COP 29 Side Event notes - Carbon Dioxide Removal - considerations for responsible deployment on land and in the ocean

More notes of interesting side events at #COP29, this time a set of researchers talking about how to do Carbon Dioxide Removal responsibly. This is an increasingly urgent consideration given that the carbon budget for well below 2 degrees is substantially expended, and substantial amounts of drawdown will be needed to claw back into consistency with it.

Moderator: Barry Vessar, Climate Center (based in Sacramento, focussed on speed and scale of solutions to climate)

?

Partnering with the World Ocean Council and ICOS ERIC on this event on the role of CDR towards Paris goals and how to do it responsibly - that means not replacing the need for rapid emissions reductions, and ensuring communities on the front lines are protected.

?

Barry:

• Global climate goals are bold but inadequate. The IPCC told us in their 2018 1.5C report that we need to cut emissions 45% by 2030, AND remove 1000 gigatonnes of CO2e, to hit 1.5C
• It's obvious to everyone here at COP that we're not doing that well on reductions so far. UNEP Gap Report says current policies equal 3.1C of warming, with countries on track for a 9% increase in emissions.
• So why focus on CDR? The industries involved are nascent and will take years to scale up. Should have started years ago, but the second best time is now.
• CDR types Marine based Terrestrial
• Carbon Capture and Storage versus Carbon Dioxide Removal - they are note the same thing. Both deal with capturing carbon But CDR is about removing legacy emissions from the atmosphere. CCS is about preventing future emissions, usually at smokestack level If we conflate the two it is possible that industry will promote continued business as usual.
• Climate Center has developed principles for responsible CDR Removing past climate pollution is essential to stabilising the climate We must accelerate GHG emissions cuts and fossil fuel phase out - CDR is not a substitute for direct emissions reductions - we should have separate targets for CDR CDR projects should be community centered and designed with community input CDR projects must not exacerbate existing pollution Nature based CDR is critical with many co-benefits
• On the US election: The role for both local and subnational actors has become more important than ever I expect that California's leadership will identify - for both policy and political reasons In the same week as the Presidential election, California passed a $10b climate bond - mitigating wildfire, drought and extreme heat; and funding projects for nature based solutions for CDR California has also set ambitious goals in the past year to do land management and conservation on 50 million acres of the state. Follow through is important! But Cali is setting goals that take us towards a more liveable future. The State has attracted early CDR investment from the Federal Government and industry. Why does California matter? Because it is the fifth largest economy in the world and its actions will slow Federal backsliding.
• The agenda today: Role of responsible CDR Importance of community engagement Responsible research, development and commercialisation of marine CDR Role of measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification Policy measures and challenges to ensuring speed, scale and responsibility

?

Louise Bedsworth - UC Berkeley

We're working on CDR responsible deployment under a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grant.

We have an opportunity to design projects to benefit communities and avoid patterns of past transitions.

We need to support emergent technologies

And move fast!

We're focussed on Direct Air Capture with Storage (DACS), working with several companies and energy providers, focussed on legacy emissions and geologic sequestration - though also looking at converting CO2 to products.

US DOE Feasibility Study is looking at a hub with multiple techs on a campus, with a clean eneryg provider and potentially CO2 to products, plus water. There would be an owner, community benefits and CO2 removal. A 17 member project team has committed that if the project does not meet both economic and community criteria it would be deemed unfeasible.

?

Why does this matter? Look at the San Joaquin Valley in California - the great central valley that runs down the state, covers 27,000 square miles. Very conducive to carbon sequestration. Has produced a lot of emissions as an oil and gas producing region. There are 4 Federal DAC grants in the region.

?

The Valley feels inundated with projects using an emergent technology without much regulatory framework. There's an active Environmental Justice community on heightened alert. The area also contains the state's most disadvantaged communities, and has economic vulnerabilities too.? It has some of the worst air quality in the nation due to industries and topology. There is a large oil and gas industry. There are also agricultural lands that face change; major freeways with associated air pollution too.

?

There's a strong overlap between high potential carbon storage areas and high disadvantage areas. Communities don't want to bear the brunt of the latest transition like previous ones.

?

We've done early outreach. There's concern about potential use of this technology to extend the life of fossil fuels. Emissions reduction needs priority and clean energy needs to be used.

There's a demand for transparency and accountability.

With CO2 product companies involved, there's a desire emerging from community feedback for removed CO2 to be used in products as much as possible, rather than stored underground. [this really takes some thinking - is it actually positive?]

?

CALDAC has developed an elaborate Feasibility Assessment Framework involving the need for a community benefits plan.

Elements:

• Community Oversight Council representing many interests Environmental Civic Labor Environmental justice organisations [sounds like a tough crowd]
• Community benefits plan Framed by community created goals and vision Includes assessment of ownership and governance models - potential co-ownership and community ownership
• Two-way learning

?

Key points for co-creation include

• Hub site selection
• Community-based design process to inform many features
• Consideration of a public authority to manage DACS rather than a private market
• Development of a community benefit plan

?

Innovation in responsible CDR Deployment - badly needed. We're hoping to complete a feasibility study and make a replicable, accessible model for a community-led approach. We want to ensure these projects can create local benefits and serve the wider public good.

?

?

Jill Storey - World Ocean Council

Why look at marine CDR, now?

• IPCC has said we must capture 10GT/yr with CDR by 2050. That's more than the annual emissions of USA and India combined (today)
• That's a 2,222 times growth from today's CDR. 30% CAGR over 25 years!

?

So far terrestrial CDR has been 90% of the total. But the ocean is earth's largest CO2 sink and should be the obvious place to look to enhance natural processes to get a big impact.

?

NASEM 2022 report on Ocean-based CDR Pathways gives overview of solutions to explore

• Biological Photosynthesis - micro or macro algae
• Chemical Increase the alkalinity of the ocean, or use electrochemical processes

?

Over 10 years the R&D funding needed to research responsibly is $2 billion, says NASEM.

?

In September 2023, 200 leading scientists signed a letter to say we should be doing more science on this now.

?

One player is a not for profit called Ocean Visions, doing a great job on ocean pathways and maps of field trials around the world. A couple of years ago it seemed to many like nothing was happening in the ocean. Now it is clear that multiple projects are starting research in the field around the world.

?

This research needs to be undertaken in a responsible way. In recent years we've seen policies and frameworks:

• Community engagement
• Moving gradually from lab to field experiments
• Life cycle analysis to ensure net carbon removals
• Doing environmental assessment at the same time

?

Example methodologies form early stage companies include:

• marine terrestrial biomass storage (Rewind Earth) - this is looking at putting woody biomass into the Black Sea. Their MTBS methodology is at v1.0 after months of open feedback from scientists and the public, with input from many areas - heading for v2.0
• Methodology for measurement, reporting and verification of electrolytic oceanic carbon dioxide removal (Equatic)
• Registries like Isometric have numerous climate scientists on their teams.

?

Government action examples:

• EU - Strategies for evaluation and assessment of ocean based CDR (2023)
• US getting into the act

?

The economic opportunity is worth a look. McKinsey in 2022 said CDR is a $1.2t annual market opportunity by mid century. There are also co-benefits from ocean removals for biodiversity and avoided acidification.

?

What do we need to do?

• More focus on permitting - ability to get quick permits to early stage experiments; moving over time to longer permit period, with good controls and monitoring of a range of environmental impacts.
• Rigorous and transparent MRV. Essential to underpin corporate demand. The last thing you want is to be accused of greenwashing.
• Need the IMO aboard.
• Need to raise awareness
• Need to lift engagement and education with communities
• NEED DEMAND MECHANISMS to navigate the 'valley of death'. Developers need demand for their credits to prove up the market and expand.

?

More examples:

• Gigablue NZ
• Brilliant Planet Morocco
• Vesta (increasing ocean alkalinity)

?

60% of the largest businesses have net zero targets. There will not be enough supply of durable CDR, so companies are getting into development not just purchasing. Microsoft is a particular leader here. Frontier is a coalition of mostly tech companies with advanced market commitments of USD$1 billion to buy durable CDR. Working in coalitions helps companies go where they could not go alone.

?

Urges us to spruik marine CDR to our colleagues after this session!

?

?

Werner Kutsch - ICOS ERIC

"CDR needs scientifically rigorous MRV"

?

The Carbon Removals Certification Framework was approved by the EU Parliament in spring 2024. Principles include:

• Additionality - the ocean already sinks 10GT CO2 per year. 25% of emissions! Another 25% is taken up by the land. Any tradable CR needs to be on top of this.
• Duration - we're not talking about 10 years of storage, we want a long term removal.
• Harm and co-benefits - we want no harm to the environment, and improvements to ecosystem integrity
• Avoid double counting - when MS buys certificates, the same action should not show up in national inventories [oof, not sure about that myself]

?

There is a lack of standardised tools for MRV.

?

An example: a farmer wants to change field management, but cannot go directly to the market. A broker quantifies the carbon storage effect and provides a certificate. That is based on a catalogue of removal practises drawn from scientific advise like the IPCC, in turn founded on extensive work. Long term monitoring is needed.

?

Catalogue information includes regional information to establish a baseline. A free natural service is not tradable, only additional removal. Methods should be in line with IPCC guidelines. Duration should be estimated and the uncertainties and risks described.

?

Monitoring needs to combine on-site measurement, remote sensing and modelling.

?

What is the scientific input to carbon dioxide removal? We have data for various sorts of cropland with different patterns of sequestration and release, varying by management approach. We can do a lot with that information, and use it to inform monitoring approaches.

?

ICOS provides a comprehensive research infrastructure to support sequestration work. Includes completely open and free data availability through an online portal.

?

Without scientific monitoring CDR will not work. We need to demonstrate the reality of the storage and the lack of harm to other environmental metrics.

?

Observations require money! There are different funding models:

• Public finance with knowledge transfer is familiar
• But this is also a huge market as it grows it needs to cover the costs of necessary monitoring.

?

?

Shaun Fitzgerald - University of Cambridge - Center for Climate Repair

What do we mean by 'responsibility' in CDR context?

• The level of public support and its timing for CDR - to do with the inertia of scale up and inertia on emissions reduction
• The level of policy incentives and measures to prevent increasing or continued emissions while encouraging CDR
• Wider context of climate finance and the needs of people today

?

Level of public support and timing:

• We have limited resources at any point in time. Two big levers being considered are emissions reduction and the inevitable need for CDR
• Where are we in understanding ocean based CDR? Not where we need to be to make informed decisions. Need more money in R&D before going to deployment
• But the longer we leave it, we won't get the scale up of heavy physical infrastructure or of enhanced natural systems.
• We're going to then need finance for scale up and deployment. The same and more will be needed for emissions reduction! So what are we doing to help developing countries to take a different growth path?
• Public support is not just about money. Inclusion of citizens and local communities in any action is essential.
• We need to run as fast as public and communities will allow.
• Investment interest in the absence of credible demand could risk a crash.
• Public engagement takes time, conversation, and trust earned

?

Level of policy incentives

• We want to encourage CDR and emissions reduction - will we have penalties for breaching targets? Probably not, but article 6 is relevant.
• Many academics don't like emissions trading, but we're likely going to need it. There are some emissions that will continue forever - eg agriculture - and we will need CDR to compensate for these. And we'll need to go beyond that to a net negative economy.

?

Wider context of climate finance

• There's an insidious gap between climate damages and benefits, and our actions.
• Needs of people today are critical.
• Keir Starmer said today he 'won't dictate how people live their lives, but reaching clean power mission by 2030 is vital'
• We need to look at the needs of future generations, but remember that if we move too quickly we may lose support today.

?

Q&A

?

Moderator: Net zero is not enough! It's hard to do, and not adequate. Let's start talking about the combination of emissions reductions and removals that we need.

?

Q: re yesterday's 6.4 decision - how do you assess the standards involved? Are they enough for the task?

?

• Jill: Great start and a step forward - and good to make the announcement at the start of COP. Need to move forward together.
• Shaun: it's good but it highlights the need for more research.

?

Q: reflection on how ambition on CDR should be reflected in NDCs? Separation from emissions reduction? Are there countries doing this well?

?

• Louise: California broke out CDR in its most recent targets. They just put a number in place - it was very controversial, with scrutiny by an EJ committee. State passed a 2022 law for a framework for CDR
• Barry: some principles in there came from a broader draft law that we hope to pass some day
• Shaun: we need countries to have policies that reflect the NDCs!

?

?

Q: how doable are projects with a very very rigorous responsibility process?

• Louise: it is very labour intensive! The intent is to establish a process that is more widely replicable. We don't expect every project will look like this, and several further along do not. We feel a lot of pressure that it succeed - there is a spectrum of success - maybe everybody sings kumbaya, but maybe we just get a lot of learnings about mediating very different organisations with diverse goals.

?

Q: What level of community engagement is enough?

• Shaun: involvement is better - employment, direct local benefits. If you push too hard too quickly, you often go nowhere
• Jill: Planetary Technologies tried a small project in Cornwall - one village wanted to go ahead, another nearby (with the same information) didn't want to. The difference was the level of scientific background of the councils in each place. It can be very easy to think populations are the same, but they are diverse.
• Louise: deriving local benefits is really important. We're not starting from scratch in our project - there's lots of social and civic infrastructure to draw on. Education and co-learning is important - were trying to put much more power in the hands of the community.