Search

Recent demands by developing countries, like India, that developed countries need to reach net-negative emissions, must be negotiated seriously under the UNFCCC. Failure to acknowledge that limiting global average temperature rise to 1.5°C leaves very little carbon budget for equitable redistribution risks further ambiguity on how to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals.

The City of Stockholm aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2030 by compensating for residual emissions using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Relying heavily on negative emissions to reach the target, the city's strategy presents an interesting case of net-zero climate policymaking. Based on the analysis of interviews, City Council debates, and policy documents, the Stockholm case underscores the importance of understanding municipal climate policy in a multi-level policy setting, where the ability to govern emissions varies heavily between sectors depending on politics and policy at other levels of governance. Both waste incineration and road transport are perceived to include hard-to-abate emissions in 2030, partly due to governance linkages involving regional, national, and EU-level governing bodies. The energy utility, Stockholm Exergi, plans to implement BECCS, with funding from the EU and other public and private sources, at a heat and power plant. The unique opportunity to use BECCS as part of the city's net-zero target has made it possible to advance the net-zero goal from 2040 to 2030. However, there are risks that relying on BECCS may muffle public debate on what constitutes residual emissions in the city, subsequently leading to smaller municipal investments in emission reductions. Additionally, there are risks that the schedule for implementing BECCS is overly optimistic, meaning goal fulfilment may be threatened. However, this risk is not isolated to BECCS; similar risks are associated with combining fossil fuels with CCS. We recommend that the city critically examines the residual emissions, considers separate targets instead of a net-zero goal, and conducts risk assessments of key mitigation technologies to maintain its status as climate policy forerunner.

This paper presents the results of a globally distributed survey on policies for incentivizing bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The current lack of policy incentives to support the implementation of BECCS constitutes a major deployment barrier. Therefore, scientists and policymakers are now debating the optimal BECCS policy framework. Previous studies have presented theoretical analyses of policy options to spur deployment, yet despite the considerable influence of experts on policy processes, very few studies have explored expert opinions. Drawing on an online survey of experts (N = 46), we explore their policy preferences and whether those preferences differ or converge between experts from different working sectors. The results show that a tax and refund scheme, a flat-rate subsidy, and reverse auctioning are considered more suitable than other measures. Furthermore, most experts agree that rather than a stand-alone policy, a policy mix would be needed in order to support BECCS deployment. Several experts propose a sequence of policies, moving from publicly funded supply-push policies in the short term to budget-neutral demand-pull policies in the longer term. Regarding various subsidy schemes, respondents favor investment subsidies or results-based subsidies based on stored biogenic carbon dioxide. The relatively minor differences in the response patterns between groups of experts suggest that a consensus on a preferred BECCS policy pathway might be forming across different sectors and interest groups. Therefore, our results could inform policymakers on policy instruments for BECCS that are considered most suitable by experts and thus help to shape the policy pathway for BECCS.

Keeping global warming well below 2 °C entails radically transforming global energy production and use. However, one important mitigation option, the use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), has so far received only limited attention as regards the sociopolitical preconditions for its deployment. Using questionnaire data from UN climate change conferences, this paper explores the influence of expertise, actor type, and origin on respondents’ a) preferences for investing in BECCS, b) views of the role of BECCS as a mitigation technology, globally and domestically, and c) assessment of possible domestic barriers to BECCS deployment. Non-parametric statistical analysis reveals the low priority assigned to investments in BECCS, the anticipated high political and social constraints on deployment, and a gap between its low perceived domestic potential to contribute to mitigation and a slightly higher perceived global potential. The most important foreseen deployment constraints are sociopolitical, which in turn influence the economic feasibility of BECCS. However, these constraints (e.g. lack of policy incentives and social acceptance) are poorly captured in climate scenarios, a mismatch indicating a need for both complemented model scenarios and further research into sociopolitical preconditions for BECCS.

The gigantic volumes of carbon dioxide (CO2) removal likely needed to comply with the Paris Agreement beg the question of who should pay for the negative emissions. Incentivizing negative emissions is difficult, as it entails reversing the fiscal attractiveness associated with carbon taxes and emissions trading in favour of the more unattractive need to pay for removals. The inherent difficulty of funding global public goods associated with large private costs will make it hard for future governments to share this burden among themselves. We propose that this problem can be solved by a CO2emitter liability operationalized through Atmospheric CO2Removal Deposits (ACORDs). Anyone that emits fossil CO2to the atmosphere would be obliged to finance the removal of at least as much CO2from the atmosphere. Linking the liability to ACORDs acknowledges that a major part of the negative emissions needs to be made in the future. The emitters' financial deposits, including earnings, can be redeemed upon certified proof of removal. The ACORDs system would comply with the widely accepted principle of producer liability, i.e., that companies are responsible for the damage caused by their products. The system would also provide additional incentives to reduce emissions and an innovative funding source for coming generations to accomplish negative emissions. Furthermore, inequity and historical emissions can be addressed by gradually increasing overcompensation. The paper also includes a critical assessment of the basis of negative emissions, i.e., the need, the technologies and their potentials, the costs, and the required retention time.

The European Union cap-and-trade emissions trading system (EU ETS) faces two challenges in the context of the European Green Deal. First, to meet the Paris temperature target, emissions in the energy and industrial sectors must fall to net-zero and then even become net-negative. Second, there is a concern that excessive CO2price spikes and volatility on this path will jeopardize the political acceptance and support for emissions trading as a climate policy instrument. Conditional supply of carbon removal credits (CRCs) to support dynamic carbon price caps would make it possible to stabilize the market in the transition from positive to net-negative emissions trading while keeping the net-emissions path unchanged. CRCs would be assigned for carbon removal achieved for example with methods like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage or Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage and would be used by companies under the EU ETS to compensate for their emissions. However, we suggest that there would be no direct exchange between emitting companies under the EU ETS and carbon removal companies, i.e., the demand and supply side of CRCs, during an initial phase. Instead, we suggest assigning an institutional mandate to for example a carbon central bank (CCB) to organize the supply of CRCs. Under this mandate, carbon removal would be procured, would be translated into a corresponding number of CRCs, and a fraction of it could be auctioned to the market at a later point in time, provided that market prices exceed a certain (dynamic) price cap.

This perspective paper illustrates that the critical debate regarding geological storage of carbon dioxide has been discursively marginalised in recent years. However, two crucial factors make it reasonable to assume that significant storage-related uncertainties and challenges still exist.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS), including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), could contribute to climate change mitigation strategies. However, the 2020s is not the first time that CCS is high on the agenda. This study explores the differences between the past and current developments of CCS and discusses how incumbent actors' experiences can inform the understanding of potential future energy system transitions in Sweden. For this purpose, a multi-level perspective (MLP) analysis was conducted based on documents, interviews and focus groups with key actors. Since the 2000s, increased urgency of climate change has further pushed policy makers into action. In addition, there is a new framing of CCS that underscores the potential of BECCS to provide negative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as well as prospects for offshore storage of CO2in Norway and other territories. As such, this study shows that Sweden could be on a transformation pathway towards implementing CCS alongside other mitigation measures.