Analysis
March 18, 2023
March 18, 2023
Is this British government, short of cash and political capital, nimble enough to take on the US for a leadership role in the race to net zero?
In the next fortnight, Britain plans to announce a raft of environmental policies in a big splash internally dubbed “Green Day.” So, news on much-needed planning reforms, green finance, electric vehicle manufacturing, domestic insulation, heat pumps and so on is likely.
But we got a first step this week with a spending pledge on a climate technology that many view as vital to the clean-energy transition.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt announced £20 billion ($24 billion) in funding for carbon capture, usage and storage (sometimes referred to as simply carbon capture and storage, or CCS) over 20 years. It’s a punchy investment that gives certainty where it was lacking, but something is missing.
A consensus is steadily forming that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is an essential piece of the net-zero puzzle. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now concedes that, due to slow action on emissions reduction, engineered carbon removal is now essential to limit warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius. In the UK, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), a government advisory body, says that 19% of the UK’s emissions abatement will come from a combination of carbon capture and removal by 2050. The UK government has already set targets to store 20-30 million tons of CO2 a year by 2050 and deploy at least 5 million tons of annual engineered greenhouse gas removals by 2030.
But CCS is not the same as CDR, and that distinction matters here.
Think of CCS as neutral emissions (or nearly neutral, as it’s not 100% efficient) – it refers to capturing carbon dioxide at the source, say a power plant or factory, and then injecting it underground. It is a proven technology, though has developed a bad reputation for its use in “enhanced oil recovery,” in which the captured CO2 is used to help to push deep or viscous oil out of wells. Not exactly good PR for a future climate technology. But there’s no doubt CCS will be helpful in the transition as an emissions reduction method, as long as it’s not used as an excuse to slow down the transition away from fossil fuels. Gas CCS is likely to play a small role in a net zero electricity grid, for example. It’ll also help reduce emissions from some hard-to-abate sectors like heavy industry.
Carbon removal, on the other hand, is about drawing down historical emissions by either utilizing nature – through reforestation, for example – or new technologies like direct air capture (DAC) and has the potential to essentially sweep up the excess CO2 we’ve pumped into the atmosphere. CDR – nature-based or otherwise – is projected to play a large role in healing our planet, but a lot of approaches are still in the early development stages and need more investment.
That’s why it’s a little disappointing that the UK’s £20 billion is only for CCS.
To be sure, many are happy to see the government finally getting behind the technology after years of lobbying. Plus, investment in CCS will benefit certain CDR methods that could share the same CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, such as DAC and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), as Devina Banerjee, policy and program manager at climate NGO Carbon Gap, told me.
But, as Ted Christie-Miller, head of carbon removal at the carbon market ratings firm BeZero Carbon, explained, if the UK doesn’t do something big to help foster novel carbon removal methods soon, it could lose out on an opportunity for green growth.
The US’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act have together provided billions to support the development and deployment of carbon-removal approaches, including $3.5 billion for four DAC hubs alone. While the UK can’t compete in terms of cash, it could leverage its position as a world leader in research to nurture climate startups. Without more funding and regulatory support, UK climate innovations risk getting stuck in the so-called valley of death, a period in which a significant increase in funding is required to make the transition from academic research to commercialization. With the US offerings already tempting some startups to cross the pond, including Switzerland’s Climeworks AG, the UK could really miss out on the potential to create even more green jobs, level up its regional hubs and become an exporter of cutting-edge climate technology.
Although reducing emissions is a priority, and the government is right to put some money into developing CCS in the UK, we can’t wait to start fostering the tools of the future. Let’s hope the UK has something serious to say about supporting engineered carbon-removal methods – as well as throwing more weight behind planning reforms, renewables, heat pumps and more – later this month.
In the next fortnight, Britain plans to announce a raft of environmental policies in a big splash internally dubbed “Green Day.” So, news on much-needed planning reforms, green finance, electric vehicle manufacturing, domestic insulation, heat pumps and so on is likely.
But we got a first step this week with a spending pledge on a climate technology that many view as vital to the clean-energy transition.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt announced £20 billion ($24 billion) in funding for carbon capture, usage and storage (sometimes referred to as simply carbon capture and storage, or CCS) over 20 years. It’s a punchy investment that gives certainty where it was lacking, but something is missing.
A consensus is steadily forming that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is an essential piece of the net-zero puzzle. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now concedes that, due to slow action on emissions reduction, engineered carbon removal is now essential to limit warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius. In the UK, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), a government advisory body, says that 19% of the UK’s emissions abatement will come from a combination of carbon capture and removal by 2050. The UK government has already set targets to store 20-30 million tons of CO2 a year by 2050 and deploy at least 5 million tons of annual engineered greenhouse gas removals by 2030.
But CCS is not the same as CDR, and that distinction matters here.
Think of CCS as neutral emissions (or nearly neutral, as it’s not 100% efficient) – it refers to capturing carbon dioxide at the source, say a power plant or factory, and then injecting it underground. It is a proven technology, though has developed a bad reputation for its use in “enhanced oil recovery,” in which the captured CO2 is used to help to push deep or viscous oil out of wells. Not exactly good PR for a future climate technology. But there’s no doubt CCS will be helpful in the transition as an emissions reduction method, as long as it’s not used as an excuse to slow down the transition away from fossil fuels. Gas CCS is likely to play a small role in a net zero electricity grid, for example. It’ll also help reduce emissions from some hard-to-abate sectors like heavy industry.
Carbon removal, on the other hand, is about drawing down historical emissions by either utilizing nature – through reforestation, for example – or new technologies like direct air capture (DAC) and has the potential to essentially sweep up the excess CO2 we’ve pumped into the atmosphere. CDR – nature-based or otherwise – is projected to play a large role in healing our planet, but a lot of approaches are still in the early development stages and need more investment.
That’s why it’s a little disappointing that the UK’s £20 billion is only for CCS.
To be sure, many are happy to see the government finally getting behind the technology after years of lobbying. Plus, investment in CCS will benefit certain CDR methods that could share the same CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, such as DAC and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), as Devina Banerjee, policy and program manager at climate NGO Carbon Gap, told me.
But, as Ted Christie-Miller, head of carbon removal at the carbon market ratings firm BeZero Carbon, explained, if the UK doesn’t do something big to help foster novel carbon removal methods soon, it could lose out on an opportunity for green growth.
The US’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act have together provided billions to support the development and deployment of carbon-removal approaches, including $3.5 billion for four DAC hubs alone. While the UK can’t compete in terms of cash, it could leverage its position as a world leader in research to nurture climate startups. Without more funding and regulatory support, UK climate innovations risk getting stuck in the so-called valley of death, a period in which a significant increase in funding is required to make the transition from academic research to commercialization. With the US offerings already tempting some startups to cross the pond, including Switzerland’s Climeworks AG, the UK could really miss out on the potential to create even more green jobs, level up its regional hubs and become an exporter of cutting-edge climate technology.
Although reducing emissions is a priority, and the government is right to put some money into developing CCS in the UK, we can’t wait to start fostering the tools of the future. Let’s hope the UK has something serious to say about supporting engineered carbon-removal methods – as well as throwing more weight behind planning reforms, renewables, heat pumps and more – later this month.
Scaling carbon removal requires a portfolio approach
BY PHILIP MOSS AND BEN RUBIN, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS
- 03/18/23
Steam rises from the coal-fired power plant with wind turbines nearby in Niederaussem, Germany, as the sun rises on Nov. 2, 2022. When world leaders, diplomats, campaigners and scientists descend on Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt for talks on tackling climate change, don’t expect them to part the Red Sea or perform other miracles that would make huge steps in curbing global warming. (AP Photo/Michael Probst, File)
A preeminent climate report, co-authored by scientists from around the world and scheduled to be published next week, is expected to affirm that humans have released too many greenhouse gas emissions and that removing them is essential for a climate-safe future. A growing number of governments and corporations are responding to this climate challenge by investing in solutions that remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere. Many on the market are taking a portfolio approach, investing in a wide range of promising solutions and minimizing risk. To continue encouraging innovation and a menu of proven options, it’s imperative to keep a level playing field and avoid picking winners and losers.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the author of the upcoming benchmark report, has previously found that gigatons of carbon already lodged in our atmosphere need to be scrubbed from the skies, in tandem with the crucial work of companies and governments reducing their emissions. While there is clarity on the need for massive amounts of carbon removal, the definition of removals is one that is still being grappled with.
The length of time that carbon stays locked away once it is removed from the atmosphere emerges as a key definitional question as the industry scales. Different forms of removal lock away carbon dioxide for different amounts of time — ranging from decades to hundreds of thousands of years. Projects should not be written off just because the carbon they sequester is shorter-term in duration. These approaches are more bountiful in the existing market and are generally more affordable. Shorter-term approaches also help give society a bit of breathing space as the crucial work of decarbonizing operations continues to ramp up. Locking away carbon today, even if it does not stay locked away forever, buys important time to avoid hitting climate tipping points.
But approaches that lock away carbon for shorter amounts of time are only one part of the equation. Solutions — such as geological mineralization or ocean alkalinity enhancement — can last for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years respectively, and help to ensure that the carbon removed from the atmosphere stays locked away. Approaches that address the fast and slow aspects of the carbon cycle should both be part of the solution, rather than facing the current competitive “either / or” approach that is at risk of roiling the carbon removal industry.
Taking an inclusive approach to carbon removals spurs private sector investment and leads to the scaling up of multiple solutions. In the same way that the cost of solar has decreased dramatically, carbon removal can follow a similar arc if tech-neutrality is enshrined in policies and investments. We see this with leadership like the U.S. Energy Department’s Carbon Negative Shot, which is designed to expedite innovation across multiple approaches to carbon removal. We also see it in the $100 million XPRIZE Carbon Removal competition, which encourages a diversity of carbon removal projects in the fast and slow carbon cycle.
Based on purchases of carbon removal credits today, there is evidence that many corporations already are taking a portfolio approach to support climate actions in a range of ways that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Doing so helps them to manage risk and ensures that as many climate solutions as possible are supported. A portfolio approach does not mean that each ton of carbon removed from the atmosphere is or should be priced the same. Longer-term storage solutions generally come with a higher price tag, with the costs of innovative approaches needing to be covered in order to continue scaling up.
Each carbon removal approach provides a unique series of benefits beyond just locking away carbon, from the local jobs that can be created to new sources or revenues for communities. While methods to remove carbon vary, there are points of commonality across all of them. At the project level, maximizing co-benefits and building community support are crucial elements of responsible deployment. For companies or governments realizing a net-zero or net-negative pledge, there is a benefit to supporting dual and reinforcing targets that provide clarity about how much carbon to limit from entering the atmosphere and how much to remove. We must break away from the status quo forestry policies of the last 30 years Texas ruling could not only harm women, but also the legitimacy of the judicial branch
In the race to reach gigaton-scale removals, the more crowded the playing field, the better. The key to success is keeping the field level so that multiple forms of carbon removal can scale to spur innovation and protect communities from the impacts of climate change.
Philip Moss is the global director of tech removals at South Pole, a company that develops and implements comprehensive emission reduction projects, and he is the chairman of the board for the NextGen CDR Facility.
Ben Rubin is the executive director of the Carbon Business Council, a tech neutral coalition with more than 80 carbon management companies.
Steam rises from the coal-fired power plant with wind turbines nearby in Niederaussem, Germany, as the sun rises on Nov. 2, 2022. When world leaders, diplomats, campaigners and scientists descend on Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt for talks on tackling climate change, don’t expect them to part the Red Sea or perform other miracles that would make huge steps in curbing global warming. (AP Photo/Michael Probst, File)
A preeminent climate report, co-authored by scientists from around the world and scheduled to be published next week, is expected to affirm that humans have released too many greenhouse gas emissions and that removing them is essential for a climate-safe future. A growing number of governments and corporations are responding to this climate challenge by investing in solutions that remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere. Many on the market are taking a portfolio approach, investing in a wide range of promising solutions and minimizing risk. To continue encouraging innovation and a menu of proven options, it’s imperative to keep a level playing field and avoid picking winners and losers.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the author of the upcoming benchmark report, has previously found that gigatons of carbon already lodged in our atmosphere need to be scrubbed from the skies, in tandem with the crucial work of companies and governments reducing their emissions. While there is clarity on the need for massive amounts of carbon removal, the definition of removals is one that is still being grappled with.
The length of time that carbon stays locked away once it is removed from the atmosphere emerges as a key definitional question as the industry scales. Different forms of removal lock away carbon dioxide for different amounts of time — ranging from decades to hundreds of thousands of years. Projects should not be written off just because the carbon they sequester is shorter-term in duration. These approaches are more bountiful in the existing market and are generally more affordable. Shorter-term approaches also help give society a bit of breathing space as the crucial work of decarbonizing operations continues to ramp up. Locking away carbon today, even if it does not stay locked away forever, buys important time to avoid hitting climate tipping points.
But approaches that lock away carbon for shorter amounts of time are only one part of the equation. Solutions — such as geological mineralization or ocean alkalinity enhancement — can last for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years respectively, and help to ensure that the carbon removed from the atmosphere stays locked away. Approaches that address the fast and slow aspects of the carbon cycle should both be part of the solution, rather than facing the current competitive “either / or” approach that is at risk of roiling the carbon removal industry.
Taking an inclusive approach to carbon removals spurs private sector investment and leads to the scaling up of multiple solutions. In the same way that the cost of solar has decreased dramatically, carbon removal can follow a similar arc if tech-neutrality is enshrined in policies and investments. We see this with leadership like the U.S. Energy Department’s Carbon Negative Shot, which is designed to expedite innovation across multiple approaches to carbon removal. We also see it in the $100 million XPRIZE Carbon Removal competition, which encourages a diversity of carbon removal projects in the fast and slow carbon cycle.
Based on purchases of carbon removal credits today, there is evidence that many corporations already are taking a portfolio approach to support climate actions in a range of ways that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Doing so helps them to manage risk and ensures that as many climate solutions as possible are supported. A portfolio approach does not mean that each ton of carbon removed from the atmosphere is or should be priced the same. Longer-term storage solutions generally come with a higher price tag, with the costs of innovative approaches needing to be covered in order to continue scaling up.
Each carbon removal approach provides a unique series of benefits beyond just locking away carbon, from the local jobs that can be created to new sources or revenues for communities. While methods to remove carbon vary, there are points of commonality across all of them. At the project level, maximizing co-benefits and building community support are crucial elements of responsible deployment. For companies or governments realizing a net-zero or net-negative pledge, there is a benefit to supporting dual and reinforcing targets that provide clarity about how much carbon to limit from entering the atmosphere and how much to remove. We must break away from the status quo forestry policies of the last 30 years Texas ruling could not only harm women, but also the legitimacy of the judicial branch
In the race to reach gigaton-scale removals, the more crowded the playing field, the better. The key to success is keeping the field level so that multiple forms of carbon removal can scale to spur innovation and protect communities from the impacts of climate change.
Philip Moss is the global director of tech removals at South Pole, a company that develops and implements comprehensive emission reduction projects, and he is the chairman of the board for the NextGen CDR Facility.
Ben Rubin is the executive director of the Carbon Business Council, a tech neutral coalition with more than 80 carbon management companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment