Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Economy

The U.S. Government Will Pay to Remove Carbon From Atmosphere

The key climate technology lands a big customer.

Vacuuming pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The federal government is preparing to pay companies to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, launching a first-of-its-kind program that could transform the market for the nascent climate technology, according to people familiar with the matter.

The program would mark a global first: Never before has any government paid to remove climate pollution from the atmosphere.

The effort will be managed by the Department of Energy and will initially have a budget in the tens of millions, the people said. It will use one of the government’s most potent tools — its power as a customer — to accelerate a technology that experts say is essential to fighting climate change.

A spokesperson for the Department of Energy declined to comment.

The government has previously used its power as a purchaser to speed up the development of semiconductors, titanium, and — most recently — COVID-19 vaccines. As a piece of industrial strategy, the new program will give the government a lever to shape the market and set standards for the emerging climate technology.

But it could also help establish a precedent that carbon dioxide is a waste product that — like other forms of waste — must sometimes be managed by the public. By a rough estimate, the carbon-removal industry must grow thousands of times larger by the end of this decade in order for the world to hit its climate goals.

Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:

* indicates required
  • The program, which is expected to be announced soon, was quietly approved by Congress last year. The 2023 appropriations law told the Energy Department to “establish a competitive purchasing pilot program for the purchase of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere or upper hydrosphere.”

    The department has been working on the program since then. In February, it requested public input for a plan to provide “demand-side support for clean energy technologies,” including for “carbon dioxide removal.”

    The Bipartisan Policy Center, a centrist think tank, later held a closed-door meeting with companies and nonprofits about how to best design such a program.

    Carbon removal is a rare bright spot for bipartisanship in climate policy. A handful of Republicans and Democrats — including Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, as well as Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Maria Cantell of Washington — have co-sponsored bills that would significantly expand the government’s support for removing carbon from the atmosphere.

    The government has already unveiled powerful programs meant to encourage the industry’s growth. The bipartisan infrastructure law contained $3.5 billion to fund a set of large-scale, industrial facilities that will specialize in scrubbing carbon out of the ambient air. And the Inflation Reduction Act contained a tax credit that compensates companies for every ton of carbon that they inject underground rather than release into the atmosphere.

    The new procurement program would broaden the government’s approach. Unlike pre-existing policies, the new program could support any kind of technology that removes carbon from the air — not just an industrial direct-air-capture facility or a technology that injects carbon underground.

    Some carbon-removal companies, for instance, seek to “remineralize” carbon, turning it into rocks on the Earth’s surface. That technique is not covered by existing subsidies or grants, but it may be covered by the new procurement program.

    The new program would also change how the government interacts with the nascent market. While the government has previously granted money to carbon-removal companies, funded R&D, or subsidized their activities, it has never pledged to buy their services directly.

    Even with the new program, carbon removal will remain one of the trickiest problems in the fight against climate change.

    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, humanity needs carbon removal to become much cheaper and more widely deployed if we are to have any hope of keeping global temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

    Even if humanity reaches that mark, it will still need to bring annual carbon pollution — and the unabated burning of fossil fuels — down to near zero. But carbon removal will also allow humanity to carry on a few so-called hard-to-decarbonize activities, such as chemical production or long-distance air travel, that can’t be done right now without fossil fuels.

    Even so, the math is daunting. Last year, the world removed several thousand tons of carbon at a cost of about $200 to $2,000 per ton, by one estimate.

    But by 2050, the world must remove perhaps 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year if it hopes to maintain its climate goals. Even if the cost of carbon removal were to fall significantly — to, say, just over $100 a ton — the bill would exceed $1 trillion. That is roughly 1 percent of global GDP in 2023.

    Read more about climate technology:

    Climate Tech Hits a Bit of Turbulence

    Blue

    You’re out of free articles.

    Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
    To continue reading
    Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
    or
    Please enter an email address
    By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
    Hotspots

    Fox News Goes After a Solar Farm

    And more of this week’s top renewable energy fights across the country.

    Map of U.S. renewable energy.
    Heatmap Illustration

    1. Otsego County, Michigan – The Mitten State is proving just how hard it can be to build a solar project in wooded areas. Especially once Fox News gets involved.

    • Last week, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources said it wanted to lease more than 400 acres of undeveloped state-owned forestland for part of a much larger RWE Clean Energy solar project near the northern Michigan town of Gaylord.
    • Officials said they were approached by the company about the land. But the news sparked an immediate outcry, as state elected Republicans – and some Democrats – demanded to know why a forest would be cleared for ‘green’ energy. Some called for government firings.
    • Then came the national news coverage. On Friday, Fox News hosted a full four-minute segment focused on this one solar farm featuring iconoclastic activist Michael Shellenberger.
    • A few days later, RWE told the media it would not develop the project on state lands.
    • “[D]uring the development process, we conducted outreach to all landowners adjacent to the project location, including the Michigan Department of Natural Resources,” the company said in a statement to the Petoskey News-Review, adding it instead decided to move forward with leasing property from two private landowners.

    2. Atlantic County, New Jersey – Opponents of offshore wind in Atlantic City are trying to undo an ordinance allowing construction of transmission cables that would connect the Atlantic Shores offshore wind project to the grid.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Policy Watch

    How to Solve a Problem Like a Wind Ban

    And more of this week’s top policy news around renewables.

    Trump.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    1. Trump’s Big Promise – Our nation’s incoming president is now saying he’ll ban all wind projects on Day 1, an expansion of his previous promise to stop only offshore wind.

    • “They litter our country like paper, like dropping garbage in a field,” Trump said at a press conference Tuesday. “We’re going to try and have a policy where no windmills are built.”
    • Is this possible? It would be quite tricky, as the president only has control over the usage of federal lands and waters. While offshore wind falls entirely under the president’s purview, many onshore wind projects themselves fall entirely on state lands.
    • This is where the whole “wind kills birds” argument becomes important. Nearly all wind projects have at least some federal nexus because of wildlife protection laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    • Then there are the cables connecting these projects to the grid and interstate transmission projects that may require approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    • I’m personally doubtful he will actually stop all wind in the U.S., though I do think offshore wind in its entirety is at risk (which I’ve written about). Trump has a habit of conflating things, and in classic fashion, he only spoke at the press conference about offshore wind projects. I think he was only referring to offshore wind, though I’m willing to eat my words.

    2. The Big Nuclear Lawsuit – Texas and Utah are suing to kill the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s authority to license small modular reactors.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Q&A

    Are Anti-Renewables Activists Going Unchallenged?

    A conversation with J. Timmons Roberts, executive director of Brown University’s Climate Social Science Network


    J. Timmons Roberts
    Heatmap Illustration

    This week’s interview is with Brown University professor J. Timmons Roberts. Those of you familiar with the fight over offshore wind may not know Roberts by name, but you’re definitely familiar with his work: He and his students have spearheaded some of the most impactful research conducted on anti-offshore wind opposition networks. This work is a must-read for anyone who wants to best understand how the anti-renewables movement functions and why it may be difficult to stop it from winning out.

    So with Trump 2.0 on the verge of banning offshore wind outright, I decided to ask Roberts what he thinks developers should be paying attention to at this moment. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

    Keep reading...Show less