What You Need to Know About Carbon Inset, Offsets, And Options
In the realm of environmental responsibility, carbon offsetting and insetting have become common ways for companies and organizations to mitigate their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon offsetting involves compensating for unavoidable GHG emissions by funding equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2) or GHG-saving projects elsewhere. On the other hand, insetting focuses on internal emissions reductions within a company’s own value or supply chain. Let's explore these concepts, their controversies, and their relevance to Lucent Bio.
What is the difference between insetting and offsetting?
Carbon offsetting is widely used by companies and organizations globally to mitigate their GHG emissions. The ultimate goal behind carbon offsetting is to help meet GHG emissions targets by balancing the emissions produced at an entity’s facilities or through its operations with an equivalent reduction or removal of emissions elsewhere. This route is often selected by organizations that find it difficult or excessively costly to reduce their own emissions directly. By purchasing carbon offsets, they effectively fund projects that contribute to global emissions reductions. These offsets can be generated through various projects, including afforestation, reforestation, and energy efficiency initiatives.
Unlike carbon offsetting, which involves investing in external projects to compensate for emissions produced directly by an entity, carbon insetting focuses on emissions reductions within the company's operations or supply chain. Carbon insetting typically involves identifying emission reduction opportunities within the company's operations or supply chain and implementing projects to address them typically with business partners and customers. These efforts could include projects at an entity’s own operations - e.g. energy efficiency improvements - and projects with its supply chain partners. For instance, a given firm could work with its delivery contractors to switch to more sustainable vehicles, while a food producer could help its partner growers adopt more sustainable agricultural practices.
(Image source: https://carbonwise.co/carbon-offsetting-vs-carbon-insetting/)
What is the controversy over offsetting and its potential impacts on Lucent Bio’s mission?
Despite its widespread adoption, carbon offsetting continues to face criticism due to concerns that it allows companies to claim emission reductions without fundamentally altering their operations. While offset projects may cancel out emissions in one area, critics are concerned that they may not actually lead to a net reduction in emissions entering the atmosphere. A number of high-profile offset projects have been accused of overestimating their carbon benefits, casting doubts on the effectiveness of offsetting practices.
Lucent Bio is deeply committed to environmental responsibility. While Lucent Bio itself does not aim to be a carbon offset project developer, it is sharing the environmental attributes of its products with business partners and customers who are interested in offsets, insets, or both. To that end, Lucent Bio has engaged third-party experts to: 1) quantify how much better the environmental footprints of its technologies are compared to existing alternatives and 2) to assess the carbon offset potential from the use of its Soileos technology. These estimates, outlined in Lucent’s Environmental Footprint white paper (Read Here), underscore Lucent's dedication to sustainability and innovation in agriculture.
The Carbon Footprint of Fertilizer Manufacturing
A comprehensive review of sustainable agricultural practices requires the examination of the carbon footprint of typical fertilizer manufacturing. Traditional nitrogen fertilizers like urea and ammonium nitrate have significant carbon footprints, both from their manufacture and their use.
Fertilizer Europe has analyzed the carbon footprint of the most commonly used macronutrient fertilizers across different regions and types. The table provided below offers insights into the spectrum of carbon footprint attributed to three frequently utilized nitrogen fertilizers.
(Table source: https://www.fertilizerseurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Fertilizer-Carbon-Footprint-Calculator-Fertilizer-Focus-Magazine.pdf)
Soileos increases the efficiency of using such GHG-intensive agricultural inputs, in turn both reducing the amount produced and related manufacturing emissions, and reducing the amount of nitrogen applied that is excess to crop needs. The IPCC estimates that 1% of nitrogen applied to crops is converted to N2O, a greenhouse gas almost 300 times as potent as CO2. Therefore, because Soileos increases the amount of crops grown using the same amount of N, the amount of N2O per tonne of crop produced is reduced.
Soileos: Redefining Sustainability in Agriculture
Soileos uses cellulose derived from upcycled crop processing co-products (pea and lentil hulls, oat husks, etc.) as a natural carbon-rich substrate to deliver such essential crop nutrients as zinc and iron to the soil. Soileos promotes soil microbial activity, leading to improved soil health and enhanced crop yields. Additionally, its manufacturing process emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases and air pollutants than the production of existing technologies, making it a sustainable choice for environmentally conscious growers. In addition to having a lower-impact manufacturing process, Soileos enhances crop yields, fosters soil health and performance, and serves as an eco-friendly alternative to existing synthetic micronutrient fertilizers.
Understanding and employing carbon offsetting and insetting can progress environmental stewardship within the agricultural industry. Lucent Bio's dedication to sustainability is demonstrated by the creation of such pioneering solutions as Soileos, a technology that helps mitigate climate change and that contributes to more sustainable agriculture.
Read more about Soileos Enivronmental Footprint in our whitepaper. Download now👇
