Apologies! Crossposted. On Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 3:20 PM Geoengineering News < [email protected]> wrote:
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad796b > > *Authors* > Josh Burke and Felix Schenuit > > *Published 20 September 2024 * > > DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ad796b > > *Abstract* > Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a cornerstone of climate change mitigation > strategies aiming for net-zero CO2 and GHG emissions targets, as emphasized > in the IPCC AR6 (IPCC 2023) and many national modeling studies (Larson et > al 2021, He et al 2022, European Commission 2024). However, a significant > gap exists between the CDR required in climate scenarios and the current > state of CDR in terms of public and private finance, policy instruments, > and actual deployment (Smith et al 2024). A broad portfolio of CDR policy > instruments and CDR methods will be needed to address this gap in the > coming years and decades. > > The upscaling pathways of the individual methods differ significantly. In > addition to technological readiness, costs, side effects, and other > method-specific aspects, the upscaling dynamics will also be shaped by its > embeddedness in existing policy architectures and sector- and > country-specific politics. The role of specific CDR methods in climate > policy should be fundamentally shaped by their permanence features. The > positioning of methods on the continuum from decades to centuries, > centuries to millennia, ten thousand years or more has important > implications for the fungibility of emissions and removals, which in turn > informs the emerging discussion on the potential integration of these > methods into cap-and-trade systems. > > In order to highlight the importance of permanence for designing CDR > policies in general and deriving implications for policy discussion on > possible ETS integration more specifically, this perspective is structured > as follows: first, we present the policy context and a mapping and > conceptual distinction of five groups of measures applicable to address > varying levels of permanence in CDR policy. Second, we make the case for > limiting the fungibility of different CDR methods with each other and with > fossil CO2 emissions. Third, and building on the identified measures and > conditional fungibility, we present a sequencing strategy for integrating > permanent removals into existing compliance carbon markets. > > *Source: IOP SCIENCE * > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh99cmn-%2BnqLm_UHwcwKSB91%3Dt%2BjQi50%2B3j5LGL3at15Wug%40mail.gmail.com.
