Toward the effective and fair funding of CO2 removal technologies

Honegger, Matthias

doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36199-4

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the least, there is a need to assess the evolving guidance of the Paris Agreement (Articles 6.2 and 6.4) on how carbon allowances might be transferred between countries or actors 81 . Prospects on transnational supply chains 19 or global financing 82 are the subject of nascent study. Further questions include how carbon removal presents opportunities to increase the carbon budget, and thereby redistribute ‘fair shares’ of emissions reductions, financing, and compensation between global North and global South countries 83 , 84 , or negotiating the differences internationally between subsistence versus luxury emissions, as well as residual or hard-to-abate emissions 39 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries

Low,

Fritz,

Baum

et al. 2024

Nat Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon removal is emerging as a pillar of governmental and industry commitments toward achieving Net Zero targets. Drawing from 44 focus groups in 22 countries, we map technical and societal issues that a representative sample of publics raise on five major types of carbon removal (forests, soils, direct air capture, enhanced weathering, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), and how these translate to preferences for governance actors, mechanisms, and rationales. We assess gaps and overlaps between a global range of public perceptions and how carbon removal is currently emerging in assessment, innovation, and decision-making. In conclusion, we outline key societal expectations for informing assessment and policy: prioritize public engagement as more than acceptance research; scrutiny and regulation of industry beyond incentivizing innovation; systemic coordination across sectors, levels, and borders; and prioritize underlying causes of climate change and interrelated governance issues.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries

Low,

Fritz,

Baum

et al. 2024

Nat Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Policies and funding are to date inadequate in relation to the future need for the multi-billion-ton scale of CDR. While governments, potentially inspired by strong coalitions of climate leaders, have to take responsibility for funding CO 2 removal at scale 49,50 , carbon markets have the potential to create early market signals and support diffusion of CDR technology, thereby supporting development and deployment of CDR 9,51 . Voluntary use of CRCs can contribute to that end 52 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demystifying Carbon Removals in the Context of Sub-Global Net-Zero Targets

Pehrs,

Ahonen,

Spalding-Fecher

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concepts of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and GHG-neutrality are emerging as fundamental principles for initiatives to address climate change ranging from the global to the corporate scale. Offsetting emissions by using carbon credits features in many sub-global net-zero and GHG-neutrality claims and pledges. This paper shows that regardless of whether a sub-global entity offsets its emissions using carbon credits based on GHG emission reductions or removals, the outcome in terms of impact on net global GHG emissions is the same. Despite this, assertions that the use of carbon credits based on emission reductions is insufficient in the context of offsetting emissions for net-zero claims at sub-global scales are gaining acceptance. This article argues that such assertions are based on an incorrect setting of assessment boundaries and related misconceptions. Path choices for the share of carbon credit demand from emission reductions versus removals have important implications for the possibility to reach global climate goals and should be guided by the robust application of relevant GHG accounting principles. The results presented in this article have fundamental implications for what kind of GHG mitigation action may be considered adequate in relation to entities’ claims concerning making no contribution to net accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere.

show abstract

“…The Direct pathway has certain disadvantages over the Spillover one since the product of DACCS-carbon removal certificates-are currently only traded on voluntary carbon removal markets, which are very limited in size and currently dominated by cheaper biochar-based certificates [31,94]. While these markets are expected to grow to 60-750 MtCO 2 by 2040 [95], without further policy support, the demand for DACCS will unlikely grow at the pace needed, as only few buyers are willing to pay for the current price of DACCS.…”

Section: Marketsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While these markets are expected to grow to 60-750 MtCO 2 by 2040 [95], without further policy support, the demand for DACCS will unlikely grow at the pace needed, as only few buyers are willing to pay for the current price of DACCS. Policy-driven expansions and modifications of compliance markets are therefore needed for the Direct pathway to access larger market [30,31,96], as existing emission trading schemes do not recognize DACCS certificates and the prevailing emission prices do not serve as adequate incentives [97]. Both access to and competitiveness of DACCS relative to other carbon removal methods on compliance carbon markets depend fully on public policies.…”

Section: Marketsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Utilizing CO₂ as a strategy to scale up direct air capture may face fewer short-term barriers than directly storing CO₂

Brazzola,

Moretti,

Sievert

et al. 2024

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct Air Capture (DAC) is increasingly recognized as a necessary puzzle piece to achieve the Paris climate targets. However, the current high cost and energy intensity of DAC act as a barrier. Short-term strategies for initial deployment, technology improvement, and cost reduction are needed to enable large-scale deployment. We assess and compare two near-term pathways leading to the same installed DAC capacity and thus yielding the same cost reductions: its combination with CO2 storage as DACCS, or its deployment for CO2 utilization as DACCU e.g., for synthetic fuels, chemicals, and materials; we characterize these as Direct and Spillover pathways. Drawing on the Multi-level Perspective on Technological Transition as a heuristic, we examine both technical and immaterial factors needed to scale up DAC under the two pathways, in order to assess the pathways’ relative advantages and to identify possible short-term bottlenecks. We find neither pathway to be clearly better: the Direct pathway offers technical advantages but faces regulatory barriers that need to be resolved before deployment, while the Spillover pathway offers market and governance advantages but faces challenges related to hydrogen production and increasing resource needs as it scales up. There may be reasons for policymakers to therefore pursue both approaches in a dynamic manner. This could involve prioritizing the Spillover pathway in the short term due to possibly fewer short-term regulatory barriers and its ability to produce net-zero emission products for existing and accessible markets. Once short-term governance obstacles have been addressed, however, the Direct pathway may allow for more efficient scaling of DAC capacity and cost reductions, especially if by then the needed infrastructure and institutions are in place.

show abstract

Toward the effective and fair funding of CO2 removal technologies

Abstract: Carbon dioxide removal technologies are gaining prominence in academia, industry and policy, yet the need for substantial funding raises serious challenges. This comment outlines these issues and charts a path for the effective, systematic and fair mobilization of funds for removals.

Cited by 16 publications

References 7 publications

Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries

Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries

Demystifying Carbon Removals in the Context of Sub-Global Net-Zero Targets

Utilizing CO₂ as a strategy to scale up direct air capture may face fewer short-term barriers than directly storing CO₂

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Toward the effective and fair funding of CO2 removal technologies

Abstract: Carbon dioxide removal technologies are gaining prominence in academia, industry and policy, yet the need for substantial funding raises serious challenges. This comment outlines these issues and charts a path for the effective, systematic and fair mobilization of funds for removals.

Cited by 16 publications

References 7 publications

Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries

Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries

Demystifying Carbon Removals in the Context of Sub-Global Net-Zero Targets

Utilizing CO2 as a strategy to scale up direct air capture may face fewer short-term barriers than directly storing CO2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Utilizing CO₂ as a strategy to scale up direct air capture may face fewer short-term barriers than directly storing CO₂