Policy incentives for greenhouse gas removal techniques: the risks of premature inclusion in carbon markets and the need for a multi-pronged policy framework

Almost all modelled emissions scenarios consistent with the Paris Agreement's target of limiting global temperature increase to well below two degrees include the use of greenhouse gas removal (GGR) techniques. Despite the prevalence of GGR in Paris-consistent scenarios, and indeed the UK's own net-zero target, there is a paucity of regulatory support for emerging GGR techniques.. However, the role of carbon pricing is one area that has experienced more attention than others, including discussion about the future inclusion of GGR in carbon markets. Here we identify three risks associated with using carbon markets as the sole, or main, policy lever to encourage the deployment of GGR techniques. Our categorisation of risks stems from discussions with policymakers in the UK and a review of the broader literature on carbon markets and GGR. We present a three-pronged risk assessment framework to highlight the dangers in doing so. First, treating emissions removals and emissions reductions as entirely fungible allows for undesirable substitution. Second, carbon markets may provide insufficient demand pull to drive currently more-costly GGR techniques to deployment at commercial scales. Third, opening up a carbon market for potentially lower-cost GGR (such as nature-based solutions) too early could exert downward pressure on the overall market-based price of carbon, in the absence of adjustments to emissions caps or other safeguards. We discuss how these risks could hamper overall efforts to deploy GGR, and instead suggest a multi-pronged and intertemporal policy and governance framework for GGR. This includes considering separate accounting targets for GGR and conventional emissions abatement, removing perfect fungibility between GGR permits and carbon market permits and promoting a a wide range of innovation and technology-specific mechanisms to drive currently expensive, yet highly scalable technological GGR down the cost curve. Such a framework would ensure that policymakers can utilise carbon markets and other incentives appropriately to drive development and deployment of GGR techniques without compromising near-term mitigation, and that the representation of GGR in modelled low-carbon pathways is cognisant of its real-world scale-up potential in light of these incentives

Transitional assistance policies for just, equitable and smooth low-carbon transitions: who, what and how?

While the decarbonization of the global economy will bring immense benefits in the aggregate and to many individuals, it will also be disruptive and costly for some, at least in the short term. As these disruptions and costs have become increasingly salient in recent years, there has been an explosion of interest in the climate policy community about how low-carbon transitions can be implemented justly, equitably, and politically smoothly. A key part of what is needed in responding to this growing interest is a better understanding of the suite of ‘transitional assistance policies’ and strategies that can be deployed, alongside or as part of climate change mitigation policies and processes. Responding to this need, we survey a wide, multi-disciplinary literature to answer the ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ of transitional assistance policy: who is likely to be adversely affected by the low-carbon transition, and in what ways? What substantive strategies and policy instruments are available to governments to mitigate the burdens of low-carbon transitions? And how can governments implement such strategies and policies successfully? In the course of answering the first two of these questions, we develop a novel typology of transitional assistance policies, in which multiple policies are parsimoniously classified according to one of four coherent policy strategies, and one of five kinds of beneficiaries. In answering the third question, we emphasize the importance of certain ‘state capacities’ for shaping transition processes and managing vested interests. Key policy insights Without transitional assistance policies, consumers, workers, businesses, specially-affected communities, and states that are highly dependent on emissions-intensive assets stand to lose from decarbonization. Transitional assistance policies can be narrow (addressing financial losses only) or broad (addressing a wider range of losses), and conservative (backward-looking) or adaptive (forward-looking). Combining these elements yields four coherent transitional assistance strategies: compensation; exemption; structural adjustment assistance; and comprehensive adaptive support. Comprehensive adaptive support strategies have greatest potential for just, equitable and smooth transition outcomes, but are costlier and more complex to implement. State capacities to steer complex, long-term transitions are therefore a crucial variable in transition success

Pyrogenic Cytokines Mediated Pathophysiology of Fever and Role of Mefenamic Acid in Pediatric Practice

While fever in most cases represents a normal physiological response to illness, many times it is a presenting sign of a more serious underlying condition. Hence, it is important to assess a child who may be suffering with a serious condition and may require treatment in terms of antipyretic agents. The use of antipyretic agents is usually guided by the degree of fever, and the discomfort caused by fever and associated pain. Paracetamol and, more recently, ibuprofen are the generally used over-the-counter drugs for antipyresis. However, of late, there is a trend of increased use of mefenamic acid as antipyretic. Mefenamic acid has shown better efficacy and tolerability as compared to the other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in use. In this review, authors have assessed the existing literature on the role of mefenamic acid in pediatric fever. They have highlighted the role of mefenamic acid in pediatric febrile illness in terms of clinical uses, efficacy, comparison with other NSAIDs and its safety in pediatric patients. Its probable action in inflammatory fever and febrile seizure due to its inhibitory action on the NLRP3 inflammasome and potential antiviral actions in viral infections are also highlighted, respectively

Submission to the inquiry by the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change on ‘ Fuelling the debate: Committee successes and future challenges’

Outlines the main energy and climate change challenges in the UK over the next five-year term. Identifies five key issues, in light of the evidence from the most recent economic and policy analysis: the need for policy certainty; increased investment in low carbon innovation; reform of environmental taxation; support to the EU ETS reform; stronger focus on energy efficiency

A deep dive into the modelling assumptions for biomass with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) : A transparency exercise

This work was supported by the UK Energy Research Council (UKERC)-funded project ‘Assessing potential, feasibility and impacts of Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) in the UK (Access-BECCS)’. We are very grateful to our anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback which helped us to improve the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

How long does innovation and commercialisation in the energy sectors take? Historical case studies of the timescale from invention to widespread commercialisation in energy supply and end use technology

Recent climate change initiatives, such as ‘Mission Innovation’ launched alongside the Paris Agreement in 2015, urge redoubled research into innovative low carbon technologies. However, climate change is an urgent problem – emissions reductions must take place rapidly throughout the coming decades. This raises an important question: how long might it take for individual technologies to emerge from research, find market opportunities and make a tangible impact on emissions reductions? Here, we consider historical evidence for the time a range of energy supply and energy end-use technologies have taken to emerge from invention, diffuse into the market and reach widespread deployment. We find considerable variation, from 20 to almost 70 years. Our findings suggest that the time needed for new technologies to achieve widespread deployment should not be overlooked, and that innovation policy should focus on accelerating the deployment of existing technologies as well as research into new ones

Exploring the Feasibility of Low-Carbon Scenarios Using Historical Energy Transitions Analysis

The scenarios generated by energy systems models provide a picture of the range of possible pathways to a low-carbon future. However, in order to be truly useful, these scenarios should not only be possible but also plausible. In this paper, we have used lessons from historical energy transitions to create a set of diagnostic tests to assess the feasibility of an example 2 °C scenario (generated using the least cost optimization model, TIAM-Grantham). The key assessment criteria included the rate of deployment of low carbon technologies and the rate of transition between primary energy resources. The rates of deployment of key low-carbon technologies were found to exceed the maximum historically observed rate of deployment of 20% per annum. When constraints were added to limit the scenario to within historically observed rates of change, the model no longer solved for 2 °C. Under these constraints, the lowest median 2100 temperature change for which a solution was found was about 2.1 °C and at more than double the cumulative cost of the unconstrained scenario. The analysis in this paper highlights the considerable challenge of meeting 2 °C, requiring rates of energy supply technology deployment and rates of declines in fossil fuels which are unprecedented

A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Assessing synergies and trade-offs of diverging Paris-compliant mitigation strategies with long-term SDG objectives

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement are the two transformative agendas, which set the benchmarks for nations to address urgent social, economic and environmental challenges. Aside from setting long-term goals, the pathways followed by nations will involve a series of synergies and trade-offs both between and within these agendas. Since it will not be possible to optimise across the 17 SDGs while simultaneously transitioning to low-carbon societies, it will be necessary to implement policies to address the most critical aspects of the agendas and understand the implications for the other dimensions. Here, we rely on a modelling exercise to analyse the long-term implications of a variety of Paris-compliant mitigation strategies suggested in the recent scientific literature on multiple dimensions of the SDG Agenda. The strategies included rely on technological solutions such as renewable energy deployment or carbon capture and storage, nature-based solutions such as afforestation and behavioural changes in the demand side. Results for a selection of energy-environment SDGs suggest that some mitigation pathways could have negative implications on food and water prices, forest cover and increase pressure on water resources depending on the strategy followed, while renewable energy shares, household energy costs, ambient air pollution and yield impacts could be improved simultaneously while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, results indicate that promoting changes in the demand side could be beneficial to limit potential trade-offs.This research is supported by the Basque Government through the BERC 2018–2021 and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness MINECO through BC3 María de Maeztu excellence accreditation MDM-2017-0714. Jorge Moreno, Dirk-Jan Van de Ven, Ajay Gambhir and Mikel González-Eguino acknowledge financial support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 820846 (PARIS REINFORCE project). Furthermore, Jorge Moreno, Dirk-Jan van de Ven and Mikel González-Eguino acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation (Grant No. MDM-2017-0714) and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Grant No. RTI2018-093352-B-I00). Jon Sampedro is supported by US Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Division, under Interagency Agreement DW08992459801. The views and opinions expressed are those by the authors alone