Carl Clayton’s Post

As we strive to meet global emission targets, scaling carbon dioxide removal (CDR) becomes crucial. Even with advancements in carbon abatement, significant residual emissions are projected to linger by 2050. This calls for a robust and comprehensive CDR strategy. Key Takeaways: • Urgent Need for CDR: The industrial, energy supply, and transport sectors will be major contributors to residual emissions. CDR is essential for achieving net zero CO2. • Policy Drivers: Governments can drive CDR demand through carbon pricing mechanisms, regulatory requirements, and financial incentives. This ensures the scalability of durable CDR methods like direct air capture and sequestration. • Global Effort: Collaborative actions across regions are vital. Europe and North America are leading the charge, but global efforts must expand to cover significant residual emissions in regions like Asia Pacific. • Achieving a sustainable future isn't just about reducing emissions—it's about removing existing CO2 from the atmosphere. By leveraging policy, innovation, and collaboration, we can scale CDR to meet our climate goals and create a cleaner, safer planet for future generations. Dive into the full article to discover how we can drive demand for CDR and secure a sustainable future: https://lnkd.in/d9R27WP3 #ClimateAction #Sustainability #CarbonRemoval

As we strive to meet global emission targets, scaling carbon dioxide removal (CDR) becomes crucial. Even with advancements in carbon abatement, significant residual emissions are projected to linger by 2050. This calls for a robust and comprehensive CDR strategy. Key Takeaways: • Urgent Need for CDR: The industrial, energy supply, and transport sectors will be major contributors to residual emissions. CDR is essential for achieving net zero CO2. • Policy Drivers: Governments can drive CDR demand through carbon pricing mechanisms, regulatory requirements, and financial incentives. This ensures the scalability of durable CDR methods like direct air capture and sequestration. • Global Effort: Collaborative actions across regions are vital. Europe and North America are leading the charge, but global efforts must expand to cover significant residual emissions in regions like Asia Pacific. • Achieving a sustainable future isn't just about reducing emissions—it's about removing existing CO2 from the atmosphere. By leveraging policy, innovation, and collaboration, we can scale CDR to meet our climate goals and create a cleaner, safer planet for future generations. Dive into the full article to discover how we can drive demand for CDR and secure a sustainable future: https://lnkd.in/guUfTNWS #ClimateAction #Sustainability #CarbonRemoval

As we strive to meet global emission targets, scaling carbon dioxide removal (CDR) becomes crucial. Even with advancements in carbon abatement, significant residual emissions are projected to linger by 2050. This calls for a robust and comprehensive CDR strategy. Key Takeaways: • Urgent Need for CDR: The industrial, energy supply, and transport sectors will be major contributors to residual emissions. CDR is essential for achieving net zero CO2. • Policy Drivers: Governments can drive CDR demand through carbon pricing mechanisms, regulatory requirements, and financial incentives. This ensures the scalability of durable CDR methods like direct air capture and sequestration. • Global Effort: Collaborative actions across regions are vital. Europe and North America are leading the charge, but global efforts must expand to cover significant residual emissions in regions like Asia Pacific. • Achieving a sustainable future isn't just about reducing emissions—it's about removing existing CO2 from the atmosphere. By leveraging policy, innovation, and collaboration, we can scale CDR to meet our climate goals and create a cleaner, safer planet for future generations. Dive into the full article to discover how we can drive demand for CDR and secure a sustainable future: https://lnkd.in/gZtxU4WV #ClimateAction #Sustainability #CarbonRemoval

As we push to hit global emission goals, scaling up carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a must. Even with better carbon reduction, we'll still have leftover emissions by 2050. We need a solid CDR plan. Key Points: • Need CDR Now: Big emissions will come from industry, energy, and transport. CDR is key to net zero CO2. • Policy Boost: Governments can push CDR with carbon pricing, rules, and incentives. This helps scale methods like direct air capture. • Global Teamwork: Europe and North America are leading, but we need global action, especially in Asia Pacific. • It's not just about cutting emissions—it's about removing CO2 already in the air. With policy, innovation, and teamwork, we can scale CDR, hit our climate goals, and ensure a cleaner planet for future generations. Check out the full article on boosting CDR demand and securing a sustainable future: https://lnkd.in/d_4pjSQH #ClimateAction #Sustainability #CarbonRemoval

I'm excited to announce the release of our latest report on demand for carbon dioxide removals (CDR). Durable CDR is not just an option but a necessity for achieving global decarbonization goals and reaching net zero. Our latest report, Scaling CDR: Demand Drivers for Durable CDR, underscores the urgency and potential impact of policy-driven demand for durable CDR, projecting that significant volumes of CO2 emissions will remain unabated and need to be counterbalanced by 2050. https://lnkd.in/gyKBKZY5 A big thanks to my co-authors for all their support on this study: Amy Sims, Karan Mistry, PhD, Amy Sims, Paulina Ponce de Leon Barido, Alex Dewar, Habib Azarabadi #netzero #decarbonization #carbonremoval #bcg #bcgonenergy #climatetech

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made it clear that CO2 removal (CDR) is a critical tool for achieving net zero by 20501 because they could enable businesses to neutralize residual carbon emissions once all emission reductions efforts have been exhausted. Thus, by 2050, CDR competency could be a core part of management responsibilities across all sectors. This McKinsey report provides an analysis of the market potential for CDR, the investment requirements, and market trends. It also identifies which actions are the most likely to lower barriers to scaling CDR and delineates potential advantages for first movers in different stakeholder groups. Reducing emissions remains the primary, most effective, and preferred response to climate change. But decarbonization alone could prove insufficient to reduce the residual “hard to abate” emissions that may persist in the medium term. Once decarbonization options have been expended, CDR could play a vital role in neutralizing residual emissions; therefore, most scenarios aligned with the Paris Agreement project substantial CDR capacities. Estimates from the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment’s The state of carbon dioxide removal report, for example, show that six to ten gigatons of CO2 in annual CDR capacity would likely be needed by 2050 for most Paris-aligned net-zero pathways.2 This capacity could not be delivered quickly, however, so efforts would need to begin as soon as possible to ensure 2050 scenarios are achievable.3 Some estimates require an additional 0.8 to 2.9 metric gigatons of CO2 per year of removals capacity by 2030—three to ten times more than the volumes currently estimated to be onstream by that date.4 Biotic feedback loops could also further accelerate the most severe effects of climate change, consequently increasing the speed at which CDR would need to be scaled. https://lnkd.in/gSyUcUsU

It's time to tame the Wild West of carbon capture It’s necessary, but not the way many people are proposing now Summary: The discourse on carbon dioxide removal (CDR), also known as carbon capture, emphasizes its critical role in achieving net-zero emissions while cautioning against its potential misuse as a distraction from vital decarbonization efforts. This perspective underscores the complexity of integrating CDR into broader climate strategies, highlighting its indispensability for offsetting unavoidable emissions without allowing it to overshadow the imperative of reducing emissions through the transition to renewable energy sources. The discussion outlines the atmospheric carbon budget, stressing the urgency of emission reductions to mitigate global warming. It underscores the shrinking timeframe for action to remain within global carbon budget limits, advocating for a shift away from fossil fuel use and toward clean energy solutions as a priority over carbon removal technologies. Various CDR methods, such as direct air capture (DAC), are scrutinized for their energy demands and financial costs. The narrative suggests that investments might be more effectively allocated to immediate and impactful emission reduction strategies rather than to expensive and energy-intensive carbon removal technologies. While initiatives by entities to fund and explore diverse carbon removal technologies are acknowledged, there is a warning against allowing these efforts to detract from the urgent need for direct emission reductions. The discussion also touches on the controversial aspects of carbon capture proposals by oil companies and the risk of greenwashing, where the promise of carbon removal is used to justify continued fossil fuel exploitation. The European Union's initiative to certify CDR schemes through the provisional Carbon Removal Certification Framework (EU CRCF) is noted as a positive development towards establishing transparent and verifiable standards for carbon removal effectiveness. However, concerns are raised about the framework's potential shortcomings, including the risk of treating carbon removal as a substitute for emission reductions and the possibilities for double counting and insufficient short-term storage. In conclusion, a nuanced and critical approach to carbon capture is advocated, proposing it as a complementary measure to genuine decarbonization efforts rather than a substitute. The call is for stringent certification and regulatory measures to ensure that CDR effectively contributes to climate change mitigation without compromising the essential goal of reducing emissions. #ClimateChange #CarbonCapture #Decarbonization #EnvironmentalPolicy #SustainableTechnology https://lnkd.in/gs5H_atN

BCG’s recent report on carbon removal policy drivers is a game changer because it recognizes a “carbon takeback obligation” as a potential carbon pricing mechanism.  That's a big deal, and here's why: A carbon takeback obligation is an emission standard encapsulated by the idea of “net zero” emissions. In simplest form, a carbon takeback obligation (CTO or CTBO) is a legal duty.  That’s all.  It obligates FF suppliers to “take back” the carbon emissions from their products through durable forms of carbon capture and removal. CTO proposals are typically conceived as “rate based” emission caps, as opposed to cap-and-trade’s “quantity based” caps. A key policy innovation enabled by a carbon takeback obligation is the ability to incentivize the least-costly emission reductions and abatement investments, when implemented through an emission-abatement-fee crediting system. If durable carbon credits can be exchanged instead of paying the abatement fee, the fee (which funds removals of residual emissions) then functions like a carbon price ceiling. A CTO implemented in this way is advantageous because it combines the best features of carbon-tax and cap-and-trade frameworks without as much baggage. Keep an eye out for my forthcoming article on Reorienting Climate Law & Economics, in which I explore this innovative policy driver at great length.

How are the CO2 equivalences for CO2, Methane and all the other consumptions for the CSRD calculated, which have to be reported on all three levels? How can this be integrated into the business strategy? And by reducing these emissions how much costs can be saved with respect to a higher profit-turnover ratio in the long run? #Transition #Transformation #Strategy #CSRD #CostSaving #Reporting #Profits #Turnover #Earnings #EBIT The CO2 equivalents for CO2, Methane, and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are calculated using Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). GWPs provide a measure of the warming effect of a given amount of a GHG compared to the same amount of CO2 over a specific period, typically 100 years. Methane, for instance, is over 25 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years, making its GWP 25+. Integrating GHG reduction into business strategy involves: 1. Assessment: Measuring current emissions across Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy), and Scope 3 (all other indirect emissions in a company’s value chain). 2. Reduction Strategy: Identifying areas for emission reductions, such as energy efficiency, renewable energy sourcing, and process optimization. 3. Implementation: Investing in technologies and processes that reduce emissions. 4. Reporting and Review: Regularly reporting under CSRD guidelines and reviewing performance against targets. Reducing emissions can lead to cost savings through: - Lower energy consumption. - Reduced reliance on carbon-intensive resources. - Minimized carbon taxes and compliance costs. In the long run, companies that proactively manage and reduce their emissions can achieve a higher profit-turnover ratio by: - Enhancing brand value and reputation. - Increasing operational efficiencies. - Mitigating risks associated with regulatory changes and carbon pricing. - Capitalizing on opportunities in the green economy. The financial benefits realized from emission reductions depend on factors like initial investment, operational savings, and market conditions. Adopting a strategic approach to sustainability can position a company as a leader in its sector, attracting investors and customers while contributing to global climate goals.

How are CSRD and ESG initiatives related to better financial performances in the economy and companies?