Global energy-related carbon emissions from the production and use of energy rose 1.1% to 35,806 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2025. About 13.3% of that increase came from the United States,” the report said.

Including emissions from the energy sector and from gas flaring and methane, global emissions rose by 1.1% to ⁠41 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. Uncle Sam accounted for 36% of that increase, with total emissions growth of 3.2% on a year-on-year basis, whereas for China, the spike remained at 0.3%.

The United States’ coal consumption, in 2025, jumped 10%, reversing a shift towards cleaner fuels and helping to lift overall emissions.

“China remained the largest emitter, accounting for 31.3% of global energy-sector emissions, but its increase from 2024 was modest at 0.7%. Europe’s emissions rose by 0.5%. North America recorded the largest absolute increase, with emissions rising by nearly 3% from 2024 to 152.3 million tonnes, bucking a 10-year trend of falling emissions,” the Energy Institute study said.

On a per ‌capita ⁠basis, emissions from the American mainland were nearly double those of China at 15.36 tonnes of CO₂ per person, based on Reuters calculations taking the latest population data for 2025 from the US Census Bureau and National Bureau of Statistics of China.

Global energy demand, on the other hand, has continued to rise. As per the study, total energy supply increased 1.7% ⁠in 2025, with renewables making the biggest contribution. Renewable power generation climbed 9.1%, led by a 30% surge in solar.

“Electricity demand rose faster than supply, increasing 3% year-on-year, driven by electric vehicles, data centres and ⁠artificial intelligence (AI). Global oil consumption rose 1.3% in 2025 to 103 million barrels per day, compared with a 1.1% increase in 2024, while production grew 3.5%,” the Energy Institute noted.

In China, gasoline and diesel use declined ⁠in 2025, extending a trend seen in 2024.

“Gas demand growth was concentrated in Europe, the Middle East and North America, with Europe and India relying on imports for nearly half of their supply,” the report concluded.

The post Coal shift makes American utilities top global emitters, says study appeared first on International Finance.

For example, one former gas “peaker” plant in North Tonawanda (just north of Buffalo) runs almost continuously to power a crypto mine. In the first quarter of 2025, this plant operated 84 out of 90 days, in contrast to just eight days in all of 2021, and it emitted as much CO2 in three months as it had in the previous two years combined.

In effect, mining operations have transformed low-use industrial sites into constant polluters. US officials estimate that nationwide commercial crypto mining already consumes roughly between 0.6% and 2.3% of the country’s electricity, which is a share that could rise rapidly as more facilities begin operation.

Supporters in upstate areas argue that repurposing abandoned plants and tapping into cheap power can help stimulate the struggling upstate New York economy through jobs and increased tax revenue.

However, local regulators and environmental analysts caution that the climate and local impacts may outweigh those benefits. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has ranked US Bitcoin’s electricity consumption as being comparable to that of an entire medium-sized state. The associated carbon footprint is substantial unless the power comes entirely from zero-carbon sources.

Impact on energy use

Bitcoin mining’s enormous power demands make it a highly energy-intensive industry. Many US operations are powered by fossil fuel plants, which are often ageing coal or natural-gas generators that have been refurbished for crypto use. In New York, miners have acquired decommissioned “peaker” plants and run them at full capacity, resulting in sharply increased greenhouse-gas emissions. At North Tonawanda’s Fortistar plant, which was previously idle, carbon output surged after it was converted into a crypto mining site.

Climate watchdogs warn that adding gigawatts of mining demand typically revives polluting power plants that would otherwise be closed. For example, Texas grid operators have reported that planned large-scale crypto facilities could create up to 43,600 megawatts of new demand by 2027, much of which is expected to be met by newly built gas-fired plants. Indeed, Texas has recently authorised $10 billion in public loans to build or expand plants to satisfy crypto-driven electricity needs.

Across the country, utilities and independent agencies have begun tracking these effects. The EIA and Department of Energy have conducted surveys to measure energy use by mining operations. In 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren’s office urged the DOE and EPA to mandate energy consumption and emissions reporting for Bitcoin mining, noting that the United States’ share of global Bitcoin mining rose from 4% to 38% between 2019 and 2022.

Environmental groups estimate that even moderate levels of mining usage currently account for about 2% of national electricity consumption. This implies that the carbon and water impacts are equivalent to those of a mid-sized nation.

A United Nations study found that globally, Bitcoin mining consumed 173.4 terawatt-hours in 2020 and 2021, which exceeded Pakistan’s total electrical output. It also required enough water to fill 660,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. In areas like upstate New York, where climate laws require net-zero emissions by 2040, the use of fossil fuel-based power for mining is viewed as fundamentally incompatible with state goals.

Researchers from Harvard University concluded that Bitcoin mining added more demand to the US electrical grid than the entire city of Los Angeles. The researchers identified corresponding air pollution and environmental concerns in their findings, which were published in March in Nature Communications.

To quantify the energy use of Bitcoin mining, the Harvard researchers analysed data from the 34 largest mining operations in the US, which together account for 80% of the country’s Bitcoin mining capacity. Their database included both the locations of the mines and their energy consumption levels.

Between August 2022 and July 2023, these 34 facilities consumed 32.3 terawatt-hours of electricity. This is 33% more electricity than the city of Los Angeles uses in the same time frame. Approximately 84% of that energy came from fossil fuel sources. In effect, Bitcoin mining has added a city’s worth of electricity consumption to the grid, together with all the associated pollution.

Noise, water, and local livability

Beyond energy use, crypto mines also create significant local environmental burdens. The thousands of high-powered servers and generators in these facilities produce a vast amount of heat, requiring massive industrial fans that operate constantly.

Farmers and rural residents living near crypto mining sites consistently describe a relentless mechanical noise. In Granbury, Texas, a resident compared the sound to having a jet engine permanently stationed nearby. A farmer in Pennsylvania made the same comparison and said her hens were visibly disturbed by the constant hum.

Journalists have documented numerous complaints about piercing noise from Bitcoin farms. One resident compared the experience to standing at the edge of Niagara Falls when the fans are running.

This nuisance is not minor. Medical experts note that prolonged exposure to noise above 80 decibels can increase the risk of cardiovascular issues and other health problems. In both Texas and Arkansas, local officials have recorded reports of headaches, hearing loss, vertigo, and chronic stress attributed to the incessant hum from crypto fans.

A national study observed that noise issues caused by miners are now so common that they have become a persistent source of frustration in rural, mostly Republican communities. Even if the noise complies with local sound ordinances, the constant low-frequency vibrations can make homes unlivable. In North Tonawanda, New York, residents living more than half a mile away from the plant have reported being able to hear its fans from their porches.

Water use and water pollution are additional concerns. Crypto mines often require fresh water for cooling purposes or for maintaining on-site generators. Experts caution that the water demand of Bitcoin mining is insufficiently studied but potentially significant.

According to the same UN study, a large-scale crypto mining site could use as much water as a small city each year, straining already limited water resources in drought-prone regions. Furthermore, diesel or natural gas generators used at some mining locations can emit local air pollutants. For instance, Pennsylvania mining sites that burn waste coal have released sulphur dioxide and fine particulate matter.

The local costs, including impacts on air quality, water resources, wildlife, and human well-being, are considerable.

Opponents in rural communities have voiced concerns about disappearing wildlife, livestock disturbed by noise, and family members tormented by nonstop humming, even behind closed windows. These consequences have led to public meetings, citizen noise-monitoring campaigns, and legal challenges in multiple states.

Economic trade-offs

Proponents of crypto mining often claim that it brings jobs and economic revitalisation to struggling rural towns. A 2022 Politico report highlighted that advocates promote these facilities as a way to stimulate economic growth in upstate New York by repurposing inactive power plants.

Sometimes, local governments offer tax breaks or discounted electricity rates to attract crypto companies. Yet the actual number of jobs created tends to be small, possibly only a few dozen per large facility, while public costs can be substantial.

In Texas, analysts argue that increased electricity demand from crypto mining ultimately drives up prices for everyone. As one report noted, “ordinary Texans may end up footing the bill on their monthly utility statements” as the grid adjusts to crypto-related demand.

In Arkansas, utility providers have stated that industrial crypto operations often pay reduced electricity rates, effectively passing infrastructure costs onto other customers.

Communities have begun reevaluating the costs and benefits. In some rural counties, initial enthusiasm for economic investment has turned into frustration over higher bills and noise disturbances. Activists have highlighted that utilities and state governments have offered generous incentives to crypto firms. For example, the Texas-based company Riot Platforms received about 136 million dollars in power-related credits between 2022 and 2024, which at times exceeded its own mining revenue.

In response, community organising has intensified. In Georgia, residents living near proposed mining sites successfully lobbied their county government to reject rezoning requests, and neighbouring jurisdictions went further by enacting complete bans. In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, neighbours have launched coalitions to oppose crypto mining, arguing that a small number of jobs are not worth the disruption to local life and the environment.

Even in relatively affluent areas, local governments have imposed moratoria. In 2024, the city council of North Tonawanda voted unanimously to prohibit new crypto mining projects for two years, although existing operations were allowed to continue.

These battles often defy conventional political divisions. Residents who strongly supported pro-crypto politicians have sometimes led opposition efforts. Hood County, Texas, which gave Donald Trump more than 80% of the vote in 2024, witnessed lawsuits and protests by conservatives against a Marathon Digital mine in Granbury.

In local online groups, residents expressed simultaneous support for Trump and deep frustration with the Bitcoin mine that they felt had “destroyed their peace.” In North Tonawanda, activist Deborah Goldeck argued at a public meeting that had the city acted sooner, “we could have avoided the misery of constant high noise levels” that now affect her neighbourhood.

In rural Arkansas, Gladys Anderson’s description of constant “shrieking and humming” from a nearby mine drew media attention and spurred legislative reforms. These grassroots efforts share a common thread. People feel that an industry backed by powerful crypto interests has altered their quality of life without consent.

Political dynamics

Cryptocurrency mining has become a contentious political issue at the state and national levels. The Republican Party has officially taken a supportive stance toward the industry. In its 2024 platform, the GOP pledged to defend the right of individuals to mine Bitcoin and to ensure that Americans can maintain self-custody of their digital assets.

President Trump has repeatedly endorsed crypto mining as a strategy for achieving US energy leadership. He even claimed that producing all Bitcoin domestically would help make the country “energy dominant.”

Crypto companies have poured funding into political campaigns. One watchdog group estimated that the industry spent more than 119 million dollars on federal races during the 2023–2024 election cycle, accounting for nearly half of all corporate spending in some contests.

Several Republican legislators at the state level have introduced “right-to-mine” bills aimed at limiting the authority of local governments to regulate the industry. Politicians from both parties have tried to win over the industry by promising deregulation.

For instance, in New Hampshire in 2025, Republican lawmakers advanced a proposal to prohibit towns and regulatory agencies from imposing restrictions on crypto mining, with the explicit goal of signalling support to the industry. In Texas, political leaders have introduced incentives such as tax breaks and discounted electricity for mining companies, while some municipalities have approved subsidised power deals.

However, this top-down enthusiasm increasingly conflicts with the sentiments of Republican voters in rural communities. Commentators have described a growing national backlash, with many traditionally conservative voters expressing opposition to crypto mining when it affects their neighbourhoods.

The Week summed up the situation by noting that in some areas, Trump’s crypto-friendly policies have met resistance from the very voters who helped return him to the White House. This tension between party loyalty and local quality-of-life concerns is now playing out across the country.

Conservative state and local leaders have come under pressure from constituents demanding tighter controls. In red states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania, citizen protests have led to legislative debates and political gridlock.

In Virginia and Kansas, lawmakers only took up crypto mining regulations after strong grassroots organising prompted public hearings. In Arkansas in 2024, the state’s new Republican governor signed legislation imposing stricter permitting requirements in response to growing public concern.

Even industry insiders have acknowledged the backlash. Marathon Digital CEO Fred Thiel noted that one of the company’s Texas mining sites had been approved by voters in a pro-Trump region, yet it still faced demands for tighter noise regulations from local residents.

As a result, partisan messaging on cryptocurrency is increasingly split between national and local levels. Republican candidates on the national stage often appeal to crypto investors and tech donors. In contrast, local Republican officials, including mayors, county supervisors, and state lawmakers, in some cases have aligned with environmental activists or citizen groups calling for stronger oversight or moratoriums.

For example, a previous Republican governor of New York (before Kathy Hochul) had questioned the wisdom of expanding crypto mining in the face of community pushback. In Congress, Democrats have sometimes used this internal GOP divide to their advantage. Some House Democrats have proposed new taxes on crypto mining and regulations requiring pollution controls. At the same time, crypto-friendly bills like the proposed federal “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act” have met resistance from suburban and rural voters alike.

The net result is a complicated political landscape for the crypto mining industry. On one hand, it enjoys vocal support from high-ranking officials. On the other hand, it increasingly encounters organised local resistance, often within the same communities that elected those officials.

Regulatory experiments

This clash between local resistance and national support has triggered a wave of policy experiments at the state and federal levels. Some jurisdictions have moved to rein in crypto mining in order to protect residents’ health and meet environmental targets.

In November 2022, New York became the first state to impose a temporary ban on new proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining at fossil-fuel power plants. This law prohibited all new permits and the renewal of existing permits, unless the projects could demonstrate that they operated entirely on renewable energy. Governor Hochul’s administration described the law as a limited but necessary pause aimed at balancing economic development with the objectives of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation has also taken enforcement actions against noncompliant facilities. In some cases, the agency has denied permits or sued companies for violating clean air or climate mandates. One example is Greenidge Generation’s use of waste coal at a plant in Dresden, which came under legal scrutiny due to its environmental impact.

Other states have followed New York’s lead. In Georgia, conservative local governments have passed restrictions or outright bans after public hearings. State legislators have considered measures to regulate noise and limit grid strain from mining operations. In Pennsylvania and Montana, environmental organisations have taken legal action against facilities that keep old coal plants running for mining purposes.

Even in states that are generally favourable toward cryptocurrency, lawmakers have introduced new regulations. In Texas, in 2023, legislators proposed several bills (some of which passed) to require large mining operations to register with grid authorities and to place limits on their use of “demand-response” programmes.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) has since implemented rules requiring any mining operation drawing more than 75 megawatts to sign flexible load agreements. These agreements give the grid operator greater control to shut off power during times of high demand, to help stabilise the system.

At the federal level, regulation is still in early stages. In 2024, a bipartisan group of US senators led by Elizabeth Warren called on the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to require mandatory reporting of crypto mining’s energy use. They characterised the industry’s rapid growth without oversight as “alarming.”

So far, neither the Biden administration nor the EPA has issued dedicated rules for crypto mining. However, federal agencies have begun monitoring the sector more closely. Mining now appears in national energy and climate assessments, and the Energy Information Administration is considering including it in future data collection surveys.

Meanwhile, other jurisdictions have moved in the opposite direction. Industry lobbyists have drafted and promoted “right-to-mine” bills in several states that aim to preempt local zoning laws and noise ordinances. According to Earthjustice, some of these proposals would block towns from regulating crypto operations altogether.

In 2025, New Hampshire legislators debated a bill that would have made it illegal for any local agency to restrict crypto mining. Libertarian groups and blockchain advocacy organisations praised the proposal, viewing it as a victory for deregulation.

In Missouri, lawmakers introduced bills to classify Bitcoin mining as critical infrastructure. Other proposals aimed to exempt mining facilities from environmental permits, treating them as if they were simply data centres rather than power-consuming industrial sites.

These deregulatory efforts have met strong resistance from environmental advocates and local governments that support home-rule rights. The debate illustrates a growing confrontation between the cryptocurrency industry’s desire for minimal regulation and the communities most affected by its operations.

In practice, the most effective policy responses have come from state and local governments. Measures such as temporary bans, conditional permits, or tailored noise regulations have given municipalities some control over how and where mining occurs. For example, North Tonawanda’s decision to ban new mining projects and conduct noise studies reflects one way that communities can act within their legal authority.

Other examples include the actions of rural counties in Georgia and new state laws in Arkansas, which were enacted after constituents like Gladys Anderson publicly described how crypto noise had affected their lives. These efforts demonstrate how traditional zoning and environmental rules can be applied to this emerging industry.

At the national level, more ambitious proposals are under discussion. One idea is to impose a substantial tax on electricity used for crypto mining. For instance, President Biden had proposed a 30% tax, although it was ultimately dropped. Another option would be to require carbon offsets for mining operations powered by fossil fuels.

Academic researchers and policy analysts have proposed more balanced solutions. These might include requiring crypto companies to pause operations during power emergencies or mandating that they operate only from designated clean energy sources. The broader policy debate is ongoing and has become a staple topic in energy and climate forums.

The post Rural America fights back against crypto appeared first on International Finance.

According to Yvonne Winter, Co-founder and Chief Operating Officer of FlyNow, a company that develops electric aviation solutions, the firm is preparing to launch a modular helicopter system designed to transport passengers and commodities.

During a panel discussion, Winter stated that “mobility and economic growth are closely related.”

She also added that “air transportation is the way to go to solve traffic issues related to congestion, air quality pollution, and noise pollution. Together, we must find a way to unlock it,” referring to this new sector as “the low-altitude economy.”

The lack of a workable implementation plan is one of the main obstacles facing foreign governments and regulatory agencies, according to Winter.

FlyNow has addressed this issue with a methodical approach that “is considered to be very safe.”

Before moving on to cargo applications, a regulatory sandbox has been created as part of this strategy to verify various automobiles, ATC systems, and operational data.

FlyNow intends to extend testing to metropolitan environments and passenger transportation after conducting comprehensive cargo experiments over sparsely populated areas.

According to Winter, e-helicopters will shorten wait times and be reasonably priced and available to everyone.

Push for mobility

Saudi Arabia is adopting new technology for land, air, and marine transportation, according to Ayman Mesfer, General Manager of the Intelligence and Future Sector at the Ministry of Transport and Logistics Services. The government intends to establish an incubator to offer small and medium-sized businesses developing mobility solutions financial assistance and advice.

Mesfer said, “The ministry will examine the implementation of new and significant technologies from every angle, including AI applications and data utilisation, as well as the skills of the enablers and the infrastructure.”

The Transport General Authority’s new Future Mobility Programme was presented by Omaima Bamasag, deputy of transport enablement. Twelve governmental and private sector parties are involved in the programme, which aims to pinpoint weaknesses in Saudi Arabia’s transportation infrastructure and suggest solutions. Omaima Bamasag serves as the Deputy for Transport Enablement at the Transport General Authority.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is the head of the Higher Committee for Transportation, which has approved 216 projects so far and found 16 gaps that need to be filled with alternative projects. A student shuttle at King Saud University, the deployment of scooters during the last two Hajj seasons, the creation of a framework for autonomous vehicle rules, pilot requirements for AVs, and the provision of Jahez food delivery services during Hajj are some of the major achievements.

“All of this is contributing to the achievement of AV goals and confirming the proposed AV policy and legislation. Additionally, be on the lookout for a pilot AV taxi that will soon be seen in Riyadh,” Bamasag remarked.

Partnerships and infrastructure

Mesfer claims that the Ministry of Transport and Logistics Services has collaborated with several organisations to create the infrastructure and legal framework for these technologies.

The ministry has created an advanced air mobility strategy that tracks drone deployment and aviation in collaboration with the General Authority for Civil Aviation.

To evaluate technology in the land, maritime, railroad, and aviation sectors, it has also teamed up with King Abdullah University of Science and Technology to build a new testing facility, dubbed a “living lab.” The Roads General Authority and TGA are other cooperating organisations.

The nation has already demonstrated its commitment to incorporating cutting-edge transportation options by piloting an air taxi in NEOM. In November 2023, TGA created a regulatory sandbox to make it easier to test unregulated mobility innovations. Micromobility, e-scooters, e-car rentals, ride-sharing, and drop-off and pick-up boxes are the five business concepts that have since surfaced.

Mesfer has gathered all these issues, attempted to address them, and paved the way for the regulation and eventual licensing of these technologies.

“Once licensed, these businesses or innovations will significantly boost GDP and create jobs,” he stated.

Antonio Jara, Libelium’s Chief Security Officer, discussed the company’s efforts to develop digital twins for low-emission zones in Saudi Arabia and Europe in his talk on innovative mobility solutions. These models incorporate noise, air quality, and IoT sensor data.

Antonio Jara is the top security officer of Libelium. Jara stressed the importance of data spaces for normalisation, intelligent modelling, classification, and quality assessment to create a safe space for stakeholders to share data. Data from that source is used by AI models that calculate CO₂ equivalents, simulate and predict pollution, create digital twins, analyse low-emission zones, and group things together by zone.

These models support crowd movement monitoring, sustainability impact evaluations, and pollutant source tracking. One of Libelium’s AI features is data harmonisation, which is already in place in big cities like Paris, Helsinki, and Amsterdam. Other models concentrate on clustering, traffic forecasting, weather information, and an effect assessment model for LEZ services.

Regarding Saudi uses, Jara told Arab News, “Aramco and Johns Hopkins are using these AI models to optimise parking.”

Another actual example is NEOM, which tracks the spread of pollutants from the tunnels in The Line.

“Both real-time data and predictive analysis are used in pollution tracking. We’re also conducting a proof of concept in the Riyadh municipality because they want to know how effective the metro is at lowering pollution from traffic,” Jara added.

In 2024, NEOM, the megaproject, also invested $175 million in German aircraft manufacturer Volocopter to bring urban mobility to life. The partnership focuses on eVTOL aircraft, electric vertical take-off and landing vehicles, designed to operate across NEOM’s skies.

NEOM CEO Nadhmi Al-Nasr said, “Together with the Kingdom’s General Authority of Civil Aviation, NEOM and Volocopter will make concepts like air taxis an everyday reality for its residents and visitors. Powerful partnerships such as the one that NEOM is cultivating with pioneering companies like Volocopter will fuel giant leaps forward, not just for the benefit of NEOM and the Kingdom, but for all.”

From experimental AV taxis in Riyadh to real-time pollution monitoring in NEOM, the nation is developing criteria for efficient and green mobility. Saudi Arabia is paving the way for a future of integrated, environmentally friendly, economically feasible mobility solutions that, by employing data-driven models, supporting public-private partnerships, and implementing forward-looking rules, promise to redefine world norms.

Saudi Arabia is moving fast to build new ways of transport across land, air, and sea. From flying taxis to driverless vehicles, the focus is on safety, testing, and clear rules. Strong support from the government, partnerships with private firms, and the use of data and AI are helping these ideas move forward. Together, these efforts aim to reduce traffic, cut pollution, create jobs, and improve daily travel for people.

The post Saudi Arabia bets on flying taxis appeared first on International Finance.

Stardust is reportedly planning to conduct outdoor tests in Israel, and a governance report commissioned and now endorsed by the start-up disclosed that the company had initiated the process of filing for “relevant intellectual property” rights.

The report further outlined that the company is “developing and testing both a particle and a dispersal system and plans to upgrade the prototype airborne dispersion system to an operational level, enabling dispersion at the required capacity from a future operational aircraft in the coming year.”

The Convention on Biological Diversity, which Israel has been a party to since 2008, has been issuing a series of decisions relating to geoengineering, including a de facto moratorium because of its implications for biodiversity. The moratorium was reaffirmed by consensus at CBD COP16 in Colombia in October–November 2024, with parties citing concern about the increase in outdoor solar and marine geoengineering experiments.

While the moratorium has an exemption for small-scale research, a commercial factor is a key aspect of determining whether or not a project meets the criteria for this exemption. It now remains to be seen whether Stardust’s experimentation will be “small-scale” or not, because if it is not, then it has all the possibilities of being considered a violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

What is geoengineering?

The term represents intentional and large-scale manipulative acts committed on our planet Earth. The term is most commonly discussed in the context of climate change. One such technique, “ocean fertilisation,” is the best-studied technique and is the one that is clearly regulated.

The method deals with adding nutrients to ocean waters to increase the phytoplankton population, with the theory propagating that the plankton will absorb carbon dioxide, just as plants do on land. However, ocean fertilisation has been discredited as a climate change response in the scientific literature. Why? Because it is too risky, the effects on the marine food web are unknown, and there is little evidence to prove successful sequestration.

Both the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the London Convention on Dumping of Waste at Sea prohibit large-scale, open-ocean and/or commercial ocean fertilisation. Only small-scale, legitimate scientific research is allowed, and that too after the successful completion of environmental assessments.

However, Stardust’s geoengineering goals are more ambitious, developing proprietary geoengineering technology that would help block sun rays from reaching the planet.

The start-up, formed in 2023, has a novel approach to private companies, driving the development and deployment of technologies that experts say could have profound consequences for the planet, while going against the trend of most geoengineering research being led by scientists at American universities and federal agencies, and while keeping public scrutiny out of the picture.

Geoengineering projects, even those led by climate scientists, have previously drawn the ire of environmentalists and other groups. In the words of Ramin Skibba, a space writer whose work covers space science, environmentalists, politics, conflicts, and industry, “Such a deliberate transformation of the atmosphere has never been done, and many uncertainties remain. If a geoengineering project went awry, for example, it could contribute to air pollution and ozone loss, or have dramatic effects on weather patterns, such as disrupting monsoons in populous South and East Asia.”

Geoengineering under scrutiny

Global warming has become a hot topic in the current century. As global temperatures rise, public and scientific sentiments are shifting as well. If those temperature trends continue, governments and private entities may ultimately use geoengineering to alleviate or avoid the worst impacts of extreme weather, including deadly heat waves, firestorms, and hurricanes. Whoever deploys the technology will need to maintain it for decades while pent-up greenhouse gases gradually dissipate or are removed.

“Its approach is novel: Most geoengineering research today is led by scientists in the US at universities and federal agencies, and the work they are doing is more or less accessible to public scrutiny. Stardust is at the forefront of an alternative path—one in which private companies drive the development, and perhaps deployment, of technologies that experts say could have profound consequences for the planet,” Skibba noted.

However, environmentalists are sceptical, as a deliberate transformation of the atmosphere has never been done, and from that angle, geoengineering contains many uncertainties. If a project went awry, for example, it could contribute to air pollution and ozone loss, or have dramatic effects on weather patterns, such as disrupting monsoons in populous South and East Asia.

“Few outsiders have gotten a glimpse of Stardust’s plans, and the company has not publicly released details about its technology, its business model, or exactly who works at the company. But the company appears to be positioning itself to develop and sell a proprietary geoengineering technology to governments that are considering making modifications to the global climate—acting like a kind of defence contractor for climate alteration,” Skibba added.

While Stardust is moving ahead with an experiment that has uncertain implications for biodiversity, a lack of rules and limited oversight gives it an upper hand. A recent report by the company’s former climate governance consultant, Janos Pasztor, called for the venture to increase its transparency, engagement, and communication with outsiders.

However, Pasztor also told Undark that the company did not meet all of his requests.

He continued, “Stardust still needs to implement his recommendations, be as transparent as possible, be available proactively to respond to questions people may have, and also engage with other actors, because they do not, or not yet, have a social license for geoengineering activities.”

Stardust solar research

The company discussed by International Finance is led by its CEO and cofounder, Yanai Yedvab, who is also a former deputy chief scientist at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, which oversees the country’s clandestine nuclear programme. When Undark tried to reach out to Yedvab, he issued an emailed statement, which read: “Stardust is a startup focused on researching and developing technologies that may potentially stop global warming in the short term. The company is studying and developing safe, responsible, and controllable solar radiation modification, and our goal is to enable informed and responsible decision-making by the international community and governments.”

Yedvab further refused to admit that his company is “secretive,” while adding that the startup is “unwaveringly committed to publishing results as one of the measures to gain public trust.”

While Stardust did not publish any of its research data or reports in March 2025, Yedvab stressed that it would do so once “scientific validation is concluded” on all of its results.

When it comes to solar geoengineering, the most common approach has been flying high-altitude aircraft or balloons to release reflective particles in the upper atmosphere, well above the flight paths of commercial planes. The technique, known as stratospheric aerosol injection, requires deploying tiny, carefully chosen particles in precise amounts. To work effectively, the particles need to be periodically replenished. Scientists have accumulated evidence for this approach by studying natural events that have flung small particles into the atmosphere.

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 is a good case study, as sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide generated from this phenomenon hung in the atmosphere and measurably cooled the planet for more than a year.

However, research by a team from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Columbia University in New York claimed that the sunlight-blocking particles from an extreme eruption would not cool surface temperatures on Earth as severely as previously estimated.

Some 74,000 years ago, the Toba volcano in Indonesia exploded with a force 1,000 times more powerful than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. What happened afterwards, and to what degree that extreme explosion might have cooled global temperatures, remains a mystery. When it comes to the most powerful volcanoes, researchers have long speculated how post-eruption global cooling, sometimes called volcanic winter, could potentially pose a threat to humanity.

Previous studies agreed that some planet-wide cooling would occur but diverged on how much. The GISS and Columbia University researchers used advanced computer modelling to simulate super-eruptions like the Toba event. They found that post-eruption cooling would probably not exceed 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) even for the most powerful blasts.

“The relatively modest temperature changes we found, most compatible with the evidence, could explain why no single super-eruption has produced firm evidence of global-scale catastrophe for humans or ecosystems,” said lead author Zachary McGraw, a researcher at NASA GISS and Columbia University.

To qualify as a super-eruption, a volcano must release more than 240 cubic miles (1,000 cubic kilometres) of magma. These eruptions are extremely powerful and rare. The most recent super-eruption occurred more than 22,000 years ago in New Zealand. The most famous example is the eruption that devastated Yellowstone Crater in Wyoming roughly 2 million years ago.

Is deliberately strewing sulphates in the atmosphere a risk worth taking? While some scientists argue that there are indeed risks, they are small in comparison to the health risks from climate change.

“We know that sulphuric acid air pollution causes mortality, and we roughly know how much. There’s more than a century of studies. We’re very unlikely to be wrong about that,” said David Keith, head of the Climate Systems Engineering initiative at the University of Chicago and an advocate of geoengineering research.

Stardust plans to distribute the particles through a machine mounted on an aircraft, according to Pasztor, a veteran climate diplomat and policy expert at the United Nations and elsewhere.

According to Pasztor’s report, the company is engineering the particle and a prototype of the aircraft mount, as well as developing a system for modelling and monitoring the climatic effects. Over the coming year, Pasztor wrote, the company was planning on advancing those technologies and testing those particles in the stratosphere.

In his emailed reply to Undark, Yedvab confirmed that they are working on the technologies and that experiments would be done in a “contained, non-dispersive manner,” meaning that its particles would not be strewn over a wide area.

While reiterating Stardust’s commitment to publishing information about any such outdoor geoengineering tests, the CEO further added that the company has not performed any such outdoor experiments, but has done “a few outdoor aerial checks.” That meant that they have tested their dispersal system “under flight conditions,” but they haven’t yet scattered their aerosols in the atmosphere.

According to Yedvab, Stardust is now testing nonsulfate particles. He continued, “The ability to tailor particle properties to meet a broad set of requirements—safety, effectiveness, cost, and dispersibility—is a key advantage of our approach, giving it a distinct edge over sulphates and other candidate particles.”

Doubts still remain

While the concerns around Stardust’s work may seem justified to some extent, there are no international rules or treaties that put obvious limits on experiments like geoengineering, which could affect billions of lives. Pasztor is advocating for a rule-based order in which more informed experts and stakeholders will be involved in decision-making before the experiment proceeds.

He also believes Stardust has a moral obligation to inform the public about what it is doing and ensure it is receiving input from a wide variety of groups before tinkering with the planetary thermostat. In fact, he stated that Stardust agreed to publish a public website, including a copy of Pasztor’s report, and to develop a voluntary code of conduct.

This would have publicly laid out how they intend to conduct their research and development, including agreeing not to be involved in large-scale implementation, which would instead be under the purview of government agencies. Pasztor expected Stardust to publish this information in September 2024 or soon afterwards. However, the whole plan was “delayed.”

In February 2025, Undark’s website emerged with only three sections to display: Home, Our Principles, and Contact Us. The site also has links to Pasztor’s report and lists seven principles, including “prioritising safety and scientific integrity,” publishing “unfavourable results as well as favourable ones,” and “supporting comprehensive regulation of this emerging field.”

Stardust, however, has not yet released a code of conduct, despite Yedvab stressing that the company complies with all applicable governmental and international regulations.

Stardust’s global role

In Stardust’s portfolio of technologies, Yedvab added, they “could be deployed following decisions by the US government and international community,” suggesting that the startup’s prospective clients will be governments. Even experts believe that Stardust will become a go-to provider for countries considering geoengineering.

The company is attempting to patent its geoengineering technology.

“We anticipate that as US-led geoengineering research and development programmes advance, the value of Stardust’s technological portfolio will grow accordingly,” Yedvab wrote.

Pasztor’s report, however, states that if governments decide not to pursue geoengineering, investors “risk not receiving a return on their investment.”

Other experts have also questioned Stardust’s conduct so far. Among them is Shuchi Talati, founder of The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, a Washington–based nonprofit: “When it comes to principles of governance, like transparency and public engagement, they’re not adhering to any of them. Pasztor’s report is the only public thing we know about them.”

In Talati’s opinion, the lack of transparency could have consequences for the company, as Stardust’s approach may spark conspiracy theories about what a “secret Israeli company” is doing, and, down the road, it will be much harder for people to trust Stardust.

People at Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that has long dismissed geoengineering as a “dangerous distraction,” echo Talati’s concerns and go further with their critiques of Stardust.

“I don’t think it’s compatible to have venture capital funding and to be committed to scientific ideals,” said Benjamin Day, FOE’s senior campaigner on geoengineering.

He believes the problem lies in Stardust’s engineers having a vested interest in finding that stratospheric geoengineering can and should be done.

“If governments choose to use geoengineering, they may become heavily dependent on Stardust if they’re ahead of the competition, of which there currently is none. There’s no private market for geoengineering technologies. They’re only going to make money if it’s deployed by governments, and at that point they’re kind of trying to hold governments hostage with technology patents,” Benjamin Day added.

Talking about government-level projects, the United States government is developing an early warning system that could detect geoengineering in the stratosphere. Furthermore, deploying geoengineering means using and monitoring it for as long as a century, while any abrupt adjustment or end of that deployment could be disruptive, with “termination shock” potentially triggering dangerous global warming within months.

“Geoengineering research has long been entangled with national defence,” said Kevin Surprise, a professor of environmental studies at Mount Holyoke College who studies the economics and geopolitics of geoengineering.

“Some of the first geoengineering papers in the late 1990s came from institutions with Pentagon ties, like Lawrence Livermore National Lab and the Hoover Institution. High-profile geoengineering meetings with the George W Bush administration and the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as a mention in a Department of Defence report, soon followed, and the CIA reportedly funded the first geoengineering report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Because of the long-standing connections between geoengineering research and development, the military, and Silicon Valley, Surprise argues, Stardust shouldn’t be viewed as a rogue actor. This isn’t out of the blue,” he noted.

In Stardust’s case, they’ve received an estimated $15 million in venture capital funding, mainly from Awz Ventures, a Canadian-Israeli VC firm, in addition to a small investment from SolarEdge, an Israeli energy company. Despite the startup claiming that it has received no monetary help from the Israeli Defence Ministry, Awz’s partners and strategic advisers have strong ties to Israeli military and intelligence agencies, as well as the CIA and FBI, according to its website. Awz also invests in AI-based surveillance and security tech in Israel, such as through the company Corsight, which has provided facial recognition technology for Israel’s war in Gaza.

“Defence scholars and security experts don’t see geoengineering technology as a potential weapon, but they do view it as something a government might use for its advantage, and as something that would disrupt international relations,” said Duncan McLaren, a researcher with the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal at American University.

The post Stardust & Geoengineering: A rising debate appeared first on International Finance.

The announcement, made by the industry watchdog Ofwat, comes at a time when the Keir Starmer government needs to decide whether taxpayers should renationalise Britain’s biggest water supplier after it avoided a state rescue under the previous Conservative administration.

In a simultaneous development, Ofwat published a five-year financing plan for all English and Welsh water firms born out of the privatisation of the industry in 1989. The regulator has now proposed that customers would face an average increase of 21% or £19 ($25) per year until 2030. In recent times, the sector has also come under fierce criticism over failures to plug leaks and raw sewage discharges on beaches and in rivers.

A sector in crisis

In the sweltering summer of 1995, Yorkshire Water’s managing director, Trevor Newton, gained notoriety for motivating consumers to use less of the company’s product by saying, “I personally have not had a bath or shower for three months.”

Newton invited the media to watch him wash with a flannel and bowl following a round of jokes about “the filthy rich,” because megabucks paid water company executives was also a big story back then. He had been visiting his parents and in-laws’ houses for soaks, it was later discovered, occasionally leaving Yorkshire.

The episode infuriated the public due to the discrepancy between investor rewards and the quality of service being offered by a privatised utility. Bradford was in danger of going bankrupt, despite Yorkshire having just distributed a £50 million dividend to shareholders.

The company had to rely on tanker transportation through the Dales to move water since the new grid was running behind schedule. The story also highlighted the water infrastructure’s poor condition, which was cited as the primary justification for privatisation. Because of pollution in its rivers and on its beaches, the UK was once referred to as the “dirty man of Europe.”

The industry’s expenditure on replacing its sewage treatment plants and pipes had decreased between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s, and the UK was now required to adhere to new pollution regulations set by the European Community.

The same infrastructure needs to be upgraded significantly more than thirty years later, and the costs will increase dramatically. The ten water and wastewater companies in England and Wales have paid out £78 billion in dividends since 1989, but they have also accrued £60 billion in debt. The industry has come to be associated with poor management, corporate greed, and pollution.

The trade-off between price hikes, investment and the environment will test the country’s new Labour government. Water companies have routinely released sewage into rivers and seas, which has made Britain’s waters increasingly dirty, putting the regulator, Ofwat, under intense pressure to act.

Thames had asked for a 44% increase in bills over the period, excluding inflation, while other providers sought varying amounts, from Southern Water’s 73% hike to Severn Trent’s 36% rise and United Utilities’ 25% rise.

The companies say the bill hikes are needed to upgrade ageing pipe networks and help accommodate a growing British population, and say more frequent droughts and storms have helped cause sewage spills. However, critics argue that the companies have under-invested for decades while taking billions of pounds in dividends for shareholders and paying large bonuses to executives.

While the government might want the Ofwat to take a tough line on the water companies, it also needs investors onside as Starmer seeks tens of billions of pounds of private investment to upgrade infrastructure and revive Britain’s economic growth.

In 2019, Ofwat agreed to a plan for average water bills to fall by 12% before inflation over the five years. Since then, inflation and interest rates have jumped, making price rises in the next period inevitable to allow investors to make returns.

A number of major international funds have already sold out of Thames bonds in recent months, after its parent company Kemble Water defaulted in April 2024 amid a standoff with shareholders over providing more equity.

Sold on the cheap

In 1989, the UK government cancelled all of the previous water authorities’ long-term debt and gave money as a “green dowry” to the newly formed companies to facilitate privatisation. Even after selling the businesses for a total of £7.6 billion, these exercises meant that the net proceeds to the Treasury were almost zero.

However, investors in the stock market listings saw their typical fast profit: within a month, shares of the ten companies increased by an average of 20%. Half of the small investors were persuaded to buy, and after a year they took their profits and sold their shares. However, additional funding did materialise. In the four years following the sellout, investment almost doubled to £6 billion annually from £3 billion. Supporters of privatisation might counter that underperformers might be forced to improve by the discipline of a stock market listing combined with a scolding from an impartial regulator.

Following the chaos in Yorkshire in 1995, Ofwat dispatched investigators, which resulted in a management shake-up. By the end of the tenth year, the company’s performance was the best in its class. Byatt also suggested that Yorkshire give customers a return of £40 million in the form of price reductions, and “it concurred after some discussion.”

Nevertheless, it was clear that the businesses had been acquired for far too little money. It was assumed at the time of sale that the companies would require quick access to funds to finance the increase in investment, so during the first five years, the average customer bill increased by a third. First, it was believed that debt levels could only account for up to 35% of the assets’ value, or the leverage ratio, also known as gearing. However, monopoly companies with captive clientele were able to obtain much larger loans from the bond market.

As odd as it may seem today, the regulator also wanted to see an increase in financial gearing. This was justified by the idea that customers would receive lower bills as a result of reduced funding costs. The initial five-year price review by Ofwat in 1994 prevented the anticipated increases in bills during privatisation, while the second one, conducted in 1999, resulted in an average 12% reduction in bills.

The companies were happy to play the debt game. A few people became enamoured with diversification during the boom years of the 1990s, thanks to cheap capital and rising share prices. Water networks in Chile and Indonesia were awarded to Thames. Welsh Water lost a lot of money by acquiring hotels and country clubs. A building company was acquired by Anglian Water in 2000.

Takeover games

In 1995, the government cancelled its golden shares in ten companies. France’s Lyonnaise des Eaux acquired Northumbrian Water and Highland Power acquired Southern Water. Wessex Water was purchased by US company Enron before its spectacular 2001 collapse.

Although water companies were prohibited from purchasing one another, some embraced the vogue of “multi utilities” and acquired local electricity providers, which were eventually privatised in 1990. Welsh Water rebranded as Hyder after taking over South Wales Electricity, and North West Water acquired its local supplier to become United Utilities.

A windfall tax imposed by the incoming Labour government in 1997 on the privatised utilities, including water, did not slow down any of this activity. For instance, Thames was sold for £922 million at privatisation, but in July 1997, the stock market valued it at £2.09 billion; similarly, Severn Trent’s value increased from £849 million to £3 billion.

The privatised water sector had undergone radical transformation by the end of the first ten years. The mixed effects of water privatisation were discussed in 1999 in this newspaper. One could argue that an excessive portion of the additional earnings had been “dissipated in unwarranted mega-increases in boardroom pay, excess dividends, and ill-advised diversifications.”

On the other hand, “We now have much-improved drinking water because a lot of money was invested in improving the infrastructure.”

Negotiations continued unabated. In 2000, the German utility RWE acquired Thames for £4.3 billion in cash and took on £2.5 billion in debt. The 240p per share that all ten water companies were sold for in 1989 was five times higher than the takeover price of £12.15 per share. UK utilities continued to attract foreign capital, which was viewed as a good thing in the spirit of the times. New Labour had no intention of tampering with the model.

Panic stations

A significant turning point was what came next. Following a string of horrific train disasters that claimed many lives in the early 2000s, Railtrack was placed into receivership and transformed into Network Rail. The majority of the nation’s nuclear plants are owned by British Energy, which required a bailout.

Both incidents sparked political panic, with the City trying to fuel worries that foreign investment would dry up if owners thought government action had short-changed them (the baseless accusation at Railtrack). Meanwhile, the water industry continued to vehemently protest that it had insufficient incentives to invest due to the alleged harshness of Ofwat’s 1999 price review.

Two decisions were made as a result, which in retrospect accelerated financial risk-taking. The water companies’ operating licences were originally set to expire in 2014, but were extended by Ofwat in 2002. They were replaced with 25-year rolling licenses.

“Companies and their investors will be able to plan more securely with the longer notice period,” stated Philip Fletcher, the late head of Ofwat, while interacting with the Guardian.

That was the plan, but the change also shielded underachievers from the possibility of being replaced in the medium run.

Then, in 2004, bills increased by 20% in what was widely perceived as a giveaway to the companies during the next five-year price review. Investors found water to be even more alluring.

After that, takeover activity accelerated dramatically. Investment banks, infrastructure funds, and pension funds were the new purchasers, not other utilities. The year 2006 saw Macquarie’s disastrous £8 billion purchase of Thames from RWE. The acquisition of Anglian’s parent company by a consortium of Australian and Canadian pension funds also occurred. After a battle with US investment bank Goldman Sachs, Southern Water was acquired by a group that included JP Morgan Asset Management in 2007. A group led by Citigroup and HSBC acquired Yorkshire Water’s owner, Kelda Group.

This is the time frame that former regulators have identified as when the game changed.

“Private equity infrastructure capital showed the hard face of capitalism, involving leveraged buyouts and short-term policies, namely high borrowing and high dividends,” Byatt wrote in his book “A Regulator’s Sign Off: Changing the Taps in Britain.”

This earned it widespread criticism for its lack of transparency and financial engineering.

Soon after leaving the regulator, Jonathan Cox, who had held leadership positions at Yorkshire and Anglian before serving as chair of Ofwat from 2012 to 2022, testified before a House of Lords committee that “investment banks started to realise in the 2000s that there was an opportunity to acquire the water company assets and to put significantly more leverage on to those capital structures. At that time, I wasn’t at Ofwat. That strategy has never appealed to me, and I think it’s terrible that it took place.”

He contended that investment banks produced “the predisposition of thinking of water companies as financial assets” and skewed incentives.

Financial engineering on steroids

Thames launched a “whole business securitisation” in 2007, shortly after Macquarie acquired it. The fundraising effort was dubbed “banal” despite its aggressive nature. An eight-layered corporate structure, including a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands, was used to package a once sombre business that dealt in pipes and sewage treatment works. This structure allowed debt to be piled on top of debt, much like the layers in a wedding cake.

Leverage ratios of 50% or 60% suddenly rose to 80% at certain companies that were taken off the stock market. In 2018, Thames explained how its complex corporate structure allowed it to borrow more money with the ratings agencies’ approval: “An investment grade credit rating allows for a higher level of leverage.”

Macquarie has justified its Thames business securitisation strategy by stating that it was “very common” at the time.

Martin Bradley, the head of infrastructure at the company, told Infrastructure Investor in 2023 that “it was a UK water utility product that was invented, advised, and constructed by UK banks.”

He cited annual gross returns of 12–13%, which he claimed were consistent with regulatory guidance during the 2005–09 periods, as justification for investors in Macquarie funds that profited from a staggered sale of Thames in 2017.

Additionally, the Australian bank has defended its overall management of Thames, stating that the business “undertook a record level of investment despite the returns allowed by Ofwat being reduced.”

But the industry’s mid-2000s debt binge still has an impact today. In 2021, Southern Water, which had implemented a complete business securitisation in 2003, needed to be saved from what appears to be a miniaturised version of the financial crisis currently engulfing Thames.

Macquarie, which controversially provided £1 billion in fresh equity to recapitalise the company, was the buyer at Southern. Ofwat realised the risks associated with excessive borrowing only much later. Only in 2023, did the company get the authority to halt dividend payments if doing so would jeopardise its stability.

Debt has also been used for its original purpose of accelerating investment, complementing the portion funded by bills. For example, is it a coincidence that the two companies that have been fined the most over the years, Thames and Southern, also have the most aggressive financing structures? The total investment made after privatisation is £190 billion. However, it is indisputable that excessive use of financial leverage is done to maximise profits for shareholders.

“For most companies, debt has been a prudent low-cost source of finance with low interest rates fixed for the long-term. However, some companies borrowed too much, most obviously Thames Water. The risk for this – and for correcting this – belongs to the company and its shareholders,” current Ofwat chief executive, David Black, addressed the point in 2023 when Thames’ financial crisis became acute.

The post Labour government’s water sector challenge appeared first on International Finance.

The 41.2 km (25.6 miles) driverless Light Rail Transit (LRT) links urban Jakarta to West Java, Bekasi, and Depok.

A 418 km (260 mile) Commuter Line serves 1.2 million Greater Jakarta residents daily.

Jakarta has been among the world’s worst polluting cities since May and topped IQAir’s charts earlier this month.

The president blamed pollution on heavy road traffic and coal-using enterprises, saying over 1 million vehicles enter Jakarta daily.

He claimed, “Jakarta is always on the top 10 list of cities with the worst traffic jams”. Traffic congestion and pollution are always in Jakarta.”

The capital, with over 10 million residents, features a 16-km MRT line from the south to downtown Jakarta.

Indonesia is creating Nusantara on Borneo island to replace Jakarta as Southeast Asia’s largest city. The president’s legacy depends on the unfinished project, which he will leave in 2024.

Meanwhile, the country has rescheduled the free trial launch of its China-funded high-speed rail line to September 2023, as per a report from the EurAsian Times.

The project, which is part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, is worth USD 7.3 billion and had an initial completion target of 2019 but has encountered several challenges, including a USD 1.2 billion cost overrun and operational delays.

“The project aims to establish a 142 km railway line connecting Jakarta, the capital, to Bandung. The consortium PT KCIC, composed of Indonesian and Chinese state entities, has now conveyed the need for an extended timeframe to ensure the safety and convenience of passengers, resulting in the postponement of the free trial run,” commented the EurAsian Times report.

“Initially planned for August 18, a preliminary limited free trial for passengers has been rescheduled to early September. Nevertheless, the complete operational launch on October 1 remains unaffected by this delay, as confirmed by KCIC,” it added further.

Talking about the development, Indonesia transport ministry official Mohamad Risal Wasal told the media, “Safety checks were ongoing as of August 4.”

During Joko Widodo’s China visit, Chinese President Xi Jinping underscored the joint responsibility of both nations to uphold stringent standards for the high-speed railway project’s culmination.

This project, which effectively links Indonesia’s capital city with Bandung, a prominent urban centre and the nation’s fourth-largest municipality, will be the first overseas rail venture to incorporate Chinese railway systems, technology, and industrial constituents.

The post President Joko Widodo launches USD 2.13 billion elevated rail line in Indonesia appeared first on International Finance.

As per the study, from 2020 to 2021, private flights nearly tripled and emissions more than quadrupled. By 2022 end, these flights increased by 1.5 times from the 2020-21 period and carbon footprints also more than doubled. This disturbing news comes amid the aviation sector increasing its investments in R&D-related activities for revolutionary concepts like Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), and electric and hydrogen aircraft, in order to meet the ambitious goal of a ‘Net Zero’ footprint by 2050.

How bad is the scene?

The above study’s data set included the 27 European Union nations as well as Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Private flights from these regions produced some 5.3 million metric tons of carbon emissions in the last three years.

The countries emitting the most carbon from private flights in 2022 were the UK, France, and Germany. United Kingdom wore the crown of shame, as Guardian reported that the country recorded 90,256 private flights in 2022, equivalent to a private flight taking off every six minutes and emitting over 500,000 metric tons of CO2.

The most popular flight paths were recorded between London and Paris, Paris and Geneva, and London and Nice. These short-haul flight operations ranging from just 251 to 500 km reached their peak in 2022, as nearly one-quarter of all private flights were taken over short distances, routes which can be covered by alternatives like trains and bike rides.

In 2020, lockdowns were imposed to curb the COVID spread. While this resulted in civil aviation coming to a screeching halt and hurting the stakeholders financially, it also reduced global emissions.

However, this short-term gain was difficult to maintain and as the world came back into normalcy by 2022, the aviation sector’s carbon footprint has gone up again, but the disturbing aspect here is the global elites’ preference to comfort over the environment, and it complicates the EU’s efforts to reduce emissions by 55% compared with 1990 levels by the next decade.

On March 30, Greenpeace published a press release, where it called for a ban on private jets and short-distance flights on routes which have alternatives like trains, saying “It should be part of an equitable plan to address the climate crisis.”

Countries implement corrective measures

In 2022, France got the nod from the European Commission to abolish domestic flights shorter than 2.5 hours, as there were protests in front of business-jet maker Dassault’s Paris headquarters, while others reportedly participated in “sit-ins” in multiple countries that effectively shut down private airports, while calling for private jets to be banned.

Spain has plans of ending all short-haul flights by 2050, while Germany doubled its flight ticket tax in 2022 for passengers undertaking short-haul air journeys. Belgium will levy new taxes on private jets as well as older, noisier commercial aircraft from April 2023 as part of a scheme to reduce noise and air pollution.

“The noise pollution experienced by residents near Brussels National Airport, whether they live in Flanders, Brussels or Wallonia, cannot remain as it is,” Georges Gilkinet, Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister, said in the statement announcing the new taxes.

Aircraft using Brussels Airport currently pay a tax based on the noise levels it generates during take-off and landing. The new tax will now factor in carbon emissions as well as flight length. Any flight shorter than 500 km (310 miles) will see increased duties.

However, the European Business Aviation Association (EBAA) has cautioned against an outright ban on private flights, while citing that the particular activity employs almost 400,000 people and contributes almost 90 billion euros (USD 95.5 billion) to Europe’s GDP annually.

Stats contradict EBAA’s stance

In 2021, a report from the European campaign group Transport & Environment (T&E) showed that the CO2 emissions from the continent’s private jet market had increased by 31% between 2005 and 2019, rising faster than those from commercial aviation.

The report titled ‘Private Jets: Can the Super-rich Supercharge Zero-Emission Aviation’ reveals that the impact of private jets in terms of carbon emissions was ten times bigger than the one caused by commercial aviation and 50 times more severe than trains.

T&E aviation director Andrew Murphy said, “Flying on a private jet is probably the worst thing you can do for the environment. And yet, super-rich super polluters are flying around like there’s no climate crisis.”

According to T&E, the most common type of private jet in the European market is the Cessna Citation Excel, which can carry eight passengers and has a fully-loaded range of 2,700km and is perfectly suitable for short-haul flights.

The second most used is the Beechcraft King Air, a turboprop aircraft which can fit up to six flyers (including crew and passengers), with a ferry range of 1,900 km. As reported by Transport & Environment in 2021, leisure was said to be the primary reason for flying private, especially during the summer months.

In a past survey by private aviation buyer’s Guide Private Jet Card Comparisons (a survey which was reported by Airport Technology), 46% of respondents said they were using private aviation to transport family members, and 45% reportedly flew privately to a second home.

Talking about the European market, private jets are mostly used for intra-continental flights. As per the aviation website Airport Technology, some of the preferred routes for such flights are spread across Switzerland, Italy, the UK and France.

Currently, the UK and France are the biggest polluters, producing 19.2% and 16.5% of CO2 emissions respectively, and these two nations outmatch the 20 other European countries. France in particular is one of Europe’s main hubs for private jets. One-tenth of all flights that were departing from France in 2019 were private jets and 80% of those flights travelled within Europe. Flights produce greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from burning fuel and this contributes to global warming.

While emissions from civil aviation are reportedly known as significantly worse than any other mode of transportation, in terms of per kilometre travelled, the ratio varies depending on size, occupancy levels and efficiency. Private jets have a track record of producing more emissions per passenger than commercial flights.

For example, Cessna Citation XLS burns 189 gallons (857 litres) of aviation fuel an hour on average. For a journey of two hours and 45 minutes, this private jetliner will be requiring 2,356 litres of aviation fuel, which is a lot, if seen from the pollution angle.

The United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) in 2021 stated that 2.52kg of carbon dioxide was emitted for every litre of aviation turbine fuel burned. So mathematically, a two hours and 45 minutes journey by Cessna Citation XLS will produce 5.9 tonnes of CO2. BEIS also recommended that to “capture the maximum climate impact” of flights, CO2 emissions figures should be multiplied by 1.9 to reflect the effect of non-CO2 emissions released by planes at high altitudes, which, as per the scientists, increases the global warming effect.

Therefore, the total emissions for the particular Cessna flight would be 11.3 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, and since the private jet carries nine passengers, each of them would be responsible for 1.2 tonnes on their journey.

In 2021, during an interaction with BBC, Debbie Hopkins, an expert in decarbonising transport at University of Oxford, said, “A huge amount of fuel is used during takeoff and landing of a plane, no matter how many people you have on board. So an already polluting mode of transport (commercial aviation) becomes even worse (with private jets).”

SAF is the way forward

The 21st-century aviation is standing at a crossroads. On the one hand, the stakeholders are going from biofuels to battery-powered aircraft. Then we have the opposition to private jets deservedly reaching a new level as environmental activists are lobbying for stricter regulations/outright bans.

However, one also cannot overlook European Business Aviation Association’s concerns against a drastic regulatory move, as the private jet sector employs a good number of professionals and contribute significantly to Europe’s GDP.

One needs to find a middle path. SAF and battery-powered jets can be that option, as they can be deployed for short-haul flights on a pilot basis.

Kennedy Ricci, founder of 4Air, which advises companies on making their operations more sustainable, told Robb Report, “We’re less than 5% of where we need to be by 2050.”

4Air’s clients use verified carbon offsets, often considered controversial, due to its practice of mitigating environmental impact by investing in carbon-reduction programs elsewhere. These clients have also transitioned to sustainable aviation fuel.

There are no hard-and-fast patterns to buy in, said Ricci, who also remarked that corporate flight departments, including those of Microsoft and American Express, align SAF purchasing to carbon-reduction goals while individual aircraft owners tend to set higher offset targets.

“But we’ve also seen individuals willing to purchase higher percentages of SAF,” he said, while adding, “Geography can also be an influence, with some operators in Europe willing to start at higher commitment levels.”

Robb Report also mentioned London-headquartered jet-charter broker Victor, which stopped its carbon-offsetting program at the 2022 end to focus on SAF.

While aviation stakeholders have gone into top gear, in terms of investing in SAF and other sustainable practices, there is a need of expanding refineries and airport distribution networks to be expanded well beyond current infrastructure.

Considering US business jets consumed about 12% of the 60 million gallons of blended SAF in 2022, “We punched above our weight,” AvFuel’s Keith Sawyer said.

You have an independent, non-profit organisation named Lindbergh Foundation introducing prizes and cash rewards for decarbonizing aviation and this can augur well for those high net worth individuals, those who primarily take private jets for commuting, as getting recognized for adopting sustainable aviation practices will boost their brand values.

“It’s a complicated issue of enormous scale. But a $25 million incentive, and even smaller prizes, will prompt companies to solve friction points with workable results,” Lindbergh Foundation remarked.

The fast-emerging aircraft type called Electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing (eVTOL), which analysts anticipate being mainstream by 2035 and is seeing investments from the aviation giants, could also aid the ultra-rich. Currently, some 375 designs of this electric rotorcraft are under development.

The post Private Flights & Pollution: The Inside Story appeared first on International Finance.

Using satellite imagery from nearly two decades ago, researchers showed that ship tracks dropped after a new fuel regulation. The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) 2020 fuel sulphur regulation certainly affected ship track formation. The COVID-19 trade disruptions also contributed.

First, a worldwide climatology of ship tracks was created using powerful computing techniques. They employed AI to automatically identify ship tracks in 17 years of daytime NASA Aqua satellite photos (2003-2020). The top map displays ship tracks as a fraction of the low-level marine cloud layer.

We can’t fully comprehend the situation without a complete and large-scale survey of ship tracks, said NASA’s Tianle Yuan.

In 1960s weather satellite photos, ship tracks appeared as “anomalous cloud lines.” Ship exhaust aerosols combine with water vapour to generate smog. Highly concentrated droplets scatter more light than non-polluted marine clouds seeded by sea salt. The above natural-color picture from December 7, 2021, shows a pattern of ship tracks crossing each other off North America’s Pacific coast.

IMO’s 2020 global regulation capped sulphur at 0.5% (down from 3.5%), changing ship exhaust’s chemical and physical composition. Fewer sulphur emissions mean fewer ship-tracking aerosol particles.

Similar but locally specified sulphur controls, like the IMO Emission Control Area off the west coast of the US and Canada, have not had the desired effect because operators have changed their routes and planned longer trips to avoid designated zones.

According to researchers, ship-track density declined in every significant maritime corridor in 2020. (See map) Ship-tracking data show that the COVID-19 pandemic cut the amount of shipping by 1.4% over a few months. This adjustment alone couldn’t explain the drop in recorded ship tracks, which remained low through 2021. The new worldwide fuel regulations reduced ship tracks in 2020, researchers found.

Tianle Yuan and colleagues observed that economic activity changes leave distinct fingerprints on satellite data. Trans-Pacific ship track patterns reflect trade troughs and increases. A general trend in shipping activity between 2003 and 2013—reflected in ship-track clouds—reversed for nearly a year after the 2008 global financial crisis. A more significant decline between 2014 and 2016 presumably reflected Chinese raw material and commodity imports and exports.

Ship tracks can be used as climate change case studies. “Ship tracks are ideal natural laboratories for researching the interplay between aerosols and low clouds. This is a critical climatic uncertainty right now,” Tianle Yuan said.

The post Maritime air pollution comes down thanks to fuel regulations appeared first on International Finance.

The 2018 ADB Sustainability Report, which was released yesterday to mark World Environment Day, documents ADB’s work to promote economic, social and environmental sustainability in its operations as well as its corporate activities and facilities in 2016 and 2017.

“The Sustainability Report demonstrates how ADB’s operations, human resources, and facilities management are aligned with and contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals,” said ADB Vice-President for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development Mr Bambang Susantono. “Looking ahead, we must renew and ramp up our commitment to making ADB and its operations more sustainable. We must also continue to modernize our corporate facilities and promote diversity in our staff.”

“To show ADB’s commitment to lower its carbon footprint at its Manila headquarters and minimize its effect on the environment and the community, we are sourcing energy from solar and geothermal plants, reusing rainwater for irrigation and other purposes, operating a waste segregation area, and using a sewage treatment facility to treat wastewater,” said ADB Vice-President for Administration and Corporate Management, Ms Deborah Stokes. “Aside from these, we also continue to achieve and maintain international certifications to ensure our goal toward sustainability lasts into the future.”

In 2015 to 2017, the 3-year average for the number of ADB projects supporting environmental sustainability reached 58% of ADB’s project portfolio, exceeding its target of 55% by 2020. This amounts to over US$28bn, or 57% of ADB’s total commitments of close to $50bn in the same period. Furthermore, in 2016-2017, US$2.8bn worth of green bonds were issued to channel investor funds into low-carbon, climate-resilient development.

Climate finance from ADB’s own resources reached US$4.5bn in 2017, a 64% increase from 2015, putting the bank on track to meeting its US$6bn annual target by 2020. In addition, the High-Level Technology Fund was launched in April 2017 to promote advanced technologies and innovative solutions in project design and implementation.

At the same time, ADB has also demonstrated its commitment to environmental sustainability by improving its corporate footprint. Starting in 2016, carbon credits have been purchased to fully offset ADB headquarters’ green gas emissions, making it carbon neutral for the first time. Installation of low-flow and low-flush water fixtures at ADB headquarters also decreased potable water consumption by about nine percent. ADB received ISO 20121 certification for the sustainability and carbon neutrality of its 49th and 50th Annual Meetings.

Moreover, in 2016-2017, ADB exceeded its target in delivering intended gender equality results in its operations, continued to embed social and environmental safeguards in all of its projects, and continued to share relevant knowledge and innovative approaches to promoting sustainable development in the Asia and Pacific region.

ADB celebrated World Environment Day by highlighting the plastic pollution crisis in the region, in line with this year’s theme chosen by the United Nations Environment Programme, “Beat Plastic Pollution.” About 50% of all plastic used in the region is considered single use, and nearly a third of plastic packaging escapes waste collection systems, polluting the environment and entering the world’s oceans.

ADB invests in projects that directly and indirectly address waste management issues, including marine pollution and plastic waste. Investments include waste water treatment, watershed management, wetland rehabilitation, and coastal and marine resources management. At its headquarters, ADB’s food service providers stopped selling bottled water in 2013 and is encouraging staff to stop using plastic straws.

The post ADB reaffirms commitment to environmental sustainability on World Environment Day appeared first on International Finance.

The industry hasn’t issued complaints against the measure because policymakers of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and UK Prime Minister Theresa May have specified they will get rid of coal in the next 10 years, that will in turn will help to get rid of greenhouse gases as a whole. The policymakers have promoted measures that will possibly maintain the cost of pollution on an upward curve through 2030.

The companies that are responsible for generating massive amounts of pollution have started implementing the measure to curb pollution. While companies like Volkswagen and RWE are inclining towards renewables, some are stocking coal before the price surges.

“For a five-year-plus period, this market was in the desert,” said Per Lekander, a fund manager at Lansdowne Partners UK LLP in London, “What’s happened over the past five months is the investment community is getting behind it again and putting on positions.”

“We are very much in favour of the European Emissions Trading System,” said Klaus Schaefer, chief executive officer of the German power generator Uniper SE, “In order to deliver the CO2 reductions that we all agreed to in Europe, you will have to see higher prices.”

The post Europe to entirely wipe out carbon emissions in the next decade appeared first on International Finance.