Context
To avoid the worst effects of climate change and leave a healthy and stable planet for future generations, we must eliminate all emissions of carbon dioxide derived from fossil sources (i.e., oil, coal, gas, and calcinated limestone). This means capturing carbon dioxide from the chimneys of industrial processes and energy generation plants (called point source capture). It also means removing carbon dioxide from the environment (called carbon dioxide removal) while we transition away from fossil fuels and to take care of legacy emissions. Once we have removed the carbon from the atmosphere, we will need to store it somewhere (i.e., sequester the carbon in a reservoir). For example in rocks, soil, biomass and the ocean. The need to sequester carbon is the foundation of a carbon management industry on the scale of the fossil fuel industry today. The goal of this industry is to stop the growth in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and eventually reduce it. By eliminating fossil carbon emissions, we take care of the problem of excess carbon.
We take care of most of the climate problem.
We take care of most of the climate problem.
Our work
Our research group focuses on the advancement of three main issues:
Carbon accounting standards and frameworks
Carbon management policy
Risk and remediation of carbon release
The selection of these topics is purposeful. They are complementary to the engineering and energy justice work advanced at the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions and various schools at Arizona State University. They are also fundamental to support the carbon management industry that will handle our carbon problem.
Most of our work is centered on the advancement of carbon accounting standards. Our research is science-led to provide evidence based recommendations to the development of carbon accounting standards for carbon removal. See more under Carbon Accounting.
One major research breakthrough is described as a conceptual framework for the certification of carbon sequestration. This framework embodies the research results from the three main topics and are provided here as an intellectual resource. See more under Framework.
Another key observation from this work is the necessity of having carbon management policy that makes a mandatory link between fossil carbon extraction and carbon sequestration. See more under Policy Research.
Carbon accounting standards and frameworks
Carbon management policy
Risk and remediation of carbon release
The selection of these topics is purposeful. They are complementary to the engineering and energy justice work advanced at the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions and various schools at Arizona State University. They are also fundamental to support the carbon management industry that will handle our carbon problem.
Most of our work is centered on the advancement of carbon accounting standards. Our research is science-led to provide evidence based recommendations to the development of carbon accounting standards for carbon removal. See more under Carbon Accounting.
One major research breakthrough is described as a conceptual framework for the certification of carbon sequestration. This framework embodies the research results from the three main topics and are provided here as an intellectual resource. See more under Framework.
Another key observation from this work is the necessity of having carbon management policy that makes a mandatory link between fossil carbon extraction and carbon sequestration. See more under Policy Research.
Why do we need a framework for the development of standards?
Although there are many different methods to capture carbon dioxide and many different reservoir types and locations, we will need to have a basic set of guidelines (i.e., a framework) to establish that the carbon is stored safely, credibly, and durably. Establishing that the carbon has been responsibly stored is handled by a certification process. This process requires input from the latest research for multiple reasons:
- Many different standards are available today, but they do not produce comparable outcomes because they all favor their own methods.
- Standards combine emission reduction with emission removal - those are two different things, emission removal is the price to pay for not avoiding emissions.
- Because of the methods they use (i.e. counterfactuals and LCA), current standards rarely result in verifiable, accurate outcomes.
- By including other GHG, existing standards make certification more complicated and less verifiable than it could be.
- Standards available today fail to internalize the potential failure of sequestration to be permanent on climate-relevant timescales.
- Standards were not designed to manage carbon nor to reach negative emissions.
Partners and Collaborators
We are committed to working with our partners to improve and adapt our framework to provide the most responsible and accountable carbon certificates on the market. We are always looking for new opportunities to continue expanding our community of collaborators. Please reach out to us if you have any inquires or feedback here.
