Watch "The State of CDR 2.0 | Dr. Oliver Geden, Maria Leis | Climeworks Carbon Removal Summit 24" on YouTube

[Michael Hayes]

The IPCC will, for the first time, start defining specific CDR methodologies, that if used by member states, will count on their national reporting under the COP agreements.  (@11 min)

Only LAND-BASED CDR methods seem to be currently recognized for C accounting purposes. Planting trees, saving forests, are the most common called for CDR methods by the member states as that's most of what has been defined as CDR at the COP/IPCC policy levels.

A comprehsive set of mCDR definitions, development paths, and deployment policies is needed. A rather large number of mCDR techniques, and many combinations of mCDR techniques, are now defined well enough to list at the IPCC/COP policy levels. Marine-centric CDR work will likely be better supported at the socioeconomic level, national and international financial levels, with IPCC/COP involvement.

The use of AI in crafting technical mCDR recommendations for IPCC definitions, and/or for COP member policy makers, is likely warranted as the number of potential mCDR methods and combinations of such is now rather large. The use of AI may help simplify the complexity for all. The nucleus of a AI assisted mCDR STEM, policy, and socioeconomic set of conventions, or set of standards, on the development, deployment, and long-term operations of mCDR methods might be achievable by the next COP. 

Waiting for the COP meeting after that, to get this level of organzational work done, would likely be tragic on many levels.

https://youtu.be/nCtNXXutFXI?si=iG6v5l10Noj1vE2N 

[Greg Rau]

The report is here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/633458017a1ae214f3772c76/t/665ed1e2b9d34b2bf8e17c63/1717490167773/The-State-of-Carbon-Dioxide-Removal-2Edition.pdf

It's an amazing, in depth review of the present state of CDR, including breakdowns of approaches, R&D, funding, IP, media treatment, policy and more. Importantly emphasizes the need for policy and funding support for “novel” CDR approaches. However, the categorization of CDR into “conventional” and “novel” is curious. Conventional here means land bio: “afforestation/reforestation; agroforestry; forest management; soil carbon sequestration in croplands and grasslands; peatland and coastal wetland restoration; and durable wood  products”. Everything else is “novel”, including biochar, DAC, BECCS, OAE, OIF, etc. But most of these aren’t very novel considering they’ve been discussed and researched for decades (e.g., Fig. 2.1). Perhaps they mean novel with regard to crediting, but they should be clear on this point. All of this seems to indicate too narrowly focused, high-level CDR thinking/policy that has failed to engage the full gamut  of CDR options to fulfill CO2 management goals.   

One misstep is the definition of CDR wherein “the CO2 captured must come from the atmosphere…”. Actually, a lot of effective CDR can operate on non-atmospheric CO2 pools before they enter the atmosphere, e.g., OAE or marine bio consuming excess surface ocean CO2 before it degasses to air (as in upwelling areas), or ERW in soils that can consume excess soil CO2 thus reducing natural soil emissions. Are we really not going to include these in CDR policy/crediting? Emerging crediting protocols do (e.g., here and here)

Finally, while ocean CDR is discussed, the report perpetuates the land-heavy thinking that continues to dominate CDR policy. If we are going to close the growing gap between projected CDR needs and the ability to satisfy those needs, we must think more globally about the possibilities, and not just the familiar ones on 30% of the planet. A better representation of marine/global C cycle expertise on the author list of high-level reports like this would be a good start.  

Greg

--
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/CABjtO1cQSPfytd%3D7gL6L%2B0cdD2JW-hLutyx4z4xFr1cmshRTiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Greg, et al.,

The IPCC Working Group 3 has, by policy, never recommended specific technologies. That policy is understandable for many reasons, yet scientific authority over and long-term direction for global CDR in general, and offshore mCDR specifically, at the WG3 level is likely now needed. 

Best regards

[Toby Bryce]

I would suggest reaching out to the authors with this feedback -- and specific actionable steps they might consider taking for v3 to address the point. 

I think folks did this after v1, and one result was a significant amplification of the approaches contemplated -- which I think they did a pretty excellent job with.

[Michael Hayes]

Toby, et al.,

The work getting us here is the definition of outstanding.

Areas beyond all national jurisdictions, the highseas, have no higher scientific authority than the IPCC WG3. All other highsea authority looks to the IPCC, thus the WG3, for leadership. 

Lead.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/148a75d4-478a-4b70-8ba1-9afa1d96dcacn%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Toby, et al.,

The IPCC member states would need to approve any WG3 CDR related directions to deploy and the WG3 members need informational support from the mCDR community so the WG3 can more fully inform the IPCC member states about mCDR running up to the next COP meeting. 

Getting the IPCC members to fund a WG3 detailed directive to deploy may not be overly hard if the WG3 directed offshore CDR work can be credited to the members' C pledge. The Green Climate Fund is an ideal fund management group that the WG3 directed work can be managed through.

https://www.greenclimate.fund/

An IPCC WG3 directed offshore CDR operation would in no way hinder 'novel' commercial mCDR operations from moving forward, yet a non-novel IPCC sanctioned and deployed mCDR operation may help lead the emerging industry of 'novel' mCDR work in many ways. Anything that the IPCC approves for deployment, and memberstates fund, is no longer 'novel', it would be the global standard.

Best regards