Wee-Kean Fong’s Post

From Policy to Action: Europe's Path to a Trillion-Euro #CDR Industry The latest Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and Deutscher Verband für negative Emissionen e.V. (DVNE) study highlights the need to integrate Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) into climate policies with clear removal targets at EU and national levels. Mandating a certain share of emissions to be neutralized via CDR, including its inclusion in the compliance market, can drive significant progress. Investment is key. Funding research and growth-stage CDR projects, while reducing administrative barriers, can accelerate innovation. Providing securities, subsidies, and government-backed guarantees among other instruments could stabilize the market and encourage investment. Governments can lead by example through public procurement initiatives. By further removing regulatory hurdles and fostering CO2 transport & storage infrastructure build-out, they can boost global CDR demand. Together, we can pave the way for a sustainable future. 🌱 Read the full report to discover how different players can make a difference: https://lnkd.in/eecn3vax ne2024&utm_description=organic&utm_content=dvne #CarbonDioxideRemoval #NetZero #Sustainability Hannes Michael S. Tony Oehm

Sebastian Manhart, to me on of the the most important message of the Carbon Gap CDR report is this: "Like other essential public services such waste collection, 𝐂𝐃𝐑 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝. Just as regulation governs the management of other forms of waste, policymakers must therefore integrate CDR into long-term climate governance to ensure that the required volumes will be delivered."(p. 10) Kudos for the authors! This is an important, not yet amplified, message to policy-makers, voters, (venture) capitalists, the sustainable finance community and the growing CDR industry. It is a pity that the insightful 18 recommendations they have put forward do not explicitly recognize this '𝐂𝐃𝐑 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞' as the 18 items includes a call for a public "procurement programme, or other comparable deployment incentive, for high durability and high-cost CDR methods with dedicated EU funding" together with a call for better/effective policies including compliance (mandatory) instruments. BTW, I have a more elaborated post on this aspect: https://lnkd.in/gySDcZZH

🇪🇺 The 18 measures Europe needs to take to lead on global CDR policy 🇪🇺 💎 Carbon Gap strikes again! This time with a real jewel: “Envisioning a carbon removal strategy for Europe: Carbon Gap's recommendations for a dedicated EU CDR Strategy” is the most comprehensive policy analysis for the EU to date. 📋 It provides 18 actionable policy recommendations the EU needs to take to between now and 2050 to achieve net-zero and scale carbon dioxide removal (#CDR). Here are a couple of my favourite measures, all of which I have covered in different posts in the past (see comments): 💶 Development of an EU procurement programme (following the U.S.’ footsteps), removing Kt in the first and Mt in the second phase across all carbon removal pathways. 🇪🇺 Integration of Higher-Durability Removals into the EU ETS, ensuring that long-lasting carbon removal efforts are incentivized. 🔁 Creation of a Removals Trading System, establishing a market-driven approach to accelerate the adoption and scaling of CDR technologies. 🎯 Formalizing a Removals Target and setting clear and ambitious benchmarks for member states. 🏦 The Creation of a Carbon Central Bank at the EU level, envisioned as a regulatory body to oversee and facilitate the carbon removals market, with at some point binding carbon removal targets for member states. 🗓️ On top of the 18 measures, the report also lays out a beautiful and clear timeline, highlighting how these measures interlock with each other and synergise with member state-level efforts. 💙 I love this report! So much excellent thinking and experience has gone into it. It provides a detailed blueprint the European CDR industry can use to supercharge its advocacy efforts while staying tightly aligned. If we manage to get even half of these measures implemented, Europe would be well on track to lead CDR policy globally. 😅 Now the hard part starts: putting this all into practice. ❓ What do you think? Which of the 18 measures resonated most with you? Anything missing? 📣 Shoutout to authors Devina Banerjee MBE, Clotilde Besson, Kayla Cohen, Sylvain Delerce, Alexis Dunand, Verena Hofbauer, Eli Mitchell-Larson, Lydia Loopesko, Valter Selénén, Eloisa Viloria, and Phillip Wilson. 🔗 Check out the full strategy: https://lnkd.in/d-rKczew #carbonremoval #climatepolicy #EU

❗ Major #CarbonRemoval report alert! Check out our new comprehensive report looking at the role of #CDR in contributing to the Paris Agreement's temperature goal. The full version is finally available for download. I was thrilled to be part of the project team together with world-class modellers and CDR experts Johannes Bednar, Robert Höglund, Kenneth Möllersten and Michael Obersteiner. This is a long read (140 pages) and covers a lot of ground: • The basics of CDR (role, main methods, comparison of nature-based and technological methods) and the latest analysis on the 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗗𝗥 • CDR under the #ParisAgreement - #Article6, global stocktake, mitigation work programme. We look into which negotiation streams are likely to impact CDR most. • 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 that contrasts emission reductions and carbon removal in mitigation scenarios and explores 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 • 𝗗𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗮𝗴𝗲, including mapping how these elements are covered by current carbon market standards (a lot has changed here since September, though, as the standards seek to align with CCPs) • 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗖𝗗𝗥? Let's dig deeper into this section of the report. This question has so far been surprisingly little explored. Most literature out there on CDR and markets focuses on VCM, which is a very very small fraction of carbon markets. What about Article 6 markets? Most studies focus on the role of markets in reducing emissions / increasing ambition but don't offer specific details on CDR, which often makes up a couple of paragraphs ("and then there's also CDR"). We need to get much more granular than that! Main messages on markets and removals from existing literature: • Markets can address the uneven distribution of CDR potential • The prices on Article 6 markets are likely insufficient to deploy novel CDR, and the gap needs to be addressed either by government premiums on top of market prices or by using markets as a top-up to national policies driving the deployment. • Lots of concerns around the durability of nature-based removals • Separate targets, separate markets as a concept • Carbon markets will transition towards carbon removal markets We finish up with a list of recommendations on urgency, policy design and MRV, which won't fit here, so please have a look at the report and save it for the future (link in the comments). The report was commissioned by the Swedish Energy Agency.

Dear Network, I recently had the opportunity to delve into the GHG Protocol survey, "Detailed Summary of Scope 3 Stakeholder Survey Response" and I'm eager to share some key takeaways and reflections with you all. Here are some of my perceptions: 🔍 Streamlining and Harmonization: The overwhelming feedback regarding the need to streamline requirements and harmonize standards is palpable. It's clear that stakeholders are seeking clarity and consistency to navigate the plethora of supplementary standards and frameworks effectively. 📊 Quantification and Target Setting: The call for clearer guidance on quantification methods and target setting resonates strongly. It's evident that stakeholders are eager for practical examples and support in measuring and achieving their sustainability objectives. 🔄 Circular Economy and Avoided Emissions: The increased interest in circular economy practices and accurate accounting of avoided emissions is encouraging. It underlines the growing recognition of the importance of sustainability in all facets of business. 🤝 Assurance and Interoperability: The desire for clear requirements for assurance and interoperability with external standards and regulations highlights the importance of trust and alignment within the sustainability ecosystem. Overall, the survey outcomes reflect a shared commitment to advancing sustainability practices and standards. Let's keep the dialogue open and the momentum going! https://lnkd.in/esFyaX7N #GHGProtocol #SustainabilityJourney #CollectiveImpact #TogetherWeCan

Many companies are reporting wrong emission data: Relying solely on spend-based data is a big risk for many companies and should be taken seriously! Understanding and effectively managing emissions is crucial in the industries we serve—not only for regulatory compliance but also for our collective environmental responsibility. The spend-based method calculates emissions based on financial expenditures, while the activity-based method focuses on direct emissions from specific activities. Both methods offer valuable insights, but each has limitations when used in isolation. For a more holistic approach, we recommend a hybrid method that combines the detailed activity-based data with the financial scope of the spend-based method. This approach is enhanced further when integrated with comprehensive LCA data, providing a clearer and more actionable emissions profile. #emissions #ghg

✍ Now on illuminem: "The Carbon Removal Certification Framework: Europe's blueprint for net-zero" ✍ Following yesterday's huge day for #CDR policy in Europe, you can now find my article (re)published on Illuminem. I cover everything you need to know about the #CRCF: 🔍 What is the Carbon Removal Certification Framework? 🥊 What is the impact of the CRCF? 💪 Can the CRCF live up to its potential? 📅 What Happened on February 20th? 🔜 What is Left to Do? 🚗 The Road Ahead Hope you enjoy the read and let me know what you thought of it! 🔗 Link to the article: https://lnkd.in/d5r6bWeu #carbonremoval #carbonmarkets #climatepolicy #netzero

https://lnkd.in/e3qyB-iF Interesting analysis on use of carbon credits and profile of users/non-users in terms of emissions and disclosures.

🌨️ What a rainy and snowy weekend! Perfect time to dive into discussions about our planet's future. One vital component in the journey towards net zero is the strategic scaling of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). How can government policies help in financing and facilitating CDR technologies? A recent article written by Sebastian Manhart from Carbonfuture gives a thorough basis for discussion. 💡 Exploring Policy Options: The article outlines three principal approaches to CDR funding: compliance markets, public procurement, and fiscal incentives. Each of these strategies plays a crucial role in promoting the development of CDR technologies. 🔍 Comparative Analysis: It introduces a framework for evaluating and prioritizing these diverse policies, considering factors like the type of financing, the complexity of implementation, and the regulatory landscape. 🌐 Leadership in Action: Learn about countries that are leading by example, integrating innovative CDR policies within their existing environmental strategies through carbon markets, tax credits, and subsidies. 🚀 Looking Ahead: The article emphasizes the vital role that governments will play in propelling investment and demand for CDR, shifting from theoretical models to concrete actions. Happy reading! 👉 https://lnkd.in/ePM-a8_C 👈 #CarbonRemoval #CDR #ClimateAction #CDRPolicy #ClimatePolicy

🧐 Scope 3 Emissions are Hard 🧐 Last week, the Science Based Target’s initiative (SBTi) announced intentions to change their standard to ease the pressures on Scope 3. The announcement was quickly followed up by leaked reports of SBTi employees standing against this change. All this goes to show Scope 3 emissions are hard to grapple with. Read more here https://bit.ly/3JtAuzl If you have ever calculated your Scope 3 emissions from purchased goods and services, you will know the pains of working with industry emissions factors. At Impact Trace we much prefer to use a supplier-specific emissions factor. Why? - You get greater accuracy in emissions reporting - Your supply chain management activities have measurable impact - You can drive meaningful action with the data Learn more about how we do this on our website https://lnkd.in/gcHPMb7t #Sustainability #CarbonEmissions #SupplyChains #EmissionsReporting #ClimateData #Scope3 #SBTi #ImpactTrace