Carbon dioxide removal

This article is about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For technologies that remove carbon dioxide from point sources, see Carbon capture and storage.

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), also known as carbon removal, greenhouse gas removal (GGR) or negative emissions, is a process in which carbon dioxide gas (CO₂) is removed from the atmosphere by deliberate human activities and durably stored in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.^[3]: 2221 In the context of net zero greenhouse gas emissions targets,^[4] CDR is increasingly integrated into climate policy, as an element of climate change mitigation strategies.^[5] Achieving net zero emissions will require both deep cuts in emissions and the use of CDR, but CDR is not a current climate solution.^[6] In the future, CDR may be able to counterbalance emissions that are technically difficult to eliminate, such as some agricultural and industrial emissions.^[7]: 114

Planting trees is a nature-based way to temporarily remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.^[1][2]

CDR methods include afforestation, reforestation, agricultural practices that sequester carbon in soils (carbon farming), wetland restoration and blue carbon approaches, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), ocean fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement,^[8] and direct air capture when combined with storage,^[9]: 115 To assess whether negative emissions are achieved by a particular process, comprehensive life cycle analysis and monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) of the process must be performed.^[10]

As of 2023, CDR is estimated to remove around 2 gigatons of CO₂ per year,^[11] which is equivalent to 4% of the greenhouse gases emitted per year by human activities.^[12]: 8. Equitable allocation of CDR suggest countries remove 17% of their residual emissions in 2040 to achieve 1.5℃ goal.^[13] However, there is significant uncertainty around this number because there is no established or accurate method of quantifying the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere. There is potential to remove and sequester up to 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year by using those existing CDR methods which can be safely and economically deployed now.^[12]

Definitions

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is defined by the IPCC as:

Anthropogenic activities removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture and storage, but excludes natural CO₂ uptake not directly caused by human activities.^[3]: 2221

Synonyms for CDR include greenhouse gas removal (GGR),^[14] negative emissions technology,^[12] and carbon removal.^[15] Technologies have been proposed for removing non-CO₂ greenhouse gases such as methane from the atmosphere,^[16] but only carbon dioxide is currently feasible to remove at scale.^[14] Therefore, in most contexts, greenhouse gas removal means carbon dioxide removal.

The term geoengineering (or climate engineering) is sometimes used in the scientific literature for both CDR or SRM (solar radiation management), if the techniques are used at a global scale.^{[17]: 6–11} The terms geoengineering or climate engineering are no longer used in IPCC reports.^[3]

Categories

CDR methods can be placed in different categories that are based on different criteria:^[9]: 114

• Role in the carbon cycle (land-based biological; ocean-based biological; geochemical; chemical); or
• Timescale of storage (decades to centuries; centuries to millennia; thousand years or longer)

Concepts using similar terminology

CDR can be confused with carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process in which carbon dioxide is collected from point-sources such as gas-fired power plants, whose smokestacks emit CO₂ in a concentrated stream. The CO₂ is then compressed and sequestered or utilized.^[18] When used to sequester the carbon from a gas-fired power plant, CCS reduces emissions from continued use of the point source, but does not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

Role in climate change mitigation

Use of CDR reduces the overall rate at which humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.^[7]: 114 The Earth's surface temperature will stabilize only after global emissions have been reduced to net zero,^[19] which will require both aggressive efforts to reduce emissions and deployment of CDR.^[7]: 114 It is not feasible to bring net emissions to zero without CDR as certain types of emissions are technically difficult to eliminate.^[7]: 1261 Emissions that are difficult to eliminate include nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture,^[7]: 114 aviation emissions,^[12]: 3 and some industrial emissions.^[7]: 114 In climate change mitigation strategies, the use of CDR counterbalances those emissions.^[7]: 114

After net zero emissions have been achieved, CDR could be used to reduce atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, which could partially reverse the warming that has already occurred by that date.^[7] All emission pathways that limit global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C by the year 2100 assume the use of CDR in combination with emission reductions.^[20][21]

Reliance on large-scale deployment of CDR was regarded in 2018 as a "major risk" to achieving the goal of less than 1.5 °C of warming, given the uncertainties in how quickly CDR can be deployed at scale.^[22] Strategies for mitigating climate change that rely less on CDR and more on sustainable use of energy carry less of this risk.^[22][23] The possibility of large-scale future CDR deployment has been described as a moral hazard, as it could lead to a reduction in near-term efforts to mitigate climate change.^{[21]: 124 [12]} The 2019 NASEM report concludes:

Any argument to delay mitigation efforts because NETs will provide a backstop drastically misrepresents their current capacities and the likely pace of research progress.^[12]

When CDR is framed as a form of climate engineering, people tend to view it as intrinsically risky.^{[12][need quotation to verify]} In fact, CDR addresses the root cause of climate change and is part of strategies to reduce net emissions and manage risks related to elevated atmospheric CO₂ levels.^{[need quotation to verify][24][25]}

Permanence

Forests, kelp beds, and other forms of plant life absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, and bind it into biomass. However, these biological stores are considered volatile carbon sinks as the long-term sequestration cannot be guaranteed. For example, natural events, such as wildfires or disease, economic pressures and changing political priorities can result in the sequestered carbon being released back into the atmosphere.^[26]

Biomass, such as trees, can directly stored into the Earth's subsurface.^[27] Furthermore carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere can be stored in the Earth's crust by injecting it into the subsurface, or in the form of insoluble carbonate salts. This is because they are removing carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it indefinitely and presumably for a considerable duration (thousands to millions of years).

Current and potential scale

As of 2023, CDR is estimated to remove about 2 gigatons of CO₂ per year, almost entirely by low-tech methods like reforestation and the creation of new forests.^[11] This is equivalent to 4% of the greenhouse gases emitted per year by human activities.^[12]: 8 A 2019 consensus study report by NASEM assessed the potential of all forms of CDR other than ocean fertilization that could be deployed safely and economically using current technologies, and estimated that they could remove up to 10 gigatons of CO₂ per year if fully deployed worldwide.^[12] In 2018, all analyzed mitigation pathways that would prevent more than 1.5 °C of warming included CDR measures.^[22]

Some mitigation pathways propose achieving higher rates of CDR through massive deployment of one technology, however these pathways assume that hundreds of millions of hectares of cropland are converted to growing biofuel crops.^[12] Further research in the areas of direct air capture, geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, and carbon mineralization could potentially yield technological advancements that make higher rates of CDR economically feasible.^[12]

Methods

Overview listing based on technology readiness level

The following is a list of known CDR methods in the order of their technology readiness level (TRL). The ones at the top have a high TRL of 8 to 9 (9 being the maximum possible value, meaning the technology is proven), the ones at the bottom have a low TRL of 1 to 2, meaning the technology is not proven or only validated at laboratory scale.^[9]: 115

1. Afforestation/ reforestation
2. Soil carbon sequestration in croplands and grasslands
3. Peatland and coastal wetland restoration
4. Agroforestry, improved forest management
5. Biochar carbon removal (BCR)
6. Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
7. Enhanced weathering (alkalinity enhancement)
8. 'Blue carbon management' in coastal wetlands (restoration of vegetated coastal ecosystems; an ocean-based biological CDR method which encompasses mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass beds)
9. Ocean fertilisation, ocean alkalinity enhancement that amplifies the Oceanic carbon cycle

The CDR methods with the greatest potential to contribute to climate change mitigation efforts as per illustrative mitigation pathways are the land-based biological CDR methods (primarily afforestation/reforestation (A/R)) and/or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Some of the pathways also include direct air capture and storage (DACCS).^[9]: 114

Afforestation, reforestation, and forestry management

Trees use photosynthesis to absorb carbon dioxide and store the carbon in wood and soils.^[15] Afforestation is the establishment of a forest in an area where there was previously no forest.^[7]: 1794 Reforestation is the re-establishment of a forest that has been previously cleared.^[7]: 1812 Forests are vital for human society, animals and plant species. This is because trees keep air clean, regulate the local climate and provide a habitat for numerous species.^[28]

As trees grow they absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it in living biomass, dead organic matter and soils. Afforestation and reforestation – sometimes referred to collectively as 'forestation' – facilitate this process of carbon removal by establishing or re-establishing forest areas. It takes forests approximately 10 years to ramp- up to the maximum sequestration rate.^{[29]: 26–28}

Depending on the species, the trees will reach maturity after around 20 to 100 years, after which they store carbon but do not actively remove it from the atmosphere.^{[29]: 26–28} Carbon can be stored in forests indefinitely, but the storage can also be much more short-lived as trees are vulnerable to being cut, burned, or killed by disease or drought.^{[29]: 26–28} Once mature, forest products can be harvested and the biomass stored in long-lived wood products, or used for bioenergy or biochar. Consequent forest regrowth then allows continuing CO₂ removal.^{[29]: 26–28}

Risks to deployment of new forest include the availability of land, competition with other land uses, and the comparatively long time from planting to maturity.^{[29]: 26–28}

Agricultural practices

Carbon farming is a name for a variety of agricultural methods aimed at sequestering atmospheric carbon into the soil and in crop roots, wood and leaves. Increasing a soil's organic matter content can aid plant growth, increase total carbon content, improve soil water retention capacity^[30] and reduce fertilizer use.^[31] Carbon farming methods will typically have a cost, meaning farmers and land-owners need a way to profit from the use of carbon farming, thus requiring government programs.^[32]

Bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS)

This section is an excerpt from Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.[edit]

 

Diagram-of-Bioenergie power plant with carbon capture and storage (cropped).jpg (description page)

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the process of extracting bioenergy from biomass and capturing and storing the carbon, thereby removing it from the atmosphere.^[33] BECCS can theoretically be a "negative emissions technology" (NET),^[34] although its deployment at the scale considered by many governments and industries can "also pose major economic, technological, and social feasibility challenges; threaten food security and human rights; and risk overstepping multiple planetary boundaries, with potentially irreversible consequences".^[35] The carbon in the biomass comes from the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO₂) which is extracted from the atmosphere by the biomass when it grows. Energy ("bioenergy") is extracted in useful forms (electricity, heat, biofuels, etc.) as the biomass is utilized through combustion, fermentation, pyrolysis or other conversion methods.

Some of the carbon in the biomass is converted to CO₂ or biochar which can then be stored by geologic sequestration or land application, respectively, enabling carbon dioxide removal (CDR).^[34]

The potential range of negative emissions from BECCS was estimated to be zero to 22 gigatonnes per year.^[36] As of 2019^[update], five facilities around the world were actively using BECCS technologies and were capturing approximately 1.5 million tonnes per year of CO₂.^[37] Wide deployment of BECCS is constrained by cost and availability of biomass.^{[38][39]: 10}

Biochar Carbon Removal (BCR)

Main article: Biochar carbon removal

Biochar is created by the pyrolysis of biomass, and is under investigation as a method of carbon sequestration. Biochar is a charcoal that is used for agricultural purposes which also aids in carbon sequestration, the capture or hold of carbon. It is created using a process called pyrolysis, which is basically the act of high temperature heating biomass in an environment with low oxygen levels. What remains is a material known as char, similar to charcoal but is made through a sustainable process, thus the use of biomass.^[40] Biomass is organic matter produced by living organisms or recently living organisms, most commonly plants or plant based material.^[41] A study done by the UK Biochar Research Center has stated that, on a conservative level, biochar can store 1 gigaton of carbon per year. With greater effort in marketing and acceptance of biochar, the benefit of Biochar Carbon Removal could be the storage of 5–9 gigatons per year in soils.^{[42][better source needed]} However, at the moment, biochar is restricted by the terrestrial carbon storage capacity, when the system reaches the state of equilibrium, and requires regulation because of threats of leakage.^[43]

Direct air capture with carbon sequestration (DACCS)

 

The International Energy Agency reported growth in direct air capture global operating capacity.^[44]

This section is an excerpt from Direct air capture.[edit]

Direct air capture (DAC) is the use of chemical or physical processes to extract carbon dioxide directly from the ambient air.^[45] If the extracted CO₂ is then sequestered in safe long-term storage (called direct air carbon capture and sequestration (DACCS)), the overall process will achieve carbon dioxide removal and be a "negative emissions technology" (NET).

Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR)

See also: Carbon sequestration § Sequestration in oceans

 

CO
₂ sequestration in the ocean

There are several methods of sequestering carbon from the ocean, where dissolved carbonate in the form of carbonic acid is in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide.^[8] These include ocean fertilization, the purposeful introduction of plant nutrients to the upper ocean.^[46][47] While one of the more well-researched carbon dioxide removal approaches, ocean fertilization would only sequester carbon on a timescale of 10-100 years. While surface ocean acidity may decrease as a result of nutrient fertilization, sinking organic matter will remineralize, increasing deep ocean acidity. A 2021 report on CDR indicates that there is medium-high confidence that the technique could be efficient and scalable at low cost, with medium environmental risks.^[48] Ocean fertilization is estimated to be able to sequester 0.1 to 1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year at a cost of USD $8 to $80 per tonne.^[8]

Ocean alkalinity enhancement involves grinding, dispersing, and dissolving minerals such as olivine, limestone, silicates, or calcium hydroxide to precipitate carbonate sequestered as deposits on the ocean floor.^[49] The removal potential of alkalinity enhancement is uncertain, and estimated at between 0.1 to 1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year at a cost of USD $100 to $150 per tonne.^[8]

Electrochemical techniques such as electrodialysis can remove carbonate from seawater using electricity. While such techniques used in isolation are estimated to be able to remove 0.1 to 1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year at a cost of USD $150 to $2,500 per tonne,^[8] these methods are much less expensive when performed in conjunction with seawater processing such as desalination, where salt and carbonate are simultaneously removed.^[50] Preliminary estimates suggest that the cost of such carbon removal can be paid for in large part if not entirely from the sale of the desalinated water produced as a byproduct.^[51]

Issues

Economic issues

Further information: Economics of climate change mitigation and Economics of climate change

The cost of CDR differs substantially depending on the maturity of the technology employed as well as the economics of both voluntary carbon removal markets and the physical output; for example, the pyrolysis of biomass produces biochar that has various commercial applications, including soil regeneration and wastewater treatment.^[52] In 2021 DAC cost from $250 to $600 per ton, compared to $100 for biochar and less than $50 for nature-based solutions, such as reforestation and afforestation.^[53][54] The fact that biochar commands a higher price in the carbon removal market than nature-based solutions reflects the fact that it is a more durable sink with carbon being sequestered for hundreds or even thousands of years while nature-based solutions represent a more volatile form of storage, which risks related to forest fires, pests, economic pressures and changing political priorities.^[55] The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting states that to be compatible with the Paris Agreement: "...organizations must commit to gradually increase the percentage of carbon removal offsets they procure with the view of exclusively sourcing carbon removals by mid-century."^[55] These initiatives along with the development of new industry standards for engineered carbon removal, such as the Puro Standard, will help to support the growth of the carbon removal market.^[56]

Although CDR is not covered by the EU Allowance as of 2021, the European Commission is preparing for carbon removal certification and considering carbon contracts for difference.^[57][58] CDR might also in future be added to the UK Emissions Trading Scheme.^[59] As of end 2021 carbon prices for both these cap-and-trade schemes currently based on carbon reductions, as opposed to carbon removals, remained below $100.^[60][61]

As of early 2023, financing has fell short of the sums required for high-tech CDR methods to contribute significantly to climate change mitigation. Though available funds have recently increased substantially. Most of this increase has been from voluntary private sector initiatives. ^[62] Such as a private sector alliance led by Stripe with prominent members including Meta, Google and Shopify, which in April 2022 revealed a nearly $1 billion fund to reward companies able to permanently capture & store carbon. According to senior Stripe employee Nan Ransohoff, the fund was "roughly 30 times the carbon-removal market that existed in 2021. But it's still 1,000 times short of the market we need by 2050."^[63] The predominance of private sector funding has raised concerns as historically, voluntary markets have proved "orders of magnitude"^[62] smaller than those brought about by government policy. As of 2023 however, various governments have increased their support for CDR; these include Sweden, Switzerland, and the US. Recent activity from the US government includes the June 2022 Notice of Intent to fund the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $3.5 billion CDR program, and the signing into law of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which contains the 45Q tax to enhance the CDR market. ^{[62] [64]}

Removal of other greenhouse gases

Although some researchers have suggested methods for removing methane, others say that nitrous oxide would be a better subject for research due to its longer lifetime in the atmosphere.^[65]

See also

•  Climate change portal

• Biological carbon fixation
• Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere
• Carbon dioxide scrubber
• Carbon-neutral fuel
• Climate change scenario
• List of emerging technologies
• Low-carbon economy
• Net zero
• Virgin Earth Challenge

References

1. Buis, Alan (November 7, 2019). "Examining the Viability of Planting Trees to Help Mitigate Climate Change". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved April 13, 2023.
2. Marshall, Michael (May 26, 2020). "Planting trees doesn't always help with climate change". BBC. Retrieved April 13, 2023.
3. IPCC, 2021: "Annex VII: Glossary". Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.  Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.). In "Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022
4. Geden, Oliver (May 2016). "An actionable climate target". Nature Geoscience. 9 (5): 340–342. Bibcode:2016NatGe...9..340G. doi:10.1038/ngeo2699. ISSN 1752-0908. from the original on May 25, 2021. Retrieved March 7, 2021.
5. Schenuit, Felix; Colvin, Rebecca; Fridahl, Mathias; McMullin, Barry; Reisinger, Andy; Sanchez, Daniel L.; Smith, Stephen M.; Torvanger, Asbjørn; Wreford, Anita; Geden, Oliver (March 4, 2021). "Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy in the Making: Assessing Developments in 9 OECD Cases". Frontiers in Climate. 3: 638805. doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.638805. hdl:1885/270309. ISSN 2624-9553.
6. Ho, David T. (April 4, 2023). "Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative". Nature. 616 (7955): 9. Bibcode:2023Natur.616....9H. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00953-x. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 37016122. S2CID 257915220.
7. IPCC (2022). Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Slade, R.; Al Khourdajie, A.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (PDF). Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (In Press). doi:10.1017/9781009157926. ISBN 9781009157926.
8. Lebling, Katie; Northrop, Eliza; McCormick, Colin; Bridgwater, Liz (November 15, 2022), "Toward Responsible and Informed Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Research and Governance Priorities" (PDF), World Resources Institute: 11, doi:10.46830/wrirpt.21.00090, S2CID 253561039
9. M. Pathak, R. Slade, P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Pichs-Madruga, D. Ürge-Vorsatz,2022: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1017/9781009157926.002
10. Schenuit, Felix; Gidden, Matthew J.; Boettcher, Miranda; Brutschin, Elina; Fyson, Claire; Gasser, Thomas; Geden, Oliver; Lamb, William F.; Mace, M. J.; Minx, Jan; Riahi, Keywan (October 3, 2023). "Secure robust carbon dioxide removal policy through credible certification". Communications Earth & Environment. 4 (1): 349. Bibcode:2023ComEE...4..349S. doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01014-x. ISSN 2662-4435.
11. Smith, Steve; et al. (January 19, 2023). "Guest post: The state of 'carbon dioxide removal' in seven charts". Carbon Brief. Retrieved April 10, 2023.
12. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (October 24, 2018). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-48452-7. from the original on November 22, 2021. Retrieved February 22, 2020.
13. Yang, Pu; Mi, Zhifu; Wei, Yi-Ming; Hanssen, Steef V; Liu, Lan-Cui; Coffman, D’Maris; Sun, Xinlu; Liao, Hua; Yao, Yun-Fei; Kang, Jia-Ning; Wang, Peng-Tao; Davis, Steven J (November 6, 2023). "The global mismatch between equitable carbon dioxide removal liability and capacity". National Science Review. 10 (12). doi:10.1093/nsr/nwad254. ISSN 2095-5138. PMC 10659237. PMID 38021166.
14. "Greenhouse Gas Removal". Net Zero Climate. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
15. Mulligan, James; Ellison, Gretchen; Levin, Kelly; Lebling, Katie; Rudee, Alex; Leslie-Bole, Haley (March 17, 2023). "6 Ways to Remove Carbon Pollution from the Atmosphere". World Resources Institute.
16. Jackson, Robert B.; Abernethy, Sam; Canadell, Josep G.; Cargnello, Matteo; Davis, Steven J.; Féron, Sarah; Fuss, Sabine; Heyer, Alexander J.; Hong, Chaopeng; Jones, Chris D.; Damon Matthews, H.; O'Connor, Fiona M.; Pisciotta, Maxwell; Rhoda, Hannah M.; de Richter, Renaud (November 15, 2021). "Atmospheric methane removal: a research agenda". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 379 (2210): 20200454. Bibcode:2021RSPTA.37900454J. doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0454. ISSN 1364-503X. PMC 8473948. PMID 34565221.
17. IPCC (2022) Chapter 1: Introduction and Framing in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Glossary — Global Warming of 1.5 °C". from the original on December 22, 2019. Retrieved February 23, 2020.
19. "The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030. — IPCC". Retrieved April 10, 2023.
20. Page 4-81, IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Working Group 1, 9/8/21, https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/ August 11, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
21. Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V.Vilariño, 2018: Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 93-174. doi:10.1017/9781009157940.004
22. "SR15 Technical Summary" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on December 20, 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2019.
23. Anderson, K.; Peters, G. (October 14, 2016). "The trouble with negative emissions". Science. 354 (6309): 182–183. Bibcode:2016Sci...354..182A. doi:10.1126/science.aah4567. hdl:11250/2491451. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 27738161. S2CID 44896189. from the original on November 22, 2021. Retrieved April 28, 2020.
24. "Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty". The Royal Society. 2009. from the original on October 23, 2019. Retrieved September 10, 2011.
25. Obersteiner, M.; Azar, Ch; Kauppi, P.; Möllersten, K.; Moreira, J.; Nilsson, S.; Read, P.; Riahi, K.; Schlamadinger, B.; Yamagata, Y.; Yan, J. (October 26, 2001). "Managing Climate Risk". Science. 294 (5543): 786–787. doi:10.1126/science.294.5543.786b. PMID 11681318. S2CID 34722068.
26. Myles, Allen (September 2020). "The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved December 10, 2021.
27. F. Scholz, U. Hasse (May 15, 2008). "Permanent wood sequestration: The Solution to the Global Carbon Dioxide Problem". ChemSusChem. www.chemsuschem.org. 1 (5): 381–384. Bibcode:2008ChSCh...1..381S. doi:10.1002/cssc.200800048. PMID 18702128. Retrieved December 22, 2023.
28. "Forest Protection & Climate Change: Why Is It Important?". Climate Transform. May 13, 2021. from the original on June 3, 2021. Retrieved May 31, 2021.
29. Greenhouse Gas Removal. London: The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2018. ISBN 978-1-78252-349-9. OCLC 1104595614.   Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
30. . www.carboncycle.org. Archived from the original on May 21, 2021. Retrieved April 27, 2018.
31. Almaraz, Maya; Wong, Michelle Y.; Geoghegan, Emily K.; Houlton, Benjamin Z. (2021). "A review of carbon farming impacts on nitrogen cycling, retention, and loss". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1505 (1): 102–117. Bibcode:2021NYASA1505..102A. doi:10.1111/nyas.14690. ISSN 0077-8923. PMID 34580879. S2CID 238202676.
32. Tang, Kai; Kragt, Marit E.; Hailu, Atakelty; Ma, Chunbo (May 1, 2016). "Carbon farming economics: What have we learned?". Journal of Environmental Management. 172: 49–57. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.008. ISSN 0301-4797. PMID 26921565.
33. Obersteiner, M. (2001). "Managing Climate Risk". Science. 294 (5543): 786–7. doi:10.1126/science.294.5543.786b. PMID 11681318. S2CID 34722068.
34. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (October 24, 2018). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. doi:10.17226/25259. ISBN 978-0-309-48452-7. PMID 31120708. S2CID 134196575. from the original on May 25, 2020. Retrieved February 22, 2020.
35. Deprez, Alexandra; Leadley, Paul; Dooley, Kate; Williamson, Phil; Cramer, Wolfgang; Gattuso, Jean-Pierre; Rankovic, Aleksandar; Carlson, Eliot L.; Creutzig, Felix (February 2, 2024). "Sustainability limits needed for CO 2 removal". Science. 383 (6682): 484–486. doi:10.1126/science.adj6171. ISSN 0036-8075.
36. Smith, Pete; Porter, John R. (July 2018). "Bioenergy in the IPCC Assessments". GCB Bioenergy. 10 (7): 428–431. Bibcode:2018GCBBi..10..428S. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12514. hdl:2164/10480.
37. "BECCS 2019 perspective" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on March 31, 2020. Retrieved June 11, 2019.
38. Rhodes, James S.; Keith, David W. (2008). "Biomass with capture: Negative emissions within social and environmental constraints: An editorial comment". Climatic Change. 87 (3–4): 321–8. Bibcode:2008ClCh...87..321R. doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9387-4.
39. Fajardy, Mathilde; Köberle, Alexandre; Mac Dowell, Niall; Fantuzzi, Andrea (2019). "BECCS deployment: a reality check" (PDF). Grantham Institute Imperial College London.
40. "What is biochar?". UK Biochar research center. University of Edinburgh Kings Buildings Edinburgh. from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
41. . Biomass Energy Center. Direct.gov.uk. Archived from the original on October 3, 2016. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
42. "Biochar reducing and removing CO₂ while improving soils: A significant sustainable response to climate change" (PDF). UKBRC. UK Biochar research Center. (PDF) from the original on November 5, 2016. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
43. Keller, David P.; Lenton, Andrew; Littleton, Emma W.; Oschlies, Andreas; Scott, Vivian; Vaughan, Naomi E. (September 1, 2018). "The Effects of Carbon Dioxide Removal on the Carbon Cycle". Current Climate Change Reports. 4 (3): 250–265. Bibcode:2018CCCR....4..250K. doi:10.1007/s40641-018-0104-3. ISSN 2198-6061. PMC 6428234. PMID 30956937.
44. "Direct Air Capture / A key technology for net zero" (PDF). International Energy Agency (IEA). April 2022. p. 18. (PDF) from the original on April 10, 2022.
45. "SAPEA, Science Advice for Policy by European Academies. (2018). Novel carbon capture and utilisation technologies: research and climate aspects Berlin" (PDF). SAPEA. 2018. doi:10.26356/carboncapture. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
46. Matear, R. J. & B. Elliott (2004). "Enhancement of oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO₂ by macronutrient fertilization". J. Geophys. Res. 109 (C4): C04001. Bibcode:2004JGRC..109.4001M. doi:10.1029/2000JC000321. from the original on March 4, 2010. Retrieved January 19, 2009.
47. Jones, I.S.F. & Young, H.E. (1997). "Engineering a large sustainable world fishery". Environmental Conservation. 24 (2): 99–104. Bibcode:1997EnvCo..24...99J. doi:10.1017/S0376892997000167. S2CID 86248266.
48. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (December 8, 2021). A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration. doi:10.17226/26278. ISBN 978-0-309-08761-2. PMID 35533244. S2CID 245089649.
49. "Cloud spraying and hurricane slaying: how ocean geoengineering became the frontier of the climate crisis". The Guardian. June 23, 2021. from the original on June 23, 2021. Retrieved June 23, 2021.
50. Mustafa, Jawad; Mourad, Aya A. -H. I.; Al-Marzouqi, Ali H.; El-Naas, Muftah H. (June 1, 2020). "Simultaneous treatment of reject brine and capture of carbon dioxide: A comprehensive review". Desalination. 483: 114386. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2020.114386. ISSN 0011-9164. S2CID 216273247.
51. Mustafa, Jawad; Al-Marzouqi, Ali H.; Ghasem, Nayef; El-Naas, Muftah H.; Van der Bruggen, Bart (February 2023). "Electrodialysis process for carbon dioxide capture coupled with salinity reduction: A statistical and quantitative investigation". Desalination. 548: 116263. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2022.116263. S2CID 254341024.
52. "How Finland's Puro.earth plans to scale up carbon removal to help the world reach net zero emissions". European CEO. July 1, 2021. from the original on July 1, 2021.
53. Lebling, Katie; McQueen, Noah; Pisciotta, Max; Wilcox, Jennifer (January 6, 2021). "Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon Removal". World Resources Institute. from the original on May 13, 2021. Retrieved May 13, 2021.
54. Brown, James (February 21, 2021). "New Biochar technology a game changer for carbon capture market". The Land. from the original on February 21, 2021. Retrieved December 10, 2021.
55. Myles, Allen (February 2020). (PDF). University of Oxford. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 2, 2020. Retrieved December 10, 2020.
56. Giles, Jim (February 10, 2020). "Carbon markets get real on removal". greenbiz.com. from the original on February 15, 2020. Retrieved December 10, 2021.
57. Tamme, Eve; Beck, Larissa Lee (2021). "European Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy: Current Status and Future Opportunities". Frontiers in Climate. 3: 120. doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.682882. ISSN 2624-9553.
58. Elkerbout, Milan; Bryhn, Julie. "Setting the context for an EU policy framework for negative emissions" (PDF). Centre for European Policy Studies. (PDF) from the original on December 10, 2021.
59. "Greenhouse Gas Removals: Summary of Responses to the Call for Evidence" (PDF). HM Government. (PDF) from the original on October 20, 2021.
60. Evans, Michael (December 8, 2021). "Spotlight: EU carbon price strengthens to record highs in November". spglobal.com. Retrieved December 10, 2021.
61. "Pricing Carbon". The World Bank. from the original on June 2, 2014. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
62. Honegger, Matthias (2023). "Toward the effective and fair funding of CO₂ removal technologies". Nature Communications. 14 (1): 2111. Bibcode:2023NatCo..14..534H. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36199-4. PMC 9905497. PMID 36750567.
63. Robinson Meyer (April 23, 2022). "We've Never Seen a Carbon-Removal Plan Like This Before". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 29, 2022.
64. Katie Brigham (June 28, 2022). "Why Big Tech is pouring money into carbon removal". CNBC. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
65. Lackner, Klaus S. (2020). "Practical constraints on atmospheric methane removal". Nature Sustainability. 3 (5): 357. Bibcode:2020NatSu...3..357L. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0496-7. ISSN 2398-9629.

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Carbon dioxide removal.

• Factsheet about CDR by IPCC Sixth Assessment Report WG III
• Deep Dives by Carbon180. Info about carbon removal solutions.
• The Road to Ten Gigatons - Carbon Removal Scale Up Challenge Game.
• The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report. 2023.
• Land - the planet's carbon sink, United Nations.