Connect with us

Finance

Carbon markets could finance green wastewater infrastructure for a huge win-win-win

Published

on

Carbon markets could finance green wastewater infrastructure for a huge win-win-win

Green wastewater-treatment infrastructure could save billions of dollars and avert millions of tons of carbon emissions in the United States in the coming decades, according to a new study.

To facilitate this, wastewater treatment could be folded into carbon markets, moving water quality from a local to a globally traded resource, the study suggests.

Conventional wastewater-treatment facilities such as sewage plants that remove nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater are known as “gray” infrastructure. Such facilities currently account for 2% of U.S. energy use and 45 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually.

Wastewater-treatment standards are likely to become more stringent in the future, which will increase the power needed for water treatment, and the corresponding carbon emissions—especially because gray-infrastructure technologies able to meet these standards are energy-intensive and not terribly efficient.

In the new study, researchers investigated the potential for different forms of green wastewater-treatment infrastructure to contribute to water quality standards. Green approaches range from reducing the amount of fertilizer spread on farmland to creating human-made wetlands to filter water before it enters a river.

Advertisement

As well as reducing the need to beef up wastewater treatment plants, such approaches could address non-point source pollution from fertilizer runoff, urban development, and wildfires.

 

 

The researchers gathered data on nutrients coming into more than 22,000 wastewater treatment facilities throughout the contiguous United States. Then they calculated the emissions, costs, and treatment capabilities of standard wastewater treatment plants compared to green infrastructure of various sorts.

Utilities in the United States are already allowed to trade point-source for non-point source water quality improvements. But these mechanisms haven’t been used very widely. So the researchers investigated the potential for carbon markets to provide a source of capital to finance green wastewater infrastructure.

Advertisement

Essentially this approach would trade on the carbon-reducing potential of green infrastructure, with the water quality benefits coming along for the ride.

Green wastewater-treatment infrastructure could save $15.6 billion and 30 million metric tons of carbon emissions over four decades, the researchers report in the journal Nature Communications Earth & Environment.

Green wastewater infrastructure designed to achieve the most stringent water quality standards could sequester more than 4.2 million metric tons of carbon emissions per year and generate revenue of $679 million per year via carbon markets.

The main limitation on green treatment methods’ ability to remove nutrients is a lack of agricultural land in some areas, and the fact that not all green technologies can be used in all areas. “While green treatment methods can only treat less than 40% of nitrogen and 25% of phosphorus needed in the United States, this would still represent a large decrease in infrastructure compared to the scenario where green treatment methods are not used,” the researchers write.

Green wastewater-treatment infrastructure has lower carbon emissions than gray infrastructure in every water basin across the country—although it is not carbon-negative everywhere.

Advertisement

Nor are green treatment technologies cheaper than gray ones everywhere. But when potential carbon financing revenues are accounted for, basins where green technologies are cheaper account for 94.6% of nitrogen and 91.9% of phosphorus treated in the contiguous United States. Much of the cost of green infrastructure comes from the need to pay farmers to implement the technologies, in some cases yearly.

“As the grid evolves with less environmental impact, carbon credits generated by offsetting gray infrastructure with green infrastructure will be reduced,” the researchers write, “which mean that the window of opportunity for leveraging carbon markets to incentivize a shift from gray to green infrastructure may be limited.” They are now conducting additional studies to develop the carbon-credit methodology.

Source: Limb B.J. et al. “The potential of carbon markets to accelerate green infrastructure based water quality trading.” Communications Earth & Environment 2024.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

Our work is available free of charge and advertising. We rely on readers like you to keep going. Donate Today

Advertisement

Finance

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Published

on

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.

Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.

Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.

As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.

He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.

Advertisement

Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.

Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.

As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.

Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.

In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.

Advertisement

“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”

—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.

Continue Reading

Finance

Where in California are people feeling the most financial distress?

Published

on

Where in California are people feeling the most financial distress?

Inland California’s relative affordability cannot always relieve financial stress.

My spreadsheet reviewed a WalletHub ranking of financial distress for the residents of 100 U.S. cities, including 17 in California. The analysis compared local credit scores, late bill payments, bankruptcy filings and online searches for debt or loans to quantify where individuals had the largest money challenges.

When California cities were divided into three geographic regions – Southern California, the Bay Area, and anything inland – the most challenges were often found far from the coast.

The average national ranking of the six inland cities was 39th worst for distress, the most troubled grade among the state’s slices.

Bakersfield received the inland region’s worst score, ranking No. 24 highest nationally for financial distress. That was followed by Sacramento (30th), San Bernardino (39th), Stockton (43rd), Fresno (45th), and Riverside (52nd).

Advertisement

Southern California’s seven cities overall fared better, with an average national ranking of 56th largest financial problems.

However, Los Angeles had the state’s ugliest grade, ranking fifth-worst nationally for monetary distress. Then came San Diego at 22nd-worst, then Long Beach (48th), Irvine (70th), Anaheim (71st), Santa Ana (85th), and Chula Vista (89th).

Monetary challenges were limited in the Bay Area. Its four cities average rank was 69th worst nationally.

San Jose had the region’s most distressed finances, with a No. 50 worst ranking. That was followed by Oakland (69th), San Francisco (72nd), and Fremont (83rd).

The results remind us that inland California’s affordability – it’s home to the state’s cheapest housing, for example – doesn’t fully compensate for wages that typically decline the farther one works from the Pacific Ocean.

Advertisement

A peek inside the scorecard’s grades shows where trouble exists within California.

Credit scores were the lowest inland, with little difference elsewhere. Late payments were also more common inland. Tardy bills were most difficult to find in Northern California.

Bankruptcy problems also were bubbling inland, but grew the slowest in Southern California. And worrisome online searches were more frequent inland, while varying only slightly closer to the Pacific.

Note: Across the state’s 17 cities in the study, the No. 53 average rank is a middle-of-the-pack grade on the 100-city national scale for monetary woes.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Why Chime Financial Stock Surged Nearly 14% Higher Today | The Motley Fool

Published

on

Why Chime Financial Stock Surged Nearly 14% Higher Today | The Motley Fool

The up-and-coming fintech scored a pair of fourth-quarter beats.

Diversified fintech Chime Financial (CHYM +12.88%) was playing a satisfying tune to investors on Thursday. The company’s stock flew almost 14% higher that trading session, thanks mostly to a fourth quarter that featured notably higher-than-expected revenue guidance.

Sweet music

Chime published its fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results just after market close on Wednesday. For the former period, the company’s revenue was $596 million, bettering the same quarter of 2024 by 25%. The company’s strongest revenue stream, payments, rose 17% to $396 million. Its take from platform-related activity rose more precipitously, advancing 47% to $200 million.

Image source: Getty Images.

Meanwhile, Chime’s net loss under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) more than doubled. It was $45 million, or $0.12 per share, compared with a fourth-quarter 2024 deficit of $19.6 million.

Advertisement

On average, analysts tracking the stock were modeling revenue below $578 million and a deeper bottom-line loss of $0.20 per share.

In its earnings release, Chime pointed to the take-up of its Chime Card as a particular catalyst for growth. Regarding the product, the company said, “Among new member cohorts, over half are adopting Chime Card, and those members are putting over 70% of their Chime spend on the product, which earns materially higher take rates compared to debit.”

Chime Financial Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(12.88%) $2.72

Current Price

$23.83

Advertisement

Double-digit growth expected

Chime management proffered revenue and non-GAAP (adjusted) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) guidance for full-year 2026. The company expects to post a top line of $627 million to $637 million, which would represent at least 21% growth over the 2024 result. Adjusted EBITDA should be $380 million to $400 million. No net income forecasts were provided in the earnings release.

It isn’t easy to find a niche in the financial industry, which is crowded with companies offering every imaginable type of service to clients. Yet Chime seems to be achieving that, as the Chime Card is clearly a hit among the company’s target demographic of clientele underserved by mainstream banks. This growth stock is definitely worth considering as a buy.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending