Towards Indicators for a Negative Emissions Climate Stabilisation Index: Problems and Prospects

Fridahl, Mathias; Hansson, Anders; Anshelm, Jonas

doi:10.3390/cli8060075

Cited by 34 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 103 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This research focuses on carbon removal methods, including more mature and tried-and-tested nature-based solutions such as the sequestration of carbon in forest biomass and soils, and currently less economically viable and more technologically sophisticated, or technologically-based CDR, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), ocean fertilization, enhanced weathering, biochar, and others (Minx et al, 2018;Fridahl et al, 2020a;Morrow et al, 2020). For the purposes of this research, we rely on "nature-based" and "technologically-based" as a commonly used heuristic to distinguish between CDR approaches (Schenuit et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancel (Out) Emissions? The Envisaged Role of Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies in Long-Term National Climate Strategies

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) increasingly features in climate scenarios that hold global warming well below 2°C by 2100. Given the continuous gap between climate mitigation pledges and the emission pathways that are aligned with achieving the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, we would expect countries to promote CDR in their long-term planning to achieve mid-century targets. Yet, countries may not consider it their responsibility to contribute to the global response to climate change using CDR. Thus, a study of the respective country's long-term climate plans is both timely and vital. Such a study could reveal the pledged collective ambition, the contribution of CDR to the pledged ambition, and how the envisaged role of CDR is described by the different countries. This paper explores the long-term low emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) of countries in order to map the role of CDR in addressing climate change. We also supplement our examination of strategies with the opinions of climate experts. Based on an inductive coding of the material and a literature review, the analytical focus of the analysis includes CDR targets and planning, types of CDR, barriers and opportunities to CDR implementation, as well as international cooperation. Our study of 25 national LT-LEDS submitted to the UN or to the EU, as well as 23 interviews with climate experts, shows that national plans for CDR vary substantially across countries and are generally lacking in detail. The findings also demonstrate that CDR is perceived to be necessary and desirable for achieving mid-century climate goals, but also reveal variation in the intended role of CDR. We use an interpretive approach to outline three possible visions of CDR in climate action: as a panacea, as a necessary fallback and as a chimera. We conclude by discussing what our findings of the envisaged roles of CDR in addressing climate change mean for climate governance. This research thereby contributes to the literature on governing CDR with new comprehensive insights into the long-term climate strategies of countries.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancel (Out) Emissions? The Envisaged Role of Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies in Long-Term National Climate Strategies

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such demand-pull instruments would complement existing supply-push instruments as well as complement calls for new RDD&D funding streams that target either specific aspects of BECCS, such as new bio-feedstocks, or negative emissions technologies in general (Lomax et al, 2015;Burns and Nicholson, 2017;Cox and Edwards, 2019). The potential for capturing biogenic CO 2 in Sweden and the Swedish proximity to Norwegian storage sites (Kjärstad et al, 2016), combined with the long storage permanence associated with the geological storage of CO 2 compared to many other forms of negative emissions (Fridahl et al, 2020), improves the likelihood that economic instruments that target BECCS will result in tangible and substantial contributions to addressing climate change. Among the several options available for the design of economic instruments, Parson and Buck (2020) argue that public procurement is the most appropriate form of instrument to incentivize negative emissions.…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To maximize the climate benefits of BECCS, policy instruments need to minimize climate impact across all steps of technological systems, i.e., from the production of biomass as the primary energy source via efficient capture technologies, to safe and effective geological storage. Effects should even be factored in, e.g., on feedbacks and changed albedo (Tanzer and Ramírez, 2019;Fridahl et al, 2020). Policy making can target all of these aspects.…”

Section: Analytical Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping Multi-Level Policy Incentives for Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage in Sweden

Fridahl¹,

Bellamy²,

Hansson³

et al. 2020

Front. Clim.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is considered a key mitigation technology in most 1.5–2.0°C compatible climate change mitigation scenarios. Nonetheless, examples of BECCS deployment are lacking internationally. It is widely acknowledged that widespread implementation of this technology requires strong policy enablers, and that such enablers are currently non-existent. However, the literature lacks a more structured assessment of the “incentive gap” between scenarios with substantive BECCS deployment and existing policy enablers to effectuate BECCS deployment. Sweden, a country with progressive climate policies and particularly good preconditions for BECCS, constitutes a relevant locus for such examinations. The paper asks to what extent and how existing UN, EU, and Swedish climate policy instruments incentivize BECCS research, development, demonstration, and deployment in Sweden. The analysis is followed by a tentative discussion of needs for policy reform to improve the effectiveness of climate policy in delivering BECCS. Drawing on a tripartite typology of policy instruments (economic, regulatory, and informational) and the ability of these instruments to create supply-push or demand-pull, the article finds that: (1) no instruments create a demand-pull to cover operational expenditure; (2) economic instruments provide partial support for research and the capital expenditure associated with demonstration, and; (3) regulatory instruments provide partial clarity on environmental safeguards and responsibilities. A few regulatory barriers also continue to counteract deployment. The article concludes that the existing policy mix requires considerable reform if BECCS is to contribute substantially to the Swedish target for net-zero emissions. Continued effort to dismantle regulatory barriers must be complemented with a strong demand-pull instrument that complements the current focus on supply-push incentives. If unreformed, the existing policy mix will most likely lead to substantial public expenditure on BECCS research, development, and demonstration without leading to any substantial deployment and diffusion.

show abstract

“…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).…”

Section: Applying the Multi-level Perspective (Mlp) To Cdr Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas most countries address all GHG emissions, New Zealand for example, excludes biogenic methane from its net zero ambition. Questions of target design have a significant impact on the amount of residual emissions that need to be balanced by CDR to achieve net zero (McLaren et al, 2019;Fridahl et al, 2020), and are therefore an important overarching dimension of CDR policies.…”

Section: Institutional Setting Actors and Coalitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, spurred by the 2018 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, net zero emission targets have emerged as a new organizing principle of climate policy. In this context, climate policymakers and stakeholders have been shifting their attention to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as an inevitable component of net zero targets. The importance of CDR would increase further if countries and other entities set net-negative emissions targets. The scientific literature on CDR governance and policy is still rather scarce, with empirical case studies and comparisons largely missing. Based on an analytical framework that draws on the multi-level perspective of sociotechnical transitions as well as existing work on CDR governance, we gathered and assessed empirical material until early 2021 from 9 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) cases: the European Union and three of its Member States (Ireland, Germany, and Sweden), Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Based on a synthesis of differences and commonalities, we propose a tripartite conceptual typology of the varieties of CDR policymaking: (1) incremental modification of existing national policy mixes, (2) early integration of CDR policy that treats emission reductions and removals as fungible, and (3) proactive CDR policy entrepreneurship with support for niche development. Although these types do not necessarily cover all dimensions relevant for CDR policy and are based on a limited set of cases, the conceptual typology might spur future comparative work as well as more fine-grained case-studies on established and emerging CDR policies.

show abstract

Towards Indicators for a Negative Emissions Climate Stabilisation Index: Problems and Prospects

Cited by 34 publications

References 103 publications

Cancel (Out) Emissions? The Envisaged Role of Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies in Long-Term National Climate Strategies

Cancel (Out) Emissions? The Envisaged Role of Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies in Long-Term National Climate Strategies

Mapping Multi-Level Policy Incentives for Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage in Sweden

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About