IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/ibrief/ib-24-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Policies for Scaling Up Carbon Dioxide Removal in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Boyd, James

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Krupnick, Alan

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Joiner, Emily

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Toman, Michael A.

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) involves the application of chemical or biological processes by which carbon dioxide (CO2) can be removed from the atmosphere and stored in different reservoirs. Those reservoirs include soils, oceans, underground (geologic) storage sites, long-lived wood products, and living biomass like forests.The 2015 Paris Agreement under the auspices of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established the aim of limiting the global average temperature increase from global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to less than 2.0°C, and as close to 1.5°C as possible, to limit dangerous impacts from climate change. Achieving that aim requires a concerted international effort to reduce GHGs to zero by mid-century. Many analysts have concluded that achieving the Paris temperature limits is infeasible without major increases in CDR, even with aggressive measures to limit GHGs (which have not yet been achieved). Smith et al. (2023); Coalition for Negative Emissions (2021); Environmental Defense Fund (2021); Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration et al. (2019); IPCC (2018). These sources also provide background on the temperature goals; in addition, see IPCC (2018). Furthermore, net negative emissions removal (above and beyond what is achieved by a net-zero economy) will be necessary to reduce the stock of atmospheric CO2 if, as is currently feared, emissions “overshoot” the trajectory for achieving the temperature limits.Smith et al. (2023) describe the lack of national goals for CDR around the world, and the lack of adequate policies to engender rapid and significant advances in CDR capability followed by large-scale installation of CDR. In what follows we summarize what we believe are needed innovations in US CDR policy to achieve these goals. These findings are based on research contained in a recent RFF report (Boyd et al. 2024). A few basic principles underlie the policy suggestions. Public sector support for CDR research, development, and demonstration is needed. However, as technologies mature, public sector support should be scaled back in favor of policies relying on private sector incentives to finance the major buildup in CDR capacity needed. Policy should be based on technology performance and cost of CO2 removal across a portfolio of approaches. However, negative side effects also must be identified and addressed in a timely way. Finally, CDR policy should be designed to take advantage of benefits from coordination with GHG mitigation measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Boyd, James & Krupnick, Alan & Joiner, Emily & Toman, Michael A., 2024. "Policies for Scaling Up Carbon Dioxide Removal in the United States," RFF Issue Briefs 24-01, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:ibrief:ib-24-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/4440/IB_24-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pietro Andreoni & Johannes Emmerling & Massimo Tavoni, 2024. "Inequality repercussions of financing negative emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 48-54, January.
    2. K. G. Austin & J. S. Baker & B. L. Sohngen & C. M. Wade & A. Daigneault & S. B. Ohrel & S. Ragnauth & A. Bean, 2020. "The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. N. Kampman & A. Busch & P. Bertier & J. Snippe & S. Hangx & V. Pipich & Z. Di & G. Rother & J. F. Harrington & J. P. Evans & A. Maskell & H. J. Chapman & M. J. Bickle, 2016. "Observational evidence confirms modelling of the long-term integrity of CO2-reservoir caprocks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baker, Justin S. & Rossi, David & Abt, Robert, 2022. "Quantifying Additionality Thresholds for Forest Carbon Offsets," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322510, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Ovando, Paola & Castellazzi, Marie & Baggio-Compagnucci, Andrea & Hewitt, Richard J. & Gimona, Alessandro, 2025. "Feasibility of woodland expansion for carbon offsetting in Scotland revisited," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    3. Saraswati Sisriany & Katsunori Furuya, 2025. "Does Ecotourism Really Benefit the Environment? A Trend Analysis of Forest Cover Loss in Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-25, June.
    4. Liu, Jianing & Long, Fenjie & Chen, Lei & Li, Lei & Zheng, Longfei & Mi, Zhifu, 2025. "Exploratory or exploitative green innovation? The role of different green fiscal policies in motivating innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    5. Kemen G. Austin & Alice Favero & Nicklas Forsell & Brent L. Sohngen & Chris M. Wade & Sara B. Ohrel & Shaun Ragnauth, 2025. "Targeting climate finance for global forests," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin & Löschel, Andreas, 2021. "The demand for voluntary carbon sequestration: Experimental evidence from a reforestation project in Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-088, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Tarkowski, R. & Uliasz-Misiak, B., 2022. "Towards underground hydrogen storage: A review of barriers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    8. Du, Zhengyang & Dai, Zhenxue & Yang, Zhijie & Zhan, Chuanjun & Chen, Wei & Cao, Mingxu & Thanh, Hung Vo & Soltanian, Mohamad Reza, 2024. "Exploring hydrogen geologic storage in China for future energy: Opportunities and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    9. Marie Young-Brun & Francis Dennig & Frank Errickson & Simon Feindt & Aurélie Méjean & Stéphane Zuber, 2025. "Within-country inequality and the shaping of a just global climate policy," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 25009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    10. Xiao, Ting & Chen, Ting & Ma, Zhiwei & Tian, Hailong & Meguerdijian, Saro & Chen, Bailian & Pawar, Rajesh & Huang, Lianjie & Xu, Tianfu & Cather, Martha & McPherson, Brian, 2024. "A review of risk and uncertainty assessment for geologic carbon storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    11. Gren, Ing-Marie, 2024. "A trading market for uncertain carbon removal by land use in the EU," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    12. Liu, Xinyue & Liu, Xiaoming & Zhang, Zengqi, 2024. "Application of red mud in carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    13. Stian Rørheim & Mohammad Hossain Bhuiyan & Andreas Bauer & Pierre Rolf Cerasi, 2021. "On the Effect of CO 2 on Seismic and Ultrasonic Properties: A Novel Shale Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-20, August.
    14. Xin Zhao & Bryan K. Mignone & Marshall A. Wise & Haewon C. McJeon, 2024. "Trade-offs in land-based carbon removal measures under 1.5 °C and 2 °C futures," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Jayasekara, D.W. & Ranjith, P.G. & Wanniarachchi, W.A.M. & Rathnaweera, T.D. & Chaudhuri, A., 2020. "Effect of salinity on supercritical CO2 permeability of caprock in deep saline aquifers: An experimental study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Mingie, James C., 2025. "Impact of cost assumptions on forest carbon targets and supply dynamics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    17. Boyd, James & Joiner, Emily & Krupnick, Alan & Toman, Michael A., 2024. "Policy Incentives to Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Analysis and Recommendations," RFF Reports 24-03, Resources for the Future.
    18. Vafaie, Atefeh & Cama, Jordi & Soler, Josep M. & Kivi, Iman R. & Vilarrasa, Victor, 2023. "Chemo-hydro-mechanical effects of CO2 injection on reservoir and seal rocks: A review on laboratory experiments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    19. Daigneault, Adam & Simons-Legaard, Erin & Weiskittel, Aaron, 2024. "Tradeoffs and synergies of optimized management for maximizing carbon sequestration across complex landscapes and diverse ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    20. Chu, Long & Grafton, R. Quentin & Nguyen, Hai, 2022. "A global analysis of the break-even prices to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide via forest plantation and avoided deforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:ibrief:ib-24-01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.