Posted on

Managing Land‐based CDR: BECCS, Forests and Carbon Sequestration

Duncan Brack, Richard King

doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12827

Abstract

Decisions about when, where and how to achieve widespread carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are urgently required. Delays in developing the requisite policy and regulatory frameworks increase the risks of overshooting climate goals and will necessitate much larger negative emissions initiatives in the future. Yet the deployment of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) at the scales assumed under most Paris‐Agreement‐compliant emission‐reduction pathways is unlikely. More generally, the sustainability of large‐scale BECCS is questionable given its extensive land, water, and energy requirements for feedstocks and the competing necessity of these resources for the provision of ecosystem services and attainment of multiple Sustainable Development Goals. BECCS on a more limited scale, however, could have more benign impacts if feedstocks were restricted to wastes and residues. There is also widespread recognition that extensive afforestation, reforestation and forest restoration have critical roles in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero. To date there has been little focus on the optimum strategies for integrating land‐based CDR approaches – under which circumstances forest areas are best left undisturbed, managed for conservation, and/or managed for harvested wood products, and how these options affect the availability of residual feedstocks for BECCS. This paper reviews this debate and suggests appropriate policy measures.

Three principal policy implications emerge:

First, the necessity of abandoning the assumption, common in integrated assessment models, that BECCS is the pre‐eminent carbon removal solution. Rather it needs to be analysed alongside all other negative emissions technologies (NETs), on the basis of full lifecycle carbon balances (including dropping the assumption that biomass feedstock is inherently carbon‐neutral), as well as other ecosystem and sustainability co‐benefits and trade‐offs.

Second, urgent action is required to scale up the development and deployment of sustainable NETs. No single NET – whether BECCS, nature‐based, or otherwise – will achieve the scale of CDR required in the vast majority of 1.5°C and 2°C mitigation scenarios, let alone do so sustainably. But portfolios of multiple NETs, deployed sensitively at modest scales, will be invaluable for achieving climate security. This requires designing policy and financial mechanisms that are sufficiently attuned to the contextual specificities of each potential deployment, but which are sufficiently catalytic to galvanise appropriate and complementary actions at adequate scales and with enough urgency.

Third, we need to be absolutely clear that all CDR efforts have to be additional to – not substituting for, or detracting from – urgent acceleration of conventional abatement actions. This means we need to accelerate conventional abatement action as rapidly as possible. There are too many drawbacks and uncertainties associated with BECCS and other NETs to place excessive reliance on them – though carbon removal solutions will undoubtedly be needed.

Posted on

ICRLP Co-Director Dr. Wil Burns Explores Ocean Alkalinization’s Potential

ICRLP Co-director Wil Burns and co-author Charles R. Corbett recently published an important article in One Earth titled “Antacids for the Sea? Artificial Ocean Alkalinization and Climate Change.” This important article explores ways in which artificial ocean alkalinization (AOA) could serve as an important component of a large-scale carbon removal strategy. It includes an analysis of the risks and benefits of AOA, as well as governance considerations. 

Despite the world community coming together in 2015 and signing the Paris agreement, it has since become clear that the reality of meeting the 2.0/1.5°C temperature targets are becoming increasingly unrealistic, as countries continue to lag on meeting even the already lackluster pledges they have made. Furthermore, 87% of the scenarios run in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report that meets the Paris Agreements targets incorporate large-scale adoption of carbon dioxide removal strategies.

Thus far, the majority of the focus on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has been on terrestrially based technologies such as bioenergy and carbon capture (BECCS), afforestation and reforestation, and direct air capture. Although these are all methods deserving of consideration and assessment, there are also many associated shortfalls and risks, providing a compelling rationale for assessing the potential role of ocean-based carbon removal approaches. 

Ocean-based approaches to CDR are under-developed, under-funded, and under-tested. This is despite the fact that the ocean comprises 71% of Earth’s surface and is already passively absorbing 10 gigatons of carbon every year, with the great potential to store more. In light of the climate crisis, this potential is something the global community cannot afford to overlook.

Thus far, most of the ocean-based CDR has focused on ocean iron fertilization (OIF). However, recent research has concluded that OIF’s sequestration potential may be low, and it could pose serious risks to ocean ecosystems. As a consequence, it has largely been abandoned as the most viable ocean-based CDR method.  

 However, despite the shortcomings of OIF, the method does provide some incentive to look into other ocean-based methods of CDR. AOA may provide some of the greatest potentials in that regard. 

AOA is the method of adding alkalinity to ocean systems, increasing pH levels, which in turn leads to greater carbon absorption and a reduction in acidification. AOA has the potential to represent meaningful contributions to the battle against climate change and carbon sequestration, even at the low end of its potential. Several methods have been proposed:

  • Addition of powdered olivine (highly reactive lime)
  • Addition of calcium hydroxide, produced by the calcination of limestone, applied to ocean surfaces or into deep currents that end in upwelling regions
  • Utilization of local marine energy sources to manufacture alkalinity
  • Combining waste CO2 with minerals for reaction, which result in dissolved alkaline material, and pumping it into the ocean

AOA also has the added benefit of potentially combating another detrimental side effect of climate change: ocean acidification. Acidification of the ocean:

  • Reduces levels of carbonate, compromising the formation of calcium carbonate shells among coral, bivalve, and crustaceans
  • Harms finfish species, which has a detrimental impact on habitat, food source and larval survival

Ocean Acidification has increased 30% since the beginning stages of our current anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and pH levels are the lowest they have been in 2 million years.

However, AOA is not without its own potential risks, including:

  • Inhibiting photosynthesis in phytoplankton communities;
  • Threatening species that may not be able to easily adjust to increasing levels of alkalinity;
  • Introducing new and heavy toxic materials to ocean ecosystems

When facing both the uncertainties and the potential benefits of AOA deployment, good governance is critical. It enables the facilitation of research by providing clear guidelines and assessment protocols. Additionally, it identifies risks, creates rules and guidelines, and enforces them. Lastly. it provides the research legitimacy by establishing responsibility and helping to build societal support.

The provision of guidelines and structure around the international laws pertaining to oceans is also another important component of AOA implementation. Coastal countries have sovereignty over bodies of water within 12 nautical miles of their shore, and AOA would need to comply with the national permitting process of each nation. When the practice expands into a country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which is the area about 200 nautical miles from the coast, things begin to get more complicated. However, the coastal country still has the authority to regulate activities that affect the marine ecosystem, so research protocols should remain similar to those being conducted in the waters just beyond the territory. Beyond the EEZ, AOA research would be permitted, but subject to principles of state responsibility should harm occur to the interests of other States under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Moreover, principles of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, an agreement being developed under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, could be apposite, including the requirement that the parties establish conservation areas and environmental assessments pertaining to the marine biological diversity of areas beyond their national jurisdiction.

In order to ensure that a standard of compliance with acceptable environmental standards is set, looking at this matter with regard to OIF is a good starting point. In 2013 the London Protocol passed an amendment prohibiting ocean iron fertilization scientific research without a national permit and engagement in a stringent risk-assessment procedure.

Despite its potential AOA still comes with uncertainty around potential risks, questions about who has control over deployment decisions, and who bears the burden of liability. Local AOA treatments could serve as a good starting point for a gradual understanding of its impacts, and a means to allow government structures to mature alongside advances in technical understanding.

Posted on

The Potential of Carbon Capture and Sequestration in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions

The International Panel on Climate Change cites the widespread deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), bioenergy, and/or their combination (BECCS) as critical to the effort to limit 21st century warming due to CO2 release. The removal of CO2 from industrial effluent streams and storage in geological formations (CCS), is an established mitigation strategy that has the potential to decrease the rate at which CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. More importantly, it is a technology that can progress towards achieving negative emissions through coupling CCS with CO2 capture from electricity generation processes driven by the combustion of biomass (BECCS). BECCS is particularly appealing because it addresses how electricity could be produced in a carbon negative future.

In “Total Cost of Carbon Capture and Storage Implemented at a Regional Scale: Northeastern and Midwestern United States” (Schmetz, Hochman & Miller, 2020), the authors show that CO2 emissions may be stored at the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the US at $52 per ton, sourced from coal-fired plants and stored onshore in depleted oil and gas fields, and that the region also has the opportunities to store CO2 in onshore saline reservoirs for less than $60 per ton. Offshore storage is also an option, where the lowest total costs of CCS with storage in offshore saline reservoirs are just over $60 per ton. Storage offshore carries less risk and inconvenience and less potential for interference from populations than onshore storage. Offshore storage could also be required if formation pressures pose geological risk issues when injecting gigatons of supercritical CO2 into onshore formations. Emissions from natural-gas-fired plants are more expensive to capture per ton of CO2, making the lowest total costs over $80 per ton. This analysis suggests that a relatively small (15%) reduction in the total cost of CCS, would make CCS economically viable at a large-scale (~8 Gt CO2 over 30 years). Large-scale carbon storage may be additionally justified when coupled with BECCS technology. Similarly, demonstrating the feasibility of CCS could ultimately facilitate a pathway to BECCS.

Enacted in 2018 by the 115th United States Congress, the Section 45Q tax credits allot $50 per ton CO2 in tax credits for the permanent sequestration of CO2 in saline geological formations, as well as $35 per ton CO2 for EOR applications of CCS. To this end, the difference between representative total costs of CCS in the northeastern and midwestern United States and the threshold for profit motivated adoption is relatively small with the Section 45Q credits. With some technological improvement, adoption of CCS on a meaningful scale is possible in this region. With EOR and 45Q, CCS is viable, and has been undertaken on commercial scales at the Petra Nova-WA Parish Generating Station in Texas and the Boundary Dam plant in Canada. CO2 captured at both of these locations is transported to nearby oil fields and sold to enhance recovery. Governments can and should support these initiatives as sound environmental policy, like the U.S. and Canadian federal governments did for Petra Nova and Boundary Dam, providing $190 million and $240 million for those projects, respectively. Grant funding supporting the construction of commercial scale CCS projects, like the $190 million DOE supplied for the Petra Nova plant, incentivize first-of-a-kind construction that allows for learning, feasibility testing, and risk reduction for future commercial implementations. The 45Q tax credit incentive is a promising environmental policy initiative that encourages the adoption of CCS, the reduction of its cost over time because of learning-by-doing and could ultimately result in reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 Considering the risk and long-term planning and capital commitment associated with constructing or renovating electricity generating infrastructure to serve CCS, the initiative to incentivize early CCS applications should also be coupled with a long-term commitment to the section 45Q credits. If the political support for CCS and the section 45Q credits appears fragile or short-lived, the potential repeal or expiration of these credits will become a hazard that adds to the risk prospective CCS adopters will need to account for. This short-term commitment coupled with the energy infrastructure risk paradigm could nullify the incentives for adoption of carbon capture technology that the Section 45Q tax credits were written to provide.

While the establishment of CCS must precede full-scale implementation of BECCS from a logical/technological perspective, concurrent pilot projects that demonstrate the feasibility of BECCS would represent significant advances. One such opportunity for CCS and BECCS could come in the form of power plants that are facing pressure to refuel or repower with more environmentally sound technology, such as the to-be-shuttered coal-fired B.L. England Generating Station in southern New Jersey. The plant was scheduled for a conversion to natural gas, but successful opposition to a pipeline link resulted in the cancellation of the project. A conversion to biomass, perhaps co-firing with coal, coupled with carbon capture could presumably ameliorate the environmental concerns that comprised the original basis for shuttering the plant. Additionally, this plant, and other legacy coal-fired locations, is served by a railroad infrastructure that would make transporting biomaterials to the plant for co-firing with coal a simple transition that does not require traversing the complexities of constructing new pipeline. This particular location, as well as a couple others on the U.S. East Coast, is well-suited for carbon storage with reservoirs available both below the power-plant and in nearby regions offshore that would encounter less citizen opposition. A project of this nature could represent an example of a catalytic “tangible, near-term success” for CCS, biomass, and/or BECCS. Application of BECCS technology in a state like New Jersey that lacks an oil and gas culture and history and is strongly opposed to further industrialization including pipelines might provide a viable test for addressing concerns about BECCS and aid in the transformation from coal to renewable, carbon negative BECCS technology.

Reference

Schmelz, William J., Gal Hochman, and Kenneth G. Miller. “Total cost of carbon capture and storage implemented at a regional scale: northeastern and midwestern United States.” Interface Focus 10.5 (2020): https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0065

.

Posted on

A critical overview of solar assisted carbon capture systems: Is solar always the solution?

Mohammad Saghafifar, Samuel Gabra                                                                  International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2020

This paper focuses on possible integration schemes between solar thermal collectors and carbon capture systems. In its entirety, solar assisted carbon capture systems can be categorized into direct and indirect systems. Key factor in designing solar assisted carbon capture systems
is to match the thermal-grade between the collector and gas separation process.

For post-combustion systems, in particular, amine based systems have been widely considered for integration with solar thermal collectors using either direct or indirect schemes. Comparing direct and indirect integration schemes, results are overwhelmingly in favour of indirect solar integrations. The key merits of indirect integration include its additional flexibility in system operation and the high solar energy utilization factor it offers. For direct systems, solar thermal energy utilization is limited to the reboiler heat duty. Moreover, higher temperature concentrating solar thermal collectors with higher optical efficiencies can be used in indirect systems. These conclusions can be extended to the case of using any other low temperature gas separation technique including other chemical absorption and chemical/physical temperature swing adsorption. Direct integration may only be suitable when high grade heat is required for gas separation, as in calcium looping.

For pre-combustion systems, all the available studies focused on utilizing solar thermal energy for fuel reforming/gasification stage. It is more feasible to supply the H2/CO2 separation energy from other low-grade sources. The advantage of these systems is the inherent ability of storing solar energy chemically in form of the upgraded fuel. In addition, high-grade heat needed for reforming/gasification stage makes solar assisted systems more feasible.

For oxyfuel combustion, both direct and indirect schemes were studied. In direct systems, solar energy is used to derive an endothermic reduction reaction for chemical looping processes. Solar hybrid chemical looping systems have two advantages: first, the inherent carbon dioxide sequestration and second, storing solar thermal energy both chemically and sensibly. For indirect systems, solar energy is utilized within the power cycles whilst air separation systems were used for pure oxygen production. In terms of merits, these systems are similar to indirect systems using low temperature gas separation methods. Possible future research direction for solar assisted carbon capture systems can be classified into solar collectors cost reduction research and innovative integration scheme research. Firstly, the cost of collectors, irrespective of technology, must be reduced. In addition, more research must be carried out on high temperature solar collector integration within high-temperature carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems. For post-combustion systems, ongoing research on solar assisted calcium looping systems is promising. Integrating high-grade solar energy for fuel reforming and gasification in pre-combustion CCS is another potential research route.

An interesting aspect of solar assisted CCS systems is the possibility of its utilization as an energy storage scheme coupled with CO2 capture. In these schemes, extra available solar energy during high insolation periods is employed to further run the endothermic part of the CCS
process and store the product for usage during instances of low solar insolation. The products from these processes can be simply stored.

Posted on

Integrated assessment modeling of carbon removal at ICRLP

Authored by David Morrow, Director of Research, Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is sometimes described as the only technology ever invented by modelers. There’s a grain of truth to this: the idea of combining bioenergy with CCS to produce a negative emissions technology rose to prominence because of its adoption by integrated assessment modelers in the early 2000s. Since then, these models have provided one important tool for thinking about how carbon removal might play a role in climate policy. The Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy is helping to push the boundaries of integrated assessment modeling of carbon removal with two ongoing projects.

What are integrated assessment models?

Before we get to ICRLP’s modeling projects, let’s back up a bit. What are integrated assessment models (IAMs)? Basically, IAMs are computer models that combine a model of the climate system with models of the economy, the energy sector, and land use to help researchers think rigorously about possible climate futures. For instance, researchers can use these models to ask questions like, “What would happen to the energy sector and the climate if coal were phased out worldwide by 2050?” or, “How would the energy sector change over time if the whole world put a gradually rising price on carbon beginning in 2040?” Researchers can also use these models to identify decarbonization pathways by which the world could meet various climate policy goals, such as the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming “well below 2°C.” When you read headlines saying that the world needs to cut its emissions in half by 2030 in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C, you’re reading a conclusion based in large part on integrated assessment modeling.

CarbonBrief offers an excellent introduction to IAMs and their role in studying climate policy. If you prefer to learn by doing, check out Climate Interactive’s EnROADS model, an IAM that’s fast enough to run in your web browser.

How are IAMs used to study carbon removal?

Integrated assessment modelers realized almost twenty years ago that they could combine two technologies that were already represented in their models—bioenergy and CCS—to model a technology that actively removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Research over the past two decades suggests that developing and scaling negative emissions technologies makes it much likely that the world can keep warming below 2°C or 1.5°C. In fact, modeling studies suggest that unless the world reduces its greenhouse gas emissions extremely rapidly over the next two or three decades, it may not be possible to limit warming below 1.5C without large-scale carbon removal. 

Until recently, however, few integrated assessment modelers had incorporated any kind of carbon removal into their model besides BECCS and reforestation. (For some notable exceptions, see recent papers led by Jessica Strefler, Giulia Realmonte, and Jay Fuhrman.) As a result, BECCS has long operated as a kind of stand-in for the wide variety of approaches to carbon removal that have been proposed. Actually implementing BECCS at the scales projected in many IAM scenarios would likely be disastrous because it would require devoting such vast tracts of land to bioenergy. Overcoming the conceptual and technical hurdles to modeling other approaches to carbon removal would be an important step in understanding what role carbon removal can realistically play in just and sustainable climate policy.

Integrated assessment modeling at ICRLP

Earlier this year, ICRLP launched a project to produce a variant of the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), a major IAM developed by the Joint Global Change Research Institute. I’m working with Postdoctoral Researcher Raphael Apeaning to extend GCAM’s ability to model carbon removal. That involves both incorporating additional approaches to carbon removal, starting with direct air capture, enhanced weathering, ocean alkalinization, and soil carbon sequestration; and giving GCAM the capacity to model various policies for incentivizing and supporting carbon removal. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for this project.

I’m also supervising an undergraduate in American University’s School of International Service, Garrett Guard, as he uses GCAM to write his senior thesis on the role of BECCS in climate policy. His thesis grew out of a research project he did for a course I taught last year on using integrated assessment models for climate policy analysis. Garrett’s research looks at what happens when the world tries to meet various climate targets if we exclude fossil fuel CCS, BECCS, or both from the climate policy portfolio, as well as how that varies across different socioeconomic pathways.

Posted on

Fuel out of Thin Air: CO2 Capture from Air and Conversion to Methanol

Authors: Raktim Sen, Alain Goeppert, Sayan Kar, G. K. Surya Prakash*Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute and Department of Chemistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States.

Full citation: Sen, R.; Goeppert, A.; Kar, S.; Prakash, G. K. S., Hydroxide Based Integrated CO2 Capture from Air and Conversion to Methanol. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2020, 142, 4544-4549.

Over the past two centuries, surging greenhouse gas emissions have led to an enormous rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, causing a significant increase in the average global temperature and ocean acidification. Humankind is now releasing every year > 36 billion tons of CO2 to the environment! Among various solutions explored to mitigate this problem, direct air capture (DAC) of CO2 is highly promising. DAC has significant advantages. It enables the point of capture to be independent from the emission sources. It also targets CO2 emissions from dispersed point sources, which are responsible for about half of total anthropogenic emissions but would otherwise be difficult to address. Furthermore, utilization of the captured CO2 (Carbon Capture and Utilization, CCU) as a carbon source for various chemical feedstocks and polymeric materials is very promising. In this context, CO2 is combined with hydrogen obtained by electrolysis of water using renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Among various CO2 hydrogenation products, methanol is one of the most attractive and versatile alcohol. Methanol is a feedstock for a multitude of chemicals and products, already used on a scale of over 100 billion liters per year. Additionally, methanol, which is a liquid with a boiling point of 64.7 °C, is a superior fuel for internal combustion engines and fuel cells, as well as a convenient high density liquid hydrogen carrier. Methanol can be converted to ethylene and propylene through the MTO (methanol to olefins) process. Hence, the production of renewable methanol and the associated methanol economy holds significant potential to replace current fossil fuel-based economies.

Following the legacy of their late colleague Nobel Laureate George Olah, a major proponent of the methanol economy, G. K. Surya Prakash, professor and director at Loker Hydrocarbon Institute and his team including senior research scientist, Alain Goeppert have successfully combined the two steps of CO2 capture and hydrogenation to methanol into a seamless reaction sequence to transform the greenhouse gas into its combustible cousin. Until now, the integrated capture and conversion processes relied on organic bases called amines to capture CO2. While amines are easily regenerable, they are prone to oxidative degradation and suffer from notable toxicity and volatility. Hence, in order to improve the system, Prakash and his team turned to inorganic bases like sodium/potassium hydroxides which are superior CO2 capturing agents forming their respective bicarbonates/carbonates. Conventionally, however, recycling of the base by thermally decomposing bicarbonates/carbonates requires extreme temperatures above 700 °C making the process highly energy intensive. In initial efforts by the group, CO2 captured from air by a solution of hydroxide in water was converted to formate salts. However; further hydrogenation to methanol was ineffective. 

In their current study, the authors discovered that switching water with alcohols like ethylene glycol as a reaction medium could mediate effectively the process to methanol. When air was bubbled through potassium hydroxide dissolved in ethylene glycol and the CO2-loaded solution subsequently hydrogenated in the presence of H2 and a metal catalyst, complete conversion to methanol was observed at 140 °C. Moreover, regeneration of the hydroxide base occurred at mild temperatures of 100-140 °C. Notably, a fraction of the base was deactivated in an unwanted side reaction. Currently, the researchers are aiming to minimize the side reactions to efficiently recycle the potassium hydroxide. This system offers easy integration of existing hydroxide-based CO2 scrubbing industries to utilize the captured CO2 to produce methanol, paving a way for a sustainable and carbon neutral future. As Prakash says, “All living things are primarily made of carbon and therefore carbon has to be managed. Humankind requires carbon based fuels and chemical feedstocks currently obtained from fossil fuels. Renewable methanol can easily replace fossil fuels without requiring major changes to our current chemical and transportation infrastructures.   If CO2 is a one-carbon problem, then methanol is a one-carbon solution.”

The study authored by Prakash, Goeppert and graduate assistants Raktim Sen and Sayan Kar was recently published in Journal of the American Chemical Society (DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b12711) and also featured in C&E News (https://cen.acs.org/content/cen/articles/98/i10/One-pot-process-converts-CO2.html). 

Posted on

What influences farmers’ decision to adopt technologies that enhance soil carbon sequestration? A case study from East Africa.

Fig. 1. A map of Africa showing the location of Kenya and Ethiopia

Authors and their affiliation

Ng’ang’a Karanja Stanley1,**, Jalang’o, Dorcas Anyango2, Girvertz Evan2 1,**International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Sub-regional Office – Kampala, Uganda 2International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Regional office – Nairobi, Kenya

Soil nutrient depletion limits the agricultural potential of a majority of farmers in developing countries. Technologies that enhance soil carbon can potentially increase farm productivity, income opportunities for farmers, and improve food security. Nonetheless, the adoption of, and investment in agricultural practices that build up carbon in soils is still limited among farming households in East Africa. This study examines the factors that influence the uptake of soil carbon enhancing practices among 45 and 50 smallholder farmers from selected places in Kenya and Ethiopia (Fig. 1) respectively, using secondary data that were extracted from the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technology (WOCAT) database. Understanding this is requisite for the government, policy experts and development partners to effectively plan, and target interventions to scale up adoption among farmers in the region.

A probit model was used to analyse the data that spanned across socioeconomic, institutional, off-farm income, technical knowhow, farmers’ perceptions, and land use characteristics that influence the adoption of technologies that have the potential of enhancing the soil carbon sequestration. The descriptive results from the data reveal that farming is dominated by women in both countries. Mixed market orientation is dominant, with a moderate wealth status of between 100 and 500 US$ for the majority of the households.  Results from the model show that both farmers’ perceptions, and socio-economic, farm level, and institutional factors significantly contribute to the decision to implement these practices. For example, smallholder farmers that reported to have perceived the net benefits and strengths of the soil carbon enhancing technologies had a higher likelihood of adopting technologies that enhance the sequestration of soil carbon in both Kenya and Ethiopia.

At the same time, off-farm income influenced the adoption of soil carbon enhancing practices positively among farmers with a moderate annual income (100-500 US$) as compared to the rich (>500US$). Farming for subsistence basis and moderate know-how of the technologies in question negatively affected adoption. Similarly, land ownership without title deeds negatively influenced adoption. The results point to the speedy need for policy measures that would promote the adoption of soil carbon enhancing practices. Interventions such as training farmers to equip them with implementation skills, and enforcing technical assistance through extension delivery would help bridge the knowledge deficiency. Encouraging farmers’ involvement in off-farm income-generating activities, and improving access to credit is also commendable. To a greater extent, farmers would be incentivized thus boosting their intake for soil carbon enhancing practices at the individual farm level.  

Keywords: Adoption, Factors, Enhances, Constrain, Soil carbon, Practices, Kenya, Ethiopia 

 

**Corresponding author details

Email: stanley.karanja@gmail.com

Orcid number: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6166-7920

 

Posted on

ICRLP Webinar Explainer Series Provides A Deeper Understanding on Many Issues Surrounding Carbon Dioxide Removal

One of the streams of work for The Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy is to provide broad education on carbon removal approaches and implications. Carbon removal is a big and complex subject matter, with much to unpack and debate. With this in mind, we launched our “Assessing Carbon Removal Webinar Explainer Series” in 2018. 

These one-hour webinars bring together Institute staff and guest speakers to explain what is known about varying carbon removal approaches and to explore big themes. The presentations and conversations delve into research needed to assess technical, legal, and social aspects and considerations of carbon removal technologies.,

Most recently presented in this series have been webinars on Agroforestry and Carbon Removal and Corporate Commitments, both of which have accompanying blog entries that outline the main points covered in the presentations, which can be found on ICRLP Carbon Removal Blog Posts page.

In addition to these recent webinars, there are a number of past presentations that provide a wealth of knowledge on carbon removal:

  • Enhanced Oil Recovery: A discussion on the technological, economic, and political issues associated with Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), including the costs involved, the project development perspective, EOR relative to saline storage necessary to scale up carbon storage, and why EOR should be decoupled from the decarbonatization agenda and policy.
  • Mitigation Deterrence: Mitigation Deterrence (MD) is where the pursuit of greenhouse gas removal (GGR) delays or deters other mitigation options. This webinar presents the results of a project that analyzes this issue and explores conditions in which GGR technologies can be used with minimal MD.
  • Direct Air Capture: The presentations within this webinar provide a comprehensive overview of mechanisms behind Direct Air Capture of carbon dioxide, which is the practice of utilizing chemicals to remove carbon dioxide from the air. 
  • Enhanced Mineral Weathering: This webinar presents the ins and outs behind varying proposed methods of Enhanced Mineral Weathering utilizing an array of minerals on land and in the oceans. 
  • Governance of Marine Geoengineering: This webinar followed the release of a CIGI Special Report on this topic. The presentations dig into the potential role of marine climate geoengineering approaches such as ocean alkalization and “blue carbon,” with a focus on the governance, research, deployment and potential risks associated with these approaches to carbon dioxide removal.
  • Communicating Carbon Removal: This webinar was presented following the release of ICRLP report “The Carbon Removal Debate” and explores the challenges associated with communicating the necessity for, and options behind, carbon dioxide removal.
  • The Brazilian Amazon Fires: What Do They Mean for the Climate?: As thousands of fires ripped across the Amazon in 2019, wreaking havoc and devastation, this webinar seeks to explore what these fires mean for the climate, and lessons are to be learned regarding global forest protection.
  • Soil-Based Carbon Removal: Soil harbors three times more carbon than is present in the atmosphere, and this webinar investigates whether healthy soils can help tackle climate change. Experts on the panel provide a scientific overview of soil carbon sequestration while examining the risks, benefits, and uncertainties.  
  • NAS “Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda” Report: This report released by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is the focus of discussion in this webinar. A few of the points addressed are the current state and potential for negative emissions technologies, conceptualizing scale in addressing climate change, and the impact of carbon removal on land use and soil, among others.
  • Potential Role of Carbon Removal in the IPCC’s 1.5 Degree Special Report: The panelists in this webinar examine this special report, released by the IPCC in 2018, examine what this report says about many aspects of carbon removal such as the potential need, governance, and classification. 
  • What We Know and Don’t Know about Negative Emissions: This webinar is aimed at providing a systematic overview of negative emissions technologies, discussing the status of research, ethical considerations, and how to spur future innovation and upscale research for advancing utilizations.
  • Accessing Carbon Dioxide Removal: As the introductory webinar that kicked off the series in 2018, the panelists dive into what carbon removal technologies are, their role in the portfolio of response to climate change, risks, ways to manage technologies in beneficial ways, and what the future could potentially hold. This webinar in particular serves as a valuable springboard for those who are relatively unfamiliar with carbon removal and seeking to learn more. 

All of these webinars are also available to view on our YouTube channel and on the ICRLP website. As this series continues to evolve, we encourage you to stay tuned for upcoming webinars going forward. If you are interested in joining our mailing list to receive notifications of upcoming webinars and our Newsletter, feel free to reach out to us at icrlp@american.edu.

Posted on

Agroforestry and Carbon Removal

Authored by Allison Tennant, Carbon Removal Program Assistant, Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy & Union of Concerned Scientists

On September 2nd, the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy (ICR) hosted a webinar on agroforestry, the latest in our explainer series. ICR Fellow Jason Funk moderated a panel that featured: 

  • Susan Stein, Director of the USDA National Agroforestry Center 
  • John Munsell, Professor and Forest Management Extension Specialist in the Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation at Virginia Tech
  • Patrick Worms, Senior Science Policy Advisor at the World Agroforestry Centre, presented on the different technical and economic aspects of agroforestry.

Susan Stein kicked off the presentations by giving the USDA definition of agroforestry: “The intentional integration of trees or shrubs with crop and animal production to create environmental, economic, and social benefits.” She then explained five types of agroforestry — forest buffer, alley cropping, silvopasture, windbreak, forest farming — and how they remove and store carbon. In the U.S., over 30,000 farms practice some form of agroforestry with government and private support.

John Munsell followed with the social, environmental, and economic benefits of agroforestry, such as increasing yield, increasing soil, improving air and water quality, and strengthening social capital. He also explained some of the barriers to widespread adoption and potential policies to address those issues. While a lack of awareness and knowledge of agroforestry among farmers poses one barrier, the time and space needed to see returns poses a more formidable obstacle.  Professor Munsell discussed upfront payments for land conversion, performance-based payments, and cost-share programs as ways to address that barrier. 

Patrick Worms rounded out the presentations by giving an international perspective and examples. He pointed out the great potential for agroforestry, and land management solutions in general, to remove carbon dioxide worldwide and the need for broader adoption. Currently, 43% of all agricultural land has more than 10% tree cover, but there are many opportunities for growth.

The presentations were followed by questions from the audience. 

The Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy would like to thank environmental journalist Erik Hoffner for helping to organize this webinar. Erik publishes a series on agroforestry for the award-winning environmental news site Mongabay.com, which you can find at https://news.mongabay.com/series/global-agroforestry/

The next webinar in this series is “Equity and Justice in Carbon Removal” which will take place Monday, September 21 at 10am ET. Sign up here. You can find recordings of all past webinars on our website.

Posted on

Carbon Removal and Corporate Climate Commitments

Authored by Allison Tennant Carbon Removal Program Assistant, Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy & Union of Concerned Scientists

The latest webinar in the explainer series presented by the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy (ICR)  delves into the role of carbon removal practices in corporate climate commitments. Recently, many companies have released net-zero climate commitments that include carbon dioxide removal technologies. In July, Apple, for instance, committed to becoming 100% carbon neutral for its supply chain and products by 2030, in addition to already having carbon-neutral operations. To reach this goal, the company plans to reduce emissions by 75% and develop innovative carbon removal solutions for the remaining 25% of their footprint. Apple will mostly focus on natural climate solutions, partnering with Conservation International on ecosystem restoration and protection. Earlier this year, Microsoft also committed to going carbon negative by 2030 by utilizing methods of reforestation, soil carbon sequestration, and new carbon capture technologies. With companies continuing to play a larger role in the carbon removal sphere, ICR gathered a panel to evaluate the role that the corporate world plays and might play in the carbon removal world.

The panelists were Betty Cremmins, Lead at 1t.org (Trillion Trees Platform) North America; Jeremy Freeman, Founder/Executive Director at CarbonPlan; and Alex Laplaza, Analyst at Lowercarbon Capital. The panel was moderated by Nicole Pinko, Corporate Analyst and Engagement Specialist at Union of Concerned Scientists. Discussion revolved around questions such as: 

  • What sorts of commitments are companies making, and how does carbon removal fit into those plans?
  •  Are these commitments and the plans for achieving them realistic, especially with respect to carbon removal?
  •  When it comes to the carbon removal portion of their plans, how are companies currently investing in nature-based and/or technical solutions? 
  • How are these commitments likely to affect the development or deployment of carbon removal?
  • What should people be paying attention to when they read about these commitments and the plans to achieve them? 

A Q&A session followed the discussion in which the audience inquired about terminology companies should use, the Global North’s responsibility for off-shore emissions, and the issues with carbon offsets.

To watch this webinar, click here. Make sure to keep up-to-date on new additions to our webinar explainer series, and watch past webinars here. In addition, you can keep abreast of corporate carbon removal commitments via our regularly updated action tracker.