CTVR Newsfeed for April 6, 2025
Ocean-based carbon capture, why grassfed beef doesn't have lower emissions than feedlot beef, and some silver linings for ESS Tech (GWH) from the Trump tariff cloud
Oceans' ability to absorb carbon dioxide could be key in fighting global warming
Helen Wieffering | The Associated Press
Main Takeaway
Startups and researchers are racing to turn the ocean into a tool for fighting climate change by enhancing its natural carbon-absorbing abilities. But as the number of field trials increase, questions grow around effectiveness, safety, and scale.
Notable Points
A plethora of startups are developing different approaches to harnessing the ocean to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide. Some dump carbon-loving minerals into the ocean, others are sinking organic materials to the bottom of the ocean, yet others use low-energy chemical processes to draw carbon out of the ocean directly. Several of the companies mentioned in this article have been featured in our work in the past.
Planetary Technologies, a startup backed by Elon Musk, is raising money on a promise that dissolving magnesium oxide into seawater will allow oceans absorb more CO₂. I spoke with a company that used the same mineral on farmland to draw down atmospheric CO₂. In the end, I decided not to write about that company because of what I perceived as a problem to scaling the business.
That said, I agree with one of the experts quoted in this article, Katja Fennel, an oceanographer monitoring Planetary’s project that "We need to reduce emissions urgently, drastically.” She points out, as I do, that “Any removal of CO₂ is much more difficult and costly than avoiding emissions in the first place.”
In other words, if we can figure out how to use above-ground carbon for our industrial processes (like Origin Materials and LanzaTech, two firms I have written about for this column) rather than mining fossil carbon from inside the earth, it’s much better.
Other companies involved in ocean capture like Carboniferous and Seafields are experimenting with sinking Sargassum seaweed and sugarcane pulp to the ocean floor to lock away carbon. Seafield’s plan envisions a Sargassum farm over 200 miles wide between Brazil and West Africa. (See the link to our article on Seafields in the Learn More section.)
Another company mentioned in this article, Captura, leverages a physical property of gasses known as Henry’s Law and combines it with some clever engineering to draw carbon directly out of the ocean itself to be sequestered, perhaps down offshore oil wells! (See the link to our article on Capture in the Learn More section.)
CTVR Take
While I love the idea of “Nature-enhancing Solutions” (NeS, my suggested improvement to “Nature-based Solutions”), I am cautious about some of the approaches mentioned here. One scientist quoted in the story, UC Santa Cruz Ocean scientist Adina Paytan, points out that the ocean-based carbon capture field is “…like the Wild West. Everybody is on the bandwagon, everybody wants to do something.” The lack of oversight of projects, some of which turn out to be little more than real-time geoengineering experiments, is sobering to me and worrying to others as well.
Of these approaches, Captura’s seems the least invasive. Seafields is also essentially just planning to grow more of what already grows, so that would be my second choice. At the very bottom of the list is the company looking to dump minerals into the ocean, simply because of its invasiveness.
I believe that if our civilization is to survive and thrive, we need to fundamentally rethink the way we use resources and get smarter about living within our very real and very finite planetary boundaries. Yes, we can create clever technology to suck carbon dioxide out of the air or the oceans. However, even returning our atmosphere to a pre-Industrial CO₂ level, won’t help us if biodiversity in the oceans and on the land crashes more than it already has.
Learn More on CTVR
Brilliant Planet: Pioneering An Unexpected And Brilliant Method Of CDR
Seafields: An Innovative Ocean-Based Nature-Enhancing Solution To Climate Change
Your grass-fed burger is not better for the planet, new study finds
Anna Phillips | Washington Post
Main Takeaway
Much to my dismay, scientists are demonstrating that grass-fed beef isn’t better for the climate than feedlot beef. A new study finds that even after factoring in carbon sequestration in healthy pastures, grass-fed cattle still have a higher carbon footprint than grain-fed cattle—mainly because they live longer and emit more methane over their lifetimes. There is a twist. Read the CTVR Take.
Notable Points
Grain-fed cattle gain weight faster and are slaughtered earlier, leading to lower methane emissions per kilogram of protein compared to grass-fed cattle—even when carbon storage in pasture soil is considered. While feedlots produce less methane, they cause serious air, water, and public health issues, and are widely criticized for being inhumane.
A 2023 study found grass-fed beef had a 42% higher carbon footprint due to the land use required to raise cattle on pasture. The opportunity cost of converting natural ecosystems into grazing land adds a significant climate burden.
The “Natural Is Better” Fallacy: “It really cuts against this common notion that ‘natural’ is best,” said Daniel Blaustein-Rejto of the Breakthrough Institute. More intensive, tech-enabled systems may actually be more climate-friendly.
Carbon Balance Still Doesn’t Add Up: “Accounting for soil sequestration lowers the emissions [of grass-fed beef],” said Gidon Eshel, lead author of the new study. “But it does not under any circumstances make this beef desirable in terms of carbon balance.”
Outside the U.S., cattle are mostly grass-fed. Feedlots aren’t a global fix. Experts say improving grazing efficiency in countries like Brazil and Argentina is the best path forward.
CTVR Take
I have so many Post-It Notes on my wall, each with a different article topic written on it. One of those is an idea to look into the reason why cattle raising is so bad for the planet, was born out of a conversation with Mark Easter, author of The Blue Plate (read my review of the book, linked below).
I spoke with Easter about grass-fed beef and about a revolutionary way of grazing livestock originally developed by an African ecologist named Alan Savory and now practiced worldwide.
Savory found that he could actually restore ecosystems to health by grazing livestock in a very particular way (check out his TED Talk). When I heard about Savory’s work, I got really excited because I thought we could have the best of both worlds—beef for our meals and a healthier ecosystem.
The study mentioned in this article does find that grass-fed pasturing has ecosystem benefits (as Savory contends). However, the amount of methane produced by grass-feed cattle’s longer lives ends up completely offsetting the amount of carbon sequestered naturally in the pasturing process.
No matter the climate effects, pasturing is better for cattle and for the ecosystems in which cattle live. If there is a hell, it looks a lot like a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), and the cattle there live truly terrible, un-cow-like existences. This may be a controversial stand, but in my mind, hunting is the most moral way to harvest animal protein, followed by pasturing. CAFOs are horrendous places that would be shuttered immediately if I had anything to do with it.
My reminder to write an article detailing the reason that cattle create such a large climate burden is written on a Post-It Note on my wall. Be looking forward to it soon!
Learn More on CTVR
How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hobble a U.S. Battery Boom
Brad Plumer | New York Times
Main Takeaway
Almost all battery energy storage systems (BESS) being installed in the U.S. now use lithium-ion batteries. About 70% of all lithium-ion batteries come from China and Mr. Trump’s latest round of tariffs, combined with earlier trade restrictions, will end up imposing a 65% tax on grid-scale batteries from China, a rate that will shoot up to a tariff of over 80% next year.
Notable Points
Readers of CTVR will not be surprised by this news as you will know that Chinese companies have a strangle-hold on the refining and manufacturing of lithium-ion battery cells.
Energy companies were expected to install a record 18.2 gigawatts of battery storage this year, and batteries, wind and solar power were expected to make up 93 percent of new capacity added to the grid in 2025.
Raising the prices of batteries with tariffs will raise the price of energy for everyone in the U.S. More and more renewable generation resources are coming online and without battery storage, these resources cause almost more problems than they solve simply because of timing mismatches. Solar is massively overproduced during the daytime hours and the energy generated by these facilities must be “curtailed” (i.e., thrown away) because daytime energy use is not high.
Utilities make planning decisions years in advance and renewables projects are already being built and commissioned. Given the increase in demand for power for AI data centers, there is a yearslong backlog for gas turbines (used for generating electricity by burning natural gas), so utilities really do not have a Plan B.
Our grid is between a rock and a hard place, and the tariffs make the problem worse.
CTVR Take
One of the big advantages of ESS, the battery company about which I wrote a Venture Review recently (see link below), is based in Portland, Oregon. ESS uses raw materials that can all be sourced domestically—iron, salt, and water are the three main components.
This news is terrible news for companies relying on lithium-ion battery power but it is arguably good news for ESS simply because its raw materials supply chain. That said, many of the mechanical components for ESS batteries are manufactured in China, but this manufacturing is easier to on-shore than the production of lithium-ion batteries.
Another domestic flow battery producer, also based in the Portland area, is Skip Technologies. Skip is developing hydrogen-bromine flow batteries, the raw materials of which are also all produced domestically. You can read about Skip in the article linked below about my trip to the NREL Industry Growth Forum.
There is an Irish saying that “It's an ill wind that blows nobody good.” The tariffs are an ill wind for sure, but, unless I miss my guess, it may blow companies like ESS and Skip some good!
Learn More on CTVR
Batteries Were Big News at NREL’s 2025 Industry Growth Forum
Xerion: Out Of Stealth Mode With A Major Battery Breakthrough
Digital Hyphae
Clean energy spending boosts GOP districts. But lawmakers are keeping quiet as Trump targets incentives | The Guardian
China Curtails More Renewables as Record Additions Stress Grid | Bloomberg
How Lee Zeldin Went From Environmental Moderate to Dismantling the E.P.A. | NY Times
EU capitals push to water down retaliation against Trump tariffs | Financial Times
Mining Company Seeks Trump Support to Shortcut Access to Seabed Metals | NY Times
Gabbard Is Wrong: Climate Change Is a National Security Threat | Bloomberg Op/Ed
How hidden lakes threaten Antarctic ice sheet stability | Phys.org
A Personal Finance Reporter Ponders His Own Climate Change Risk | NY Times
France Proposes EU Carbon Market Changes to Boost Stability | Bloomberg
Arctic sea ice hits record low for its usual peak growth period | Associated Press
Earth’s storage of water in soil, lakes and rivers is dwindling. And it’s especially bad for farming | Associated Press
Fuel Shipments on Rhine River Restricted by Low Water Levels | Bloomberg
China to launch grid-connected car projects to balance power supply | Reuters
A decadelong climate lawsuit saw plaintiffs grow from childhood to adulthood. Now, it's overs | Associated Press
Extreme weather could disrupt China's renewable energy boom | New Scientist
Why Americans Are Adding Home Batteries at a Record Pace | Bloomberg
From deluges to drought: Climate change speeds up water cycle, triggers more extreme weather | Associated Press
How a surprising twist on rewilding could help settle our carbon debt | New Scientist