Dette debatindlæg er bragt i Finans den 1. april 2024 af projektet CopenCapture. Forfatterne bag er Peter Basche, Director Carbon Value, E.ON Energy Projects GmbH og Jane Egebjerg Andersen, energichef hos ARC.

Er køb af frivillige klimakreditter en farbar vej for virksomheder, der gerne vil bidrage til at reducere CO₂-udledningerne i hele værdikæden?

Spørgsmålet er blevet aktuelt efter en rapport fra den internationale klimastandard, SBTI (Science Based Targets initiative) satte spørgsmål ved troværdigheden af kreditterne – eksempelvis ved skovrejsning og forskellige projekter i udviklingslande. Debatten fik efterfølgende en række danske virksomheder til at afvise at købe kreditter til at kompensere for deres CO₂-udledninger.

For os at se er det helt afgørende, at debatten ikke resulterer i, at det bliver vanskeligere at finde finansiering til de klimateknologier, vi har behov for at udvikle og skalere for at imødegå klimaforandringerne.

De frivillige kreditter – såkaldte Carbon Dioxide Removals (CDRs) – udgør en hjørnesten i at finansiere projekter til fangst og lagring af CO₂ (CCS), der udover at undgå udledning også bidrager til at tage CO₂ ud af atmosfæren.  

Vi skal gøre, hvad vi kan for at reducere klimabelastningen ved kilden og i virksomhedernes egen drift. Uden tvivl. Og det arbejder vi på selv. Men i nogle industrier er der processer, som resulterer i CO₂-udledning, der er så vanskelig at undgå, at CCS er et nødvendigt redskab.

Her er tale om endog meget store investeringer. Hvis frygt for kreditternes troværdighed får virksomhederne til at undlade at købe kreditter fra denne type projekter, kan det resultere i øget behov for statsstøtte og ramme udviklingen af teknologier og projekter.

Det er ikke et tænkt eksempel. Vi – E.ON Energy Projects og ARC – har ligesom andre aktører meldt os ind i konkurrencen om det store danske CCS-udbud på 28 milliarder kroner. Vores projekt CopenCapture handler om at fange CO₂ fra det ikoniske affaldsenergianlæg Amager Bakke – også kendt som Copenhill – og lagre det i undergrunden.

Projekter som vores har behov for støtte fra flere kilder. Hvis der investeres mindre fra virksomhederne via kreditter, øges behovet for offentlig støtte – fra nationale puljer, EU mv. Det er uhensigtsmæssigt. Vi har brug for at investere i alle de løsninger, der er behov for – allerede nu.

At fange og lagre CO₂ fra affaldsenergi-anlæg er helt afgørende. Først og fremmest har vi til gode at se strukturelle ændringer i vores forbrug eller ny, banebrydende teknologi, der helt fjerner behovet for at håndtere affald, der hverken kan genbruges eller genanvendes. Her er alternativet at deponere affaldet med de miljø- og klimaeffekter, der er forbundet med dette. Den bedste løsning, vi har, er at miljøbehandle restaffaldet og udnytte restvarmen fra processen til at producere fjernvarme og el til forbrugerne – såkaldt affaldsenergi. Men affaldsenergi indebærer fortsat en markant udfordring: CO₂-udledning.

Affald udgør et globalt miljøproblem. Når virksomheder bidrager økonomisk til udviklingen af CCS, sikrer vi, at teknologien kan modnes, skaleres og gøres mere tilgængelig. Ikke kun i Danmark, men internationalt. Investeringer i CO₂-fangst er ikke et frikort til at fortsætte med at forurene – de er en forudsætning for at udvikle løsninger, der kan reducere de uundgåelige udledninger og bane vejen til at opnå Danmarks klimamål såvel som Paris-aftalen.

ENGLISH VERSION

Without climate credits, it will be difficult to develop advanced climate technology

This opinion piece was published in Finans on April 1, 2024, by the CopenCapture project. The authors are Peter Basche, Director Carbon Value CCU/S at E.ON Energy Projects GmbH, and Jane Egebjerg Andersen, CCO of Energy at ARC.

Is the purchase of voluntary climate credits a viable path for companies that want to contribute to reducing CO₂ emissions across the entire value chain?

The question has become relevant after a report from the international climate standard, SBTI (Science Based Targets initiative), questioned the credibility of the credits – for example, through afforestation and various projects in developing countries.

The debate subsequently led several Danish companies to refuse to buy credits to compensate for their CO₂ emissions. In our view, it is crucial that the debate does not result in it becoming difficult to gain funding for the climate technologies we need to develop and scale as one of many necessary means to mitigate climate change.

The voluntary credits – so-called Carbon Dioxide Removals (CDRs) – are a cornerstone in financing projects for CO₂ capture and storage (CCS), which, in addition to avoiding emissions, also contribute to removing CO₂ from the atmosphere.

We must do what we can to reduce the climate impact at the source and in the companies’ own operations. Without a doubt. And we are working on that ourselves. But in some industries, there are processes that result in CO₂ emissions that are so difficult to avoid that CCS is a necessary tool.

These are very large investments. If fear of the credibility of the credits leads companies to refrain from buying credits from these types of projects, it can result in an increased need for government funding and affect the development of technologies and projects. This is not a hypothetical example.

We – E.ON Energy Projects and ARC – have, like other actors, entered the competition for the large Danish CCS tender of 28 billion kroner. Our project CopenCapture is about capturing CO₂ from the iconic waste-to-energy plant Amager Bakke – also known as Copenhill – and storing it underground. Projects like ours need support from multiple sources. If there is less investment from companies via credits, the need for public funding increases – from national schemes, EU, etc.

This is undesirable. We need to invest in all the solutions that are needed – already now. Capturing and storing CO₂ from waste-to-energy plants is crucial. First and foremost, we have yet to see structural changes in our consumption or new, groundbreaking technology that completely eliminates the need to manage waste that cannot be reused or recycled. The alternative is landfill with the associated environmental and climate effects.

The best solution we have is to treat the residual waste as an environmental problem in a waste-to-energy plant and in return produce energy in the form of district heating and electricity for consumers – so-called waste-to-energy. But waste-to-energy still involves a significant challenge: CO₂ emissions.

Waste constitutes a global environmental problem. When companies contribute financially to the development of CCS, we ensure that the technology can mature, scale, and become more accessible. Not only in Denmark but internationally. Investments in carbon capture and storage are not a free pass to continue polluting – they are a prerequisite for developing solutions that can reduce the unavoidable emissions and pave the way to achieving Denmark’s climate goals as well as the Paris Agreement.