Search

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) plays a central role in scenario pathways that limit global warming in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Yet deliberate policy efforts to incentivise BECCS—whether through amending existing climate policies or introducing entirely new ones—remain rare. In this paper, we contend that BECCS must be incentivised responsibly, through policy-making processes which account for diverse and geographically varying societal values and interests. More specifically, we make the case for responsible incentivisation by undertaking a comparative analysis of stakeholder attitudes to four idealised policy scenarios for BECCS, including representatives of government, business, nongovernmental and academic communities, in the UK and Sweden. The scenarios were: business as usual; international policy reform; national BECCS policy; and national policy for negative emissions technologies. Based on our findings, we recommend that policymakers 1) recognise the need to develop new incentives and make enabling reforms to existing policy instruments; 2) consider the risk of mitigation deterrence in their real world (and not abstracted) contexts; 3) employ multi-instrument approaches to incentivisation that do not overly rely on carbon pricing or 4) force a choice between technology specific or technology neutral policies; and 5) attend to the diversity of stakeholder and wider public perspectives that will ultimately determine the success—or failure—of their policy designs.

Carbon border levies have been suggested as an important tool for ramping up climate action. Such a levy is being negotiated as part of the EU’s Green Deal, with input from public consultations. The success of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will depend on its design and acceptance. While most analyses focus on resistance from the EU’s major external trade partners, this article analyses the views of non-state actors within the EU. Their views will be decisive for the cohesion and determination of the EU as the CBAM proposal encounters external resistance. Examining the views of European business and civil society organizations expressed by 276 respondents in the EU’s public consultation, we show that there is general support for CBAM but divergent views on its purpose and on what to do about the allocation of free allowances in the EU Emissions Trading System, sectoral coverage, exemptions for third countries, export rebates and emissions scope. The success and strength of CBAM will depend on whether the EU is able to resolve these design issues and reach compromises between the opposing views of business and civil society. Graphical Abstract

Biochar-producing cookstoves can supply fuel-efficient heat for cooking in developing countries. The produced biochar can be used as a soil amendment, providing a range of environmental and agronomic benefits and serve to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Despite these advantages, many stove initiatives have not been sustained in the long term, but very little attention has been devoted to understanding the reasons behind this. The present study contributes to filling this knowledge gap, by identifying key factors affecting the level of stove adoption and use, as well as biochar utilization. Based on a follow-up survey of 50 households in northwestern Tanzania that received microgasifier stoves in 2015, only 12 still made use of their stove 5 years later. One of the main reasons for this relates to the inadequate quality of stove material. Declining or inconsistent availability of feedstocks was also identified as a major challenge. Furthermore, the households generally did not embrace the idea of amending soils with biochar, due to a combination of local practices and perceptions, and a lack of education and awareness programs. We conclude that, under the conditions of the studied project, three factors are required to scale dissemination: improvement of the stove design, provision of training programs on biochar management and subsidies or microloans that would make more durable stoves affordable. Sustained stove deployment can only be achievable by institutionalizing financing structures that are independent from short-term grant-based initiatives. Funding: Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (Formas) within the National Research Programme on Climate "Visions and Conditions for a Fossil-Free Welfare Society" [2019-01973]; Swedish Research Council (VR) through the Swedish Government [2016-06359]; Sida through the Swedish Government [2016-06359] LUNETs

Carbon capture and storage (CCS), including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), could contribute to climate change mitigation strategies. However, the 2020s is not the first time that CCS is high on the agenda. This study explores the differences between the past and current developments of CCS and discusses how incumbent actors' experiences can inform the understanding of potential future energy system transitions in Sweden. For this purpose, a multi-level perspective (MLP) analysis was conducted based on documents, in- terviews and focus groups with key actors. Since the 2000s, increased urgency of climate change has further pushed policy makers into action. In addition, there is a new framing of CCS that underscores the potential of BECCS to provide negative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as well as prospects for offshore storage of CO2 in Norway and other territories. As such, this study shows that Sweden could be on a transformation pathway towards implementing CCS alongside other mitigation measures. Funding: Swedish Energy AgencySwedish Energy AgencyMaterials & Energy Research Center (MERC) [46036-1]; Swedish Energy Agency research program "Humans, energy systems and society" (MESAM) [46222-1]; Industrial Leap Fund [51569-1]; Swedish Research Council FormasSwedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council Formas [2016-00958]; Swedish governmental initiative StandUp for Energy

The expectation that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will play a crucial role in the climate transition is starting to gain traction in policy. An increasing number of countries are expanding their CDR policies, from specification of objectives (via elimination of regulatory obstacles) to market development. Among the many CDR options, sustainably sourced bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is often cited as having the greatest theoretical potential. Unlocking this potential will necessitate new and robust economic incentives. However, at present, there is a serious gap between actual policy and the required incentive structures, and developing these policies in a responsible way will likely take many years. To get BECCS started sooner than it otherwise might, we argue that an interim policy for allowing BECCS to mature would help identify potential trade-offs or pitfalls, and would help test how firms react to incentives for CDR before rolling our large scale international incentive structures. In this Perspectives article, we provide an insight into the current status of BECCS and CDR policy based on interviews with key policy makers and experts. We also provide a special insight into Sweden’s development of interim policy that takes the form of a reverse auction. Funding: Open access funding provided by Linköping University. This work was supported by Energimyndigheten (the Swedish Energy Agency, Grant Number 51569-1), and the Swedish Research Council Formas (Grant Numbers 2019-01973 and 2019-01993).

This perspective paper illustrates that the critical debate regarding geological storage of carbon dioxide has been discursively marginalised in recent years. However, two crucial factors make it reasonable to assume that significant storage-related uncertainties and challenges still exist. Firstly, experiences of geological storage are primarily related to enhanced oil recovery. Secondly, recent assessments indicate a doubling of the required quantity compared to what was envisioned back in 2005. Therefore, there seems to be a contradiction: as the visions of geological carbon dioxide storage have grown increasingly ambitious, the risks and challenges associated with storage have been marginalised. The paper suggests geological storage should become a topic of concern for critical social science and concludes with a reflection on five tentative explanations to the discursive marginalisation: 1) Increasing experience and knowledge have resulted in reduced risks; 2) The climate crisis and urgency have supported a broader acceptance of controversial mitigation options; 3) A shifting focus from fossil fuels with CCS to bioenergy with CCS has introduced new and salient problems that make storage-related challenges seem relatively less significant; 4) Coupling CCS to bioenergy has disarmed critics that primarily argue against prolongation of the fossil fuel era, and finally 5) Familiarisation and normalisation processes. Funding: Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (Formas) within the National Research Programme on Climate "Visions and Conditions for a Fossil-Free Welfare Society" [2019-01973]; Seedbox-A Mistra-Formas Environmental Humanities Collaboratory

Recent demands by developing countries, like India, that developed countries need to reach net-negative emissions, must be negotiated seriously under the UNFCCC. Failure to acknowledge that limiting global average temperature rise to 1.5°C leaves very little carbon budget for equitable redistribution risks further ambiguity on how to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals.

Most mitigation scenarios compatible with a likely change of holding global warming well below 2 °C rely on negative emissions technologies (NETs). According to the integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to produce mitigation scenarios for the IPCC reports, the NET with the greatest potential to achieve negative emissions is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Crucial questions arise about where the enormous quantities of biomass needed according to the IAM scenarios could feasibly be produced in a sustainable manner. Africa is attractive in the context of BECCS because of large areas that could contribute biomass energy and indications of substantial underground CO2 storage capacities. However, estimates of large biomass availability in Africa are usually based on highly aggregated datasets, and only a few studies explore future challenges or barriers for BECCS in any detail. Based on previous research and literature, this paper analyses the pre-conditions for BECCS in Tanzania by studying what we argue are the applications of BECCS, or the components of the BECCS chain, that are most feasible in the country, namely (1) as applied to domestic sugarcane-based energy production (bioethanol), and (2) with Tanzania in a producer and re-growth role in an international BECCS chain, supplying biomass or biofuels for export to developed countries. The review reveals that a prerequisite for both options is either the existence of a functional market for emissions trading and selling, making negative emissions a viable commercial investment, or sustained investment through aid programmes. Also, historically, an important barrier to the development of production capacity of liquid biofuels for export purposes has been given by ethical dilemmas following in the wake of demand for land to facilitate production of biomass, such as sugarcane and jatropha. In these cases, conflicts over access to land and mismanagement have been more of a rule than an exception. Increased production volumes of solid biomass for export to operations that demand bioenergy, be it with or without a CCS component, is likely to give rise to similar conflicts. While BECCS may well play an important role in reducing emissions in countries with high capacity to act combined with existing large point sources of biogenic CO2 emissions, it seems prudent to proceed with utmost caution when implicating BECCS deployment in least developed countries, like Tanzania.The paper argues that negative BECCS-related emissions from Tanzania should not be assumed in global climate mitigation scenarios. Funding agencies: Linkoping University; Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council; Sida through the Swedish Governments development aid funds; Formas and Fortes research appropriations (Sustainability and Resilience - Tackling Climate and Environmental Changes) [201 LUNETs

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, spurred by the 2018 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, net zero emission targets have emerged as a new organizing principle of climate policy. In this context, climate policymakers and stakeholders have been shifting their attention to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as an inevitable component of net zero targets. The importance of CDR would increase further if countries and other entities set net-negative emissions targets. The scientific literature on CDR governance and policy is still rather scarce, with empirical case studies and comparisons largely missing. Based on an analytical framework that draws on the multi-level perspective of sociotechnical transitions as well as existing work on CDR governance, we gathered and assessed empirical material until early 2021 from 9 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) cases: the European Union and three of its Member States (Ireland, Germany, and Sweden), Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Based on a synthesis of differences and commonalities, we propose a tripartite conceptual typology of the varieties of CDR policymaking: (1) incremental modification of existing national policy mixes, (2) early integration of CDR policy that treats emission reductions and removals as fungible, and (3) proactive CDR policy entrepreneurship with support for niche development. Although these types do not necessarily cover all dimensions relevant for CDR policy and are based on a limited set of cases, the conceptual typology might spur future comparative work as well as more fine-grained case-studies on established and emerging CDR policies.

Paris Agreement-compatible emissions pathways produced by integrated assessment models (IAMs) often rely on large amounts of carbon dioxide removals, especially afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). These pathways feature prominently in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to the extent that the IAMs have been granted an interpretative privilege at the interface between climate science, economics, and policymaking. The privilege extends to and influences climate governance, including governance of BECCS. This paper contributes to recent debates about the role of the IPCC, and its framing of BECCS, at the science-policy interface. By analyzing all BECCS-related expert review comments and author responses on the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the paper shows that boundary work influences the representation of BECCS by authors referring to: (1) a limited scope or capacity; (2) a restrictive mandate; (3) what constitutes legitimate science, and; (4) relativizing uncertainties. The responses to the review comments indicate a significant degree of compliance on behalf of the authors. Yet, the revisions do not seem to go to the heart of the unease that runs through many of the reviewer comments, i.e., that BECCS seems to be presented as a viable CDR technology at grand scale. While several revisions serve to clarify uncertainties surrounding BECCS, some fundamental aspects of the critique are deflected, through the boundary work identified. What the analysis reveals, beyond a dissatisfaction among many reviewers with the focus on integrated assessment modeling, the associated pathway literature, and analysis of BECCS, is a disagreement about how model results should be interpreted and communicated. While acknowledging the herculean task of the IPCC and the efforts to improve the pathway literature that the SR1.5 triggered within the IAM communities, we argue that the identified boundary work also risks entrenching rather than problematize dominant framings of the feasibility of BECCS. Such entrenchment can counteract the ambition of opening up the scientific work of the IPCC to include more diversity in the process of drafting reports, and arguably also influence the governance of CDR.

In one of the central scenarios for meeting an European Union-wide net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target by 2050, the emissions cap in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) becomes net negative. Despite this ambition, no mechanism allows for the inclusion of CO2 removal credits (CRCs) in the EU ETS to date. Amending the EU ETS legislation is required to create enabling conditions for a net negative cap. Here, we conceptually discuss various economic, legal, and political challenges surrounding the integration of CRCs into the EU ETS. To analyze cap-and-trade systems encompassing negative emissions, we introduce the effective (elastic) cap resulting from the integration of CRCs in addition to the regulatory (inelastic) cap, the latter now being binding for the net emissions only. Given current cost estimates for BECCS and DACCS, minimum quantities for the use of removals, as opposed to ceilings as currently discussed, would be required to promote the near-term integration of such technologies. Instead of direct interaction between the companies involved in emissions trading and the providers of CRCs, the regulatory authority could also transitionally act as an intermediary by buying CRCs and supplying them in turn conditional upon observed allowances prices, for example, by supporting a (soft) price collar. Contrary to a price collar without dedicated support from CRCs, in this case (net) compliance with the overall cap is maintained. EU legislation already provides safeguards for physical carbon leakage concerning CCS, making Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Capture and Storage prioritized for inclusion in the EU ETS. Furthermore, a special opportunity might apply for the inclusion of BECCS installations. Repealing the provision that installations exclusively using biomass are not covered by the ETS Directive, combined with freely allocated allowances to these installations, would allow operators of biomass installations to sell allowances made available through the use of BECCS. Achieving GHG neutrality in the EU by 2050 requires designing suitable incentive systems for CO2 removal, which includes the option to open up EU emissions trading to CRCs.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology for mitigating emissions from large point‐source industries. In addition to the primary role of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, CCS forms the basis for two large‐scale negative emissions technologies by coupling geologic CO2 storage with bioenergy (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture (DACCS). Despite its inclusion within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), CCS has been largely unsupported by UNFCCC delegates because of its association with fossil fuels. We evaluate data from surveys given since 2015 to UNFCCC delegates at the Conference of the Parties (COPs) to ascertain how attitudes about bioenergy, BECCS, and CCS may be changing within the UNFCCC. The results show a positive change in attitudes over time for both fossil CCS and BECCS. Using a unique data analysis method, we ascertain that, in some instances, popularity of BECCS increased due to an increased acceptance of CCS despite lower opinions of bioenergy. Business and research NGOs have the most positive views of CCS, and environmental NGOs the most negative views. Delegates that attend CCS side‐events have more positive attitudes towards CCS than nonattendees. Developing countries have a larger need and a greater appetite for information on BECCS than developed countries, but a need for information exists in both. Funding agencies: This research was funded by Energimyndigheten, grant number 51200-1, Vetenskapsradet, grant number 2016-06359, Svenska Forskningsradet Formas, grant no. 2019-01973, the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme and the Gulf Coast Carbon Center of the Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of Texas at Austin. The APC was funded by the Gulf Coast Carbon Center.

Using policy cycle model as a heuristic, this article studies Indian, Brazilian, and South African engagement with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) by (a) comparing NAMA policy process and (b) identifying factors driving or limiting the framework’s domestic application. India largely remained uninterested in NAMAs, Brazil aligned its domestic climate policy and NAMAs, while South Africa had a more nuanced engagement when formulating NAMAs. Four factors influenced these countries’ NAMA engagements: the level and necessity of international support, the availability of domestic policy provisions to tackle climate change, the domestic institutional capacity to coordinate interministerial functioning, and the role of individuals in the institutional apparatus. As an international climate policy framework, studying NAMA engagement provides learnings for nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement for designing the instrument, ensuring clarity on support provisions for ratcheting up ambitions, and enhancing institutional capacity, to expedite transition from policy formulation to implementation and beyond.

Fulfilling the UN Paris Agreement on climate change requires societal change at transformational scales, with associated challenges that are intensified in developing countries. In this context, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) – a key instrument in support of developing countries’ climate actions – are promoted for their high theoretical transformative potential. However, little is known of how NAMAs are related to transformation in practice. This article studies how developing countries intend to use the instrument to implement climate actions and whether these intentions are related to how transformation can be spurred at landscape, regime, and niche levels. 144 developing countries’ Intended Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement are examined alongside 17 representative NAMA proposals. Although there is scope to improve consideration of the instrument’s theoretically high transformative potential in actual design, current practices indicate that spurring transformational change is already a high priority of NAMA designers. Funding agencies: Swedish Energy Agency [P35462-2] GovNAMAs

Biochar was recently included as a promising negative emissions technology (NET) in theSpecial Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C published by the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Unlike other NETs, it can potentially be used to mitigate global climatechange while adding to local resilience in countries highly exposed and sensitive toimpacts of climate change, such as least-developed countries (LDCs). The study is as anempirical contribution to the, as of yet, underdeveloped literature on deployment of negativeemissions technologies in LDCs in general and on biochar use in developing countriesand LDCs specifically. Nine historical and existing biochar projects in Tanzania aremapped in order to analyse problems, goals and common trade-offs associated with smalltomedium-scale biochar production in LDCs. The mapping is based on a literature anddocument study, interviews with project actors, and on-site visits to biochar projects during2019. The paper gives support to the observation made in the biochar literature thatwhile biochar has many potential socio-economic and environmental benefits, combiningthem in one single project is difficult. It is concluded that implementing biochar projects inTanzania will likely involve trade-offs between the development and subsistence strategiesand needs of local communities, the motivational forces of different project participants,and the uneven regulatory capacity of the state. We end by reflecting on the use of biocharprojects to offset carbon emissions made elsewhere. Funding agencies: Linkoping University; Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council; Sida through the Swedish Governments development aid funds; FormasSwedish Research Council Formas [2016-06359]; Forte [2016-06359] LUNETs Motstridiga ambitioner för användning av biomassa - Sverige, Tanzania och världen

Biomass can help reaching climate goals in many sectors. In electricity generation it can complement variable renewables or, if coupled with carbon capture and storage (CCS), also provide negative emissions. This paper adds to the existing literature by focusing on the cost-efficiency of balancing variable renewables with biomass and by providing an indication on acceptance of these technologies. A dynamic optimization model is used to analyse the role of biomass in the European electricity system pending different emission targets for 2050. The results are compared with survey data on investment preferences for biomass technologies, and wind and solar power. The formulation of the emission target greatly influences the cost-efficient use of biomass, with more concentrated use observed, if bioenergy with CCS is allowed. This indicates that a Europe-wide emission target could be more cost-efficient than separate national targets. Both governmental and nongovernmental actors tend to be negative towards investing in biomass technologies, although with greater variation if combined with CCS, indicating possible challenges for implementation. Their attitudes towards wind and solar power are much more positive in all countries, supporting the continuation of the existing trend of an increasing share of variable renewables in the European electricity system. Funding agencies: Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial PlanningSwedish Research Council Formas [2016-00958, 2012-705]; Area of Advance Energy at Chalmers University of Technology; Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council [2016

Sweden and Finland have national goals to reach net negative greenhouse gas emissions before mid-century. Achieving these ambitious goals could employ negative emission technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, but it is unclear how this technology could be realized in an energy transition. Sweden and Finland stand out for having a large share of substantial point source emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide, in the production of pulp, heat and power. In the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, Sweden and Finland reported 64% and 51% biogenic emissions, respectively, in facilities emitting over 100 kt of carbon dioxide in 2017, while the corresponding collective figure for all European states in the database is 6%. This qualitative study highlights company actors’ perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage within a Nordic regional context and explores their perspective on emerging tensions in the energy transition. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 of the 24 companies with the largest point sources of biogenic emissions. The results are framed around four emerging tensions regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage from companies’ perspectives in this study: (1) absence of reliable long-term policies; (2) limits to companies’ climate change responsibility; (3) technical trade-offs of carbon capture; and (4) lack of customer demands for negative emissions. According to most of the companies, it is technically feasible to capture carbon dioxide, but it could be a challenge to determine who is responsible to create a financially viable business case, to enact supporting policies, and to build transport and storage infrastructure. Company representatives argue that they already contribute to a sustainable society, therefore bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is not their priority without government collaboration. However, they are willing to contribute more and could have an increasing role towards an energy transition in an international context. Funding agencies: The work has been carried out within the scope of the Graduate School in Energy Systems and MESAM, financed by the Swedish Energy Agency under the project, 'An integrative systems approach to a carbon neutral industry'. This research was supported by the Swedish Energy Agency [grants 46222-1 and 46036-1]; Formas - The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning [grant 2016-00958]; and the Swedish Research Council [grant 2016-06359]. We would also like to thank the company representatives who participated in this study, extend appreciation to colleagues who contributed feedback on the text, and thank the Linkoping University Library for covering the costs to make this article open access.

The market potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) depends both on demand for and the cost of BECCS. In making investment decisions, capital as well as operational expenditure is weighed against potential revenues. As BECCS is providing no added value but mitigation, revenues are pending policy instruments capable of providing a market pull for BECCS or an ability to develop a premium market segment encouraging voluntary customer compensation. While the cost side of BECCS has been studied substantially, little is known of sociopolitical factors such as acceptance and political prioritization. This chapter explores questionnaire data from UN climate change conferences from before and after the conclusion of the Paris Agreement in 2015. A total of 2547 completed questionnaires are analyzed to explore if the views on BECCS as a mitigation technology has changed with increasing attention given to negative emission technologies following in the wake of the Paris Agreement. The chapter overall concludes that BECCS is prioritized low for investments both pre and post-Paris. Put in context of the lack of a global collective mitigation ambition, this is pointing toward a moral dilemma. The moral hazard of avoiding radical mitigation action today on the basis of trust in future deployment of BECCS is exacerbated if followed by a lack of interest in investing in BECCS.

Finance is at the heart of UN climate diplomacy. Through the long-term finance pledge, developed countries have committed to mobilize USD 100 billion annually from 2020 onwards to support climate action in developing countries. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is also expected to become a key player in the climate finance landscape. This viewpoint presents the views of representatives of developed and developing countries’ governments on how the annual sum of USD 100 billion should be dispensed by the GCF, based on a survey conducted at the 2013 UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw. Respondents’ give their views on (1) the mitigation/adaptation ratio in GCF support and (2) the public/private ratio in financial sources. Respondents from developing countries would prefer to channel a substantially higher amount of the long-term finance pledge through the GCF. The extent to which the long-term finance pledge should be governed by the GCF is contentious, because governments pledge long-term finance without specifying the mitigation/adaptation ratio, whereas the GCF Board is tasked with balancing the allocation of its funds between adaptation and mitigation. This contention is fuelled by the fact that developing countries have a greater say in the allocation of funds from the GCF than from alternative sources of finance for the long-term finance pledge. We suggest that it is time to (1) reformulate the pledge to clarify its mitigation/adaptation ratio and (2) agree to definitions of key concepts such as “climate finance” and “private finance” to allow for more distinct negotiating positions on sources of finance. GovNAMAs

Limiting global warming to well below 2 °C requires the transformation of the global energy system at a scale unprecedented since the industrial revolution. To meet this 2 °C goal, 87% of integrated assessment models opt for using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Without BECCS, the models predict that the goal will be either unachievable or substantially more costly to meet. While the modeling literature is extensive, studies of how key climate policy actors perceive and prioritize BECCS are sparse. This article provides a unique intercontinental mapping of the prioritization of BECCS for the long term transition of the electricity supply sector. Based on survey responses from 711 UN climate change conference delegates, the article reports the low prioritization of BECCS relative to alternative technologies, indicating an urgent need for studies of the socio-political preconditions for large-scale BECCS deployment. Funding agencies: Swedish Energy Agency [42390-1]; Swedish Research Council VR [2016-06359]; Swedish Research Council Formas [2012-725, 2016-00958] Premises for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in the global response to climate change

In context of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, developing countries are asked to contribute to greenhouse gas control objectives by proposing so-called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Although the concept provides developing countries with complete flexibility to design NAMAs, a majority of proposals seek international support. This article improves our understanding of the matching of NAMA design and international support by exploring (mis-) alignment between support providers' and NAMA developers' prioritization for NAMAs. The article assesses survey responses from support providers in light of records of NAMAs. We conclude that there is a mismatch between support providers' primary emphasis on systems for measuring emissions reductions and the lack of such provisions in existing NAMA proposals. Furthermore, sector preferences may create structural biases in NAMA support.

1. Introduction: How and why to deconstruct the greenhouse Chris Methmann, Delf Rothe and Benjamin Stephan 2. Discursive Interplay and Co-constitution: Carbonification of Environmental Discourses Aysem Mert Part I: The Economization of Climate Change 3. Climate Politics as Investment: Understanding Discourse through Governmental Practice Simon Wolf 4. How to Trade 'Not Cutting Down Trees': A Governmentality Perspective on the Commodification of Avoided Deforestation Benjamin Stephan 5. Interpretive Openness and Climate Action in an Age of Market Environmentalism Larry Lohmann Part II: The Securitization of Climate Change 6. Climate Chains: Neo-Malthusianism, Militarism and Migration Betsy Hartmann 7. Apocalypse Now (And Then)! From Exceptional Rhetorics to Risk Management in Global Climate Politics Chris Methmann and Delf Rothe 8. (In)Convenient Convergences: 'Climate Refugees', apocalyptic discourses and the depoliticization of climate induced migration Giovanni Bettini Part III: The Technocratization of Climate Change 9. My Space: Governing Individuals' Carbon Emissions Matthew Paterson and Johannes Stripple 10. Governing Knowledge Through START and the Expansion of Global Environmental Change Research Ola Uhrqvist 11. Climate Engineering: Spectacle, Tragedy or Solution? A Content Analysis of News Media Framing Holly Jean Buck Part IV: Between De- and Repoliticisation 12. White Ponchos Dripping Away? Glacier Narratives in Bolivian Climate Change Discourse Anna Kaijser 13. 'Climate Justice', 'Green Economy' or 'a one planet lifestyle' -Hegemonic Narratives in Transnational NGOs and Social Movements Philip T. Bedall 14. Building Legitimacy: Consensus and Conflict over Historic Responsibility for Climate Change Mathias Friman 15. Democratizing the Global Climate Regime John S. Dryzek and Hayley Stevenson 16. Reflections Chris Methmann, Delf Rothe and Benjamin Stephan

Chapter 6 (“Multilevel Policy Incentives for BECCS in Sweden”) builds on the high potential for BECCS in Sweden identified in chapter 4, summarizing the current policy incentives for BECCS research, development, demonstration,and diffusion (RDD&D). It examines the given policy drivers and obstacles at multiple scales (e.g., international, supranational, and national) and in terms of various forms of instruments (e.g., economic, regulatory, and informational). The chapter concludes that current policy instruments mostly fail to incentivize BECCS RDD&D in Sweden. The instruments partly favor R&D yet fail to provide incentives covering operational costs. Under current circumstances, BECCS is unlikely to reach demonstration scale in Sweden.