A case for promoting negative emission technologies: learning from renewable energy support

Abstract

To achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century, the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through negative emission technologies (NETs) will play an integral part. With renewable energy technologies (RETs), there has already been the introduction and expansion of a clean technology that faced similar obstacles as NETs—high up-front costs, limited competitiveness, and low public perception. This article compares NET policy proposals with the lessons learned from RET support. For NETs, the use of R&D support for innovation is unequivocal due to its nascency, yet the demand-pull instrument differs whether NETs are used as an alternative mitigation strategy, as a bridging technology or as a last resort. As an alternative mitigation method, a market-based approach by integrating NETs into emission trading systems is applicable because the use of NETs has no additional environmental benefit compared to abatement. Using NETs as a bridging technology requires restricting the demand for NETs to control the volume, and possibly type of NETs. This can be achieved via mandates or auctions. As a last resort, the removal via NETs requires heavy state involvement as emission removal constitutes a pure public good. This warrants public procurement or even state-led NET operation.

Keywords:

• Carbon dioxide removal
• renewable energy
• environmental innovation
• technology diffusion
• public policy

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Acknowledgements

I thank the reviewers, Sonja Peterson, and Finn Ole Semrau as well as Till Requate and Wilfried Rickels for their valuable comments as various stages of development of this article. I further acknowledge that the publication of this article was funded by the Open Access Fund of the Leibniz Association.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

There was no data used for this article.

Notes

1 There is an ongoing discussion surrounding the semantics of CDR. Framing CDR as “natural” and “technological” elicits early judgment and should, thus, be avoided in policy correspondence (3,4). However, as this article focuses on technological innovation and diffusion, I will refer to these terms, nonetheless.

2 Throughout this text, I refer to NETs to emphasize my focus on engineered solutions and their policy requirements.

3 Note, I disregard nuclear energy as a type of RET.

4 While there are currently no open calls for R&D, funding of past calls is ongoing till 2026.

5 The Swedish auction scheme is estimated to cost the government 180 mil€annually (16).

Additional information

Funding

I acknowledge financial support by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under the grant number 01LA2101A.