Oct.26, 2021

Negative Emissions Platform: More than ever before, the latest IPCC report has drawn direct parallels between GHG emissions resulting from human activity and their consequences on climate. This argument is now compound by the fact that we are also experiencing these consequences more direly than ever. So, the question I have is: are you hoping that this increased connection between what science warns us about, and the reality we are experiencing will translate into real action on climate, notably where it comes to one of your own areas of expertise, which is carbon dioxide removals?

Dr. Oliver Geden: It indeed seems that the climate policy landscape is changing, partly due to extreme weather events but probably more because of the increasing mobilisation of citizens, which in many European countries also starts showing in how people vote in elections. But at the same time, even the most optimistic IPCC scenarios assume that the rest of the century will be warmer than today, with a peak above 1.5°C, and hopefully a decrease towards 1.5°C afterwards. This means there are two reasons why we need carbon dioxide removals.

Firstly, we need CDR to counterbalance so-called residual emissions if we want to achieve net-zero emissions, or to halt further warming globally, or simply to achieve the EU’s climate target. I am talking about these emissions which you cannot eliminate completely, like methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture, and some emissions from long-haul transport and industry. It’s unclear what’s achievable by 2050, but emissions from these hard-to-transition sectors could be quite substantial if you look at modelling coming from the European Commission or the IPCC.

“Firstly, we need CDR to counterbalance so-called residual emissions if we want to achieve net-zero emissions.”

And the second reason is that we might have to reverse an overshoot of the 1.5°C threshold and the corresponding global carbon budget, a problem that is probably about to arise in the 2030s. We are not going to be at net-zero CO2 within 15 years, so we need to create net-negative emissions globally and of course in the EU, by pushing residual emissions further down and CDR further up.

Negative Emissions Platform: There is one concept in your recent paper in Nature, Operationalizing the net-negative carbon economy, that seems particularly relevant to carbon removals and it is the one of 'carbon debt'. Could you explain to our readers what it is about and how it is more interesting than just thinking about compensating for the carbon we are emitting right now? 

Dr. Oliver Geden: If we really aim for below 1.5°C by the end of the century, then we need to start dealing seriously with the fact that the remaining carbon budget for this warming level is rapidly depleting, with only 400-500 gigatonnes left and current annual global CO2 emissions of more than 40 Gt. Integrated Assessment Modelling, trying to bring socio-economic development and the physical climate system together already assumes large-scale net-negative emissions, simply stemming from the fact that the world will not manage to reach net-zero before the carbon budget will be depleted, basically creating ‘carbon debt’. But no government really feels responsible for payback in the long-term, let alone wants to negotiate who exactly needs to pay back which amounts of historical CO2 emissions. The Nature paper is more of a thought experiment, highlighting that we need to find ways to create that responsibility, maybe by creating ‘Carbon Removal Obligations’ and applying interest on carbon debt.

“The Nature paper is more of a thought experiment, highlighting that we need to find ways to create responsibility for historical CO2 emissions.”

Negative Emissions Platform: That is an interesting way to approach the mutualisation of our carbon debt. But beyond the thought experiment, what would it take to actually make this happen?

Dr. Oliver Geden: Whatever the instrument would be, it needs political negotiations beforehand. Within the UNFCCC context, countries like India or China are already demanding that industrialised nations aim for net-negative emissions to allow for a more equitable distribution of the remaining carbon budget. With the EU’s vague commitment to net-negative emissions after reaching net-zero, enshrined in the Climate Law and mirrored by similar pledges in Finland, Sweden and Germany, it would be the logical next step to define volumes, at least by defining a 2060 target that could be in the range of, say, 120% when compared to our emissions in 1990. Then you need to find ways to make today’s polluters pay for the debt payback later, in form of CDR upscaling: having polluters pay for carbon removals for which the technology will only be available later in time.

Finally, you have to deal with the fact that, hopefully, if we achieve a net-negative economy, the EU carbon pricing doesn’t lead to revenues for governments anymore, it might instead lead to massive volumes of public spending. But even beyond the issue of financing, regulating CDR needs a lot of careful thought already on the way towards net-zero, for example when trying to integrate removals into the EU’s emissions trading scheme. I would refer you to an excellent paper on this topic led by my colleague Wilfried Rickels, from the University of Kiel.

“Regulating CDR needs a lot of careful thought already on the way towards net-zero, for example when trying to integrate removals into the EU’s emissions trading scheme.”

Negative Emissions Platform: Thanks for the recommendation. Indeed, we will be keeping a close eye on the mechanics of integrating carbon removals in the EU’s carbon market. There is another question that I really would like to ask you, some of your past research has to do with the quality of scientific policy advice, something that is very relevant to our activities here at the Negative Emissions Platform. Setting aside climate science and carbon accounting for a minute, what's a social science perspective on what is missing to bridge the gap between what a majority of scientists recommends and the climate policy we need to actually make it happen?

Dr. Oliver Geden: We often hear that it is all about ‘political will’, but I seriously doubt that. It often sounds like scientists telling policymakers what they have to do, and if they can’t manage, it’s because they simply don’t want to. But scientist often overlook how policymaking actually works, and that there’s usually nothing close to the ideal of evidence-based policymaking. Of course, the climate challenge cannot be mastered without ‘political will’, but it is by far not enough. It is much more about administrative capacity, and about choosing and implementing instruments that work out in terms of policy and politics, in delivering mitigation efficiently while avoiding troubles in the European Council or in national elections. Moving from a 40% mitigation target for 2030 to a 55% target with legislation only being concluded in 2023 is quite a bet on European Union leadership – and the whole world will be watching us.

Negative Emissions Platform: That’s quite some pressure you are putting on Ursula van der Leyen’s shoulders here! So, in that context, what are your thoughts on Fit for 55, the EU's climate policy package which was released during the summer? It seems like keeping technological carbon removals out was considerate in terms of political economy, but then again it could also further delay action on a pressing issue for climate action. What do you think?

Dr. Oliver Geden: I think it is clever politics to keep technological removals out of Fit for 55, since national governments don’t really know yet what to expect from technological CDR, and most of them don’t have the capacity to deal with more than adjusting the large package of 2030 legislation to the new 55% target. Furthermore, it makes sense that the Commission looks at LULUCF first, a piece of legislation dealing with carbon removals from forests, and tries to find out if it is politically feasible to combine carbon removals from forests and from the agricultural sector in the same regulatory framework, opening the agricultural sector up for new revenue streams from land-based removals.

It is far from sure that the Commission will be successful in this regard. At the same time, it is encouraging that DG CLIMA, the branch of the European Commission dealing with climate policy, will be bringing forward in 2022 a proposal for a CDR certification scheme separate from Fit for 55. This, together with a planned Commission green paper on a sustainable carbon cycle, will be the starting point for a more holistic discussion in the EU.

Negative Emissions Platform: What does it mean concretely for technological carbon removals and their contribution to the 2030 target?

Dr. Oliver Geden: This does not mean that we will see EU action on options such as bio-energy with carbon capture, direct air capture and enhanced weathering only after 2030, it is just not part of the 2030 target, as was the case with removals from LULUCF until 2020. The EU already had legislation, and even national targets, but did not count them towards the achievement of a union-wide mitigation target.

Negative Emissions Platform: Thank you Oliver, it was a pleasure talking to you.