This article first appeared in the summer edition of Forestry and Energy Review
It is over eight years since the Paris Agreement on limiting global warming was adopted by 196 countries at the end of 2015. In the meantime, and despite some success stories in reducing emissions, the annual rate of human-induced carbon dioxide emissions at the global level continues to increase, with 2022 (estimated by the Global Carbon Project (GCP)) reaching a total of 41 billion tonnes, or over 5 tonnes per person per year. Fossil fuel combustion is the leading emission source, which when combined with emissions from cement manufacture is estimated to have reached 37.5 billion tonnes in 2023 (Figure 1 from the GCP).
To further illustrate the scale of global carbon dioxide emissions, Ireland’s carbon dioxide release in 2022 (including land use, land-use change and forestry), was some 41 million tonnes[1], so about one thousandth or 0.1% of the global figure. Not that this small contribution exonerates Ireland from contributing to emission reductions. Far from it, the argument that we make no difference no matter how much we reduce emissions simply allows others off the hook. If they don’t do it, then why should we. In a nutshell, as Figure 1 graphically shows, the level of cumulative level of carbon dioxide emissions means we have gone beyond a stage where, on their own, even the most stringent of emission reductions over the coming years will be sufficient to control global warming. That is because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for very long time, up to 1,000 years, once it has been emitted
[1] Ireland’s total emissions (which include LULUCF and methane (which is not included in the GCP carbon budget)) in 2022 were just over 68 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. 60% of the emissions are estimated to be of CO2, so a total CO2 emission of about 41 million tonnes in 2022.
While the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC report) states that removals cannot substitute for immediate and deep emission reductions, it also acknowledges, given the level of emissions to date, that removals will be an important tool in attempting to reach net zero and net negative goals by the end of the century. (Simply stated, net negative means that there are less greenhouse gas emissions than removals over any given timeframe. Even if net zero is achieved by mid-century (itself a very tall order and not attainable in my view) by way of far deeper cuts than heretofore in greenhouse gas emissions, allied to a greatly expanded net terrestrial sink, this will not be enough to constrain the global temperature rise to below 2 oC. Instead, most of the IPCC scenarios say that at the global level removals of up to 6 billion tonnes/year are likely to be needed post 2050 and to at least the end of the century.
For the IPCC the targets are at the global level, for the EU and other countries and blocs it means policies and measures to bring themselves to net zero and then to net negative. These extremely challenging goals will entail difficult choices for countries. The EU has taken a lead in developing and deploying ambitious policies and measures under the Green Deal as part of its legal-binding commitment to become carbon neutral by mid-century. The intermediate goal, Fit for 55, is to reduce total EU greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 compared with 1990. While emissions declined by 30% over the period 1990-2021, the projection to 2030 is for a 48% decrease, well short of the 55% target. The European Environment Agency says[1] that “compared with the pace of emission reductions observed during the past 10 years, the average annual rate of absolute GHG emission reductions must more than triple to reach the 2030 climate target” (see Figure 2 for trends). It is very hard to see this level of ramping up being achieved, particularly as a number of Member States, including Ireland, are, on current trends, likely to fall well short of the 2030 target.
[1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/total-greenhouse-gas-emission-trends#:~:text=Net%20greenhouse%20gas%20(GHG)%20emissions,%2Dyear%20reduction%20of%201.9%25.
But are we traveling the best and most effective road to net negative, and doing the right things, those that make sense from an economic as well as from a climate change and sustainability perspective.
Policy blinkers and the law of unintended consequences
There is strong argument to be made that at national and EU level the policy mixes around emission reductions needs to be reconsidered and adjusted. There is too much dependence on electrification and associated measures, such as supporting EVs and solar panels and the like. Unrealistic targets are the order of the day, with insufficient consideration of effectiveness. Nor is there enough thought given to other important policy matters, such as technology sourcing and access to raw materials, including the all-important and scarce transition metals for battery manufacture. This narrow electrification focus tends to overshadow other renewables such as forest-based biomass and stifle their potential expansion.
In recent days the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has questioned the level of public investment across the EU in supporting EV uptake, and what they regard as unrealistic targets, such as having 30 million EVs on the EU’s roads by 2030. A major concern raised is the impact of increasing level of EV imports to the EU at much reduced prices and a viable future for the European car industry and associated jobs. Similar concerns were raised by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen following her visit to China at the beginning of April. It is worth highlighting some of what she said in a press release after her visit had concluded: “I am particularly concerned about the impact of Chinese industrial overcapacity in certain sectors as a result of government support, and the impact it could have on the American economy. Last week, I visited Suniva—a solar company in Georgia that was once forced to close down, like other companies across a number of industries, because it could not compete against large quantities of goods that China was exporting at artificially depressed prices. It’s important that this doesn’t happen again. These concerns are shared by our allies and partners, who see potential risks to their own domestic workers and firms”.
These are real and pressing issues, with some of the unintended consequences of the rush to electrification becoming manifest. And okay, the policy message is you better let us keep a fair share of the EV and solar panel markets or else face tariffs, but these recent pronouncements from within the US administration and the ECA also serve to illustrate the earlier point, about a blinkered policy approach to backing electrification without a fully-thought out downside strategy, and a tendency to let other proven low carbon technologies, that can contribute to decarbonisation in a cost effective and sustainable way, wither on the vine.
Removals – not just forestry and certainly not fossil based
For most, removals mean growing forests, and using them, as some simplistic commentary has stated, to suck carbon dioxide out of the air. As foresters will tell you it is a lot wider than that, and entails not just growing productive forests, and their ability to concentrate carbon, but also using the carbon to substitute for fossil fuels and displace high emission materials such as oil-based fabrics and extractives such as cement and iron ore.
While forest-based mitigation is far and away the largest human-based source of removals, the current rate of afforestation globally, as well as across Europe and in Ireland is not sufficient to remove anywhere near the level of carbon dioxide that is needed for a net negative future. Land-use change from agriculture to forestry is made more difficult where there are competing incentives, for retaining the existing enterprise, or for switching to forestry. Also, to be effective in climate mitigation, incentives need to favour the establishment of large blocks of forest, so that they can be economically managed and harvested, and which will give a good economic return to the owner (Figure 3). Sustainable levels of harvest will support viable businesses in converting and processing wood and wood products.
But afforestation and forest products are not the only show in town when it comes to carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and as we have seen they will not be enough to get to net negative. There are number of others CDR approaches, and while most are in their infancy, some of them can be scaled up in relatively short periods of time. Some are closely related to forestry, but not all. Scaling up and diversifying the removals portfolio will require string political will, as strong as the current commitment to emission reductions. It will also need community buy-in, and R&D investment tied to feasibility and pilot scale operations, leading to large scale public and private investment in well-tested technologies. All of the removal technologies will need a good price for carbon to succeed.
So what exactly is CDR? It is defined by IPCC as: “Deliberate technologies, practices and that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere”. It goes on to say: “It also involves durably storing carbon after is has been extracted from the atmosphere either in reservoirs such as soils, vegetation [biomass], geological formations, or the ocean, or in manufactured products”. IPCC makes an important distinction that CDR refers only to human activities that intentionally remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; it does not include removal by natural forests.
Neither does removal refer to carbon capture from fossil fuel use. This process involves storing emissions released from combustion of coal, oil and gas but it does not result in a removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is an important distinction as the fossil fuel industry is strongly pushing carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a climate solution. Why CCS is not a removal, and why bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a removal is illustrated in Figure 4.
The figure shows a simple comparison of the atmospheric implications of a CCS project and BECCS project supplying the same energy service, with carbon capture and storage. A number of simplifying assumptions as to scale and a number of variables have been made. For example, upstream (extraction, processing and transport) emissions have been omitted, though for natural gas these are usually 2-3 times those from biomass. In the example, the specific carbon dioxide emission per unit of energy delivery have been set as double for biomass in comparison with gas, in line with IPCC guidance (this is because biomass – which comprises mainly carbohydrates – contains water and less hydrogen than fossil fuels – which comprise mainly hydrocarbons). It is assumed that in both cases 90% of the combustion emissions are captured. After 11 years the biomass raw material system is assumed to be steady state, no new areas enter the supply chain as the emitted biomass from harvest in year 1 has been recaptured. The assumptions can be changed, but as long as the biomass system is sustainably managed the likelihood is that it will eventually become a net sink – a carbon remover. Meanwhile the fossil carbon CCS will continue to emit carbon, albeit at a reduced rate compared to a no capture scenario. In the biomass case carbon neutrality is reached after 4 years, and thereafter it is net negative.
The IPCC points out that “CDR methods differ in terms of removal process, timescale of carbon storage, technological maturity, mitigation potential, cost, co-benefits, adverse side-effects, and governance requirements. Implementation strategies need to take into account these differences and potential trade-offs”.
For present purposes a short description of the main on-land removal technologies is useful and is provided in Table 1.
Proposed EU legislation on voluntary certification of removals
Given the importance of removals in tackling climate change and the need to greatly expand the level, draft legislation for a carbon removal certification framework was proposed by the European Commission in 2022 (see Forestry and Energy Review Autumn 2022). Following an extended period of negotiation and consultation the framework, CRCF for short, has recently (10 April) been approved by the European Parliament, and will now be considered for approval by the Environment Council.
But what exactly will the CRCF regulation enable, and what contribution will make to the EU’s ambition to be carbon neutral – net zero – by 2050.
Essentially the aim of the CRCF is aiming at is to enable increased public and private investment in carbon removals towards the 2050 goals and end of century goals. Fundamental to the CRCF is that activities meet four overarching criteria in order to be certified: quantification, additionality, long-term storage and sustainability. These criteria are an essential component for any voluntary carbon framework, and with a fully operational register should ensure that removals certified under the CRCF will have a climate impact. This has not always been the case in the voluntary carbon market.
The CRCF establishes four classes which will cover the following carbon removal and emission reduction activities:
- permanent carbon removal (storing atmospheric or biogenic carbon for several centuries)
- temporary carbon storage in long-lasting products (such as wood-based construction products) of a duration of at least 35 years and that can be monitored on-site during the entire monitoring period
- temporary carbon storage from carbon farming (e.g. restoring forests and soil, wetland management, seagrass meadows)
- soil emission reduction (from carbon farming) which includes carbon and nitrous oxide reductions from soil management, and activities that must overall reduce the carbon emissions of soils or increase carbon removals from biological matter (examples of activities are wetland management, no tilling and cover crop practices, reduced use of fertilizer combined with soil management practices, etc.)
Permanent carbon removals refer to bioenergy with carbon capture and storage or direct air capture of carbon dioxide, with storage in geological formations. As pointed out in the previous issue of Forestry and Energy, there is considerable potential for BECCS in Ireland, and given the very low level of current afforestation it is an approach that merits serious consideration. It is essential that the feasibility studies for BECCS and the other removal types set out in Table 1 are fully addressed in the feasibility studies outlined in the Climate Action Plan, and that the conclusions set out a clear pathway for how chosen options can be brought on stream.
Meanwhile the Commission has established a carbon removals expert group[1] to develop certification methodologies for the different types of removals. This work will take another year or more to bring to a conclusion.
[1] https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-your-voice/events/4th-eu-carbon-removals-expert-group-meeting-2024-04-15_en
While the CRCF is a welcome development, a level of ambition in terms of volume of removals is lacking. There is also a lack of clarity on how the additionality provisions will operate in relation to afforestation projects, given the already high levels of grant aid and premium payments that operate in Ireland. A further critical consideration is how the removal units generated will work in relation to compliance and the need for registry adjustment.
Conclusions
The ability of the EU to reach its 2030 and mid-century net greenhouse gas emission goals, is becoming increasingly unlikely. This trend is mirrored at the national level, where it is almost certain that the carbon budgets will be exceeded and we will not meet the EU Effort Sharing 2030 target.
Overall, the heavy reliance at EU and national levels on electrification of heat and transport to drive down emissions is increasingly seen as narrowly focussed, and its reach will be insufficient to achieve the 2030 or mid-century targets. Also, concerns are now being raised about the impacts on European manufacturing of cheap and below cost imports of EVs and solar panels, and related technologies. Across many developed countries the rush to electrify everything is causing pause for thought.
Electrification is too often seen as the only answer to decarbonisation. This is unwise and risks a number of perverse outcomes, not only in trade, but as has been seen in electricity markets themselves with windfall profits being generated for renewable energy suppliers when, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the very expensive oil and gas that prevailed set the market clearance price. This outcome is due to the need for a fossil backup to deal with the intermittency problem of wind and solar, which will remain for at least another decade.
Removals, too often wrongly viewed as an excuse to go easy on emission reductions, are now viewed by most of the responsible scientific community as an essential part of avoiding catastrophic climate change, combined of course with deep and immediate reductions in all greenhouse gas emissions. Forests and forest products are currently and are likely to remain the predominant removal for the coming decade, but with constraints in terms of competing land uses, and the emergence of a suite of new and not so new removal technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, biochar and direct air capture and storage, the removal spectrum is broadening, and projects using these approaches are beginning to come on stream.
The EU’s Carbon Removal Certification Framework is a welcome, albeit low ambition development. It should bring greater assurance to buyers of voluntary carbon credits that each tonne of removals bought is making a real contribution towards a net negative future. It is imperative that it is made operational in as short a period as possible. It also needs a stated level of ambition and the promotion, recognition and supports needed to encourage and mobilise private sector investment to achieve a climate-meaningful scale.
Leave a Reply