Using Renewable Energy Policies to Develop Carbon Dioxide Removal

Chavez, Anthony E.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72372-9_8

Anthony E. Chavez⁵

Part of the book series: AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series ((AESS))

543 Accesses
1 Altmetric

Abstract

Despite recent efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, scientists still project that we will not avoid dangerous climate change. Models that calculate that we can avoid this result almost exclusively rely upon carbon dioxide removal options to stay below this level of warming. Although a number of CDR technologies are theoretically possible, they all have limitations. More germane here, they all remain far from the level of development and installation required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Adoption of the Paris Agreement, UNFCC Conference of the Parties, 21st Sess., U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1 (Dec. 12, 2015), at art. 2(1)(a)http://unfccc.int/files/home/application/pdf/paris_agreement.pdf [hereinafter Paris Agreement].
2.
Id.
3.
Lena R. Boysen et al., The Limits to Global-Warming Mitigation by Terrestrial Carbon Removal, 5 EARTH’S FUTURE, MAY 17, 2017, 463, 463–474.
4.
V. Delmotte et al., GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 °C SPM 8 (2018).
5.
EUROPEAN ACADAMIES SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Negative Emission Technologies: What Role in Meeting in Paris Agreement Targets?, 35 EASAC POL’Y REP. 1, 4 (2018)
6.
Id. at 5.
7.
Christopher B. Field & Katharine J. Mach, Rightsizing Carbon Dioxide Removal, 356 SCIENCE, 706, 707 (May 19, 2017).
8.
Guy Lomax et al., Investing in Negative Emissions, 5 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 498 (2015).
9.
R. Stuart Haszeldine et al., Negative Emissions Technologies and Carbon Capture and Storage to Achieve the Paris Agreement Commitments, 376 PHIL. TRANS. R. SOC. A 19–20 (Oct. 28, 2018).
10.
Matthew D. Eisaman, Indirect Ocean Capture of Atmospheric CO2: Part II. Understanding the Cost of Negative Emissions, 1 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL (2018).
11.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC), CLIMATE INTERVENTION: CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL AND RELIABLE SEQUESTRATION 33 (2015). Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) systems, on the other hand, apply the captured CO₂ to a number of processes, including enhanced oil recovery, mineral carbonation, food and beverage carbonation, polymer processing, microalgae production, and enhanced coal bed methane recovery. Jennifer Wilcox, Peter C Psarras & Simona Liguori, Assessment of Reasonable Opportunities for Direct Air Capture, 12 ENVT’L. RES. LETTERS 1, 2 (2017).
12.
Id.
13.
Id.
14.
UN ENVT’L PROGRAMME (UNEP), The Emissions Gap Report 2017: A UN Environment Synthesis Report, at 60 (2017). These processes are necessitated by deforestation, which causes approximately 10% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. NRC, supra note 15 at 39.
15.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 17.
16.
Duncan McLaren, Negatonnes—An Initial Assessment of the Potential For Negative Emission Techniques to Contribute Safely and Fairly to Meeting Carbon Budgets in the 21st Century, 1 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH 1, 20 (2011).
17.
In general, net CO₂ removal peaks within 30–40 years, and then it declines to zero as the forest matures. NRC, supra note 15 at 40.
18.
Id.
19.
Id.
20.
McLaren, supra note 19 at 20; NRC, supra note 15 at 41–42.
21.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 18.
22.
UNEP, supra note 17 at 62.
23.
Niall McGlashan et al., High-Level Techno-Economic Assessment of Negative Emissions Technologies, 90 PROCESS SAFETY & ENVT’L. PROTECTION 501–10, 503 (2012).
24.
UNEP, supra note 17 at 62.
25.
McGlashan, supra note 26 at 503.
26.
UNEP, supra note 17 at 62.
27.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 18.
28.
McLaren, supra note 19 at 21.
29.
Stefan Frank et al., Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Agriculture Without Compromising Food Security?, 12 ENVT’L. RES. LETTERS 1, 2 (2017).
30.
UNEP, supra note 17 at 61.
31.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 18.
32.
Id. at 44.
33.
Peter Psarras et al., Slicing the Pie: How Big Could Carbon Dioxide Removal Be?, 6 WIRES ENERGY ENV’T 1, 1 (2017).
34.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 23.
35.
Jeremy Deaton, Earth’s “Weathering Thermostat” Keeps Climate in Check Over Very Long Periods of Time, CLEANTECHNICA (Sept. 18, 2017), https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/18/earths-weathering-thermostat-keeps-climate-check-long-periods-time/
36.
Jessica Strefler et al., Potential and Costs of Carbon Dioxide Removal by Enhanced Weathering of Rocks, 13 ENV’T. RES. LETTERS 1, 1–2 (2018).
37.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 23.
38.
UNEP, supra note 17 at 64.
39.
Id.
40.
Andrew Lenton, Assessing Carbon Dioxide Removal through Global and Regional Ocean Alkalinization under High and Low Emission Pathways, 9 EARTH SYS. DYNAMICS 339–357, 340 (2018).
41.
McLaren, supra note 19 at 18.
42.
T. Kruger, Increasing the Alkalinity of the Ocean to Enhance its Capacity to Act as a Carbon Sink and to Counteract the Effect of Ocean Acidification, in GeoConvention, 4 (2010), http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/pdf/2014/90172cspg/abstracts/ndx_krug.pdf [http://perma.cc/7CPX-CRMN]
43.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 27.
44.
NRC, supra note 14 at 61.
45.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 27.
46.
McLaren, supra note 19 at 17.
47.
McGlashan, supra note 26 at 504.
48.
UNEP, supra note 14 at 62. See also Elmar Kriegler et al., Is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal a Gamer Changer for Climate Change Mitigation?, 118 CLIMATIC CHANGE 45–57, 55 (May, 2013) (projecting BECCS deployment limited to a removal of 14–15 GtCO₂ per year).
49.
Matthias Honegger & David Reiner, The Political Economy of Negative Emissions Technologies: Consequences for International Policy Design, 18 CLIMATE POL’Y 306, 308–309 (2017).
50.
S. Fuss et al., Research Priorities for Negative Emissions, 11 ENV’T. RES. LETTERS 1, 3 (2016).
51.
NRC, supra note 14 at 68.
52.
UNEP, supra note 17 at 63–64.
53.
Id. at 64.
54.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 26.
55.
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board CO₂ Utilization Task Force (SEAB), Task Force on RD&D Strategy for CO₂ Utilization and/or Negative Emissions at the Gigatonne Scale, LETTER REPORT 37 (Dec. 12, 2016).
56.
Elmar Kriegler et al., Is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal a Gamer Changer for Climate Change Mitigation?, 118 CLIMATIC CHANGE 45–57, 55 (May, 2013).
57.
NRC, supra note 14 at 65.
58.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 12–13.
59.
McLaren, supra note 19 at 17.
60.
Haszeldine, et al, supra note 12 at 11.
61.
Id. at 19.
62.
Wil Burns & Simon Nicholson, Bioenergy and Carbon Capture with Storage (BECCS): the Prospects and Challenges of an Emerging Climate Policy Response, 7 J. ENVT’L. STUD. & SCI. 527, 529 (2017). Even though the BECCS technology is relatively advanced, questions remain concerning the extent that its carbon sequestration will sufficiently offset emissions from direct and indirect land use changes. Naomi E. Vaughan & Clair Gough, Expert Assessment Concludes Negative Emissions Scenarios May Not Deliver, 11 ENVT’L. RES. LETT. 5 (2016).
63.
Haszeldine, et al, supra note 12 at 2.
64.
Glen P. Peters et al., Key Indicators to Track Current Progress and Future Ambition of the Paris Agreement, 121 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 1, 4 (2017).
65.
Niall R. McGashan et al., Negative Emissions Technologies, 8 Grantham Institute for Climate Change Briefing Paper, October, 2012, at 15.
66.
Mark de Figueiredo, et al., The Liability of Carbon Dioxide Storage 1 (undated).
67.
Ian Havercroft & Richard Macrory, Legal Liability and Carbon Capture and Storage: A Comparative Perspective 11 (Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute/UCL Laws 2014), hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/179798/legal-liability-carbon-capture-storage-comparative-perspective.pdf [http://perma.cc/NH74-H3XB]
68.
CTR. FOR CARBON REMOVAL, CARBON REMOVAL POLICY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR FEDERAL ACTION 8 (2017). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b9362d89d5abb8c51d474f8/t/5b 9427cd8a922dd0d7451136/1536436200923/Carbon%2BRemoval%2BPolicy%2BOpportunities%2Bfor%2BAction + %281%29.pdf [http://perma.cc/92YX-UQYN]
69.
David P. Keller et al., The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and Experimental Design, 11 GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEV. 1133, 1133–34 (2018).
70.
EASAC, supra note 6 at 22.
71.
NRC, supra note 14 at 111.
72.
Id. at 61.
73.
Phil Renforth & Gideon Henderson, Assessing Ocean Alkalinity for Carbon Sequestration, REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS 666 (2017).
74.
Pete Smith, Biophysical and Economic Limits to Negative CO₂ Emissions, 6 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 42, 49 (2016).
75.
Michael T. Ferguson, Green America: Renewable Standards, Tax Credits, and What’s Next, S&P GLOBAL 1 (Oct. 10, 2017), https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/articles/green-america-renewable-standards-tax-credits-and-whats-next
76.
Galen Barbose, U.S. RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARDS: 2017 ANNUAL STATUS REPORT 6 (2017).
77.
Id. at 8.
78.
Ryan Wiser, Galen Barbose, & Edward Holt, Supporting Solar Power in Renewables Portfolio Standards: Experience from the United States, 39 ENERGY POLICY (2011) 3894–3905, 3894; Greg Buckman, The Effectiveness of Renewable Portfolio Standard Banding and Carve-Outs in Supporting High-Cost Types of Renewable Electricity, 39 ENERGY POLICY (2011)4105–4114, 4106.
79.
Qi Zhang, Substitution Effect of Renewable Portfolio Standards and Renewable Energy Certificate Trading for Feed-In Tariff, 227 APPLIED ENERGY 426, 426–427 (2017).
80.
Felix Mormann, Constitutional Challenges and Regulatory Opportunities for State Climate Policy Innovation, 41 HARV. ENVT’L. L. REV. 189, 198 (2017).
81.
Corey N. Allen, Untapped Renewable Energy Potential: Lessons For Reforming Virginia’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard From Texas And California, 35 VA. ENVT’L. L. J. 117, 120 (2016).
82.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy and Environment Guide to Action 5–10 (2015).
83.
Allen, supra note 84 at 120. RPSs also identify the entities required to comply, designate an administrator – usually a government agency – and specify their enforcement mechanisms. Id.
84.
GOVERNORS’ WIND ENERGY COAL., RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARDS: STATE SUCCESS STORIES 9 (2013).
85.
EPA, supra note 85 at 5–2.
86.
Barbose, supra note 79 at 7.
87.
Governors’ Wind Energy Coal., supra note 87 at 9.
88.
Luke J.L. Eastin, An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States, THE ELECTRICITY J. 127 (2014).
89.
Warren Leon, THE STATE OF STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS 10 (June 2013).
90.
Vicki Arroyo, et al, State Innovation on Climate Change: Reducing Emissions from Key Sectors While Preparing for a “New Normal,” 10 HARV. L. & POL’Y REV. 385, 398 (2016).
91.
Allyson Browne, RPS Evolving: States Take on U.S. Climate Goals, 31 NAT.
RESOURCES & ENV’T 50, 50 (2017).
92.
Id.
93.
Id. at 51.
94.
Id.
95.
Leon, supra note 92 at 10.
96.
Browne, supra note 94 at 51.
97.
Miriam Fischlein & Timothy M. Smith, Revisiting Renewable Portfolio Standard Effectiveness: Policy Design and Outcome Specification Matter, 46 POL’Y SCI. 277, 288 (2013).
98.
Barbose, supra note 79 at 6.
99.
Shahrouz Abolhosseini & Almas Heshmati, The Main Support Mechanisms to Finance Renewable Energy Development, RENEW. & SUST. ENERGY REV. (2014) 40:876–885, 881.
100.
Leon, supra note 92 at 8.
101.
Wiser, Barbose, & Holt, supra note 81 at 3896. The incentive to provide electricity at the lowest cost also incentivizes improving technologies to become more cost competitive. EPA, supra note 85 at 5–3.
102.
Some commentators suggest that a weakness of RPSs is that they are so market driven that they do not sufficiently encourage investment in less mature technologies. Buckman, supra note 81 at 4106–07. As discussed in the next section, RPSs can utilize carve outs or multipliers to stimulate development of these resources. Id. at 4107.
103.
John A. Mathews & Hao Tan, Manufacture Renewables to Build Energy Security, 513 NATURE 166, 167 (Sept. 11, 2014).
104.
Bobby Magill, Pioneers of Carbon Dioxide Removal See Boon for Renewables, BLOOMBERG BNA ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY REPORT (April 24, 2018).
105.
Paul Dvorak & Nathaniel Horner, RPS Policies Are Driving Wind Turbine Innovation,
WINDPOWER (February 28, 2014), http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/rps-poli
cies-driving-wind-turbine-innovation/ [http://perma.cc/2TK9-RZHP]
106.
Leon, supra note 92 at 9.
107.
Herman K. Trabish, Why Mandates Still Matter in the Age of Cheap Renewables, UTILITY DIVE (January 3, 2018), https://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-mandates-still-matter-in-the-age-of-cheap-renewables/513797/
108.
International Energy Agency, DEPLOYING RENEWABLES 2011 132 (2011).
109.
Wiser, Barbose, & Holt, supra note 81 at 3897.
110.
EPA, supra note 85 at 5–10.
111.
Buckman, supra note 81 at 4105. Multipliers are also identified as banding. Id.
112.
EPA, supra note 85 at 5–10.
113.
Id.
114.
Analysis has found that the use of set asides in RPSs has “heavily influenced” the deployment of solar energy in those states. Andrea Sarzynski, Jeremy Larrieu, & Gireesh Shrimali, The Impact of State Financial Incentives on Market Deployment of Solar Technology, ENERGY POLICY 46 (2012) 550–557, 551. Similarly, multipliers are credited with successfully supporting high-cost offshore wind development in the United Kingdom. Buckman, supra note 81 at 4114.
115.
Joshua Novacheck & Jeremiah X. Johnson, The Environmental And Cost Implications of Solar Energy Preferences in Renewable Portfolio Standards, 86 ENERGY POLICY 250, 256 (2015).
116.
Id. at 251.
117.
Id. at 254.
118.
Eastin, supra note 91 at 132.
119.
Leon, supra note 92 at 4.
120.
Barbose, supra note 79 at 3.
121.
Yuzhuo Zhang, et al., The Development of the Renewable Energy Power Industry under Feed-In Tariff and Renewable Portfolio Standard: A Case Study of China’s Photovoltaic Power Industry, 9 SUSTAINABILITY (2017) 532, 2; https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040532
122.
Toby Couture & Karlynn Cory, STATE CLEAN ENERGY POLICIES ANALYSIS (SCEPA) PROJECT: AN ANALYSIS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY FEED-IN TARIFFS IN THE UNITED STATES 2 (2009).
123.
Felix Mormann, Clean Energy Federalism, 67 FLA. L. REV. 1621, 1628 (2016).
124.
Karlynn Cory, Toby Couture, & Claire Kreycik, FEED-IN TARIFF POLICY: DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND RPS POLICY INTERACTIONS 2 (2009).
125.
Id.
126.
Couture & Cory, supra note 125 at 2.
127.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 2.
128.
Id.
129.
Couture & Cory, supra note 125 at 2.
130.
Tae-hyeong Kwon, Rent and Rent-seeking in Renewable Energy Support Policies: Feed-in
Tariff vs. Renewable Portfolio Standard, RENEW. & SUST. ENERG. REV. (2015) 44:676–681, 676.
131.
Leon, supra note 92 at 8.
132.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 9.
133.
Id.
134.
Richard Schmalensee, Evaluating Policies to Increase Electricity Generation from
Renewable Energy, REV. OF ENVT’L. ECON. AND POL’Y, (2012) 6:45–64, 60 [doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer020]
135.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 9.
136.
Zhang, supra note 82 at 426.
137.
Peng Sun & Pu-yan Nie, A Comparative Study of Feed-In Tariff and Renewable Portfolio Standard, 74 RENEWABLE ENERGY (2015) 255–262, 255.
138.
Couture & Cory, supra note 125 at 17–18.
139.
Id. at 4.
140.
James Temple, The Daunting Math of Climate Change Means We’ll Need Carbon Capture, MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW (April 24, 2018), https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610927/the-daunting-math-of-climate-change-means-well-need-carbon-capture/
141.
Id. at 22.
142.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 9.
143.
Q. Zhang, supra note 82 at 427.
144.
Mormann, supra note 126 at 1662.
145.
UNEP, supra note 17 at 38.
146.
Q.Y. Yan, et al., Overall Review of Feed-In Tariff and Renewable Portfolio Standard Policy: A Perspective of China, 75 EARTH ENVIRON. SCI. 2 (2016).
147.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 2.
148.
Chris Lo, Renewable Energy: Are Feed-In Tariffs Going Out of Style?, POWER TECHNOLOGY, (January 18, 2017), https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurerenewable-energy-are-feed-in-tariffs-going-out-of-style-5718419/
149.
Mormann, supra note 126 at 1658.
150.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 9.
151.
Mormann, supra note 126 at 1660.
152.
Yan, supra note 149 at 2.
153.
Lincoln L. Davies & Kirsten Allen, Feed-in Tariffs in Turmoil, 116 W. VA. L. REV. 937, 997 n.18 (2014),
154.
Q. Zhang, supra note 82 at 433.
155.
UNEP, supra note 17 at 81.
156.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 5.
157.
Id.
158.
Lo, supra note 151.
159.
Davies & Allen, supra note 156 at 977.
160.
Id. Spain exacerbated its problems when it subsequently cancelled contracted FIT payments retroactively and replaced them with a complex payment program. Investors brought dozens of lawsuits over these cuts. Spain lost the first decision in one of these cases, and the court ordered it to pay €128 million. Blanca Díaz López, Spain Loses Its First Renewable Energy Case in International Courts, PV MAGAZINE, (May 5, 2017), https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/05/05/spain-loses-its-first-renewable-energy-case-in-international-courts/
161.
Lo, supra note 151.
162.
Jeffrey Ball, Germany’s High-Priced Energy Revolution, FORTUNE, (March 14, 2017), https://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-high-priced-energy-revolution-103034269.html
163.
Id.
164.
Joshua S Hill, Germany Confirms End To Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariffs, CLEANTECHNICA, (July 12, 2016), https://cleantechnica.com/2016/07/12/germany-confirms-end-renewable-energy-feed-tariffs/
165.
Dittmar & Indrenius, D&I ALERT – ENERGY, INFRASTRUCTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES 2 (November 25, 2016) https://www.dittmar.fi/service/energy-infra/
166.
RES Legal, Greece: Overall Summary, RES LEGAL EUROPE (undated), (last visited July 28, 2018), http://www.res-legal.eu/search-by-country/greece/
167.
RES Legal, Feed-in tariff (Tarifas feed-in), RES LEGAL EUROPE (December 12, 2017), http://www.res-legal.eu/search-by-country/portugal/single/s/res-e/t/promotion/aid/feed-in-tariff-tarifas-feed-in/lastp/179/
168.
Davies & Allen, supra note 156 at 995.
169.
Mormann, supra note 126 at 1628.
170.
Couture & Cory, supra note 125 at 22.
171.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 13.
172.
Zhao Xin-gang, et al., The Policy Effects of Feed-In Tariff and Renewable Portfolio Standard: A Case Study of China’s Waste Incineration Power Industry, WASTE MANAG. 68 (2017) 711–723, 711–12.
173.
Sun & Nie, supra note 140 at 256.
174.
Xin-gang, et al., supra note 175 at 721.
175.
Francesco Nicolli & Francesco Vona, Heterogeneous Policies, Heterogeneous Technologies: The Case of Renewable Energy, ENERGY ECON. 56 (2016) 190–204, 190.
176.
C.G. Dong, Feed-in Tariff vs. Renewable Portfolio Standard: An Empirical Test of Their
Relative Effectiveness in Promoting Wind Capacity Development, ENERGY POLICY 42 (2012) 476–485, 484.
177.
Yan, supra note 149 at 8.
178.
Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, & Youba Sokona (eds.), SPECIAL REPORT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION 18 (2012).
179.
DSIRE, Program Overview: Wisconsin, (last updated November 18, 2015), http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/190
180.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 7.
181.
UNEP, supra note 17 at 38.
182.
Fuss, supra note 53 at 3.
183.
Jan C. Minx, et al., Fast Growing Research on Negative Emissions, ENVIRON. RES. LETT. 12, 2 (2017).
184.
Leon, supra note 92 at 8.
185.
Yuki Ishimoto et al., Putting Costs of Direct Air Capture in Context 12 (Inst. of Applied Energy, Working Paper No. 002, Jun., 2017).
186.
Mormann, supra note 126 at 1658.
187.
Niall Mac Dowell et al., The Role of CO₂ Capture and Utilization in Mitigating Climate Change, 7 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 243, 243 (2017).
188.
Mormann, supra note 126 at 1660.
189.
Xin-gang, et al., supra note 175 at 721 (proposing to raise the RPS quota after a subsidy is reduced or eliminated).
190.
NRC supra note 14 at 106. Part of this range derives from the method of carbon capture. Capture from an emissions source is dramatically less expensive than from the ambient air. Accordingly, the latter may cost up to ten times more than capture directly from an emissions source. Psarras, supra note 36 at 4.
191.
NRC supra note 14 at 106.
192.
Supra, pages 3–5.
193.
NRC supra note 14 at 105.
194.
Lomax, supra note 11 at 499.
195.
Id.
196.
Id.
197.
Fuss, supra note 53 at 7.
198.
Glen P. Peters & Oliver Geden, Catalysing a Political Shift from Low to Negative Carbon, 7 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 619–621, 621 (2017).
199.
Arroyo, supra note 93 at 399.
200.
EPA, supra note 85 at 5–11.
201.
Leon, supra note 92 at 6.
202.
Keller, supra note 72 at 4.
203.
Burns & Nicholson, supra note 65 at 3.
204.
Henrik Karlsson & Lennart Byström, GLOBAL STATUS OF BECCS PROJECTS 2010 40 (2011).
205.
CTR. FOR CARBON REMOVAL, supra note 71 at 8. See also Feifei Shen, China’s Prep for Carbon-Market Trading May Take Up to Two Years, BLOOMBERG BNA ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY REPORT (Dec. 21, 2017) (noting that China may spend up to two years preparing data reporting and other systems before starting trading in its new carbon market). China’s program is discussed infra.
206.
See supra, notes 126–30 and accompanying text.
207.
National Conference of State Legislatures, STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS AND GOALS (July 20, 2018), http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx
208.
Cory, Couture, & Kreycik, supra note 127 at 2.
209.
Kate Larsen et al., Taking Stock 2017: Adjusting Expectations For US GHG Emissions 4–5 (2017), https://rhg.com/qp-content/uploads/2017/05/RHG_ENR_Taking_Stock_24May2017.pdf [http://perma.cc/EZ4U-3AB6]
210.
Rhodium Group, Preliminary US Emissions Estimates for 2018 (January 8, 2019), https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-estimates-for-2018/
211.
See Dean Scott, China’s Trimmed Carbon Trading Will Still Boost Worldwide Action,
BLOOMBERG BNA ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY REPORT (Dec. 21, 2017) (noting that China’s carbon trading system will initially cover power generators but subsequently expand to encompass metals, chemicals, and building materials).
212.
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 581, (1995) (KENNEDY, J., concurring).
213.
Allison C.C. Hoppe, State-Level Regulation as The Ideal Foundation For Action on Climate Change: a Localized Beginning to the Solution of a Global Problem, 101 CORNELL L. REV. 1627, 1650 (2016).
214.
Id. at 1650–51.
215.
Thomas P. Lyon & Haitao Yin, Why Do States Adopt Renewable Portfolio Standards?:
An Empirical Investigation, 31 ENERGY J. 153 (2010).
216.
Rob Bellamy, Incentivize Negative Emissions Responsibly, 3 NATURE ENERGY 532–534, 532 (2018).

References

Allison, C.C.: Hoppe, state-level regulation as the ideal foundation for action on climate change: A localized beginning to the solution of a global problem. Cornell L. Rev. 101, 1627–1650 (2016)
Google Scholar
Bellamy, R.: Incentivize negative emissions responsibly. Nature Energy. 3, 532–534–532–532 (2018)
Google Scholar
Boysen, L.R., et al.: The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal. Earth’s Future. 5, 463–463–474 (2017)
Google Scholar
Dowell, N.M., et al.: The role of CO₂ capture and utilization in mitigating climate change. Nat. Climate Change. 7, 243 (2017)
Google Scholar
Eisaman, M.D.: Indirect ocean capture of atmospheric CO2: Part II. Understanding the cost of negative emissions. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 1 (2018)
Google Scholar
Fischlein, M., Smith, T.M.: Revisiting renewable portfolio standard effectiveness: policy design and outcome specification matter. Pol’y Sci. 46, 277–288 (2013)
Google Scholar
Frank, S., et al.: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Envt’l. Res. Lett. 12, 1–2 (2017)
Google Scholar
Fuss, S., et al.: Research Priorities for Negative Emissions. Env’t. Res. Lett. 11, 1–3 (2016)
Google Scholar
Honegger, M., Reiner, D.: The political economy of negative emissions technologies: Consequences for international policy design. Climate Pol’y. 18, 306–308–309 (2017)
Google Scholar
Keller, D.P., et al.: The carbon dioxide removal model intercomparison project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 1133–1133–34 (2018)
Google Scholar
Lenton, A.: Assessing carbon dioxide removal through global and regional ocean Alkalinization under high and low emission pathways. Earth Sys. Dynamics. 9, 339–357–339–340 (2018)
Google Scholar
Lomax, G., et al.: Investing in negative emissions. Nat. Climate Change. 5, 498 (2015)
Google Scholar
Lyon, T.P., Yin, H.: Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards?: An empirical investigation. Energy J. 31, 153 (2010)
Google Scholar
McGlashan, N., et al.: High-Level Techno-Economic Assessment of Negative Emissions Technologies. Process Safety Envt’l. Protect. 90, 501–10–501–501503 (2012)
Google Scholar
Mormann, F.: Constitutional challenges and regulatory opportunities for state climate policy innovation. Harv. Envt’l. L. Rev. 41, 189–198 (2017)
Google Scholar
Novacheck, J., Johnson, J.X.: The environmental and cost implications of solar energy preferences in renewable portfolio standards. Energy Pol. 86, 250–256 (2015)
Google Scholar
Peters, G.P., Geden, O.: Catalysing a political shift from low to negative carbon. Nat. Climate Change. 7, 619–621–619–621 (2017)
Google Scholar
Psarras, P., et al.: Slicing the pie: how big could carbon dioxide removal be? Wires Energy Env’t. 6, 1–1 (2017)
Google Scholar
Smith, P.: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO₂ emissions. Nat. Climate Change. 6, 42–49 (2016)
Google Scholar
Xin-gang, Z., et al.: The policy effects of feed-in tariff and renewable portfolio standard: A case study of China’s waste incineration power industry. Waste Manag. 68, 711–723 (2017) 711–12
Article Google Scholar
Zhang, Q.: Substitution effect of renewable portfolio standards and renewable energy certificate trading for feed-in tariff. Appl. Energy. 227, 426–426–427 (2017)
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY, USA
Anthony E. Chavez

Authors

Anthony E. Chavez
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony E. Chavez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy, American University, Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy and Culture program, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
Wil Burns
Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
David Dana
American University, Washington DC, WA, USA
Simon James Nicholson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chavez, A.E. (2021). Using Renewable Energy Policies to Develop Carbon Dioxide Removal. In: Burns, W., Dana, D., Nicholson, S.J. (eds) Climate Geoengineering: Science, Law and Governance. AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72372-9_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72372-9_8
Published: 06 November 2021
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72371-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72372-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics