Co2nversions’ Post

📣 New paper out in Climate Policy Journal where we ask: How aligned are industry strategy and government policy for the decarbonization of energy-intensive process industries? Great team effort with Teis Hansen (lead), Johnn Andersson, Amber Nordholm, Jørgen Finstad, Jens Hanson, Tuukka Mäkitie, Hans Hellsmark. Decarbonization of energy-intensive process industries (EPIs) is a central unresolved challenge for limiting global warming to 1.5°C or well-below 2°C. In this article, we investigate the alignment between government policy and applicable industry strategy in decarbonization efforts across six European countries – Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. We distinguish between ‘target alignment’ (How comparable are the size of the emission reduction commitments?), ‘temporal alignment’ (How closely do the timelines match?) and ‘solution alignment’ (Are the same types of solutions prioritized?). Based on an analysis of national policy documents, company strategies of the 10 largest emitting EPI plants in each country, as well as secondary sources, we find high target alignment. However, we find substantially lower temporal alignment as emitters are reluctant to commit to intermediate targets that match the decarbonization timelines laid out in national government policy. Solution alignment is intermediate across all six countries as emitters generally pursue the decarbonization options prioritized in policy, but with most emitters remaining at the level of ambitions or plans and few examples of commercial investments so far. Key policy insights: - Public policies across the analysed countries mainly prioritize CCUS, hydrogen and electrification as decarbonization solutions. - Large emitters formulate ambitions or plans for the prioritized decarbonization options, but actual investment commitment remains limited. - Governments should continuously survey alignment of their policy targets and prioritized decarbonization options with industry targets and activities. - In particular, intermediate targets set by the largest emitters do not match those of national governments. - Additional support and incentives to make industry act sufficient fast are required. Open access: https://lnkd.in/dxuihv_M Work funded by Norges forskningsråd, Gassnova SF, Energimyndigheten, Innovationsfonden. #CLIMIT #CaptureX #INTRANSIT FME NTRANS (Norwegian Centre for Energy Transition Strategies) #VALCCAP CLEEN - Centre for Climate, Energy and the Environment at NTNU SINTEF SINTEF Digital Universitetet i Oslo (UiO) Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Chalmers University of Technology #decarbonization #netzero #hydrogen #CCUS #CCS #electrification #renewableenergy #bioenergy #processindustry #transitions #policy #climatetargets

While scientists insist that decarbonization efforts, net-zero targets, and wide-scale adaptation must be prioritized, the Global Stocktake Report notes that our emissions keep rising. Given this race against time, controversial approaches are being put on the table, such as solar radiation modification (SRM, also known as solar geoengineering), a potential stopgap measure against worsening climate change. If ever used, it [SRM] is proposed as a range of relatively fast-acting approaches with potential global benefits, but even this may well be debatable. Governance over the use or non-use of these technologies needs a global approach that requires deep public understanding. Saliem Fakir and Shuchi Talati, Ph.D. via Climate Home News The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG) #SolarGeoengineering #SolarRadiationModification #ClimateChange

The EU's official science advisors say the block should agree on an union-wide ban on solar geoengineering and push for a global non-deployment agreement at the international level, with exemptions for some regulated outdoor research. Solar geoengineering refers to a controversial group technologies that are designed to cool the planet by reflecting a small amount of sunlight away from the Earth with the idea it could relieve the world from extreme heat. But these technologies wouldn’t tackle the root cause of climate change nor could they address the impact of emissions on ocean acidification, for example. “At best, they would reduce warming from solar radiation on a temporary and local scale,” the scientific opinion notes. Deploying SRM at scale comes with major uncertainties and wide-ranging risks, including changing rainfall patterns and hampering food security. Whether the technology should be developed, deployed or even researched is up to intense debate. The EU currently doesn't consider solar geoengineering as a solution to the climate crisis but has no official position on the issue. This could perhaps soon change. https://lnkd.in/eH-yC-K2

While scientists insist that decarbonization efforts, net-zero targets, and wide-scale adaptation must be prioritized, the Global Stocktake Report notes that our emissions keep rising. Given this race against time, controversial approaches are being put on the table, such as solar radiation modification (SRM, also known as solar geoengineering), a potential stopgap measure against worsening climate change. SRM technologies offer two sides of the same coin – potential benefits include reducing global temperature rise and secondary benefits such as slowing the rate of sea level rise, and limiting harm to the poles, but potential risks include impacts on precipitation patterns, agriculture, and biodiversity. Uncertainty exists in both the science and the social response. Read the full comment piece by Saliem Fakir & Shuchi Talati, Ph.D.

Investment in #carboncapture has been growing like gangbusters in recent years. New research indicates it needs to grow even faster — but regulatory barriers remain a major hurdle. A study published last week in Nature Climate Change concluded that "climate change mitigation requires the large-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage," but to align with most net-zero scenarios, #CCS will have to grow at a pace similar to wind power in the 2000s. For context, since 2000, U.S. wind power output increased by more than 7,100 percent. To say there is more work to do to scale CCS would be an understatement. The authors acknowledge their findings are "more conservative than those of previous studies" because they assume a high failure rate for CCS projects as well as community opposition. That narrative of "failure" around CCS has remained well-entrenched among opponents and the media for decades. The best way to combat that presumption of failure is to get steel in the ground and show the viability of the technology. On that point, industry has been advancing its case recently. Last week the massive Northern Lights CO2 storage site opened in Norway. The first volumes will arrive in 2025 from a cement plant, and the site will be able to inject 1.5 million tons of CO2 per year in its first phase. The Clean Air Task Force concluded in a report earlier this year that "many of the component technologies that will be required for the wider application of carbon capture and storage are operating successfully and at large scale" around the world. In the second quarter of this year, total CCS investment in the United States topped $3 billion, a 50 percent increase over the prior quarter and a 28-fold increase year over year. The Biden administration also recently announced $1.3 billion in new funding to "catalyze investments in transformative carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies." While momentum is growing, we also need to recognize the considerable regulatory and permitting barriers to CCS. At the U.S. EPA, there are more than 150 pending permits for CO2 injection wells. Several states have applied for regulatory primacy over these wells, but opponents of the technology are lobbying the U.S. EPA not to grant it. Illinois and California, even with their aggressive decarbonization targets, have imposed moratoria on new CO2 pipelines. Even the feds recognize the problem. Earlier this week, the assistant secretary of the Fossil Energy and Carbon Management office at the U.S. Department of Energy called out the “deeply frustrating permitting delays” for CCS projects that threaten broader deployment. Investment dollars are flowing to CCS at an unprecedented rate. Projects are moving forward and there are additional tailwinds with policy support and a scientific consensus on the need to expand carbon capture. But you cannot scale up a technology like CCS if the regulatory risk continues to increase.

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies have shown promise for addressing the adverse impacts of climate change, and the scope and sophistication of CDR activities in the United States have advanced considerably over the past decade. https://lnkd.in/eTrVAP4Q Our latest report provides a snapshot into the current state of CDR with a focus on potential innovation breakthroughs in hybrid CDR that use state-of-the-art technological enhancements to leverage natural processes for carbon absorption, conversion, and storage.  #CDR #CarbonRemoval 

The NEGEM Project final event “Project Visions and Pathways for Carbon Dioxide Removal in the EU" took place on April 18th.     💡 Our CDR Research and Technology Advisor, Dr Allanah Paul, presented  "Climate policy frameworks for CDR" together with Fabiola De Simone from Carbon Market Watch.     🔎 Our Senior Policy Manager on Carbon Accounting, Mark Preston Aragonès moderated a panel discussion on "How to formulate policies and governance structures to support responsible deployment of CDR for the EU 2040 climate targets?".     The event's overarching aim was to present the results of NEGEM and examine the realistic potential and responsible deployment of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies and practices.     The event summary is now available! Read it below and stay tuned for more! ⤵   #Negemproject #EUremovals #CDR #carbonremovals #climateaction #netzero #Horizon2020 #H2020

🔍 Solutions VS Transition and the science of putting everything into boxes While both contribute to decarbonization, climate solutions and climate transition represent two distinct pieces of the climate puzzle. 🔄 Climate Solutions: These are activities or investments directly aimed at reducing or avoiding emissions—think renewable energy or nature-based solutions. Paradoxically, they can increase short-term emissions in a portfolio—e.g., manufacturing wind turbines may raise emissions initially due to equipment production, even though they contribute to long-term decarbonization. That’s why climate solutions sometimes need special treatment in portfolio assessments. 🔀 Climate Transition: This refers to how companies evolve from being carbon-intensive to sustainable. Frameworks like #NZIF 2.0 and #GFANZ categorize companies through stages of transition: • Committed: Pledged to net-zero, but no solid plans yet. • Aligning: Credible targets are emerging. • Aligned: Steady progress toward emissions reduction goals. • Achieving: Companies near or at net-zero (though this is highly debatable at the company level). These frameworks help allocate capital toward companies making genuine progress. 📈 Pushing for Climate Solutions: Alliances like #NZAOA push for more investment in climate solutions, recognizing their game-changing role in the transition. 🔎 The Great Climate Solution Debate: Should climate solutions be assessed at the activity or company level based on revenues? Many argue for an activity-level focus, since companies often operate both high-emitting and climate-positive activities. Should solutions be identified via taxonomies (e.g., the EU taxonomy) or through more granular approaches like avoided emissions analysis? (https://lnkd.in/eiTn6G2Z) 🔗 A Foggy Perimeter: It’s unclear whether climate solution providers should fully adhere to global portfolio-level decarbonization goals. This ambiguity makes it tricky to distinguish between emissions that need to transition and those that are part of the solution. 💡 The Path Forward? Financial institutions need to balance both transition financing and climate solution investments - both are essential and should be understood in detail. Also, swap “climate” with nature or biodiversity where applicable! #NetZero #ClimateSolutions #ClimateTransition #SBTI #SustainableFinance #Decarbonization #NZAOA #GFANZ #NZIF #Taxonomies

The urgency to address climate change has never been greater. While Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (#CCUS) technology plays a crucial role in reducing #CO₂ emissions, it's clear that relying solely on CCUS is not enough. To achieve our net-zero goals, a multifaceted approach is required, including renewable energy transitions and ecosystem restoration. AspenTech solutions empower industries to optimize processes and reduce carbon footprints efficiently, contributing to a sustainable future. #Sustainability #CarbonCapture #AspenTech #NetZero #ClimateAction Meng Leng Ang Tricia Jong Vishwas Shetty SeongHee (Eden) Kim