The End of the Volunteer C Market?

[Greg Rau]



https://open.substack.com/pub/marginalcarbon/p/the-end-of-the-vcm?r=2481jo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

“

With a contracting market and chronic oversupply the lack of SBTi endorsement is likely the final nail in the coffin for hopes of massive growth of traditional carbon credits.”

[Greg Rau]

I'd say the problem here is that the markets are only addressing emissions and the net zero goal. What is not addressed is the existing 1000 Gt and growing, long-lived, legacy atmospheric CO2 pool that is and will continue to affect climate and ocean chemistry even long after zero emissions is met (if it is met). Only CDR is relevant here, not emissions reduction. Where is the market that addresses this problem? I say there won't be one until the IPCC or equivalent acknowledges that there is more to CO2/climate managment than zero emissions if we wish to restore climate/CO2 levels faster than on geologic time scales. 

Greg

On Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 09:29:19 AM PDT, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



https://open.substack.com/pub/marginalcarbon/p/the-end-of-the-vcm?r=2481jo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

“

With a contracting market and chronic oversupply the lack of SBTi endorsement is likely the final nail in the coffin for hopes of massive growth of traditional carbon credits.”

--
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/5AAA18C9-F114-4E9F-8D51-D2B377E5ED78%40sbcglobal.net.

[Josh Perfetto]

I think it may be too high an ask to expect commercial markets to remove historical emissions - I feel that is something governments will need to address.

But I think SBTi's greatest failure is the failure to differentiate between removals and offsets. As you point out, society eventually needs cost-effective CDR to remove historical emissions. Currently society is not even willing to invest very much in building that capacity. It's a gift that some in industry are willing to do so in order to pursue net-zero goals, and the last thing society and earth needs is for SBTi to throw cold water on the party based on fears of a false moral hazard.

I have never understood how what percentage companies ought to allocate efforts to reduce emissions vs remove emissions is a scientific question. I don't even understand how it is a worthwhile policy question either, given that each company is starting from a very different place and faces very different circumstances.

"I'd rather spend $400/ton on removals so I don't have to spend $40/ton on reductions" said no one ever.

I'll get off the soapbox now and return to my memoir "Parallel Narratives of mCDR and Witchcraft"

-Josh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/596547190.2182429.1722535952255%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Nando Breiter]

Currently society is not even willing to invest very much in building that capacity. 

As someone who has struggled for years to develop CDR capacity at any scale at all, I've seen this unwillingness up close. Investors don't want to touch tragedy of the commons issues, even if you demonstrate to them how a solution can be profitable without carbon market subsidy. Every one of the many potential investors that has contacted us wants someone else to take the risk, no matter how "green" they present themselves to be. 

There is tremendous competition for the scant grant / seed funding available from governments and nonprofits, and almost always these grants are restricted, not to what might make the most sense to address climate change at scale, but rather in a variety of irrelevant ways to the overall goal. It is as if there is some emergency, say an earthquake, and thousands of people flock to help to distribute food and water, and only 12 of them, based on arbitrary criteria laid out in a very long form that they all have to fill out and submit, are allowed, after a long vetting process, because there is only a very limited amount of food and water available. 

Innovation is being suppressed for lack of funding. We're starving it. To me, this is the core problem that needs to be addressed. 

[Ronal Larson]

List, Nando and ccs

1.  This is to support Nando’s view (below) on the need for increased funding.   But I’d add some restrictions.  Some promising CDR approaches aren’t getting what they deserve.   I think some are now getting way too large a percentage of the whole - at least in the USA.

2.  Nando and I support the same CDR approach (which I’ll leave un-named - as does Nando below - because this site should be a site for the CDR field, not specific approaches).  He and I have talked and corresponded a bit - but minimally and mostly 15 or so years ago.   

3.  I had never been to his excellent site till today (easy to find by googling his name),  I followed up on one paper he recommends.  I found it is now a freebie (so he can modify his site) - that I strongly (like he) recommend: 

     https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a6d59382b4f1f32c7f7d67140233d62c037885a4.  

Famous paper, but I had been avoiding because of the fee.  Came out 5 years before our specific CDR approach even had an official name.  In a funding sense - essentially zero funding mentioned there (or big funding anywhere until the last few years).  Does that very early paper suggest appropriateness for funding?  I mention this paper because I think so - and it didn’t happen in most countries..

3.  In sum, I agree with Nando on a need for this list to do more on CDR funding.   This in a general sense -  not by naming (for purposes of promoting them) specific CDR approaches (or companies.)  

Maybe funding should relate to existing market reports?   To monthly publications?   To what specific countries are doing? To proximity to the carbon emitters?   Why some CDR methods now getting billions - and others so little?

Ron

--
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/CAA%2Bjm_caE%3DkcgQ%2BWzuc7-YWr4Ze_x39NEtBDqyRF-pN7NGvhmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Asbjørn Torvanger]

This paper discusses both the historical carbon debt and the further need to reduce emissions and do CDR, placing the responsibility at national/regional level in an ethical context.

---

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Josh Perfetto <jo...@ephemeralcarbon.com>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 9:20 AM
To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Höglund from Marginal Carbon <margina...@substack.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] The End of the Volunteer C Market?

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAMv1TpzFLv-JwZSVZ%3DYnR5Z0hfjLVZXN5t9zTjoPzwOBC3zsAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniel Nepstad]

Markets are addressing both emissions and removals, but demand for high-integrity carbon credits is currently far below what is needed.  The framework for addressing both E's and R's at the scale of entire regional territories (like Amazon states twice the size of California) is contained in the ART TREES standard for jurisdictional REDD+.   ART TREES recognizes and rewards (through credit issuance) reductions in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and increases in removals by secondary forests and plantations. With a very conservative baseline calculation, TREES avoids the over-estimation of climate benefits from forest carbon projects under the old VERRA methodology that were the basis of the Guardian articles that helped reduce demand for all credits.  

The first beneficiary of an expanded voluntary carbon market would be the Amazon--its forests and people.  In a forthcoming paper, we show how a robust carbon market could shift the Amazon forest from its current position as a net source of carbon to become a major net sink. Changes in annual carbon fluxes equivalent to 5% or more of global emissions from fossil fuel are at stake in the Amazon alone.

Nature-based solutions are a critical tool for buying time.

To grow demand for TREES credits and to finance promising CDR technologies to go to scale, we will need funding from the big emitters.  The challenge is to bring fossil fuel, cement, etc. in as funders without giving them a license to operate BAU.  We are working on some ideas for doing this.

Daniel Nepstad, PhD

Executive Director

Earth Innovation Institute

https://earthinnovation.org/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/596547190.2182429.1722535952255%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Philip Kithil]

Daniel says "we will need funding from the big emitters".

I disagree.

We need funding from each and every person on earth. The people need to pay for their emissions of CO2 inherent to their consumption of products/services. A per-capita fee auto-deducted monthly from each bank account* will lower demand and quickly lead to supply reduction** and lower emissions; and provide funding to all the now-starving CDR companies - meeting Greg's statement that the target should be legacy CO2 first and foremost. 

Current/future emissions will come down as supply diminishes (along with gov't rules requiring businesses achieve year by year reductions).

That's my 2 cents.

Phil Kithil

The Sea Upwelling Company Inc dba Sea-Up

PS - we proposed exactly this to Metro Tokyo's Green Transition (GX) call for proposals and of course our submittal was declined. PDF attached if anyone wishes to learn more/comment.

* Obviously the billion or more lower income folks without a bank account dont pay. And of course the per capita bank deduction could be progressive, a percent of monthly average balance, or whatever.

** Probably causing a massive economic contraction?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CA%2BEHST_AP2VKN-wZXvLGOz7%3D8Skt9o3iuOwvgYoW5nhWp-4Wjg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniel Nepstad]

thanks, Phil,

Significant climate funding from big emitters--tied to scope 3 emissions, polluter pays--would increase the cost of high-carbon products like gas, oil, coal, cement.