We conclude that successful implementation of BECCS is likely to require a combination of several of the Policy Models, implemented in a sequential manner. The governmental guarantee model (Model 1) is likely to be required in the shorter term, so as to establish BECCS. Policy Models 2 and 3 may become more influential over time once BECCS has been established and accepted. Model 3 links BECCS to a large carbon-pricing regime with opportunities for cost-effectiveness and expanded financing.
We conclude that Policy Models 4 and 5 are associated with high levels of uncertainty regarding the timing and volume of negative emissions that can be expected—Thus, they are unlikely to trigger BECCS implementation in the short term, although may have roles in the longer term. Based on this study, we recommend that policymakers carefully consider a policy sequencing approach that is predictable and sustainable over time, for which further analyses are required. It is not obvious how such sequencing can be arranged, as the capacities to implement the different Policy Models are vested in different organizations (national governments, EU, private firms).
Furthermore, it is important that a BECCS policy is part of an integrated climate policy framework, in particular one that is in line with policies aimed at the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the creation of a circular economy. It will be important to ensure that BECCS and the associated biomass resource are not overexploited. A well-designed policy package should guarantee that BECCS is neither used to postpone the reduction of fossil fuel-based emissions nor overused in the short term as a niche business for “greenwashing” while not addressing fossil fuel emissions.
