Top Stories in Carbon Dioxide Removal in 2021
In the future, the climate community may recognize 2021 as the inflection point when carbon dioxide removal (CDR) transitioned from a niche concept to a central component of climate interventions. It thus seemed like a good time to launch an annual column on the top stories in this rapidly emerging field. I will kick things off with two stories that I thought were particularly important in 2021, and then four other CDR experts will weigh in. Of course, as is always the case with “lists” of this nature, not everyone will agree. However, if you’ve spent any time in the CDR community, this is nothing new!
1. The U.S. Government Takes a Shot at CDR
Wil Burns, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Support for carbon dioxide removal dramatically increased in depth and breadth in the United States in 2021, especially in the context of public sector support. In early November, Congress passed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure and Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), characterized by the White House as a “once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness.” The bill’s provisions include approximately $12 billion in funding for carbon capture and removal initiatives, the latter encompassing both so-called nature- and technology-based approaches. This includes $3.5 billion to fund four regional direct air capture “hubs,” each with the capacity to capture one million metric tons of CO2 per year, $115 million for pre- commercial and commercial direct air capture technology prizes, $2.1 billion in low-interest loans to large CO2 pipeline projects, and $2.5 billion for carbon storage programs. On the nature-based side of the ledger, the IIJA provides billions for forest programs, including reforestation/afforestation initiatives.
Carbon removal also received its first dedicated budget line at the Department of Energy this year, an outgrowth of the Energy Act of 2020. President Biden’s FY22 budget also contained substantial increases in funding for carbon removal, capture, storage and utilization. Moreover, the budget included substantial support for soil and forest carbon sequestration initiatives. This include funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, which will support pilot projects to provide incentives for climate-smart conservation programs on working lands, and the REPLANT Act, which seeks to foster reforestation initiatives.
In November, U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced the launching of the Carbon Negative Shot, the third of DOE’s Energy Earthshots program. Energy Earthshots seek to foster integrated program development across DOE’s science and applied energy programs, and ARPA-E. The DOE identified four performance elements to drive carbon removal program development, including reducing costs of carbon dioxide capture and storage to $100/net metric ton CO2e, robust accounting of lifecycle emissions, development of high-quality storage options with demonstrated costs for monitoring, reporting and verification on time scales of at least 100 years, and strategies to facilitate gigaton-scale carbon removal. It also calls for a whole-of-government approach to engender support and coordination across agencies and state and local governments.
2. The European Union Steps Up
Wil Burns, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Recognizing that the “existential threat posed by climate change required enhanced ambition,” the European Union passed the European Climate Law in June of this year. At its heart is an increase in the Union’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions target (emissions after the deduction of removals) from 37.5% in 2030 compared to 1990 levels, to 55%. Moreover, the law calls for balancing Union-wide greenhouse gas emissions and removals by 2050, and “aim to achieve negative emissions thereafter.”
However, while the Law clearly recognizes a role for carbon dioxide removal in climate policymaking, it circumscribes it within the intermediate 55% reduction target in several ways. First, the law emphasizes that Member States should “prioritise swift and predictable emissions” reductions.” Second, the ambit of the term carbon removal is focused on enhancing “removals by natural sinks.” Finally, it limits the contribution of net removals in the 55% intermediate target to 225 million tons of CO2 equivalent, though encouraging the development of a higher volume of a net carbon sink in 2030. According to an analysis by Climateworks, the cap of 225 million tons from removal means the actual emissions reduction target of the Union for 2030 is 52.8%
In December the European Commission released its Sustainable Carbon Cycles Communication. The Communication is probably the clearest statement to date by European institutions of the importance of carbon dioxide removal approaches in combating climate change. The Communication declares that “the development and deployment at scale of carbon removal solutions is indispensable to climate neutrality and requires significant targeted support in the next decade.” Moreover, it states that “[c]arbon removal will need to play a growing role, and become the main focus of action after climate neutrality is achieved . . .” In the context of carbon removal, the Communication emphasizes the need for a clear regulatory approach to drive adequate uptake of removal characterized by high integrity.
A major focus was on the role of “carbon farming,” essentially farm management practices (including blue carbon approaches) to effectuate mitigation in the agricultural sector. The Communication discusses financial incentives to establish a carbon farming green business model, including the granting of “carbon farming credits.” It also emphasizes the challenges of such practices, including obtaining adequate funding, ensuring permanence, and standardizing methodologies for robust monitoring, reporting and verification tools. The Communication also pledges to support of development of industrial carbon removal approaches, including Direct Air Capture and carbon capture and storage or utilization. In the case of both natural and industrial approaches, the Communication stresses the need for development of a transparent framework for carbon removal certification.
The Communication is not a legislative act, however. Much like the European Green Deal Communication, it sets forth a vision that will need to be ultimately operationalized into a legislative proposal, with likely adoption a few years from now.
3. Civil society guides CDR: the story that wasn’t
Holly Buck, Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor, Department of Environment and Sustainability, University of Buffalo
If silence speaks louder than words, what’s notable about carbon removal in 2021 is what we didn’t hear: civil society directing the development of this new field. Both the public sector and the private sector made unprecedented commitments to carbon removal in 2021, through investments, policy, or rhetoric. But civil society was divided — and thus didn’t end up making as much of an impact as startups or politicians.
It’s not that there weren’t any contributions: civil society organizations and activists dampened some of the hype, and called attention to the premises behind net zero. Some organizations and media outlets ran big stories on the flaws of carbon offsets — thinking of CarbonPlan and ProPublica’s reporting on forest carbon, in particular. Carbon180 made news with their ongoing advocacy spanning science and policy, and Grimes NFTs; another advocacy organization, Carbon Gap, also launched. Some large green groups took quiet action; Citizen’s Climate Lobby and The Nature Conservancy signed on to letter to Congress calling for carbon management policy.
Climate and environmental justice groups were vocal in critiquing net zero as a goal, and carbon removal as part of it. Internationally, groups like Oxfam pointed out how net zero promises over-rely on land-based carbon removal schemes. In the US, national environmental justice groups in the Climate Justice Alliance critiqued the infrastructure bill for its “false promises masquerading as climate solutions to the tune of billions of dollars”, unequivocally naming as false solutions carbon capture in all of its forms, the 45Q tax credit for enhanced oil recovery, direct air capture, and more. In California, as reported by Grist’s Emily Pontecorvo in this year’s must-read story, this contributed to the failure of a bill that attempted to enshrine net-zero by 2045 as law: it failed to engage with labor unions, but was also opposed by environmental justice organizations, who didn’t want carbon capture and direct air capture in state climate plans at all. Will this division among civil society groups continue through 2022? It’s hard to see how this dynamic will change easily — carbon removal only really becomes a demonstrable “real solution” in the presence of momentum towards fossil fuel phaseout. But the result of the stuck civil society discourse may be that there’s less of a guiding hand for civil society in general, as governments and companies press ahead on carbon removal without us.
4. Net-Zero Targets for the US and India
David Morrow, Director of Research, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy, American University
It’s tempting to think that the biggest CDR story of the year lies in some of the investments made or the new facilities, deliveries, and companies announced.
In my mind, though, the real CDR story of the year wasn’t about any of the near-term gains; it was about long-term goals. The United States and India both made net-zero commitments this year. Counting the EU and China, which had endorsed net-zero targets before this year, that means that the world’s four largest emitters (and many other countries) have committed to achieving at least net-zero CO2. Why is this a big deal for CDR? The easy answer is because there’s likely to be a small but vital role for CDR in reaching net-zero emissions in each of these places–namely, neutralizing emissions from harder-to-abate sectors.
The deeper answer, though, only appears once you notice the dates in the major emitters’ targets. The US and EU set target dates of 2050. China and India have set targets of 2060 and 2070, respectively. Why does that matter? In Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, the world committed itself to balancing human sources and sinks of greenhouse gases by mid-century. But if China and India aren’t going to reach net-zero until well after 2050, then the Paris Agreement tacitly commits developed countries to achieving net-negative emissions after 2050. That is, the EU, the US, and arguably other high emitters will need to use CDR to remove more CO2 from the air every year than they emit.
As a matter of climate justice, that’s as it should be. The richest countries, which have contributed the most to climate change and benefited most from the processes that caused it, have a responsibility to clean up their mess. (First, of course, we need to stop making more of a mess!) Now that the biggest players have declared their intentions, we see that the US and EU will need CDR to fulfill their responsibilities.
5. Carbon ca$h
Andrew Lockley, research associate, University College London
2021 felt like a year in which industrial carbon dioxide removal (CDR) made its breakthrough from a niche idea, transitioning to a serious commercial sector. Buoyed by purchases from Microsoft, Shopify, and particularly Stripe (with the latter two being highly focused on CDR, as opposed to offsets) the industry started to acquire a reliable base of blue chip customers. This precipitated a significant injection of capital from the climate tech sector. CDR tech investment is now officially A Thing.
Obviously, the incumbents (and it is notable that I can now say “incumbents” in this sector) are still prominent. Carbon Engineering tied up deals with Lanzatech and Pale Blue Dot — the latter linked to its expansion into Europe. Climeworks’ Orca plant was launched to great fanfare, resembling the first full-scale implementation of DAC-plus-mineralisation. It’s situated in an area in Iceland where the supply of both geothermal energy and basalt is plentiful, allowing its unit economics to become manageable. We can cheer for a bit, but the jury’s still out on when that particular bottomless coffee offer will expire. Nevertheless, experience curve effects should kick in, long before Iceland runs out of steam and rocks.
Against the veteran fighters, a number of sprightly challengers are limbering up ringside. Heirloom uses a similar chemical process to Carbon Engineering, but without the Heath Robinson contraptions necessary for CE’s fast-looped process. Heirloom essentially just bakes off its rock and then sits and waits. This approach is somewhat similar to enhanced weathering — but it’s endlessly calcining the same rock, like a thermochemical version of Sisyphus. Furthermore, Heirloom can bake off magnesium carbonates at a lower temperature than Carbon Engineering. This saves considerable amounts of energy — and potentially enabling easier adoption of non-fossil heating methods.
Verdox and its ilk are fundamentally more advanced, using electro-swing technologies to rip the captured CO2 from the sorbent. The lack of thermal deadweight in this process means they are potentially facing fundamentally far better thermodynamic — and ultimately economics. Furthermore, the lack of a requirement for thermal insulation means the process can potentially be scaled down dramatically. This enables firstly modularization, and secondly the application of the tech to a broader range of use cases — such as on-premise drinks carbonation, greenhouse CO2 enrichment, etc. None of these artisan uses are true CDR, but all of them could be crucial for scaling. With this scaling comes resulting cost falls, which could ultimately facilitate massive uptake from more price-sensitive sectors.
Charm Industrial uses a variant of the biochar manufacture process to create a bio-oil product — which is then pumped down a hole in the ground, sequestering the carbon within. The logic for this seemingly perverse business is that the bio-oil is a pretty useless fuel, but contains a lot of carbon. This strikingly simple solution has surprisingly landed Charm the top spot in total disposal tonnage .
Meanwhile, in the sea, various innovators are launching firms. These include Ebb Carbon and Planetary Hydrogen. Both are making progress with different electrolysis technologies, involving electrochemistry I struggle to understand. As always, the mantra to electrify everything is pretty-universally applicable — and CDR technology is no exception. The resulting grid-stabilization potential of electric CDR technologies gives these firms another revenue stream, which is unavailable to their fossil-fueled legacy technology competitors.
6. Biochar Gets Hotter
K. Draper, Board Chair, International Biochar Initiative & Tom Miles, Executive Director, US Biochar Initiative
Biochar is a carbon-rich product produced through thermochemical processing of biomass in an oxygen-deficient environment. It has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by converting biomass carbon into recalcitrant carbon and increasing soil properties, which can reduce conversion of land into agricultural applications that may release additional carbon into the atmosphere. Biochar interest, capacity and even market diversity and penetration made significant progress in 2021. Interest is coming from philanthropists and other funders, policy makers, investors, the carbon markets and carbon removal buyers as well as waste management professionals. A recent symposium on the Business of Biochar co-hosted by the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) and the US Biochar Initiative (USBI) attracted nearly 500 registrants, a significant increase over previous conferences. IBI received a $1.8M capacity building grant in 2021 which will allow it to hire staff and more actively support scaling biochar’s potential. Demand for biochar-based carbon removal credits has outstripped supply and prices per ton of CO2e range from $100 — $150 and are rising steadily with large global multinationals adding biochar to their carbon portfolio, including Microsoft and Shopify. Additional biochar methodologies are being developed by Verra and the American Carbon Registry.
Biochar production capacity is growing substantially, at least in the U.S. and in Europe. A recent market study in Europe estimated an annual growth rate of 40% over the next few years, and anecdotal evidence suggests a similar or larger growth rate in the US. Markets for biochar are still largely focused on agriculture, but industrial uses such as its use in concrete, asphalt and other composites are beginning to be commercialized and show huge potential for long term carbon storage. Supply chain challenges for soil amendments such as perlite and vermiculites combined with high prices for natural gas and downstream products such as fertilizers have provided additional incentives for growers to consider using biochar in their operations.
