Carbon Removal Pathways After COP28
By Soyoung Oh
Ahead of COP28, discussions around carbon removal emerged in the context of Article 6.4. Carbon removals refer to engineered or natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. With continued discussions at the 58th session of the SBSTA and pre-COP28 technical events, guidance on carbon removals under Article 6.4 was included in the recommendations. Despite the hopes adopting it at COP28, agreements on rules for carbon credits via removals were not made in Dubai.
Outside the negotiation tables at COP28, academics and NGOs discussed the opportunities and challenges of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) during side events and press conferences. Grasping a better understanding of key CDR technologies such as Biomass for Energy with CCS (BECCS) and Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) is crucial as we move forward to meet our mitigation goals.
As I have worked on the political economy of CDR as the Climate Policy Lab’s fellow, I had the opportunity to speak at a press conference and participate in a panel discussion at a Higher Education Pavilion about carbon dioxide removal. The two events I participated in delved into one important question: As we are accelerating the global deployment of carbon dioxide removal, how do we address political economy hurdles in scaling up?
Soyoung Oh during a press conference to discuss GHG removal pathways on December 8
The first edition of the State of CDR report released this year shows that the technology readiness levels of BECCS and DACCS are above 5 out of 9, meaning that the technologies are validated and demonstrated. However, we must understand that systems for BECCS and DACCS are not readily available yet due to complexities within value chains. A comprehensive understanding is crucial to unpack the diverging implications of these two technologies and design effective policies.
BECCS and DACCS play crucial roles in GHG removal pathways, offering advantages of permanence as sequestering CO2 in geological formations such as saline aquifers and minerals would make them less vulnerable to external disturbances such as wildfires. BECCS can replace natural gas peaker plants, providing a competitive solution to balance intermittency issues if there are high carbon prices. But we cannot overlook its limitations, such as feedstock availability and land and water requirements, as its CO2 removal efficiency can be significantly diminished by an initial carbon debt associated with land use changes.
However, BECCS is increasingly explored in other ways, with various combinations to harness its full potential. Considerations for biomass type, energy use, and sector type are key variables that determine the implications and outcomes of BECCS. For example, a greenfield powerplant powered by energy wood from dedicated monoculture plantations with CCS would have very different requirements compared to an existing waste-incineration plant equipped with CCS capability. This shows that the devil lies in the details and that some types of BECCS have been overlooked, leaving important gaps in understanding details pertinent to policy design.
Soyoung Oh during a panel discussion at a Higher Education Pavilion to discuss trade-offs between nature-based solutions and biomass for energy with CCS (BECCS), organized by the University of Cambridge on December 10
Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS), on the other hand, presents itself as a low-impact solution with minimal land and water requirements. However, challenges exist in its intensive energy use and low economic viability, although each type of DACCS technology has different requirements. Business models are highly dependent on either public or private support, carbon pricing-related incentives, and voluntary carbon markets.
For both BECCS and DACCS, serious challenges may arise when quantifying the overall value chain. For example, in countries with the potential for BECCS with insufficient storage capacities, cross-border export of CO2 for storage will be particularly challenging and require clarification through carbon accounting and international governance systems.
To scale up BECCS and DACCS, technological solution providers like Carbon Engineering are central players, but government and private funding are equally important. Policymakers must systematically analyze potentials within energy systems and overall value chains. A balanced set of demand-pull policies, such as the carbon contract for difference, and supply-push policies, such as R&D investment, can enable the initial deployment of BECCS and DACCS on a national scale.
As we embark on this journey, we must ensure that the growth of CDR technologies is not reinforcing fossil fuels with CCS. Stringent carbon accounting and monitoring, reporting, and verification processes for carbon removal activities are significant when granting incentives to operators. Integrating BECCS and DACCS into the existing value chain is also critical for lowering cost and ensuring feasibility. In our pathway to achieving Paris Agreement goals with GHG removals, it is paramount to have a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the implications associated with carbon dioxide removal.
*Some parts of the text are adopted from the press conference speech I gave on December 8.
Soyoung Oh is a Junior Research Fellow at The Climate Policy Lab at The Fletcher School.