Beyond “Net-Zero”: A Case for Separate Targets for Emissions Reduction and Negative Emissions

McLaren, Duncan; Tyfield, David; Willis, Rebecca; Szerszynski, Bronislaw; Markusson, Nils

doi:10.3389/fclim.2019.00004

Cited by 150 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the market for voluntary offsets has proven more stable than the compliance market (Lambe et al, 2015), it would probably also provide a less risky financial context for projects. It should be stressed that the moral case for insulating LDCslacking historical climate change guilt-from a global compliance carbon market is ultimately inseparable from the practical argument, since carbon offsets may well hinder rather than facilitate energy systems transition in developed countries (Bracking 2015;Carton and Andersson 2017;Edstedt and Carton 2018;Faran and Olsson 2018;McLaren et al 2019). The numbers refer to the project number assigned to each project in the body text.…”

Section: Concluding Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biochar as multi-purpose sustainable technology: experiences from projects in Tanzania

Hansson

Anshelm

Fridahl

et al. 2020

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biochar was recently included as a promising negative emissions technology (NET) in the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike other NETs, it can potentially be used to mitigate global climate change while adding to local resilience in countries highly exposed and sensitive to impacts of climate change, such as least-developed countries (LDCs). The study is as an empirical contribution to the, as of yet, underdeveloped literature on deployment of negative emissions technologies in LDCs in general and on biochar use in developing countries and LDCs specifically. Nine historical and existing biochar projects in Tanzania are mapped in order to analyse problems, goals and common trade-offs associated with smallto medium-scale biochar production in LDCs. The mapping is based on a literature and document study, interviews with project actors, and on-site visits to biochar projects during 2019. The paper gives support to the observation made in the biochar literature that while biochar has many potential socioeconomic and environmental benefits, combining them in one single project is difficult. It is concluded that implementing biochar projects in Tanzania will likely involve trade-offs between the development and subsistence strategies and needs of local communities, the motivational forces of different project participants, and the uneven regulatory capacity of the state. We end by reflecting on the use of biochar projects to offset carbon emissions made elsewhere.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biochar as multi-purpose sustainable technology: experiences from projects in Tanzania

Hansson

Anshelm

Fridahl

et al. 2020

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other literatures explore the possible mechanisms through which BECCS could be incentivised or credited [83,[85][86][87], the potential relevance of existing policies exploiting co-benefits (such as utilising local waste products) [82] and how different policy approaches might influence public opinion or support [25,88]. McLaren et al (2019) recommend that to avoid a mitigation deterrence effect, policies relating to CDR should be separated from mitigation across four areas: defining targets, offsetting and emission trading, incentivisation, and modelling and evaluation [89].…”

Section: Governance Implications and Policy Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Gough¹,

Mander²

2019

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review This paper assesses social science research relating to BECCS and considers the applicability of research on CCS to BECCS. Recent Findings In recent years, social science research on CCS and BECCS has gone beyond an evaluation of public acceptance to provide a more nuanced analysis of the wider social political, ethical, and governance contexts in which large-scale deployment might be achieved. This raises issues at global, local, and regional scales, requiring a wide array of methods and approaches. Summary Awareness of the scale and urgency needed to act on climate change is growing and the role of BECCS in delivering carbon dioxide removal forms a central argument for the use of this family of technologies. Here, framing becomes a critical factor in how society responds to BECCS technologies and we argue that making the case for BECCS as a means of extending mitigation to make a 'net zero' goal achievable could be the key to its acceptable and sustainable deployment. Keywords CCS. BECCS. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Negative emissions. Social responses. Acceptability This article is part of the Topical Collection on Deep Decarbonization: BECCS

show abstract

“…Whether these ambitions stand up to the test of time remains an open question, however, suggesting policies that can facilitate movement in this direction would be a timely intervention. Further, there is an emerging policy debate on the use of parallel and complementary targets for NETs (Geden & Schenuit, 2020;McLaren et al, 2019), indicating that further evaluation of the governance of these technologies is necessary.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moving to Article 6 based transfers of CSUs could, among others, establish pathways to address 'moral hazard' concerns posed by CCS and NETs development. Firstly, separating mitigation targets between fossil fuel use (emissions targets on the demand-side) and supply (storage targets on the supply-side) offers a potentially coherent basis upon which to ring-fence targets for NETs, a necessity noted by McLaren et al (2019) to reduce mitigation deterrence. While the approach may not entirely address all the issues noted for mitigation deterrence, the separate targets would at least give an indication of the anticipated level of emission reductions to be achieved through CCS and NETs.…”

Section: Outlook For Supply-side Climate Policy and Ccsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bellamy, 2018;Honegger & Reiner, 2017;Markusson, 2012;Stephens, 2014). Widespread reliance on NETs to meet climate mitigation goals also poses concerns about technical feasibility, risk of failure (Anderson & Peters, 2016;Fuss et al, 2014) and the possible deterrence or deferral of ambitious emission reduction efforts (Markusson et al, 2018;McLaren et al, 2019). Other recent research has, conversely, reaffirmed the necessity of CCS and NETs in reducing and balancing (or 'offsetting') recalcitrant fossil CO 2 emission sources 2 in pursuit of the Paris Agreement's net-zero emissions goal (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Progressive supply-side policy under the Paris Agreement to enhance geological carbon storage

Zakkour¹,

Heidug

Howard³

et al. 2020

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the Paris Agreement moves towards implementation, we explore opportunities it presents to move part of the climate change mitigation challenge upstream into supply-side climate policy. Supply-side climate policies have been sparsely employed to date, although interest is growing in approaches that can curtail and end fossil fuel production. Rather than focussing on fully eliminating fossil fuel production, we set out an alternative supply-side approach that involves fossil fuel producers taking progressive action to reduce and eliminate the climate impacts of their products. Our proposal uses the Paris Agreement's framework for finance and international cooperation to establish supply-side climate action that supplements demand-side climate policies, and thereby enhance climate ambition. The concepts presented rely on large-scale geosequestration technologies that can deposit carbon into geological reservoirs at rates progressively aligned to those at which carbon is being extracted by fossil fuel producers. Convergence of extraction and deposition rates is a necessary condition for achieving net-zero CO 2 emissions while still enabling some essential uses of fossil carbon. We propose an evolutionary approach to policy development, starting as a technology-support mechanism using results-based finance before transitioning into systematic measures under, firstly, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and, ultimately, decarbonised fuel standards. Collectively these could incentivise fossil fuel resource holders to manage both outflows and inflows of carbon in the geosphere, and in doing so, create, foster, accelerate and maintain an urgently needed market for geological CO 2 storage. Key policy insights. Balancing rates of carbon extraction from the geosphere (e.g. fossil fuel production) and rates of carbon deposition in stable geological reservoirs can achieve net-zero emissions alongside efforts to reduce emission flows to the atmosphere.. Framing the climate mitigation challenge around carbon stock management on the supply-side of fossil fuel markets offers new ways to enhance climate ambition by mobilizing the financial and technical resources of fossil fuel producers in deploying carbon capture and storage.. International cooperation under the Paris Agreement offers a powerful opportunity to establish tradeable units that support establishment of a liquid market in verified carbon storage.

show abstract

Beyond “Net-Zero”: A Case for Separate Targets for Emissions Reduction and Negative Emissions

Cited by 150 publications

References 15 publications

Biochar as multi-purpose sustainable technology: experiences from projects in Tanzania

Biochar as multi-purpose sustainable technology: experiences from projects in Tanzania

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Progressive supply-side policy under the Paris Agreement to enhance geological carbon storage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About