The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the Global Survey Team and do not ne... more The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the Global Survey Team and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), or of the Governments of countries reported on in the Global Survey. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The term 'country' as used in the text of this report refers, as appropriate, to territories or areas. The designations of 'developed' and 'developing' countries are intended for convenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pu... more Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pursuing strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper employs a policy framework of collective biophysical need to examine two broad categories of CDR methods being subsidized and advanced by the United States and other countries: mechanical capture and biological sequestration. Using published data on these methods, we perform a biophysical input-outcome analysis, focusing on the U.S., and compare methods on the basis of three criteria: effectiveness at net carbon removal, efficiency at a climate-relevant scale, and beneficial and adverse co-impacts. Our findings indicate that biological methods have a superior return on resource inputs in comparison to mechanical methods. Biological methods are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those of mechanical methods are negative. Biological methods are also far less expensive. Despite their disadvantages and a track record of failure to date, mechanical CDR methods continue to receive large subsidies from the US government while biological sequestration methods do not. To achieve more optimal CDR outcomes, policymakers should evaluate CDR methods' effectiveness, efficiency, and biophysical co-impacts. We present tools for this purpose.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pu... more Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pursuing strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper employs a policy framework of collective biophysical need to examine two broad categories of CDR methods being subsidized and advanced by the United States and other countries: mechanical capture and biological sequestration. Using published data on these methods, we perform a biophysical input-outcome analysis, focusing on the U.S., and compare methods on the basis of three criteria: effectiveness at net carbon removal, efficiency at a climate-relevant scale, and beneficial and adverse co-impacts. Our findings indicate that biological methods have a superior return on resource inputs in comparison to mechanical methods. Biological methods are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those o...
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pu... more Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pursuing strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper employs a policy framework of collective biophysical need to examine two broad categories of CDR methods being subsidized and advanced by the United States and other countries: mechanical capture and biological sequestration. Using published data on these methods, we perform a biophysical input-outcome analysis, focusing on the U.S., and compare methods on the basis of three criteria: effectiveness at net carbon removal, efficiency at a climate-relevant scale, and beneficial and adverse co-impacts. Our findings indicate that biological methods have a superior return on resource inputs in comparison to mechanical methods. Biological methods are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those of mechanical methods are negative. Biological methods are also far less expensive. Despite their disadvantages and a track record of failure to date, mechanical CDR methods continue to receive large subsidies from the US government while biological sequestration methods do not. To achieve more optimal CDR outcomes, policymakers should evaluate CDR methods' effectiveness, efficiency, and biophysical co-impacts. We present tools for this purpose.
From typhoons to wildfires, as the visible impacts of climate change mount, calls for mitigation ... more From typhoons to wildfires, as the visible impacts of climate change mount, calls for mitigation through carbon drawdown are escalating. Environmentalists and many climatologists are urging steps to enhance biological methods of carbon drawdown and sequestration. Market actors seeing avenues for profit have launched ventures in mechanical–chemical carbon dioxide removal (CDR), seeking government support for their methods. Governments are responding. Given the strong, if often unremarked, momentum of demands for public subsidy of these commercial methods, on what cogent bases can elected leaders make decisions that, first and foremost, meet societal needs? To address this question, we reviewed the scientific and technical literature on CDR, focusing on two methods that have gained most legislative traction: point-source capture and direct air capture–which together we term “industrial carbon removal” (ICR), in contrast to biological methods. We anchored our review in a standard of “c...
After decades of sowing doubt about climate change and its causes, the fossil fuel industry is no... more After decades of sowing doubt about climate change and its causes, the fossil fuel industry is now shifting to a new strategy: presenting itself as the source of solutions. This repositioning includes rebranding itself as a "carbon management industry." This strategic pivot was on display at the Glasgow climate summit and at a Congressional hearing in October 2021, where CEOs of four major oil companies talked about a "lower-carbon future." That future, in their view, would be powered by the fuels they supply and technologies they could deploy to remove the planet-warming CO2 their products emit - provided they get sufficient government support. Rather than placing risky bets on expensive mechanical methods that have a track record of failure and would require decades of development to have any hope of working, there are ways to sequester carbon that build upon the system we already know works: biological sequestration.
This report was prepared at the request of ED>Net, the California Community College Economic Deve... more This report was prepared at the request of ED>Net, the California Community College Economic Development Network. The primary purpose of this study was to learn from other states about revenue streams outside the general fund that could support and promote economic development programs at community colleges, particularly sources of revenue that tie funding more directly to business. A secondary purpose was to gather preliminary information on how other community college systems are measuring the impact of economic development activities on workers and firms. Although the economic development activities of community colleges are broader than workforce development, education and training are the primary focus for most colleges. As such, this study concentrated on employer-focused workforce development programs. In total, this year's investment by states in employer-focused training will probably exceed $600 million. States use a variety of financing mechanisms to fund these programs. This study evaluated some of those that appeared most promising for the California context. They include the following: the Unemployment Insurance training tax; withholding tax diversion; a tax credit program administered by the community colleges; programs that balance credit and non-credit FTE reimbursement; and incentive grants to community colleges to "match" fee-for-service revenue. (JA) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
In this paper I trace the connection between mainstream, market-centric economics and what James ... more In this paper I trace the connection between mainstream, market-centric economics and what James Galbraith has called “the collapse of the public governing capacity.” Marketization and its confederate, privatization, have led, sometimes intentionally, to the evisceration of governmental capacity, the downsizing of democracy and the dismantling of traditions of responsible public administration that are grounded in law and the Constitution.
From typhoons to wildfires, as the visible impacts of climate change mount, calls for mitigation ... more From typhoons to wildfires, as the visible impacts of climate change mount, calls for mitigation through carbon drawdown are escalating. Environmentalists and many climatologists are urging steps to enhance biological methods of carbon drawdown and sequestration. Market actors seeing avenues for profit have launched ventures in mechanical-chemical carbon dioxide removal (CDR), seeking government support for their methods. Governments are responding. Given the strong, if often unremarked, momentum of demands for public subsidy of these commercial methods, on what cogent bases can elected leaders make decisions that, first and foremost, meet societal needs? To address this question, we reviewed the scientific and technical literature on CDR, focusing on two methods that have gained most legislative traction: point-source capture and direct air capture-which together we term "industrial carbon removal" (ICR), in contrast to biological methods. We anchored our review in a standard of "collective biophysical need," which we define as a reduction of the level of atmospheric CO2. For each ICR method, we sought to determine (1) whether it sequesters more CO2 than it emits; (2) its resource usage at scale; and (3) its biophysical impacts. We found that the commercial ICR (C-ICR) methods being incentivized by governments are net CO2 additive: CO2 emissions exceed removals. Further, the literature inadequately addresses the resource usage and biophysical impacts of these methods at climate-significant scale. We concluded that dedicated storage, not sale, of captured CO2 is the only assured way to achieve a reduction of atmospheric CO2. Governments should therefore approach atmospheric carbon reduction as a public service, like water treatment or waste disposal. We offer policy recommendations along this line and call for an analysis tool that aids legislators in applying biophysical considerations to policy choices.
The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the Global Survey Team and do not ne... more The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the Global Survey Team and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), or of the Governments of countries reported on in the Global Survey. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The term 'country' as used in the text of this report refers, as appropriate, to territories or areas. The designations of 'developed' and 'developing' countries are intended for convenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pu... more Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pursuing strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper employs a policy framework of collective biophysical need to examine two broad categories of CDR methods being subsidized and advanced by the United States and other countries: mechanical capture and biological sequestration. Using published data on these methods, we perform a biophysical input-outcome analysis, focusing on the U.S., and compare methods on the basis of three criteria: effectiveness at net carbon removal, efficiency at a climate-relevant scale, and beneficial and adverse co-impacts. Our findings indicate that biological methods have a superior return on resource inputs in comparison to mechanical methods. Biological methods are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those of mechanical methods are negative. Biological methods are also far less expensive. Despite their disadvantages and a track record of failure to date, mechanical CDR methods continue to receive large subsidies from the US government while biological sequestration methods do not. To achieve more optimal CDR outcomes, policymakers should evaluate CDR methods' effectiveness, efficiency, and biophysical co-impacts. We present tools for this purpose.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pu... more Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pursuing strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper employs a policy framework of collective biophysical need to examine two broad categories of CDR methods being subsidized and advanced by the United States and other countries: mechanical capture and biological sequestration. Using published data on these methods, we perform a biophysical input-outcome analysis, focusing on the U.S., and compare methods on the basis of three criteria: effectiveness at net carbon removal, efficiency at a climate-relevant scale, and beneficial and adverse co-impacts. Our findings indicate that biological methods have a superior return on resource inputs in comparison to mechanical methods. Biological methods are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those o...
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pu... more Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pursuing strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper employs a policy framework of collective biophysical need to examine two broad categories of CDR methods being subsidized and advanced by the United States and other countries: mechanical capture and biological sequestration. Using published data on these methods, we perform a biophysical input-outcome analysis, focusing on the U.S., and compare methods on the basis of three criteria: effectiveness at net carbon removal, efficiency at a climate-relevant scale, and beneficial and adverse co-impacts. Our findings indicate that biological methods have a superior return on resource inputs in comparison to mechanical methods. Biological methods are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those of mechanical methods are negative. Biological methods are also far less expensive. Despite their disadvantages and a track record of failure to date, mechanical CDR methods continue to receive large subsidies from the US government while biological sequestration methods do not. To achieve more optimal CDR outcomes, policymakers should evaluate CDR methods' effectiveness, efficiency, and biophysical co-impacts. We present tools for this purpose.
From typhoons to wildfires, as the visible impacts of climate change mount, calls for mitigation ... more From typhoons to wildfires, as the visible impacts of climate change mount, calls for mitigation through carbon drawdown are escalating. Environmentalists and many climatologists are urging steps to enhance biological methods of carbon drawdown and sequestration. Market actors seeing avenues for profit have launched ventures in mechanical–chemical carbon dioxide removal (CDR), seeking government support for their methods. Governments are responding. Given the strong, if often unremarked, momentum of demands for public subsidy of these commercial methods, on what cogent bases can elected leaders make decisions that, first and foremost, meet societal needs? To address this question, we reviewed the scientific and technical literature on CDR, focusing on two methods that have gained most legislative traction: point-source capture and direct air capture–which together we term “industrial carbon removal” (ICR), in contrast to biological methods. We anchored our review in a standard of “c...
After decades of sowing doubt about climate change and its causes, the fossil fuel industry is no... more After decades of sowing doubt about climate change and its causes, the fossil fuel industry is now shifting to a new strategy: presenting itself as the source of solutions. This repositioning includes rebranding itself as a "carbon management industry." This strategic pivot was on display at the Glasgow climate summit and at a Congressional hearing in October 2021, where CEOs of four major oil companies talked about a "lower-carbon future." That future, in their view, would be powered by the fuels they supply and technologies they could deploy to remove the planet-warming CO2 their products emit - provided they get sufficient government support. Rather than placing risky bets on expensive mechanical methods that have a track record of failure and would require decades of development to have any hope of working, there are ways to sequester carbon that build upon the system we already know works: biological sequestration.
This report was prepared at the request of ED>Net, the California Community College Economic Deve... more This report was prepared at the request of ED>Net, the California Community College Economic Development Network. The primary purpose of this study was to learn from other states about revenue streams outside the general fund that could support and promote economic development programs at community colleges, particularly sources of revenue that tie funding more directly to business. A secondary purpose was to gather preliminary information on how other community college systems are measuring the impact of economic development activities on workers and firms. Although the economic development activities of community colleges are broader than workforce development, education and training are the primary focus for most colleges. As such, this study concentrated on employer-focused workforce development programs. In total, this year's investment by states in employer-focused training will probably exceed $600 million. States use a variety of financing mechanisms to fund these programs. This study evaluated some of those that appeared most promising for the California context. They include the following: the Unemployment Insurance training tax; withholding tax diversion; a tax credit program administered by the community colleges; programs that balance credit and non-credit FTE reimbursement; and incentive grants to community colleges to "match" fee-for-service revenue. (JA) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
In this paper I trace the connection between mainstream, market-centric economics and what James ... more In this paper I trace the connection between mainstream, market-centric economics and what James Galbraith has called “the collapse of the public governing capacity.” Marketization and its confederate, privatization, have led, sometimes intentionally, to the evisceration of governmental capacity, the downsizing of democracy and the dismantling of traditions of responsible public administration that are grounded in law and the Constitution.
From typhoons to wildfires, as the visible impacts of climate change mount, calls for mitigation ... more From typhoons to wildfires, as the visible impacts of climate change mount, calls for mitigation through carbon drawdown are escalating. Environmentalists and many climatologists are urging steps to enhance biological methods of carbon drawdown and sequestration. Market actors seeing avenues for profit have launched ventures in mechanical-chemical carbon dioxide removal (CDR), seeking government support for their methods. Governments are responding. Given the strong, if often unremarked, momentum of demands for public subsidy of these commercial methods, on what cogent bases can elected leaders make decisions that, first and foremost, meet societal needs? To address this question, we reviewed the scientific and technical literature on CDR, focusing on two methods that have gained most legislative traction: point-source capture and direct air capture-which together we term "industrial carbon removal" (ICR), in contrast to biological methods. We anchored our review in a standard of "collective biophysical need," which we define as a reduction of the level of atmospheric CO2. For each ICR method, we sought to determine (1) whether it sequesters more CO2 than it emits; (2) its resource usage at scale; and (3) its biophysical impacts. We found that the commercial ICR (C-ICR) methods being incentivized by governments are net CO2 additive: CO2 emissions exceed removals. Further, the literature inadequately addresses the resource usage and biophysical impacts of these methods at climate-significant scale. We concluded that dedicated storage, not sale, of captured CO2 is the only assured way to achieve a reduction of atmospheric CO2. Governments should therefore approach atmospheric carbon reduction as a public service, like water treatment or waste disposal. We offer policy recommendations along this line and call for an analysis tool that aids legislators in applying biophysical considerations to policy choices.
▶ Proposes a new theory of public economics relevant to the realities of modern, democratic natio... more ▶ Proposes a new theory of public economics relevant to the realities of modern, democratic nation states ▶ Illustrates how the public economy differs from the market model and why those differences matter ▶ Integrates work and thought across the disciplines of economics, political science and public administration This Brief proposes a new theory of public economics which deemphasizes reliance on the free market and affirms the importance of public goods and services within the context of the democratic process and constitutional governance. Public non-market production makes up from a quarter to more than half of all economic activity in advanced democratic nation-states. Yet by imposing market precepts on the public domain, as mainstream economics, political science, and public administration do, public governing capacity is weakened and the democratic system suffers. Agencies originally created to meet public needs are being warped into entities whose purpose is to generate revenue and, in some cases, deliver private profits at public expense. Drawing on classic public finance literature, this book illustrates the differences between public economy and the market model and why those differences matter. Building on this, the Brief sketches the elements of a new theory of the public non-market and illuminates its connections to the delegation of power and collective provision of resources from the polity. This book will be useful to scholars of public economics, political science, and public administration as well as policy makers and those working in the public sector.
In the name of “climate mitigation,” governments are promoting policies and legislating subsidies... more In the name of “climate mitigation,” governments are promoting policies and legislating subsidies for technological-industrial “carbon dioxide removal” methods that promote captured carbon dioxide as a salable commodity and that prolong the production of fossil fuels. This paper addresses two questions. First, is there a scientific (biophysical) basis for this course of action? Second, do the methods being promoted remove more CO2 than they emit? We reviewed the scientific literature from a “societal need” perspective, with societal need defined as a net reduction of the stock of atmospheric CO2. Our review showed that commercial industrial carbon removal (ICR) methods emit more CO2 than they remove. Nevertheless, scientific papers justify these methods as “climate mitigation” via their methodological choices and by invoking an unsupportable theoretical economics framework for their analysis. Rather than viewing carbon removal as an opportunity for commercial gain, we find that sequestration, not sale, of captured CO2 is the only assured way that industrial carbon removal can produce a net reduction of atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 reduction should be understood as a societal need, and governments should approach it as a public service, like sewage treatment or waste disposal.
Uploads
Papers by June Sekera