Discover the news shaping the future of carbon removal.
Stay up to date on all things Klimate, carbon removal, and the most important emerging news and policy. Read our latest Insights.
What is carbon removal?
The difference between avoidance and removal
At the most basic level, carbon offset methods can be split into two groups:
- methods that avoid greenhouse gas emissions
- methods that remove (and sequester) COâ‚‚ which is already in the atmosphere
The most common forms of avoidance are renewable energy projects, like wind and solar developments, as well as energy-saving activities such as providing clean cookstoves or boilers.
The general idea is that if you buy energy-efficient cookstoves for people in developing countries, they will use these instead of burning wood. This results in a net reduction in the amount of COâ‚‚ being emitted in the future (as less wood is harvested from forests and burned to heat the stove). Similarly, renewable energy offsets assume that the energy generated from renewable sources would otherwise have been generated from sources with higher COâ‚‚ emissions like coal, oil, and gas. The difference is then counted as an offset.
Why does Klimate exclusively remove carbon?
The problem with avoidance is that no GHGs are actually removed from the atmosphere. As shown on the graph below, there are no negative emissions taking place, but rather an absence of emissions in a future year. As a result, it is not advisable to use avoidance for any type of compensation, especially if you intend to communicate your efforts to the public.
Furthermore, most renewable energy offsets, particularly wind and solar, struggle with proving additionality. This means that it is highly uncertain whether the investment makes a difference - for many of the avoidance projects, most of the emissions would never have occurred anyway. As such, there is limited additional impact as a result of the investment.
The alternative to avoidance is carbon removal. The advantage of carbon removal is that instead of avoiding future emissions, we actively remove GHGs from the atmosphere. This makes it more appropriate to talk about compensation, as there is a greater equivalence between emitting GHGs and removing them.As shown in the graph, this results in a negative emission, which can be used to make claims around being Net Zero. The relationship is not 1-to-1, and depends on factors such as the permanence, rapidity, additionality, and accounting of the emissions, which we take into account when we evaluate the different carbon removal methods and projects.
What are the different types of removals?
Carbon removal can happen either through nature-based solutions, like planting trees, or through engineered solutions that use technology to capture and store COâ‚‚. There are also several hybrid solutions that combine nature-based solutions with engineering.
For instance, some methods rely on nature to capture COâ‚‚ in biological material, but then use engineering solutions to convert the biomass into products or materials that retain carbon much longer than biological material.
Nature-based solutions
Nature-based solutions (NBS) are carbon-removal solutions inspired and supported by nature. They rely on natural processes for cost-effective carbon removal, provide environmental, social and economic benefits, and support various ecosystem services. Nature-based solutions include projects such as land-based forest restoration, agroforestry, mangrove forests, and marine biomass, such as kelp forests and seaweed.
Example: Forestation, Enhanced Weathering
Technological solutions
Technological solutions rely on engineering to capture and bind COâ‚‚, and subsequently store the carbon. The most prominent and promising technologies are Direct Air Capture solutions that directly suck COâ‚‚ from the atmosphere using giant fans and use various processes to store the carbon, usually in underground geological formations.
Example: Direct Air Capture
Hybrid solutions
Hybrid solutions combine nature-based and technological aspects. They rely on nature for part of the carbon removal process - usually to bind carbon in biomass through photosynthesis - and then use technology to modify and store the biomass. For example, many hybrid solutions use various types of pyrolysis to generate inactive carbon, which can be stored in soil or underground reservoirs.
Example: Biochar, Soil sequestration, Bio-oil
‍
COP27: A short summary and reflections
A long overdue recognition of climate damages
The most important outcome overall was the establishment of a fund for so-called “Loss and Damage,” a tool to help low-income countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. This issue has been neglected by rich countries for decades and progress was long overdue. Robert Stavin’s blog post deals excellently with this topic, which has been controversial as countries have not been able to agree on who should pay for such loss and damage. Poorer countries have suggested that those most responsible for climate change, that is the countries with the largest accumulated (historical + current) emissions of GHGs – the United States, EU, and other large, wealthy countries, plus, importantly, China. Countries have not agreed on all the details of this fund and it remains to be seen whether it is merely an empty shell or whether it will help move us towards a more equitable system for compensating for loss and damage caused by global climate change.
Carbon removal - much talk, little action…
At COP27, carbon removal was more central than at previous COPs. At the conference participants agreed to “elaborate and further develop recommendations on activities involving removals, including appropriate monitoring, reporting, accounting for removals and crediting periods, addressing reversals, avoidance of leakage, and avoidance of other negative environmental and social impact.” However, in plain language, it was a bit disappointing, as no clear definition for carbon removal was achieved, while countries could not agree on a transparent mechanism to implement Article 6. The slow pace of progress on this is concerning. Though a complex matter, failure to gain clarity could create uncertainty in the voluntary carbon market. Therefore, it’s quite important that momentum is built before next year’s meeting, particularly around the technical working groups, to ensure that COP28 can deliver on carbon removal and address the outstanding questions around MRV, implementation and the link between the voluntary market and the Paris Agreement mechanisms.
COP28 - the carbon removal COP?
Although carbon removal is central to achieving net-zero and mitigating climate change, the carbon removal space still operates somewhat separately from the broader climate change agenda. Significant work is thus required - both within the carbon removal industry and within the climate change community - to mainstream CDR into the broader mitigation discussions at the COP. The decision text adopted at COP (the so-called Article 6.4) provides guidance and gives the Scientific Body - the experts working on this topic within UNFCCC - the time and mandate to “elaborate and further develop” the work on carbon removal in the lead-up to COP28. Eve Tamme’s blog post is successfully diving further into this topic. Next year’s COP, hosted by the United Arab Emirates, is expected to include a greater focus on CCUS, including carbon removal. Significant progress is thus expected within the carbon removal industry in 2023 - both in the technical negotiations leading up to COP28 and as a result of the upcoming EU certification framework for carbon removals. More on the latter in the next post.
Feedback and comments are essential. Shout out to Eve Tamme, Robert Stavins, and other climate change and carbon removal experts including the Klimate team for further insights.
‍
Sign up for Klimate Insights
Stay in the loop on all things Klimate, carbon removal, and the most important emerging news and policy.