Carbon Removal Accounting Methodologies: How to rethink the system for negative carbon emissions

[ayesha iqbal]

https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/170043

Contributors

Stephanie Arcusa

Klaus Lackner

Robert Page

Vishrudh Sriramprasad

Emily Hagood

2022-11-01

Abstract 

This report analyze current approaches to carbon accounting for removed carbon sold on carbon markets, focusing on carbon crediting under the framing of a remaining carbon budget, the issue of durability, and approaches to accounting methodologies. We explore the topic of mixing carbon with other problems in developing carbon accounting methodologies and highlight the open policy questions.

A framework for carbon removal accounting

For the certification of carbon removal, there are two critical issues. First, a certificate of sequestration deals with carbon removed and either stored permanently or in the case of 

short-term storage, including the reservoir manager's liability for any carbon lost from storage (Arcusa and Lackner, 2022). This view, of 

course, means that monitoring and verification become critical. Permanent in this context means "as long as the climate impact of carbon 

would last" (Arcusa and Lackner, 2022). At a minimum, this is a few thousand years. One ought to accept that carbon in the ocean is also a problem, then the time scale is measured in tens of thousands of years. The required storage times far exceed human ability to create 

institutional safeguards against losses from storage. Therefore, it becomes necessary to have a scientific consensus that the probability of loss from a storage system over such time scales is small enough to eliminate most of the 

risk of harm associated with the amount of carbon stored. That awareness creates several categories of storage options. Short-term methods like products and biomass would require an ongoing chain of obligated remediation (i.e., storage of carbon released from storage). Midterm methods such as biochar are far too long for institutional means of guaranteeing resequestration when needed but still too short to prevent handing the climate problem to future generations. And certain methods can be scientifically verified as thousands of years, such as mineralization. To issue a certificate of

sequestration to a method, it must show a longterm obligation either through convincing evidence of permanence or the reservoir manager has a firm obligation to re-sequester once the carbon escaped.

Second, the best way to deal with the carbon problem is to demand a certificate of sequestration the moment the carbon comes out of the ground (Lackner et al., 2000; Allen et

al., 2009). Carbon should not percolate its way through the supply chains, which makes it virtually impossible to account for it, and instead, people should be held accountable at the point of extraction (Lackner and Wilson, 2008). If the carbon is cleared the moment it comes out of the ground, LCA is unnecessary to

figure out who is responsible for what. All carbon captured from the air, the surface ocean, and anthropogenic point sources would qualify for generating new certificates of sequestration. A

power plant could generate 90% of the

certifications it will need to purchase tomorrow's fuel by capturing CO2 from the plant. The rest, the fuel producer, will have to buy from other people.

Instead of an LCA, direct measurements are necessary. Each carbon reservoir would need specific equipment and sampling plans. Still, all accounting methodologies would need to meet

a set of requirements: methods must exist to delineate the boundaries of the reservoir, quantify the addition of carbon to the reservoir, quantify the changing carbon content of the reservoir at reasonable intervals in the future,

and quantify the error bars and uncertainties of the associated measurements. The benefit of

measurements is that they can be verified by a third party, providing proof that can stand up to scrutiny. Auditors, paid by a public agency that collects fees from auditees, could check their

measurements of the reservoir content against the reservoir manager's claims providing assurances for the reservoir manager's insurance, investors, and clients.

There would be a transition in this model as the carbon removal industry ramps up. However, the liability to match all extracted carbon with removal should begin as soon as possible, ideally

today. With such a policy change in place, fossil fuel extractors would purchase certificates of sequestration and futures that commit right now

to the removal of the extracted carbon at a prescribed future date. If one can prove removal capability, one should be allowed to sell futures (in lieu of certificates) that come due in a staggered phased-in timeframe. This would make it possible for society to start demanding carbon neutrality now and build carbon removal capacity with a proven future market.

To get full insight into report, please find attached document ⬇️

Source: CENTER FOR NEGATIVE CARBON EMISSIONS

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ 85287-3005

USA