Category: Science-Policy Documents

Science-Policy Documents

Report: Charting a Course for Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR): Policy Sequencing in mCDR Development

by Jasmine Yu, Savita Bowman, clearpath, March 2024

This report (1) identifies policies to support each innovation stage of mCDR technologies: early-stage R&D, widescale deployment and commercialization, (2) highlights the growing U.S. federal engagement and resources for mCDR and (3) describes policies that could create the conditions for successful wide-scale mCDR deployment,
dependent on the findings from R&D field trials.

LINK

#
Science-Policy Documents

Envisioning a carbon removal strategy for Europe

Carbon Gap, March 18, 2024

Carbon Gap offers 18 actionable policy recommendations for how the EU could support carbon removal over the next thirty years as part of an EU carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy. The recommendations are spread across four key “pillars” that should be pursued collectively to deliver effective and just CDR: creating fair and inclusive governance, prioritising research, development and innovation, introducing dedicated deployment incentives. The recommendations provided under each of these pillars would help grow the pool of potential CDR methods, test the viability of scaling promising, yet high-cost methods, and secure future demand for CDR.

LINK

#
Science-Policy Documents

Rothkirch et al. (2024): Carbon dioxide removal: A source of ambition or of delays? Examining expectations for CDR in Swiss climate policy

Juanita von Rothkirch, Olivier Ejderyan, Michael Stauffacher IN: Environmental Science & Policy, 103659, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103659

This paper explores the emerging discourse on CDR in Switzerland. The authors examined how the CDR community legitimizes CDR and limits its scope, and what the implications are for emissions mitigation. Switzerland is home to growing businesses in CDR and has pioneered the implementation of international offsetting projects under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement. They found that numerous promises help legitimize and attract interest in CDR. Actors use discursive strategies and rules to limit CDR and avoid disappointment in its contribution to climate mitigation. 

LINK

#
Science-Policy Documents

Grubert & Talati (2023): The distortionary effects of unconstrained for-profit carbon dioxide removal and the need for early governance intervention

Emily Grubert, Shuchi Talati IN: Carbon Management, https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2023.2292111

Governance and institutions, especially related to how CDR is allocated and paid for, will fundamentally shape CDR efforts, including by structurally incentivizing particular approaches and monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) objectives. The authors argue that the emerging tendency toward market-based, unconstrained, and for-profit CDR presents fundamental and predictable risks for climate and justice goals. Such a model incentivizes growth in profitable compensatory removal applications, effectively allocating limited resources based on ability to pay rather than public good, while also increasing the amount of CDR required to meet global climate targets. They describe the need, development context, function, and resource limitations of CDR, then characterize the major challenges with the emerging unconstrained, for-profit governance model.

LINK

#
Science-Policy Documents

Bednar et al. (2023): Beyond emissions trading to a negative carbon economy: a proposed carbon removal obligation and its implementation

Johannes Bednar, Justin Macinante, Artem Baklanov, James Hall, Fabian Wagner, Navraj S. Ghaleigh, Michael Obersteiner IN: Climate Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2276858

A policy framework based on ‘carbon removal obligations’ (CROs) has been proposed to respond to concerns about the financial and fiscal viability, the lack of incentives for CDR uptake, as well as the physical and technological risks associated with any climate mitigation scenario that relies on large scale CDR. Here the authors propose an updated and improved CRO policy framework, consisting of two core elements: the ‘principal CRO mechanism’ obliges emitters of a tonne of CO2 to remove a tonne of CO2 at the time of maturity of the CRO. On top of this obligation, CRO holders need to pay a fee for the temporary storage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

LINK

#
Science-Policy Documents

Nature – Fridahl et al. (2023): Novel carbon dioxide removals techniques must be integrated into the European Union’s climate policies

Mathias Fridahl, Felix Schenuit, Liv Lundberg, Kenneth Möllersten, Miranda Böttcher, Wilfried Rickels, Anders Hansson IN: Communications Earth & Environment, 4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01121-9

The authors argue that the current policy framework neither provides Union-wide economic incentives for novel CO2 removals, nor does it encourage EU Member States to develop national policy incentives. The proposed solutions includes incentivizing removals through a conditional integration into the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), expanding the portfolio of removal methods in the Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation, and to manage anticipations regarding which residual emissions that need to be counterbalanced by removals.

LINK

#
Science-Policy Documents

Nature – Andreoni et al. (2023): Financing negative emissions leads to windfall profits and inequality at net zero

Pietro Andreoni, Johannes Emmerling, Massimo Tavoni IN: Nature Climate Change, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01871-6

Funding large-scale negative emissions through a carbon market designed for traditional emission reduction strategies risks exacerbating long-term economic inequality. The authors suggest exploring alternative financing mechanisms that address this concern and that still ensure decarbonization at reasonable costs.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Lefvert & Grönkvist (2023): Lost in the scenarios of negative emissions: The role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

Adrian Lefvert, Stefan Grönkvist IN: Energy Policy, 113882, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113882

With this policy perspective article the authors question the ongoing discussion about the use of biomass for BECCS with basis in three points: (1) under the enhanced transparency framework under the Paris agreement, all parties to the agreement will use the same guidelines to estimate emissions by sources and removals by sinks, in which the emissions and removals in connection to cultivation of biomass are accounted for in the land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, (2) adding carbon capture to existing processes may lead to a shift in products from that process rather than an increase in biomass use, and (3) BECCS requires substantial financial incentives.

LINK

# ,
Science-Policy Documents

Ghaleigh et al. (2023): Beyond emissions trading to a negative carbon economy: A proposed Carbon Removal Obligation and its implementation

Navraj Singh Ghaleigh, Johannes Bednar, Justin Macinante, Michael Obersteiner IN: Climate Policy, https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/beyond-emissions-trading-to-a-negative-carbon-economy-a-proposed-

A policy framework based on ‘carbon removal obligations’ (CROs) has been proposed by the authors to respond to concerns about the financial and fiscal viability, the lack of incentives for CDR uptake, as well as the physical and technological risks associated with any climate mitigation scenario that relies on large scale CDR. Here the authors propose an updated and improved CRO policy framework, consisting of two core elements: the ‘principal CRO mechanism’ obliges emitters of a tonne of CO2 to remove a tonne of CO2 at the time of maturity of the CRO. On top of this obligation, CRO holders need to pay a fee. This ‘CRO pricing instrument’, introduced in detail here, is used by regulators to steer the carbon emissions and removals pathways. The update suggests that markets for CDR under the CRO framework should operate independently from markets for emission reductions (ERs), such as emission trading schemes.

LINK

#