Kategorie: Political Papers

Carton et al. (2023): Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Wim Carton, Inge-Merete Hougaard, Nils Markusson, Jens Friis Lund IN: Wires Climate Change, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.826

Carbon dioxide removal is rapidly becoming a key focus in climate research and politics. This is raising concerns of “moral hazard” or “mitigation deterrence,” that is, the risk that promises of and/or efforts to pursue carbon removal end up reducing or delaying near-term mitigation efforts. Some, however, contest this risk, arguing that it is overstated or lacking evidence. In this review, te authors explore the reasons behind the disagreement in the literature.

LINK

Powis et al. (2023): Quantifying global carbon dioxide removal deployment

Carter M Powis, Stephen M Smith, Jan C Minx, Thomas Gasser IN: Environmental Research Letters, DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/acb450

It is not known how much CDR is currently deployed at a global scale, nor how that compares to mitigation scenario estimates. Here, the authors address this problem by developing an estimate of global current CDR activity. They draw on national greenhouse gas inventory data combined with CDR registries and commercial databases to estimate that global anthropogenic activity presently generates ~1985 MtCO2yr-1 of atmospheric removals. To conclude the authors discuss uncertainties related to their estimates, and suggest priorities for the future collection and management of CDR data, particularly related to the role of the land sink in generating CDR.

LINK

Sovacool et al. (2023): Reviewing the sociotechnical dynamics of carbon removal

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Chad M. Baum, Sean Low IN: Joule 7 (1), pp. 57-82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.11.008

This study offers a sociotechnical assessment of seven carbon-removal options—afforestation and reforestation, soil carbon sequestration, marine biomass and blue carbon, direct air capture with carbon storage, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, enhanced weathering, and biochar—based on an extensive synthesis of the current literature. From this evidence base, it investigates four specific dimensions critical to the future deployment and governance of carbon removal, cutting across modeling, social acceptance, innovation, and policy. The study also reveals ongoing focus of these areas as well as of topics and themes insufficiently considered.

LINK

Report: Smith et al. (2023) – The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal – 1st Edition

Smith,, S. M., Geden, O., Nemet, G.F., Gidden, M.J., Lamb, W.F., Powis, C., Bellamy, R., Callaghan, M.W., Cowie, A, Cox, E., Fuss, S., Gasser, T., Grassi, G., Greene, J., Lück, S., Mohan, A., Müller-Hansen, F., Peters, G. P., Pratama, Y., Repke, T., Riahi, K., Schenuit, F., Steinhauser, J., Strefler, J., Valenzuela, J.M., Minx, J.C., 2023, 108 pp., https://www.stateofcdr.org

The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report is the first global assessment of the state of CDR. They find a gap between proposed CDR deployment and what will be needed to meet the Paris temperature goal to limit warming to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to achieve 1.5°C. This report is intended to regularly inform researchers, policymakers and practitioners on the state of progress, by systematically collecting and analysing the vast amount of data and developments in many parts of the world.  The authors aim to build a community, bridge data gaps and support the scale up of CDR responsibly and equitably.

LINK

Cobo et al. (2022): Sustainable scale-up of negative emissions technologies and practices: where to focus

Selene Cobo, Valentina Negri, Antonio Valente, David M Reiner, Lorie Hamelin, Niall Mac Dowell, Gonzalo Guillén-Gosálbez IN: Environmental Research letters, DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/acacb3

The authors evaluated 36 NETPs configurations considering their technical maturity, economic feasibility, greenhouse gas removal potential, resource use, and environmental impacts. They found multiple trade-offs among these indicators, which suggests that a regionalised portfolio of NETPs exploiting their complementary strengths is the way forward. Although no single NETP is superior to the others in terms of all the indicators simultaneously, the authors identified 16 Pareto-efficient NETPs.

LINK

Proelß (2022): Marine CO2-Entnahmetechniken im deutschen Recht

Alexander Proelß IN: Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht; EurUP 3/2022 (Jg. 20), Seite 321 – 332; in German

This article examines Germany’s regulation of ocean-based negative emissions technologies and demonstrates the legislature’s domestic implementation of the London Protocol and its 2013 amendment on “marine geoengineering.” This article notes that the German legislature has deviated from the regulatory approach of the 2013 amendment, adopting even stricter requirements to be applied in the context of negative emissions technologies in German waters. In doing so, it provides a comprehensive analysis of the classification, exceptions and permit procedure (potentially) applicable in the case of specific carbon removal activities, including ocean fertilization, artificial upwelling, and seaweed cultivation. By providing a timely examination of the overlap and nuances involved in Germany’s domestic regulation of ocean-based negative emissions technologies, the article stresses that a complete understanding of the different applicable domestic Acts is necessary for an accurate evaluation of the legality of any particular carbon dioxide removal activity.

LINK

Yuwono et al. (2023): Doing burden-sharing right to deliver natural climate solutions for carbon dioxide removal

Bintang Yuwono, Ping Yowargana, Sabine Fuss, Bronson W. Griscom, Pete Smith, Florian Kraxner IN: Nature-Based Solutions 3, 100048, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100048

The authors employ a diverse set of allocation methods on a wide range of global emissions scenarios to address equitability and uncertainty in sharing the burden of climate change mitigation. They further focus on tropical developing countries due to their large potential for natural climate solutions (NCS) that deliver CDR.

LINK

PhD-thesis: The implications of the Paris Agreement on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) – techno-economics, potential, efficiency and permanence of CDR pathways

Solene Chiquier, 2022, Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London

This thesis investigates the spatio-temporal deployment of portfolios of archetypal CDR technologies and practices — namely afforestation/reforestation, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), biochar, direct air capture of CO2 with storage (DACCS), and enhanced weathering (EW) —, and seeks to provide insights into their techno-economics, potential, efficiency and permanence.

LINK

Paul et al. (2023): Carbon farming: Are soil carbon certificates a suitable tool for climate change mitigation?

Carsten Paul, Bartosz Bartkowski, Cenk Dönmez, Axel Don, Stefanie Mayer, Markus Steffens, Sebastian Weigl, Martin Wiesmeier, André Wolf, Katharina Helming IN: Journal of Environmental Management 330, 117142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117142

In this paper, the authors assess the suitability of these certificates as an instrument for climate change mitigation. From a soils‘ perspective, they address processes of soil organic carbon (SOC) enrichment, their potentials and limits, and options for cost-effective measurement and monitoring. From a farmers’ perspective, the authors assess management options likely to increase SOC, and discuss their synergies and trade-offs with economic, environmental and social targets. From a governance perspective, the authors address requirements to guarantee additionality and permanence while preventing leakage effects. Furthermore, they address questions of legitimacy and accountability.

LINK

Perdana et al. (2023): Expert perceptions of game-changing innovations towards net zero

Sigit Perdana, Georgios Xexakis, Konstantinos Koasidis, Marc Vielle, Alexandros Nikas, Haris Doukas, Ajay Gambhir, Annela Anger-Kraavi, Elin May, Ben McWilliams, Baptiste Boitier IN: Energy Strategy Reviews 45, 101022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.101022

The authors evaluate innovations from the experts‘ perspective, aiming to support the design of realistic decarbonisation scenarios and better-informed net-zero policy strategies. In a worldwide survey, 260 climate and energy experts assessed transformative innovations against their mitigation potential, at-scale availability and/or widescale adoption, and risk of delayed diffusion. Hierarchical clustering and multi-criteria decision-making revealed differences in perceptions of core technological innovations, with next-generation energy storage, alternative building materials, iron-ore electrolysis, and hydrogen in steelmaking emerging as top priorities.

LINK