(UK The Conversation) Climate Change: Six Priorities For Pulling Carbon Out Of The Air

The Conversation - Cameron Hepburn | Steve Smith

Dmitry Kovalchuk/Shutterstock

Authors Cameron Hepburn is Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Oxford Steve Smith is Executive Director, Oxford Net Zero, University of Oxford

To reach net zero emissions by 2050, global emissions must be cut faster and deeper than the world has yet managed. But even then, some hard-to-treat sources of pollution – in aviation, agriculture and cement making – may linger for longer than we would like. It will take time for clean alternatives to arrive and replace them.

That means the world also needs to find and ramp up ways of taking CO₂ out of the atmosphere to stabilise the climate. Just meeting the UK’s net zero target is likely to require the removal of 100 million tonnes of CO₂ a year, similar in size to current emissions from the country’s largest-emitting sector, road transport, but in reverse.

The UK government’s announcement of £31.5 million (US$44.7 million) in support for research and development of carbon removal is welcome. And while trials of new tech will help, there are many social issues that need to be tackled if removing greenhouse gases is to succeed.

Done right, carbon removal could be the perfect accompaniment to emissions cuts, bringing the climate back into balance. Done badly, it could be a dangerous distraction.

Cutting emissions is vital. So is carbon removal. Kamilpetran/Shutterstock

Getting removal right

Greenhouse gases can be removed from the atmosphere in several different ways. CO₂ can be captured by plants as they grow or absorbed by soils, minerals or chemicals, and locked up in the biosphere, oceans, underground, or even in long-lived products such as construction materials (including timber or aggregates).

These stores vary in size and stability, and methods for getting carbon into them vary in cost and readiness. Trees, for instance, are literally a shovel-ready way to soak up carbon with many additional benefits. But the carbon they store can be released by fires, pests or logging. Storing CO₂ underground offers a more stable reservoir and could hold 100 times as much, but methods of injecting it from the air are expensive and at an early stage of development. Nevertheless, a raft of innovations, competitions and start-ups are emerging.

Some experts worry that carbon removal could prove to be a mirage – particularly at the massive scales assumed in some pathways for reaching net zero – which distracts from the critical task of reducing emissions. So how do we get removals right?

Planting trees is quick, cheap and easy – but their carbon storage isn’t always reliable. Curved-Light/Alamy Stock Photo

As the scientists who will lead a national greenhouse gas removal hub, we’ve sketched out six priorities.

1. A clear vision

The UK government has yet to decide how much CO₂ it wants to remove from the atmosphere, the specific methods it prefers, and whether 2050 is an endpoint or a stepping stone to more removals beyond. A clear vision would help people see the merits of investing to remove CO₂, while also indicating which emissions sources should be stopped entirely.

2. Public support

Carbon removal at the scales under discussion will have big implications for communities and the environment. Entire landscapes and livelihoods will change. The government already aims to plant enough trees to cover twice the area of Bristol each year.

These changes need to offer other benefits and align with the values of local people. People care not only about the removal techniques themselves, but also how they are funded and supported, and will want to see that reducing emissions remains the priority.

Consultation is vital. Democratic processes, such as citizen assemblies, can help to find solutions that are attractive to different communities, increasing their legitimacy.

3. Innovation

The types of approaches that remove CO₂ permanently are at an early stage of development and cost hundreds of pounds per tonne of CO₂ removed. They are more expensive than most decarbonisation measures such as energy efficient lighting, insulation, solar and wind power or electric cars. Government support for research and development, and policies to encourage deployment are also crucial to stimulate innovation and bring down costs.

4. Incentives

 How does a business earn a profit from removing CO₂ from the air? Except for trees, there are no long-term, government-backed incentives for the removal and storage of carbon.

The UK government can learn from efforts in other countries. The 45Q tax rebate and Californian Low-Carbon Fuel Standard and the Australian Carbon Farming Initiative both incentivise businesses to capture and store CO₂.

Leaving the EU Common Agriculture Policy means the UK has its own opportunity to pay farmers to put carbon into their soils, trees and crops.

5. Monitoring, reporting and verifying

This is the vital but unglamorous work of ensuring carbon removal is properly documented and accurately measured. Without it, citizens would rightly worry whether any of this was real, and whether governments were simply handing out public money to companies for nothing in return.

Monitoring, reporting and verifying carbon storage in soil is a major challenge, requiring a complex system of in-field sampling, satellites and models. Even for trees there are gaps in international reporting in many countries, and no agreed method for reporting direct air capture and storage, which uses chemicals to absorb CO₂ from the air.

Direct air capture fans on the roof of a garbage incinerator in Hinwil, outside Zurich, Switzerland. Orjan Ellingvag/Alamy Stock Photo

6. Decision-making

A lot of information about CO₂ removal resides in academic literature and focuses on global-scale scenarios. But actually doing it will involve people ranging from local farmers to international financiers. All will need tools to help them make better decisions, from easy-to-read manuals to improved models.

These priorities will guide our research, and will be things to look out for in the government’s emerging removal strategy. They need to involve businesses and citizens, not just policymakers and scientists.

Unfortunately, it is so late in the day that we can’t afford to get this wrong. But we are optimistic that there is plenty of scope to get it right.

Links

• (AU) We Can’t Wait For This Government. Let’s Beat Emissions Together
• Climate Change Cannot Be Mitigated Without Effective Carbon Pricing
• Invest In Low-Carbon Cities To Protect Climate And Boost Jobs, Governments Urged
• ‘Our Biggest Challenge? Lack Of Imagination’: The Scientists Turning The Desert Green
• (Independent Media Institute) If We Don’t Protect 30% Of The Natural World By 2030, Earth May Be Unfit For Life
• (UK The Conversation) Climate Change: How Bad Could The Future Be If We Do Nothing?
• (AU The Conversation) More Reasons For Optimism On Climate Change Than We’ve Seen For Decades: 2 Climate Experts Explain
• (The Guardian USA) Sea Levels Are Going To Rise By At Least 20ft. We Can Do Something About It 
• What would happen to the climate if we reforested the entire tropics?
• Can’t we just remove carbon dioxide from the air to fix climate change? Not yet
• Exaggerating how much CO₂ can be absorbed by tree planting risks deterring crucial climate action
• Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap

(AU Editorial) The Guardian View On Climate Change Lawsuits: Big Oil Is In The Dock

The Guardian - Editorial

Fossil fuel firms are being held responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a good thing

Donald Pols, right, the director of Milieudefensie – the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth – celebrates the outcome of the verdict in the court case against Shell in The Hague. Photograph: Peter de Jong/AP

History was made in the Hague district court this week.

Judge Larisa Alwin ruled that Shell, one of the world’s biggest oil companies, must cut its emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels.

Until Wednesday, courts in the Netherlands, France and Germany had concentrated on holding governments to their commitments under the Paris climate deal of 2015. States were found guilty of denying basic rights to future citizens, triggering more ambitious climate plans. The landmark Hague ruling shows that corporations can now be ordered to comply with the goals of the Paris agreement.

Governments are supposed to design the regulatory frameworks and put in place the laws so that companies and households steadily reduce their carbon emissions. But this relies on private entities playing their part. If they do not, preferring to hide behind slick PR, the law can step in.

The judge accepted the argument that Shell had failed in its duty to respect human rights by failing to adequately curb its role in global heating. Shell’s goals to mitigate its climate impact, the court found, “largely amount to rather intangible, undefined and non-binding plans for the long term”.

The judgment was also noticeable in placing responsibility on Shell not just for its own emissions, but for those of its customers. Taken together these amounted to 1.7bn tonnes of CO₂ in 2019 – about the same as Russia, the world’s fourth-largest polluter. The company, headquartered in Holland, will appeal.

Many jurisdictions contain “duty of care” provisions similar to Dutch law. In a forthcoming paper, Stirling University’s Annalisa Savaresi and Joana Setzer of the London School of Economics point out that pursuing corporate actors on the basis of human rights law over climate has become a trend, with a dozen more cases pending worldwide.

For some this is perhaps a step too far; for others, not far enough. But sceptics must accept that the world is getting further and further away from hitting targets for carbon emissions. The Hague court was right to ask for a vision beyond business as usual. The spectre of a climate emergency is haunting the planet.

Ahead of this November’s Cop26 UN climate summit, countries are supposed to put forward new, more ambitious promises to cut emissions. Climate models show that to limit global heating to 2C above pre-industrial levels there needs to be a 25% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, compared to where they were in 2010. So far the pledges fall far short. The Hague court noted that the energy sector requires even steeper falls of around 45%.

It is not unreasonable, given that the planet’s future is at stake, for civil society to use every tool at its disposal. On the day Shell lost in court, ExxonMobil, the US oil giant, was defeated by activist shareholders on the election of two new members to its 12-strong board, and a large majority of Chevron shareholders voted for a “substantial” reduction in the firm’s emissions from the use of its products. These were stunning defeats.

But the hydrocarbon sector is striking back. Two German companies – RWE and Uniper – are suing the Dutch government for compensation over the country’s planned coal phase-out under a 1990s international investor treaty. Martin Dietrich Brauch of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment points out the absurdity of the EU permitting such actions, given that these decades are crucial for a global energy transition to cleaner fuels and the bloc’s net zero targets.

The answer is to shut down the outdated energy charter treaty. What must be faced is that carbon dioxide is building up in the air as more oil, gas and coal is burned. Unless this economic model is replaced, the fight will go on – inside and outside the courtroom.

Links

• Mapping the Whole of the Moon: An Analysis of the Role of Human Rights in Climate Litigation
• Court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030APRA Climate Change 
• Royal Dutch Shell Judgment - Hague District Court
• Shell loses climate case that may set precedent for Big Oil
• The Urgenda Climate Case Against The Dutch Government - Landmark Decision By Dutch Supreme Court
• Germany to bring forward climate goals after constitutional court ruling
• No new oil, gas or coal development if world is to reach net zero by 2050, says world energy body
• ‘Cataclysmic day’ for oil companies sparks climate hope