.png)
🤔 I’ve been talking a lot recently about various policy mechanisms that could be used to scale carbon dioxide removal (hashtag#CDR). However, the reality is that CDR currently is, and might stay, a finite resource and therefore begs the question: how should we prioritise its allocation?
📑 That’s exactly what Bellona tackles in their latest report, "Who Should Use Negative Emissions Technologies and Practices (NETPs)? Managing Expectations for NETP Demand: Considerations for Allocating Carbon Dioxide Removals".
Below are some key findings from their report:
⚠️ The report warns that by 2050, CDR could only account for 3-8% of current global emissions, highlighting a significant scarcity. They suggest that to meet net-zero targets, emissions in most sectors need to be reduced by 93-97%.
✈️ They stress the uneven capacity across sectors to reduce emissions, such as aviation and agriculture, which will likely have substantial residual emissions and thus a higher reliance on CDR.
🪨 The report indicates that by 2050, geological storage for carbon might be limited to 1-1.2 Gt CO2eq yr-1, emphasizing a big potential roadblock for CDR to counterbalance fossil carbon emissions (note: non-geological CDR is not included here).
Their recommended strategies for CDR allocation:
🔄 Market-based allocations via emissions trading schemes, mandating emitters to buy certified removals. However, they note the inevitable risk of a large mismatch between required and available volumes of removals.
🪙 Regulatory compliance with centralized removal purchases through mechanisms like a Carbon Central Bank. Emitters would buy from pools of certificates, potentially increasing market liquidity and supply by centralizing risk management.
🌍 Allocation based on use case type (like the EU CRCF), which would be an evolving framework distinguishing between types of carbon removals, carbon farming, and product storage based on their climate impact and permanence.
💭 My take: the report provides an interesting perspective. I tend to operate on the assumption that we will have sufficient CDR beyond the 3-8% mentioned in this report. Bellona also largely focuses on DACCS/BECCS only, which to me leaves out numerous high potential/volume permanent CDR approaches. Nevertheless, it is helpful to think about how we should allocate CDR if we fall short of scaling the industry the way we need it.
👂 What do you think? Which sectors will require more CDR? Will there be sufficient CDR in the first place?
Link to full report: https://network.bellona.org/content/uploads/sites/6/2023/12/Who-should-use-nepts-PDF-2.pdf
Comments