potential than disposable nappies. It turned out that the impact of the production of disposable diapers on the environment is almost nine times greater, and when they are disposed of, it is almost ten times greater. However, the report presents a mixed picture, with reusable nappies receiving a worse impact rating in 11 out of 18 categories – particularly in relation to water and electricity consumption for washing and drying.

Single-use surgical devices account for two-thirds of the carbon footprint of the five most common NHS operations, a new study has found. Looking at operations at three University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust sites, researchers found that 68 % of the carbon footprint came from single-use, often plastic items such as patient gowns and drapes and instrument tables. It found that knee replacement surgery left the biggest footprint with 85.5 kg CO2e, followed by gallbladder removal surgery with 20.3 kg CO2e, carpal tunnel decompression surgery with 12 kg CO2e, hernia surgery with 11.7 kg CO2e and tonsil surgery with 7 .5 kg of CO2e. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is the standard unit for measuring the carbon footprint and is used to compare the emissions of different greenhouse gases by converting them to carbon dioxide with the same global warming potential. Researchers from Brighton and Sussex Medical School and the University of Warwick said just 23 % items are responsible for more than 80 % of practices' carbon footprint, so they should focus on finding alternatives for these high-carbon items. Leading researcher Dr. Chantelle Rizan, from Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said immediate changes such as replacing single-use items with reusable ones where possible and better decontamination and waste management could reduce the carbon footprint of operations by a third. She added: “Mitigating the carbon footprint of products used in resource-intensive areas such as surgical operating theaters will be important in achieving a net zero carbon footprint in healthcare. "Strategies should include eliminating or finding low-carbon alternatives for the most carbon-intensive products." The study, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, is the first of its kind to analyze the carbon footprint of surgical items used in routine operations.

Danny Halpin

CHALLENGE 1 –  The goal is to stimulate and support the mutual cooperation of active people of the city of Hurbanovo in the field of environmental protection, which is one of priorities of Heineken Slovensko, as. The added value of the submitted projects lies in the fact that the applicants actively participate in them on a voluntary basis, without the right to remuneration, using their knowledge and experience.

Projects related to the grant program are welcome improvement of environmental quality and sustainability in the following topics:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

• WATER
  For example projects offering solutions that save drinking water, projects to protect groundwater from pollution, capture and use rainwater, information campaigns for the public aimed at pointing out the importance of water in the ecosystem and the importance of saving water, it can also be about educating children and youth in the area of responsible access to drinking water, ... .
• WASTE REDUCTION
  For example it can be the introduction of composters, improvement of waste management (separation of waste, reduction of black landfills...), reduction of waste (packaging-free sales, introduction of returnable cans and PET bottles) including the implementation of education for children and youth and information campaigns for the public in this area, ... .
• REDUCING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT
  For example it can be about the support of bicycle transport, including the related small infrastructure, the implementation of education for the general public in the area of reducing the carbon footprint in the area of energy, food, clothing, etc.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
For example it can be projects aimed at the establishment and active use of community gardens, modification of public spaces with an emphasis on the development of environmental aspects of the given spaces (e.g. green roofs, planting and revitalization of greenery including elements of small park and garden architecture), development of beekeeping, establishment and maintenance of community orchards, reduction of pesticides and ecological cultivation of crops (e.g. production gardens and fields - school, municipal), including implementation of education of children, youth and information campaigns for the public in this area, ... .

More information can be found in grant call HERE.

David Ho, a professor of oceanography at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, takes aim at carbon dioxide (CO2) removal technologies in an article for the journal Nature. He says he has reviewed dozens of proposals for these technologies and, with countries like the US investing in early-stage demonstration projects, supports "the need for long-term development of CO2 removal methods." But he continues: “Humanity has never removed a pollutant from the atmosphere on a global, continental or even regional scale – we've always just shut down the source and let nature do the cleanup….We have to be prepared for CDR to fail and we we will have to rely on the environment to stabilize atmospheric CO2 for thousands of years. This is another argument for rapid decarbonisation."

David Ho, Nature, 

If you have a clear understanding of the impact your daily footprint is having on the planet, you can make small adjustments that will make a real difference. The carbon calculator, in collaboration with the Swedish fintech company Doconomy, allows you to see the estimated carbon footprint of all your purchases. Your carbon footprint is tracked month by month across different spending categories, so you can better understand where you're making the biggest impact.

Valuable tips for reducing your carbon footprint

Find out how your carbon footprint is calculated and get tips on how to reduce your spending footprint. Designed in collaboration with industry leaders, these insights can help you make practical and simple adjustments that lead to more informed spending.

Mastercard Carbon Calculator

When we try to compare how countries, gases and industries contribute to climate change, we often compare emissions. We look at emissions per capita or at the share of a country or industry in the global pie. It is a very good indicator, but it does not directly measure the impact on the climate.
A new paper by Matthew Jones and the Global Carbon Project team has quantified how much countries have contributed to the increase in global average surface temperature since 1851. I dug through the data and picked out a few key takeaways. I've also made them available in our data explorer on Our World in Data if you want to explore them yourself.
Let's take a look at it.
Only two-thirds of the current warming comes from CO2 emissions. Before we get into the contributions of individual countries, let's look at how much warming different gases have caused. When climate change is mentioned, most people think of carbon dioxide (CO2). They hypothesize that it is responsible for most of the global warming. However, other greenhouse gases – methane and nitrous oxide – also played a big role. I have shown in the graph how much each of them contributed to the warming from 1851 to 2021. CO2 contributed the most - 1.1 °C, which is a little over two-thirds of the warming. Methane contributed 0.4 °C, which is one quarter of the warming.2 And nitrous oxide represents 5 %. You may have noticed that this adds up to 1.6°C. This is already more than the global goal of 1.5 °C! This is because these data do not include the cooling effects of sulfur dioxide and aerosols. If we include them, the net change in global average surface temperature is about 1.1°C. That's the number we're used to hearing.
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are increasingly dominant. We looked at a static view of how much warming each gas and source has caused so far. However, it is interesting to see how these contributions have changed over time. In the graph, we can see the share of individual gases and sources in warming in individual years. In 1851, most of the warming was due to land use change. Countries were cutting down forests, expanding farmland, and raising livestock that emitted methane. Only a few countries used fossil fuels to a significant extent. However, over the course of the last century we have seen fossil fuels take over. Their contribution to warming has steadily increased until today, when they are the largest contributor. If you want to see this breakdown by country, you can view it in our interactive chart.

As part of efforts to promote greener products and reduce carbon emissions, washing machines and refrigerators will be marked with their carbon footprint. Ministers want to introduce a system under which products would list their "embodied emissions", which would express how many greenhouse gases were emitted during the production of the product. Officials favor a system where labels would list the emissions a product contains, along with a rating, such as A to G. An A rating would mean a "net zero" product. In consultation papers published on Thursday, the government said: "The combination of emissions data and a labeling system could provide an easy way to compare products against the best in class, as well as the raw data needed for more detailed comparisons." Ministers hope labeling would encourage people to they bought greener products, and this would help reduce emissions through market mechanisms.

It's a bleak midwinter day at Orrock Quarry in Fife, East Scotland. Steep, jagged cliffs rise above noisy machines that grind an endless stream of freshly quarried rock. A burly man in muddy HiVIS-style work clothes picks up a handful of black dust from a nearby pile. I learn that it is basalt dust, a secondary waste from a quarry, which, despite its unsuitable environment, is the basis of one of the most interesting climate solutions today.

Basalt dust is the feedstock for a new, naturally-based carbon removal technology called enhanced rock weathering (ERW), designed to permanently sequester CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a geological process that has been occurring naturally for millions of years, but several companies are now accelerating it.
"There is incredible momentum around the world in enhanced rock weathering and its uses across a range of different value chains," says Antti Vihavainen, CEO of carbon removal platform Puro.earth. Rock weathering on steroids To combat the harmful effects of climate change, it is necessary to remove some of the billions of tons of CO2 we have been releasing into the atmosphere for decades. The problem with CO2 is that it stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so even if all countries managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero today, the planet would not cool down, it would just stop warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that we need to remove ten billion tons of CO2 per year by 2050 and 20 billion tons per year thereafter to prevent dangerous climate change.

To this end, a whole range of carbon removal technologies are emerging – from the simple concept of growing trees to giant fans that suck CO2 directly from the air – that scientists and politicians are counting on to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and seal it up.

EU energy ministers "today will finally approve the bloc's law on ending the sale of new cars with CO2 emissions in 2035," reports Reuters. The news portal notes that the vote will take place three weeks later than planned after Germany's transport ministry raised a last-minute objection. It adds: "The European Commission agreed a settlement with Germany over the weekend, offering assurances that internal combustion engine cars that run on e-fuels alone will be exempt from the ban in 2035. Separately, it said the exemption had been "criticised by climate activists" , while automakers say it's "too expensive, rushed and unnecessary." Bloomberg is also covering the story.

In other European news, Reuters reports that the EU has reached a tentative agreement to "introduce more filling stations for electric and alternative fuel cars." Elsewhere, the news portal reports that the EU "plans to hold early carbon market auctions from July to raise additional funds to help countries transition away from Russian gas and reduce emissions." Separately, Bloomberg reports that the EU is "looking at a way to give member states the ability to effectively ban Russian liquefied natural gas supplies without imposing new energy sanctions."

Finally, Reuters reports on the first-ever climate case to reach the European Court of Human Rights, in which more than 2,000 "elderly women" are suing the Swiss government for their "climate lockout." It says: "This filing, followed by two more this year, could result in an emissions reduction order that goes beyond even the 2015 Paris Agreement commitments, setting an important precedent." Separately, the report states: "As a sign of importance, eight other governments (Romania, Latvia, Austria, Slovakia, Norway, Italy, Portugal and Ireland) have joined the case."

Kate Abnett, Reuters, 'Carbon Brief'

The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of which was published this week, are highly scrutinized and very important, but they mostly confirm what we already know: man-made greenhouse gases are rapidly and catastrophically changing the planet, and if we don't quickly reduce burning fossil fuels, we face a dire future. The message is far from hopeless – “Taking effective and just climate action will not only reduce loss and damage to nature and people, but also bring wider benefits,” IPCC Chairman Hoesung Lee said in a press release. "This summary report underlines the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that if we act now, we can still secure a sustainable, livable future for all." But "acting now" means taking dramatic action to change the way we do most things, especially produce energy. People who should be treating this situation like a colossal emergency are still finding ways to delay and weaken a meaningful response. Fossil fuels generate huge profits for some of the most powerful individuals and institutions on Earth, who influence and even control many other people. It's bleak to say, but there's a kind of comedy in it as they keep trying to come up with excuses not to do the one key thing that climate activists, political pundits, activists and scientists have long been telling them they need to do: stop fossil fuel financing , stop their extraction, stop their burning and accelerate the transition from their use. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, perhaps the most powerful person swimming against the tide, said yesterday that we must move to "net-zero electricity generation by 2035 for all developed economies and by 2040 for the rest of the world" and introduce "a global phase-down of current oil and gas production that will be in line with the global goal of net-zero production by 2050". All the other measures that help the climate – including protecting forests and wildlife, rethinking agriculture, food, transport and urban design – are important, but there is no substitute or solution to leaving the fossil fuel age. The IPCC tells us that “any increase in global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards. Deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a marked slowdown in global warming within about two decades and also to marked changes in the composition of the atmosphere within a few years." In the next section of the report, the scientists declare: "Projected CO2 emissions from the existing fossil fuel infrastructure fuels without additional emission reductions would exceed the remaining carbon budget at 1.5°C.” This translates to: what we are already extracting and using is already too much to maintain the temperature limit set in Paris. As climate communicator Ketan Joshi put it on Twitter: "The people who decide the pace of climate action and dependence on fossil fuels aren't acting like they're pulling the lever for Earth's next few thousand years."

Neglected environmental protection takes its toll, which is why monitoring the carbon footprint of individual decisions and processes is the trend of the times. Banks, including central banks, have already begun to monitor similar indicators. For example, the largest part of the carbon footprint of the investment portfolio of the National Bank of Slovakia (NBS) consists of government bonds.

The common goal is carbon neutrality

Central banks are among the institutions that invest money in the financial markets. They invest to make a profit from which they finance the operation of the institution and therefore do not keep them in a current account or in a safe. Investors weigh return and risk when deciding on a portfolio structure. At the same time, however, they want to align their investments with the obligations of the Paris Agreement or the European goal of carbon neutrality. "Therefore, the central banks of the euro zone have agreed to regularly publish the carbon indicators of their investments in euro portfolios, which are not intended for the performance of monetary policy. Thus, central banks have added a tool for monitoring climate risks in investments," states the adviser to the vice-governor of the NBS, Roman Vasiľ.