日本語
 
Privacy Policy ポリシー/免責事項
  詳細検索ブラウズ

アイテム詳細


公開

学術論文

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;

URL
There are no locators available
フルテキスト (公開)

6001123.pdf
(出版社版), 299KB

付随資料 (公開)
There is no public supplementary material available
引用

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:. doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.672996.


引用: https://publications.rifs-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_6001123
要旨
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.