The pursuit of carbon removal solutions has become an endeavor that requires widespread collaboration between governments and the private sector. Science shows that “net zero isn’t possible without carbon removals”. Amid the conversation of climate action collaboration arise important questions: What does it look like to advocate for carbon removal legislation? And how are private enterprises and organizations strategizing to champion legislation that integrates meaningful and effective climate policies?
Among those doing the work stands the Negative Emissions Platform (NEP), an organization dedicated to promoting cutting-edge carbon removal technologies to mitigate climate change. In an exclusive interview with Biorecro, NEP’s General Secretary, Chris Sherwood, and Policy Officer, Elisabeth Harding, delve into the core objectives of NEP and shed light on the pivotal role legislation plays in shaping effective climate action.
Can you elaborate on the goals of the Negative Emissions Platform (NEP)?
CS: The Negative Emissions Platform is a trade association for the carbon dioxide removal sector. We were created about 3.5 years ago, originally with the plan that we would focus on EU institutional advocacy: ie. advocating in relation to the European Union’s own institutions’ work on climate policy. That continues to be our main focus, but we are trying to be a bit broader in our approach now.
Who are the members of the Negative Emissions Platform?
CS: The vast majority of our members are companies. We have two members which are associations. One of those is the European Biochar Industry Consortium, which itself is a trade association for biochar companies. Another one is Bioenergy Europe, which is an association for bioenergy companies, including BECCS players. The rest of our members are companies, and the vast majority of those are carbon dioxide removal technology companies.
We do have a number of what we call ecosystem members as well who are not developing the technologies themselves, but are an important part of the industry. For example, buyers, investors, marketplaces, consultancies, et cetera.
What do your roles entail as Secretary General and Policy Officer at the Negative Emissions Platform?
CS: The title of secretary general is translatable as executive director or any other similar title. Essentially, I’m full-time staff of the association. I have two colleagues that support me and we work very closely together with the members of NEP on developing the policy positions that we work on and doing other work.
EH: As policy officer I’m responsible for the policy and advocacy work. We work on a lot of different policies, but we’re very much focused on the EU level. I work directly with members. On occasion we do position papers in response to some sort of legislative development, whether it’s reacting to something that happened in the European Parliament or submitting a response to a public consultation. It’s been extremely busy because in the last year, the EU seems to have really woken up to carbon removals.
Credit: Negative Emissions Platform
"Net zero is just not possible
without carbon removals."
What are the differences between the IRA and the EU Net Zero Industry Act?
EH: The Net Zero Industry Acts in a way was the EU’s reaction to the US Inflation Reduction Act, but on a much lesser scale. The Inflation Reduction Act does a lot in terms of funding, whereas the aim of the Net Zero Industry Act is to focus on supporting cleantech sectors that will get us to net zero, such as through permitting. It also allows companies to innovate their product without having to follow the same regulations necessary that other technologies would have to.
Other aspects include boosting skills in the sector. Because the sector is going to have to grow quite rapidly, there might be a knowledge and skill gap. This legislation will help support that by having something called Net Zero Industry Academies, which will try to address those gaps. Also, for the first time they’re setting CO2 storage targets, so this piece of legislation is really important for helping boost European capacity in this area.
In September, NEP advocated in an open letter for CDR tech to be supported in the EU Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA). Can you share the importance of doing so?
EH: The issue is that the Net Zero Industry Act is limited to certain technologies through a list of ‘strategic net-zero technologies’. There’s understandably a big focus on renewable energies, and carbon capture and storage is also included on the list.
However, carbon removals were excluded. This is why he have been advocating for its inclusion. Net zero is just not possible without carbon removals. It’s been demonstrated scientifically as the IPCC has said to get to net zero, we will need carbon removals. There will be hard to abate emissions. There might be historical emissions that will need to be addressed, and that can only be addressed through carbon removals.
What are the implications if CDR tech is not included in the NZIA?
EH: In the open letter, we make climate and business arguments for including CDR in the NZIA. On the business side, we’re seeing several European companies moving to the US because of the incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. The EU really risks falling behind when it could be a good home for the carbon removal sector. There is a business opportunity that’s being missed.
We also talk about the TRL: the technology readiness level criteria. Whilst it’s important that the technologies under this piece of legislation are ready, there still should be support for some of the technologies that might not be ready yet, but will be impactful in getting us net zero. There should be some flexibility in the whole TRL system.
Currently this legislation is going through parallel tracks: the European Parliament, which is the directly elected body, and the Council which represents the EU countries. On the European Parliament side, it seems like carbon removals will be included but this is not guaranteed yet as they are still yet to adopt their position. It’s unclear whether on the member states side if they’ll be doing the same.
Once both institutions have their position, they enter into discussion. So even if it’s in the European Parliament position, there’s no guarantee it will be in the final text. That’s why it’s important that we continue our advocacy on this.
What does the timeline and process look like for enacting the NZIA?
EH: It is likely to take another six months. Between the European Commission proposing a piece of legislation and a final agreement, it usually takes around a year and a half. It looks like the European Parliament will adopt its position in November. The Council should have their position by the end of this year and that means they’ll enter into negotiations next year.
BECCS technology is one of the carbon removal methods that has promise to provide large scale removal. Within the organization, what is discussed about BECCS and its ability to help reach climate targets?
CS: The BECCS community is a powerful voice within NEP and we certainly support BECCS. We believe it’s one of the key methods of CDR for the world to be successful in reaching its targets.
"We focus our activities on promoting long-term, highly durable if not permanent storage of carbon."
Do you have a stance on which removal options look to be the most promising in the short-term and long-term?
CS: We focus our activities on promoting long-term, highly durable if not permanent storage of carbon. We don’t include forestry in our membership, for example. We think it’s important, but it is much harder to prove that it’s a long-term storage option. We are trying to ensure that legislators, policymakers, and other organizations are not excluding any potentially viable CDR method from their regulations and their standards. While we think that some CDR methods will undoubtedly eventually fail, they should fail for the right reasons and not because of a regulatory accident.
We don’t take a view about what is and is not a viable method today because there are so many still in the early stages of being proven. BECCS is well advanced and clearly there is a lot of wind in its sails, but we don’t take a view on whether it’s more or less important than any other CDR method.
Why is technology-based CDR slow to be adopted by governing bodies?
CS: There’s a wide range of reasons why CDR is at an early stage of development. One reason is that people didn’t start very long ago looking at this very seriously. There are three main conditions for the CDR sector to grow, thrive, and scale: creating supply- and the US has taken a big step in creating a large amount of supply through the IRA. The other one is making sure that there’s a regulatory environment which creates credibility and trust for the sector. The EU is taking a giant step forward with the legislation it’s working on right now, including the Carbon Removal Certification Framework, the Net Zero Industry Act, and the Green Claims Directive.
What’s missing on both sides of the Atlantic is the demand, because at the moment we are relying on small, fast-growing but ultimately small voluntary markets. What we really need is very large-scale compliance markets and neither the US, Europe, or any other geography, has grappled with that and created the demand that will be needed to scale this industry to what we need.
Are there any legislation or policies that you’re seeing that you guys seem to be promising, whether in the EU or globally
EH: On the EU side there are the 2040 climate targets. Currently in the EU we have compulsory 2030 targets and we have 2050 targets. The 2050 target in the EU is completely net zero, but we have nothing in between which will actually help us to get to net zero between 2030 and 2050. The European Commission recently launched a public consultation for a 2040 climate target and what that could look like.
One of the big things they are assessing are separate emission reduction targets and carbon removal targets. This could really pave the way for the carbon removal sector to grow. If there are targets for carbon removal, this might eventually then lead to a compliance market for carbon removals. This has been one of our big advocacy points for the last few months. This feeds into the discussions on what will happen with the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme, which is the EU’s cap and trade system, post-2030.
We really support escalating targets for carbon removals the closer we get to net zero, where emissions reductions will likely have been completed as much as possible, and there will only be hard to abate emissions that can be neutralized through carbon removals.
Also in the EU, we have the Carbon Removal Certification Framework, which will be finalized next year. This framework sets out stringent criteria aimed at harmonizing CDR methodologies within the EU. The key objective is to bolster trust in carbon removal credits and therefore boosting credibility to the voluntary market. It’s really important to get this framework right because it will set the scene for the coming decade.
What closing thoughts would you like to share about NEP with readers?
CS: Negative Emissions Platform is working hard on expanding its footprint and being able to advocate not just at the EU institutions, but also in national capitals in Europe and beyond. We also want to expand our footprint with regard to the multi-stakeholder international organizations.
We are on the road to becoming an important home for the CDR industry. That is why we are actively expanding our membership as strength lies in numbers when championing policy changes. We’re excited with the plans that we have and we’re looking for funding partners who will help us expand that footprint.
