Both CCS and CDR capture and store carbon, which leads to both terms often being equated in the general discussion about CO₂ storage. This misleadingly connects CDR companies with fossil CCS projects and practices, thereby dragging them into a complex context and debate

Venna

To reach their climate-neutrality goals, more and more countries are currently focusing on developing and implementing carbon management strategies. In Germany, for example, the government announced plans to develop and present a carbon management strategy before the end of this year. State carbon management strategies are especially important in the worldwide race against climate change, as they highlight the role of carbon sequestration technologies and help promote their use. Whenever key points of such strategies are being discussed publicly, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is among them.
<h2>Fossil CCS is not the same as atmospheric CCS&nbsp;</h2>
As good as this is in the first instance, as it raises general public awareness of CO₂ storage, it is problematic at second glance: in public discussions, the term &ldquo;CCS&rdquo; implicitly refers to &ldquo;fossil/point-source CCS&rdquo;, which means the separation of CO₂ from industrial exhausts coupled with the permanent storage of that carbon (applied, e.g. in oil and gas production, cement, steel, power plants and chemical production facilities). Critics say CCS is a lifetime extension for fossil and fossil-based technologies and an excuse for hard-to-abate industries to continue like before, not trying to find real alternatives to decarbonization. Criticism aside, it is an actionable way for these industries to reduce their emissions.&nbsp;
Besides fossil/point-source CCS, there&rsquo;s "atmospheric CCS&ldquo;, better known as Carbon Dioxide Removal or CDR. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines CDR as &ldquo;anthropogenic activities removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products&rdquo;.
<h2>CDR is wrongly associated with fossil-based practices&nbsp;</h2>
Both CCS and CDR capture and store carbon, which leads to both terms often being equated in the general discussion about CO₂ storage. This misleadingly connects CDR companies with fossil CCS projects and practices, thereby dragging them into a complex context and debate.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Looking at CDR technologies like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS), the terminologies become even more confusing because they carry the term "CCS&ldquo; in their name. What makes the all-important difference is the source of the handled CO₂, which unfortunately is so often missing in public discussion: the carbon that CDR companies capture and store comes from the atmosphere and not directly from industrial exhausts of large emitters.
<h2>What is the difference between CDR and CCS?&nbsp;</h2>
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) refers to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and durably storing it, leading to net negative emissions. Meanwhile, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is the separation and durable storage of carbon dioxide from a fossil source, usually industrial exhausts, which are at best carbon neutral&nbsp;&nbsp;
<h3>And why is the distinction between CDR and CCS so important?&nbsp;</h3>
A clear differentiation between the terms is necessary since, on one hand, and as mentioned before, CDR companies with game-changing solutions are drawn into controversial discussions about fossil CCS, which often slows down their scaling process because of a lack of political and public support. Correctly distinguishing CDR from CCS will ease government efforts to design smart policies needed to responsibly grow the CDR industry and meet net-zero goals.&nbsp;
But what makes the proper distinction even more important is referring to their source of CO₂, that is either fossil or atmospheric, they have different impacts on climate change. CDR removes CO₂ from the atmosphere and has a net negative emission footprint, whereas CCS reduces emissions and has at best the potential of being carbon neutral if the sequestered carbon can account for all emissions from the entire process. When the misleading claim "carbon neutral" is stated, often the only numbers put into relation are the direct CO₂ exhaust with the direct CO₂ sequestered. From an impact standpoint, emissions from the entire process must be considered to be truly carbon neutral.&nbsp;
This crucial difference between CCS and CDR is closely linked to the general need to better distinguish between emission reductions and carbon removal. Recently, a <a href="https://newsroom.climeworks.com/244699-carbon-removal-actors-join-climeworks-initiated-statement-calling-for-a-clear-distinction-between-reductions-and-removals">joint call of all big CDR players</a> addressed the need for incorporating this differentiation into climate targets and climate policies to limit the moral hazard, add integrity to carbon markets and create a proper framework to scale CDR solutions.&nbsp;&nbsp;
If &ndash; and we strongly advocate for this &ndash; governments and companies will split their &ldquo;net zero&rdquo; into twin targets, meaning separate targets for reduction and removal, it will become evident that CCS is a transition technology and that only CDR is capable of removing carbon and producing net negative emissions. The EU&rsquo;s 2040 climate targets could set a gold standard for differentiated targets and the distinction between CDR and CCS.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<h2>Clear terminological distinction to sharpen the public debate on CO₂ storage&nbsp;</h2>
To sum it up: a clear distinction between important terms like CDR and CCS is essential to enable effective climate action and their successful implementation into governmental strategies. It helps secure the needed support and counter concerns that CDR might help industries to keep to business as usual, which it certainly does not. &nbsp;
One step in this direction was recently taken by the European biochar community by changing the official name of the carbon removal method from PyCCS (Pyrogenic Carbon Capture and Storage) to BCR (Biochar Carbon Removal). Although it might sound small because it&rsquo;s just the change of a name, the message behind it is clear: whatever is done to make terms and contexts more understandable and transparent is good to unlock the full potential of CDR. It will lead to a better public understanding, a broader acceptance and more effective political support of scaling CDR methods, that the world so urgently needs to limit global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees.
This article is also published on <a href="https://www.novocarbo.com/Insights/misleading-discussion-on-co2-storage/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Novocarbo</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Misleading discussion on CO₂ storage: why the distinction between CDR and CCS matters

Insetting builds a more sustainable relationship between industry and nature – and the emerging biochar economy stands to play a major role in facilitating the shift from offsetting to insetting across industries

The conversation surrounding the race to net zero has included a number of solutions to support what is increasingly being seen as a necessity in the coming decades. The date which has been most commonly thrown around is 2050, giving companies and governments less than 30 years to make the shift to more sustainable practices, including an eventual large-scale shift to a circular economy model. What is understood by those in the know, however, is that this 2050 goal is largely an arbitrary number &ndash; what it represents is a more attainable long-term goal. Any expert in the field can attest to the need for faster action to ensure ecological stability and, in turn, the need for new methods to support the greening of the industry.
One very common &ldquo;tool&rdquo; that has been employed by larger companies to improve their sustainability metrics is the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon markets exist under both mandatory (compliance) schemes and voluntary programs. Such compliance carbon offsets refer to purchasing the rights to the carbon allowance of another more sustainable company. This is seen often in the auto industry, with legacy automakers for years lining Tesla&rsquo;s balance sheets by purchasing their carbon offsets instead of making their own practices more environmentally friendly. This poses an important question: is it enough simply to have new emerging companies comply with sustainability metrics, while the rest continue to operate unsustainably for years or even decades into the future? Common sense would suggest not &ndash; this is where insetting comes into play
Insetting takes a much different approach to offsetting to decrease carbon emissions across industries, opting instead to pursue sustainability in a matter which in itself is actually sustainable in the long term. Insetting refers to projects that happen within a company&rsquo;s supply chain, helping them to shift to more sustainable means of operation instead of paying someone else to offset their emissions. It&rsquo;s a way of bringing companies more in sync with the environment by targeting the entire value chain and rethinking certain processes from the ground up.
One of the most promising tools at the ready for companies looking to pursue this new model of sustainability is in the building and utilization of pyrolysis plants. These plants allow them to capture carbon from the atmosphere and avoid emissions at the same time, as they are producing carbon neutral energy and a high value product, that can substitute fossil based materials: biochar. This biochar can be fine-tuned to serve a number of purposes, from soil improvement and water retention to drinking water filtration, or substituting cement or other high carbon based materials. In addition, the pyrolysis process generates climate-neutral heat, which can help companies shift more quickly from fossil fuels to green heat generation. The input materials for this process can be as varied as the outputs, allowing companies to utilize excess wood waste and industrial by-products along with a wide range of biogenic residues commonly produced in a wide range of sectors.
The key to insetting lies in integrating carbon-reducing practices into already existing value chains. Suppliers can also be involved here in order to make the entire supply chain more sustainable in the long term. This will allow companies to drastically reduce their environmental impact while better preparing their business to thrive in a low carbon future. Insetting helps to better integrate business practices, finding synergies that allow for a more efficient, holistic and sustainable utilization of resources.&nbsp;
One of the biggest barriers to encouraging greater use of insetting solutions for hard-to-abate emissions so far lies in the complexity of implementing them. For established companies, especially in the industrial sphere, pursuing other carbon-reduction strategies apart from the standard has presented itself a time and resource intensive endeavor. This has changed during the last years thanks to the evolving CDR-market coming up with innovative, holistic technologies, that even go beyond avoiding emissions.
Today&rsquo;s industrial insetting solutions deliver more value than carbon offsetting, while some even avoid the need to design and implement the solutions on their own. In plain English: insetting builds a more sustainable relationship between industry and nature &ndash; and the emerging biochar economy stands to play a major role in facilitating the shift from offsetting to insetting across industries.
Leading biochar companies have developed innovative circular business models, that take the complexity of insetting out of the hands of companies, so they can remain focused on their main goals. Insetting, through the utilization of pyroysis plants, enables companies to decarbonize on multiple levels: They can avoid emissions through&nbsp;
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The substitution of fossil fuels through climate-neutral heat generated in the pyrolysis process</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Re-using of waste material or biogenic residues as biomass for the pyrolysis process</li>
</ol>
The biochar, the end product in which the carbon of the biomass is captured, once applied in e.g. agricultural soils or building materials, acts as a carbon sink. In addition to lowering the carbon footprint of these products and practices, carbon removal credits can be created and sold on voluntary carbon markets. To take the integrated approach to an even higher level, companies can purchase these carbon credits themselves and thereby count them as CDR insetting.
The pyrolysis technology itself is not novel, but the streamlined, holistic approach to easily implement it for companies represents a major step in ensuring insetting even of hard-to-abate-emissions can replace offsetting as the de facto industrial carbon reduction strategy for the next generation. Thereby always following the important rule on the path to net zero: Reduce to the best, remove the rest.
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
This article is an updated version of the article published on <a href="https://www.novocarbo.com/Insights/novocarbo-cco-venna-lepel-on-climate-action-through-insetting/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Novocarbon</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
</div>
</div>

Venna Lepel

Venna Lepel

Misleading discussion on CO₂ storage: why the distinction between CDR and CCS matters

From offsetting to insetting: the next leg in the race to decarbonize industry

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?