This proposal is still in development. You are invited to make a contribution, either in the form of suggested content, or by offering your skills and experience to our work, either in scientific or policy research. See the section 'how you can help.' We plan to add sections on world regional activities on CDR, and detailing work packages covering, as a minimum, Public and Stakeholder Engagement, Coherence with Sustainability Priorities, and Technical and Economic Potential. We welcome other proposed inputs in line with our objectives.
The need for a network and its key tasks
The challenge: “Everything, everywhere, all at once” – emission gaps and CDR policy needs
To stabilise the climate it will be necessary to achieve, and then go beyond, Net Zero. This will involve radically reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and simultaneously maximising permanent removals of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and oceans. As António Guterres has put it in commenting on the IPCC AR6 release, what is needed is “Everything, everywhere, all at once”.
There are many initiatives which focus on reducing emissions – this proposal focuses on removals. IPCC reports forecast the need for hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in order to stabilise global temperatures. As a range of recent reports underline, these estimates, however, assume unrealistically optimistic short-term reductions in emissions; consequently the actual amount required to achieve a safe and sustainable climate is highly likely to run into the trillions of tonnes of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by the end of the century. It will be particularly important to develop and robustly assess a wide range of removals technologies in the period up to 2030, during which the achievement of emissions reductions is likely to continue to lag significantly behind intentions and pledges.
Yet many nationally determined contributions to the Paris process either do not mention CDR, and have made no comprehensive assessment of its local potential, of the issues involved in and testing and scale-up of individual CDR approaches, the and the social, economic and environmental trade-offs involved in the development of a CDR portfolio to fruition.
Our key tasks
This proposal seeks to create an international network of researchers and policymakers to work in parallel on two interacting tasks which will contribute to that robust assessment, and to removals at scale:
- Firstly, to assess the potential for responsible removals on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, and to employ environmental and policy research to support the development of these potentials into actionable programmes leading to the maximum deployment of responsible removals;
- And secondly, to undertake a study on the international governance for CDR to help coordinate activity globally, to spread appropriate learning and support, and to develop common quality and regulatory standards not only for individual technologies, but also for the research and development needed to test and scale them in real social and political contexts.
What do we mean by responsible removals?
The network’s research and development will adhere to general guidelines for responsible research and innovation and in particular the AREA framework precepts: to anticipate, reflect, engage and act.
But by ‘responsible removals’ we mean not only this commitment to responsible process allied to a substantive commitment to initiatives that avoid harm to humans or the environment. Our definition includes a further commitment to removals that also contribute to national development priorities including the achievement of other sustainable development goals (SDGs). We believe that integration of climate removals into development in this way will help ensure that local plans realistically address trade-offs and synergies between local aims and interests and establish a degree of local ‘buy-in’ that will contribute to their being carried through to completion.
We encourage this broader developmental perspective since it may also yield additional sources of international finance from private and public sources, as the climate emergency becomes increasingly seen as part of a strategic global sustainability challenge which includes the need to reconcile biodiversity with the requirements of a stable climate, clean water and air, and increasing food demands.
Task 1: The Maximum Deployment of Responsible Removals
Framing what counts in removals: from planetary perspectives to the real world
To be effective our network needs to adopt framings and methodologies that are both analytically coherent and politically and socially realistic, and which cut through constraints that have been inhibiting the rapid scale up of responsible and robust CDR. The first required shift is one of general perspective: to ensure that CDR research and policy agendas are locally formulated and reflect the real-world diversity of values, human and natural resources and priorities. The Paris Agreement, in recognising that progress towards global targets to limit climate change needs to be based on nationally determined contributions, fully embraced this ‘bottom-up’ approach. Yet too much CDR research is universalistic in tone, focussed on the potential of individual technologies, with local political and social factors being seen as constraints on the maximum possible idealised yield in removals.
In contrast to this ‘planetary’ approach, we embrace a ‘world’ perspective in which social and natural scientists work together with policymakers to build bottom-up portfolios of climate action, centred on issues of governance, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. These contrasting perspectives are summarised in table 1.
Table 1. Planetary and World perspectives in constructing Strategies for Responsible CDR
| Dimension | PLANETARY perspective | WORLD perspective |
|---|---|---|
| Overall framing and approach | Climate physics and climate economics basis for universalistic climate scenario modelling. Local scenarios based on increasing model resolution. Either entirely apolitical and asocial or assume that key social parameters are invariate spatially or temporally. | Rooted in belief that more ambitious climate actions are only likely to be adopted if they are congruent with local conditions and linked to local strategies for the remaining sustainable development goals (SDGs). |
| Geographical/epistemological focus | Global potential the focus. Particular GGR approaches considered individually. Assessment of global potentials leading to identification of local targets. Use of burden-sharing approaches based on top-down - often remote sensing - based assessments of local potentials (under-utilised land', etc) to allocate national targets. | Local - and culturally and politically sensitive to local environmental and human resources and their synergies and trade-offs. |
| Preferred GGRs | There can be preferred GGRs which may have first appeared as placeholding proxies in Integrated Assessment Policy Models in order to allow them to resolve. BECCS has performed this role in some countries, presence in the model leading to a policy preference for BECCS assessment and development. | None. GGRs selected for development in particular jurisdictions a result of local assessment and empirical research based on particular environmental and social characteristics of the place and its other development priorities. |
| View of social and political agency: role assigned to jurisdiction governments and major stakeholders | As consultees in granting 'social licence to operate', often in terms of consent for one local project covering experimentation or deployment of one GGRs technique (although sometimes inappropriately extended to other places and times). | As customers for scientific and governance capacities to set GGRs portfolio strategies in line with other development requirements, co-working with interdisciplinary science/social science researchers. |
| Wider social engagement, outreach | Primarily an 'end-of-pipe' add-on | An integrated function of the co-creation of locally appropriate GGRs portfolios and their governance by the research project team and local stakeholders. |
| Broader legacy of research | Restricted application. In terms of application to national portfolio building, beyond scope of approach. | Multidimensional mapping allows broader general conclusions and knowledge transfer, but always subject to local test. |
Source: Healey, Kruger and Lezaun, Op. cit. 2024, p.2
Comprehensive CDR assessment: the principles and protocols approach
A second requirement is a comprehensive framework for the assessment and governance of CDR. A range of policy inputs and research on climate engineering governance led to our adoption of the ‘principles and protocols’ framework for assessment and governance which we plan to use in this network. It has three broad components: a set of high level governance principles to apply throughout the processes of assessment and governance; technology-specific protocols related to the opportunity and risk profiles of particular technologies (which may be embodied in ‘stage-gates’ specifying detailed requirements a technology might need to meet in order to be allowed to progress); and specific geopolitical considerations which relate to the environmental characteristics of any country in which the technology is to be applied, and the political and cultural values and priorities which may be called into play. This last element is crucial to our ‘world perspective’ approach, and lead it to be rooted in national case studies.
We believe the information produced by our case studies will be of wider use in developing policy on CDR and its funding. For example, we have engaged the World Bank’s Climate Change Fund Management Unit, whose Senior Economist Klaus Oppermann writes “This exchange is very valuable to us, and we will share our work [on CDR] with you as well once it has advanced a bit further.”
[Regional Studies – to be added]
National case studies, drawing on and contributing to international governance and knowledge exchange The core of our proposal is the undertaking of a series of studies which assess the potential of deploying the full range of proposed CDR techniques on a country-specific basis. These individual country studies will both contributing to and draw on an international network of stakeholders (policymaking, academic, industry and civil society actors) with an interest in the CDR space. The network would comprise a group of volunteer countries; because the work would be carried out in partnership with each locality, government commitment would be required for each jurisdiction to participate.
The focus of the network would be global: to generate knowledge that would support a rapid scale-up in responsible CDR, care would need to be taken to ensure that individual volunteer jurisdictions taken together provide requisite variety in terms of geography, stage of development, natural and human resources, and governance structures and processes. Such variety is useful for research purposes to determine which factors are crucial to CDR development but also to encourage wider buy-in and scale up. In particular there would need to be assurances for smaller and developing states to ensure that within this network their voices and needs are recognised at least to the same extent as in principle they receive under UNFCCC auspices.
Country studies would be carried out by a core group of international academic and policy analysts, growing as studies accumulate, plus ad hoc consultants for specialist work and to provide necessary local insight and contact networks.
Country studies in detail: developing understanding and action in individual jurisdictions
After a short initial visit to establish agreed ways of working, country studies would follow a pattern of two broad tasks: mapping the country’s CDR potential given its physical and industrial capacities, development priorities and the outcomes of detailed citizen and stakeholder engagement on ways forward; and such research and planning work needed to support the realisation of that potential. The case-study country would act as client for both pieces of work.
Whilst the essence of our approach is always to be sensitive to local factors and needs, the aim would be to employ a broadly similar set of methods in carrying out the mapping tasks: desk research to establish the history and capacities for CDR, followed a combination of interviews, focus groups and workshops in the local language, and visits to key sites and institutions. This core common approach would help us establish comparable information across cases which in turn would facilitate global learning and scale-up. This mapping stage would occupy twelve months. The base information on resources and preferences would inform reference in detail to CDR in country’s Nationally Determined Contribution under the UNFCCC Paris process: a broad statement of intent. In parallel a more detailed statement of what we learned from the case study – agreed with the country client - would be made available across the network.
Because reviews of climate policy to date have suggested that setting plans and targets is a lot easier than achieving them, the network is committed to going beyond the broad recommendations of the mapping exercise to working with each country client on a possible portfolio of CDR actions, en route to demonstration and deployment – or rejection - of individual CDR technologies. This second research and planning stage of country studies would necessarily closely reflect the policies, institutions and interests of the individual country concerned and the substantive issues and methods – and the expertise involved - would vary correspondingly. In most cases this work would include, for example:
- Local research to calibrate wider findings on costs, effectiveness and safety issues of different CDR technologies in the local context;
- Work on trade-offs and synergies in building a portfolio of climate actions (including the distribution of benefits and harms in terms of lives and livelihoods);
- Assessment and planning to maximise co-benefits between planned CDR portfolios and other sustainable development priorities;
- Continuing efforts to widen financial resources for sustainable development plans which include removals;
- The development and application of MRV.
This further stage of work would be specified in advance with the country-client. It would last from 9 to 18 months depending on the individual case, and would lead to detailed implementation plans for the country’s CDR portfolio. Because the aim would be to nest the CDR plan within climate action, and to nest climate action within each country’s sustainable development plans, it would also be expected to contribute to the country’s report to UNFCCC on its long-term low-emission development strategy (LT-LEDS).
Importantly the network’s core expertise would in large measure be provided by the participating countries themselves: drawing on and strengthening national capacities to develop CDR will be one of the network’s key priorities. The proposed studies would draw on the experience of a number of similar ‘bottom-up' studies that have been undertaken in the US (Roads to Removals), in France, Norway and the UAE (by Carbon Gap) and are under development in Canada and Australia, seeking to learn lessons from each and, as appropriate, adopt similar standards and methodologies and coverage of key issues. Maintenance of high academic standards will be important.
Task 2: Developing International CDR Governance
Top down and bottom-up governance We recognise that climate policy involves overlapping multiple levels of governance in a fragmented and polycentric world. Our work focuses on the negotiation of order around the central issues of cost-effectiveness, safety/protection, and acceptability/justice both within and between jurisdictions - in developing and deploying CDR. We see some of the most interesting issues arising at the interfaces between top-down and bottom-up analyses: converging perspectives which interrogate each other.
Defining International Governance in the context of the network’s aims
Although our network emphasises bottom-up national initiatives, clearly these need to operate within a framework of international governance. Whilst national governance can address many of the issues, issues such as standards for trading of carbon credits, the regulation of removals affecting international waters, allocation protocols which avoid double-counting of removals that involve more than one country (for example, trees grown in Canada used as feedstock for BECCS in the UK, with long term carbon sequestration from the project taking place in, say, Norway). Such issues have become very sensitive given widespread reports, for example, that many traded carbon offsets have failed to deliver, with some raising human rights concerns. Ecosystem Marketplace in its report State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2024 finds that the volume and value of the voluntary market was down for the second year in succession from its peak in 2021, with the transaction value down 61% in a year.
Some of these issues imply a need for regulation and standards – about control. However, the overarching questions include how can international governance in its broadest sense help to facilitate as well as control research, development, demonstration and deployment of portfolios of CDR in the national context? What kinds of definitions and processes would be involved? Which institutions would embody these, or would some new institution be required?
The international governance agenda would be the responsibility of a separate team within the CDR network with a distinct work programme. We see them having a broad scope to pursue everything beyond, and complementary to, our bottom-up national studies which will help the local studies deliver the project objective of maximum responsible CDR. A working definition of international governance in line with this approach is: “The international regulatory, informational, financial, research and organisational resources external to the starting capacities of individual jurisdictions which will be required to ensure that they can deliver responsible and accountable CDR, and promote appropriate global learning.”
Specific initiatives under the international governance work stream
Within limited time and resources we need to concentrate our efforts. Specific initiatives could include:
- From an initially top down perspective reconceptualising the governance of CDR and in particular going beyond its reduction to the assessment of individual CDR techniques outside any geographical or social context; or going wider than the focus on international environmental law, given the growth of civil rights based challenges to what governments and corporates do or fail to do in response to environmental challenges;
- Similarly, from an initially bottom-up perspective, an analysis of existing knowledge gaps which our emerging country studies suggest are important to the development of their own CDR agendas, or to the safety and security of other jurisdictions in cross-boundary effects;
- Working to define what constitutes successful CDR by various measures in various contexts, and on rationalising MRV’s current baroque arsenal of different approaches;
- A critical information role: examining the different means employed by national governments to develop and manage CDR with the aim of spreading good practice across similar contexts, as far as that is possible. This would include analysing how national law and regulation is differently formulated and applied in different contexts in pursuit of similar objectives, and how competing interests are reconciled;
- A curatorial role over the project’s country case studies as unique sources for wide ranging research, with the best effort being made to collect rich data on them for future secondary analysis.