Takeaways from AP report on company that sold 200,000 carbon credits to remove CO2 from ocean
But outside scientists frustrated by the lack of information released by the company say serious questions remain about whether the technology works as the company describes. Their questions showcase tensions in an industry built on little regulation and big promises.
Here are highlights from The Associated Press' reporting:
What is Gigablue?
Gigablue, founded by a group of entrepreneurs in Israel, was originally named 'Gigaton' after the one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide most scientists say will be necessary to remove from the atmosphere each year to slow global warming.
The company began trials in the South Pacific Ocean last year, and says it will work with country authorities to create a 'sequestration field' — a dedicated part of the ocean where 'pulses' of particles will be released on a seasonal basis.
The company announced earlier this year that it reached a historic milestone: selling 200,000 carbon credits. It's the largest sale to date for a climate startup operating in the ocean, according to the tracking site CDR.fyi, making up more than half of all ocean-based carbon credits sold last year.
How do the carbon credits work?
Carbon credits, which have grown in popularity over the last decade, are tokens that symbolize the removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On paper, companies that buy credits achieve a smaller carbon footprint without needing to reduce their own emissions — for instance, by paying another vendor to plant trees or capture carbon dioxide from the air.
Only a few countries have required local industries to purchase carbon credits. Most companies that buy them do so voluntarily.
The credits have helped fund a band of startups like Gigablue that are eager to tackle the climate crisis, but they are also unevenly regulated, scientifically complex, and have in some cases been linked to fraud.
Gigablue's 200,000 credits are pledged to SkiesFifty, a newly formed company investing in greener practices for the aviation industry.
Gigablue wouldn't reveal what it earned in the sale, and SkiesFifty's team declined to be interviewed. Most credits are sold for a few hundred dollars each — but a chart on Gigablue's website suggests its prices are lower than almost any other form of carbon capture on the market.
How does Gigablue's technology work?
The particles Gigablue has patented are meant to capture carbon in the ocean by floating for a number of days and growing algae, before sinking rapidly to the ocean floor.
Algae has long been attractive to climate scientists because it absorbs carbon dioxide from the surrounding water as it grows. If the algae sinks to the deep sea or ocean floor, Gigablue expects the carbon to be trapped there for hundreds to thousands of years.
The ultimate goal is to lower carbon dioxide levels so drastically that the ocean rebalances with the atmosphere by soaking up more CO2 from the air. It's a feat that would help slow climate change, but one that is still under active study by climate scientists.
What are Gigablue's particles made of?
While Gigablue has made several commercial deals, it has not yet revealed what its particles are made of. Partly this is because the company says it will build different particles tailored to different seasons and areas of the ocean.
'It's proprietary,' said chief technology officer Sapir Markus-Alford.
Documents provide a window into the possible ingredients. According to information on the permit, Gigablue's first New Zealand trial last year involved releasing particles of pure vermiculite, a porous clay often used in potting soil.
In the second New Zealand trial, the company released particles made of vermiculite, ground rock, a plant-based wax, as well as manganese and iron.
A patent published last year hints the particles could also be made of scores of other materials, including cotton, rice husks or jute, as well as synthetic ingredients like polyester fibers or lint.
The company said it had commissioned an environmental institute to verify that the particles are safe for thousands of organisms, including mussels and oysters.
What do outside scientists say?
Several scientists not affiliated with Gigablue interviewed by the AP said they were interested in how a company with so little public information about its technology could secure a deal for 200,000 carbon credits. The success of the company's method, they said, will depend heavily on how much algae grows on the particles, and the amount that sinks to the deep ocean. So far, Gigablue has not released any studies demonstrating those rates.
Thomas Kiørboe, a professor of ocean ecology at the Technical University of Denmark, and Philip Boyd, an oceanographer at the University of Tasmania who studies the role of algae in the Earth's carbon cycle, said they were doubtful algae would get enough sunlight to grow inside the particles.
It's more likely the particles would attract hungry bacteria, Kiørboe said.
The rates at which Gigablue says its particles sink — up to a hundred meters (yards) per hour — might shear off algae from the particles in the quick descent, Boyd said.
It's likely that some particles would also be eaten by fish — limiting the carbon capture, and raising the question of how the particles could impact marine life.
Boyd is eager to see field results showing algae growth, and wants to see proof that Gigablue's particles cause the ocean to absorb more CO2 from the air.
In a statement, Gigablue said that bacteria does consume the particles but the effect is minimal, and its measurements will account for any loss of algae or particles as they sink.
The company noted that a major science institute in New Zealand has given Gigablue its stamp of approval. Gigablue hired the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, a government-owned company, to review several drafts of its methodology.
In a recent letter posted to Gigablue's website, the institute's chief ocean scientist said his staff had confidence the company's work is 'scientifically sound' and the proposed measurements for carbon sequestration were robust.
—
This story was supported by funding from the Walton Family Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
__
Contact AP's global investigative team at Investigative@ap.org or https://www.ap.org/tips/
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
18 minutes ago
- BBC News
Wiltshire a solar farm dumping ground, says councillor
A councillor said a rural county had become "a dumping ground for solar farms" as a 218-acre plan was discussed. Reform UK councillor Chris Brautigam also told Wiltshire Council's strategic planning committee "we've already done our bit" on meeting solar targets. He spoke as the authority turned down the Potterne Park Farm proposal, between the villages of Potterne, Urchfont, and Easterton. But council officers said the applicant can reapply after providing more information on the impact on archaeological Grubb, from the Potterne Solar Farm Project, said climate change meant the proposal "qualifies as a critical national priority". Referring to the council exceeding by 39% its 2030 solar target, Brautigam told the committee "Wiltshire is a dumping ground for solar farms. We've already done our bit."The plans also followed the rejection of a 70-acre solar farm just a mile from the 218-acre site, on 30 May. Steve Holt of Potterne Solar Action Group, a local campaign group fighting both solar farm applications, welcomed the latest refusal but wanted to see the reasons strengthened."One month ago a refusal notice was issued for One Tree Hill. This is the same landscape, the same valley, and the same ecosystem," he said. "But this proposal is three times larger, and the impact will be even greater." Arguing for the latest scheme Mr Grubb said: "This proposal is for a clean energy generator brought forward at a time when fossil fuel power stations are being phased out, electricity demand is rising sharply, and international conflicts continue to leave us exposed to volatile gas prices."We're also seeing extreme weather from climate change impacting farming and our health. This proposal clearly qualifies as a critical national priority."And farmer and landowner Philip Abbatt, explained falling crop prices, rising costs and climate change were bringing uncertainty. "The stable income from the solar farm would underpin the survival of the business and allow the next generation to continue farming with confidence in a changing world," he said. The meeting heard the site is 300 metres from a scheduled monument, the site of a medieval moated hunting officers said the applicant had "failed to provide sufficient information" on the development's potential impact on archaeological assets. But the meeting heard a re-submitted plan could be recommended for approval. Mr Grubb urged the committee to concentrate on the "specific point" on which it was rejected "rather than letting it jeopardise a proposal that is otherwise described as acceptable and will bring huge benefits".
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Here's what to know about clean energy in Republican megabill headed to Trump
Congress passed a massive tax and spending cuts package Thursday that curbs billions of dollars in spending across clean energy. That means people will be paying a lot more for home solar, energy efficiency and other green technologies — and the nation's efforts to address climate change just got a lot more challenging. The bill supports mining, drilling and production of the oil, coal and gas that are largely driving Earth 's warming and the increasingly deadly and costly extreme weather that comes with it. Producing and burning these fossil fuels also contributes to air pollution and human health problems. At the same time, the bill slashes tax credits for clean technologies including wind and solar energy. That will likely mean delay or cancellation of countless projects, affecting thousands of jobs and driving up household energy costs. Here are four things to know about what the bill means for clean energy: Cuts to home energy credits will make updates more costly The climate law passed during former President Joe Biden's term included tax credits for systems and projects at home — like solar and batteries — that save homeowners money over time and significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions. These systems have gotten cheaper over the years but they're still hefty upfront expenses that some homeowners would struggle to absorb without the credits. An average rooftop solar installation can run $20,000 or more; the credit has covered almost one-third of that. An average heat pump typically costs several thousand dollars; the tax credit reimbursed up to 30% of the cost, or $2,000. The U.S. Treasury Department said more than 2 million families claimed more than $2 billion of the credit for upgrades such as windows, insulation, heating and cooling systems in tax year 2023 returns. More than 1.2 million families claimed more than $6 billion in the credit for solar installations, solar water heating, geothermal heat pumps and battery storage and other improvements that same year. The bill ends both tax credits at the end of this year. 'No one asked Congress to make their energy bills even higher,' said Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit that advocates for cutting energy waste. 'Taking away incentives for energy-saving improvements would raise monthly bills for families and businesses.' But Republican lawmakers hailed the measure. Republican Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said it helps unleash American energy and will save taxpayers money. 'Extending good tax policy, delivering targeted relief and reining in wasteful spending is the best way to restore economic prosperity and opportunity for all Americans," he said. Electric vehicl e credits disappear The bill eliminates credits of up to $7,500 for buyers of new electric vehicles and up to $4,000 for buyers of used EVs. That's likely to hurt the growth of a technology that is seen as critical to cutting down on a big source of Earth's warming. Transportation is the largest single source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — 28% in 2022, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. EV sales have grown steadily, making up about 8% of new car sales in the U.S. last year, according to Biden had set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030. But that purchase may be harder for consumers to swallow without a credit. EVs sold for an average of $57,734 in May, while new vehicles overall sold at an average of $48,799, according to Kelley Blue Book. The credits go away after Sept. 30. Big wind and solar projects will struggle to qualify for tax credits For large-scale wind and solar, the bill speeds up the timelines projects must meet to qualify for a tax credit. The industry says it will be nearly impossible for many projects to meet those accelerated timelines, putting massive projects from Colorado to Texas to Arizona at risk. The bill allows a full tax credit for wind and solar developments that start construction within a year of the law's enactment. But projects that begin more than a year after the bill's passage have to be operational by the end of 2027 or they won't get a credit. Atlas Public Policy, a policy consultancy, said roughly 28 gigawatts of wind and solar projects are planned to be operational after the start of 2028 but haven't begun construction yet. Under the bill, they're unlikely to qualify for a credit. Wind provides about 10% of the electricity generated in the U.S., according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, with a goal of 20% by 2030. Solar is at about 4%, with the industry's target at one point to reach 30% by the end of the decade. Clean energy advocates, developers and investors say wind and solar are crucial for the nation's renewables ambitions, and tax credits help to make them viable. But Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the Paris agreement, which calls on signatories to try to keep global temperatures from warming 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times. Instead, the bill supports traditional fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, as well as nuclear power. Proponents say it will increase reliability since the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. 'Americans need reliable and affordable energy, wasteful spending needs to be cut, and our country needs to be able to build again,' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, applauding the bill. Experts say watch out for higher energy prices But others say Americans can expect to see higher utility bills. That's unwelcome news at a time when the nation's growth in data centers, driven by demand for artificial intelligence, are sending energy use higher, and when climate change is fueling more frequent extreme weather. Nonpartisan and energy groups estimate the bill's passage could increase average annual electricity costs by more than $100 per household by next year. If fewer solar and wind projects are added to the grid because there is less incentive and it is too expensive for developers to do so without credits, some states could see increases of more than $200. 'At a time when energy demand is surging and families are already struggling to make ends meet, this bill would raise costs, make the grid less reliable, and make the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil," said Lori Lodes, executive director of climate action advocacy group Climate Power. "It threatens our power supply just as extreme weather and record demand are putting historic strain on the grid, forcing brownouts and blackouts across the country.' The loss of tax credits might not immediately impact project plans. But increased uncertainty makes it more difficult to invest in innovative new technologies and maintain national security. ___ Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ___ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
BBC News
7 hours ago
- BBC News
UN expert calls for companies to stop doing business with Israel
A United Nations expert has called on dozens of multinational companies to stop doing business with Israel, warning them they risk being complicit in war crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Francesca Albanese, presenting her report to the UN human rights council, described what she called "an economy of genocide" in which the conflict with Hamas provided a testing ground - with no accountability or oversight - for new weapons and has rejected her report as "groundless", saying it would "join the dustbin of history".UN experts, or special rapporteurs, are independent of the UN, but appointed by it to advise on human rights matters. Ms Albanese is an international lawyer from Italy, and she is known for her bluntness; in previous reports she has suggested that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. On Thursday she repeated that, accusing Israel of "committing one of the cruellest genocides in modern history".In this report she names companies she says are profiting from, and therefore complicit in, war crimes in Gaza. Her list includes arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin for selling weapons, and tech firms Alphabet, IBM, Microsoft and Amazon, for providing technology which allows Israel to track and target Palestinians. She also lists Caterpillar, Hyundai, and Volvo, which her report claims have supplied vehicles used for demolishing homes and flattening bombed institutions are included too: banks BNP Paribas and Barclays, claims Ms Albanese, have been underwriting Israeli treasury bonds throughout the BBC has approached the companies named above for comment. Lockheed Martin said foreign military sales were government-to-government transactions, and discussions were best addressed by the US government. Volvo said it did not share Ms Albanese's criticism which it believes was based on "insufficient and partly incorrect information". It added it is committed to respecting human rights and constantly works to strengthen its due diligence. But it said since its products have a long life and change hands often "there is unfortunately a limit to how much control or influence we can have on how and where our products are used during their lifetime". For the companies named the business is lucrative, the report says, and helps Israel to continue the war. Ms Albanese says all the companies should stop dealing with Israel immediately. But how likely is that? UN reports like this one have no legal power, but they do attract attention. Ms Albanese is, in targeting economic ties, trying to remind multinationals, and governments, of what happened with apartheid South Africa. For a while many businesses made good money trading with South Africa, but the injustice of apartheid attracted global condemnation and UN sanctions which forced disinvestment and, eventually, helped to end the apartheid listing companies which are household names, Ms Albanese is probably also hoping to provide millions of consumers worldwide with information they can use when choosing whether or not to buy something, as they did with South the suggestion they are complicit in possible genocide is the one the multinationals themselves may take most seriously. The law on genocide is strict, it needs to be determined by a court of law, and in fact the International Court of Justice is currently considering a case against Israel on this very question, brought by South is defined as a person or entity having engaged in actions whose foreseeable results may have contributed to genocide, but without having personally intended to commit genocide. This is an accusation that Ms Albanese suggests could be levelled against businesses selling anything that might contribute to Israel's war effort. It is known that international lawyers have privately advised European governments that continued arms sales to Israel may lead to charges of which has long accused Ms Albanese of being extremely hostile to it, and even antisemitic, has rejected her latest report as "groundless, defamatory and a flagrant abuse of office". It also denies genocide, claiming the right of self-defence against when Ms Albanese presented her report to UN member states, she received primarily praise and support. African, Asian, and Arab states backed her call for disinvestment, many agreed that genocide was taking place, and some also warned Israel against vilifying international lawyers like Ms Albanese for doing their states, traditionally more supportive of Israel, also condemned the denial of aid to Gaza, and said Israel had a legal responsibility, as the occupying power, to ensure Palestinians had the means to Israel's biggest ally, the United States, left the UN Human Rights Council when President Donald Trump took office in January. Washington's response to the report has simply accused Ms Albanese, whose team contacted US companies for information about their dealings with Israel, of an "unacceptable campaign of political and economic warfare against the American and worldwide economy".It's unlikely the US administration will pay much more attention to the words of one international lawyer. But the big US companies named in her report, listening to the condemnation from so many countries where they have financial interests, may start to question their ties with Israel.
