The maple syrup industry is no exception to the general shift towards sustainable farming practices. Efficiencies in energy and time save resources and costs. 

—

As the agriculture industry continues to adapt to climate change, farmers, researchers, and governments are looking for ways to expand upon and extend sustainable practices to maple syrup production. 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), via the Acer and Development Program (Acer), promotes the sustainability of maple syrup production through competitive research grants of up to $500,000 for individual US states, tribal governments, and research institutions. Likewise, the Canadian government is investing more than CA$1 million through its Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (Sustainable CAP) to support 77 maple syrup producers upgrade their equipment such as reverse osmosis systems and management activities such as tree marking and forest planning. 

There are two unique qualities of the maple syrup industry that are important to understand before diving into how funds like the ones outlined above can help maple syrup production be more sustainable. 

The first is that practically all maple syrup is produced in Canada and the US. The former produces roughly 71% of the world’s maple syrup, of which 91% comes from Quebec. The US produces the remaining, mainly the Northeast and northern Midwest. The market size of the syrup in 2023 was estimated at $1.46 billion. 

The second aspect is that maple syrup producers have a deep-rooted culture of “stewardship” for their sugarbushes – the name for a group of sugar maple trees – that make production inherently sustainable for future generations of farmers. This includes tapping trees according to their age and giving proper time between harvests for regeneration; older trees can sustain more taps than younger trees. Maple syrup tapping also occurs seasonally, typically in late winter to early spring, which makes adapting to climate change and preserving the health of the trees especially important.

How Are Maple Syrup Producers Adapting to Climate Change?

For answers, we can turn to one of the many institutes conducting research on the sustainability of maple syrup production. In the fall of 2022, a team of researchers at the University of Michigan’s School of Environment and Sustainability (SEAS) received a grant of $500,000 from Acer to conduct a life cycle analysis (LCA) on maple syrup production in the US over the span of three years. 

In an interview with Earth.Org, one of the graduate student researchers on the team, Spencer Checkoway, offered some key insights from his team’s research into ways that this unique industry is adapting to climate change. 

Checkoway identified areas of improvement and created models for carbon reduction in the collecting and processing stages of the maple syrup production life-cycle. His team divided maple syrup production into four stages: 

1. Sugarbush maintenance and management;
2. Collection; 
3. Processing & boiling; 
4. Bottling, packaging, and distribution. 

Using surveys and going to on-site locations, Checkoway and the rest of the team found that collection methods varied greatly depending on the size of the sugarbush and whether the producer was a hobbyist or a large-scale producer. His team classified large-scale producers as having roughly 10,000 trees or more in their sugarbush while hobbyists have a wide variety of acreage and trees in their sugarbush. He also mentioned that producers weighed their processing methods based on costs, mainly in time and energy, and the available technology. 

The majority of carbon emissions are released in the processing & boiling and distribution stages. Checkoway explained that “the boiling point of syrup gets higher as you concentrate it because it is a sugar solution, not just water, so the thermodynamic characteristics of the solution change at each concentration level.” 

The general rule of thumb is that it takes about 400,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) or 117 kilowatt-hours (kWh) to produce one gallon of maple syrup. The concentrate is then boiled to a regulated density of no less than 66 °Bx (Brix), in which the concentrate has a 66% sugar content and goes through the Maillard reaction, creating maple syrup’s amber colour. According to the Ohio State University’s College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences, it takes about 43 gallons of maple sap to produce one gallon of maple syrup. 

In 2022, the Canadian government estimated that 17.40 million gallons (104.59 million kilograms) of maple syrup were produced. Producing them required around 2.04 billion kWh of energy. Needless to say, the process is rather complex and requires adequate skills and resources. 

Furthermore, Checkoway’s research slightly modifies these rules and asserts that the energy needed for the boiling point changes due to a change in the solution’s concentration. This consideration is important because it directly affects “the cost of fuel per gallon of syrup for all fuel types.” Cutting down on these costs is important for the sustainable development of the maple syrup industry. 

One specific technology that came up in Earth.Org’s conversation with Checkoway was an electric evaporator. Most evaporators rely on biofuels like wood or fossil fuels like propane gas or diesel. Yet, electric evaporators like CDL’s Master-E are industry innovations that have massive potential to cut emissions and fuel costs. The Master-E can produce a capacity of 2.5 barrels per hour (100 US gallons per hour) for a production cost of around US$4.12 per barrel (40 US gallons), which is based on US$0.15 per kW of energy. 

There are other techniques, such as implementing a vacuum-tubing system in the collection stage and utilising reverse osmosis in the processing stage, which producers use to cut down on emissions, time, and money. Vacuum-tubing systems help producers collect a higher yield of maple sap in a shorter period of time. 

Since maple syrup collection occurs seasonally, producers are looking for ways to maximise their crop yield. Due to advancements in technology, it is now estimated that 80% of a crop can be collected by 20% of operations by the University of Vermont (UVM).

Likewise, reverse osmosis has the potential to seriously cut down on boiling time and emissions. Checkoway emphasised that “reverse osmosis has the potential to reduce evaporator fuel use by 50-80% in most cases, which directly lowers emissions.”  As one of the key findings of the SEAS research team, this specific technique remains an important step to cutting down on emissions and costs.

The Rundown 

While the maple syrup industry, and the agricultural sector as a whole, are not the voracious energy consumers like the transportation or industry sectors, the US and Canadian governments have dedicated some focus on how to cut emissions through grants and other investments. Maple syrup farmers themselves are interested in sustainable farming practices not just for overall environmental and cost-effective reasons, but because climate change is a very real threat to production and livelihoods. The loss of suitable land due to warmer and wetter weather and a lesser quality yield are just two of the concerns producers have. Producers can only adopt what little sustainable practices there are to adapt to the impact of climate change on their own terms. 

Most of the maple syrup producers Checkoway met in his study were enthusiastic about the chance to improve their farming practices. Given the culture of sustainability embedded in the industry, there is reason to be optimistic that farmers will continue to find sustainable and efficient farming practices and hopefully government research grants such as the one provided to Michigan’s SEAS can continue finding new technologies and techniques to sustain our love of maple syrup. 

The post The Sustainability of the Maple Syrup Industry  appeared first on Earth.Org.

The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) has ramped up efforts to address carbon emissions around the world. Earth.Org looks at how the carbon tariff is impacting climate policy in these two Asian countries. 

—

The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) 

The European Union’s (EU) Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a tariff that targets “carbon-leakage” in offshore production of imported goods to the 27-member bloc. Embedded in the European Green Deal (EGD) and the Fit for 55 Package, this policy tool hopes to align global carbon pricing and is vital to the success of the EU’s decarbonisation ambitions. 

It is currently in its transitional phase (2023-2026), with only selected industries – cement, iron and steel, aluminium, fertilisers, electricity and hydrogen – subject to the tariff. After 2026, all imported goods will be subject to the tariff, which is estimated to capture more than 50% of emissions in the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) covered sectors. Based on the ETS model, EU importers are required to purchase CBAM certificates that correspond to the carbon price that would be paid in the EU. 

More on the topic: Explainer: What Is an Emissions Trading Scheme and How Does It Work?

The CBAM is expected to generate an estimated US$9 billion a year by 2030, where part of that revenue will be redistributed to EU member states and other parts to lower-income EU trading partners to “incentivise decarbonisation initiatives.” The CBAM ultimately hopes to both curtail the amount of European companies moving their production offshore and to encourage non-EU countries to invest in green energy and create their own carbon pricing mechanisms.

Impact of CBAM in the Asia-Pacific Region

In February 2024, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) published a report indicating that the CBAM will have a limited impact on carbon emissions and a “modest” negative effect on economies in Asia. The statistical modelling from the report suggests that the CBAM alone might “reduce carbon leakage by around half compared to an ETS scheme with a similar carbon price.” Without regional or country-specific carbon pricing mechanisms, the impact of the EU’s CBAM might be overstated. 

China and India, in particular, have called out the CBAM as a violation of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, and least-developed countries (LDCs) have indicated that the mechanism is discriminatory against countries without adequate carbon pricing measures. 

However, the CBAM is not designed to target countries, but rather individual companies that are offshoring their production. Ever since the EU first proposed the idea back in 2019, and despite criticisms levied against it, many countries have been planning for this shift by investing in renewable energy, pursuing protectionist policies to ensure continued foreign investment, and implementing their own carbon pricing mechanisms. 

Indonesia

As the fourth most populous nation in the world and an “emerging market” where the country’s natural supply of critical minerals will play a vital role in green supply chains, Indonesia’s development will be tethered to global efforts of decarbonisation. Despite undergoing its 16th round of negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), Indonesia and the EU enjoy a resilient trade relationship, where total bilateral trade in 2022 amounted to €32.6 billion (~US$35 billion). In that year, the top EU imports from Indonesia were industrial fatty acids (palm oil derivatives), mineral fuel, footwear, copper, rubber, and flat-rolled stainless steel. Partially due to the EU looking for alternative sources of energy due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the general trend towards greater trade relations, especially in the energy sector, is apparent. 

In order to meet the regulating-effect of the CBAM, Indonesia is pursuing multiple routes to protect their own industries. The Indonesian government has recognised the challenges and opportunities that the EU’s CBAM presents to the Indonesian economy. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in February 2024, Indonesian Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati echoed concerns that members of the Global South are not “in the [same] level playing field” as developed countries when it comes to both global carbon pricing and investments in green energy. Part of Indonesia’s shifting policies to attract foreign investors in green energy comes through job creation laws, tax breaks, and new financing mechanisms such as new Working Areas (WKPs) and Special Purpose Geothermal Working Areas (WPSPEs). 

In addition to attracting foreign investment, Indonesia plans to create two significant carbon pricing measures: a carbon tax regulation and a carbon exchange market (cap-and-trade) called IDXCarbon. 

In April 2022, a carbon tax targeting coal-fired power plants was proposed at around US$2.1 per metric tonne of CO2 equivalent (mtCO2e), though it has been delayed until 2025 amid inflation concerns. 

While this mandatory tax has been sidelined until 2025, Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo launched the IDXCarbon in September 2023. This carbon exchange market is seen as vital to advance Indonesia’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Climate Agreement. The market has seen some activity with state-owned energy company PT Pertamina as the largest seller of some 460,000 mtCO2e on the market as of October 2023. Yet, critics have noted that activity remains relatively low in the voluntary market mainly due to a low demand for carbon credits, which are reflected in the price of carbon at just RP 69,600 (~US$4.50) per mtCO2e. 

Without much activity in the IDXCarbon exchange market and a proposed carbon tax – albeit one that only targets coal-fired power plants – taking a backseat, it is easy to dismiss Indonesia’s efforts to effectively combat climate change within their own borders. It remains to be seen whether Indonesia can keep pace with global carbon pricing mechanisms to protect their own industries from potentially high tariffs. 

Taiwan

Taiwan is another country that has been preparing for the effects of the EU’s CBAM. Like Indonesia, Taiwan is investing heavily in renewable energy, hoping to take advantage of the wind energy potential in the Taiwan Strait. In addition to renewable energy investments, Taiwan has moved forward with two strategies to address carbon pricing, which will have an impact on international carbon tariffs: a recently announced carbon fee on the largest emitters and a newly-established carbon exchange market called the Taiwan Carbon Solution Exchange (TCX). 

Considering that renewable energy accounts for around 10% of Taiwan’s energy mix and the incoming Lai Ching-te administration will likely continue the former administration’s policy of phasing out nuclear energy, investment in renewable energy is crucial to Taiwan’s 2050 net-zero goal. To match carbon reduction ambitions, Taiwan liberalised its energy market in 2017 with an amendment to the Electricity Act. In 2020, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and Danish energy company, Ørsted, signed the largest power purchase agreement (PPA) to secure a 20-year fixed price of renewable energy for TSMC’s fabs in Taiwan. 

The Taiwanese government is well-aware of the significance that TSMC and the rest of the semiconductor industry play in the green energy transition. Attracting foreign investment and awarding infrastructure projects to foreign companies indicate that Taiwan is committed to restructuring its energy mix to match climate ambitions. However, a key part to ensure the success of these investments comes from the creation of a renewable energy market. 

After debating several options for an adequate carbon pricing mechanism, the Ministry of Environment’s Climate Change Administration (CCA) announced a carbon fee will be levied against factories that emit more than 25,000 mtCO2e. The government has “hinted” that the fee will begin at NT$300 (~US$9.5) mtCO2e. The carbon fees will be collected by the Ministry of Environment and likely used for other environmental projects and administrative works. The response from Taiwan’s industry has been less than enthusiastic, citing that countries like China and Japan do not have similar carbon fees. Although much lower than the EU’s ETS price (expected €100/~US$108 for 2026), it is clear that Taiwan predicts a boost in trade and economic relations with the EU by phasing its industry to a nascent carbon pricing mechanism.  

A direct response to the EU’s CBAM is Taiwan’s Carbon Solution Exchange (TCX). On its webpage, which has waves crashing against rocks, reads: “In response to the global trend of net-zero emissions and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) in Europe and the United States,” the TCX is designed to help businesses in Taiwan navigate this new landscape. One of the features of the TCX is an international carbon credit system where domestic companies can purchase carbon credits from “foreign or domestic juridical persons” (Article 3, TCX Trading Rules). To little surprise, electronics manufacturing companies TSMC and Foxconn were some of the largest buyers, collectively purchasing certificates equivalent to some 90,000 mtCO2e at NT$2.49 million (~US$80,000).

Final Thoughts

Regardless of the immediate impact of the EU’s CBAM, the EU will place a carbon tariff on all imported goods after 2026. This will inevitably restructure trade relations between the EU and the Asia-Pacific and how companies navigate a new landscape with a greater focus on the ties between production and carbon emissions. 

While there is a clear disparity in the progress made by Indonesia and Taiwan on a carbon pricing mechanism, both countries are creating policies to protect their domestic manufacturing base while attempting to balance economic development and net-zero goals. Nonetheless, the EU’s CBAM is a one-of-a-kind global carbon pricing mechanism that is already generating policy-oriented solutions to the challenge of how countries can achieve sustainable development. Much like how the EU’s CBAM addresses carbon leakage, the “leaking” constants in policy are investments in renewable energy, addressing the largest polluters with a carbon tax or fee, and a carbon exchange market that helps companies navigate international carbon tariffs. 

You might also like: Explainer: What Is a Carbon Tax, Pros and Cons, and Implementation Around the World

The post Carbon Leakage, Leaking Policies: How the EU’s CBAM Is Impacting Indonesia and Taiwan  appeared first on Earth.Org.