Beyond carbon pricing: policy levers for negative emissions technologies. (21st October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cox, Emily; Edwards, Neil Robert
• Is Part Of: Climate policy. Volume 19:Number 9(2019)
• Page Start: 1144
• Page End: 1156
• Publication Date: 2019-10-21
• Subjects: NETs -- carbon dioxide removal -- co-benefits -- BECCS -- enhanced rock weathering -- direct air capture; 363.7
• DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1634509
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1469-3062

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This paper explores policies for Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs), in an attempt to move beyond the supply-side focus of the majority of NETs research, as well as the current dominance of carbon pricing as the main NETs policy proposal. The paper identifies a number of existing policies from four key areas – energy/transport, agriculture, sub-soil, and oceans – which will have an impact on three NETs: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), and terrestrial Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW). We propose that non-climate co-benefits may be valuable in terms of the policy 'demand pull' for NETs; in particular, we find that ERW may provide multiple co-benefits which can be mandated through existing policy structures. However, interaction with numerous policy areas may also create barriers, particularly where there is tension between the priorities of different government departments. On the basis of existing and analogous policies from a range of geographical contexts and scales, this paper proposes four options for NETs policy that could be reasonably implemented in the near-term. We also argue that ERW demonstrates the importance of scale and framing, because the policy environment depends on whether it is framed as a soil amendment at local scales or as a climate stabilization technique at international scale. Key policy insights Co-benefits may assist the 'demand pull' for novel technologies by providing multiple policy angles for incentivisation rather than relying on a 'fix-all' policy such as a high carbon price. DAC with storage might be overly reliant on a high carbon price, because it only provides one core benefit – that of atmospheric carbon reduction. ERW may provide multiple co-benefits which can be mandated through existing policy structures, but should focus on using waste rock rather than mining virgin material. We propose four near-term options for NETs policy: funding for small-scale BECCS demonstration and an international biomass certification mechanism; small-scale loans for ERW on farms and promotion of locally-sourced rock residues; amendment of fertilizer subsidy schemes to include silicate rock; and a clearer framework for licensing sub-soil access for CO2 storage.