Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Robert Höglund

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 10d

Slow reductions=LESS CDR
I often see the argument that the more emissions remain the more CDR is needed. Example below
But it's the opposite! If a lot of emissions remain it means there wasn't enough political will & capital to address them. That will & capital won't magically appear for CDR instead

1 4 3

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 10d

This is an illustration of what @glenpeters.bsky.social means when he said that CDR does not "exist outside the toolbox".

(Screenshot from Allied offsets new brief on cost of CDR. Not trying to pick on them, it's an informative brief, and I would say most people make this assumption. )

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 10d

Slow reductions=LESS CDR
I often see the argument that the more emissions remain the more CDR is needed. Example below
But it's the opposite! If a lot of emissions remain it means there wasn't enough political will & capital to address them. That will & capital won't magically appear for CDR instead

1 4 3

Reposted by Robert Höglund

Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf @rahmstorf.bsky.social · Aug 29

Most-viewed Guardian articles last night. Editors shouldn’t think that the public doesn’t want to know more about climate change.
Or about ocean science 🌊!
Read the article about our paper: www.theguardian.com/environment/...

9 120 420

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Aug 29

Full analysis here: marginalcarbon.substack.com/p/what-role-...

What role will CDR play for shipping?

Cost is one thing, rules are another

marginalcarbon.substack.com

2 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Aug 29

Comparing different alternatives is tricky since they rest on so many assumptions. Electrofuels versus using CDR to offset fossil fuel oil depends on the cost of electricity, fossil fuels and CDR. The ISO chart below compares the interaction between them.

1 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Aug 29

Of course this first requires that we accept permanent CDR as a solution for a limited amount of emissions.

1 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Aug 29

Today, CDR is not an option in most policy frameworks and roadmaps. This should change. We should be agnostic about which solutions are used to reach net zero. Otherwise, we risk making the transition slower, more expensive, and less politically feasible.

1 2

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Aug 29

NEW ANALYSIS: What role will CDR play for shipping?

Biofuels, onboard CCS, and durable CDR are likely to be cheapest for the majority of emissions. But many roadmaps center around electrofuels, despite them looking like the most expensive alternative, as with aviation.

4 4

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Jul 16

Paper here www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

(How to) avoid the inflationary labeling of emissions as “hard to abate”

Vincent Dufour-Décieux is a research scientist in the Energy Process and Systems Engineering Group at ETH Zurich, Switzerland. His research on separat…

www.sciencedirect.com

2 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Jul 16

Cement requiring CCS, is still difficult to address. I see the wording "hard-to-abate" refering to activities that need forcing policy creating a level playing field. A subset of hard-to-abate is also CDR-optimal. 4/5

1 1 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Jul 16

This graph compares economic & energetic needs of aviation and cement mitigation, showing cement is not hard to abate, but aviation is.
However, I prefer "CDR-optimal" instead of hard to abate here. 3/5

1 1 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Jul 16

As long as CDR quality criteria are set high, the market will be best at figuring out which emissions are optimal to deal with using CDR. 2/5

2 2 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Jul 16

All emission reductions more expensive than DACCS are hard to abate.
That's the proposed definition in this new paper. I agree, and have been arguing for a long time that there is NO need to create a special list of residual emissions... 1/5

1 3 3

Reposted by Robert Höglund

James Dinneen @jamesdinneen.bsky.social · May 30

The CO2 removal industry is about to hit a milestone: 1 million tons of durable removals. But things are moving too slowly to reach gigaton scale on time. At Carbon Unbound summit last week things felt precarious. One person told me without more buyers the industry is in a “house of delusion.”

At this rate, carbon dioxide removal will never matter for the climate

The carbon dioxide removal industry is struggling to grow at the pace needed to have a significant role in meeting climate targets

www.newscientist.com

3 13 21

Reposted by Robert Höglund

David Ho @davidho.bsky.social · May 20

I categorically disagree with claims that CO₂ removal (CDR) is a scam. The field is full of smart people dedicated to figuring out what, if anything, works, because we’ll need CDR in the future for legacy and residual emissions. Funding via market mechanisms isn’t ideal, but doesn’t make it a scam.

A conference in a modern venue, with attendees seated at round tables. A presenter stands at a podium in front of large screens displaying slides.

39 59 280

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · May 7

How many tonnes would the world's biggest CDR buyer be purchasing if they were following the SBTi proposed CDR scale-up requirement?

Full article: www.cdr.fyi/blog/zero-vs...

3

Reposted by Robert Höglund

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Mar 18

🚨 BREAKING: The just-published draft SBTi Net Zero standard is unlikely to significantly increase demand for CDR. Crucially, CDR targets must include the total CDR needs. 1/9
marginalcarbon.substack.com/p/what-needs...

What needs to change in the SBTi Net Zero Standard 2.0 to scale carbon removal

The just-published draft standard is unlikely to significantly increase demand for CDR. Crucially, Interim CDR targets must include the total CDR needs, not just for Scope 1.

marginalcarbon.substack.com

1 6 11

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Mar 18

I've written a detailed analysis of what the new standard means for removals, going into much more detail on all of this (don't miss the footnotes). marginalcarbon.substack.com/p/what-needs...
9/9

What needs to change in the SBTi Net Zero Standard 2.0 to scale carbon removal

The just-published draft standard is unlikely to significantly increase demand for CDR. Crucially, Interim CDR targets must include the total CDR needs, not just for Scope 1.

marginalcarbon.substack.com

2

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Mar 18

Finally kudos to all the hard work from the SBTi team. I’ve seen first-hand how much hard work dedicated and smart people have put into it. Trying to balance an enormous amount of input, creating a standard that is both science-based and actually adopted by companies. Not an easy task by any means.

1 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Mar 18

The guidelines should incentivize companies that want to support CDR but just need a push, not the opposite.
Companies should estimate how much CDR they need at net zero in total, and to start scaling up CDR in a credible manner.
7/9

1 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Mar 18

There is even a risk of more harm than good for the CDR sector. Although it would increase demand among Scope-1 emitters it could hinder efforts within companies without large Scope 1 emissions to advocate for CDR purchases. CFOs can reference the SBTi's stance that only Scope 1 is needed.
6/9

1 2

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Mar 18

🫙 A Scope-1 only requirement, means few companies are likely to buy CDR, and net zero fulfilments would be jeopardised.

At the same time the CDR Sector is dependent on an SBTi CDR interim target requirement, with the next wave of companies will only buy CDR if explicitly told so.
5/9

1 1 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Mar 18

⚖️ Scope 1 emissions are very unevenly distributed. Most large Scope 1 emitters don't have SBTi targets, and typically have less financial flexibility to scale CDR early.
4/9

1 1

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · Mar 18

✈️ SBTi companies’ main need for removals will not be their own scope 1 emissions but neutralising supply chain emissions from companies that haven’t covered them themselves.
3/9

1 2