On July 10, the Scientific Climate Council (WKR) published its advice 'Clearing the air?'. The core of the report is that the Netherlands and Europe must not only focus on CO₂ reduction, but also on carbon removal. Biogenic CO₂ is mentioned as one of the techniques to achieve this. Deputy WKR director Heleen de Coninck said about it at BNN VARA: “This can be done, for example, by using biomass, and the CO₂ emissions from that consumption are then captured and stored deep underground.” Several media picked up that message. At EenVandaag, viewers were explained how storage of short-cycle biogenic CO₂ contributes to combating climate change. With pictures!
Action is needed
The report states that the consequences of climate change are becoming increasingly noticeable and severe. The WKR also expects that global emissions will not fall fast enough to limit the increase in average temperatures to the agreed 1,5°C. Action is needed, according to the WKR, which calls on the government to get serious about negative emissions.
While national climate scenarios only show negative emissions after 2040, to compensate for residual emissions, the WKR advocates gaining experience with various methods of CO₂ removal before 2035. Coupled with the report's call that these techniques must be made available “quickly and on a large scale”, my conclusion is: start tomorrow! The good news is that there are already numerous initiatives in this area.
Further investigation
Based on the idea that preventing emissions is the most efficient and also leads to real system change, the report encourages the government to continue to focus heavily on emissions reduction. What doesn't come into the atmosphere doesn't have to come out. In addition, the WKR points out that all sustainable storage methods have pitfalls. Because (re)forestation, CO₂ sequestration in soils and CO₂ application in products (CCU) only temporarily contribute to carbon removal, the WKR prefers permanent storage. This refers to mineralization of CO₂ and long-term storage of biogenic or atmospheric CO₂. The action advocated by the report is to conduct further research into energy and land use, costs, degree of development, ultimate yield reduction, etc. of the various methods.
Although I do not agree with all the recommendations (why keep negative emissions out of the ETS if a separate target for CO₂ reduction also leads to system change?) I believe it is well-founded and nuanced advice. With a few twists and turns, it puts both carbon removal and biogenic CO₂ on the agenda. And that offers perspective.
About the author
Marieke van der Werf
Advisor in the field of energy and circular economy
Marieke van der Werf is an advisor at the intersection of sustainability and politics. After her membership of the Chamber, she joined Bureau Publyon, Public Affairs and Corporate Communications as a partner. Marieke has specialized in energy and the circular economy and advises, among others, the Green Gas Platform. She is also chair of the CCU Alliance and initiator of the Negative Emissions Task Force, where biogenic CO2 plays an important role. In addition to her consultancy work, Marieke fulfills supervisory roles at, among others, the Frisian Energy Fund and Spaarnelanden BV.
