Leveraging the Voluntary Carbon Market to Improve Water Resilience in the Colorado and Mississippi River Basins
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Methodology Framework
2.2. Registry Review and Proposed Typology
2.3. Approaches for Estimating Carbon Credit Generating Potential for Water Sector Project Types
2.3.1. Approach for ‘Watershed Restoration Alternatives to Wastewater Treatment’
2.3.2. Approach for ‘Mitigating Wildfire Impact on Water Quality’
2.3.3. Approach for ‘Rice Cultivation’
2.3.4. Approach for ‘Irrigation Efficiency’
2.3.5. Approach for ‘Blue Carbon’
3. Results
3.1. Survey of Existing Projects and Proposed Typology
3.1.1. Registry Review
3.1.2. Typology
3.2. Market Potential
3.3. Water Sector Project Types
3.3.1. Watershed Restoration Alternatives to Wastewater Treatment
3.3.2. Mitigating Wildfire Impact on Water Quality
3.3.3. Rice Cultivation
3.3.4. Irrigation Efficiency
3.3.5. Mitigating Methane Emissions from Wastewater Treatment
3.3.6. Blue Carbon
4. Discussion
4.1. Challenges
4.2. Opportunities
4.3. Strategies for Enhancing Demand for Colorado and Mississippi Generated Carbon Credits
5. Conclusions
Recommendations
- Articulate and promote the VCM–water relationship: Stakeholders should actively communicate the critical link between existing VCM methodologies and water-related programs in the Colorado and Mississippi River basins. Public awareness of the carbon impacts of water treatment and conveyance to regional greenhouse gas emissions is low, and the potential for nature-based practices that improve water quality and quantity outcomes while also sequestering carbon or avoiding future emissions is high. Promoting this relationship and the benefits of integrating carbon credits with water programs can support market growth and attract investments, particularly highlighting chronic issues like the depletion of the Colorado River and nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River.Regulators, utility staff, and watershed stakeholders should collaborate with watershed carbon project developers and VCM standards body staff to explore innovative approaches for attracting catalytic capital from the VCM to establish a more scalable framework for improving water quality issues. It is crucial for project developers to ensure that local community stakeholders and landowners receive adequate education about the operations of the carbon market and how they can equitably participate. Furthermore, local elected officials and water sector leaders should actively communicate the economic and ecological co-benefits of these projects to State and Federal regulators, advocating for broader VCM connectivity and acceptance. This will help to expand the implementation of these restoration projects beyond individual communities.
- Encourage methodology innovation: Standards bodies governing the VCM should actively lead or promote the development of innovative methodologies specifically designed for the unique environmental conditions of the Colorado and Mississippi River basins. While recent critiques of the VCM have driven a shift towards more standardized approaches, it is essential that registries and standards bodies maintain a space for methodological and project development innovation within the water sector. This is particularly important given the lack of published methodologies for many potential water-related projects.It is critical to rapidly develop new methodologies to address water quality, water quantity, and carbon sequestration, such as protocols for wetland restoration in the Mississippi River basin and forest management in the Colorado River basin. Emerging protocols, like Regen Network’s “Watershed Nature-Based and Green Infrastructure Water Methodology”, represent progress in quantifying emission reductions through improved instream water quality [31]. A particular focus should be placed on the ‘Big 4’ VCM registries—Verra, the Gold Standard, the American Carbon Registry, and the Climate Action Reserve. These leading registries should prioritize incorporating water sector into their frameworks. Moreover, existing protocols, such as the Climate Action Reserve’s “Soil Enrichment Protocol” and Verra’s “Methodology for Improved Agricultural Land Management”, which address soil carbon, should be expanded to explicitly include water quality metrics [37,46]. Both registries already offer broader methodologies for emission reductions through improved agricultural land management, providing a foundation upon which to build.
- Pilot programs and demonstration projects: However possible, regional stakeholders should develop regional pilot programs and demonstration projects in collaboration with leading corporations to showcase the feasibility and benefits of investing in high-priced, high-quality carbon credits. Use these projects to generate data, success stories, and best practices that can be shared with a broader corporate audience to build trust and momentum. Emphasize the co-benefits of water-related carbon credits, such as improved water security, ecosystem health, and community resilience, which can contribute to a company’s overall sustainability goals. Highlight the potential return on investment (ROI) through enhanced corporate reputation, regulatory compliance, and long-term environmental impact.
- Invest in Digital Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (DMRV): Investment in DMRV technologies can significantly enhance the credibility and scalability of water projects generating carbon credits. Implementing a common architecture of DMRV technologies, including sensors, remote sensing, and statistical tools, can support both carbon credit verification and the direct operation of water programs. This is particularly relevant for monitoring water flow and quality in the Colorado River and sediment control in the Mississippi River.
- Conduct high-resolution, localized analysis: Future work should include higher resolution and more localized analysis of the carbon credit potential in the water sector. Developing precise estimates of emission reductions and the associated costs for specific projects or regions within the Colorado and Mississippi River basins can increase accuracy and support targeted investments. For example, focusing on specific areas of need like the Lower Colorado River basin and the Mississippi Alluvial Plain can provide more actionable insights for stakeholders.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River Basin Fact Sheet; Technical Report; U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- U.S. National Park Service. Mississippi River Facts—Mississippi National River & Recreation Area; U.S. National Park Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2024.
- Yasarer, L.M.; Bingner, R.L.; Garbrecht, J.D.; Locke, M.A.; Lizotte, R.E.; Momm, H.G.; Busteed, P.R. Climate Change Impacts on Runoff, Sediment, and Nutrient Loads in an Agricultural Watershedin the Lower Mississippi River Basin. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2017, 33, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, O.L.; Miller, M.P.; Longley, P.C.; Alder, J.R.; Bearup, L.A.; Pruitt, T.; Jones, D.K.; Putman, A.L.; Rumsey, C.A.; McKinney, T. How Will Baseflow Respond to Climate Change in the Upper Colorado River Basin? Geophys. Res. Lett. 2021, 48, e2021GL095085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bredariol, T. Clean Energy Can Help to Ease the Water Crisis; IEA: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Grubert, E.; Sanders, K.T. Water Use in the United States Energy System: A National Assessment and Unit Process Inventory of Water Consumption and Withdrawals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 6695–6703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garrick, D.E.; Hanemann, M.; Hepburn, C. Rethinking the economics of water: An assessment. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2020, 36, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webber, S.; Nelson, S.; Millington, N.; Bryant, G.; Bigger, P. Financing Reparative Climate Infrastructures: Capital Switching, Repair, and Decommodification. Antipode 2022, 54, 934–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ecosystem Marketplace. Ecosystem Marketplace Insights Report: Paying for Quality. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets; Ecosystem Marketplace: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- IEA. Unlocking the Potential of Direct Air Capture: Is Scaling Up through Carbon Markets Possible?—Analysis; IEA: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, A.H.; Whitworth, J.S. Enabling ecological restoration through quantification. In Broken Pumps and Promises: Incentivizing Impact in Environmental Health; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreibich, N.; Hermwille, L. Caught in between: Credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020. Clim. Policy 2021, 21, 939–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Streck, C. How voluntary carbon markets can drive climate ambition. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 2021, 39, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vacchiano, G.; Berretti, R.; Romano, R.; Motta, R. Voluntary carbon credits from improved forest management: Policy guidelines and case study. iFor. Biogeosci. For. 2018, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soto, J.R.; Adams, D.C.; Escobedo, F.J. Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 63, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bustamante, M.; Robledo-Abad, C.; Harper, R.; Mbow, C.; Ravindranat, N.H.; Sperling, F.; Haberl, H.; de Siqueira Pinto, A.; Smith, P. Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 3270–3290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nabuurs, G.J.; Aoki, L.; Germany, J.S.; Tubiello, F.N.; Ayala-Niño, F.; Emmet-Booth, J.P.; Mrabet, R.; Hatab, A.A.; Bustamante, M.; Clark, H.; et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ecklu, J.; Barstow, C.; MacDonald, L.; Fankhauser, K.; Johnson, A.; Adler, I.; Ehrhardt, D.; Thomas, E. Decarbonizing Water: The Potential to Apply the Voluntary Carbon Market toward Global Water Security. ACS ES&T Water 2024, 6, 2655–2666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limb, B.; Quinn, J.; Johnson, A.; Sowby, R.B.; Thomas, E. The potential of carbon markets to accelerate green infrastructure based water quality trading. Commun. Earth Environ. 2024, 5, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, B.; Sowby, R.; Williams, G.P.; Limb, B.; Quinn, J.; Johnson, A.; Thomas, E. Mitigating Wildfire Impact on Water Quality through Climate-Based Financing: A Case Study of the Provo River Watershed. ES&T Under Rev. 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Höglund-Isaksson, L.; Gómez-Sanabria, A.; Klimont, Z.; Rafaj, P.; Schöpp, W. Technical potentials and costs for reducing global anthropogenic methane emissions in the 2050 timeframe—Results from the gains model. Environ. Res. Commun. 2020, 2, 025004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ESRI. USDA Census of Agriculture 2022—Rice Production—Overview; ESRI: Redlands, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Sowby, R.B.; Dicataldo, E. The energy footprint of U.S. irrigation: A first estimate from open data. Energy Nexus 2022, 6, 100066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, B.; Anex, R.; Wang, Y.; Kendall, A.D.; Anctil, A.; Haacker, E.M.; Hyndman, D.W. Trends in Water Use, Energy Consumption, and Carbon Emissions from Irrigation: Role of Shifting Technologies and Energy Sources. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 15329–15337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crooks, S.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Troxler, T.G.; Herold, N.; Bernal, B.; Schile-Beers, L.; Wirth, T. Coastal wetland management as a contribution to the US National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 1109–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Couvillion, B.R.; Steyer, G.D.; Wang, H.; Beck, H.J.; Rybczyk, J.M. Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Plan Technical Analysis. J. Coast. Res. 2013, 67, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BCG. Understanding the Voluntary Carbon Market; BCG: Hong Kong, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- EPA. Energy Efficiency for Water Utilities; EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- Cheng, F.Y.; Van Meter, K.J.; Byrnes, D.K.; Basu, N.B. Maximizing US nitrate removal through wetland protection and restoration. Nature 2020, 588, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- America’s Watershed Initiative. Report Card 2020 Mississippi River Watershed; Technical Report; America’s Watershed Initiative: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Regen Registry. GHG & Co-Benefits in Watershed Carbon v1.0; Regen Registry: Wilmington, DE, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Bladon, K.D.; Emelko, M.B.; Silins, U.; Stone, M. Wildfire and the future of water supply. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8936–8943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USDA ERS. Rice Sector at a Glance; USDA ERS: Washington, DC, USA, 2023.
- Ruess, P.J.; Konar, M.; Wanders, N.; Bierkens, M. Irrigation by Crop in the Continental United States from 2008 to 2020. Water Resour. Res. 2023, 59, e2022WR032804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. World Rice Acreage 2022|Statista; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2024.
- Searchinger, T.; Waite, R. More Rice, Less Methane. 2014. Available online: https://www.wri.org/insights/more-rice-less-methane (accessed on 27 November 2023).
- Verra. VM0042 Methodology for Improved Agricultural Land Management, v2.0; Verra: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Standard, G. Methane Emission Reduction by Adjusted Water Management Practice in Rice Cultivation—Gold Standard for the Global Goals. 2023. Available online: https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/437-luf-agr-methane-emission-reduction-awm-practice-in-rice/ (accessed on 12 August 2023).
- Moore, D.P.; Li, N.P.; Wendt, L.P.; Castañeda, S.R.; Falinski, M.M.; Zhu, J.J.; Song, C.; Ren, Z.J.; Zondlo, M.A. Underestimation of Sector-Wide Methane Emissions from United States Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 4082–4090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pfluger, A.; Coontz, J.; Zhiteneva, V.; Gulliver, T.; Cherry, L.; Cavanaugh, L.; Figueroa, L. Anaerobic digestion and biogas beneficial use at municipal wastewater treatment facilities in Colorado: A case study examining barriers to widespread implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNFCCC. CDM: Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment—Version 19.0; UNFCCC: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- UNFCCC. CDM: Avoidance of Methane Production in Wastewater Treatment through Replacement of Anaerobic Systems by Aerobic Systems—Version 8.0; UNFCCC: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Conservation International; Friends of Ocean Action; ORRAA; Salesforce; The Nature Conservancy; Meridian Institute; World Economic Forum. High-Quality Blue Carbon Principles and Guidance A Triple-Benefit Investment for People, Nature, and Climate. 2022. Available online: https://merid.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/HQBC-PG_FINAL_11.8.2022.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2023).
- Campbell, A.D.; Fatoyinbo, L.; Goldberg, L.; Lagomasino, D. Global hotspots of salt marsh change and carbon emissions. Nature 2022, 612, 701–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lou, J.; Hultman, N.; Patwardhan, A.; Qiu, Y.L. Integrating sustainability into climate finance by quantifying the co-benefits and market impact of carbon projects. Commun. Earth & Environ. 2022, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Climate Action Reserve. U.S. Soil Enrichment Protocol—Climate Action Reserve; Climate Action Reserve: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ecklu, J.; Johnson, A.; Landon, T.; Thomas, E. Leveraging the Voluntary Carbon Market to Improve Water Resilience in the Colorado and Mississippi River Basins. Water 2024, 16, 2578. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16182578
Ecklu J, Johnson A, Landon T, Thomas E. Leveraging the Voluntary Carbon Market to Improve Water Resilience in the Colorado and Mississippi River Basins. Water. 2024; 16(18):2578. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16182578
Chicago/Turabian StyleEcklu, John, Alex Johnson, Tessa Landon, and Evan Thomas. 2024. "Leveraging the Voluntary Carbon Market to Improve Water Resilience in the Colorado and Mississippi River Basins" Water 16, no. 18: 2578. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16182578