Thread by @stv_smth

A thread on one of the new bits in the #NetZeroStrategy: greenhouse gas removals (GGR)...

There are many ways to do removal. @GOVUK splits them between biology (e.g. trees and soils, which it puts in the “Natural Resources” part of its strategy) and engineering.

Here I’ll focus on the engineered ones, but the biological ones are worth a thread, too 🌲🌳🟫

The strategy lists these specific engineered removal approaches as deployable: BECCS, DACCS, wood in construction, enhanced weathering and biochar.

gov.uk/government/pub…

So let’s compare deployment scenarios with what @theCCCuk has in their Balanced Pathway to net zero:
theccc.org.uk/publication/si…

@GOVUK is aiming for 11-34 MtCO2e/yr total deployment by 2035, similar to that in @theCCCuk scenarios.
By 2050 it is 75-81 MtCO2e/yr (high, but still within the CCC scenario range).

But @GOVUK doesn’t give a breakdown by removal approach. Also @theCCCuk doesn’t include weathering or biochar, essentially arguing these are worthy of R&D but too uncertain at this stage.

An aside: it’s not totally true to say these are all new to policy. BECCS has been in past government scenarios to meet the old target of an 80% emissions cut, right back to Labour’s 2011 Carbon Plan

gov.uk/government/pub…

But with the shift of the target to net zero, GGR has become its own policy “sector” and has taken a more prominent role. What’s new in the strategy is that government is thinking seriously about how to incentivise and govern these methods.

Really quite seriously, if the number of accompanying documents is anything to go by:
gov.uk/government/con…
gov.uk/government/pub…
gov.uk/government/pub…
gov.uk/government/pub…

Here are the specific things @GOVUK is committing to do:

Do these commitments stack up to what’s needed? A while back with @camjhep I highlighted six priorities:

theconversation.com/climate-change…
✅ Clear vision
✅ Public support
✅ Innovation
✅ Incentives
✅ Monitoring, reporting, verifying
✅ Decision-making tools

Clear vision: definite step forward that Government has announced a target of 5 MtCO2/yr engineered removal by 2030. This type of target is something removal companies have been asking for.

Innovation: needed to bring down current very high costs. £100m for R&D in the strategy is recent but not new. Definitely a start, and (probably?) a sensible fraction of the overall £1.5bn committed to net zero innovation.

Incentives: further call for evidence on inclusion of removals in the ETS. Perhaps the obvious current policy mechanism, but the best? Interesting work to be done on optimal mechanisms. Lack of incentives is a major barrier; they are needed soon in reality rather than in calls.

Monitoring, reporting & verifying: how will we know where the carbon goes, and report it in our national GHG inventory? Gov has had a whole group scoping this and has published their findings with the strategy. The UK could be a standard setter here...

(Interesting wrinkle that the Climate Change Act doesn’t allow for engineered removals - perhaps it didn't occur to the authors back in ‘08, @bryworthington ? - but one the government intends to iron out)

What’s the key thing missing as far as I can tell? Public engagement. Great work by people like @DrRobBellamy and Dr Emily Cox shows publics have clear preferences and concerns in this space.

nature.com/articles/s4156…
nature.com/articles/s4155…

All in all, lots of good things here. The need for engagement is a thread running through the whole strategy. It could make or break GGR just as much as it can for heat pumps, low-carbon transport…

Three assorted points to close: 1) transport and storage for CO2 is a make-or-break factor. Government now has huge ambition on this, but it’s track record so far has been…err…mixed. If it doesn’t happen, we can kiss GGR at this scale – and probably net zero by 2050 – goodbye.

2) The 🐘 in the room is Drax. No direct mention in the strategy, but by 2030 it could fold or become a BECCS plant capturing over 10 MtCO2/yr. Arguably the single biggest and most complex investment decision government has to make on removals, and the one it has to make first.

3) Government talks about being a global leader, exporting GGR skills and expertise. Maybe, but the race is hotting up. Sweden is forging ahead with incentivising BECCS; the US has CO2 pipelines already and is sinking $millions into direct air capture. Watch this space…

Many more thoughts, but that's a long enough thread for now! Hope it helps.