Search

Could carbon financing boost green wastewater treatment?

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

24 Apr, 2024

This post was originally published on Sustainability Matters

Researchers from Colorado State University have explored the potential of using carbon financing to fund green wastewater-treatment approaches that go beyond existing greywater treatment practices.

Carbon financing is the mechanism by which companies will voluntarily buy ‘carbon credits’ on an open market in order to offset their own emissions. These credits represent a reduction or removal of carbon from the atmosphere that can be accomplished in a variety of ways (eg, tree planting, renewable energy projects, carbon sequestration).

Based on data collected at over 22,000 facilities, the report from Colorado’s Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering explored the relationship between emissions, costs and treatment capabilities for utility operators and decision-makers. It found that if carbon financing were to subsidise green infrastructure and technology solutions, this could save US$15.6 billion and just under 30 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions over 40 years. The findings have been published in Nature Communications Earth and Environment.

The work examined both point-source water treatment and non-point sources of water pollution.

Traditional point-source water treatment facilities — or ‘grey-infrastructure’ systems — such as sewage plants remove problem nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus before releasing water back into circulation. Existing facilities already account for 2% of all energy use in the US and 45 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, according to Braden Limb, first author on the paper and a PhD student in the Department of Systems Engineering.

A significant source of freshwater contamination in the US comes from non-point source activity such as fertiliser runoff from agriculture entering rivers. Other non-point sources of pollution can come from wildfires — aided by climate change — or urban development, for example.

Limb said that rather than building more grey-infrastructure treatment facilities to address these growing issues, the paper explores green approaches financed through carbon markets that can tackle both types simultaneously.

“There could be a switch to nature-based solutions such as constructing wetlands or reforestation instead of building yet another treatment facility,” he said. “Those options could sequester over 4.2 million carbon dioxide emissions per year over a 40-year time horizon and have other complementary benefits we should be aiming for, such as cheaper overall costs.”

While there are financing markets for water that operate in a similar way to carbon financing, water has the challenge of being more localised than air quality and carbon — something that has limited the value of water market trades in the past. The paper suggests that these existing markets could be improved, and that carbon markets could also be leveraged to change some of the financial incentives farmers have around water treatment and impacts from their activity.

The researchers found that using the markets could generate $679 million annually in revenue, representing an opportunity to further motivate green infrastructure solutions within water quality trading programs to meet regulated standards.

“These findings draw a line in the sand that shows what the potential for adopting green approaches in this space is — both in terms of money saved and total emissions reduced,” said Braden Limb, first author on the paper and a PhD student in the Department of Systems Engineering.

“It is a starting point to understand what routes are available to us now and how financing strategies can elevate water treatment from a somewhat local issue into something that is addressed globally through market incentives.”

Mechanical Engineering Professor Jason Quinn, a co-author on the study, said the findings had some limitations, but were an important first step in modelling both the problem and opportunity available now. He said the results in the paper have supported new research at CSU with the National Science Foundation to further develop the needed carbon credit methodology with stakeholders.

“This is the first time we are considering air and water quality simultaneously — water is local and carbon is global,” he said. “But by bringing these market mechanisms together we can capitalise on a window of opportunity to accelerate the improvement of America’s rivers as we transition to a renewable energy and restored watershed future.”

Image caption: The Big Thompson River in Rocky Mountain National Park. Image credit: Colorado State University.

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

In June, I had the privilege of attending the 2025 E-Waste World, Battery Recycling, Metal Recycling, and ITAD & Circular Electronics Conference & Expo events in Frankfurt, Germany.

Speaking in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track on a panel with global Circular Economy leaders from Foxway Group, ERI and HP, we explored the evolving role of IT asset disposition (ITAD) and opportunities in the circular electronics economy.

The event’s focus on advancing circular economy goals and reducing environmental impact delivered a series of insights and learnings. From this assembly of international expertise across 75+ countries, here are some points from the presentations that stood out for me:

1. Environmental impact of the digital economy

Digitalisation has a heavy material footprint in the production phase, and lifecycle thinking needs to guide every product decision. Consider that 81% of the energy a laptop uses in its lifetime is consumed during manufacture (1 tonne in manufacture is equal to 10,000 tonnes of CO2) and laptops are typically refreshed or replaced by companies every 3–4 years.

From 2018 to 2023, the average number of devices and connections per capita in the world increased by 50% (2.4 to 3.6). In North America (8.2 to 13.4) and Western Europe (5.6 to 9.4), this almost doubled. In 1960, only 10 periodic table elements were used to make phones. In 1990, 27 elements were used and now over 60 elements are used to build the smartphones that we have become so reliant on.

A key challenge is that low-carbon and digital technologies largely compete for the same minerals. Material resource extraction could increase 60% between 2020 and 2060, while demand for lithium, cobalt and graphite is expected to rise by 500% until 2050.

High growth in ICT demand and Internet requires more attention to the environmental footprint of the digital economy. Energy consumption of data centres is expected to more than double by 2026. The electronics industry accounts for over 4% of global GHG — and digitalisation-related waste is growing, with skewed impacts on developing countries.

E-waste is rising five times faster than recycling — 1 tonne of e-waste has a carbon footprint of 2 tonnes. Today’s solution? ‘Bury it or burn it.’ In terms of spent emissions, waste and the costs associated with end-of-life liabilities, PCBAs (printed circuit board assembly) cost us enormously — they generally achieve 3–5% recyclability (75% of CO2 in PCBAs is from components).

2. Regulating circularity in electronics

There is good momentum across jurisdictions in right-to-repair, design and labelling regulations; recycling targets; and voluntary frameworks on circularity and eco-design.

The EU is at the forefront. EU legislation is lifting the ICT aftermarket, providing new opportunities for IT asset disposition (ITAD) businesses. To get a sense, the global market for electronics recycling is estimated to grow from $37 billion to $108 billion (2022–2030). The value of refurbished electronics is estimated to increase from $85.9 billion to $262.2 billion (2022–2032). Strikingly, 40% of companies do not have a formal ITAD strategy in place.

Significantly, the EU is rethinking its Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) management targets, aligned with upcoming circularity and WEEE legislation, as part of efforts to foster the circular economy. A more robust and realistic circularity-driven approach to setting collection targets would better reflect various factors including long lifespans of electronic products and market fluctuations.

Australia and New Zealand lag the EU’s comprehensive e-waste mandated frameworks. The lack of a systematic approach results in environmental degradation and missed positioning opportunities for businesses in the circular economy. While Australia’s Senate inquiry into waste reduction and recycling recommended legislating a full circular economy framework — including for imported and local product design, financial incentives and regulatory enforcement, New Zealand remains the only OECD country without a national scheme to manage e-waste.

3. Extending product lifecycles

Along with data security and digital tools, reuse was a key theme in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track of the conference. The sustainable tech company that I lead, Greenbox, recognises that reuse is the simplest circular strategy. Devices that are still functional undergo refurbishment and are reintroduced into the market, reducing new production need and conserving valuable resources.

Conference presenters highlighted how repair over replacement is being legislated as a right in jurisdictions around the world. Resources are saved, costs are lowered, product life is extended, and people and organisations are empowered to support a greener future. It was pointed out that just 43% of countries have recycling policies, 17% of global waste is formally recycled, and less than 1% of global e-waste is formally repaired and reused.

Right to repair is a rising wave in the circular economy, and legislation is one way that civil society is pushing back on programmed obsolescence. Its global momentum continues at different speeds for different product categories — from the recent EU mandates to multiple US state bills (and some laws) through to repair and reuse steps in India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The European Commission’s Joint Research Commission has done a scoping study to identify product groups under the Ecodesign framework that would be most relevant for implementing an EU-wide product reparability scoring system.

Attending this event with the entire electronic waste recycling supply chain — from peers and partners to suppliers and customers — underscored the importance of sharing best practices to address the environmental challenges that increased hardware proliferation and complex related issues are having on the world.

Ross Thompson is Group CEO of sustainability, data management and technology asset lifecycle management market leader Greenbox. With facilities in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, Greenbox Group provides customers all over the world a carbon-neutral supply chain for IT equipment to reduce their carbon footprint by actively managing their environmental, social and governance obligations.

Image credit: iStock.com/Mustafa Ovec

0 Comments