This Week in Carbon Dioxide Removal: Three Take-Aways

Week 2 Edition

Professor Wil Burns, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University

In this week’s edition, I’ll highlight a new support mechanism for CDR start-ups, and two important new studies on blue carbon and anticipatory governance of greenhouse gas removal approaches.

Story 1: Third Derivative (D³) CDR Cohort Launch

The global climate technology accelerator, Third Derivative (D3), announced this week that it was establishing a cohort of five carbon dioxide removal companies for support. The primary objective is to help effectuate the goals of the First Gigaton Captured initiative, a multi-year program funded by the Grantham Foundation, to ultimately reduce the price of carbon capture from an average of $500 to $100/ton. The chosen companies will be provided with a range of assistance, including scientific and marketing mentors, an interface with prospective corporate partners, and direct catalytic funding.

The five companies, chosen from the ranks of 60 applicants, include three companies focused on direct air capture, and two researching geological processes for carbon capture. All companies are denominated as having a relatively high “tech readiness of 4+.” The companies are:

• Avnos Direct Air Capture, a direct air capture company that is developing a proprietary Hybrid DAC technology, which it claims can produce water for each ton of carbon dioxide captured, which can be used in turn to capture additional CO2;
• Mission Zero Technologies, a direct air capture company that is working on a technology to substantially reduce energy and other costs associated with capture, including through the use of an electrochemical separation process;
• Sustaera, a company focused on the development of modular direct air capture units utilizing renewable energy;
• Vesta, a company seeking to take up carbon dioxide from atmosphere through coastal enhanced mineral weathering
• 44.01, a company that seeks to combine CO2 and water, and then inject the mix into peridotite rock (rich in olivine and pyroxene) formations underground for mineralization, effectuating permanent storage.

Story 2: Blue Carbon Blues?

As I have suggested in a recent piece, there has been a growing focus over the past few years on the potential role of ocean-based carbon dioxide removal approaches as part of a future CDR portfolio. However, a study published this week in the journal Frontiers in Climate by Phillip Williamson & Jean-Pierre Gattuso is a cautionary tale. The study focused on the potential role of “blue carbon” (defined in the article as mangrove forests, seagrass meadows and tidal saltmarshes) in sequestering carbon dioxide, specifically in the context of projects to restore degraded ecosystems.

The study suggests some imposing issues in terms of measurement and verification of carbon removal in coastal blue carbon ecosystems (CBCEs) that may have substantial implications for ocean-based CDR more generally.

Among the chief conclusions of the study:

• To ensure the integrity of claims of restoration of CBCEs for the purposes of national carbon reduction strategies or for use in carbon trading markets, there is a need for “unequivocal” substantiation of claims of additional carbon uptake and storage, including reasonable confidence in the magnitude of such benefits and verifiability. For the purposes of UNFCCC goals of long-term sequestration, storage should occur for more than 100 years;
• An array of biological, chemical, and physical factors ensure very high variability in estimates of carbon burial rates, varying by as much as 600-fold for saltmarshes. Thus, modeling currently yields very uncertain default estimates;
• To date, most estimates of carbon burial rates have been indirect, which can result in “order-of-magnitude” errors;
• Lateral carbon transport of non-local carbon, which may have occurred without blue carbon restoration interventions, are difficult to separate out. In some cases, these sources may dominate the profile;
• Other issues include potential fluxes of two powerful greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxides associated with restoration efforts, potential CO2 emissions associated with carbonate formation and dissolution, and vulnerability to both climate change and other non-climatic factors.
• The scalability of blue carbon restoration initiatives also remains extremely contested, with estimates ranging from less than $100/ton CO2 to well above $500. Other factors, including potential land-use conflicts, could also severely constrain potential scaling;
• Many of these projects could provide compelling co-benefits that justify them irrespective of carbon dioxide sequestration potential. However, if climate benefits are claimed, there is a compelling need for “comprehensive long-term monitoring and protection …”

Story 3: Anticipatory Regulation and Greenhouse Gas Removal

A study published this week in the journal Energy Research and Social Science seeks to provide insights from the regulation of fracking in the United Kingdom to help guide governance of large-scale greenhouse gas removal (GGR)(focused on carbon dioxide removal approaches in the study).

Among the key conclusions of the study:

• In addition to solving technological issues to facilitate large-scale deployment of CDR approaches, we also need to develop effective means of addressing “how the various proposals might affect and interact with locations, cultures and communities of proposed deployment and the potential social impediments to deployment, including issues of ‘social legitimacy;’”
• The United Kingdom’s experience with fracking suggests some shortfalls in governance of innovative technologies, including inadequate mechanisms to engender transparent communications between the industrial sector, key stakeholders and the local community, and streamlining the approval process for projects in ways that could be perceived as steamrolling local interests;
• The United Kingdom should focus on principles of “anticipatory regulation” to try to enhance the legitimacy of CDR approaches as they begin to be deployed. This includes pertinent principles of procedural justice, with the Aarhus Convention providing a roadmap. This includes fostering an inclusive and collaborative environment, providing open and accessible information and data, and emphasizing an iterative process to ensure that projects can be adjusted over time;
• Current GGR governance frameworks fail to provide provisions for engaging stakeholders and in the planning and development phases of projects. This includes “participatory management” to “promote recognition of the different needs, allowing responses to be co-produced and fairness in the solutions ensuring, engendering the trust that underlies social legitimacy.”
• Projects should be developed in a manner that maximize commercial opportunities for local community businesses and industry.