2023 is proving to be a year of climate and weather extremes. Record-busting , unprecedented , and devastating and have been reported across the world.
Authors
Christian Turney
Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research, University of Technology Sydney
Lennart Bach
Associate Professor, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania
Philip Boyd
Professor of Marine Science, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania
Less discussed by the world media is the continuing rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases driving these changes. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is not seen since the hothouse world of the , 3 million years ago. On top of that, an , so widespread extreme events may .
Despite the changes we are seeing, global efforts to cut emissions of what’s needed to keep heating to less than 2℃, let alone the more ambitious Paris Agreement target of 1.5℃. This creates an urgent need for the purposeful removal of atmospheric CO₂ as well as cuts in emissions.
In a , we argue for a different approach to pricing carbon. It should take into account how it is removed from the atmosphere, for how long, and with what confidence. This will help fund the most promising technologies for reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Carbon removal is on the agenda
The United Nations hosted a “no-nonsense” in New York this week with the aim of accelerating the global transition away from carbon. This must be done to avoid breaching 2℃ of global heating relative to the pre-industrial era.
Two strategies are being pursued:
- carbon emission reductions
- carbon dioxide removal (CDR), also called “negative emissions”.
At in 2021, global resolutions on cutting emissions drove the push for “” across nations, cities and sectors. However, some worldwide activities, including aviation and heavy industry, face challenges eliminating emissions. Carbon credits have become the main way to offset their remaining emissions.
The dilemma lies in the nature of carbon credits. Most are allocated for so-called “avoidance” measures. A prime example is not clearing forest, which has come .
And these measures do nothing about the existing excess carbon dioxide.
A big change in our thinking is needed. The emphasis must shift from emission “avoidance” to “removal” offsets that actively pull carbon from the atmosphere. So how do we tackle the monumental challenge of reducing atmospheric CO₂?
What’s needed is a shift from avoidance to verifiable . Almost all current removal efforts come from traditional land management. Less than 1% comes from innovative removal technologies.
Removal technologies include:
- – where carbon from plant material is sequestered as charcoal and stored in soil
- – which directly removes CO₂ from the air and stores it in geological formations.
A major advance at COP26 was to work out the projected demand and market trajectory for carbon offsets. Offset credits play a vital role in advancing CO₂ removal technologies and developing carbon markets.
Another key goal was to formulate a carbon trading rulebook. The resulting predicts demand for carbon offsets will grow tenfold by 2030 and 50-fold by 2050.
So what are the obstacles?
We identify a potential bottleneck. Developing, testing and scaling up CO₂ removal technologies takes time. This means a lag in supply could stymie the rapidly growing demand for carbon dioxide removal.
Another problem is that the current carbon offset market offers a flat rate, no matter the quality or effectiveness of the CO₂ removal method. There is an urgent need for a tiered market that values high-quality, proven CO₂ removal methods. This will provide an incentive to fast-track their use.
The is a stumbling block. The price for offsetting a tonne of CO₂ is in the range US$10-100. Cheaper avoidance strategies, such as not clearing forests, heavily influence this price.
The existing pricing falls short when we consider the costs of CO₂ removal technologies, which can exceed US$200 per tonne removed.
The prevailing metric, simplifying everything to “one tonne of carbon”, doesn’t consider the complexities of CO₂ removal. Each method has its own specifics about how long it can store carbon, how reliably it can be verified and the potential risks or side effects. Shoehorning such a varied field into a single metric stifles innovation in CO₂ removal.
What are the solutions?
Understanding the market’s resistance to intricate metrics, we propose a more nuanced yet approachable two-step solution:
Shift in metrics: change the standard from a “carbon tonne” to a “carbon tonne year”. This recognises the longevity of CO₂ removal methods and rewards those that store carbon longer. Such a metric connects directly with efforts to cut emissions.
A mandatory warranty: each “carbon tonne year” requires a warranty from the seller to vouch for the method’s reliability (verification) and its overall safety (assessing risks and side effects).
These changes will foster a system that appropriately values CO₂ removal methods that are long-lasting, reliable and safe. It creates an incentive to develop and use these methods.
In our Nature article, we advocate a structured ten-year plan. This timeframe is crucial for maturing the markets, establishing effective regulatory frameworks and fine-tuning verification.
It’s essential to prepare for the evolution and scaling up of carbon dioxide removal. A decade provides a realistic window to develop the processes needed to reach net zero.
The magnitude of this task cannot be overstated. In just a few decades, , comparable to global food production.
The New York summit has set the stage for the later this year. An ambitious long-term global strategy can still provide a sustainable future within the heating limits set in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
It’s time to get real about carbon.
Chris Turney receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a scientific adviser and holds shares in cleantech biographite company, CarbonScape (). Chris is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute ().
Lennart Bach receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Carbon to Sea Initiative. He is a scientific adviser of Submarine (), which develops tools for monitoring, reporting and verification of marine CO₂ removal. Lennart is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute ().
Philip Boyd receives funding from the Australian Research Council and he is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute.
