Equity in allocating carbon dioxide removal quotas

Assessment of carbon dioxide removal potentialviaBECCS in a carbon-neutral Europe

“…Importantly, these numbers would increase if international equity and responsibility criteria were applied. 4,70 According to the European Environmental Agency, in year 2018 total greenhouse gas emissions from the 30 European countries considered in this study were about 4000 Mtons CO 2 -equivalent per year. Therefore, we estimate that, to reach climate-neutrality, European countries will likely need to remove from the atmosphere between 200 Mtons CO 2 per year (5% of 4000 Mtons CO 2 per year) and 1200 Mtons CO 2 per year (30% of the same figure).…”

“…Europe aims to be carbon-neutral by 2050 -that is, an economy with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. 1 Although Europe does not have a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy yet, [1][2][3][4] CDR via bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) will most likely be needed to counteract residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] To reach carbon-neutrality, it has been estimated that up to 7.5 billion tons of CO 2 may have to be sequestered through BECCS in Europe until 2050.…”

Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy in the Making: Assessing Developments in 9 OECD Cases

“…Other important strands of the debate touch on the patterns of emerging societal debates and their possible polarization (Colvin et al, 2020) as well as the public perception (Cox et al, 2020), socio-political prioritization (Fridahl, 2017;Rodriguez et al, 2020), innovation dynamics (Nemet et al, 2018), incentive structures for research and deployment (Lomax et al, 2015;Cox and Edwards, 2019;Fajardy et al, 2019;Torvanger, 2019;Fridahl et al, 2020;Bellamy et al, 2021) and framings of different CDR methods (Bellamy and Osaka, 2020;Waller et al, 2020;Woroniecki et al, 2020). Furthermore, the literature highlights the role of CDR in integrated assessment modeling and possible implications for climate policy (Geden, 2016b;Beck and Mahony, 2018;Haikola et al, 2019;Workman et al, 2020), negative implications of deploying large-scale CDR for sustainability and biodiversity (Buck, 2016;Smith et al, 2019;Dooley et al, 2020;Honegger et al, 2020), and justice and equity considerations (Anderson and Peters, 2016;Peters and Geden, 2017;Shue, 2018;Fyson et al, 2020;Morrow et al, 2020;Pozo et al, 2020).…”

“…The need for at least some countries to achieve domestic net-negative GHG emissions, however-a necessary part of Paris Agreement's global long-term temperature target of well below 2 • C while pursuing 1.5 • Cis still only addressed by small groups of scientific experts and narrow policy circles. Despite the fact that OECD countries can be argued to have a particular responsibility for achieving netnegative emissions (Robiou Du Pont et al, 2017;Fyson et al, 2020;Pozo et al, 2020), the issue is only rarely and briefly addressed in emerging policy initiatives and could be argued to be actively disabled by a focus on net zero emission targets.…”

“…In the process of case selection, we followed four key criteria: (1) We limit our cases to members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Countries with high income and high historical emissions are generally expected to be responsible for a greater quantity of CDR deployment if distributional equity is taken into account (Fyson et al, 2020;Pozo et al, 2020). This reflects the expectations institutionalized in the international climate negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climte Change (UNFCCC).…”