New research from the University of Oxford, published in the journal Carbon Management, advocates for a new ‘Carbon Removal Budget’ to complement the existing Carbon Budget that regulates global CO2 emissions. This proposed budget aims to address the need for effective carbon removal strategies to combat climate change.
Dr. Ben Caldecott, Lombard Odier Associate Professor at the University of Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment and lead author of the study, emphasised, “Carbon removal is crucial for achieving ‘net zero’ and tackling climate change. However, it’s not limitless or inexpensive to produce.”
To curb global warming, there is a need to stabilise the cumulative carbon in the atmosphere and reach ‘net zero,’ where all feasible emissions are eliminated and any remaining emissions are counterbalanced by durable carbon removal.
Traditional carbon removal methods, such as reforestation and wetland restoration, as well as innovative approaches like biochar and direct air capture, are all part of this solution. However, these methods are limited by factors such as high energy use and land requirements.
Dr. Caldecott explained, “The Carbon Removal Budget is the cumulative amount of carbon removal available to realise global temperature goals. We need a way to value this finite removal capacity and allocate it in a fair and effective way. The Carbon Removal Budget allows us to do this, in the same way that the Carbon Budget allows us to value remaining carbon emissions and figure out how we distribute that globally between different countries, sectors, and companies.”
Dr Injy Johnstone, Research Fellow at the Oxford Sustainable Finance Group and co-author said, “We have seen growing interest by private and public actors alike in how we can scale carbon removal. Companies like Microsoft, for instance, are making big voluntary investments in new types of carbon removal. At the same time, many countries, including the UK, are also considering how they too can drive demand for carbon removal, including by integrating carbon removal into existing compliance emissions trading or tax regimes.”
Dr Johnstone added, “However, carbon removal is a scarce resource, one which not all countries or companies have the same capacity to develop and deploy, meaning we need a Carbon Removal Budget to help equitably manage both supply and demand.”
The authors argue that carbon removal budgets can address key questions such as the amount and timing of required carbon removal, prioritisation of methods, and the challenges to different removal approaches. They also stress the importance of allocating the limited carbon removal supply fairly among nations, companies, and financial institutions.
Dr. Caldecott concluded, “Embedding carbon removal budgets into decision-making is necessary for an effective response to climate change. It will become an essential part of net zero transition plans, whether for countries, companies, or financial institutions.”
