NEW RESOURCE: Defining Carbon Removal

[Ben Rubin]

Good Morning,

The Carbon Business Council is pleased to share our newest issue brief about Defining Carbon Removal. The issue brief explains how defining CDR inclusively can accelerate removals policy. It specifically calls for a clear and consistent definition of CDR for policy that is method-neutral, criteria-based, and IPCC-aligned to support the portfolio of CDR approaches that the world will need to meet our climate goals. Please feel free to follow and engage in the conversation on social media (like, comment, retweet, etc).

As the brief highlights, CDR is an essential pillar of climate action, along with strong prioritization of steep emissions reductions and adaptation to our already rapidly changing climate. The brief was developed by a working group with more than 20 experts and benefited from helpful input from multiple organizations.

Please stay tuned for our next brief about Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification, which will be published soon. A reminder that we recently published an issue brief about carbon removal in the Farm Bill.

Best,

Ben

[Renaud de RICHTER]

Thanks for sharing this.

Even if your "brief" mentions "Net-Negativity", and " ... deliver net-negative carbon removal ...", I'm a little bit astonished that it doesn't use the well established and used expression "Negative emissions technologies" (NETs).

Also the terms anthropogenic, mitigation, remediation are not used.

The term "biogenic" in the following paragraph, seems to me somehow misleading:

CDR is frequently (and erroneously) conflated with “carbon capture” (or carbon capture and storage [CCS]) which refers to capturing carbon dioxide from point-source fossil carbon emissions (e.g. from a cement kiln) and securely storing it in underground geological formations. CCS is a form of GHG emissions reduction, whereas CDR addresses atmospheric (or biogenic) carbon dioxide, making their methods and goals distinct. It is critically important to communicate in precise terms to differentiate the two.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2051c264-e5b2-416b-948e-b6c009b8c153n%40googlegroups.com.

[Toby Bryce]

Hi Renaud,

Thanks for the feedback on the brief -- which points seems to me to be primarily semantical. (E.g. NETs is very much not universally or exclusively established, and CDR [or GGR, which one might also say] are very frequently used. "Human" is used in several places in place of "anthropogenic." Etc.)

Would love to discuss any feedback you have, beyond word choice, on the substance of the brief -- for which I facilitated the working group of ~20 CO2BC member companies and served as lead author. (Or where word choice is substantive and not semantical.)

In particular I'd be curious to hear what you find "somehow misleading" about use of "biogenic" in the text you quote below. That was a tricky passage to align on, however the inclusion of "biogenic" was considered and purposeful, to include BECCS (and similar BiCRS processes) in the definition of CDR, as distinct from CCS of fossil carbon emissions which are emissions reduction.

Best, Toby 

[Michael Hayes]

Hello, Toby, et al.,

My rant on semantics:

The use of GGR over CDR negates the focus on CO2 removal STEM, policy, socioeconomics by the latter. The removal/storage processes used for CO2 are technically rather different than the tech used to remove/store other GHGs.

There are rare cases where CO2 and CH4 mitigation methods can, theoretically speaking, be accomplished within the same system of systems, yet there are still differences between the two removal technologies. The technologies are mutually supportive, yet are distinctly different. Only such a combined system of systems should be called out as a GGR technology.

Generalizing mitigation technical methods may be useful in some forums, such as policy forums where technology is rarely precisely defined, yet it is important in most other forums to give each class of technology it's own designator so the more technically minded can keep their field of work orderly.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a35ebb90-87a3-4ea6-84dc-54e9e20951dcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ronal Larson]

Toby,  Renaud, list, Ben (with guessed email- hope Toby will forward if needed)

1.  This exchange is my first introduction to what will most likely soon be called CBC.  I am impressed by your list of almost 100 member companies.  I have signed your oath and signed up for email messages.

2.   Glad to see plenty of biochar companies.  If there is a listing by the different classifications at the CBC site and in Toby’s short (dozen) paragraphs., that would save many CDR list readers a lot of time.

3.    Guess at least a few of your “100” companies (now 92, but sure to grow past 100) have an interest in methane.  And also guess virtually all would agree that CH4 removal should be included in all three terms (CDR, NETs, GGR) under discussion in this and all CDR threads.

4.  On this CDR list, by far the most diligent CH4-removal supporter is Renaud.  I am not surprised he didn’t mention CH4, but I am surprised I can’t find the words methane and CH4 anywhere on the CBC site - and therefore also not on Toby's issue brief.

5.   For Ben mainly perhaps - is CBC encouraging methane-oriented firms to become CBC members?   Same question for Nitrogen related CDR.   If so,  Toby’s “New Resource” needs a few more sentences.

6.  Separate message coming soon re Renaud’s issue below - and I’ll minimize mention there of methane.  But I believe there could be a methane connection to “biogenic”.  NETs and GGR certainly include CH4, whereas I believe there is only a general agreement that CDR is meant to include CH4.

Ron

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a35ebb90-87a3-4ea6-84dc-54e9e20951dcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ronal Larson]

Hi all:    (this preceded a bit by another message emphasizing methane)

On May 16, 2023, at 10:10 AM, Toby Bryce <tbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Renaud,

Thanks for the feedback on the brief -- which points seems to me to be primarily semantical. (E.g. NETs is very much not universally or exclusively established, and CDR [or GGR, which one might also say] are very frequently used.

[RWL1:  I hope someone can give us a breakdown on the relative usage of the three terms (NETs, CDR , and GGR).   An added new footnote #1 or #2 in the first sentence can handle this topic.  

 "Human" is used in several places in place of "anthropogenic." Etc.)

Would love to discuss any feedback you have, beyond word choice, on the substance of the brief -- for which I facilitated the working group of ~20 CO2BC member companies and served as lead author. (Or where word choice is substantive and not semantical.)

[RWL2:  I agree with Renaud that “NETs” is more than semantical.  A search for business groups interested in NETs will miss both CBC and your short statement.  There are groups preferring "NETs."

In particular I'd be curious to hear what you find "somehow misleading" about use of "biogenic" in the text you quote below. That was a tricky passage to align on, however the inclusion of "biogenic" was considered and purposeful, to include BECCS (and similar BiCRS processes) in the definition of CDR, as distinct from CCS of fossil carbon emissions which are emissions reduction.

[RWL3:   See RWL5 below.

Best, Toby 

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:02:10 AM UTC-4 renaud.derichter wrote:

Thanks for sharing this.

Even if your "brief" mentions "Net-Negativity", and " ... deliver net-negative carbon removal ...", I'm a little bit astonished that it doesn't use the well established and used expression "Negative emissions technologies" (NETs).

[RWL4:  All above is on “NETs".

Also the terms anthropogenic, mitigation, remediation are not used.

The term "biogenic" in the following paragraph, seems to me somehow misleading:

CDR is frequently (and erroneously) conflated with “carbon capture” (or carbon capture and storage [CCS]) which refers to capturing carbon dioxide from point-source fossil carbon emissions (e.g. from a cement kiln) and securely storing it in underground geological formations. CCS is a form of GHG emissions reduction, whereas CDR addresses atmospheric (or biogenic) carbon dioxide, making their methods and goals distinct. It is critically important to communicate in precise terms to differentiate the two.

{RWL5:  a.  In last sentence, the last word “two” could be Renaud’s issue.  “two" could refer to the “or” between atmospheric and biogenic.  Rather, I think you meant the difference between CCS and CDR.

 b.  Or maybe his “somehow misleading” refers to the previous sentence where the word “or” between "atmospheric” and “biogenic” could mean an equality - whereas most fossil-fuel-caused atmospheric CO2 is not usually termed “biogenic”, although some is.

c.  Or both.
Easily fixed.

But the emphasis in this thread should be on the new CBC - which hopefully is welcoming the (missing) word “methane”.

Ron

<snip>

[Michael Hayes]

Thanks, Ron

The DoE definition of CDR:

[...] CDR does not refer to point source carbon capture for the fossil fuel or industrial sector. [...]

Also,

[...] CDR is a tool to address emissions from the hardest to decarbonize sectors—like agriculture and transportation—and to eventually remove legacy CO₂ emissions from the atmosphere. [...]

https://www.energy.gov/fecm/carbon-dioxide-removal

MH] I would add the Ocean in the 'hardest sector to decarbonize' list, ocean acidity dwarfs all other 'hard to decarbonize' sectors.

Moreover, by this definition, H2 fuel production, any renewable fuel production, can be a CDR factor.

Best regards

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/A5724A50-F128-4629-8EB5-7B4E936A5EAF%40comcast.net.

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

A note on this part, "... and to eventually remove legacy CO₂ emissions from the atmosphere...."

The "eventually" part is an artifact of the scenario bias where the 1,202 scenarios of AR6 include none with a target less than 1.5 C, where all include further warming with no restoration scenarios. All prioritize emissions reductions and the concept that first we have to reach net zero by eliminating or offsetting future emissions. None of AR6's scenarios allow unabated future emissions (except BAU scenarios) where only CDR is used to achieve warmign targets. None of AR6's scenarios include irreversible tipping.

Therefor the concept of "eventually removing legacy CO2 from the atmosphere" is nonsensical relative to real world scenarios.

Net zero is not a prerequisite to carbon dioxide removal. This concept that first we have to stop emissions, then we can go negative, is appealing on paper but it is false.

Steep Trails,

B

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1ew4f%2B6KjRCjdtVB1LDVGugHVOh%3Dgcw5MHW5u2reT8d4w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Some CDRs can provide renewable fuels along with CDR services.

Dual purpose technologies are rarely mentioned in favor of engaging in rather useless debates over emission reduction v CDR. 

Why such dual purpose technologies are not the highest CDR tech priority is a mystery to me. Stating a strong preference for dual purpose techs would seem logical to add to any CDR definition refinement, atleast to me. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/f41da3eb-f23f-4bef-ad20-8cda70f993be%40earthlink.net.

[Chris Vivian]

Toby,

 

I also think that the use of “or biogenic” in brackets after atmospheric is misleading/confusing. It is also unnecessary as all CDR techniques by definition aim to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, either directly or indirectly by biotic or abiotic processes.  

 

Best wishes

 

Chris.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a35ebb90-87a3-4ea6-84dc-54e9e20951dcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Tom Goreau]

Please avoid the nonsensical oxymoron “negative emissions”, which only spreads confusion, and use the accurate term “carbon sinks”.

 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance

Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.

Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK

37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

 

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

 

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

 

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

 

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

 

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away

 

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/196a01d98be4%242427c210%246c774630%24%40btinternet.com.

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

Yes, please ~ ~ ~

Another extremely confusing concept that plays into the concept of negative emissions is that "we first have to get to net zero before we can go negative." While true from a simple accounting standpoint, this statement appears to demand that first we have to achieve net zero, with all its extremely large complications where we have failed to come close for 30 years, then we can remove carbon from the sky.

Steep trails,

Bruce M

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/ACC81540-A49A-4FC8-B396-FA2A15DCBAAC%40globalcoral.org.

[Toby Bryce]

Hello all,

Thanks again for reading the CO2BC Defining CDR Issue Brief, and for your feedback and comments.

I wanted to briefly to respond to a few of the points that have been made subsequent to my last message:

• Re. “negative emissions” – I neither like nor dislike the term as much as some of the respondents to this thread do 🙂 – and I think the Negative Emissions Platform for example does good work – but CDR is pretty clearly the preferred term for global governance (e.g. IPCC and Article 6.4 deliberations) and national governments (e.g. US and European Commission / EU) – so that’s the term I’m going to continue to use.

• Re. “GGR” and methane – these concepts / issues are beyond the scope of a “Defining CDR” brief. I’m not an expert on this topic but my personal opinion is that methane abatement (and I guess removal if/when it is proven to work) is so distinct from CDR in multiple dimensions that it should not be lumped in with every CDR policy (as “GGR”) but rather addressed with distinct policy. (And distinct policy briefs!) Hence my continued pref for CDR vs GGR. Again I’m not an expert on methane and am not going to weigh in further on this issue – I look to Spark as the leading “market shaper” for methane mitigation and will try to learn from them. (If you didn’t watch the recent Airminers webinar w Spark et. al. I thought it was excellent and would encourage you to check it out.)

• Re. “biogenic” – that is good feedback, thank you to Renaud, Ron, and Chris for highlighting. Again that parenthetical was included purposefully and at the request of the co2bc working group to highlight that BECCS approaches are point-source carbon capture that is also CDR – which point I do think is necessary to make in a policy brief. I now see the textual ambiguity that has been highlighted but think it’s mitigated at least somewhat by the reference link to the ICEF BiCRS Roadmap which indicates what we are trying to say – and I don’t see an easy fix without a substantial rewrite. (Which is beyond the practical scope of the assignment at this point – but perhaps for a future version. We did make some small edits based on the comments here and also caught an important missing footnote in the designed pdf – so thanks again to all for the feedback.) I get Chris’s point re “directly or indirectly…biotic or abiotic” but a key objective of the brief is to align on a definition and we wanted to go with the IPCC on that (also 50+ CDR experts who contributed to the CDR Primer) and not try to create a new definition. 

I don't want to belabor these issues or unnecessarily prolong the discussion, but I do appreciate all the feedback and wanted to offer a quick response. The good news is that the next CO2BC Issue Brief is on the simple and non-controversial topic of MRV :), so stay tuned for that next week...

Best, Toby

[Chris Vivian]

Toby,

 

If you are going to stick to referring to “biogenic” in brackets after atmospheric, then please change “or” to “including” to avoid confusion.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a6a7a8cd-60b8-469e-bedc-24dc831a6374n%40googlegroups.com.