Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation?

Kriegler, Elmar; Edenhofer, Ottmar; Reuster, Lena; Luderer, Gunnar; Klein, David

doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0681-4

Cited by 115 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, while negative emissions might seem more expensive than established mitigation options, including fossil fuel emissions CCS, the mitigation pathways to 2100 excluding negative emissions technologies are all substantially more expensive than the pathways including those technologies 6,14,15 .…”

Section: The Challenges Aheadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Betting on negative emissions

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Challenges Aheadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Betting on negative emissions

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Depending on the development of overall emissions, this may lead to: (1) a global net removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere by offsetting emissions that were released either in the past or in the near future 41 ; or (2) offsetting ongoing emissions from difficult-to-mitigate sources of CO 2 , such as the transportation sector 42,43 , as well as non-CO 2 GHGs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 1 D espite two decades of effort to curb emissions of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), emissions grew faster during the 2000s than in the 1990s 1 , and by 2010 had reached ~50 Gt CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 eq) yr −1 (refs 2,3). The continuing rise in emissions is a growing challenge for meeting the international goal of limiting warming to less than 2 °C relative to the pre-industrial era, particularly without stringent climate policies to decrease emissions in the near future 2-4 . As negative emissions technologies (NETs) seem ever more necessary 3,[5][6][7][8][9][10] To have a >50% chance of limiting warming below 2 °C, most recent scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs) require large-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs). These are technologies that result in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. We quantify potential global impacts of the different NETs on various factors (such as land, greenhouse gas emissions, water, albedo, nutrients and energy) to determine the biophysical limits to, and economic costs of, their widespread application. Resource implications vary between technologies and need to be satisfactorily addressed if NETs are to have a significant role in achieving climate goals.options, to be able to decide which pathways are most desirable for dealing with climate change.There are distinct classes of NETs, such as: (1) bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) 11,12 ; (2) direct air capture of CO 2 from ambient air by engineered chemical reactions (DAC) 13,14 ; (3) enhanced weathering of minerals (EW) 15 , where natural weathering to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere is accelerated and the products stored in soils, or buried in land or deep ocean [16][17][18][19] ; (4) afforestation and reforestation (AR) to fix atmospheric carbon in biomass and soils [20][21][22] ; (5) manipulation of carbon uptake by the ocean, either

show abstract

“…As part of the current debate on the role negative emissions might play in reaching the 2-°C target [6][7][8][9][10][11] , we hereby quantify the trade-off between conventional mitigation and negative emissions in the extended RCP2.6. We use a three-step approach to do so.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C

Gasser¹,

Guivarch²,

Tachiiri³

et al. 2015

Nat Commun

317

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To limit global warming to o2°C we must reduce the net amount of CO 2 we release into the atmosphere, either by producing less CO 2 (conventional mitigation) or by capturing more CO 2 (negative emissions). Here, using state-of-the-art carbon-climate models, we quantify the trade-off between these two options in RCP2.6: an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario likely to limit global warming below 2°C. In our best-case illustrative assumption of conventional mitigation, negative emissions of 0.5-3 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) per year and storage capacity of 50-250 Gt C are required. In our worst case, those requirements are 7-11 Gt C per year and 1,000-1,600 Gt C, respectively. Because these figures have not been shown to be feasible, we conclude that development of negative emission technologies should be accelerated, but also that conventional mitigation must remain a substantial part of any climate policy aiming at the 2-°C target.

show abstract

Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation?

Cited by 115 publications

References 24 publications

Betting on negative emissions

Betting on negative emissions

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About