English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Who Is Paying for Carbon Dioxide Removal? Designing Policy Instruments for Mobilizing Negative Emissions Technologies

Authors
/persons/resource/409

Honegger,  Matthias
IASS Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Potsdam;

Poralla,  Matthias
External Organizations;

Michaelowa,  Axel
External Organizations;

Ahonen,  Hanna-Mari
External Organizations;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)

6001123.pdf
(Publisher version), 299KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Honegger, M., Poralla, M., Michaelowa, A., Ahonen, H.-M. (2021): Who Is Paying for Carbon Dioxide Removal? Designing Policy Instruments for Mobilizing Negative Emissions Technologies. - Frontiers in climate, 3, 672996.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.672996


Cite as: https://publications.iass-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_6001123
Abstract
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) poses a significant and complex public policy challenge in the long-term. Presently treated as a marginal aspect of climate policy, addressing CDR as a public good is quickly becoming essential for limiting warming to well below 2 or 1.5°C by achieving net-zero emissions in time – including by mobilization of public and private finance. In this policy and practice review, we develop six functions jointly needed for policy mixes mobilizing CDR in a manner compatible with the Paris Agreement's objectives. We discuss the emerging CDR financing efforts in light of these functions, and we chart a path to a meaningful long-term structuring of policies and financing instruments. CDR characteristics point to the need for up-front capital, continuous funding for scaling, and long-term operating funding streams, as well as differentiation based on permanence of storage and should influence the design of policy instruments. Transparency and early public deliberation are essential for charting a politically stable course of action on CDR, while specific policy designs are being developed in a way that ensures effectiveness, prevents rent-seeking at public expense, and allows for iterative course corrections. We propose a stepwise approach whereby various CDR approaches initially need differentiated treatment based on their differing maturity and cost through R&D pilot activity subsidies. In the longer term, CDR increasingly ought to be funded through mitigation results-oriented financing and included in broader policy instruments. We conclude that CDR needs to become a regularly-provided public service like public waste management has become over the last century.