Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 527–534 | Cite as

Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response

  • Wil BurnsEmail author
  • Simon Nicholson


There is increasing impetus for large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal geoengineering approaches to help keep temperatures to below 2 °C, as provided for under the Paris Agreement. The primary option that has been discussed to date is Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). While BECCS could sequester very large amounts of carbon dioxide, it also poses substantial socio-economic risks to society, as well as threats to biodiversity. This essay suggests that a human rights-based approach can help to protect the interests of those who might be adversely impacted by BECCS deployment.


Climate change Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Climate Geoengineering 


  1. Amigun B, Musango J, Stafford W (2011) Biofuels and sustainability in Africa. Renew Sust Energy Rev 15(2):1360–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson K, Peters G (2016) The trouble with negative emissions. Nature 354:182–183Google Scholar
  3. Association for Temperate Agroforestry (2017) What is Agroforestry?
  4. Balan V (2014) Current challenges in commercially producing biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass, ISRN Biotechnol, 1–31Google Scholar
  5. Barrett S (2014) Solar geoengineering’s brave new world: thoughts on the governance of an unprecedented technology. Rev Environ Econ Policy 8(2):249–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beringer T, Lucht W, Schaphoff S (2011) Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. GCB Energy 3(4):299–312Google Scholar
  7. Bernhard A (2010) The nitrogen cycle: processes, players, and human impact, Nature Education Knowledge Project,
  8. Bonsch M, Humpenöder F, Popp A, Bodirsky B, Dietrich JP, Rolinski S, Biewald A, Lotze-Campen H, Weindl I, Gerten D, Stevanovic M (2016) Trade-offs between land and water requirements for large-scale bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy 8(1):11–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boysen LR et al (2016) Impacts devalue the potential of large-scale terrestrial CO2 removal through biomass plantations. Environ Res Lett 11:129502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bracmort K, Lattanzio RK (2013) Geoengineering: governance and technology policy, Congressional Research Service 1–42Google Scholar
  11. Buck HJ (2016) Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications. Clim Chang 139(2):155–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bui M et al (2017) Bio-energy with CCS (BECCS) performance evaluation: efficiency enhancement and emissions reduction. Appl Energy 195:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burns WCG (2012) Geoengineering the climate: an overview of solar radiation management options. Tulsa Law Rev 46:283–304Google Scholar
  14. Burns WCG (2016a) Human Rights Dimensions of Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage: A Framework for Climate Justice in the Realm of Climate Geoengineering, in Climate Justice: Case Studies in Global and Regional Governance Challenges 150–170 (Randall Abate, ed. 2016)Google Scholar
  15. Burns WCG (2016b) The Paris agreement and climate geoengineering governance: the need for a human rights-based component, CIGI papers, No 211, 1–44Google Scholar
  16. Burns W, Nicholson S (2016) Governing climate geoengineering, in New Earth Politics, 346–366Google Scholar
  17. Buyx A, Tait J (2011) Ethical Framework for Biofuels. Science 332(6209):540–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Catula L, Dyer N, Vermeulen S (2008) Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor people’s access to land, International Institute for the Environment and Development and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, IIED Order No: 12551IIEDGoogle Scholar
  19. Chaturvedi V, Hejazi M, Edmonds J, Clarke L, Kyle P, Davies E, Wise M (2015) Climate mitigation policy implications for global irrigation water demand. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 20(3):389–407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark PU et al (2016) Consequences of twenty-first century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change. Nat Clim Chang 6:360–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cox P, Jeffery H (2009) Engineering the climate, Environmentalresearchweb, September 2,
  22. Creutzig F (2012) Reconciling top-down and bottom-up modelling on future bioenergy deployment. Nat Clim Chang 2:320–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Creutzig F (2014) Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emission. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 8(1):4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Creutzig F (2017) Govern land as a global commons. Nature, 546:28–9.
  25. Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climate Change 77:211–19Google Scholar
  26. Dale BE et al (2010) Biofuels done right: land efficient animal feeds enable large environmental and energy benefits. Environ Sci Technol 44:8385–8389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Delucchi MA (2010) Impacts of biofuels on climate change, water use, and land use, 1195(1):28–45Google Scholar
  28. De Schutter O (2013) Note on the impacts of the EU biofuels policy on the right to food, United Nations Office of the high commissioner, Mandate of the special rapporteur on the right to food, Apr 23, 2013Google Scholar
  29. Demirbas A (2004) Bioenergy, Global Warming, and Environmental Impacts. Energy Sources 26(3):225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edgerton MD (2009) Increasing crop productivity to meet global needs for feed, food, and fuel. Plant Physiology 149(1):7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Erb K-H, Haberl H, Plutzar C (2012) Dependency of global primary bioenergy crop potentials in 2050 on food systems, yields, biodiversity conservation and political stability. Energy Policy 47:260–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. European Biofuels Technology Platform (2015) Biomass with CO2 Capture and Storage, 1–32,
  33. Ewing M, Msangi S (2008) Biofuels production in developing countries: assessing tradeoffs in welfare and food security. Environ Sci Pol 12:520–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Field CB, Mach KJ (2017) Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal. Science 356(6339):706–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Galston WA, et al (2017) Trump’s Paris agreement withdrawal: what it means and what comes next, Brookings, PlanetPolicy,
  36. Gough C, Vaughan NE (2015) Synthesising existing knowledge on the feasibility of BECCS, AVOID2, 1–39Google Scholar
  37. Greene C, Monger B, Huntley M (2010) Geoengineering: the inescapable truth of getting to 350. Solutions 1(5):57–66Google Scholar
  38. Greene CH et al (2017) Geoengineering, marine microalgae, and climate stabilization in the 21st century. Earth’s Future 5(3):278–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hansen J et al (2017) Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 Emissions. Earth Syst Dynam 8:577–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hoffner E (2016) “Carbon farming” good for the climate, farmers, and biodiversity, Mongabay,
  41. Humpenöder F et al (2014) Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environ Res Lett 9(6):064029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2005) Special report: carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change, contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2017) Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty,
  45. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011) Combining bioenergy with CCS, IEA Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  46. International Food Policy Research Institute (2014) 2014 Global hunger index: The challenge of hidden hunger, 1–56,
  47. Jha A (2009) Fake trees, algae tubes and white roofs among UK engineers’ climate solutions, The Guardian, August 26,
  48. Jones N (2009) Climate crunch: sucking it up. Nature 459(7249):901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kartha S, Dooley K (2016) The risks of relying on tomorrow’s ‘negative emissions’ to guide today’s mitigation action, Stockholm Environment Institute. SEI Working Paper No 2016-08Google Scholar
  50. Kemper J (2015) Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40:401–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kerr RA (2006) Pollute the planet for climate’s sake? Science 314(5798):401–403. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kinver M (2016) Boosting food crop yields ‘can protect biodiversity’, BBC news, Jan 29, 2016,
  53. Klepper G, Rickels W (2014) Climate engineering: economic considerations and research challenges. Rev Environ Econ Policy 8:270–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kornneeff J, van Breevoort P, Hamelinck C, Hendriks C, Hoogwijk M, Koop K, Koper M, Dixon T, Camps A (2012) Global potential for biomass and carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage up to 2050. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 11:117–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Limayem A, Ricke SE (2012) Lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production: current perspectives, potential issues and future prospects. Prog Energy Combust Sci 38:449–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lohmann U, Gasparini B (2017) A cirrus cloud dial? Science 357(6348):248–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lomax G, Workman M, Lenton T, Shah N (2015) Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies, Energy Policy 78:125–36Google Scholar
  58. Long J (2017) Coordinated action against climate change: a new world symphony, Issues Sci Technol XXXIII(3),
  59. MacCracken M (2009) Beyond mitigation: potential options for counter-balancing the climatic and environmental consequences of the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, policy research working paper 4938, World Bank, Development Economics, 1–45,
  60. Mclaren DP (2012) Procedural justice in carbon capture and storage. Energy Environ 23(2/3):319–328Google Scholar
  61. Meadowcraft J (2010) Exploring negative territory carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Clim Chang 118:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mirzabaev A et al (2014) Bioenergy, food security and poverty reduction, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, working paper no.135, 1–52Google Scholar
  63. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change (2017) Food, Water, Energy, Climate Outlook, Perspectives from 2016 1–48,
  64. Moreira JM, Romeiro V, Fuss S, Kraxner F, Paccae SA (2016) BECCS potential in brazil: achieving negative emissions in ethanol and electricity production based on sugar cane bagasse and other residues. Appl Energy 179:55–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Morgan MG, et al (2010) Cooling the earth through solar radiation management: the need for research and an approach to governance, International Risk Governance Council 1–24Google Scholar
  66. National Research Council (2015) Climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. National Academies Press, Washington DC.  10.17226/18805 Google Scholar
  67. Niemeier U, Tilmes S (2017) Sulfur injections for a cooler planet. Science 357(6348):246–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Oloman R (2009) Carbon recycling: an alternative to carbon capture and storage. Pipeline and Gas J 236(8)Google Scholar
  69. Olson RL (2011) Geoengineering for decision makers, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. STIP 02Google Scholar
  70. Pasztor J, Scharf C, Schmidt K-U (2017) How to govern geoengineering. Science 357(6348):231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Popp A et al (2011) The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ Res Lett 6:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Popp A et al (2014) The effect of bioenergy expansion: food, energy, and environment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 32:559–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Read P, Lermit J (2005) Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): a sequential decision approach to the threat of abrupt climate change. Energy 30(14):2654–2671. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull Atomic Sci 64(2):14–18, 59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rockström J et al (2017) A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355(6331):1269–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rogelj A et al (2016) Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature 531:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Russell LM et al (2012) Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: a review for developing a science plan. Ambio 41(4):350–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Scott KN (2013) International law in the anthropocene: responding to the geoengineering challenge. Mich J Int Law 34(2):309–358Google Scholar
  79. Searchinger T, Heimlich R (2015) Avoiding bioenergy competition for food crops and land, World Resources Institute, 1–44Google Scholar
  80. Sileshi GW, Debusho LK, Akinnifesi FK (2012) Can integration of legume trees increase yield stability in rainfed maize cropping systems in Southern Africa. Agron J 104(5):1392–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Smith P (2016) Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Global Change Biol 22(3):1315–1324. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith L, Torn M (2013) Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal. Clim Chang 118(1):89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith P et al (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6:42–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smits B, Park A-H, Gadikota G (2014) The grand challenges in carbon capture, utilization, and storage. Front Energy Res.
  85. Smolker R, Ernsting A (2012) BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage): climate saviour or dangerous hype?, 1–25.
  86. Tavoni M, Socolow (2013) Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim Chang 118:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, Governance and Uncertainty, 1–98,
  88. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2016) Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration,, site visited on Aug. 30, 2016
  89. U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) (2011) Climate engineering: technical status, future directions, and potential responses, GAO-11-71Google Scholar
  90. UN Water, Wastewater (2017) The Untapped Resource, 1–198Google Scholar
  91. UNEP (2014) Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing biofuels, 1–40,
  92. United Kingdom, House of Commons (2010) Science and technology committee—fifth report the regulation of geoengineering, session 2009–10,
  93. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (2015) The Paris Agreement, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1Google Scholar
  94. van Vuuren DP, van Vliet J, Stehfest E (2009) Future bio-energy potential under various natural constraints. Energy Policy 37:4220–4230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Venton D (2016) Core concept: can bioenergy with carbon capture and storage make an impact? Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(47):13260–13262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Victor DG (2008) On the regulation of geoengineering. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24(2):322–36Google Scholar
  97. Williamson P (2016) Emissions reduction: scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature 530(7589):153–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wiltshire A, Davies-Barnard T (2015) Planetary limits to BECCS negative emissions, AVOID2, Version 1.1Google Scholar
  99. Zheng B, Xu J (2014) Carbon capture and storage development trends from a techno-paradigm perspective. Energies 7(8):5221–5250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forum for Climate Engineering AssessmentAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of International ServiceAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations