What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, deploying electric irrigation pumps will reduce emissions but will not provide a globally significant climate impact (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ), even under high adoption scenarios, until electrical grid emissions decline further. Therefore, this potential climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it? 

This solution reduces emissions from irrigation by replacing pumps powered by natural gas, diesel, propane, or gasoline with electric pumps. Irrigation is the practice of adding water to croplands or pastures to reduce crop water stress and increase productivity. Pumps are used on some irrigated croplands to extract groundwater, transport surface water, and pressurize water for application through sprinklers or drip irrigation systems. Electric pumps have much higher motor efficiencies (~88%) than fossil fuel pumps (~21–31%), so pump switching reduces the energy required to pump the same amount of water. The extent to which emissions are reduced depends on the emissions intensity of the electrical grid mix. Electric pumps reduce emissions when the emissions intensity of the grid is below ~0.75 kg CO₂‑eq /kWh, or when they are powered by on-site solar or wind energy. In some places, additional emissions reductions can be achieved through Improving Irrigation Water Use Efficiency.

Does it work?

The efficiency and emissions benefits of electric pumps over fossil fuel pumps are well established. On-farm pumping emissions, currently estimated at approximately 0.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, could feasibly be eliminated if all fossil fuel pumps are replaced with electric pumps and electrical grid emissions reach net-zero, or if they are powered by on-farm solar or wind energy. However, the climate impact of electric pump adoption today would be much lower, as electricity generation still produces substantial emissions. Under current conditions, replacing a diesel pump with an electric pump will reduce emissions in most, but not all, places around the world.

Why are we excited?

Electric pumps can reliably reduce emissions, are already cost-competitive and widely used, and adoption is increasing. Irrigation is a major energy user, and its energy use is increasing as irrigated areas expand. These trends are expected to continue in the coming decades as climate change exacerbates heat and water stress and agricultural production intensifies in low- and middle-income countries. Coupled with ongoing reductions in electrical grid emissions intensity, the potential climate benefits of this solution are growing.

Electric pump adoption can also be geographically targeted, as just five countries (China, India, the United States, Pakistan, and Iran) account for almost 70% of irrigation energy use. Areas with high groundwater reliance can also be targeted, as groundwater pumping accounts for 89% of irrigation energy use.

Pump switching also provides additional benefits, such as lowering long-term energy costs for farmers and reducing air pollution from on-farm fossil fuel use. Access to the electrical grid is the primary technical barrier to electric pump adoption, but small-scale solar installations can be used where grid connectivity is limited. Powering pumps with on-site solar also eliminates operational emissions, reduces the load on the electrical grid, and insulates farmers from variability in energy costs. 

Why are we concerned?

The climate impacts of pump switching are highly dependent on the emissions factor of the electrical grid. A large share of the potential reduction in fossil fuel pumping is located in India and China, which currently have relatively high electrical grid emissions intensities. Under the current grid mix, we estimate that pump switching in these countries will result in only modest benefits or a small increase in emissions.

What is our assessment?

There is strong evidence that green roofs sequester carbon and may reduce building energy consumption, although emissions reduction data are limited and vary with geography, roof design, and other factors. The potential climate impact of increasing green roofs is likely too small to be globally significant (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). The solution, however, is considered “Worthwhile” because it can reduce energy use in buildings and sequester carbon while helping communities adapt to climate change and benefiting human health, the environment, and building owners.

What is it?

Vegetation planted on specially engineered rooftops sequesters CO₂ through photosynthesis and provides indirect cooling for buildings through evapotranspiration, reflecting heat back to the atmosphere, and shading. This cooling plus the added insulation inherent in the design can reduce the air conditioning loads of the building, particularly compared to dark rooftop surfaces, and therefore reduce emissions from the electricity used to power cooling systems. Green roofs can also reduce heating energy use and corresponding GHG emissions due to the insulation that soils and plant matter provide. Green roofs are in use in all regions of the globe, but concentrated in high-income countries. 

Does it work?

There is strong evidence that green roofs sequester carbon and can reduce the energy consumption and therefore emissions from cooling and heating buildings. Carbon sequestration by vegetation on green roofs has been documented in several studies. A study in Germany found that plants absorbed 141 g carbon/m²/yr (517 g CO₂ /m²/yr) over a 5-year period. However, carbon sequestration rates are difficult to generalize due to variations in design, plant types, and climates. 

Reported building energy savings from green roofs can range from negligible to 60% or more for cooling. For heating the savings can reach 45% or more, but some studies also show a roughly 10% increase in heating energy use with a green roof. The large variability in energy savings outcomes is due to differences in climate; existing insulation and other properties of buildings; green roof design, vegetation and maintenance practices; and measurement and modeling approaches. The highest energy savings potential has been calculated in dry-winter subtropical highlands for cooling and in humid subtropical climates for heating. Areas with short and mild winters are most likely to see heating energy use increase with green roofs, but these areas often have net energy savings when heating and cooling are combined, and most studies of green roofs show a reduction in heating energy use. 

When combined with the carbon sequestration effect of vegetation, green roofs appear to consistently reduce GHG emissions. 

Why are we excited?

Green roofs and other urban green spaces (see Increase Urban Vegetation) provide valuable climate adaptation, human health, environmental, and economic benefits. Green roofs can help cities adapt to climate change because the vegetation reduces heat exposure during extreme heat, while the soil and root systems absorb stormwater – thereby reducing runoff and flooding risks during extreme rainfall. Green roofs improve human health because vegetation filters the air and reduces noise transmission, and interactions with green spaces, including green roofs, have been shown to improve mental well-being. Green roofs can increase biodiversity and habitat and remove water pollution. They also can increase the property value of a building and prolong the longevity of the roof.

Why are we concerned?

Increasing green roofs can be challenging due to high up-front cost, lack of supportive policies, structural and climate limitations, maintenance requirements, and lack of awareness. A green roof can cost three to six times more than a conventional roof, and although it can save energy for cooling and heating, the returns on investment can be lengthy and savings may not be enough to fully offset the higher costs. In addition, not all roofs can support vegetation, rooftop plants can struggle to survive in hot and dry climates, and green roofs may increase heating energy use in buildings in climates with short and mild winters. A green roof also requires maintenance such as watering, plant care, weed control, pruning, and regular inspections. Finally, a lack of awareness is a major barrier to greater adoption. We also noted a lack of measured, rather than modeled emissions reduction data and on current and potential green roof adoption globally. 

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, we find that fishing vessel efficiency improvements are ready to deploy and feasible, but probably have limited climate impact because the wild capture fisheries sector contributes a relatively small share of global GHG emissions. These improvements will likely provide long-term cost savings and added benefits for ecosystems and air quality. We conclude this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it?

Improving fishing vessel efficiency reduces CO₂ emissions by using gear, vessel, or operational changes that lower fuel use in wild capture fisheries. Vessel upgrades include propulsion-related changes, such as installation of more efficient engines, and non-propulsion-related alterations, such as modified bows and hulls that reduce drag. Changing to low-fuel-use gear to catch fish, when and where possible, can also reduce CO₂ emissions. Operational changes, such as speed reductions or route optimization, can likewise lead to more efficient fuel use.

Does it work?

Vessel efficiency improvements are expected to deliver substantial fuel savings. An estimated 60–90% of emissions in wild capture fisheries, which emit roughly 0.18 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr in total, likely result from fuel consumption. Speed reductions alone can reduce fuel use by up to 30%. Vessel modifications could provide fuel savings of up to 20% in small fishing vessels, which comprise roughly 86% of all motorized fishing vessels globally. Upgrading engines and other propulsion-related equipment can reduce fuel use by up to 30%. Gear switching, when viable, can also be highly effective at improving fuel use efficiency, particularly if the target species are typically caught using methods such as trawling, which has a high carbon footprint. 

Why are we excited?

The average emissions per metric ton of landed fish in wild capture fisheries have grown by over 20% since 1990, highlighting the need for efficiency improvements. Many of these improvements can be implemented without sacrificing fishing effort or opportunities, and some operational changes, such as reducing vessel speed, can be done without any new equipment. All changes reduce fuel use, saving fishers money over time and likely resulting in fewer emissions of harmful air pollutants, such as sulfur oxides and black carbon. Some upgrades could deliver additional benefits to air quality and ocean ecosystems. Cleaner engines can further reduce air pollution through more complete combustion of fuel, and gear changes could benefit seafloor ecosystems, which can be damaged from bottom fishing practices, such as trawling and dredging. Additionally, some fishing gear has high bycatch rates, and switching to gear that allows for more exclusive capture of target species can reduce waste.

Why are we concerned?

Even with widespread adoption, efficiency improvements that reduce fuel use are unlikely to have a major climate impact. Efficiency improvements could also inadvertently encourage increases in fishing effort, which would increase fuel use and offset emissions cuts. Initial costs to upgrade can be highly variable, but might be high in some cases and therefore not feasible for some fishers. Gear switching can result in lower fish catches, as some methods might not be as efficient. Some operational changes, such as reducing speeds, could lead to fishers arriving at fishing grounds late.

What is our assessment?

While Improve Aquaculture is unlikely to have a major climate impact, our assessment concludes that it is “Worthwhile” due to its ability to reduce pressure on wild fish stocks and terrestrial biomass, and because efficiency improvements made now are likely to scale into greater climate impact as the sector continues to expand.

What is it?

GHG emissions from aquaculture can be reduced by increasing the feed conversion efficiency of the cultured animals and decarbonizing on-farm energy use. Aquaculture – farming aquatic animals or plants for food or other purposes – is rapidly growing and now accounts for over half of the global production of aquatic animals, exceeding wild capture fisheries. Over 7% of human-consumed protein is aquaculture-produced. As this sector has grown, it has become increasingly reliant on external feed sources, with the share of non-fed aquaculture (e.g., bivalves that feed from the water column) dropping from nearly 40% in 2000 to 27% in 2022. Improving feed conversion ratios (FCR) – the amount of feed it takes to produce a given amount of biomass – can lower feed demand and reduce CO₂ and other GHG emissions tied to feed production and transport. FCRs can be improved by feed formulations that increase digestibility, genetic or breeding modifications to improve digestive efficiency in the cultured animal, species-specific feed formulations, and optimizing ration size and feeding frequency. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use can help reduce CO₂ emissions from common equipment, such as aerators and water pumps.

Does it work?

Interventions to improve feed and energy efficiency can reduce CO₂ emissions from aquaculture operations, although the potential achievable climate impact of these actions is currently unlikely to be globally meaningful (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Total annual emissions from aquaculture were estimated to be 0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr in 2017, with nearly 60% of that attributed to feed production. Improving FCR is both plausible and effective, since it directly reduces the amount of food needed to cultivate fish and other species, thereby lowering emissions tied to feed production and transport. Between 1995 and 2007, improvements in FCR have ranged between 5 to 15% for a variety of species, including shrimp, salmon, carp, and tilapia.

Decarbonizing on-farm energy use can reduce equipment-related emissions, particularly in intensive systems that use energy for automated feeding systems, water temperature control, and circulation and aeration systems. In general, the potential impact of decarbonizing varies widely because on-farm energy use differs significantly across species and production systems. For instance, shrimp and prawn farming use nearly 20,000 MJ/t of live weight (LW), with over 75% from electricity, while bivalve production uses around 3,000 MJ/t of LW supplied largely by diesel.

Why are we excited?

Improving feed efficiency in aquaculture reduces demand for captured wild fish used in feed, reducing pressure on overfished stocks. It also lowers reliance on terrestrial biomass, such as soy, wheat, and rice, which come with additional land-use and emission costs. More efficient feeding can help reduce nutrient pollution, which can be responsible for high methane and nitrous oxide fluxes in some inland aquaculture systems. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use might ultimately lead to lower long-term operating costs and improved energy reliability.

Why are we concerned?

There are relatively few drawbacks associated with improving aquaculture. In the case of decarbonizing on-farm energy use, upfront costs could be high. For instance, installing solar panels or upgrading pumps can be financially challenging for small-scale operations. Energy use on farms can also vary throughout the day and night, which might not always align with renewable energy sources, like solar, without storage. While this solution focuses on reducing GHG emissions from existing aquaculture practices, it is important to recognize that aquaculture can be environmentally harmful and that impacts vary widely depending on how it is done, where it occurs, and which species are being cultivated.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, boosting appliance and equipment efficiency is a promising strategy for reducing GHG emissions, but significant leaps in efficiency and shifts in user behavior are needed to counteract the rebound effect and realize its impact. This potential climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it?

Appliance and equipment efficiency typically refers to larger devices in residential buildings that run on electricity, such as refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, dishwashers, dryers, and televisions. Energy-efficient appliances or equipment consume less electricity when operated than do inefficient devices. Therefore, boosting appliance efficiency reduces the CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions from electricity generation. As of 2022, the energy consumed by household appliances globally was more than twice the total energy used to cool both residential and nonresidential buildings, and about half the energy used for heating. To drive higher efficiency for these devices, various countries have established regional energy efficiency standards, rating systems, and labeling programs. Currently, homeowners can readily access a variety of options on the appliance market, and less efficient devices can easily be replaced. However, income levels, especially in low- and middle-income countries, may affect people’s actual ability to purchase certain appliances, although these devices are increasingly becoming cheaper.

Does it work?

Improving the efficiency of appliances and equipment functionally reduces the energy required to run these devices. Various field studies have demonstrated the effect of efficiency gains on lowering electricity consumption. However, the rise in appliance ownership per household and the growing total number of households have offset the collective climate impact expected from efficiency improvements. Globally, the number of households grew from about 1.5 billion in 2000 to 2.2 billion in 2021. Considering the concurrent increase in the global average units owned per household, the number of appliances in use has essentially doubled over the same period. For example, we estimate that over two decades, the number of televisions owned grew from about 1.4 to 2.8 billion units, refrigerators grew from 0.9 to 1.7 billion units, and washing machines grew from about 0.6 to 1.1 billion units. This growth resulted in rising electricity consumption by appliances annually, from 2,880 TWh in 2000 to 5,734 TWh in 2022, which translates to a 99% global increase, largely driven by the Asia-Pacific region.

Why are we excited?

Boosting appliance and equipment efficiency allows homeowners to realize operational cost savings as a result of lower electricity consumption and utility bills. Compared with less efficient devices, using appliances with higher efficiency ratings functionally reduces peak electricity demand, alleviating strain on the electric grid. The advent of smart devices and the Internet of Things (IoT) also helps to automate the operation of these appliances, optimizing their runtime while minimizing the energy consumed. Initial purchasing costs are also declining, making efficient appliances more accessible and affordable. 

Access to high-efficiency appliances also yields additional benefits. For example, access to energy-efficient refrigerators and freezers means that food waste can be minimized with less energy, leading to better food security. Similarly, multimedia equipment, such as television sets, offers access to critical information. Further cuts in GHG emissions are also possible as the electric grid transitions to renewable energy sources.

Why are we concerned?

Despite the potential benefits, the efficiency improvements in household appliances and equipment have not effectively translated into a positive climate impact. This is largely due to the significant rebound effect, or the increase in appliances owned by households as these devices become cheaper and more efficient. Considering the role of appliances in providing a greater quality of life, limiting the increase in appliance purchases is dismissible. The markets for appliances and equipment in many countries also still consist of pre-owned devices, which are less efficient. Some countries, such as Ghana, have established legislation to prevent the importation of pre-owned devices. This approach ensures that the appliances bought by homeowners will run on the newest, most efficient technologies. Recent findings from regions with stringent energy rating systems also suggest that regulations and programs can lead to a 50% cut in the electricity consumed by appliances. Global initiatives, such as the United for Efficiency (U4E) partnership, which seeks to shift appliance markets in low- and middle-income countries into high-efficiency devices, are increasingly needed for the potential energy savings to be realized as a climate solution.