Matthias Poralla

Bio: Matthias Poralla is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Climate change mitigation & Emissions trading. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 3 publications receiving 7 citations.

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

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°C 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.

The ABC of Governance Principles for Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy

Abstract: Climate change mitigation actions, including those aimed at developing and scaling carbon dioxide removal (CDR) activities spanning the industrial, energy, and agroforestry sector, emerge in a context of internationally shared norms that include governance objectives, legal provisions and informal expectations, and societal expectations. Established governance principles provide normative orientation for policy including when targeting the development and scaling of CDR. Knowledge of these principles can guide effective discussion and evaluation of policy options. To facilitate discussion of mitigation options among experts and CDR practitioners, this study excerpts governance principles from legislative texts, the climate governance literature, and the CDR literature with relevance to CDR policy considerations. To illustrate the relevance of the governance principles found for evaluating policy options, we apply them to three technology groups of CDR: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS), and forestry. This exercise indicates the importance of more intensive attention to the normative dimension of mitigation policies in ongoing deliberative and planning processes. Such efforts can help disentangle normative and factual dimensions and sources of (dis)agreement on the role of CDR in specific climate policy contexts.

COVID-19 impacts on developing countries and links between recovery policies, climate change mitigation and international carbon markets

Abstract: International carbon markets, especially baseline and credit systems, are an important component of internationalclimate policy, and enshrined in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. We analyse the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and its corresponding containment, emergency response and recovery policies on key economic sectors in developing countries. Building on these insights, we assess the impacts of COVID-19 and corresponding policies on crediting policies, considering baseline setting and stringency of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of developing countries. Developing countries are of special interestfor this research because, on the one side, the Paris Agreement architecture stresses the strengthened role of developing countries, which have to submit and achieve NDCs. On the other side, they are faced with sustainable development concerns and hence,might prioritise certain sustainable development goals (SDGs) (e.g. no poverty, zero hunger) over climate action against the background of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Depending on the recovery policies undertaken, sectoral priorities for sale of credits through Article 6 are likely to shift, and credit buyers, such as the Swiss KLiK Foundation,need to adjust their approaches accordingly.

Klimaneutralität: ein Konzept mit weitreichenden Implikationen

Abstract: Wird Deutschland bis zum Jahr 2050 klimaneutral oder nicht doch eher treibhausgasneutral beziehungsweise CO2-neutral sein? Eines ist klar: Wir wollen den Klimawandel stoppen, haben uns dafur ein Ziel gesetzt und wollen es bis 2050 erreicht haben. Aber was genau eigentlich: Was hat sich Deutschland, was die Europaische Union und viele andere Lander zum Ziel gesetzt? Oder kurz gesagt: Was verbirgt sich eigentlich hinter dem Ziel Klimaneutralitat? Diesen Fragen geht die von Perspectives Climate Research im Auftrag der dena erstellte Analyse „Klimaneutralitat – ein Konzept mit weitreichenden Implikationen“ nach. Denn der genauere Blick zeigt: Auf die Details kommt es an.

International carbon markets for carbon dioxide removal

Abstract: International carbon markets are potentially a very powerful tool for mobilizing carbon dioxide removal in line with Paris Agreement ambitions to limit global warming to well below 2°C. This requires reaching global net-zero emissions between 2050 and 2070. Yet, carbon market regulators have not approached removals in a systematic manner. This review assesses the highly fragmented treatment of removals under compliance and voluntary carbon markets, including baseline, credit and cap-and-trade systems. The Kyoto mechanisms and the large voluntary carbon market standards have long focussed on biological removals without inherent storage permanence and only recently started to develop methodologies for removals with geological storage, mineralization or biochar. Driven by high prices for credits from emerging removal technologies and advance market commitment initiatives targeting high permanence removals, various newcomers in voluntary markets are currently establishing their own approaches for generating removal credits. However, they disregard key concepts safeguarding market quality such as additionality, which risks triggering scandals and tainting the entire market for removal credits. Given the diversity of credit prices spanning three orders of magnitude from 1 to 1000, as well as of volumes ranging from a few hundred to tens of millions of credits, the current “gold rush” atmosphere of removal markets needs to quickly be replaced by a coordinated approach, ensuring credibility, and enabling removals to play the required role in reaching global net zero.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

Abstract: The Commonwealth is a free association of sovereign independent slates, numbering 50 at the beginning of 1993. There is no charter, treaty or constitution; the association is expressed in co-operation, consultation and mutual assistance for which the Commonwealth Secretariat is the central co-ordinating body.

State of Climate Action 2022

Abstract: The State of Climate Action 2022 provides a comprehensive assessment of the global gap in climate action across the world’s highest-emitting systems, highlighting where recent progress made in reducing GHG emissions, scaling up carbon removal, and increasing climate finance must accelerate over the next decade to keep the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit warming to 1.5°C within reach.

Framework for Assessing the Feasibility of Carbon Dioxide Removal Options Within the National Context of Germany

Abstract: Removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will be required over the next decades to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C aiming at not exceeding 1.5°C. Technological and ecosystem-based options are considered for generating negative emissions through carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and several nations have already included these in their Long-Term Low Greenhouse Gas Emission Development Strategies. However, strategies for development, implementation, and upscaling of CDR options often remain vague. Considering the scale at which CDR deployment is envisioned in emission pathways for limiting global warming to 1.5°C, significant environmental, social, and institutional implications are to be expected and need to be included in national feasibility assessments of CDR options. Following a multi-disciplinary and comprehensive approach, we created a framework that considers the environmental, technological, economic, social, institutional, and systemic implications of upscaling CDR options. We propose the framework as a tool to help guide decision-relevant feasibility assessments of CDR options, as well as identify challenges and opportunities within the national context. As such, the framework can serve as a means to inform and support decision makers and stakeholders in the iterative science-policy process of determining the role of CDR options in national strategies of achieving net-zero carbon emissions.

European Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy: Current Status and Future Opportunities

Abstract: Over the past two years, the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and the UK have increased climate ambition and aggressively pushed forward an agenda to pursue climate neutrality or net-zero emissions by mid-century. This increased ambition, partly the result of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark findings on limiting global warming to 1.5°C, has also led to a renewed approach to and revitalized debate about the role of carbon capture and storage and carbon dioxide removal. With increasing climate ambition, including a proposed mid-century climate neutrality goal for the whole European Union rather than requiring each country to achieve climate neutrality on their own, the potential role of technological carbon removal is emerging as one of the critical points of debate among NGOs, policymakers, and the private sector. Policymakers are starting to discuss how to incentivize a carbon removal scale-up and whether or how to integrate it into existing sectoral policies, including the European Union Emissions Trading System. What encompasses the current debate, and how does it relate to carbon removal technologies' expected role in reaching climate neutrality? This perspective will highlight the arguments for near-term development of a comprehensive carbon removal policy framework. It will also shine a light on the current status of negative emission technologies and the role of carbon capture and storage in delivering negative emissions in Europe's decarbonized future. It will also analyze the role of carbon markets, including voluntary markets, as potential incentives while exploring policy pathways for a near-term scale-up.

Why residual emissions matter right now

Abstract: Abstract Net-zero targets imply that continuing residual emissions will be balanced by carbon dioxide removal. However, residual emissions are typically not well defined, conceptually or quantitatively. We analysed governments’ long-term strategies submitted to the UNFCCC to explore projections of residual emissions, including amounts and sectors. We found substantial levels of residual emissions at net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, on average 18% of current emissions for Annex I countries. The majority of strategies were imprecise about which sectors residual emissions would originate from, and few offered specific projections of how residual emissions could be balanced by carbon removal. Our findings indicate the need for a consistent definition of residual emissions, as well as processes that standardize and compare expectations about residual emissions across countries. This is necessary for two reasons: to avoid projections of excessive residuals and correspondent unsustainable or unfeasible carbon-removal levels and to send clearer signals about the temporality of fossil fuel use.